Harry Potter

[Mortis Anarchy]

:):):) No offense was taken. I hope I didn't give that impression. If there is one bad thing about online forums it is that you can't see the face of the person talking and so often things that I say don't come out as I mean them. :D

Haha, yeah totally agree. I'm always a tad worried that I might offend someone...don't want to do that!

[Xtian]

I would not paint all fundelmentalist Christians with the same brush, I was merely giving a example, this caused my mother a lot of trouble at school. The problem grew due to the objections of a Jehovah's Witness.

When the books first came out many groups here is an article I took from an anti-censorship website.

Back to School with the Religious Right


Harry Potter
During the last school year, right-wing groups sought to remove books from the Harry Potter series from schools across the nation by alleging that they are luring students into witchcraft and the occult. On a December 2001 700 Club, host Pat Robertson followed up an interview with an anti-Harry Potter activist by warning that God will forsake nations that tolerate witchcraft. Robertson advised his audience that the Bible said that, "there's certain things that he says that is going to cause the Lord, or the land, to vomit you out. At the head of the list is witchcraft….Now we're welcoming this and teaching our children. And what we're doing is asking for the wrath of God to come on this country….And if there's ever a time we need God's blessing it's now. We don't need to be bringing in heathen, pagan practices to the United States of America."
(XTIAN NOTE: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WITCHCRAFT, in this form, There is Wicca but this is not the same thing. No where in the Harry Potter books is Wicca mentioned, so what is Robertson so worried about. Maybe we should be scared of SANTA CLAUS because is shift the letters around SANTA becomes SATAN. We should always be afraid of things we have no concept of, I mean really, I know many Wiccans and not one can fly on a broom or play quittich for that matter)

Several national religious right organizations, like Concerned Women for America, the Traditional Values Coalition, the American Family Association, and Focus on the Family, have warned their supporters against the dangers of the Harry Potter books. And across the country, parents and religious groups worked to try to get Harry Potter books removed from local schools.

In York, Pennsylvania, a parent, along with a local pastor and elementary school teacher, urged the Eastern York School District to ban the Potter series from district schools. The parent, Deb DiEugenio, complained that the Potter books were "against my daughter's constitution, it's evil, it's witchcraft. I'm not paying taxes to teach my child witchcraft." Tony Leanza, who is a pastor at the New Wine Christian Center as well as a local elementary school teacher, attempted to argue that "Wicca is a religion" and thus the Potter books should be banned because they violate the separation of church and state. The school board eventually voted 7-2 to allow teachers to continue to use the Potter series, provided that students first received a parent's permission.
(Where in the books are the tenets Wicca taught? Oh, right, "do harm to none." Isn't that the same as "treat others the way you be treated"? Is the bible teaching the same thing as Wicca.)

In July 2002, parents in Cromwell, Connecticut sought to have the Potter books, along with Newbery award-winning book The Witch of Blackbird Pond, removed from a local middle school because they supposedly expose children to spells and witchcraft and provide a negative portrayal of Christianity. Dr. J Michael Bates, a pastor in the Emmanuel Baptist Church, urged taxpayers to protest such books, even if they do not have children in the school system. "The public school needs to know that there are people out there who resent this stuff," Bates said. The objectors plan to petition the school board at an upcoming meeting.

(I would love for just one person to show me where these books insult Christianity?)

These sorts of attacks on the Potter series were not isolated incidents. Right-wing groups in cities around the country attacked the series. In Florida, Kansas, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Maine and California, individuals and organizations attempted to keep Harry Potter out of the reach of children.

Perhaps the most intense attack on the Potter books came from the Christ Community Church in Alamogordo, New Mexico, where an actual book burning was held on Dec. 30, 2001. Hundreds turned out to join Pastor Jack Brock's "holy bonfire," where they smashed CDs, videos and records with a baseball bat and burned magazines and books, including the Harry Potter books, which Brock called "a masterpiece of satanic deception."




WHat a bunch of nonsense, I have a better term but I believe that would violate a language code. Just for the record however, I am not a Christian, I am not Wicca, I support the rights of everyone to practice what ever religion they choose, and even though the belief of any particular religion goes against much of what I beleive in, "Religion is the OPIUM of the Masses" I will fight for that right until the practice of any religion infringes on my right to believe in nothing.

Just a correction though, CS Lewis was a strict Catholic from Belfast and JRR Tolkien living in Great Britian was a non-believer until he converted to Catholicism because of the influence from his friend CS Lewis. The Christian mythology is easily seen in Chronicles of Narnia, Aslan sacrifices himself for the sake of a traitor. The Christian mythos can also be seen in Tolkien but it is hidden in allegory.

But back to the topic, I just saw a preview of new Potter movie, I loved it even though it is differant from the others, it is very dark but I am sure as last book is the darkest and Rowling did say she was killing off a major character, odds are on Harry himself to get killed.

But other questions arise: When Padfoot stepped into the curtian did he die or go into a differant deminsion, after all he would have appeared as a ghost like Nearly Headless Nick, the victim of a violent death? What of Dumbledore is he really dead, could he not have the magical powers to survive, (Ben Kenobi transcended death) as did Myrtle, The Bloody Baron etc.?

I can't wait the next few weeks until the last comes out. What will Rowlings write next? Or will she follow Anne Rice into vampyres, religion, werewolves etc.?

Trust me I loved the movie. The book should be great

[Annamariah]

What of Dumbledore is he really dead, could he not have the magical powers to survive, (Ben Kenobi transcended death) as did Myrtle, The Bloody Baron etc.?
The whole ghost thing was explained in the end of the fifth book, when Harry asked Nearly-Headless Nick if Sirius would come back as a ghost. I certainly think that Dumbledore was not a man who would want to become a ghost like Myrtle and Bloody Baron.

(I do wish that Sirius comes somehow back from death and that Harry survives without getting killed, but I don't believe that either will happen :()

[Argyroneta]

I started reading Potter when i had my wisdom teeth out. Now it is the last one of the series i may as well read it!

[MaryEliFit]

I heard that most adults are afraid to admit that they read the Harry Potter series. I don't know why its an awesome book that everyone can read.

[Mortis Anarchy]

I would not paint all fundelmentalist Christians with the same brush, I was merely giving a example, this caused my mother a lot of trouble at school. The problem grew due to the objections of a Jehovah's Witness.

When the books first came out many groups here is an article I took from an anti-censorship website.

Back to School with the Religious Right


Harry Potter
During the last school year, right-wing groups sought to remove books from the Harry Potter series from schools across the nation by alleging that they are luring students into witchcraft and the occult. On a December 2001 700 Club, host Pat Robertson followed up an interview with an anti-Harry Potter activist by warning that God will forsake nations that tolerate witchcraft. Robertson advised his audience that the Bible said that, "there's certain things that he says that is going to cause the Lord, or the land, to vomit you out. At the head of the list is witchcraft….Now we're welcoming this and teaching our children. And what we're doing is asking for the wrath of God to come on this country….And if there's ever a time we need God's blessing it's now. We don't need to be bringing in heathen, pagan practices to the United States of America."
(XTIAN NOTE: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WITCHCRAFT, in this form, There is Wicca but this is not the same thing. No where in the Harry Potter books is Wicca mentioned, so what is Robertson so worried about. Maybe we should be scared of SANTA CLAUS because is shift the letters around SANTA becomes SATAN. We should always be afraid of things we have no concept of, I mean really, I know many Wiccans and not one can fly on a broom or play quittich for that matter)

Several national religious right organizations, like Concerned Women for America, the Traditional Values Coalition, the American Family Association, and Focus on the Family, have warned their supporters against the dangers of the Harry Potter books. And across the country, parents and religious groups worked to try to get Harry Potter books removed from local schools.

In York, Pennsylvania, a parent, along with a local pastor and elementary school teacher, urged the Eastern York School District to ban the Potter series from district schools. The parent, Deb DiEugenio, complained that the Potter books were "against my daughter's constitution, it's evil, it's witchcraft. I'm not paying taxes to teach my child witchcraft." Tony Leanza, who is a pastor at the New Wine Christian Center as well as a local elementary school teacher, attempted to argue that "Wicca is a religion" and thus the Potter books should be banned because they violate the separation of church and state. The school board eventually voted 7-2 to allow teachers to continue to use the Potter series, provided that students first received a parent's permission.
(Where in the books are the tenets Wicca taught? Oh, right, "do harm to none." Isn't that the same as "treat others the way you be treated"? Is the bible teaching the same thing as Wicca.)

In July 2002, parents in Cromwell, Connecticut sought to have the Potter books, along with Newbery award-winning book The Witch of Blackbird Pond, removed from a local middle school because they supposedly expose children to spells and witchcraft and provide a negative portrayal of Christianity. Dr. J Michael Bates, a pastor in the Emmanuel Baptist Church, urged taxpayers to protest such books, even if they do not have children in the school system. "The public school needs to know that there are people out there who resent this stuff," Bates said. The objectors plan to petition the school board at an upcoming meeting.

(I would love for just one person to show me where these books insult Christianity?)

These sorts of attacks on the Potter series were not isolated incidents. Right-wing groups in cities around the country attacked the series. In Florida, Kansas, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Maine and California, individuals and organizations attempted to keep Harry Potter out of the reach of children.

Perhaps the most intense attack on the Potter books came from the Christ Community Church in Alamogordo, New Mexico, where an actual book burning was held on Dec. 30, 2001. Hundreds turned out to join Pastor Jack Brock's "holy bonfire," where they smashed CDs, videos and records with a baseball bat and burned magazines and books, including the Harry Potter books, which Brock called "a masterpiece of satanic deception."




WHat a bunch of nonsense, I have a better term but I believe that would violate a language code. Just for the record however, I am not a Christian, I am not Wicca, I support the rights of everyone to practice what ever religion they choose, and even though the belief of any particular religion goes against much of what I beleive in, "Religion is the OPIUM of the Masses" I will fight for that right until the practice of any religion infringes on my right to believe in nothing.

Just a correction though, CS Lewis was a strict Catholic from Belfast and JRR Tolkien living in Great Britian was a non-believer until he converted to Catholicism because of the influence from his friend CS Lewis. The Christian mythology is easily seen in Chronicles of Narnia, Aslan sacrifices himself for the sake of a traitor. The Christian mythos can also be seen in Tolkien but it is hidden in allegory.

But back to the topic, I just saw a preview of new Potter movie, I loved it even though it is differant from the others, it is very dark but I am sure as last book is the darkest and Rowling did say she was killing off a major character, odds are on Harry himself to get killed.

But other questions arise: When Padfoot stepped into the curtian did he die or go into a differant deminsion, after all he would have appeared as a ghost like Nearly Headless Nick, the victim of a violent death? What of Dumbledore is he really dead, could he not have the magical powers to survive, (Ben Kenobi transcended death) as did Myrtle, The Bloody Baron etc.?

I can't wait the next few weeks until the last comes out. What will Rowlings write next? Or will she follow Anne Rice into vampyres, religion, werewolves etc.?

