Harry Potter Discussion- for those who read the last book [Archive]

renata

22nd June 2003, 07:58 AM

WARNING

THIS IS ONLY FOR THOSE WHO FINISHED THE BOOK. THERE WILL BE SPOILERS. READ THIS THREAD AT YOUR OWN RISK.

So, what did everybody think? I was pretty disappointed. It was long, it added little to the character development and it had no previous fun or sparkle. The revelations where pathetic, and fairly predictable. In other books, there was surprise at the end, and here there really was not. Umbridge was a bitch, Harry and Voldemort are connected ( we knew that) one must kill the other ( that was pretty easy to guess). The only new thing is that perhaps Neville is the chosen one, but I had my suspicions about him for a long time- the clumsiest character in these types of books saves the day more often than not.

It was very dark and depressing- I understand that was the point, but I think it was overdone. And god, she could use an editor to crisp it up.

Anyway, why was Umbridge doing what she was? Why did she send dementors at him? I understand she wanted to combat Dumbledore but dementors sent at a kid so he would be quiet is strange. As I understood it, she was NOT in league with Voldemort- why did Harr's scar burn when she touched him?

Dogwood

22nd June 2003, 10:45 AM

Since many people can't resist spoilers, I think I'll wait a while before jumping in here, and give everyone a chance to form their own opinions. (It's not like anyone who wants to know won't read this thread anyway.)

Fade

23rd June 2003, 03:30 AM

I think it added quite a bit as far as characterization goes. Harry finally stops being a two-headed. His strength emerges in all of his life, instead of just some of it.

I thought Snapes revelation was fairly well done, and explains a lot of the seemingly pointless cruelty coming from his direction.

Umbridge was fanatically devoted to taking down Dumbledore. Do you really need anything more when dealing with fanatics? Remember, this IS, largely, a childrens book.

The darkess was just about right. Remember, this world is on the cusp of repeating a nasty, nasty war. Think of all the propoganda being shot back and forth before a war happens. It gets nasty. Everyone gets moody. Talk becomes tight.

Also, the writing was exactly what I expected.

Remember, CHILDS BOOK.

A lot of things bear repeating, or the (admittedly larger now) target audience is going to stop reading it. I suppose adults are no longer at the periphery, but she would be marked down as the worst writer EVER if she suddenly shifted her storytelling to a more adult theme in the middle of a series of books just because they happened to gain notoriety.

Overall, I liked it. It was a fine bit of light reading to break up some of the heavier stuff that I deluge my mind with.

Anyway, specific angsts:

I think the Dursleys were really, really overplayed this time. I am glad that will clear up from now on. Their pointless cruelty was almost surreal. I had no idea why Rowling decided to write them in such a way. I kept thinking (If I was 10 years old, I would GET THAT THE DURSLEYS DON'T LIKE POTTER. MOVE ON. PLEASE)

The Giant sub-plot was boring, rather pointless. Lots of wasted page space, when the Centaurs could have simply done as their by-laws commanded.

Death was ham-fisted and pointless.

Specific points of interest:
I am SO GLAD she strengthened up McGonagall. It was nice to have her written as caring as much as Rowling was alluding too in earlier books.

Inclusion of more adult characters that act on Harry's behalf makes the world seem all that much more real. I think Rowling has done a fantastic job of thrusting us into her world at the same pace Harry experiences it. There is stuff going on all the time behind the scenes, but thankfully we aren't given Omniscient 3rd person cut-scenes explaining things that the protaganists don't know.

Luna was a fantastic character. I think we can all point to somebody in our life that acts a lot like she does.

It's going to be maddening waiting for the next books, and movies, to come out. I can easily see this as being made into a movie I would watch over and over. The battle at the end is going to be marvelous to see rendered.

specious_reasons

23rd June 2003, 09:19 AM

I'll agree with both Renata and Fade,
I liked it, but was somewhat disappointed.

It was never really made clear why what happened to the person who died, did in fact die. I had to re-read the whole battle and I still didn't quite understand.

What I thought was interesting is the beginning twist on the plot - something I didn't expect: who the wizarding world chose to believe, and why.

I did like the Cho Chang subplot. It reminded me how I dealt with girls at that age.... utterly clueless.

Babylon Sister

23rd June 2003, 11:15 AM

I had not read any of the books until this past year. I just finished book 5 this weekend. Even at my age (well past the age of consent), I had a lot of fun reading these.

In the beginning of the series I thought the children were portrayed as thinking thoughts well beyond the scope of their ages. As the series went on, their ages seemed to catch up with their thoughts and actions.

I think Rowling has really captured the "teen angst" of the 16 year old mind in this last book. Working with kids this age, I see it every day...."tragically misunderstood," indeed.

I'm looking forward to the conclusion. I'm making up my own ending and can't wait to see how close I get. I know I can't prove it, but when I heard that one of the characters was to be killed off, I figured it would be Sirius. Can't let Harry have too much comfort.

specious_reasons

23rd June 2003, 12:06 PM

Babylon Sister,

I think Rowling has really captured the "teen angst" of the 16 year old mind in this last book. Working with kids this age, I see it every day...."tragically misunderstood," indeed.

Just to be picky, Harry was 15, but I agree. I enjoy how he's complaining in front of Ginny that no one knows what it's like to be possesed by Voldemort.

I also like that he's slowly transforming into an adult. He goes from complaining to himself about how he's not recognized for all the great things that he's done, to freely admitting how much help he's gotten along the way.

Babylon Sister

23rd June 2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Just to be picky, Harry was 15, ...

Opps! You're right of course.

I'm an old person and all them young whippersnappers look the same to me.

Denise

24th June 2003, 02:34 AM

I thought it was fairly good, but not as good as the last one.

Things I loved:
Harry getting into the teenage anger stage and his first kiss and all of the confusion that teens go through.
Finally starting to see why Snape hated James, although I don't understand why he transferred his hate to Harry.
Dumbledore being less than perfect, he's human after all.
Percy being an ass. I wonder what's going to happen in the next book?
More back ground into Neville's story was good.

Things I didn't like
The prophesy revealed that Harry had to kill Voldemort or be killed by him- well duh! This was the big secret?
The part about Harry at the end finding the mirror he could have communicated with Sirius with. Another bad moment.
Another problem, Harry had the huge group protecting him to get him to the Headquarters, but was allowed to roam around Hogsmeade. What's with that?

Anyhow, just a few things on my mind. Look forward to reading everyone's reviews.

HarryKeogh

24th June 2003, 12:43 PM

http://www.theonion.com/onion3744/harry_potter_craze.html

c'mon, that's funny!

Taeolas

24th June 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Denise
I thought it was fairly good, but not as good as the last one.

Things I loved:
Harry getting into the teenage anger stage and his first kiss and all of the confusion that teens go through.
Finally starting to see why Snape hated James, although I don't understand why he transferred his hate to Harry.
Dumbledore being less than perfect, he's human after all.
Percy being an ass. I wonder what's going to happen in the next book?
More back ground into Neville's story was good.

Things I didn't like
The prophesy revealed that Harry had to kill Voldemort or be killed by him- well duh! This was the big secret?
The part about Harry at the end finding the mirror he could have communicated with Sirius with. Another bad moment.
Another problem, Harry had the huge group protecting him to get him to the Headquarters, but was allowed to roam around Hogsmeade. What's with that?

Anyhow, just a few things on my mind. Look forward to reading everyone's reviews.

I think the huge group Harry had to get to HQ was due to 2 things. 1) He had just been attacked and was on the verge of being expelled and 2) Moody's own paranoia.

Once he was at Hogwart's and other than 'normal' junior high-type trouble (and trouble from a known source), everyone felt he was a bit safer, especially after an uneventful month.

And remember, he wasn't alone at Hogsmeade, they were still keeping an eye on him; at the first sign of trouble, I wouldn't have been surprised to see Order members literally popping out of the woodwork and rushing to protect him and get him back to school.

