Pocket Plane Group

Miscellany, Inc. => Ensign First Class Blather => Topic started by: bryad on August 02, 2005, 02:43:40 AM

Title: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: bryad on August 02, 2005, 02:43:40 AM: I am to classify this as a possible SPOILER thread. For those not wishing to be exposed to SPOILERS of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, please note that his thread may contain said SPOILERS. Thank you for your co-operation.

I am eager to find out what you all thought, and to possibly discuss the book and what may happen next. Im sorry if I have to "Move this to a Rowling forum NOW please." I only believe that its good to have some fresh pages in our fantasy files once in a while.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Sorrow on August 02, 2005, 02:23:40 PM: I think that Harry Potter is Satan's apprentice.
I have told that to people in a bookstore and they have looked at me in a weird way.
I think that they were Satan's apprentices too :(.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: irenicus on August 02, 2005, 02:54:42 PM: the new harry potter book SUCKED... im sorry, but it was rubish, JK rowling seamed to lose intrest in this book, "goblet of fire" is my forever favorate, Reamus is still my sexy god (-snickers-) couldnt resist, and, snape is always my innocent little weird black haired guy

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!
Snape was under imperious
he did not willingly kill (cars beep as she says name)
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Userunfriendly on August 02, 2005, 04:49:37 PM: spoilers...

my theory is harry is the last holocrux.

this explains how harry was able to enter the mind of the big snake (forgot name) in the last book...both he and the snake share a bit of voldy's soul

this was how he was able to read riddle's mood in the last book.

this is how he got parsel mouth

what i think happened is that while he was trying to kill harry, he accidentally made him the EIGHTH holocrux(including of course his own body)...transferring a bit of his soul into the infant harry, and going above the mystical seven soul fragments...this was why he was nearly destroyed for so many years...he had to hunt down and reabsorb one of his soul objects...

finally, the real reason why i think harry is the last holocrux...from a literary viewpoint, if i was jk rowlings, i'd end the series with harry discovering he's a soul vessal containing a bit of voldemort, and going into a major snit about it...then someone takes him and gives him a good talking to...

dumbledore's picture: evil can't be convieniently destroyed no matter how hard you try, harry. the true nature of evil is that it is inside each and every one of us...the real test in life is how we fight it, all our lives, to resist its call and lure, and to accept that evil is always a part of us, and how we overcome it in life is what truely makes us good. ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: melora on August 02, 2005, 08:17:40 PM: i liked it better than the order of the phoenix, but goblet of fire is still my favorite... btw, userunfriendly, that is a really interesting theory......
and i cried at the end.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Veloxyll on August 02, 2005, 09:55:01 PM: We discussed that possibility on another forum, and came out with the hypothesis that it'd be highly unlikely for Harry to be a Horcrux.

As for Snape, best guess is he was under orders so as not to break his information gathering for the OOTP. Since Dumbledore was badly wounded anyhow.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: St. Josephine on August 02, 2005, 10:19:49 PM: Who is this "we" that you speak of? And could you please post a link? I'm nosy. :)
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Userunfriendly on August 02, 2005, 10:31:12 PM: Quote from: St. Josephine on August 02, 2005, 10:19:49 PM
Who is this "we" that you speak of? And could you please post a link? I'm nosy. :)

ditto. :P
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Borsook on August 02, 2005, 11:53:12 PM: Quote from: irenicus on August 02, 2005, 02:54:42 PM
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!
Snape was under imperious
he did not willingly kill (cars beep as she says name)
I have a different view on that, I bielieve that he killed D. on D's requests (notice his advice to Harry - "close your mind" while on the run), now he'll be become V's favourite "friend" and be able to eventually bring about his downfall.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Veloxyll on August 02, 2005, 11:59:20 PM: http://www.mistresslair.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8442

^ we.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Kismet on August 03, 2005, 07:24:38 AM: My theory is that Snape didn't kill Dumbledore at all and that the poison Dumbledore drank did. I think it was probably the plan for Snape to appear to have killed Dumbledore. We have Hermione tell Harry that doing something and making people think you did something is the same thing (in re: Harry making Ron think he slipped him the liquid luck.) We also have Dumbledore telling Draco that nobody will be looking for you if they think you're dead. I think in the few moments that they stared at each other a bit of legilimancy was happening and Snape was getting some final orders.

