The Gang of Five
Beyond the Mysterious Beyond => The Arts => Attic Treasures => Topic started by: Malte279 on September 21, 2006, 02:26:10 PM
-
Harry Potter, in my opinion, is another example of a very good series of books whose movie adaptations have so far been dreadfully poor. But let's not talk about the movies, but about the books instead.
I do like J.K. Rowlings style of writing and the story too is quite gripping as far as I'm concerned. I'm really looking forward to the last book in the sequel (scheduled for next year) which I hope will answer the remaining questions apart from concluding the story.
I find it quite interesting that, on the other hand, the books trigger really extreme and hateful reactions from some people (especially people of a certain degree of religiousness) who consider them "devil's work" etc.
Who else read the books? Please feel invited to just talk about anything about them that interests you. The discussion shall develope by itself.
-
There's no reason to consider "Harry Potter" as the "devil's work". All those other wizards we hear about in all the others myths told had to learn their magic from somewhere, so why showing us a potential means of teaching wizards a in fantasy universe is considered 'evil' is beyond me. I'm a Christian, and I say that its just fanatics overreacting. If they hate "Harry Potter", theyn just about every other fantasy book should be hated along with them. "The Lord of the Rings", "The Chronicles of Narnia", "DragonLance", "The Dragonriders of Pern", "The Neverending Story", "The Last Unicorn", "Eragon"...the list goes on and on.
Personally, I don't care much for the 'Potter' books. I don't find the interesting. They're okay, but not really gripping to me. On the flipside of that, I've found the last two 'Potter movies to be a joy to watch.
-
I really like the series, but imo Rowling has not reached the level that Tolkien achieved, where every fantasy writer, willing or not, borrows from your story.
-
Tolkien and Rowling, those are two completely different styles of writing and I don't claim one to be unquestionably better or worse a style than the other. Both have their merrits. I suppose that in due time writers will try to borrow from Rowlings work too. Her style is very readable yet less distinctive than Tolkien's. There are more writers with a style similar to hers than there are writers with a style similar to Tolkien's. It doesn't rob either style of its charms in my opinion.
There are quite a few scenes, characters etc. in the Harry Potter books which I suppose were inspired by the Lord of the Rings.
-
Remember that is just my opinion. You may disagree(and you have).
-
Certainly :)
I never ever had so much as the idea of this being anyhow an argument in the negative sense of the word. It isn't.
-
True. Each series stands on its own merits, and I am anxiously waiting to read Book #7. I hope she will reconsider and write another Harry book post-Hogwarts.
-
Um, no. I think seven books is enough.
-
I don't really expect Harry to survive the seventh book (and Voldemort probably won't survive either). If he did Mrs. Rowling could be sure that for the rest of her life she would be besieged by people asking for more Harry Potter books.
If more interesting stories could be told after a seventh book I wouldn't make that mere number a decisive factor about the question on whether or not there should be any more books. Same as with the land before time; so long there are good stories left to be told, by all means tell them.
-
A kid in my english class who's obsessed with Harry Potter told me the release date of book #7.
-
Which is not even known yet ;)
There are many guesses and everybody takes the own guess for "official". Some expect the 7th book to be released on 7/7/07 while others think it is unlikely that the book will be released right before the 5th movie whose official release date is 7/13/07. There hasn't been any official announcement for the release of the book more precise than 2007.
-
"The Dragonriders of Pern"
Now that's a good book series. But I digress.
I think Harry Potter is a very good series. I'm eager for the seventh book as well.
-
Me, too, actually. With the hype that this series gets, I'm curious as to how J.K. Rowling is going to wrap this up.
-
I'm not a big reader, in fact i barely ever read, but the Harry Potter series and LOTR trilogy are the few books that actually get me to read and enjor it. The 7th boook must be pretty long because Herry still has to find the 5 other Horcruxes (or whatever they're called) before he confronts Voldemort
-
It will be pretty long... and I think well see a suprise appearance by Dumbledore at the end... before the final battle...
-
My guess is that Harry's scar is the final Horcrux. It would make so much sense. The skull of the one who could have beaten him would certainly be an object interesting enough for Tom Riddle to turn it into a Horcrux. That special contact to Voldemort's mind as described in HP5 would also fit to this. If Harry's scar is really the Horcrux there might be a kind of "Dragonheart" and with Harry having to be killed as there is no other way to kill Voldemort. Mrs. Rowlings cannot hope to spend another calm day if she allows Harry to survive. Killing him will give her lots of hatemail, but it will calm down after some years. If she lets him live she would be pestered for more HP books for the rest of her life.