As for Snape's transferring of his hatred about James, I think I can sort've understand it. I suspect that Snape's been fuming over the years that he never had a chance to 'get even' with James, and now not only does he have James's son in his class, he has the extra whammy about how much Harry looks like his father. Seeing 'James' staring back at him across the dungeon is probably enough to set Snape's anger boiling again, hence the trouble.

The mirror was an interesting twist in the end; sadly the book ended before Harry could realise what the mirror really implied. I hope that is addressed next book in some way; ie Harry getting a bit of guilt over what he put the others through and about how if he had just used the mirror Serius probably wouldn't be dead.

The rooms in the Ministry of Mystery (or whatever it was) were a neat touch. Each one devoted to a big mystery in its own right; Time (with the Prophecy storage area off of it), Space (the solar system room Ron mentionned), Death, the Mind, and from what Dumbledor said, the locked room sounded like it was devoted to the Heart/Love.

I loved how the school almost literally fell apart when Dumbledor was kicked out and how the teachers wouldn't help that B err Witch at all. The stunts brought back fun memories of when I was reading Gordon Kormon's old "Bruno and Boots" books (especially the "War with Mr. Wizzle")

McGonagall whispering to Peeves that the chandelier unscrews the other way was a hoot.

All in all, I enjoyed the book, but still it isn't my favorite. I think Prisoner or Goblet are my favs (haven't decided which yet), but it was still a great continuation of the story.

richardm

25th June 2003, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by Taeolas

The mirror was an interesting twist in the end; sadly the book ended before Harry could realise what the mirror really implied. I hope that is addressed next book in some way; ie Harry getting a bit of guilt over what he put the others through and about how if he had just used the mirror xxx probably wouldn't be dead.

I think that's all that it was supposed to do - if Harry had remembered and used the mirror, he would have been able to check immediately that all was well, and they wouldn't have gone traipsing off to the Ministry, and so the character wouldn't have been killed (I'll not mention the name, since that would be a bit of a bad spoiler!)

I did quite like the book, I must admit; considering the build-up there's been it would have been easy for it to be a major disappointment, and I don't think it was. The whole thing bowled along most satisfactorily, I thought.

I'd agree that the giant subplot was a bit odd. Perhaps something will come up with it in the next couple of books. I also thought the teen angst was well done indeed!

As for that death scene... I dunno... there were numerous bits in the book where you thought some major character had died - it had been neatly trailed, so we knew that it was coming. Although to kill Ron on page 159 might seem a bit premature, narratively speaking ;) But at the point where the death finally arrives, it seemed to be just dropped into the story quite casually. I was expecting something a bit more dramatic.

richardm

25th June 2003, 04:49 AM

Oh yes - and I loved the scene where Fred and George leave. Many's the time I'd have liked to have done something like that myself!

richardm

25th June 2003, 05:01 AM

Dogwood

25th June 2003, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by renata

Anyway, why was Umbridge doing what she was? Why did she send dementors at him? I understand she wanted to combat Dumbledore but dementors sent at a kid so he would be quiet is strange. As I understood it, she was NOT in league with Voldemort- why did Harr's scar burn when she touched him?

She explained that she did it to discredit Harry. Everyone at the Ministry was complaining about him, planting false stories in the Daily Prophet about his lies and wild imagination, etc. She knew that this would make one more wild story that no one would believe and provoke him into using magic outside of school. (A tad contrived I thought.)

And Harry's scar had been hurting off and on for a while. Even Sirius thought it was just a coincidence.

Ipecac

25th June 2003, 07:38 AM

The one thing I've learned about these books is that nothing is ever, ever put in by accident. Every sub-plot, every mention of a new character, or room, or idea is expanded in another book. For example, who ever thought that Ron's rat would be so important?

I have no doubt the giant subplot will be important in the next book.

(Speaking of Scabbers, we didn't get to see Peter Pettigrew at all.)

Jedi Knight

25th June 2003, 08:30 AM

I watched the first two Harry Potter movies but haven't read the books. So who died? The dude with the rat or the chick Harry likes? I forget her name.

JK

Ipecac

25th June 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I watched the first two Harry Potter movies but haven't read the books. So who died? The dude with the rat or the chick Harry likes? I forget her name.

JK

Read the books.

Drifterman

26th June 2003, 03:39 AM

My review from Amazon.com

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix returns us to the magical world of Hogwarts for a fifth installment of sorcery and boarding school andventure.

The first impression of the novel is its early pace, but soon after the initial surge it is handicapped by a slightly turgid return to slow normality.
Nevertheless, it is a significant improvement over the 4th installment (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire), but its delivery fails to live up to its early promise, and one can't help feeling that a more ruthless editor might have pruned away some of the fat. The imagination of the author is far from lacking, but the little nuggets and gems of ideas that spiced up the earlier novels now seem spaced at wider intervals, whilst opportunities for character growth are squandered.

The hellish tweeness exhibited often by the earlier novels has taken a backseat, as a more adult and sinister plot involving explorations of propaganda, bureaucratic interference and cynical scapegoating unfolds. However, the central revelation previewed on the dust-jacket has a curiously pedestrian feel about it. 'Is that it?' is the thought that runs through your mind once you have ploughed through Dumbledore's protracted exposition near the end of the novel's gargantuan 766 pages. Indeed, repetitive exposition and gossipy discussions that do little to advance the plot occupy far too many pages.There is still too much waffle about Quidditch, although Rowling appears to have abandoned the incredibly tedious blow-by-blow accounts of every single training session and match. Even more of a relief - the ugly patronisation of the ordinary 'Muggle' world is played down here. The division between a self-congratulatory elite and the ignorant wider population is still accepted without question, but not overplayed.

Harry is the only character to show significant development, and this is manifested in four ways. Firstly, throughout the entire novel Harry seems angry: angry at his enemies, his friends, his guardians. This is, I think, Rowling's take on teenage moodiness, and as such a necessary addition to Potter's emotional repertoire. However, by around page 500 it begins to feel more than a little stale. Secondly, depth of character comes in the form of questioning the hithertofore angelic image of his deceased parents. This is a welcome development, and Rowling handles it well, although it appears rather late on in the novel, and not pursued as far as I'd hoped. Thirdly, when he takes on the role of teacher, Harry Potter attains a greater level of maturity than he is allowed throughout the rest of the book. Finally, and most satisfying for me, Harry appears to have largely shaken off his reliance on others for clues at vital points, and he has no more need for gifts that emphasize his specialness. He earns his rewards (and punishments) in this book - the silver spoon is no longer in view. In my view, Harry has become a much more compelling and 3 dimensional character. Only his romantic entanglements seem to be stuck at the 12 year old's level - in fact all the inhabitants of Hogwarts demonstrate this oddity.

Unfortunately, none of the other characters goes through anywhere near the same amount of growth as Harry.

Ron's new responsibilities seem to have zero effect on his behaviour, either to stimulate or inhibit him in any way. He is strangely sidelined in this installment of the saga. Hermione remains the dedicated swot, who, as usual, rebels when authority goes to far. As ever, she is most entertaining when bickering with Ron, although even these exchanges seem rather colourless in comparion to earlier ones. Dumbledore, thankfully absent for most of the novel, is still a cloyingly reassuring figure who is able, deus ex machina -like, to save the day. Grandfatherly in the extreme, the heroes' unalterable trust in him deprives his appearences of significant drama. As with all the previous novels bar the first, Voldemort is such a caricature that he never feels remotely threatening. True villainy of a more subtle kind is most chillingly demonstrated by a new character to the series. Draco Malfoy retains his one-note unpleasantness - it would have been refreshing to see some kind of change here. Most of Rowling's characters are either irredeemably good, or else utterly malevolent. Only Snape escapes this trap, but his character reveals little new here.