Snape hits Dumbledore with an AK, which ends up being pretty dramatic. Other AK deaths that we've seen have been "green light, fall down dead" rather than "green light, get blown up and back, fall down dead." Fawkes also doesn't sing his dirge until Harry makes it back to the infirmary, at least 20-30 minutes later.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Evaine Dian on August 03, 2005, 02:50:22 PM: That sounds like a good theory, Kismet. These on first sight unimportant little scenes as the one with the liquid luck usually turn out to be of some relevance to the plot. Anyway, I'd find it very poor if Snape really was on Voldemort's side and Harry was oh so clever and knew it all right from the start. Just because he doesn't like him, he doesn't have to be evil. I myself found Harry quite unappealing in HBP. Character development is all fine, but I think he has changed a little bit too fast and not in the best way.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: discharger12 on August 03, 2005, 07:28:00 PM: I thought it was quite good, though I was a little disappointed that it was shorter then TOotP. As for Snape, I have no idea what to believe. I would like to think he's working for the Dark Lord because I never liked him, but..

This is a bit off topic from this book, but I read a theory somewhere that theorized RL being Harry's father. If someone wants to know more I can try and find it.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Evaine Dian on August 04, 2005, 05:08:09 AM: I thought Harry could have a different father, too, but then, why would everyone tell him that he looks exactly like James Potter (except for the eyes, blah)?
I read on Rowling's official homepage (http://www.jkrowling.com) ("rumours" -> 2nd page -> "Voldemort is Harry's real father") that James is definitely Harry's father and I think it's safe to believe her in that case.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Borsook on August 04, 2005, 06:06:37 AM: It'd be pretty silly (as in sitcom silly) to make suddenly somebody else Harry's father.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Veloxyll on August 04, 2005, 09:59:44 AM: Quote from: Evaine Dian on August 03, 2005, 02:50:22 PM
That sounds like a good theory, Kismet. These on first sight unimportant little scenes as the one with the liquid luck usually turn out to be of some relevance to the plot. Anyway, I'd find it very poor if Snape really was on Voldemort's side and Harry was oh so clever and knew it all right from the start. Just because he doesn't like him, he doesn't have to be evil. I myself found Harry quite unappealing in HBP. Character development is all fine, but I think he has changed a little bit too fast and not in the best way.

Yeah. Harry's all trashy and angsty.
Strangely, the support characters are actually more interesting than the protagonist.

Luna <3 4 eva!

As for Voldemort being Harry's father, that's like...the 3E book of sex (the name eludes me right now) level bad. Trust me. you don't want it to be that bad. tis only a short step from there for Alone in the Dark the movie bad. And once you're that low, there's no going back.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Evaine Dian on August 04, 2005, 11:41:37 AM: Lord V. [stertorously] Harry, I'm your father...
Sounds strangely familiar. Definitely over-used.

I like the others better than Harry, too, so I am disappointed that Rowling wrote only little about the support characters (I miss Hagrid).
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Operadragon on August 04, 2005, 09:42:38 PM: Character changing too much?

OK...I can buy that, but looking at the set of circumstances, Harry's had to grow up a lot in a short amount of time, arguably the most in the last three years, considering there's been a major death in like June of every year since POA, and if you count POA, nearly two more (Sirius with the Dementors and Buckbeak's date with the executioner's axe). I can buy Harry aging a *lot* from about March of Year 5 up to now. Imagine if the two men closest to family you have are suddenly dead within a year of each other, then imagine how you'd age psychologically.

Trashy and angsty? OK...I can buy that maybe a book-and-a-half ago, kinda when I was talking about above...about March/April of OotP, but since then?