-
That msy be, It appears that not only did Voldemort accidently give him some of his powers, he gave him part of his soul. I highly doubt Voldemort would have knowingly marked Harry as his equal..
-
By the way, what do you think about Snape? The number of his fans seem to be grown up too much in the last years. Even Harry Potter himself seems to have fallen into his shade. They all think Snape is the best character in the series. They seriously believe he is a good guy and think that everything wrong he does can be justified. They also say that what he did at the end of the 6-th book, was at Dumbledore’s request. I personally don’t believe it, but even if it were true, that doesn't make him a good character. He is just sadist, in any case. Whatever his motives were in that situation, he deserves 100 times to be kicked out from Hogwarts for his actions in the other books. And what puzzles me most of all, is the fact that some of them have started to like Snape even BEFORE the ending of the first book, where it is revealed that he saved Harry's life. But before this ending, not only he didn’t show any positive qualities, he didn’t even seem to have anything interesting or original. He seemed just a flat, annoying “bad guy”, no different from Harry's uncle and aunt. If these people were fans of evil characters, I could understand them (though not agree with them). But no, they seriously think that Snape is good!
-
"Good character" probably doesn't refer to snape being a kind character but rather one very well done by Mrs. Rowling. He sure is a character people can really really hate, and if people feel strong emotions about a fictional character it is usually because that character is well done.
I don't know how Snape is going to turn out, but I think there are some good points supporting the theory of him not being a follower of Voldemort after all. In a way it would be a bit strange to tell throughout six books that he is a nasty guy just to ultimately confirm that he is nasty. Also if he really is a follower of Voldemort how could Dumbledore possibly overlook the countless signs of him being a deatheater? Signs which everyone else (not just Harry and his friends but also the members of the Order of the Phoenix) perceived. I just don't think Dumbledore was so naive but instead must have had some really good reason to trust Snape.
Here is one theory (others may have had the same thought before, I don't know). Snape basically told Voldemort the part of the prophesy which he had overheard. He didn't not hear the end, or so they say. But did he really not hear it? Even if he was caught while eavesdropping on the prophesy being made, it probably wouldn't have stopped Sibil Trelawny from talking and he probably would have heard it.
If Voldemort had known the part of the prophesy telling about the "marked as his equal" part he might have never attacked Harry (or Neville) and if we take the prophesy as a fact nobody in the world could have ever kiled Voldemort without being marked by him. Dumbledore knew this. He knew also that if Voldemort continued to live he would kill countless people. Perhaps he decided to "sacrifice" Harry as the only way to ever have a chance to get rid of Voldemort. Perhaps Snape told Voldemort only the part of the prophesy which Dumbledore had ORDERED Snape to pass on to Voldemort?
It wouldn't make Snape a good character (and also cast a doubtful light on Dumbledore) but it would explain Dumbledore's trust in Snape.
-
But there are also many persons that take Snape's side in all situations in the books! They really like him, not just think he is a very well done character.
But in my opinon, even if Snape was really working for Dumbledore and not for Voldemort, that doesn’t justify his sadistic actions in the other books. I understand that he suffered a lot because of what James Potter and his friends did to him, when they studied at Hogwarts, but this is no good reason to torment Harry and the others. If he honestly told Harry about what really happened then, maybe Harry would have taken his side.
And what about the episode when he tried to poison Neville's toad? If someone tried to do such a thing to my cat, I would make that person drink the same poison! And all that patronizing of Slytherins and oppression of Gryffindors: even if Dumbledore trusted Snape as his secret agent in Voldemort’s organization, he should have done something about that. In the first book someone said that Slytherin had won the House Cup for 6 times in a row. Dumbledore should have understood already after the third time that something was wrong.
-
I'm not saying (no matter which side he may be on) that Snape is a "nice guy". He is a sadist, a tyrant, and an abuser of his postion of power. Snape is a mean character, but I'm not convinced that he is a deatheater.
By the way Dwalin, are you also a fan of J.R.R. Tolkien's books? I'm wondering because of your name.
-
Yes, I am. I took this nickname because Dwalin was the first dwarf character that appeared in the saga ( if we consider "the Hobbit" part of it).
-
Aye :)
You are not the only one fond of Tolkien around here. I'm sure you will enjoy this place.