Trust me I loved the movie. The book should be great

To tell you the truth...whenever I heard that Pope Benadict didn't like Harry Potter, my first thought was, "man you are missing out!"...

I have to agree...this next movie is going to be interesting...darker thats for sure!! We'll see how it goes though...

As for Black, I have a feeling that there is more to the 'veil' than just him 'dying' or whatever. Also, what if Dumbledore comes back as a ghost...thats what my friend thinks, me as well.

[_Shannon_]

Just a correction though, CS Lewis was a strict Catholic from Belfast and JRR Tolkien living in Great Britian was a non-believer until he converted to Catholicism because of the influence from his friend CS Lewis. The Christian mythology is easily seen in Chronicles of Narnia, Aslan sacrifices himself for the sake of a traitor. The Christian mythos can also be seen in Tolkien but it is hidden in allegory.

Lewis was not Catholic. Tolkien was a life long Catholic. Lewis was influenced heavily by Tolkien and Chesterton.

[Mortis Anarchy]

Tolkien was Catholic...Lewis was atheist until his 30's then he converted to The Church of England...but even then he didn't really go to church or anything...just for communion. I just finished a biography.:p

[_Shannon_]

Lewis became Christian primarily in response to reading Chesterton's The Everlasting Man.

[Mortis Anarchy]

Lewis became Christian primarily in response to reading Chesterton's The Everlasting Man.

And because Tolkien's arguements...but yeah..have you read The Everlasting Man?

[Video Drone]

Christians... I'm a deist, but even then, when some Christian friend of mine comes in they always start preaching me about how I should go to church and all and we start the whole debate... I always thought Christianity was all about freedom of religion. And various "God Warriors" don't make it look any better.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the last book, but I am also suspicious of an unsatisfying ending... And it has nothing to do with Harry dying or staying alive, it's just that endings are a problem with complex storylines. -_-

[_Shannon_]

And because Tolkien's arguements...but yeah..have you read The Everlasting Man?

Nope- Orthodoxy, but not Everlasting Man LOL! And Fr. Brown and all the nonsense verse...and Ballad of the White Horse.

[_Shannon_]

Christians... I'm a deist, but even then, when some Christian friend of mine comes in they always start preaching me about how I should go to church and all and we start the whole debate... I always thought Christianity was all about freedom of religion. And various "God Warriors" don't make it look any better.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the last book, but I am also suspicious of an unsatisfying ending... And it has nothing to do with Harry dying or staying alive, it's just that endings are a problem with complex storylines. -_-
Sounds like you need new friends:nod:

[hedbanger]

I read Cat In The Hat still.


What are you getting at? D<

[JJLuke]

The only reason I see adults reading harry potter is to support their children into reading the book. Other than that, I don not find that many adults interested in the book, it is after all very juvenile. Escapism... I do not think any adult would want to escape into high school drama set in a wizard world.

[Stieg]

The only reason I see adults reading harry potter is to support their children into reading the book. Other than that, I don not find that many adults interested in the book, it is after all very juvenile. Escapism... I do not think any adult would want to escape into high school drama set in a wizard world.

I can. Child literature can be both brilliant and beautiful. My mother is in her 60s and she loves reading Harry Potter and other popular child lit. Child lit can be responsive to a reader's idea of novelty or tap a sentimental vein.

[Pensive]

The only reason I see adults reading harry potter is to support their children into reading the book. Other than that, I don not find that many adults interested in the book, it is after all very juvenile. Escapism... I do not think any adult would want to escape into high school drama set in a wizard world.

My mother used to read Enid Blyton and of course not to make her children read it, but because she actually 'enjoyed' reading it 'herself'. Can't an adult read a book just for enjoyment sake?

[Garnet01]

I'm confused as to why any form of literature should be confined to any age range. When I was 10 I was critisised for reading Wuthering Heights because many people thought that I would be unable to capture the intensity and passion within its pages and yet it captivated me. My mother reads His Dark Materials trilogy by Phillip Pullman and she also reads the Chronicals of Narnia. This is not because my mum is having a moment of regression or escapism but because she appreciates fantastic writing styles and enjoys adventure. Does being an adult mean that we aren't allowed to have a Peter Pan moment and just relax into a fantasy land? :)

Just a thought,

Garnet x

[Allerick]

where Harry Potter may have been intended for younger children, i think that the book explores many adult themes, it looks at life changing and affecting issues such as death of parents/friendships/loneliness/not fitting in. the book is written in a way that is easy for everyone of all ages to understand and interpret in their own way. surely this is a main feature of literature i itself??? to interpret a text how you want to make it relevant to our lives today, what ever situation we may be in?

[Stieg]

Adults enjoy child lit for many reasons, it is a different style, embellished and highly imaginative, usually fantasy-based, no less dramatic than adult lit and can have important morals.

Lewis Carroll
Richard Adams
E.B. White
J.M Barrie

are great examples of this.

[Orionsbelt]

:D For those of you who are into childish escapism, mind play, and just plain fun. I saw the movie version for "Order of the Phoenix" last night. :thumbs_up Great stuff from my point of view. Loved the way they expressed some of those ongoing themes that never seem to make it out of the book. Great prelude to the upcoming book release.:banana:

[Stieg]

One other point I failed to mention, adults love to read a story with a child's or young adult's perspective or POV.

[bigape2992]

This question is beyond ignorance. Child escapism? It is imbeciles like you who make me lose faith in humanity. Have you ever even read the books, or have you just seen the movies? Read the books, and try to see the deep meanings behind them instead of the things that appeal to small children. Try going to www.mugglenet.com, and go to the editorial section. There you will learn to broaden your pathetic mind and learn about the immense literary value of the Harry Potter saga. True, the books are favorites amongst children, but there are thousands of serious fans of the books as well. We serious fans analyze the series to no end, noting all the symbolism, allusions, masterful character development, and God knows how much more.

Did you know that many of the people who have contributed most to the fandom are not children? In fact, the most respected include those that do MuggleCast (a small group of college students that do a podcast on literary Harry Potter analysis) and write editorials (many are intelligent high school students, literature majors in college, and occasionally even those worthy of PhD candidacy).

Just go to www.mugglenet.com. I promise that the discussion pages and editorials will help you not only reach a real understanding of Harry Potter but also help you appreciate literature, mythology, history, even more.

Edit: I would like to apologize for the insults. It angers me when people treat Harry Potter as children's books. The truth is that if you actually analyze and understand the series, you would see the true literary value behind them.

[Video Drone]

We shall see what will become of Harry Potter in 10 years. While it is running, we can't judge it.

[bigape2992]

Of course we can judge the books! There are entire websites and books devoted to it, and people spend countless hours analyzing and judging every aspect of the the series! Please support your claim that we can't judge it "while it is running," because there are massive amounts of evidence to the contrary.

[Video Drone]

Well, I can spend hours analyzing and judging every aspect of my favorite movie... in fact, that have gotten quite out of hand... you see, the problem is, just because we like something, or just because we see something in a book or any other work of art does not mean that it is actually there. I have thoughts that many of the Harry Potter fans who are analyzing the book simply love it so much that they see beyond the book itself. The situation, in fact, is very common in fandoms.

Majority opinion does not make anything good or bad. But time often defines whether or not a work had fans loyal enough to remember it for 10, 20, 30 years. If a work was not of great value, it is probably going to be forgotten because those who were its fans were only loyal to it while it was running, while it was popular. If a work has greater value, it may develop a cult following. A work of greatest value will be remembered by a greater amount of people and even remembered in schools and such. Of course, it is all not so certain and straightforward, but it works.

The amount of "follower" a work has does not matter because there are followers who are true (devoted to the work, will remember it after it is no longer running), and not-so-true (those who proud themselves on being the fans of the work, who get angry when the work is bashed and cannot defend it, those who hardly understand the work themselves, just pretend to do it). I did not study the HP fandom, I could as well join it on the side because HP is still one of my favorite books, but I had experience with a fandom before, a fandom of a retired show, and it is miserable indeed. HP fans will be quite happy at the time since everybody loves Harry Potter, but the majority will read it and forget it, as it always happens.

Even if I will agree with what the people on muggle.net have found of HP, it does not mean that me and you and those people are "right". Rightness is a very stretchable concept. It will be well if Harry Potter fans would not become discouraged after Harry Potter is finished. The discouragement of fans after a TV show stops running is huge.

I simply believe that a work of art can only be tested by time.

Of course, this is just my opinion. I'm in the position where my favorite books and movies are not remembered by anyone and are quite negatively reviewed. I've been used to the concept that liking these works of art and studying them too deeply is just my own problem.

[Hyacinth42]

I just finished it... And, there were things I had been hoping for, predicted would happen, extreme suprizes, and a few let downs... And now I want to discuss/gripe about it.... I don't want to spoil it though, and so will wait (although impatiently) for other people who have finished before "discussing" what happened.

[Logos]

Ugh :p could you fix your signature line? break it up into separate lines, remove some of the hyphens, so that it doesn't force the right margin.

[Bakiryu]

I just finished it... And, there were things I had been hoping for, predicted would happen, extreme suprizes, and a few let downs... And now I want to discuss/gripe about it.... I don't want to spoil it though, and so will wait (although impatiently) for other people who have finished before "discussing" what happened.

Please I need to know!!! i can't get the book until my da answers his phone! tell me: Does harry die?:bawling:

[Hyacinth42]

I am torn between being mean because you asked and being nice because being mean is... mean. *sigh* While it would be funny to tell you yes (with total honesty), and then leave you hanging, I will opt to be nice... Yes he dies, but he comes back... It was rather lame, and annoying (a whole bunch of things I had thought would happen happened... and then she ruined it by bringing him back) but, it was still a good book...

[Bakiryu]

Yes! Thank you http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u276/naku_dread/hug.gif

I'll have to wake up at 4 am and travel 300 miles to get my copy on Monday :bawling: but I'd be SO worth it.

[Lily Adams]

I was at my friend's house earlier today, and she got her copy in the mail by the time I got there. Her little sister was curious and looked through the last few pages of the book, and her sister got confused and wanted to ask me a question since

1. I'm not a fan, but I used to be, so I could at least help with the plot a little. Even though I don't remember much because I don't care.
2. My friend didn't want ANY spoilers.
3. Spoilers obviously don't matter with me anymore.

so she dragged me into her room and showed me the end. This is my opinion:

I think the epilogue is...really bad. It reminds me of fanfiction. Bad fanfiction that makes baby Jesus emo. And me emo. Anyone else agree?

[dramasnot6]

Same here Lily! I hate how cliche the whole thing is (especially Harry and Ginny AND Hermione and Ron getting together, how predictable! :sick:) . I was also a bit dissapointed at so few people dying in the novel, all the reviews made it sound like 10+.

[Bii]

Yes, there were elements that were predictable but perhaps you were all expecting too much - it is, after all, a children's book. I thought the ending was nice, and necessary. In the absence of closure in Bloomsbury's desperation to keep their heads above water I wouldn't be surprised if they'd have commissioned someone to write more books which would be damaging to the series. Imagine if more Narnia books were written without C.S Lewis being at the helm?

