Howdy! Just read 'Order of the Phoenix' Thursday night...not too shabby!
I'd stop short, however, of saying it's the best of the series thus far. Right now, though, I'm still absorbing it into my head, so that may change. At the moment, though, I'm leaning toward 'Goblet of Fire' as my favorite.
I have to cop to not being a longtime Harry Potter fan. The movies brought me aboard. I enjoyed the first one a lot, but when I bought 'Chamber' on DVD a few months back, my interest was really ignited. Shortly after seeing that film, I checked out Book 1 from the local library. I was so impressed with Rowling's writing that I bought Books 2 and 3 at Wal-Mart.
After reading 'Azkaban', I HAD to get 'Goblet'. I was lucky enough to score a hardcover copy of that one at Books-a-Million on sale for $9.99, plus another 10% off with my Millionaire's Club membership. By the time I finished that one, I was officially a fan for life...and I only had to wait a month for 'Order' when the longtime fans had to wait three years! But now I'm in the same boat as everyone else, having to wait god-knows-how-long for the penultimate chapter in the saga.
Basically, my perspective of 'Order' is that it was mostly about Harry's angst and the tyranny of Professor Umbridge up until things took a left turn in the last quarter of the book. It was all very engaging, but I think the structure of 'Goblet' as it built towards several key events was more to my liking.
Umbridge was probably the single most despicable character I've seen in the books. Voldemort, at least, is supposed to be evil incarnate. But Umbridge, grrrr...I've never been so happy for someone to be carried off screaming by centaurs in my LIFE!!! Too bad she turned up alright later... For my money she was the main villain of the piece, and Rowling succeeded spectacularly in making us hate her guts! *hem, hem*
Then, of course, there was the big death of the piece. I was sorry to see Sirius go. Actually, I was a bit confused. When he died, it seemed rather vague to me. Maybe comics (and soap operas)have made me cynical, but when I don't see a body, I'm wondering if the character is truly dead. Am I way offbase here? Did the spell cast by Bellatrix Lestrange kill him? Or did falling into that mysterious veil finish him off? Reading between the lines, Rowling seemed to be implying that the portal was to the afterlife. Is that how you read it?
I'd love to hear more from any of you potential Potter-maniacs on the matter of Sirius and any oter thoughts you have on this, the other books and the films. I'll post more of my thoughts soon.
Final thought: Gary Oldman as Sirius?
Posted by Princess Crujectra on :
Well, I wouldn't be surprised to see Sirius back in one of the remaining books, although if he comes back from the dead I will be a little disappointed. I mean, after Rowling talks about crying after writing that death scene, he better not turn up alive.
The book had me on the edge of my seat because the way things were going, ANYONE could have been the one to die! I'm sure it was intentional, but so many characters got screen time in this book, and so many seemed to be in peril at one point or another... I was so nervous when those spells hit poor Professor McGonagall!
This book is going to make a great visual effects movie. I mean, there was spell-casting galore, from the first chapter to the last!
Did anyone but me think that Aunt Petunia was going to be revealed as a witch who turned her back on the wizarding world? After that howler and her behavior in the beginning chapters, I thought for sure it was gonna be something along those lines.
Sigh.
It will probably end up being another two years or more before we get the sixth book. I CANNOT wait that long!!!
P.S. - I don't know why, but I'm hoping that something happens to turn Draco from the dark side before the end of the series. I don't know why, but I kinda like him, and would like to see him redeemed before the end. Maybe he and Harry will walk off into the sunset, hand in hand, in the final chapter of book seven Posted by LARDLAD on :
Yeah...about the death, I felt very strongly that Sirius would be the one to go as I read the book. I felt he would do something brave/stupid because he was so lonely and cooped up in the mansion. I was actually kinda wrong since the whole basis for his leaving safety was Harry being in mortal peril. I totally bought Harry's vision of him being tortured by Voldemort because of what we'd seen before.
That said, there definitely were some anxious moments for other characters where I thought I may be wrong. I was definitely concerned about McGonagall. But my greatest anxiety was for the kids as they went up against the Death Eaters. I especially feared for Neville. The way he was so uncharacteristically (though understandably) brave and headstrong during the battle made me fear that his number may have been up.
But it was Sirius, and I still have to wonder if he's really dead. The best evidence for his being dead was Rowling's publicized sorrow at killing him off. But I still have to wonder. Makes me wonder if the really hardcore fans have similar doubts...