The first half of the book is entertaining, but patchy. Nonetheless, I found it to be enjoyable, which made the second half all the more of a disappointment. The secondary villain was satisfyingly dealt with, but the climactic end sequence seemed muddled and flavorless.

J K Rowling will undoubtedly satisfy fans, and is to be commended for her vision and imagination. I would have preferred a darker vision, but I'm sure that others' tastes will find this tale to be more than merely palatable.

Ultimately, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix revisits almost all of the flaws of the preceding books, and improves on other areas only a little. This book will satisfy those who crave more information about the Wizarding World that Harry Potter inhabits, but will do little to entice the uninitiated.

RonSceptic

26th June 2003, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by Fade
Death was ham-fisted and pointless.

My thoughts entirely.There was little point in the death, it did not have a critical bearing on the battle. It seems to have sertved only to make Harry feel bad, and of course to remove one of the most interesting characters from the story.

Originally posted by specious_reasons
"It was never really made clear why what happened to the person who died, did in fact die. I had to re-read the whole battle and I still didn't quite understand."

That's my feeling too. I can't help thinking that there is more to it. The teasing at the end with the mirror and the chat with Nick and then with Luna just seem to be rubbing salt into the wound unless there is some development in the next book which see some kind of reappearance.

However, on the TV interview with Paxman JK talked about the death being final. In fact she cried after writing the death scene. That suggests that we will not see the character again.

Yet on the JK Rowling interview on the Chamber of Secrest DVD she actualy picks out this character as one of her favourites. Stange therfore to discard the character in such a pointless way.

Or is she just toying with us?

Ipecac

26th June 2003, 08:46 AM

I agree the death was a bit unsatisfying. Then again, sometimes that's how it goes.

I was also disappointed with the complete dropping of Hermione's House Elf storyline. What's up with that?

Wasn't Lucius Malfoy supposed to be working at the Ministry of Magic? He doesn't in this book.

I really liked the more mature Ginny Weasley and I thought Hermione exhibited a maturity not seen before. I'm sure I'm not alone in loving Freg and George and all they did. Wonderful.

richardm

26th June 2003, 09:49 AM

JK is doing a webcast (http://www.msn.co.uk/liveevents/harrypotter/event/Default.asp?MSID=2f122935c4df4628bacd43068abaf432) from the Albert Hall as I speak (16.00 GMT), with another programme at 19.00 GMT.

Incidentally - and this may be just for UK posters - is it just me, or is her description of Umbridge the spitting image of Julie Burchill?

Edited to add: Ah. Looks like I added that public service announcement just as she was finishing :D Oops!

Mark

29th June 2003, 10:38 AM

WARNING...SPOILERS!!!!!!

Lots of things to love: Fred & George, Hermione & Ron, a little more depth to Harry's aunt, Kreacher (love to hate him), The Giants...esp. Hagrid's half-brother (although what it had to do with the plot escapes me)...lots more. Umbridge was delightfully aggravating, as were Fudge and Percy Weasley (whom I suspect we will hear a lot more from).

But, to me, the book falls victim to what I call the "Dumbo Syndrome." By the time things are worked out, Harry has been so abused (esp. by Dumbledore), disappointed, slandered, and hurt that the pay-off at the end just isn't worth it. Even the friendship between Harry, Ron and Hermione is terribly fractured (although they are still loyal to him). He is left totally alone emotionally, without even Sirius or Dumbledore to turn to (for obviously different reasons).

The book was gripping to the very end...and totally depressing. I'm surprised that at the end, Harry didn't show up at Hogwart's in a black trench coat with an Uzi and start blowing everybody away.

Tricky

29th June 2003, 08:48 PM

Just finished it moments ago. I made the mistake of generously giving my wife first go at it, and it took a bloody week! Well, at least she didn't give anything away (like I'm about to do).

Character development? I thought there was quite a lot, especially in Harry. Let's discuss a little..

...spoilers
...spoilers

...spoilers

...spoilers

...spoilers

...spoilers

...spoilers

...spoilers

...spoilers

...spoilers
Harry - We always knew he was angst-ridden. His struggle with girls and his lack of smarts in anything but Quidditch and Defense Against the Magical Arts make him less of a protagonist than previously. Now we discover he is an angry young man. Why his friends stay so loyal, I cannot fathom, considering how he treats them. Why Cho is interested in him, I cannot understand either, but she's got issues of her own. He's good in battle, no doubt, but not a good strategist. Also he's dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to challenging authority (or talking to girls).

Hermione - The real heroine as far as I can see. Calm, smart, reasonable. She saves Harry's ass so many times I can't keep count. Luring Umbridge to the Magical Forest was a stroke of genius. The DA was her idea. And she's the daughter of Muggles, which must make for some fine old discussions at home. How can her folks keep from bragging on her? Also, who does she like the most? Harry? Ron? Viktor? There's lots of opportunity here for development. ('Course, I've always had a fondness for nerds).

Ron - This book was wasted on Ron. He was made a prefect and a quidditch player, but JKR didn't do a thing with this excellent opportunity.

Dumbledore - I'm not really dissappointed. I knew something was up, but they didn't give us enough clues to figure it out. Seeing him in battle was sort of like "Yoda Unleashed", but he was not as important as I expected. I thought he might be the one to die, but I'm glad he didn't. He's looking more frail though.

Snape - I understand him more all the time, but I still can't figure out why he likes the Malfoys so much. He showed a sympathetic side I hadn't seen before. Also, I still can't figure out why he abandoned the Dark Lord.

Hagrid - Also underused. His bubba is an interesting twist with lots of possibilites. I thought Hagrid had the mark of death too.

Fred and George - The best surprise of the whole book. This was a breakout for them. I always figured them for funny but useless minor characters, but they came out in a big way. They stole the book.

Ginny - Always a helpless waif, she really came into her own too. She gets over her crush on Harry and shows a tremendous amount of spunk. She and Harry aren't so far apart in age now, so who knows...

McGonnigal - YAY! She kicks butt! The scene where she stands up to Umbridge is classic. Good teacher. Good advisor. Good ally.

Luna Lovegood - By far the most intriguing new character. Is she truly loony? It doesn't seem to bother her that people think so. Loyal, but unpredictable, I hope she will be developed further in the next book.

Cho -
This is the most we've seen of her, and JKR did a good job with her. Is she Harry's true love? I almost hope not. She's not as bright as Hermione nor as brave as Ginny. It will be interesting to watch.

Sirius - Very revealing. Very unhappy character, but his devotion to Harry is heart rending. The Black family could be an issue in the future.

Umbridge - Too unidimensional to be truly interesting, but lots of questions. Is she Voldmort's creature? Why did they let her sneak off? Where did she come from? She may be a throwaway like Gilderoy Lockhart. (who made an interesting cameo).

Kreacher - Has much more potential than Umbridge. Divided loyalties, family oaths, who knows what kinds of power?

Firenze - Another character with lots of potential. Is there a war brewing between Centaurs and humans? Why did Firenze change sides? What is his relation to Hagrid? What does he know about prophecy that Trelawney does not?

Trelawney - Good to hear why she's even there. Dumbledore's loyalty is very forgiving.

James Potter - VERY revealing. In one way, the revelation that grownups are not always perfect was the theme of this book. Nowhere was that more evident than with Harry's discovery about his dad's... uh... strong personality.

Petunia Dursley - Another very big surprise. I suspect there may be more surprises about her before we are through.

Voldemort - Very disappointing. Now that he's back, I expected to see a lot more of him. Instead, just his minions. I thought he was stronger than that.

Neville - Wow! I never expected this turn of events, nor did I ever expect him ever to be more than a bit player. Now he's set up to play a crucial role in the future. You just had to cheer for him when he started to straighten up his spells.

Draco - Nothing significant this book. Let's see what happens now that his family is disgraced.