In terms of the numbers that die, I get it to at least 10, being a combination of major and minor characters. I'd list them, but I don't want to spoil for anyone that's still reading. I was getting close to the end of the book wondering if there would be anyone left.

[applepie]

I actually liked it a lot even with the predictability. It was your basic good vs evil, and I may have been much more sad if the good guys didn't live happily ever after, well at least for the most part. There were losses and gains, but as Bii pointed out, it is a children's series. What did you really expect to happen at the end?? It is a happy end and one that isn't likely to be written around by people wanting to extend the franchise and increase profits.

[Bakiryu]

I can't wait to read it! I'm going to take it to Cuba!

[Niamh]

I was at my friend's house earlier today, and she got her copy in the mail by the time I got there. Her little sister was curious and looked through the last few pages of the book, and her sister got confused and wanted to ask me a question since

1. I'm not a fan, but I used to be, so I could at least help with the plot a little. Even though I don't remember much because I don't care.
2. My friend didn't want ANY spoilers.
3. Spoilers obviously don't matter with me anymore.

so she dragged me into her room and showed me the end. This is my opinion:

I think the epilogue is...really bad. It reminds me of fanfiction. Bad fanfiction that makes baby Jesus emo. And me emo. Anyone else agree?

yes the bit at the end was very disapointing! But over all i really enjoyed the book! I bawled my eyes at the bit with the grave at rons bros house!(i hope this doesnt spoil anything as i havent mentioned what happened etc!)

[Hyacinth42]

I didn't cry but it was rather sad... I mean It just happened out of nowhere, I couldn't believe she killed that character off... Many of the other deaths just seemed random as well...

[Video Drone]

I feel like I have read the book already. I just can't stop myself from reading spoilers. Good thing I care more for the text rather than "how it ends".

[Slrtwobee]

I have to admit, I have had very very few gripes about any of the Harry Potter books/movies, etc. :thumbs_up I really really liked #7. EXCEPT FOR THE STINKY epilogue!! :rage: I am trying to justify this. Maybe I was expecting too much, and after you have had 6 awesome hits, it would be kind of hard to continue to duplicate. However, I was glad to see that Harry didn't die at the end....but to get married and have kids with Ginny somewhat irked me...lol. To this moment, I have no clue why. I guessed Ron and Hermione....and was fine with that one. I just think that she should have stopped right before the...... "19 years later....":sick:

[Hyacinth42]

I think it was more to cement the theme/moral/lesson throughout the books about "choices" and whatnot... It was all about that part where he talked to his son in the end... Although it would have been funny if the last words have been "until now" instead...

[Shalot]

I have to admit, I have had very very few gripes about any of the Harry Potter books/movies, etc. :thumbs_up I really really liked #7. EXCEPT FOR THE STINKY epilogue!! :rage: I am trying to justify this. Maybe I was expecting too much, and after you have had 6 awesome hits, it would be kind of hard to continue to duplicate. However, I was glad to see that Harry didn't die at the end....but to get married and have kids with Ginny somewhat irked me...lol. To this moment, I have no clue why. I guessed Ron and Hermione....and was fine with that one. I just think that she should have stopped right before the...... "19 years later....":sick:

Well, I guess she wanted us to know that Ron and Hermione did in fact get together.

[Niamh]

an that that was her way of showing that voldamort was truely gone, which i think was the purpose of the 19 years later bit, even if it was extremely cheesy. Also i think it was to show that he finally realised the truth of Snape and excepted that he was a brave man. Hence one of his sons being called Albus severus.
That really made me sobby in the book when he's seeing snapes memories...

[symphony]

too much for one who hasnt read the book yet :| ....
i shouldnt have come i shouldnt have come!! :bowling: i know i know!!
damn my ultra-curious mind! :bawling:

erm..harry dies?! and then comes back??! argh okay dont tell me....no tell me what happens!...no dont....erm...i'd better go read the book first!
damn!

[dramasnot6]

The way they present Harrys death and ressurection is kind of religious, like he is being sacrificed for the good of the world.

[Video Drone]

Yeah, then some people come over and say "Harry Potter is really a book on satanism!"

[Niamh]

did anyone else see the connections between Voldamort and his death eaters, and Hitler and the Nazis?

[Video Drone]

Well, if we suggest that the death mark is like the nazi symbol... and so on... but I think it's kind of far-fetched.

I prefer to avoid such connections, I only make such connections with things that I really like and it comes out bizzare anyway...

[SleepyWitch]

did anyone else see the connections between Voldamort and his death eaters, and Hitler and the Nazis?

yep, lots of reviews over here :)

i think they have a point, considering the Death Eaters racial ideology, their muggle-born registration thingy... Voldy's dad was a muggle and he's obsessed with pure blood, styling himself as the purest pure blood wizard of all... Hitler was an Austrian (an illegitimate son of a woman who was also married to her second cousin) who wanted to be the "purest" German of all times... his original last name was Schicklgruber...


i think it's interesting to draw these parallels... What would be so frightening and repulsive about Tommy Boy if there was no connection to 'real life'?
just because Voldy is a powerful wizard doesn't necessarily make him scary. it 's his aims and his means of reaching them that make him evil, not his powers as such.

[SleepyWitch]

.. by the way, I finished the book last night, and I was sooooooooooo proud of Snape...
of course, there were lots of theories (based on next to zero evidence) that he was in love with Lily..., so it was kind of predictable... but it was balm for my weary soul to read "The Prince's Tale" (ch. 33). he was a real hero, to protect the Potter brat for 17 years and spy on Voldy.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/love016.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)Snapehttp://www.freesmileys.org/emo/love029.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)
when I have a son I'll name him Severus (my b.f. doesn't like the idea at all)

[Niamh]

.. by the way, I finished the book last night, and I was sooooooooooo proud of Snape...
of course, there were lots of theories (based on next to zero evidence) that he was in love with Lily..., so it was kind of predictable... but it was balm for my weary soul to read "The Prince's Tale" (ch. 33). he was a real hero, to protect the Potter brat for 17 years and spy on Voldy.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/love016.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)Snapehttp://www.freesmileys.org/emo/love029.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)
when I have a son I'll name him Severus (my b.f. doesn't like the idea at all)

I had a feeling about that for ages, the order of the Pheonix was definitely when i believed it most. Its amazing how you can feel his torment. Did everything in his power to believe that Harry was his dad through and through so that he didnt have to see lily in him incase he cared for Harry. Yet in the end it appears he did.

[SleepyWitch]

I had a feeling about that for ages, the order of the Pheonix was definitely when i believed it most. Its amazing how you can feel his torment. Did everything in his power to believe that Harry was his dad through and through so that he didnt have to see lily in him incase he cared for Harry. Yet in the end it appears he did.
yep, exactly... probably it's only because my perception is warped anyway, but in my humble opinion, Snapes memories is the best-written passage in HP7, except for the chapter where Harry dies and meets DD.

hum, on the other hand, I often wonder whether I'd like Snape so much if it weren't for Alan Rickman in the films... I think if Snape was as geeky and greasy-haired in the films as he is described in the books, and if Rickman's voice wasn't so mesmerizing, I wouldn't find Snape half as fascinating

[motherhubbard]

I havent read anything past book 4. But I really want to know if that stinker that gives harry such a hard time at school (can't think of his name) meats with a bad end? Please, please tell

[SleepyWitch]

I havent read anything past book 4. But I really want to know if that stinker that gives harry such a hard time at school (can't think of his name) meats with a bad end? Please, please tell

Draco Malfoy?
nope, he survives,.. Harry/Ron/Hermione even save his life two times

[Niamh]

yep, exactly... probably it's only because my perception is warped anyway, but in my humble opinion, Snapes memories is the best-written passage in HP7, except for the chapter where Harry dies and meets DD.

hum, on the other hand, I often wonder whether I'd like Snape so much if it weren't for Alan Rickman in the films... I think if Snape was as geeky and greasy-haired in the films as he is described in the books, and if Rickman's voice wasn't so mesmerizing, I wouldn't find Snape half as fascinating

i'm with you on that one.....

Personally i think they should have gotten rid of malfoy, but crabbe i'll do.

[motherhubbard]

was malfoy at least humbled?

[SleepyWitch]

was malfoy at least humbled?
somewhat.. but no way as much as he'd deserve

[applepie]

I was so happy to see Draco humbled. Plus, after seeing the way his family was being made to suffer by Voldermort I was glad he didn't die. The scene where Narcissa lies and declares Harry dead is one of my favorite. It puts a much more human face on the entire Malfoy family and you see that good or bad they are still people and have the same worries and connections of other families. I thought their concern for their son's safety was really touching, and it made me see them as loving parents as well as the bad guys.

[SleepyWitch]

I was so happy to see Draco humbled. Plus, after seeing the way his family was being made to suffer by Voldermort I was glad he didn't die. The scene where Narcissa lies and declares Harry dead is one of my favorite. It puts a much more human face on the entire Malfoy family and you see that good or bad they are still people and have the same worries and connections of other families. I thought their concern for their son's safety was really touching, and it made me see them as loving parents as well as the bad guys.

yep, I liked that, too :)

what do you guys think about JKR's style?
i like reading the books because they are really gripping etc..
but on the other hand, there are lots of opportunities for reflection that she just doesn't make use of. i dunno about other readers, but her style kind a propells me along and forces me to read on and on without thinking. :(

[vheissu]

Just finished reading it!

Out of all the characters that died, Hedwig's was the saddest for me. Ok, it's an owl but it was just too sudden and too soon in the book as well!

Overall impression...a lot better than expected. I didn't particularly like the 6th book, it went too fast and left too many questions. This one at least explained things and didn't rush (too much).

The epilogue could have been written differently, or maybe not written at all. I dunno, it's not just because it was verging on being cheesy but just...somehow unneccessary (sp?). The last chapter already hints at a happy future and all that.

About JKR's style: It does somehow make you read fast and not think. I even jumped 2-3 lines, then went back, didn't understand and eventually read it properly. Maybe it's just the anticipation of wanting to know more as quickly as possible :)

[Orpheus]

Did anyone else think that they spent too much time galavanting around in the woods and on the run? This part seemed to dominate a lot of the book and, in my opinion, could have been improved.

[ben lurie]

i just finished the book a few hours ago.....wow
im really feeling depressed though, and im not reallly sure why
i dont think its because of how the book was or how it was ended, but more the inescapable knowledge that i will never be reading a new Harry Potter book again. it just seems much to soon to be the end of such beloved characters

[ben lurie]

what was going on with the dying baby when he was talking to dumbledore? did i just miss an explanation for that or was it just supposed to be creepy?

[ben lurie]

it seemed to me that the mid section of the book was disproportionately large, them hiding, doing nothing and being grumpy. i understand the need for a lowpoint so the climax can be that much better, but there was an awful lot of harry being pissed off, grumpy angry at ron etc. which i also didnt like about the 5th book....i really wish it wasnt over...i just cant come to grips with the though that that is the end of the harry potter saga

[applepie]

what was going on with the dying baby when he was talking to dumbledore? did i just miss an explanation for that or was it just supposed to be creepy?