As for Petunia, I was thinking also that thee was someting more to her, though I wasn't sure what. It was a little disappointing to see that (almost) all that knowledge she had was just from the note left with Harry. Still not sure how she knew about dementors and Azkaban. Surely, THAT info wasn't in the note? I don't see how she could have gotten that information secondhand from her sister.
Draco? I dunno, Newc...I read somewhere were Rowling cautioned Draco fans not to hold out too much hope for him. Certainly, we haven't seen any redeemable qualities there. Guess it's that "love to hate" quality, eh?
Posted by LARDLAD on :
Yeesh! Doesn't anybody fuckin' read Harry Potter? You know...the fuckin' best selling books in the COSMOS?!? How does fuckin' "Strangers with Candy" get more responses than fuckin' Harry Potter?
YEESH!!
Posted by Princess Crujectra on :
Perhaps now that you've fuckin' bumped up the thread... Posted by matlock on :
Sorry Lardy, I'm working on another large, even more slowly published series: "The Dark Tower." That King guy moves a few units too.
(I'm glad I didn't read the first book back in '83, talk about letting the anticipation build.)
Posted by Emily Sivana on :
I have enrolled in Pottermore, which is a website that Rowling and Sony have created. I am a Hufflepuff. It is exciting at first, but can get tedious after awhile. I am looking forward to the release of the second book on Pottermore. Is anyone else here on Pottermore?
I also want to get an idea of how many Harry Potter fans are on LW.
Posted by lowercase mllash on :
quote:Originally posted by Lard Lad: Yeesh! Doesn't anybody fuckin' read Harry Potter? You know...the fuckin' best selling books in the COSMOS?!? How does fuckin' "Strangers with Candy" get more responses than fuckin' Harry Potter?
YEESH!!
Because Jerri Blank kicks that snotty Potter's ass! Posted by He Who Wanders on :
I like Harry Potter, but I can't call myself a fan. I read the second and seventh books and have seen a couple of films (not sure which ones off-hand) on TV.
HP is an inspiration to me as a writer. Rowling crafted a story aimed at children but which can appeal to anyone and got people excited about reading again.
Posted by Cobalt Kid on :
<---- megafan.
I know I've got tons of posts in various threads here in Anywhere on the different books.
Posted by Legion Tracker on :
I like the HP books. It's been good to see the positive impact the series has had on quite a few of my teen and young adult friends who weren't big readers.
Posted by Invisible Brainiac on :
One thing I particularly liked was the amount of respect that Rowling had for her many characters. Even the minor ones seem so real! I was even devastated when Lavender Brown, who seemed to survive (albeit terribly injured) in the books was KILLED in the movie. I'm just glad the books are canon, whew.
It's even more tragic when it's the young ones who die...
Oh, and I really disliked having Lupin and Tonks die off-panel And poor, poor Fred...
Posted by Lard Lad on :
quote:Originally posted by Invisible Brainiac:
Oh, and I really disliked having Lupin and Tonks die off-panel And poor, poor Fred...
That was consistent in both the film and the book, IIRC. A nice touch in the film was the last time we see Lupin and Tonks alive, they are reaching for each other's hand but not quite touching. I could be wrong, but I think that's a movie addition but one I found poignant.
I was wondering about Lavender when I saw the movie. I hadn't recalled her dying in the book, though I've only read it one time to date.
Am I remembering correctly that one of the Creevey brothers died in the book? Colin, I think--the one who had a fairly big role in 'Chamber'? I don't think that made it into the movie (assuming I'm not misremembering his death).
Posted by Lard Lad on :
Also, why the hell did they not either show or reference Wormtail's death in either of the two HP7 movies? I mean, I applaud that he didn't show up in the finale, but I always felt it was a big moment in the book. I mean, I understand his end was rather violent for an all-ages film, but they could've either done it slightly differently or shot around it.
Honestly, I have few qualms about the HP7 movies and with most of the other choices for the others. In fact "Deathly Hallows" parts 1 and 2 are among the best of the 8 films.
My biggest complaint of the movie franchise is aimed at the film adaptation of "Azkaban" for one simple reason: the omission of the significance of Harry's patronus being a stag. It was the biggest moment in that book for me, and I'll never understand why it was passed by. I mean, it would only have taken an extra moment of screentime to explain, damnit! Otherwise, it's a terrific movie, but I can't help but feel for the movie-only fans who were robbed of that moment. And, fuck, I wanted to see it on film!