Hardly. He's had to grow up fast, and when that happens to people in real life, it's not necessarily pretty...but why describe him as trashy and angsty?

As for Kismet's hypothesis, I'm with it mostly. I think the potion was *killing* Dumbledore, but Snape's Avada Kevadra was a mercy blow, if there can be such an animal when talking about "Unforgivable Curses." I think that it's highly possible that Snape is under an Unbreakable Vow with Dumbledore. I know that a lot of people aren't buying that because of "what kind of person Dumbledore was," but let's say that Dumbledore did it waaaay back right after the Potters were killed. According to text, the only other person that heard the prophesy was the "bartender" at the Hog's Head. That would be Aberforth Dumbledore, and what perfect way to introduce him in book 7 as not only the brother of the greatest wizard of the time, but also the other member of the OotP that JKR mentions that we'll get to 'officially' meet in book 7, *AND* just happens to be the one to clear up whose side Snape is on...but others will say how?

Easy. He was the Bonder of the Unbreakable Vow between Snape and his brother. Ladies and gentlemen, a revelation.

Besides, if Snape's working for LV, then we have two of the same villain. Nah...JKR wouldn't do that to us. Voldemort has to be the bad guy. Snape is the classic double agent, but how we get to that point in the book will be very near the end.

As for Dumbledore's death itself, I think is was done with witnesses present for a reason. I'm not going out there on that limb and say that Dumbledore isn't dead...yet, but it sure worked out, didn't it. Death Eaters and Harry and Malfoy all around, the way Dumbledore's body was blown off the parapet, like Kismet said, and the parts during the chase when Harry calls Snape a coward and the reaction to that, and the fact that Snape saved Harry from a Cruciatus Curse, and possibly from death. What benefit could that serve unless Snape is still bound to Dumbledore's Vow.

Just some thoughts....

Opera
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Evaine Dian on August 05, 2005, 06:13:03 AM: Quote from: Operadragon on August 04, 2005, 09:42:38 PM
Character changing too much?

OK...I can buy that, but looking at the set of circumstances, Harry's had to grow up a lot in a short amount of time, arguably the most in the last three years, considering there's been a major death in like June of every year since POA, and if you count POA, nearly two more (Sirius with the Dementors and Buckbeak's date with the executioner's axe). I can buy Harry aging a *lot* from about March of Year 5 up to now. Imagine if the two men closest to family you have are suddenly dead within a year of each other, then imagine how you'd age psychologically.

I knew someone would come up with that, but that's not what I mean. I simply thought Harry was badly written in HBP. To me, he doesn't sound like a grown-up version of himself. One day he's terribly depressed about the deaths and so very desperate, the other day he sounds just like good old Harry, then he gets all angry and fierce and in between he's love-sick (all the snogging was kind of trashy :)). When I read it, I had the feeling that either Rowling was hesitant how to depict a Harry who has suffered from blows of fate, or that important parts were cut ;). IMO, it was not convincing enough, sorry.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: discharger12 on August 05, 2005, 12:03:24 PM: Ooh, I wrote that wrong. I meant to say that James switched bodies with Lupin. Somehow. I think it was supposed to be before Peter gave away the hiding place.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Evaine Dian on August 05, 2005, 05:31:15 PM: (A quick summary (http://www.tshirthell.com/images/newshirt_a510.jpg) for those people who want to save their money.)
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Daerthax on August 06, 2005, 08:12:18 AM: Yes, I know I've been a lurker but this topic is just too good to resist.

My Dad was the first one in our family to suggest that Harry Potter was the missing 7th Horcrux (Something of Gryffindor's and Ravenclaw's but, I personally doubt that one). I, however, disagreed with him on that. Lord Voldemort (watches everyone cringe) came into that room all those years ago with the intent and purpose to kill Harry Potter with the Avada Kadavera curse. You would not be making a Horcrux, an item to store a piece of your soul in with something that you were about to kill. My personal theory is that when the killing curse backfired against Lily Potter's protection around Harry, the power transfer happened then. Yes, he got his link to Lord V, and the parsel tongue ability, but I doubt that it makes him a honest to goodness Horcrux. If JK Rowling shows that Harry is a horcrux, there better be a good reason, or else I'll think she's reaching.