Quidditch - With a thick book like this, I expected a little more quidditch action. Mostly practices, and mostly without Harry. I hope JKR is not de-emphasizing this most entertaining aspect of her creation.

Lord Kenneth

29th June 2003, 09:43 PM

I thought the book was pretty good... some parts went slowly, and while there were plot twists there was too much about what when on at school.

The character development was actually pretty good, Harry Potter putting his crush from previous books aside and moving on was well-done, for example.

The... death.. was unsatisfying, and could have been written better.

Revealing what Harry's dad was like was interesting and now we know more about Snape's past as well.

Umbridge was well written, she continually pissed me off.

The Weasley twins entertained as well.

The giant subplot bored me as well. It should expand in later books, though.

RonSceptic

30th June 2003, 04:08 AM

Has anyone noticed that there is never any mention of Harry's grandparents? Either maternal or paternal? Why such an ommission? It must be significant.

My theory......

Dumbledoor genes are in there somwhere.

And Voldemorts mothers maiden name was...........

Potter.

Any takers?

Marc

30th June 2003, 05:20 AM

Ok, people complaining about the revelation of the fate that Harry and Voldemort will have to face off. Of course it is not much of a revelation for us, because we are reading a book. 10 minutes into a movie you know who the hero is and that they are going to face off against the bad guy in the end. The thing is the characters don't know that. Harry has faced off against V multiple times, but he had no clue he was fated to be the one to bring him down. Probably all the characters expect Dumbledoor to be the one to do it. Besides, how many deep secrets can he have to reveal? "Oh yes Harry, when we told you 'everything' last year it wasn't actually everything, but I'm sure to tell you all this time."

Oh, to be quite honest I had never been impressed with V before. He made a better showing here, but have seen characters far more evil and scary than him. V says there is nothing worse than death, with say Rasalom you had better hope he only kills you.

Wish they showed Umbridge finding out she was all along (and wished she got sent to prison for trying to use an unforgiveable curse on a student)

How long do we have to wait to find out how they did on the O.W.L.s now? :) I figure next time Malfoy will not be able to throw his weight around. Without Daddy's money and influence he will have to rely on his intelligence and skill. :rolleyes: Probably will be forced into being a spy.

Lord Kenneth

30th June 2003, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic
Has anyone noticed that there is never any mention of Harry's grandparents? Either maternal or paternal? Why such an ommission? It must be significant.

My theory......

Dumbledoor genes are in there somwhere.

And Voldemorts mothers maiden name was...........

Potter.

Any takers?

Voldemort: Harry.... I am... your FATHER...

Harry: No... you...you killed my father...!

Voldemort: No, Harry...

Mark

30th June 2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Just finished it moments ago. I made the mistake of generously giving my wife first go at it, and it took a bloody week! Well, at least she didn't give anything away (like I'm about to do).

Character development? I thought there was quite a lot, especially in Harry. Let's discuss a little..

Snape - I understand him more all the time, but I still can't figure out why he likes the Malfoys so much. He showed a sympathetic side I hadn't seen before. Also, I still can't figure out why he abandoned the Dark Lord.

[

I agree with all your points...esp. Snape. Although JKR tried to give him some motivation for his past decisions, to me it in no way explained his continued allegiance to the Malfoys. The mystery is not why he abandoned Voldemort, the mystery is why isn't he still with him?

In fact, Slytherin House in general seems to be so full of lunatics, it's hard to understand why they aren't all under guard all tbe time!

RSLancastr

30th June 2003, 02:14 PM

Just finished the latest Harry Potter, and it was definitely my least favorite of the series so far.

First, Harry is a whining ass throughout much of the book. Yes, this is common among kids his age, but that doesn't mean I want to read hundreds of pages of it.

Two of my children - ages 17 and 20 - commented on it to me: "Harry's being such a jerk!"

And, speaking of hundreds of pages: Is Rawling being paid by the word? It seemed to me to be a 300-page story in a 900-(or whatever)-page book. The Dursleys are awful. WE GET IT. Harry's a whiny jerk. We GET IT. The new headmistress is a bitch. WE GET IT. Sirius is unhappy to be stuck in his home. WE GET IT.

I'm sure that much of the pages which seemed superfulous to me was setup for things to come in later books in the series, but if so, there should have been at least a little payoff for those things in THIS one.

I think that the death of Sirius was supposed to be a big climax to the book, but to me, it was a yawn, for many reasons:

1. I had heard the rumor that "a major character" was going to die off in the book, so I expected that it might be Ron or Hagrid. Sorry, I don't consider Sirius to have been a "major character".

2. I don't think enough of a relationship had been established between Sirius and Harry (or Sirius and the reader) for his death to have much of an impact on me.

3. What was the archway? Don't you think Harry would have asked Dumbledore?

4. His death seemed rather pointless. He didn't, for example, die saving Harry. This happens. There are meaningless deaths. But it's difficult to get worked up about one in a novel.

5. He died being stupid. He dodges a shot, says "hey, is that the best you can do?", then gets shot in the chest. If that had happened in a film, the audience would laugh at what an idiot he had been.

These were my major complaints about the book. There were some highlights, chief among which was Harry's new insight into Snape. And thus into his father.

During the final conversation with Dumbledore, it looked for one horrible second that we were going to learn that Voldemort was really Harry's father. My kids and I have been joking - ever since the first book - at how stupid and disappointing that would be. I'm not sure that has been ruled out. Let's hope it ain't so.

There were a couple of times I was surprised somewhat at some of the language in the book. At one point, Harry's uncle says something like "No more effing owls!" Wow - effing? In a kid's book? At another point, Ginny says "damn".

I wasn't upset by it, just surprised. My guess is that these things would have been edited out in her earlier books, but now Rowling has the clout to say "print it as is, or not at all."

Well, those are my initial thoughts. Maybe I will like the book more after thinking about it for a while, but now - I'm very disappointed.

ceptimus

6th July 2003, 11:39 AM

Why was the book so long when its plot was (to me) simpler than the previous two books? Could it be that JKR is now so famous, that nobody is allowed to edit anymore?

I expected more of the Luna Lovegood character. When she suddenly appeared I expected her to turn out to be a Voldemort agent or Harry's niece or something. Maybe in the next book...

Anyway, even though I found this last book to be a bit of a disappointment, it can't have been all that bad as I still intend to read the next book. I suspect most of the posters here feel the same.

ceptimus.

Nyarlathotep

7th July 2003, 12:34 PM

I just finished the book yesterday. I liked it although I thought the death ought to have been more heroic, the character deserved better than that.

Othre thatn that I liked it and I am hoping JK Rowling doesn't take three years to get the next one out the door.

RSLancastr

8th July 2003, 02:57 AM

Order of the Phoenix was just reviewed in Entertainment Weekly by none other than Stephen King.

He declared the book Rawling's best. Other than some swipes at her penchant for overusing adverbs, the review is positively glowing.

Wrong, Steve-o.

RonSceptic

8th July 2003, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Order of the Phoenix was just reviewed in Entertainment Weekly by none other than Stephen King.

He declared the book Rawling's best. Other than some swipes at her penchant for overusing adverbs, the review is positively glowing.

Wrong, Steve-o.

I'm with you on this. I think that books three and four were far better. I also think the book is way too long. JK getting a little self indulgent I think. You may as well just read the first 200 pages and the last 200 pages.

Unless the death has some relevance later on, I think it was a pointless waste of a good character.

In the Paxman interview she indicated that the next books will be much shorter. I sincerly hope so.

Bruce

11th July 2003, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
3. What was the archway? Don't you think Harry would have asked Dumbledore?

I just finished the book and this is what infuriated me the most! I was itching to know what it was from the moment it was mentioned. Is it a gateway to the afterlife? Is it there for executions? Wouldn't you think that if you were to die just by walking through it that it would at the very least have a gaurd rail and a yellow warning sign saying, "Do not enter - Certain DEATH!". Why, why, why in the world did Harry not ask about it?