I can understand pretty much everything that was left on the cutting room floor or embellished in all the films except for that! Posted by Invisible Brainiac on :
Yeah, the film didn't show them dying either. Ah well... It was very poignant, though I can't remember if it was like that in the book too. This link shows an interview where Mr. Weasley was intended to die - but Rowling decided not to kill him, and swapped in two unlucky characters instead. It's fairly obvious that those two are Tonks and Lupin.
IIRC, in the book the last time we saw Lavender, she was feebly stirring, giving hope that she was saved in time (I like to believe she was, since she was never specifically stated to have died.) In the films, though, she is clearly dead, as the camera shows us a shot of her lifeless eyes. There's a big fan discussion here on whether she did or did not die.
And you are right, Colin Creevey (the older brother) did die in the book.
Posted by Set on :
The end of the Harry Potter series felt kind of weak, to me.
Reading series that aren't finished yet (Wheel of Time, Harry Potter, etc.) just gives me time to *think* about the story, and that's never good, because I tend to come up with 'ties-everything-together' endings, and the really, real authors inevitably abandon half of the subplots they introduce and go somewhere else, leaving me feeling cheated.
IIRC, the first, second and third Potter books had the Sorting Hat calling out the oppositional / competitive House structure at Hogwarts as *being part of the problem,* and several times various characters were 'outed' as having been obvious members of the wrong house. (Harry supposed to be a Slytherin, but begged to be in Griffindor, someone pointing out that it was odd that Hermione wasn't a Ravenclaw, and her copping that she *wanted* to be a Griffindor instead, Ron fearing that he would be the first member of his family to 'fail' to be a Griffindor and end up a Hufflepuff/Ex Miscellenea sort, etc.)
After this, IMO, ham-handed foreshadowing (the Sorting Hat mentioning it in almost every book, for instance), I really expected the 'victory' at the end of the series to depend on the four Houses pulling together, and Harry, Hermione and Ron *leaving Griffondor* and moving into the houses they were originally Sorted to join, and using their new positions in those houses to pull the four houses together and end the diviseness and feuding that made it so easy for Voldemort's faction to keep them ineffective 'easy pickings.'
Neville would have ended up being 'big man on campus' of Griffindor, with Harry, Hermione and Ron moved on to coordinate the other three houses, and none of them would have found their new houses to just roll over and let them take over, with Hermione having to prove herself all over again, Ron having to shout down the fairly independent members of his 'new house' and Harry, obviously, having the worst time of all, surrounded by Machievellian schemers and with Snape as his House advisor!
But no. The Sorting Hat was apparently full of crap, and all of House Slytherin was pretty much shoved in a corner and placed under 'house arrest' for the big finale, while Houses Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff remained bridesmaids, who stood around while the Griffindors (Harry, Hermione, Neville, Ron and various other Weasleys) got all the action and saved the day.
Stupid Hat! Got me all worked up for an ending that never happened!
Posted by He Who Wanders on :
Having not read most of the previous books, I was completely thrown by the use of the Sorting Hat in the finale. Only after researching online did I figure out what had happened . . .
That said, I liked Book 7, particularly the use of Snape as the unexpected, unsung hero of the piece.
Posted by Emily Sivana on :
Do members here believe that Slytherin was created to be the evil house? Would one have to have an inclination to cheating and questionable ethics to be sorted into Slytherin?
Posted by matlock on :
Nah. Under normal conditions I'd expect Slytherin to attract a certain type of kid from a family fixated on blood-status aristocracy, ambitious and with an entitled mindset but not inherently evil. No worse than the worst sort of Gryffindors, kind of impulsive and reckless.
Set - that's a pretty cool alternate path you laid out. I really expected a few minor Slytherins to cross over. At least a few former Slytherins ought to have done a cost/benefit analysis of life under Voldemort and opted out.
Posted by Shining Son on :
Damn you Set for being so brilliant. Now that's going to bug me if I ever reread the books.
Posted by Shining Son on :
Emily, I'd definitely call myself a fan, but I guess not so much to the point where I've joined Pottermore yet. How is it?