I think it was basically the part of Voldermort dying within him. At least that is how I viewed it. That affirmation that it isn't really dead yet, but very weakened. Because of his sacrifice, only the horcrux part of Harry was harmed, I guess. I was a little confused while reading that part too.

[ben lurie]

i think the epilogue definitely left me sad an unsatisfied, but im not really sure why....i knew all along that harry was gonna hook up with ginny and the same would happen with ron and hermione and i really enjoyed that idea but...maybe there was a better way to have shown that? also, while hearing about the lil kids harry and ginny had was fun and all...it isnt nearly as entertaining or romantic as mabe harry just doing something with ginny when he was still 17 and the harry we all know....rowling could have hinted easily that they were gonna have kids etc. but without the 19 years later thign

[ben lurie]

that is an excellent explanation, interesting that it was a baby though? you would think that the horcrux part of harry would be nasty and evil, as it was not a very good part of harry. characterizing it as a baby makes it seem almost like a good part of voldemort, like him as a baby when he was still innocent and nice

[applepie]

that is an excellent explanation, interesting that it was a baby though? you would think that the horcrux part of harry would be nasty and evil, as it was not a very good part of harry. characterizing it as a baby makes it seem almost like a good part of voldemort, like him as a baby when he was still innocent and nice

I think it had something to do with the fact that at first appearance Voldermort was a baby. Something to do with the whole coming back into a physical form thing. It isn't really likely to come back as an adult. He only achieved that as he gained in power.

[ben lurie]

its amazing how much better i feel just talking out the points...do you think rowling will continue to write? or now that shes a billionaire is she done? even if she does start writing again, im gonna have trouble falling in love with new, unknown characters

[ben lurie]

one problem that i had with harry as a character is that he just isnt bad *** enough. this is definitely a typical guy opinion, but seriously, it would have been more convincing if harry had a darker side, when he got pissed off and actually might kill something once and a while...harry seemed all to sensitive, particularly in the later books, it was more understandable in the earlier installments as he was younger, but you think a 17 year old kid might have a bit more fire in him.....however i do realize it is technically a childrens book...even with all my *****in and complaining i still love all the harry potter books more than any other series

[applepie]

I hope that she will continue to write. Even though they are more for children, her books are fast paced and suck you into the story. I love books that can do this for me, and I think it is great when I find myself reading at the same break-neck speed of the action in a book. I don't have issues with new characters, I just hope that they are as enjoyable as her last ones without being the same characters in a different story. This is a trap some of my favorite current authors seem to fall into, and then I lose all interest in the story.

[ben lurie]

i agree, i cant think of an exact example where the author recycles characters, but i know what you mean...it may be hard for her to write more as anything she writes will be scrutinized and compared to the harry potter series, which is undoubtedly a hard series to top

[Orpheus]

Well, you can't expect her to stop writing just because her work is going to be scrutinized and compared. Would you tell a musician to stop playing because he/she is getting old?

[SleepyWitch]

Did anyone else think that they spent too much time galavanting around in the woods and on the run? This part seemed to dominate a lot of the book and, in my opinion, could have been improved.

yep, I think so, too... what was even worse was that Voldemort spent so much time galavanting around the world.. O.K. he was looking for the Elder Wand and he's daft because he doesn't understand about love etc, but he is the most powerful evil wizard ever, so you'd think he'd get things done a bit more quickly.

about Grindelwald: was he mentioned in any of the other books? sorry, I'm really forgetful, especially when it comes to HP books, and I just don't remember...
here's a funny story: last week (before the book was out) a friend of mine told me she was going to a town called Grindelwald in Switzerland. I'd heard of this name before of course, but it sounded funny anyway and I said "Hahhaha, Grindelwald, that sounds like the name of an evil wizard!" and voilà, there he is :)

[SleepyWitch]

one problem that i had with harry as a character is that he just isnt bad *** enough. this is definitely a typical guy opinion, but seriously, it would have been more convincing if harry had a darker side, when he got pissed off and actually might kill something once and a while...
yep, I think so too. that's one of the reasons I don't like the Potter brat too much.
he's set up as the good guy right from the start (what with being a poor poor orphan and all that, you've just got to pity him). there's no point where there's actually any real danger of him chosing evil over good... even though he does get grumpy (adolescence?) there's never any REAL danger of him going over to the dark side... well, there is his mental connection to Voldy, but once he's read Voldy's thoughts/feelings a couple of times and nothing much happens, it's clear that he will not turn into a second Lord Voldemort or something.
Ok, Voldy managed to trap him in part 5, but trapping him (=transmitting false information) and influencing his character are two different things...

in other words, there never really is much choice for Harry, he's the good guy because he's set up as the good guy at the start and we all know the good guy will win.
edit: do you guys have any kid brothers/sister or nephews/nieces etc who read Harry Potter? I'd be really interested to know what little kids think about HP, or if they've got anything to say about it except "I like Harry Potter because it's a good read."
I work with 7-12 y/o kids but none of them reads Harry Potter :(

[Walter]

Can there be more Harry Potter? Of course! Arthur Conan Doyle tried to actually kill off Sherlock Holmes because he wanted to do other things in his life, but the fans demanded otherwise, so Sherlock Holmes came back with an ingenious explanation about how his presumed death had only been apparent.

[Niamh]

I think it was basically the part of Voldermort dying within him. At least that is how I viewed it. That affirmation that it isn't really dead yet, but very weakened. Because of his sacrifice, only the horcrux part of Harry was harmed, I guess. I was a little confused while reading that part too.
i viewed it that way also.

yep, I think so, too... what was even worse was that Voldemort spent so much time galavanting around the world.. O.K. he was looking for the Elder Wand and he's daft because he doesn't understand about love etc, but he is the most powerful evil wizard ever, so you'd think he'd get things done a bit more quickly.

about Grindelwald: was he mentioned in any of the other books? sorry, I'm really forgetful, especially when it comes to HP books, and I just don't remember...
here's a funny story: last week (before the book was out) a friend of mine told me she was going to a town called Grindelwald in Switzerland. I'd heard of this name before of course, but it sounded funny anyway and I said "Hahhaha, Grindelwald, that sounds like the name of an evil wizard!" and voilà, there he is :)
i think he's mentioned in most of the other books when people mention Dumbledores achievements. may even have been mentioned on the chocolate frog cards in book one.

[SleepyWitch]

Can there be more Harry Potter? Of course! Arthur Conan Doyle tried to actually kill off Sherlock Holmes because he wanted to do other things in his life, but the fans demanded otherwise, so Sherlock Holmes came back with an ingenious explanation about how his presumed death had only been apparent.

yep, you're right... but Harry Potter isn't dead... 19 years later he's married to Ginny and has three little kids and leads and utterly mundane and boring life :)
if anything nearly as exciting as his fight against Voldy was to happen to him, it would have to be either in between the end of book 7 and those "19 years later" or after those 19 years.

[Walter]

i think he's mentioned in most of the other books when people mention Dumbledores achievements. may even have been mentioned on the chocolate frog cards in book one.

You have a good memory and you are right! Volume 1, page 120, from the frog card:

Albus Dumbledore
Currently headmaster of Hogwarts
Considered by many the greatest wizard of all time. Dumbledore is particularly famous for his defeat of the dark wizard Grindelwald in 1945, for the discovery of the twelve uses of dragon blood, and his work on alchemy with his partner, Nicholas Flamel. Professor Dumbledore enjoys chamber music and ten-pin bowling.

I just read it. :D

[SleepyWitch]

ah :) thanks Walter
that explains it, I never read part one and two

[plainjane]

yep, you're right... but Harry Potter isn't dead... 19 years later he's married to Ginny and has three little kids and leads and utterly mundane and boring life :)
if anything nearly as exciting as his fight against Voldy was to happen to him, it would have to be either in between the end of book 7 and those "19 years later" or after those 19 years.


Flashbacks are a possibility, or maybe like Bobby in Dallas, it was all a dream..... :roll:

[Walter]

yep, you're right... but Harry Potter isn't dead...

Yes, he isn't dead. All the easier for continuation. As if 'easy' were necessary for continuation anyway, which might be the point of the Holmes example.

[Hyacinth42]

Here is an article that says JKR will write another book, with backstory and epilogue:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/

And here is her saying it again, along with what Harry, Hermione, and Ron are doing:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-07-25-jk-rowling_N.htm

[kratsayra]

I'm late to the party cause I've just finished the book last night. :blush:

I guess I'm just a sucker, but I really liked the epilogue. Even though it's just a story, happy endings of that sort are really reassuring with regards to my own life. So I just like to see them. I guess Harry and Ginny ending up together is a bit silly, but the characters that end up together throughout the books have never been a surprise really. And I'm not surprise that Rowling put it there, I was kinda expecting something like that . . . and of course Neville ends up as a Professor at Hogwarts.

There was a lot of humor with Ron and Hermione finally getting together. When Ron comes back you really think Hermione is going to kiss him, and then she starts punching him. And then when they finally kiss towards the end, Harry's like, "um, guys . . . now's not the best time" (yes, I know that's not a real quote)

I love the chapter when Harry learns all about Snape's life. It's just too fascinating.

And also when Harry asks Dumbledore if his conversation with him is real or in his head and Dumbledore says (and this is a quote): "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" That's probably my favorite line of the book, it really stuck out.

[Logos]

Mod note: moved from General Chat.

[Whifflingpin]

Walter : "Can there be more Harry Potter? Of course! Arthur Conan Doyle tried to actually kill off Sherlock Holmes because he wanted to do other things in his life, but the fans demanded otherwise, so Sherlock Holmes came back with an ingenious explanation about how his presumed death had only been apparent. "

Sleepywitch: "yep, you're right... but Harry Potter isn't dead... 19 years later he's married to Ginny and has three little kids and leads and utterly mundane and boring life
if anything nearly as exciting as his fight against Voldy was to happen to him, it would have to be either in between the end of book 7 and those "19 years later" or after those 19 years."

If JKR is intending to stick with children's literature, and continue in the Harry Potter world, then I'd guess the main characters would be the next generation. Clearly Albus Severus is a character in his own right already, even with so short an introduction.

[kratsayra]

If JKR is intending to stick with children's literature, and continue in the Harry Potter world, then I'd guess the main characters would be the next generation. Clearly Albus Severus is a character in his own right already, even with so short an introduction.

You know what I just realized? Albus Severus' initials are ASP. Interesting, huh? Like a snake. I wonder if it's intentional. (unless Ginny and Harry do the hyphenated last name thing! haha)

[Annamariah]

I love the chapter when Harry learns all about Snape's life. It's just too fascinating.

Ever since the chapter "Snape's Worst Memory" in Order of the Phoenix I've liked Snape and I just COULDN'T believe he was a bad guy even when he killed Dumbledore in the end of the Half-Blood Prince. I just refused to believe he was really with Voldemort... I think the whole Snape loved Lily -thing explains that Snape's Worst Memory chapter pretty well.