I agree with everything else, but I'm just seething over the archway.

Mark

12th July 2003, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Bruce

I just finished the book and this is what infuriated me the most! I was itching to know what it was from the moment it was mentioned. Is it a gateway to the afterlife? Is it there for executions? Wouldn't you think that if you were to die just by walking through it that it would at the very least have a gaurd rail and a yellow warning sign saying, "Do not enter - Certain DEATH!". Why, why, why in the world did Harry not ask about it?

I agree with everything else, but I'm just seething over the archway.

I suspect the next book will be "Harry Potter and the Archway of Death."

rwald

16th July 2003, 10:47 PM

OK, maybe I'm just confused, but what happened with Neville? I read the book, but I don't remember anything particularly special, aside from Harry, Ron, and Hermione meeting Neville's parents.

Marc

17th July 2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by rwald
OK, maybe I'm just confused, but what happened with Neville? I read the book, but I don't remember anything particularly special, aside from Harry, Ron, and Hermione meeting Neville's parents.
Near the end he got his nose and wand broken by a Death Eater. Tried using Hermione's wand but wasn't too sucessful with that. Did learn very quickly in the secret Dark Arts class, he is looking to avenge his parents, or at least be ready if they come for him.

RSLancastr

17th July 2003, 08:36 AM

I know that Rowling is showing that Harry and his friends are growing up, but was this (on p. 242) really necessary?"We're not going to use magic?" Ron ejaculated loudly.I for one, am appalled.

Drifterman

17th July 2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
I know that Rowling is showing that Harry and his friends are growing up, but was this (on p. 242) really necessary?I for one, am appalled.

About time these kids showed some normal behaviour. Anyway, we now know wanking is good for you:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/weekly/newsnat-17jul2003-6.htm

So these guys were just engaging in some preventative therapy.:D

Mark

17th July 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
I know that Rowling is showing that Harry and his friends are growing up, but was this (on p. 242) really necessary?I for one, am appalled.

Come again?

Segnosaur

17th July 2003, 09:40 AM

Ok, one question I had about the book, that may have been explained (but I overlooked)....

Harry is taking classes with Snape to help stop his mental connection with Voldemort. The classes end, even though everyone urges Harry to continue.

Now, at the end of the book, Harry still does not know how to control the mental connection, and Harry won't have any chance to learn until the next school year. Isn't that a little dangerous? I know Harry has special protection at his Aunt's place, but he can still pass on information, or get 'brain washed'.

Mark

17th July 2003, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Ok, one question I had about the book, that may have been explained (but I overlooked)....

Harry is taking classes with Snape to help stop his mental connection with Voldemort. The classes end, even though everyone urges Harry to continue.

Now, at the end of the book, Harry still does not know how to control the mental connection, and Harry won't have any chance to learn until the next school year. Isn't that a little dangerous? I know Harry has special protection at his Aunt's place, but he can still pass on information, or get 'brain washed'.

I suspect the explanation is that the book really needed some serious editorial input and almost certainly didn't get it.

RSLancastr

17th July 2003, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Mark

Come again? ...Hermione moaned, pleadingly.

Nyarlathotep

17th July 2003, 12:41 PM

"We're not going to use magic?" Ron ejaculated loudly.

Perhaps he was premature.....

Ipecac

17th July 2003, 12:56 PM

rwald

17th July 2003, 05:06 PM

Thanks for the info about Neville. Now that I think about it, I can remember that he was a prodigy in the DA (I think they said at some point that he was second only to Harry himself). Was that what renata meant when she said that Neville might be the "chosen one"? Does it relate to the fact that the woman who drove his parents insane was still on the loose?

As far as Snape's classes go, what was the deal with the class seeming to have the opposite effect that it was supposed to? I don't that it's Snape being mean, because it's in his own best interest that Harry not give away information. So what's with that?

RSLancastr

17th July 2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by rwald
Was that what renata meant when she said that Neville might be the "chosen one"?Did you read the book? Harry and Dumbledore talk about Neville possibly being the Chosen One in the ending chapter(s) of the book.

rwald

17th July 2003, 09:17 PM

Did they? I must have not been paying attention. Yes, I read the book, but apparently I thought that after the exciting battle in the Ministry of Magic and the revelation about the prophacy (which was rather mundane, I must admit), nothing else important would happen. So, what does the Chosen One do?

RSLancastr

17th July 2003, 11:05 PM

Something about a prophecy which states that only one will be born with the power to vanquish the dark lord. That person will be born to people who have thrice defied Voldemort, and will be born towards the end of July.

According to Dumbledore, there are only two who fit that description: Harry and Neville.

rwald

17th July 2003, 11:17 PM

Oh. I read that part, and thought, "He's talking about Harry." I didn't even consider that the Neville part could matter. Though, as someone pointed out, Rowling has a habit of turning anything that's mentioned once into a key element of the plot.

Also, slightly off topic, my birthday happens to be near the end of July. So it was sort of weird as I read that passage.

ceptimus

18th July 2003, 03:34 AM

"Neville Longbottom and his enchanted ring"

Nah, doesn't sound right - I reckon Harry must be the chosen one after all.

ceptimus.

reprise

18th July 2003, 03:41 AM

I am so disappointed in the latest book that I abandoned reading it about the 400 page mark.

By contrast, I have read all the other books in the series cover to cover in one sitting.

Let's hope that The Order of the Phoenix isn't indicative of what to expect from the remaining two books in the series. :(

lofgoernost

18th July 2003, 08:24 AM

A couple of Hermione-related things were left up in there air:

1. I would've liked seeing her reaction to the elves' refusal of her clothing. She saw Dobby with all the hats, but things were too intense at that point for her to make any inquiries.

2. She brought up an interesting point about the disuniting effect of Quidditch - and by extension that of the whole system of awarding and deducting points from the various Houses (an entirely favoritism-based beast). I hope that point is explored more in the days of necessary unity.

Here's some talk about who died, and who didn't. You've been warned....

SPOILER
*
*
*
*
*
I was left completely untouched. I think part of the problem is that I have minimal recollection of the earlier books. I don't remember much of the pre-Order of the Phoenix Sirius, and what I saw in this volume was a developmentally-arrested bully who criticizes Harry for not taking the chances his father would have. His death left me unmoved. If Rowling wanted to tear at heartstrings without eliminating Ron or Hermione, then Luna Lovegood would've been a perfect choice. She's odd, quirky, endearing; Harry ends up feeling sorry for her, and yet she's got this ethereal nature which fortifies her against schoolish persecutions. In the big battle, at a point when Ron and Ginny have been battered, Luna's unscathed and, I like to assume, played a crucial role in getting them back to Harry alive. Her death definitely would've had more impact on me than Sirius's (tho, probably not much impact on the other characters).

I liked the insight into Snape's character. It's good to know he wasn't a Malfoy back in the good old days, but just a greasy-haired loner with his nose in the books, getting bullied by the bored jocks. I can see him becoming a Death Eater not out of any pure-blood bias, but simply because Voldemort was probably able to manipulate his intellectual ego ("You're a genius, but that Potter gets all the praise because he can catch a little winged ball") and provide a group to be a part of. (But I forget - maybe Voldemort just seared Snape's brain until he was a willing servant). It put me in the mood to go back and read the pertinent sections on Snape's past from the other books (unlikey that will happen, tho :)).
I guess I can see Snape's dislike of James carrying over to Harry. The physical resemblance has been established, and Snape seems as caught up with memories of school-days past as Sirius. Plus, Snape, the former outsider, sees Harry as a rich jock with the highest school authority always on his side. Who wouldn't get pissed off?:-)

VicDaring

28th July 2003, 12:14 PM

Reviving this thread, 'cause I just finished the book last night.