One thing put me off: I believe you have to take a test and be sorted into a house based on it? I don't care for what I assume the test would be like (the kind of thing that's been on the internet forever and that I've never done), and for it to be mandatory just made me pass on the whole thing.
Have I been wrong about that, or have they changed it?
Posted by Set on :
quote:Originally posted by Emily Sivana: Do members here believe that Slytherin was created to be the evil house? Would one have to have an inclination to cheating and questionable ethics to be sorted into Slytherin?
That seems the way it turned out, in the books, but the first book made it seem like the original defining characteristic of the House founder was his ambition, not his moral or ethical shortcomings.
From a 'sympathy for the devil' standpoint, House Slytherin would seem necessary. Hufflepuff is, at best, disorganized. Ravenclaw sounds like the sort of group that would remain mired in ivory tower intellectualism and pure theory. Griffindor is associated with courage and valor, which, while great and all, are purely reactionary traits. One isn't 'brave' in a vacuum. Something (generally something bad...) has to happen, before bravery becomes a factor in a situation.
Slytherin, on the other hand, seems to adopt a very *active* sort of philosophy (for good or ill, usually ill...). While Ravenclaw is thinking, and Griffindor is reacting, Slytherin is the one that's actually doing something. Sadly, they have degenerated to the point where 'doing something' isn't something constructive like helping found the world's premier wizarding school, and more destructive. But that's, for the most part, the result of the fires fanned by Voldemort. Ten generations after the Harry Potter cycle, when 'he who must not be named' is a footnote in the history books, House Slytherin might have shed any ties to anti-muggle elitism and death-eaters and all that nasty business.
That's another factor that kinda bugs me about everyone remaining all 'Griffindor rules, everyone else drools!' We really didn't get to see much of anything from Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff. Indeed, the notion that Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff could ever have won *anything* scholastically, was never even floated. It was either Slytherin or Griffindor, and in the rare case where it was Slytherin, Dumbledore made some last minute changes and gave it to Griffindor anyway (which, if I was a Slytherin, I'd totally blame on nepotism, as the headmaster keeps changing the rules to let his own House win...).
Finding out that Hufflepuff was a hotbed of magical innovation, as disparate magical traditions and styles tend to get shuffled into their ranks, as well as students who have difficulties with some traditional practices and have to come up with 'work-arounds' to accomplish the same things, would be neat, and make Hufflepuff seem a bit less like 'the place we dump the slow kids.'
Posted by Chaim Mattis Keller on :
Well, a Hufflepuff WAS chosen as the Hogwarts Triwizard champion. You can't ignore that. But ut is true that J.K. Rowling didn't do a very good job of making Hufflepuff stand out.
Also, I agree the initial definition of Slytherin was definitely misleading. I always thought the whole "pure-blood" thing that started being prominent in the second book was a bad imposition of our modern sensibilities on the Potter world. What's the ultimate evil? Racism! Prejudice! Nothing worse than that, right? I liked the idea that the "bad" was naked ambition. Evil people simply wanting power and riches and taking it by force because they can. In the end, it seems to me that Voldemort was more of a selfish-ambitious type than a racist, and that he was mainly using the racism of Slytherin-types to achieve his particular ends. But the abrupt switch in Slytherin character from the first book to the second and onward just felt ham-handed to me, like "how can I make the villain most evil in the minds of my likely readers - Western kids who have felt reasonably secure their whole lives?"
Posted by Set on :
With the 'mid-season revelations' that Snape and / or Tom Riddle were 'half-bloods,' the overt pureblood racism felt a little too much on the nose of a Hitler-was-part-Jewish sort of comparison.
Whether it be the 'self-loathing Jew' meme or the closeted politician promoting an anti-gay agenda trend, the 'those people are their own worst enemy' thing gets floated around as an excuse for being unsympathetic to various plights, and it's something that I didn't think really fit the theme of the novels, even if Rowling probably just meant for it to feel ironic, particularly that some of the purest of the purebloods (the Malfoy family) ended up more or less defecting at the end.
Posted by Shining Son on :
quote:Originally posted by Set: One isn't 'brave' in a vacuum. Something (generally something bad...) has to happen, before bravery becomes a factor in a situation.
A counter-example: one can be pro-actively brave in the face of risk one takes in a new venture.
While a current situation might not be "bad" in any sense, improvements can still be made, but some significant risks may be necessary in achieving them. For example, though from our modern plumbing viewpoint we might feel otherwise, having to pump water or fetch it from the river every day was not "bad" at the time, it was just normal.