I was the one that suggested the death was a cover-up. Dumbledore has always been one step ahead of everyone. He knew of Malfoy and kept playing everyone off for the reasons that he showed just before he 'died'. The pictures of all the previous head masters could easily be faked to add to the illusion. (A possible reason why the picture could've been sleeping, instead of being awake.) Snape could've told Dumbledore about the Unbreakable Vow that'd force him to go through with the plan and he did fulfill the letter of the vow by casting the killing curse, 'killing' Dumbledore. Above all though, and this is where a few members of my family are kinda ticked off, there has to be a much better reason why Dumbledore would so adamantly defend Snape all that time than a lamely put apology from Snape to Dumbledore about his actions about the Potters. A highly skilled legimans (sp?) and wizard like Dumbledore surely couldn't have been duped by Snape.

As to the potion, Dumbledore could've known that R.A.B. (We're thinking it's Sirus' ancestor, the former headmaster of Hogwarts), put the dupe there for someone to find later. So, the potion could've been a ruse, to weaken himself and pull off some illusion of his death. Making Harry (and everyone else for that matter) believe it and let him do things solo. The reason Harry had to believe it was so that Lord V. couldn't raid Harry's mind and know Dumbledore is still out there. Also, the excuse for the two of them to slip off would give the death eaters time to strike and let Malfoy do his plan so that the highly suspicious Harry couldn't have interfered with Malfoy's and thus, Dumbledore's plans.

Wild theories for your enjoyment, have fun folks.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Borsook on August 06, 2005, 01:39:25 PM: As for the potion - if you can scoop it into a glass why can't you pour it onto the floor instead of drinking? There may be some magical reason to that known to D. but why Harry so intent on D not hurting himself never asks? It's these kind of things that ruin all the illusion of the created world being real...
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: clock sendak on August 09, 2005, 01:40:31 PM: the great task of any writer (actor, director, painter, sculptor, etc) during the creation of whatever it is they are working on is "to raise the stakes". There are several other considerations that go into the final presentation, but the question the writer continually asks (if not where's the money) is how do I raise the stakes. As fond as I am of Dumbledore, it lowers the stakes for him to always know all along that everything was going to work out (this, in fact is my only criticism of Michael Gambon in PoA - he plays the end too much). One of the more interesting trends in the series is that the adult wizards- the real wizarding community is involved in a war wherein success is not at all assurred. Dumbledore does not have all the answers, and he makes mistakes, as he has admitted several times. He could be wrong about snape (but like someone else in this posting I would hate for harry to have been right all along).
I do like the harry as horcrux idea, but what about the Half-Blood Prince himself. I didn't see any posts about him, and since he's a title character, perhaps that's where all our vague disappointment with the book is coming from. It felt rushed, like maybe she's starting to ask where the money is, or at least wishing she had more than seven books to finish the story in. They couldn't do star wars in 6, they won't bne able to do harry potter in 7.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: clock sendak on August 09, 2005, 01:41:13 PM: oh yeah, nice t-shirt
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Veloxyll on August 09, 2005, 09:26:56 PM: Snape was the Half Blood prince. He mentions it late in the book.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Operadragon on August 09, 2005, 10:56:23 PM: Wow....thanks... :P

(http://operadragon.timeimmortal.net/captain.gif)

Opera
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: CORVIS TERRIBLE MOUNTAIN GOD on August 09, 2005, 11:33:54 PM: Quote from: Operadragon on August 09, 2005, 10:56:23 PM
Wow....thanks...