You know, when I first read it, I was wondering why it was Snape's WORST memory. I mean, surely James and Sirius had been teasing him in many other occasions, too. After Deathly Hollows I realised it was his worst memory because that was when his friendship with Lily ended :bawling:

[Derringer]

I was generally disappointed with the last book. I haven't liked Harry for a couple of books now - he's almost a mix between Pip from Great Expectations and Holden Caulfield from The Catcher in the Rye .

Generally I would revise all of the novels -- to much re-telling of events by the characters, overtly judgemental of the characters , a muddled philosophy -- Dumbledore is the greatest wizard and his big thing is a 'greater good' --yuck! Too simple!

I noticed the Nazi thing too, and I was looking for some bits and pieces of satire or analogy. Dumbledore's writing could be reminiscint of the Nazi's misuse of the ubermensch.

The exceptance of fate, sacrifice, an exclusive morality, live after death, family, and the soul tend to point towards something similar to Christianity (or possibly a similar religion). Although I guess all of those things tend to be excepted in pop culture anyways. I wouldn't call this book secular though.

[Aiculík]

I was a bit disappointed, too - there were several big mistakes that spoilt the fun for me, like... (spoilers! Don't read orange text if you haven't finished the book yet!)

(like Kreacher suddenly in Hogwarts, or the sword again in the Sorting hat, or disapparating underage students in Hog's Head...)

And I do hope that Rowling is very bad Seer and that Ron and Hermione won't name their children Hugo and Rose. I mean - Hugo? Oh come on. After six books full of strangest and funniest names, the poor boy is Hugo?

[Annamariah]

I was a bit disappointed, too - there were several big mistakes that spoilt the fun for me, like... (spoilers! Don't read orange text if you haven't finished the book yet!)

(like Kreacher suddenly in Hogwarts, or the sword again in the Sorting hat, or disapparating underage students in Hog's Head...)

Well, Kreacher had been in Hogwarts before because of Harry's order, so why couldn't he have gone there again? I guess that the sword coming from the sorting hat is some kind of old and mysterious Gryffindor-thing, I mean the sword really wasn't in the hat when Harry found it in the first place in the Chamber of Secrets, it just somehow appeared into it. And the underage students... maybe they used side-along apparition or floo-network? Well, I'm not sure, but those would be my guesses :D

[grace86]

****Spoilers******


I finished the book yesterday afternoon. Truthfully, I loved all of it. Save for the fact that I was really hoping Dumbledore's eyes were in the shard of glass. But I understood why he couldn't come back.

Well, when the underage wizards were disapperating, the ministry had kind of fallen. Scrimgeour was dead, and Voldemort couldn't control it...he was busy with a war...so considering the students might or might not know how to apparate, no one was going to tell them they broke the law.

I really didn't see the Lily/Snape thing coming, but I am so glad he was a good guy.

The epilogue I liked too, a little mushy and cliche to some, but it is a child's book. Kind of nice to know what happens to them all.

About killing off Lupin and Tonks, I'd rather it been them than Mr. Weasley, as Rowling said she was going to do. Sad for little Teddy, buy apparently he turned out okay. I thought Rowling was going to have Harry raise him or something.

Overall, I really really enjoyed the book. I am sad it is over, but I liked how it ended.

[malwethien]

I just finished it and I am deeply disappointed! I felt that JK rushed into a half-baked explanation of how to kill Voldemort without killing Harry because she ran out of ideas. She was unable to explain clearly about the the blood "connection" between Harry, Voldemort and Lily and the weird phenomenon of Harry and VOlemort's wand...The story was a nice, neat package until that point where it just fell apart. It kinda had the same feeling if the series ended by Harry waking up, finding out that he had dreamt the whole thing and he was still 11 years old sleeping in the cupboard under the stairs. JK took the easy way out. I also think the epilogue was so corny!! It would have been better if they told the readers what happened to the other characters...no just Harry and Ginny and Ron and Hermione who the readers knew for sure would have a happy ending....

I don't know...I just felt that the ending was forced...just so it will finally end. It could have been better....

and by the way...where did Neville get the Gryffindor sword? The last person to have had it was Griphook in Gingotts....so how did Neville end up with it in Hogwarts???

[androcles]

BIGAPE2992,
Why do you answer in such intemperate terms? eg "The question is beyond ignorance"... "Pathetic mind".
Child escapism? Patently so. J.K. Rowling is writing CHILDRENS books and fantasy is certainly a form of ESCAPISM.

[stephofthenight]

i have 2 questions on this book
1. how did the sword of griffindor get back in hogwarts after the goblin ran off with it in the bank...
2. how did draco have anything to do with the elder wand
?

[kratsayra]

i have 2 questions on this book
1. how did the sword of griffindor get back in hogwarts after the goblin ran off with it in the bank...
2. how did draco have anything to do with the elder wand
?

1. The thing about the sword is that it is supposed to come out of the hat for any worthy Gryffindor - no matter where it is or whatever. A bit much, perhaps, but it's just so cool to have Neville wield it. So who cares. Well, not me, anyway.

2. This is more straightforward: Draco was the "real" owner of the elder wand because he is the one who disarmed Dumbledore and took it from him at the end of book 6. Even though Snape did the deed, it was actually Draco who first defeated Dumbledore for his wand. According to all the wand lore explained in book 7, if you beat an opponent, their wand belongs to you. So even though Draco didn't keep the elder wand, it still recognized him as its owner (master?) since he's the one who defeated Dumbledore for it.

[stephofthenight]

indeed u are right...i wasnt thinking about book 6 lol ...and the hat thing i didnt know about.

[MaryLupin]

I am 50, therefore, I suspect, I qualify as an adult. I read (and adore) the Harry Potter novels. I am extremely well read and rather well educated. My children are grown and I read the books for myself. Enough of that.

What I wanted to mention was the impact that early science fiction has had on our culture. There is a website (http://technovelgy.com/ct/ctnlistPubDate.asp) dedicated to tracking inventions and concepts first mentioned in novels. There is a great deal of evidence here for the social impact of stories on our lives.

Stories have a powerful emotional hold. As children what we read teaches us things about how to be human and leaves impressions that we may forget consciously but leaves us looking for certain things when we become adults. In a sense we try to recreate those things in our childhoods that left us feeling positive. Early science fiction read by our current-day scientists may well have shifted the way our society has gone with respect to our technology. I suspect HP may have a similar effect with respect to what the books really teach, which, of course, is not magic.

The question, then, becomes what does Harry teach us about how to be human? About what is valuable? About what to avoid? And what to seek? And what are the limitations we should impose on ourselves in the seeking? Answering those questions make of the books human literature. Children will answer the questions with their limitations showing in the answers. Adults will answer the questions with their own set of limitations. Maybe between the two sets we might get a couple of good answers, and even more importantly, we might come up with one really good question to ask of ourselves and the world.

[PabloQ]

I'm an adult way beyond my youthful years and I enjoyed this series of books very much. I started to read them out of curiosity and got hooked on the world Rowling created. I enjoyed watching Harry and his mates mature. Although targeted to juvenile audiences, the themes in these books, especially death, is quite mature.
As far as infantile escapism goes, I never much needed to escape as an infinite. I was quiet content with sleep, eat, poop, repeat. Who needs to escape a life like that.

[PeterL]

As far as infantile escapism goes, I never much needed to escape as an infinite. I was quiet content with sleep, eat, poop, repeat. Who needs to escape a life like that.

It doesn't get any better.

[Mortis Anarchy]

I was at my friend's house earlier today, and she got her copy in the mail by the time I got there. Her little sister was curious and looked through the last few pages of the book, and her sister got confused and wanted to ask me a question since

1. I'm not a fan, but I used to be, so I could at least help with the plot a little. Even though I don't remember much because I don't care.
2. My friend didn't want ANY spoilers.
3. Spoilers obviously don't matter with me anymore.

so she dragged me into her room and showed me the end. This is my opinion:

I think the epilogue is...really bad. It reminds me of fanfiction. Bad fanfiction that makes baby Jesus emo. And me emo. Anyone else agree?

I totally agree. The epilogue was really bad. It seemed rushed and just came out of nowhere. She could have done a lot of things to make it better....it was rather disappointing.

[Scheherazade]

http://specials.uk.msn.com/MOVIES/Hogwartsentryexam_selfsurvey.aspx

No chance for me:
Un-magical: Your disdain for the supernatural arts and utter lack of magical qualities means you'll never be a Hogwarts student. You should probably go and join the army or something…

[holmesian]

i have read it and liked it. just one question. if the Elder Wand is invincible, how did Dumbledore's wand defeat Grindelwald's Elder Wand?

[PeterL]

http://specials.uk.msn.com/MOVIES/Hogwartsentryexam_selfsurvey.aspx


Where can I get an application?


Scholarship! - You are a prime candidate for Hogwarts School Of Witchcraft And Wizardry. Your nerdy demeanour and love of all things supernatural and weird should send you to the top of the class...

[holmesian]

Potential candidate: Your interest in the magical arts is sufficient to stand you in good stead for a spot at Hogwarts. Keep working on those spells!
now my earlier question once again: if the Elder Wand is invincible, how did Dumbledore's wand defeat Grindelwald's Elder Wand?

[ben lurie]

I'm late to the party cause I've just finished the book last night. :blush:

I guess I'm just a sucker, but I really liked the epilogue. Even though it's just a story, happy endings of that sort are really reassuring with regards to my own life. So I just like to see them. I guess Harry and Ginny ending up together is a bit silly, but the characters that end up together throughout the books have never been a surprise really. And I'm not surprise that Rowling put it there, I was kinda expecting something like that . . . and of course Neville ends up as a Professor at Hogwarts.

There was a lot of humor with Ron and Hermione finally getting together. When Ron comes back you really think Hermione is going to kiss him, and then she starts punching him. And then when they finally kiss towards the end, Harry's like, "um, guys . . . now's not the best time" (yes, I know that's not a real quote)

I love the chapter when Harry learns all about Snape's life. It's just too fascinating.

And also when Harry asks Dumbledore if his conversation with him is real or in his head and Dumbledore says (and this is a quote): "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" That's probably my favorite line of the book, it really stuck out.


i also really enjoyed the part about snape's past life, how he really loved lily but could never express himself properly. and how at the end you find out he was actually a hero, probably just as important as harry himself, and how harry says that he is the "bravest man i ever knew". i also love the quote when dumbledore tells harry its in his head but real. any more comments about the dying baby?

[ben lurie]

wow just reading all these posts has brought on another wave of post-potter depression. if you dunno what that is...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=post-potter+depression
i do not think the epilogue was terrible, and i furthermore think that any ending would have been hated siimply because of what it is, the END OF THE HARRY POTTER BOOKS. i am truly glad it was not a dream, because that has got to be the stupidest ending ever, has anyone else had a dream with that kind of detail and spanning 8 years of your life???? i doubt it

[kratsayra]

wow just reading all these posts has brought on another wave of post-potter depression. if you dunno what that is...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=post-potter+depression
i do not think the epilogue was terrible, and i furthermore think that any ending would have been hated siimply because of what it is, the END OF THE HARRY POTTER BOOKS. i am truly glad it was not a dream, because that has got to be the stupidest ending ever, has anyone else had a dream with that kind of detail and spanning 8 years of your life???? i doubt it

Haha. "Dreams" like that do happen in Star Trek. There is an episode of The Next Generation where Captain Picard lives out an entire lifetime in a dream-state. He thinks he's lived 40+ years or something, but it's only been a few minutes. Only Star Trek though. ;)

[Lyn]

I didn't much like the ending, though I get why she had the epiologue - to kill off the story. It gives it a real terminal quality, she can't write any more cos now we know where their lives 'ended up.'