Posted by Emily Sivana on :
quote:Originally posted by Shining Son: Emily, I'd definitely call myself a fan, but I guess not so much to the point where I've joined Pottermore yet. How is it?
One thing put me off: I believe you have to take a test and be sorted into a house based on it? I don't care for what I assume the test would be like (the kind of thing that's been on the internet forever and that I've never done), and for it to be mandatory just made me pass on the whole thing.
Have I been wrong about that, or have they changed it?
It is required to take the test to continue past Chapter 7 of the first book. If you are strongly attach to a particular house, you can try to manipulate it to get the house you desire. I knew I would be a Hufflepuff (yellow is my favorite color and I am very kind in real life) so I answered honestly.
I think the four houses contain aspects reflect different types of heroism and villainy. I think Hufflepuff reflects more of a "greatness thrust upon them" individual. Peter from the Chronicles of Narnia is a perfect example of Hufflepuff heroics, loyalty unwavering and completely accepting of the situation he was thrown into. It is not a coincidence that Cedric's last name is Diggory, he was named after the professor the Pevensie siblings stayed with during the war. I think the death of Cedric Diggory might reflect the Christian undertones in Rowling's writing, in that by dying Cedric conquered death.
Ravenclaw heroes are more intellectual, but are needed and respected in society. According to Pottermore, they have supplied the Wizarding World with many inventors and ministers. Luna Lovegood was the only non-Gryffindor to fight in the Ministry of Magic in The Order of the Phoenix. Many Gryffindors have dated Ravenclaws, including Harry Potter, so there probably are good relations between the two houses.
Zacharias Smith is the most obvious example of a Hufflepuff villain; he doubts Harry Potter and decides to save himself instead of fighting. He would rather have a guarantee that he will survive the war than risk his life, despite the fact that it was Hufflepuff that asked if they could stay and fight. Ravenclaw has produced quite a few villainous characters in the series, so I will use Cho Chang's friend as my example. She betrayed Dumbledore's Army because she was worried that her mother would lose her job. The Gryffindors punish her severely for treason, but Cho Chang insists that her friend had to make the practical choice. I think that sums up the main difference between Gryffindor and Ravenclaw.
Posted by Shining Son on :
Read past chapter 7 in which book?
I don't want to read a book online anyway so if everything else on the site is available without taking the test I'll think about checking it out again.
For me it's not a question of manipulating the outcome of the test, I don't want to take it or be sorted at all. Just as I've never taken any of the other billions of internet tests looking to categorize me over the years. They're apparently great fun for other people, and that's fine, but it's not for me.
Posted by Invisible Brainiac on :
Interesting analysis on the Houses, Set. It WOULD have been good to see more Slytherins "seeing the light", as they saw their ambition had totally lead them down the wrong path.
Re: the pure-blood thing, I read somewhere that the number of pure-blood families had been severely dwindling down over the years. The inclusions of people like Snape in Slytherin, despite not being pure-blood, is a good example of how even Slytherin House was forced to adapt over time. A "civil war" in Slytherin House towards the end would have been an interesting exploration of this.
quote:Originally posted by Set: Reading series that aren't finished yet (Wheel of Time, Harry Potter, etc.) just gives me time to *think* about the story, and that's never good, because I tend to come up with 'ties-everything-together' endings, and the really, real authors inevitably abandon half of the subplots they introduce and go somewhere else, leaving me feeling cheated.
Kind of off-topic, but Power Boy and I are big Wheel of Time fans too. And I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that both Robert Jordan and Brandon Sanderson had planned/are planning to NOT tie everything up. Which, given the kudzu plots sprouting up left and right, is probably the realistic outcome anyway.
Posted by Emily Sivana on :
Shining Son, I suggest that you register for an account, go through the first few sections, and see what you think. If you don't like it, you can stop playing (Pottermore has admitted that lots of people don't play past the first few chapters). If you send me a PM, I will give you my username so you can Friend me. I have earned over a thousand points on Pottermore.
Posted by Shining Son on :
This actually confused me, I hadn't heard till this moment that any part of Pottermore was any kind of game.
I thought it was sort of a "fan site plus", meaning not only are all these people who love the material interacting and commenting about it, but the author herself is adding official material to supplement the books.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
And poor, poor Fred...![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)