(http://operadragon.timeimmortal.net/captain.gif)

Opera

Is there any aspect of your personality that is not entirely banal?
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Operadragon on August 09, 2005, 11:48:09 PM: Yep. Every part you fail to grasp. I didn't know that every time someone said "Captain Obvious," that they posted a graphic alongside...I guess that is trite or 'banal...'

*taking notes*

Glad you're here to tell me these things...what a waste of synapse fire.

Besides, I'd rather be banal than utterly disturbing, contrarian, and secretly despised.

Glad to live down to your standards. :)

Opera

P.S. Oh yeah...better stay on topic.
*ahem*
Harry Potter.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: CORVIS TERRIBLE MOUNTAIN GOD on August 10, 2005, 12:12:07 AM: Quote from: Operadragon on August 09, 2005, 11:48:09 PM
utterly disturbing,

Flattery will get you nowhere.

Quote from: Operadragon on August 09, 2005, 11:48:09 PM
secretly despised

Secretly? I know you're new here, but you're not that new.

I'm not going to take this any further, as it would only result in yet another locked thread. But you might want to consider being less confrontational in the future.

Someone might reciprocate.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Ghreyfain on August 10, 2005, 12:19:33 AM: Ahh, it's truly a shame, but I imagine this whole episode could've been saved had there been a few more smiley emoticons spread liberally throughout certain posts. Or not. As it is, please to be talking about whatever obscure book it is y'all are talkin' about.

Oh, and in an effort to reduce the swelling, here's a cat! What a rude cat.

(http://www.thegardenhelper.com/sammy.jpg)

Okay, so the link doesn't work. Doesn't matter.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Operadragon on August 10, 2005, 12:38:29 AM: Quote
Flattery will get you nowhere.

Sounds like to me you're saying that there is something I could do or say that *would* get me somewhere...

Quote
Secretly? I know you're new here, but you're not that new.

Oops. Secret's out.
By the way, since when is being around here 14 months being 'new here?' Oh, I forgot. You are the litmus test for pushing the envelope around here...I guess the laws of space and time are redefined on your corner of the internet, too.

Quote
I'm not going to take this any further, as it would only result in yet another locked thread.

And miss your witty repartee? Damn. And here I thought getting threads locked was your badge of honor.

Quote
But you might want to consider being less confrontational in the future. Someone might reciprocate.

Thanks, Luca Braci. 'Someone,' eh? Ooh, I can only guess who...maybe the one who was confrontational in the first place? I would say "Captain Obvious" again, but that would be too predictable, trite, 'banal,' or whatever other SAT Word-of-the-Week you decide to use...Instead, I'll just say, "Hagrid, Horcrux, and Hermione Granger."

And have a nice day.
Opera

P.S. Oh OK, Ghrey. :pirate
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Eral on August 10, 2005, 02:57:20 AM: Umm, Opera, Veloxyll was answering a question from page 1, from clock sendak (must be Maurice's son) asking who was the Half Blood Prince. Reading all the prior posts helps avoid these problems, too. :)
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: irenicus on August 10, 2005, 07:19:42 AM: Remus Lupin is so cute

ok anyway whatever -cough- i was quite shocked to find out snapie was a half-blood, always thought him as pure blood, due to his insane cuteness, and such and such -shrugs- ill shut up now, but i did suspect him as the half blood prince when i saw the adult book cover which read "advanced potion making" i did think it was snape and mom thought it was hagrid, i threw a party when i realised I got it right -smiles- and besides, i was crying when dumbledore died :'( damn you JK rowling..... how could ya kill dumbledore?!
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Resonance on August 10, 2005, 07:46:23 AM: Aaarrgh!!! Harry Potter!
(devoted fans should close their eyes, ears and minds now....)