-
Snape was a Deatheater, in Book 5 he showed the DeathEater's mark on his arm after Voldemort had returned. I think that Snape remains on the Side of "good", Voldemort even referred to that when 'there is One, who I believe has Left me forever" in Book 5. As with a all players playing both sides, Snape has to avoid anything that would betray his true loyalties, that ids why i believe he used the killing curse on Dumbeledore, to prove to Voldemort that he was "loyal". Whether or not Dumbledore is actually dead remains to be seen, great wizards in literature have a way of coming back, see Gandalf's revival as Gandalf the white after his battle with the balrog on Zirikzigal, or Merlin in the Authur stories.
-
A last observation about Snape that I forgot to put in the previous posts. To make an example how far did many Snape fans go with their admiration for him: on a Russian forum I found a thread called St.Snape's Cathedral ( it is 98 screen pages long now)! When I told there what I thought about Snape, one of them even tried to explain my dislike for him with my young age. ( I was 18 then and most of them around 30). :lol
-
People like to think that good lies in everyone... which is true, we all have good within us...but as for Snape, He'll never be a 'goody-goody", he's disliked far too much by Harry and his friends for there to be a repproachment. Maybe Snape will sacrifice himself, but not before all the loose ends are wrapped up..
-
I despise how Rowling ended the last book. It did not end on someone's deathbed.
-
Are you referring to the epilogue in particular or to the ending in general?
As for the epilogue I was not too fond of it, but I consider it a legitimate act of self-defense on the part of J. K. Rowling. Had it not been for that ending which left absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the times following the seventh book were not exactly spectacular she would have been vexed by countless fans to write another book. I suppose she is being beleaguered as it is.
-
I mean the epilogue.
-
I liked the ending. She gave us a glimpse of the adult life of the main characters and some others.
-
Overall, i wasn't that pleased with the epilogu either.I was hoping that it would be a bit more detailed as what occupation each of the characters would have and stuff like that.
-
I'm quite sure that J.K. Rowling gave detailed information on that in a later interview.
-
By the way, was anybody else disappointed by the episode with Fenrir Greyback vs Bellatrix Lestrange? I just don’t get, how did that idiotic maniac manage to beat the strongest werewolf of the world, accompanied by 4 bodyguards? Werewolves were earlier said to be extremely dangerous creatures and Greyback was described as the most powerful of them all, nearly a legendary character ( like count Dracula among the vampires in books of other authors). I think it was not very logical for him to lose that fight: if he was that weak, why did all the wizards fear his congeners?
-
Because it was not just some idiotic maniac Greyback was fighting. Bellatrix Lestrange is an extremely capable and powerful witch while Greyback didn't have any magic abilities to meet hers. The four body guards were also alluded to be the kind of "riff-raff" from whom nothing should be expected. I consider it more unlikely that Greyback should be vanquished by some school kids during the battle of Hogwarts than by Voldemort's first Lieutenant.
-
Maybe you are right, but she should have put more time into it, not just a couple of seconds. They were still five against one and Greyback was the most dangerous of all existent werewolves.
And I doubt Bellatrix was Voldemort's first Lieutenant: even if she was strong and fanatically devoted to Voldemort, she seemed to lack any organizational talent and usually didn’t use her brains, behaving like a Viking berserker who had just eaten some fly agarics. There were other characters much more cunning than her, like Lucius Malfoy or Barty Crouch jr. ( though this one, of course, couldn’t help Voldemort any more by then). And Bellatrix, as I think, could only be used as “cannon fodder”. I even wonder how she, with her manners, managed to stay alive till the end of the last book.
There is another thing I was wondering about: where was Rodolphus Lestrange during the 7-th book events? Voldemort earlier described him as one of his most important followers ( together with his wife and Barty Crouch). So why didn’t he do anything in the books ( he was only mentioned 2 or 3 times)?
-
It was not my interpretation of Bellatrix as Voldemort's first lieutenant. Right after her death the seventh book reads:
[...], as Voldemort's fury at the fall of his last, best lieutenant exploded with the force of a bomb.
As for Rodolphus Lestrange I first thought that he had been killed in the first war, but I checked it out and the fourth book leaves no doubt that he was taken alive and I think in the fifth book he is one of those breaking into the department of mysteries where he must have been arrested. I agree that it would not have hurt to know about his fate or about that of his brother Rabastan.
-
What interested me about the seventh book, was hiow it explained Dumbledore declining health before his death. had snape not killed him, he would have died sometime during book 7 of the curse he incurred on himself by destroying that ring..you remember that ring that dumbeledore destroyed in Book 6 at the cost of his arm?