Overall, I liked it a lot more than Goblet.

Rowling seems to be trying to keep the target audience at Harry's age, and adjusting her writing style accordingly (in other words, Potter 1 was written for 11-year-olds...Potter 5 written for 15-year-olds).

The ending sequence -- the big brawl at the Ministry -- this time was much more enjoyable than the previous book -- that tedious thing from the maze to the graveyard...God that went on forever.

I too had heard that a character was gonna bite it, and I figured Hagrid was the unlucky soul. Frankly, for a pure emotional response, he woulda been a better candidate.

With the exception of Ron, I thought everyone developed nicely. In fact, since Ron seems to have a thing for Hermione, I thought that might get some play, which would have been good for Ron's character. Ah well, that might just have added more pages.

Lookin' forward to the next installment.

bjornart

28th July 2003, 12:44 PM

Read it last week, and I liked then, but them I'm easy to please. :)

Dogwood

28th July 2003, 03:13 PM

Yes. I was disappointed that there wasn't further romantic development between Ron and Hermione. They did do their "Argue like an old married couple" bit, but that was all. I also wonder about any possible romantic possibilities for Harry. Cho seems to be out of the picture for good. So unless JKR brings in someone new, that would seem to leave only Ginny and Luna as possibilities. I can see either.

Ove

29th July 2003, 12:04 AM

Read the book, liked it a lot allthough i think the books becomes increasingly gloomy but off course so does life as you grow up.;) Mark : I am very gratefull to JK that she does not put in more romance. I am still (in my heart at least) a boy and boys HATE romance. :D

My favourite girlfriend for Harry is still Ginny but let's see, they are young.:fg:

Tricky

29th July 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Ove
Read the book, liked it a lot allthough i think the books becomes increasingly gloomy but off course so does life as you grow up.;) Mark : I am very gratefull to JK that she does not put in more romance. I am still (in my heart at least) a boy and boys HATE romance. :D

My favourite girlfriend for Harry is still Ginny but let's see, they are young.:fg:
I don't know if I would call this one more gloomy or not. The Dementors in "The Prisoner of Azkaban" made that book much more gloomy than this one IMO. Yeah, Harry is starting to become an annoying teenager, but I feel sure he will grow out of it.

And I was pleased to see Ginny get forceful and snap Harry out of his whiny self-pity. I like her a lot, but I doubt that she could wind up being Harry's beloved. The Weasley's are like Harry's family, and it would look too much like incest.

VicDaring

29th July 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

The Weasley's are like Harry's family, and it would look too much like incest.

Is there some kind of moral problem with that?

Tricky

29th July 2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by VicDaring

Is there some kind of moral problem with that?
LOL. I see you've been cruising the politics forum.

No problem in my mind, but I imagine GKR is morally opposed to hurting book sales.

bjornart

30th July 2003, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

LOL. I see you've been cruising the politics forum.

No problem in my mind, but I imagine GKR is morally opposed to hurting book sales.

There's lots of good fiction with incest. *Points to Heinlein*

I'm willing to believe GKR knows she has enough money for several lifetimes already until she proves otherwise by not letting Harry and Ginny hook up just because Tricky thinks it's incest. ;)

DeathToSophists

30th July 2003, 10:05 PM

...I also didn't read any of the posts in this thread; just closed my eyes and hit the "post reply" button.

I also won't read any responses until I DO read it.

I think Dumbledore had to die; J.K. Rowling works pretty close to the films being produced, and most likely experienced some grief when the actor who played Dumbledore died.

Thats fuzzy logic, but I'll check back and see if I'm right. ;)

Tricky

31st July 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by DeathToSophists
...I also didn't read any of the posts in this thread; just closed my eyes and hit the "post reply" button.

I also won't read any responses until I DO read it.

I think Dumbledore had to die; J.K. Rowling works pretty close to the films being produced, and most likely experienced some grief when the actor who played Dumbledore died.

Thats fuzzy logic, but I'll check back and see if I'm right. ;)
I realize you won't read this for a while, DTS, but Dumbldore has already been recast (Michael Gambon (http://harrypotter.warnerbros.com/web/dailyprophet/article.jsp?id=POA_production2)). He is no more likely to die than any other character.

Dogwood

31st July 2003, 05:26 PM

For anyone interested, msnbc (http://www.msnbc.com/news/943721.asp) had an interesting article recently about the next Harry Potter movie. The new director has apparantly decided to give Dumbledore more of an "aging hippie" theme and there's a lot of talk about making this one..... "sexier"?

Bloody hell.

The good news reported is that all the kids have signed on to make the fourth movie.

Linda

31st July 2003, 07:36 PM

I just finished all 5 volumes, one right after the other, and thoroughly enjoyed them all. I too think Aunt Petunia has a secret we'll find out about later in the series. I thought Sirius' death was also anticlimatic, pointless and poorly done and that the Archway is an introduction of a story line for further development. And I thought Hagrid would be the one.

Does anyone else read the book and cast the movie at the same time? I see Umbridge being played by Bette Midler and Trelawney by Carol Kane. Reese Witherspoon would be a good Tonks. Anyone else have any casting ideas?

Ove

31st July 2003, 11:29 PM

Does anyone else read the book and cast the movie at the same time? I see Umbridge being played by Bette Midler and Trelawney by Carol Kane. Reese Witherspoon would be a good Tonks. Anyone else have any casting ideas?

Just one, and i'l´l try not to sound anti-american but NO AMERICAN ACTORS PLEASE!!!!!

Sorry Linda but the whole environment in those books are so typical English that an (very typical)american actor like Bette Midler would be way over the top. But for Umbridge, how about Anne Robinson?:D

Leif Roar

1st August 2003, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Ove

Sorry Linda but the whole environment in those books are so typical English that an (very typical)american actor like Bette Midler would be way over the top. But for Umbridge, how about Anne Robinson?:D

Hmm - maybe Patricia Routledge (Hyacinth from 'Keeping up Apperances') She'd certainly look right in Umbridge's office.

Diamond

1st August 2003, 08:03 AM

I think the next one will be "Harry Potter and the secret magazine stash"

The book was over long and desperately needed editing. It was very short on humour and I swear after 400 pages I was considering not carrying on because it was just tediously plotted. (The Goblet of Fire had lots of ideas and humorous moments so what happened, JK?)

I think JK had better start with better plotting and learned to cope with editors because frankly, this was the weakest of the lot, despite being the longest.

D.

Mark

1st August 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Ove

Just one, and i'l´l try not to sound anti-american but NO AMERICAN ACTORS PLEASE!!!!!

D

Did you ever notice that you never hear Amercians make comments like that about other countries actors/artists? And yet we're the ones (to Europeans) who are supposed to be unsophisticated. Just interesting, that's all.

I still think Peter O'Toole would have been a great Dumbledore.

Nyarlathotep

1st August 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Linda
I just finished all 5 volumes, one right after the other, and thoroughly enjoyed them all. I too think Aunt Petunia has a secret we'll find out about later in the series. I thought Sirius' death was also anticlimatic, pointless and poorly done and that the Archway is an introduction of a story line for further development. And I thought Hagrid would be the one.

Does anyone else read the book and cast the movie at the same time? I see Umbridge being played by Bette Midler and Trelawney by Carol Kane. Reese Witherspoon would be a good Tonks. Anyone else have any casting ideas?

I don't know about theotehr characters but I picture whoever it is that plays Mimi on The Drew Carey Show as Umbridge.

Linda

1st August 2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

I don't know about theotehr characters but I picture whoever it is that plays Mimi on The Drew Carey Show as Umbridge.

:D That's a GREAT idea in terms of the physical character. But could she do a British accent?

Linda

1st August 2003, 11:56 AM

I don't know her name, and she's probably dead now, but the character who played a sales clerk in "Are You Being Served" would also have made a great Umbridge.