As far as I'm concerned, that whole bunch of characters should be wiped out ASAP, be it by Voldemorth or bookburning in the streets... whichever way is quicker in getting the task done has got my vote of confidence. ;D

I honestly think that the only fairly interesting and rounded character of the series has been Snape. Everybody else comes off as a bunch of onedimensional zombies, dishing out tired lines and acting like sheep, Voldemorth included.
I seem to recall that I thought the first and the second book of the series decent enough jobs.
Since then.... aarrrgh. All downhill; supposing that I haven't simply lost patience with this series over time. Part of me wants to read those first ones again, just to see if they were really half decent at all, or if I just managed to kid myself I was eating tubed astronauts food, while scooping up the litterary equivalent of mayonaise. :-[
I find myself following the series now as an explorer into just how crummily written a bestseller can be.
We really seem to be headed where no man has gone before! :P
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Operadragon on August 10, 2005, 08:29:11 AM: Yeah...I knew that. I guess it was late that night and forgot the smiley, as Ghrey was much more subtle about pointing out.

Thanks for stoking the fire

Opera
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Eral on August 11, 2005, 03:15:56 AM: No, just sticking up for my countryman. :)
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: irenicus on August 11, 2005, 04:51:32 AM: tell you one thing, 2-3 yrs of waiting for half blood prince wasnt worth the wait at all, it was the wost book jk has done, Goblet of Fire, in my mind, is the best
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Operadragon on August 11, 2005, 07:09:49 PM: Aw come on... Why was it the worst? At least give a reason...
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: melora on August 11, 2005, 09:29:56 PM: i also liked goblet of fire best, but i really didnt like the order of the phoenix. almost didnt bother finishing it.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: irenicus on August 12, 2005, 04:03:59 AM: Quote from: Operadragon on August 11, 2005, 07:09:49 PM
Aw come on... Why was it the worst? At least give a reason...

well,

she seamed to rush the book as if she didnt care, the story line was out of place, it seamed Dumbledore had a crush on harry potter, and the ending was crap and lets not forget!
WHY WOULD SNAPE BETRAY DUMBLEDORE

i mean come on? this made out that dumbledore was an old fool who couldnt tell between good or evil
jk rowling damn you
you ruined hp
if your next book isnt good
im damning you to hell
:)
thanks
your undevoted fan
me\
;)
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Operadragon on August 12, 2005, 01:04:55 PM: Yup...I had to ask.

-Ooooooooooopera
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Jon on August 12, 2005, 03:08:48 PM: I haven't read a Harry Potter book in many an age (meaning three or four years) because the characters seemed to just crank out the same mindless one-demensional blather (someone else mentioned this as well) and never really left their tiny little Box of Character. You always knew what someone was going to say and what they were going to do. And after reading this thread it sounds like what could have been/was a good series has gone to waste? Well, I have one thing to say to that.

Read The Lord of the Rings (and The Hobbit)!

Now there's a good series. I think I'll make a thread about it right now, if there isn't one! Whoo hoo! Hail the mighty Tolkien!

And be nice to OperDragon. He's voicing Cailean and didn't deserve any insults anyway. This is the famed Pocket Plane. We can all get along in peace and harmony, right? Right.

Cheerio.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: clock sendak on August 12, 2005, 04:08:19 PM: Quote from: Eral on August 10, 2005, 02:57:20 AM
Umm, Opera, Veloxyll was answering a question from page 1, from clock sendak (must be Maurice's son) asking who was the Half Blood Prince. Reading all the prior posts helps avoid these problems, too. :)

no- i understood that it was snape- but if you look at the other titles there's usually been much more to the harry and the... construction. That is, we didn't hear much about snape's significance as the half blood prince, harry had no real response to discovering that this person he was quite fond of was actually snape- kind of a big deal for ickle 'arry and his one sided mentality towards severus. Mostly though, i found that all of this was part of a general dissappointment with the book, as though rowling had been a bit on cruise control - like Miles on "In a silent way"- good album, but nothing outstanding.
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Veloxyll on August 13, 2005, 08:17:22 AM: Quote from: Jon on August 12, 2005, 03:08:48 PM
I haven't read a Harry Potter book in many an age (meaning three or four years) because the characters seemed to just crank out the same mindless one-demensional blather (someone else mentioned this as well) and never really left their tiny little Box of Character. You always knew what someone was going to say and what they were going to do. And after reading this thread it sounds like what could have been/was a good series has gone to waste? Well, I have one thing to say to that.