[StayGolden]

now my earlier question once again: if the Elder Wand is invincible, how did Dumbledore's wand defeat Grindelwald's Elder Wand?

Doesn't Rita Skeeter say in an interview about her book that there never was an epic battle between Dumbledore and Grindelwald? Grindelwald handed over his wand and went quietly?

Anyway. I thought the entire book read like a badly written fanfic. It dragged on during the middle, it didn't answer questions left over from the other books, the deathly hallows played an incredibly small part in the book despite the title, and even for a children's book it was incredibly predictable. Don't get me started on the god-awful epilogue, either.

JKR said in an interview that after almost 17 years of writing the series she just wanted it to be over, and that's more than obvious when reading this book.

[Taliesin]

We will probably not read it again.
Or, if we will, then not in the following three years.
It was OK, but not much more.

[Bakiryu]

The book was ackward and a bit boring and SHE KILLED OFF ONE OF THE TWINS! she should be prosecuted!

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u201/KenyaRayn/Anime/thingimade.jpg

[Dublo7]

Am I the only one that stopped reading this book half way through and desired never to look at it again?

It's exactly what happened to me with The Dark Tower. I got to the 7th book, read half way through, and could no longer continue.

I think there's something about the number 7 ;)

[JediFonger]

as with many things that i like (return of the jedi, return ofthe king, matrix revolution, etc.), i just love endings, especially if they are well done.

i think the epilogue is meant to say they all grew up and harry found peace through ron's family.

there's 1 detail that's slightly disturbing. was harry's kids snogging with ron's kids... cause harry+ron are now related by blood through ginny... ewww >).

anyways, it was pretty fantastic ending and i really dig it, especially the christ-like ending.

[tudwell]

there's 1 detail that's slightly disturbing. was harry's kids snogging with ron's kids... cause harry+ron are now related by blood through ginny... ewww >).

That was Harry's adopted son, Teddy (Teddy Lupin, the son of Remus and Tonks) snogging Victoire, Bill and Fleur's kid. Nothing disturbing about it.

[Chem]

anyways, it was pretty fantastic ending and i really dig it, especially the christ-like ending.[/QUOTE]

I just want to say that i loved the book and am already onto my second time reading it! But i dont get the "christ-like ending" reference??

[Bakiryu]

Am I the only one that stopped reading this book half way through and desired never to look at it again?


Nope. This last book was so bad it made me cringe. Wish I could throw it out my window like i did with that accursed Great Expectations.

[Dublo7]

Nope. This last book was so bad it made me cringe. Wish I could throw it out my window like i did with that accursed Great Expectations.
:thumbs_up

[JediFonger]

judeo christian notion of jesus christ sacrificing himself in order to save the world. just like harry did.

specifically, the garden of Gethsemane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Gethsemane
parallels harry's acceptance of his own death to save the world, etc. as he was walking in the forrest towards Voldermort :)


anyways, it was pretty fantastic ending and i really dig it, especially the christ-like ending.

I just want to say that i loved the book and am already onto my second time reading it! But i dont get the "christ-like ending" reference??[/QUOTE]

[Pensive]

I liked it. Everything was quite fine, well, except the epilogue! All was well annoyed me a bit. And I had not the slightest idea that my previous lit-net signature (and the first one, this one now is the second one) if someone remembers would be something I would come across again in HP series, and not once or twice, even more times! :p

This was it:

Wit Beyond Measure Is Man's Greatest Treasure! :)

[JediFonger]

i think the epilogue was put there to illustrate that the children have grown up into adults... just as the children who read HP will one day re-read HP to their kids and realize that the very last epilogue was written just for them! =P. it's a very nifty idea.

[Lote-Tree]

I have now read the final installment in the Harry Potter Series - The Deathly Hallows. The morally ambiguous character Severus Snape turned out to be a hero after all. Love - the Power of Unrequited Love - seems to redeem him.

What say you?

Is Severus Snape a Hero?
Did his love redeem him?

[TheFifthElement]

I wouldn't say he was a hero, more like he was morally ambiguous. If he'd had the power to turn Lily's love away from James, and that power was evil, he'd have used it.

I don't think love redeemed him either. Love made him bitter, and angry. Love was both the cause and the cure of his problems.

Of course none of it was real, or was it?.....

[Pensive]

Love - the Power of Unrequited Love - seems to redeem him.

Don't know about redeeming, but it did give his life a purpose - to save Harry and to work as Dumbledore's agent. Poor Snape, I felt pity on him as well. But don't know why can't bring myself to call him Severus yet! Yeah, can't bring myself to get on first name basis with Professor Snape!

I told ya (in a thread I don't remember), love is not always about being on the receiving end. :)

[Lioness_Heart]

I'm not sure he's really a hero either. He has heroic moments, but that's mixed in with a lot of unpleasantness.

And as for the love thing, I'm not so sure. Does that make him less of a hero, because he wasn't doing good for the sake of good - it seemed a bit like an attempt to bring Lily back almost, as if he could undo the past by helping Harry.

[Lote-Tree]

I wouldn't say he was a hero, more like he was morally ambiguous. If he'd had the power to turn Lily's love away from James, and that power was evil, he'd have used it.

I don't think love redeemed him either. Love made him bitter, and angry. Love was both the cause and the cure of his problems.

Of course none of it was real, or was it?.....

But he been to the Dark Side and Choose Good because of LOVE? None of the other characters done that - even Dumbledore! Dumbledore was tempted that is all.


Don't know about redeeming, but it did give his life a purpose - to save Harry and to work as Dumbledore's agent. Poor Snape, I felt pity on him as well. But don't know why can't bring myself to call him Severus yet! Yeah, can't bring myself to get on first name basis with Professor Snape!


No. Not many would invite him to dinner in the evening. But the anger, the bitterness, the terrible sadness about him makes him a unique character - a character that strides both the dark and the good?


I'm not sure he's really a hero either. He has heroic moments, but that's mixed in with a lot of unpleasantness.


He is more of an Anti Hero than hero - but there is something unique about him?



And as for the love thing, I'm not so sure. Does that make him less of a hero, because he wasn't doing good for the sake of good - it seemed a bit like an attempt to bring Lily back almost, as if he could undo the past by helping Harry.

No. But he choose good for LOVE - isn't that something?

[Bakiryu]

I think Lily should have chosen him instead of James I hates James!

[Lote-Tree]

I think Lily should have chosen him instead of James I hates James!

But would he have learnt the true lesson of love if he did?

[Bakiryu]

Now but he would've been happy anyway. Love doesn't have a lesson.

[Lote-Tree]

Now but he would've been happy anyway. Love doesn't have a lesson.

It does. It teaches you about loss...and regrets...and pain...and sadness...and sorrow...and of fulfilment...of hope...of joy...of meaning...

[Bakiryu]

Those things can be learned over time. People shouldn't suffer for the sake of love.

[Lote-Tree]

Those things can be learned over time. People shouldn't suffer for the sake of love.

If it does not hurt - it ain't love...

[TheFifthElement]

But he been to the Dark Side and Choose Good because of LOVE? None of the other characters done that - even Dumbledore! Dumbledore was tempted that is all.


Well, it could be said that he chose Good when he had nothing left to lose, because his love was gone. So he only became Good (ambiguously so) when he was a broken man, often as people choose the dark path in life when they feel they have nothing left. Was choosing the path of goodness an act of self-destruction for Snape?

[Lote-Tree]

Well, it could be said that he chose Good when he had nothing left to lose,


He put his life in danger did he not?
He did not have to do this does he?



So he only became Good (ambiguously so) when he was a broken man, often as people choose the dark path in life when they feel they have nothing left.


So why did he choose the good then for Lily?



Was choosing the path of goodness an act of self-destruction for Snape?

No. Act of redemption?

[TheFifthElement]

He put his life in danger did he not?
He did not have to do this does he?

No, but when you've nothing left to live for then you can be reckless with your life.




So why did he choose the good then for Lily?


Or because he couldn't remain with Voldemort when he threatened the only thing he'd ever loved. If he loved Lily so much, and her love could save him, why didn't he choose the path of good when she was alive, when he knew it was so important to her. Instead he let her die. He could have done more.


No. Act of redemption?

Or an act of revenge? Against the person who took away his love.

Of course ultimately it's because JKR said it is so. Oh the power of a writer, almost like playing God.


If it does not hurt - it ain't love...

So true, so true.

[Lote-Tree]

No, but when you've nothing left to live for then you can be reckless with your life.


Perhaps. But there is element of self-preservation even when you have nothing to live for. And he never tried to commit suicide. He wanted to live.



If he loved Lily so much, and her love could save him, why didn't he choose the path of good when she was alive, when he knew it was so important to her.


Here he shows how human he is. So often we hurt those that we love the most - either through our actions or inactions or misunderstanding...



Or an act of revenge? Against the person who took away his love.


But he never tried to kill Voldermort. He could have died trying.



Of course ultimately it's because JKR said it is so. Oh the power of a writer, almost like playing God.


The redemption is this: His been to the dark side. And only love brought him back to the good side.

Snape embodies what most human tend to be - a mixture of good and bad. Some only act on the good - we call them Saint's and others tempted by the bad - we call them villains. But most straddle between the moral ambiguity between the two.

[TheFifthElement]

Snape embodies what most human tend to be - a mixture of good and bad. Some only act on the good - we call them Saint's and others tempted by the bad - we call them villains. But most straddle between the moral ambiguity between the two.

True, JKR has captured this well as the books have gone on, and perhaps reflected what is the core problem for most teenagers, the discovery that adults don't have all the answers, and sometimes they aren't as wholely good as we'd been led to believe. Snape was darker than most of the characters, so it was more pronounced in his case, but all the main characters were straddling the void between 'good' and 'evil', including Harry.

I'm still not convinced that it was love that redeemed Snape, if he hadn't loved Lily his life may well have been much more simple (and perhaps boring ;) )

[Annamariah]

Or because he couldn't remain with Voldemort when he threatened the only thing he'd ever loved. If he loved Lily so much, and her love could save him, why didn't he choose the path of good when she was alive, when he knew it was so important to her. Instead he let her die. He could have done more.

But Snape DID choose the path of good while Lily was still alive. He told Voldemort about the prophecy before he knew it would lead to Lily's death. As soon as he found out that Voldemort was going to attack the Potters, he told Dumbledore all about it in hope of saving Lily. It wasn't Snape's fault that the plan didn't work, it backfired because Peter Pettigrew betrayed Lily and James.