Nyarlathotep

1st August 2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Linda

:D That's a GREAT idea in terms of the physical character. But could she do a British accent?

I don't know, but I don't think it's that hard to do a British accent, especially if you are a professional actor who has coaches for that sort of thing.

Dogwood

1st August 2003, 06:32 PM

Carol Kane would be great physically for Trelawny Linda. But it's hard for me to see her and not like her. I don't want to like Trelawny. What's the British equivilant of Joan Rivers?

As for Umbridge, for some reason I kept seeing Jennifer Saunders (Edina Monsoon from Ab Fab).

Mercutio

1st August 2003, 08:23 PM

I don't know what it means, but I finished the book even though I had grading to do (shame on me!), whereas my children, who made certain I bought 2 copies so that they would not have to wait, have not finished. My daughter (12) is over halfway through, but keeps putting the book second to other things. My son (14) has not opened the book yet, having discovered--simultaneously--girls and instant messaging. I wonder whether this would have happened with the earlier books (i.e., is it the fault of the story line?) or the developmental level of my kids (independent of Rowling)?

Leif Roar

1st August 2003, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by Mark

Did you ever notice that you never hear Amercians make comments like that about other countries actors/artists?

Well, how often do you see actors from outside North America try to pass off as North American characters?

Ove

2nd August 2003, 03:32 AM

Did you ever notice that you never hear Amercians make comments like that about other countries actors/artists? And yet we're the ones (to Europeans) who are supposed to be unsophisticated. Just interesting, that's all.

It has got nothing to do with sophistication but a lot to do with casting. Would you f.inst consider Hugh Grant as Ringo in a remake of "The Stagecoach"? Or Robbie Coltrane as the Godfather?:D

I love miss Midler, she is an extremely funny actress but trying to cast her as british would be troublesome to say the least. We have not forgotten Dick Van Dyke's extremely insulting attempt to play cockney.:rolleyes:

I still think Peter O'Toole would have been a great Dumbledore.

I agree he would have been great. ;)

As for Umbridge, for some reason I kept seeing Jennifer Saunders

Now that wasn't a bad idea either. She's very good at playing "something that rhymes on witch".

Luciana

2nd August 2003, 08:23 AM

I don't have much to add to what everybody said. Disappointing revelation and death (I knew halfway through the book that it had to be Sirius. First it had to be an adult. JK wouldn't kill a child. And second, because this death would cause most suffering to Harry Potter and not much to anybody else.).

About the translations... we haven't had one in Portuguese yet, and it's going to take a while, being so large and all. What is very very cool and is that kids who can read in English have gathered in the internet, divided the chapters by themselves, and are translating it little by little, posting the chapters as they finish. They're almost over, and monolingual kids now won't have to wait until the official translation.

Sure, it's probably a weak and inaccurate translation. Also, certainly illegal. But totally cool - that kids put on this effort to help other kids to read their Harry Potter pretty much restores my faith in mankind. And if I had known this earlier, I would have offered my services too. Illegal? So sue me. :)

Mark

2nd August 2003, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Leif Roar

Well, how often do you see actors from outside North America try to pass off as North American characters?

Bob Hoskins built a career on it. No one complained. Even when he played a hard-boiled detective type.

I love miss Midler, she is an extremely funny actress but trying to cast her as british would be troublesome to say the least. We have not forgotten Dick Van Dyke's extremely insulting attempt to play cockney.

You've never heard Midler do an English accent (neither have I); so why are you assuming she can't?

I agree Dick Van Dyke did a poor English accent. Eric Idle does a poor American one. So what? Get over it...it's not insulting; you sound like a French person!

William H.

5th August 2003, 05:00 PM

Just finished the book, borrowed it from my nephew. In general, I liked the story, but I agree with those who said it too long.

To me the characters are overly emotional, they have no control over there anger at all, I guess I just can't relate to it since I don't hang out with anyone like that.

I kept wondering, if he wasn't sure that Snape was properly teaching him Occlumency, why didn't he go to the library and do some research, or ask another teacher? I'm thinking that the character who was killed will come back sort of like Obe Won Knobe, and give advice when he needs it most.

How many more books can there be before Harry has to kill what's his name?

Will

RSLancastr

5th August 2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
I knew halfway through the book that it had to be Sirius. First it had to be an adult. JK wouldn't kill a child.You mean, like she did in the fourth book? :)

Ove

6th August 2003, 12:05 AM

Bob Hoskins built a career on it. No one complained. Even when he played a hard-boiled detective type.

No rule without an expectation.

You've never heard Midler do an English accent (neither have I); so why are you assuming she can't?

Based on the acting she has done to this date, she pretty much plays the same caracter allways.

I agree Dick Van Dyke did a poor English accent. Eric Idle does a poor American one. So what? Get over it...it's not insulting; you sound like a French person!

I don't know why you believe there's anything particularily French in that attitude, i find mis-casting annoying everytime it happens no matter who does it. (Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirof f.inst or Margareth Rutherford as ms. Marple). I haven't really seen the sitcom Eric Idle is in but i had assumed he was portraying a British, working/living in USA. I had no idea he was trying to play an american, which would be equally silly.

Regarding insults i can assure you that REAL cockneys are VERY insulted over Dick Van Dykes portrayal. He has made a generation of moviegoers think that cockneys are runnin' around shouting "'oy mate" and "'ey gov'nor" to each other and pretty much the only swear word they know are "Bloomin' ".

'How many more books can there be before Harry has to kill what's his name?

JK has stated that she will write seven Harry Potter books so a pretty qualifyed guess would be that Voldemort will meet his nemesis in book number seven. ;)

Mark

6th August 2003, 12:23 AM

I don't know why you believe there's anything particularily French in that attitude, i find mis-casting annoying everytime it happens no matter who does it. (Peter Ustinov as Hercule Poirof f.inst or Margareth Rutherford as ms. Marple). I haven't really seen the sitcom Eric Idle is in but i had assumed he was portraying a British, working/living in USA. I had no idea he was trying to play an american, which would be equally silly.

The French will often take offense at a person's accent when speaking French, even if that person speaks the language pretty well; it seems to escape their notice that the effort to speak their language is a compliment in itself (for any country).

I am sorry cockneys were offended by Dick Van Dyke's poor accent. I envy a life that is lacking any more important concerns to worry about. In a better world, one might wonder why they were not pleased that such a lovable character was portrayed as a cockney in the first place...poor accent and all.

Eric Idle's American accent is indeed horrible (John Cleese's isn't much better). Graham Chapman's was the worst of all. Again..so what? Should I be offended? Of course not. In "The Meaning of Life" they portrayed Americans as oafish ignoramuses; I laughed my butt off.

Ove

6th August 2003, 03:41 AM

I am sorry cockneys were offended by Dick Van Dyke's poor accent. I envy a life that is lacking any more important concerns to worry about. In a better world, one might wonder why they were not pleased that such a lovable character was portrayed as a cockney in the first place...poor accent and all.

Trouble was that a lot of tourists actually believed real life cockneys talked and behaved that way.

Tricky

6th August 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Ove
Trouble was that a lot of tourists actually believed real life cockneys talked and behaved that way.
That's bollocks. We Americans all know that Cockneys talk the way they did in My Fair Lady.

Luciana

6th August 2003, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
You mean, like she did in the fourth book? :)

:p It was a very emotional death, as we were led to believe by the interviews she gave, and she herself described it as the death of a major character. Couldn't be a child this time!

Also, Sirius was Harry's hope for a future without the Dudleys - he had to die to keep things more interesting.

Mark

6th August 2003, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Luciana Nery

:p It was a very emotional death, as we were led to believe by the interviews she gave, and she herself described it as the death of a major character. Couldn't be a child this time!

Also, Sirius was Harry's hope for a future without the Dudleys - he had to die to keep things more interesting.