Read The Lord of the Rings (and The Hobbit)!

Now there's a good series. I think I'll make a thread about it right now, if there isn't one! Whoo hoo! Hail the mighty Tolkien!

And be nice to OperDragon. He's voicing Cailean and didn't deserve any insults anyway. This is the famed Pocket Plane. We can all get along in peace and harmony, right? Right.

Cheerio.

Harry Potter suffers the same problem that most of Tolkiens characters suffer, they are 1 dimensional (and as for Snape betraying Dumbledore, we'll have to wait for book 7 to find out his motivations)
Ex:

Harry - Omg. I wish I had a non-abusive family. Omigosh Voldemort = Evil. Omg. Snape = evil. etc etc
Boromir - Omg. Must save Gondor. Great ring of power. We wants it my precious. But. My Honour. Bla. (which is more than i can say about Legolas and Gimli!)

etc etc.

most of Tolkiens other characters also lack personality, at least the Bit characters in Harry Potter make you want to know more about them.
(<--Luna fanboy)

Sadly, that's the same fate that the characters seem to suffer in The Wheel of Time. Except they take longer to have anything happen in WOT.

*puts on Asbestos suit*
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: irenicus on August 13, 2005, 10:12:29 AM: Quote from: Veloxyll on August 13, 2005, 08:17:22 AM
Quote from: Jon on August 12, 2005, 03:08:48 PM
I haven't read a Harry Potter book in many an age (meaning three or four years) because the characters seemed to just crank out the same mindless one-demensional blather (someone else mentioned this as well) and never really left their tiny little Box of Character. You always knew what someone was going to say and what they were going to do. And after reading this thread it sounds like what could have been/was a good series has gone to waste? Well, I have one thing to say to that.

Read The Lord of the Rings (and The Hobbit)!

Now there's a good series. I think I'll make a thread about it right now, if there isn't one! Whoo hoo! Hail the mighty Tolkien!

And be nice to OperDragon. He's voicing Cailean and didn't deserve any insults anyway. This is the famed Pocket Plane. We can all get along in peace and harmony, right? Right.

Cheerio.

Harry Potter suffers the same problem that most of Tolkiens characters suffer, they are 1 dimensional (and as for Snape betraying Dumbledore, we'll have to wait for book 7 to find out his motivations)
Ex:

Harry - Omg. I wish I had a non-abusive family. Omigosh Voldemort = Evil. Omg. Snape = evil. etc etc
Boromir - Omg. Must save Gondor. Great ring of power. We wants it my precious. But. My Honour. Bla. (which is more than i can say about Legolas and Gimli!)

etc etc.

most of Tolkiens other characters also lack personality, at least the Bit characters in Harry Potter make you want to know more about them.
(<--Luna fanboy)

Sadly, that's the same fate that the characters seem to suffer in The Wheel of Time. Except they take longer to have anything happen in WOT.

*puts on Asbestos suit*

Legolas is cute

i must say i found it extreamly hard to get into the Lord of theRings book, but enjoyed the films alot
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Jon on August 13, 2005, 06:09:51 PM: The films were great too. Sadly, no one (except other LotR-obsessed people like me) would want to sit through three 7+ hour movies, so Jackson changed and took out a lot.

But back on the topic of Harry Potter. Well, I don't have anything to say about him/it. I do like the cover of the first book though; with him riding on his broomstick going for the Snitch, or whatever it's called. And it had that shadowy figure on the back to make new readers think "oh! What's that! I should read this and find out what's going on!"
But then again, one shouldn't judge a book by it's cover, eh?
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: irenicus on August 13, 2005, 07:08:06 PM: Quote from: Jon on August 13, 2005, 06:09:51 PM
The films were great too. Sadly, no one (except other LotR-obsessed people like me) would want to sit through three 7+ hour movies, so Jackson changed and took out a lot.