[Pensive]

But Snape DID choose the path of good while Lily was still alive. He told Voldemort about the prophecy before he knew it would lead to Lily's death. As soon as he found out that Voldemort was going to attack the Potters, he told Dumbledore all about it in hope of saving Lily. It wasn't Snape's fault that the plan didn't work, it backfired because Peter Pettigrew betrayed Lily and James.

I whole-heartedly agree over here! I think he did all he could do and for the best interests of Lily.

[Niamh]

But Snape DID choose the path of good while Lily was still alive. He told Voldemort about the prophecy before he knew it would lead to Lily's death. As soon as he found out that Voldemort was going to attack the Potters, he told Dumbledore all about it in hope of saving Lily. It wasn't Snape's fault that the plan didn't work, it backfired because Peter Pettigrew betrayed Lily and James.

Exactly!

[Lote-Tree]

I'm still not convinced that it was love that redeemed Snape, if he hadn't loved Lily his life may well have been much more simple (and perhaps boring ;) )

What is redemption but to take responsiblity for your mistakes?
And Snape did that with his life?

[TheFifthElement]

But Snape DID choose the path of good while Lily was still alive. He told Voldemort about the prophecy before he knew it would lead to Lily's death. As soon as he found out that Voldemort was going to attack the Potters, he told Dumbledore all about it in hope of saving Lily. It wasn't Snape's fault that the plan didn't work, it backfired because Peter Pettigrew betrayed Lily and James.

Did he choose the path of 'Good', or did he choose to place his love for Lily above his fear of Voldemort, and it just so happened that the way to achieve that was to betray Voldemort, secretly? The path of good was expedient, rather than a conscious choice. Would he have stood by and allowed James and Harry to be killed, if Lily's safety was guaranteed, or in fact if Voldemort could have delivered Lily to him on a platter? How many other people did he not care about, didn't try to protect.

His choice was selfish, not motivated by the desire to be 'good', or do the right thing.

[Pensive]

His choice was selfish, not motivated by the desire to be 'good', or do the right thing.

Thinking the best for someone you love is a good thing. And if that is selfish, then most of our choices are selfish. Perhaps all are.

[TheFifthElement]

Thinking the best for someone you love is a good thing. And if that is selfish, then most of our choices are selfish. Perhaps all are.

It's a perceptive point you make Pensieve, and I fall into my own paradox here because I truly do believe that everything we do, we do for selfish reasons. That being said my point was not so much that Snape was thinking the best for Lily, but rather that he was thinking about what was best for himself, and therein his actions were selfish.


Thinking the best for someone you love is a good thing.

This point made me think. If someone does something out of love, does that always make it good?

[Pensive]

It's a perceptive point you make Pensieve, and I fall into my own paradox here because I truly do believe that everything we do, we do for selfish reasons. That being said my point was not so much that Snape was thinking the best for Lily, but rather that he was thinking about what was best for himself, and therein his actions were selfish.

Yeah, the whole selfishness thing is quite complex itself. Don't we all think the best for ourselves? Even when we choose to sacrifice something belonging to us, don't we do it to soothe ourselves? Don't we make this choice for a happy conscience? :)



This point made me think. If someone does something out of love, does that always make it good?

Nope, it doesn't but sticking to your love (especially if this sticking wouldn't be a source of hurt generally) or thinking the best for your loved one I think is quite good. Snape did that. If this makes him selfish, then we all are selfish. :p

[Lote-Tree]

That being said my point was not so much that Snape was thinking the best for Lily, but rather that he was thinking about what was best for himself, and therein his actions were selfish.


How so? How is protecting Harry best for him?

[TheFifthElement]

How so? How is protecting Harry best for him?

Who said anything about Harry?

[Lote-Tree]

Who said anything about Harry?

You said Snape acted on selfish reason's but how is protecting Harry a Selfish reason?

[TheFifthElement]

You said Snape acted on selfish reason's but how is protecting Harry a Selfish reason?

Snape acted on selfish reasons in turning from Voldemort to the 'path of good' because what prompted the move was the threat to Lily. Once on the path of good it would take some intervening act to turn him back to the dark side (oops, wrong reference!) which never occurred. Perhaps what held him there was his commitment to Dumbledore, considering he never showed any affection for Harry, merely despised him because of his resemblance to his Dad.

Why do you think Snape stayed on the path of good?

[Lote-Tree]

Why do you think Snape stayed on the path of good?

Because he loved Lily and felt he was responsible for her death: Remorse.

[Gadget Girl]

OK, I'm a fan of the Harry Potter books since the first movie showed up until I read the epilogue of HP Deathly Hallows. I was really, really disappointed, wishing that I could change it or wishing it never happened. *sighs*

The whole world knows and maybe have read all the seven Harry Potter books -- some of them likes the ending and some of them don't. In every book that you read or in every movies that you watched, the ending really matters there. What's the use if -- for example, there are three books and the first two books are really cool, but the last one sucks pretty bad. That also goes in movies and in some other stuffs. It's like you are creating a building very slowly and then at the end, it brokes and all your hardships were wasted. POOF! Gone. Nothing left.

[applepie]

I thought the ending of number 7 was still alright. It gives the series closure, and it also lets you know that Voldermort is well and truly gone this time. I also like that it shows that everyone survived. Not just keeping their lives, but everyone pulled together the pieces of life even after everyone lost. They were able to come back from something terrible, but they didn't forget the people who lost their lives so they could live. I thought it was touching, and it was a nice way to end the series even if it was a little cliche.

[Gadget Girl]

Potter fans, I have something to tell you! Dumbledore is gay! Do you believe that? He was in love with his enemy Grindelwald when he was young. Here is part of the article from:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/10/22/books.potter.dumbledore.ap/index.html




NEW YORK - With author J.K. Rowling's revelation that master wizard Albus Dumbledore is gay, some passages about the Hogwarts headmaster and rival wizard Gellert Grindelwald have taken on a new and clearer meaning.

The British author stunned her fans at Carnegie Hall on Friday night when she answered one young reader's question about Dumbledore by saying that he was gay and had been in love with Grindelwald, whom he had defeated years ago in a bitter fight.

'"You cannot imagine how his ideas caught me, Harry, inflamed me,'" Dumbledore says in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," the seventh and final book in Rowling's record-breaking fantasy series.

The news brought gasps, then applause at Carnegie Hall, the last stop on Rowling's brief U.S. tour, and set off thousands of e-mails on Potter fan Web sites around the world. Some were dismayed, others indifferent, but most were supportive.


I can't believe it... do you?

[RoCKiTcZa]

Definitely enough! Still quite reasonable, though. I would've inferred that from the content of the books, yet I never did notice.

[StayGolden]

Officially "outting" Dumbledore was unnecessary. It added nothing to the series, other than to be politically correct and add a gay character to the roster.

There was plenty of inference in the last book for people to make that connection if they wished.

[Gadget Girl]

I just wonder why J.K. Rowling said this after the seventh book? I mean, why did she destroyed the character of Dumbledore, the Headmaster of Hogwarts and the only man Voldemort feared, and made him gay without even adding some important parts to the story? You're right that it added nothing to the story and I don't know the reason behind it.

[mihaela]

that is so repulsive, it hurts. the thing that made dumbledore so inspiring was exactly the fact that he always seemed above the average day-to-day controversies and hassles. i can't imagine what she was thinking if she said such a thing; saying he's gay isn't going to make his character more complex, it's just going to objectify it. until 5 minutes ago i held that character in high esteem, now all i can think about is his "maddening, impossible love and antagonistic desires that marred his life". great. oh, the cultural diversity of it all.

[Gadget Girl]

*sighs* Why did JKR made Dumbledore gay?? It's just so... impossible to think, y'know. I never thought that he is when I was reading the whole Potter series until she told us.

[mihaela]

you know what? i don't care what she's gonna say now, she can say dumbledore's gay, harry is transsexual and ron's mother is actually a lesbian, with the pretext they're all "such wonderful people", i won't care and not really listen too much to it.
at least she didn't ruin the books

[Gadget Girl]

Well, yeah, I guess...

[Big Al]

Who the hell cares? All the books are completely average.

[vheissu]

I can't say that I understand it either. Not that he's gay, I had kind of thought about it while reading the last 2 books, but why actually say it now.

But then, if the HP series is targeted to the younger audience, can you imagine what would have happened if she had mentioned it in one of the books? It's bad enough that some people think that it's a book on witchcraft and should be banned, which is completely silly.

And if she was specifically asked about it and had already formed a complete idea on Dumbledore's character then it's her right, as the author, to say so.
I can't believe she made it up on the spot.

And no, it doesn't change the books at all for me. It just adds more information on one of the characters which isn't really necessary to know but does no harm to the overall series.

[Dori]

(Yes! 100th voter!)

I believe the whole series is overrated. And to think she's got rich off of it.

[cleo]

I totally agree with Faith. I am in my mid 40's and I truly enjoyed the harry Potter books. It seems to me the people that didn't like the books are snobbish.

[StayGolden]

I just wonder why J.K. Rowling said this after the seventh book? I mean, why did she destroyed the character of Dumbledore, the Headmaster of Hogwarts and the only man Voldemort feared, and made him gay without even adding some important parts to the story? You're right that it added nothing to the story and I don't know the reason behind it.

I don't think she "destroyed" Dumbledore's character, and his being gay doesn't change my opinion of the series in the least. I simply think it's unnecessary to know his sexual preference, and feel the JKR only did it to prove to "fandom" that she was capable of having a gay character in her books. *shrugs*

But, that's just my opinion.

[applepie]

Outing Dumbledore was entirely not needed. In some ways I think it takes away from being able to read things into the actions within books. I was never struck by the realization that he was gay, but if others were, great. They were on the money and I didn't see it. I don't really care one way or another, I just don't see why it was necessary to make a statement about it. Other authors don't normally go around making statements about the characters in their books, and I feel a little robbed that Rowling has. I like to form my own "images" in my head about the characters in the books I read, and to have someone tell me what a character is and isn't is bothersome. It leaves little to my own imagination, and that isn't any fun for me. It makes me wonder if she is trying to keep the books in the public light by revealing things like this just to increase sales. What other surprises about the characters will she reveal in the future????

[packersfan]

To me, J.K.Rowling didn't ruin the character of Dumbledore or the Harry Potter series in general... She ruined her reputation, to me. Who cares about Dumbledore's sexuality? I mean, the way she developed characterization was great and everything, but after the book, who cares? To me, if Dumbledore was gay or not, he is still the same character. So there was absolutly no need for this.

[Gadget Girl]

To me, J.K.Rowling didn't ruin the character of Dumbledore or the Harry Potter series in general... She ruined her reputation, to me. Who cares about Dumbledore's sexuality? I mean, the way she developed characterization was great and everything, but after the book, who cares? To me, if Dumbledore was gay or not, he is still the same character. So there was absolutly no need for this.

Yes, I think JK destroyed her reputation instead of Dumbledore. I admit that changing Dumbledore's sexuality adds nothing to the books and I'm glad about that. She can do whatever she wants 'cuz she's the author, but I don't get it why she has to say this whole thing.