If by interesting you mean unrelentingly depressing, then I agree. As I said before, to me, by the end of this book, Harry had been so hurt, degraded, and put upon, that there really is no pay off that would have made it all seem worth it. One could argue that real life can be like that; I wonder if anyone reads the Harry Potter books for examples of "real life?"

Halbert

6th August 2003, 01:49 PM

The French will often take offense at a person's accent when speaking French, even if that person speaks the language pretty well; it seems to escape their notice that the effort to speak their language is a compliment in itself (for any country).

Entirely off-topic, but I felt the need to respond:

Every time I have been to france (3 now, about 2 months total time) I have experienced the exact opposite of what you suggest.

People were unfailingly nice and helpful when I used my limited french.

Nasarius

6th August 2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Mark
The French will often take offense at a person's accent when speaking French, even if that person speaks the language pretty well; it seems to escape their notice that the effort to speak their language is a compliment in itself (for any country).

According to friends who have traveled in France, it's quite the opposite. It's been their experience that if you make an attempt to speak French, they'll gladly speak English to you. *shrugs* Different people, different situations. Stereotypes are silly.

Mark

7th August 2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by Nasarius

According to friends who have traveled in France, it's quite the opposite. It's been their experience that if you make an attempt to speak French, they'll gladly speak English to you. *shrugs* Different people, different situations. Stereotypes are silly.

Point taken. I have had different experiences---not in France---but point taken anyway. I stand corrected.

Pak_43

9th August 2003, 09:23 AM

Firstly, let me say that I am a big fan of the books...

to those who say does Harry's life have to be unremittingly grim?

He's your archetypical hero...the more successful his fight against villainy the more his personal life will be a disaster...it's the accepted literary price of being a hero....

One by one JKR is removing the crutches Harry has leant on in the books so far....I'm sure that Ron and Hermione will leave him on his own in the future after a huge row, possibly when these two get together, Fred and George and Percy are all out of the equation so when he falls out with Ron it will remove the Weasleys as a refuge for him to run to....Hagrid will I'm sure eventually be removed from Hogwarts, leaving Harry utterly alone and completely miserable as he completes his rite of passage....

Mark

9th August 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Pak_43
Firstly, let me say that I am a big fan of the books...

to those who say does Harry's life have to be unremittingly grim?

He's your archetypical hero...the more successful his fight against villainy the more his personal life will be a disaster...it's the accepted literary price of being a hero....

One by one JKR is removing the crutches Harry has leant on in the books so far....I'm sure that Ron and Hermione will leave him on his own in the future after a huge row, possibly when these two get together, Fred and George and Percy are all out of the equation so when he falls out with Ron it will remove the Weasleys as a refuge for him to run to....Hagrid will I'm sure eventually be removed from Hogwarts, leaving Harry utterly alone and completely miserable as he completes his rite of passage....

Is that when Harry shows up at Hogwarts with an Uzi? It's starting to sound like a John Irving novel. Blecch.

Pak_43

9th August 2003, 03:19 PM

Replace Uzi with some suitably powerful spell to remove Voldemort, say a submachinus gunnesta :)

Ove

11th August 2003, 02:29 AM

One by one JKR is removing the crutches Harry has leant on in the books so far....I'm sure that Ron and Hermione will leave him on his own in the future after a huge row, possibly when these two get together, Fred and George and Percy are all out of the equation so when he falls out with Ron it will remove the Weasleys as a refuge for him to run to....Hagrid will I'm sure eventually be removed from Hogwarts, leaving Harry utterly alone and completely miserable as he completes his rite of passage....

That would undoubtedly happen if the books was written by a sitcom-writer. Fortunately they are not.;)

Brown

13th August 2003, 01:04 PM

I just finished the story today. I listed to Jim Dale's performance on CD.

Many of my comments would echo those that others have already made. I liked the things most people liked, and the things that puzzled others puzzled me as well.

Here is a comment that I do not believe has yet been made (forgive me if I missed it). When the book was about to be released, it was made known that a character would die. In the course of the story, there were many "false alarms," in which Rowling seemed to be trying to get us to wonder, "Is this the one who dies?"

Mister Weasley, for example, almost dies. Nope, he pulls through.

Hagrid suffers serious injury. Nope, he's not the one, either.

There were other false alarms. I lost track of how many false alarms there were.

In a discussion with a co-worker, we found that we agreed on the course of the next two books. Book 6: Evil wins a big victory (tentative title: "Voldemort Strikes Back.") Book 7: Good bounces back and overcomes evil (tentative title: "Return of the Aurors"). BTW, I have not seen the text of the book, and I am guessing as to the spelling of "Aurors." I'm not sure about spelling other terms or names from the books, either. It was not until I read this thread that I had any inkling that Black's elf was named "Kreacher," not "Creature."

RSLancastr

13th August 2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Brown
When the book was about to be released, it was made known that a character would die. In the course of the story, there were many "false alarms," in which Rowling seemed to be trying to get us to wonder, "Is this the one who dies?"

Mister Weasley, for example, almost dies. Nope, he pulls through.

Hagrid suffers serious injury. Nope, he's not the one, either.

There were other false alarms. I lost track of how many false alarms there were.[/SIZE] The first one I remember was when Harry finds Mrs. Weasley screaming over the corpse of Ron Weasley.

Yes, especially in the light of the announcement that a major character would die, I found all of the false alarms cheesey in the extreme.

Brown

13th August 2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by RSLancastr
The first one I remember was when Harry finds Mrs. Weasley screaming over the corpse of Ron Weasley.Another false alarm early on was Dudley in the hands of the dementors... although I doubted that Dudley's death would result in too many tears from the readers.

RSLancastr

13th August 2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Brown
Another false alarm early on was Dudley in the hands of the dementors... although I doubted that Dudley's death would result in too many tears from the readers. Actually, I did think of that before my previous post, but it didn't strike me as such at the time I read the book, probably because a) nobody would care if Dudley checked out and b) it was too early in the book.

Brown

14th August 2003, 09:30 PM

Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but...

In Book 3, Snape encounters the Marauders' Map. The Map itself identifies the authors as Moony, Padfoot, Wormtail and Prongs, but Snape apparently does not know who these people are.

In Book 5, however, Harry relives one of Snape's memories, which featured Harry's dad and his friends AND also included Snape's memory of their nicknames.

RSLancastr

14th August 2003, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Brown
Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but...Now you've done it! You've gone and blown my acceptance of the plausibility of the books! :)

Interesting. I'll have to reread the book 3 ref to come up with an opinion/excuse!

richardm

15th August 2003, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Brown
Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but...

In Book 3, Snape encounters the Marauders' Map. The Map itself identifies the authors as Moony, Padfoot, Wormtail and Prongs, but Snape apparently does not know who these people are.

In Book 5, however, Harry relives one of Snape's memories, which featured Harry's dad and his friends AND also included Snape's memory of their nicknames.

I've just quickly checked my copy. I'm not so sure that he doesn't know who they are:

"Indeed?" said Snape. His jaw had gone rigid with anger. "You think a joke-shop could suppliy him with such a thing? You don't think it more likely that he got it directly from the manufacturers?"

Harry didn't understand what Snape was talking about. Nor, apparently, did Lupin.
...
"Why did Snape think I'd got it from the manufacturers?" [Said Harry]

"Because ..." Lupin hesitated, "because these mapmakers would have wanted to lure you out of school. They'd think it extremely entertaining"

So I'd submit that everyone (except Harry) knew who Wormtail et al were, otherwise why would Snape make the reference to the manufacturers? The manufacturers might be thought dangerous because they believed that Padfoot killed Wormtail and was now escaped from Azkaban. (we now know he didn't kill him) and possibly (b) Prongs turned into Voldemorte ;) Obviously in Snape's view if either of them had supplied the map, it could be a grave security risk. (Obviously Lupin was the fourth nickname)

Phew!

(Edited for splling)