But back on the topic of Harry Potter. Well, I don't have anything to say about him/it. I do like the cover of the first book though; with him riding on his broomstick going for the Snitch, or whatever it's called. And it had that shadowy figure on the back to make new readers think "oh! What's that! I should read this and find out what's going on!"
But then again, one shouldn't judge a book by it's cover, eh?

i was fairly dissapointed by most the books other then goblet of fire, i only read them so iunderstand what my overly crazed friends are on about
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Jon on August 13, 2005, 07:15:01 PM: PEER PRESSURE!!
;)
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Userunfriendly on August 18, 2005, 06:37:42 PM: Quote from: Jon on August 13, 2005, 06:09:51 PM
The films were great too. Sadly, no one (except other LotR-obsessed people like me) would want to sit through three 7+ hour movies, so Jackson changed and took out a lot.

buy the director's cuts...all the cut stuff was spliced back in... :pirate

and they're great!!!
Title: Re: New Harry Potter, what do you think? (read it, then reply)
Post by: Resonance on August 23, 2005, 06:36:56 AM: Quote from: Veloxyll on August 13, 2005, 08:17:22 AM

Harry Potter suffers the same problem that most of Tolkiens characters suffer, they are 1 dimensional (and as for Snape betraying Dumbledore, we'll have to wait for book 7 to find out his motivations)
Ex:

Harry - Omg. I wish I had a non-abusive family. Omigosh Voldemort = Evil. Omg. Snape = evil. etc etc
Boromir - Omg. Must save Gondor. Great ring of power. We wants it my precious. But. My Honour. Bla. (which is more than i can say about Legolas and Gimli!)

etc etc.

most of Tolkiens other characters also lack personality, at least the Bit characters in Harry Potter make you want to know more about them.
(<--Luna fanboy)

Sadly, that's the same fate that the characters seem to suffer in The Wheel of Time. Except they take longer to have anything happen in WOT.

*puts on Asbestos suit*

ok, I'll object to this comparison. :)
Although it is refreshing to read a criticism of major icon Tolkien, and even in his most iconic work, I just don't think the hat fits. I've heard the onedimensional accusation about Tolkien before, and from a close friend that I respect a lot, so it is safe to say that you are not alone in your views, although I liked my friends way of putting it a little better; he called it a story jammed with (only) perfect people.
But I personally think that you both, and probably a lot of people with you, are missing out on something, there.

My claim: Tolkiens characters aren't onedimensional: they are subtle. There is a difference; I'll insist. They don't wear their private feelings and thoughts on their sleeves, and as such, they are perhaps a little too polite and civilized to be recognized as entirely real, in this brash and open day and age. I think J.R.R. was radically oldfashioned, especially around modes of living, even for his own day. And I'll agree that you can tell how he does like to portray iconic situations and forr strong people to take responsibility and 'step into character' when shit hits the fan. The guy was a pious catholic christian, what can you say?
As for simply being bored out of reading LotR; well, it IS pretty dour fare at times, I'll agree; but it'll give you a major return if you stick it out, as Rowlings fastfood could never; his world becoming real to you, and the characters becoming actual characters, actually choosing to live their lives out in such a dignified manner.

Hint/Spoiler: read up on the unrelenting (childish) loyalty and rage of Sam against the animal lives of Gollum and Shelob as they assail his beloved Frodo. In that love, loyalty and rage is expressed the authors own immediate feelings about what is worth dying, or wading through Hell for, I think, and in Frodos personal devotion to duty and propriety, untill he is finally crushed under the growing power of the One, at the edge of Mount Doom, those sacred ideals are crystalized.

While Jackson did a decent enough job, the films just didn't measure up satisfyingly, for my part.
Nor could they be expected to, I think. The media has its limits.

Do I need to add that I sincerely enjoy reading Tolkien?
Probably not. Ah, well, shoot.