You said there's no need for this, but we're still discussing it! :lol: Unless after my post, no one will post back. :D

[grittylit]

outing dumbledore, in my opinion, was just to keep the spotlight on her. for the last 10 years there has been this strain and need for her to reveal info about the next book - she doesnt hold that power anymore.

i never suspected dumbledore to be gay, i suppose the thing with him and flamel may make sense, i think they were written about just as good friends though. why make the person that has the most power in the book (ulitimately after harry) gay? what does this acheive to the author? there is nothing explored about this with any other aspect of the book.. so it just seems something that was said to get a rise out of the media....

just my 2c

[Gadget Girl]

Gritty, you are also right. When I was reading the last book, I thought to myself, 'if this is the seventh and final book of the HP series, then why it has so many missing, unexplained parts that would support the previous ones?' I was finishing the book that time, 'I guess there will be an eighth book for JKR to explain everything', but when I checked an HP site, they said she will make an HP encyclopedia to explain the whole lot of questioning. I guess she's doing this so that the HP mania wouldn't end.

[Pensive]

Interesting news, but such news lose much charm when not included in the novel. It would have been better if she had mentioned it in the novel (there was so much else about Dumbledore there!). Actually, from nowhere while reading Deathly Hallows, I got this idea. I wonder if she just made it up.

It appears like Rowling wanted to create some drama and excite HP fans out there. (Has the increasing rate in the stock of pointless HP fanfictions got any less?)

[cactus]

Hi all,

When all the hype about HP flooded my social network, I bought the first book to see what it was all about. I read the first 10 pages and the put the book down. You can understand that after being fully engrossed in Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series I could not find any interest in HP.

As a child/teenager I had enjoyed many fantasy books (eg The Scatterling) and frankly in comparison I did not find HP topping those books (although they are not as well known)... Perhaps my extensive reading of fantasy books for young adults those many year ago have killed my openness to HP or perhaps I am passed the stage of teenage fantasy books....

Cactus

[grittylit]

id say read past the first 10 pages. actually stick with it past the first half of the first book.... i hated it when i first flicked through it, back in 1999, but i ran out of things to do on a 22hr flight and it became my last resort, and im so glad it was - ive been hooked ever since and have been one of the embarassing few to buy the next issue the first day it was out and reading the whole book within 24hs (if i had nothing on)... the first half of the first book was and still is a bit of a disapointment... but you will regret it if you dont get to the third or fourth books - imho they go downhill from here also - but are still interesting as you want to find out what is behind the prophecy and find out why harry is 'invincible'...

[novelsryou]

Mommy, people say Dumbledore is gay. What's gay?

[Petrarch's Love]

I personally have always thought that the Dumbledore character is loosely based on someone she knew--probably a teacher, professor or similar mentor (though obviously its a modified and idealized portrait). Perhaps the person she based him on is gay? Just speculation of course, but my sense is that, in any case, this wasn't some sort of spur of the moment attention getting device. I think this is something she's thought of as being a part of the character for a long time. I don't think it's at all unusual for authors to have all sorts of details about characters in their mind that aren't necessarily written into the story, especially when you've been writing a character for as long as Rowling has.

[Gadget Girl]

It could affect the child readers, but JKR is focusing on teenagers and adults as her books slowly reaching the end -- it's getting darker and darker in each book. But now that the series had ended (finally), I think JKR wouldn't let go easily. She wanted more people and the fans since the beginning to love the books as they loved it before, so she is finding some way to bring the enthusiasm of the fans to her books again. Some people who had read the ending - or should I say the epilogue - were disappointed. So she has to find a way to bring her fans to still cherish Harry Potter.

I just can't accept that she has to say Dumbledore is gay. It's pointless.

[Nasser]

She cant destroy dumbledore's character.
She'z already made him too great to be tarnished.
I would not fall for it even if Jk turned into Rita Skeeter and wrote Harry potter and dumbledore's darkest secrets,( say book 8 or something).

[Etienne]

I voted no, but simply as they are much too much overrated. I read the few first ones some years ago and enjoyed them, but I can't say it was great nor it was bad, but there's so much good literature, that alright is not enough.

[Nasser]

Yeees

[grittylit]

I personally have always thought that the Dumbledore character is loosely based on someone she knew--probably a teacher, professor or similar mentor (though obviously its a modified and idealized portrait). Perhaps the person she based him on is gay? Just speculation of course, but my sense is that, in any case, this wasn't some sort of spur of the moment attention getting device. I think this is something she's thought of as being a part of the character for a long time. I don't think it's at all unusual for authors to have all sorts of details about characters in their mind that aren't necessarily written into the story, especially when you've been writing a character for as long as Rowling has.

yes this is a really good idea

[Lezlie]

I think the Harry Potter series is a best seller for a reason. It speaks on the battle between good and evil, losing loved ones, prejudice, battles against authority, and many other things. I do not understand why everyone is giving it so much flak on this site just because it is so popular. I do agree that alot of things that are considered "mainstream" are grossly overrated, but I do not think that this applies to the Harry Potter series. I do think it was unnessecary for the author to say Dumbledore was gay though.

[Noisms]

The things that people often cite about Harry Potter as its qualities have been done better so many times before, which doesn't make it terrible, but certainly detracts from its status. Dealing with loss? Battles between good and evil? Consequences of actions? They're all tropes of fantasy literature that stretch back to the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Meanwhile, the plotting is incredibly weak - full of holes and Deus ex Machina that would put The Hardy Boys to shame.

None of those things makes it bad literature, of course. It's written for kids, and plenty of kids' books are full of cliches and daft plot devices. But it baffles me that adults should get anything from it other than a comforting sense of nostalgia for their own youth.

[DigitalLove]

I didn't know even one person who was reading Harry Potter until the book started being hyped non-stop on the news. It's fascinating to see how easily people can be manipulated.

[Gonturan]

I'm a Harry Potter obsessee and I could go on forever about the books' good qualities, but I do have to agree with you on the sense that they are, in fact, overrated. Its just that the Potter books are so easily discussed. Rowling likes to put little clues and hidden meanings in her narrative, and I'm such an obsessive Potter fan because I like to try to find those clues. Also, you have to admit that Rowling's world is quite creative and she manages to make it seem believable no matter how fantastical the magic gets.

On the topic of Dumbledore being gay, I do not believe that it was a superfluous character trait; from the intimate way that I know Rowling knows her characters after all this time and the matter-of-fact way that she revealed the information, I think that it was just another characteristic of Albus that she did not feel was neccassary to include in the books. Remember, JKR only revealed that he was homosexual after being asked by a reader if he had ever loved anyone, and in order to answer that question she sort of had to, right?

[Gadget Girl]

What's the point? She can always say "no, Dumbledore is Dumbledore and he was in love with McGonagall when they first met". It would be fascinating! :D

[Pensive]

What's the point? She can always say "no, Dumbledore is Dumbledore and he was in love with McGonagall when they first met". It would be fascinating! :D

Well, that might have seemed very obvious. Dumbledore being gay seems like an information most of us (it seems to me) were not probably expecting and authors love to give a thrill you know.

[Gadget Girl]

I know that, Pensive. It's just that Dumbledore and McGonagall being together is a good pairing. Look at Ron and Hermione for example -- it was VERY obvious! I'm a Harry and Hermione shipper because the both of them can be a good couple than Ron and Hermione. I thought that Rowling was just using Ron so that people won't think that Hermione will end up with Harry. I really, really thought that they would be together because it was not expected.

[Niamh]

Dumbledore and McGonagall?
Now you are just getting too wierd.....

[Gadget Girl]

It's better than Dumbledore and Grindelwald.

[andypants1792]

i am a 15 year old reader of all the HP books, and i am saddened by the fact that there wont be any more.
also, you said that they dont supply increase IQ blah blah blah.
that doesnt matter. the thing is, these books are written NOT so that literature people like you can disect them and point out that they dont have good grammar blah blah blah, but they are written for entertainment. it makes me angry with people like you, especially adults, who have never read the books, and are talking about how they are bad and shouldnt have made as much money as they did.
Rowling is an excellent writer and there is nothing i wouldnt give for another harry potter book. the reason kids/teens like them so much is because they take kids away from their current setting and throw them into a different world, if only for a moment. when you read these books it almost feels like you are there. and THAT is why these books make so much money.

[barbara0207]

Welcome to the forum, andy!

Just look at the poll above and you will see that a vast majority likes the HP books - and they're not all teenagers. These books can even charm adults, "throw them in a different world", as you say. I get the impression that most of the critics that find fault with HP are LOTR fans (or some other fantasy books).

And as for the 7th volume being the last - who knows? Event Conan Doyle had to write another Sherlock Holmes story although he had even gone so far as to kill him!

[Niamh]

It's better than Dumbledore and Grindelwald.

Actually i thought that they were a nice couple. (oddly enough! Amazing how that came to be true! Its discreetly hinted at in the book.)

[alexsears]

Although Harry Potter is a nice, quick, entertaining read, I was wondering whether anybody on this forum shares my view that it is incredibly overrated.

Harry Potter is the bestselling book in history, better then great literary classics, suspenseful mystery novels, and in-depth sci-fi and fantasy worlds. WHY? J.K. Rowling's characters are poorly developed, the plots are full of annoying angst, the villains are cliché, and the writing style is childish.

I have often, on other message boards, expressed by views on Harry Potter and was shunned. I was hoping that on a forum full of well versed, literate people, I could find someone that would agree with me.

Whether or not you agree with me, tell me your views on Harry Potter. you know wy harry potter best..............well people don't want to boring people's peoms going bla bla bla people want exiting edventures and coll magic now isn't that better than bla bla bla boring bla bla zzzzzzz the maker probly bored himself to sleep writing poems i woul rather jump off a cliff than listen to bla bla bla boring boring bla bla bla.

[yummymummy]

I'm sorry to disagree with those who hate HP because it's commercial but in my job in a primary school I see children glued to these books, children that would normally be playing computer games or watching tv, I do think there is to much detail in JKRs writing she doesn't leave much to the imagination but she has got a great many children reading again..

[thelastmelon]

I'm sorry to disagree with those who hate HP because it's commercial but in my job in a primary school I see children glued to these books, children that would normally be playing computer games or watching tv, I do think there is to much detail in JKRs writing she doesn't leave much to the imagination but she has got a great many children reading again..

It's true that she doesn't leave much for the imagination, but I am not sure that is needed though. Because of how she describes everything (people, areas, events) you can feel like you're already there, and you don't need to imagine, when you already feel the place.

Just a theory. :)

[Niamh]

It's true that she doesn't leave much for the imagination, but I am not sure that is needed though. Because of how she describes everything (people, areas, events) you can feel like you're already there, and you don't need to imagine, when you already feel the place.

Just a theory. :)

I completely agree with you. It makes it more real in the mind of the reader.

[alexsears]

Actually i thought that they were a nice couple. (oddly enough! Amazing how that came to be true! Its discreetly hinted at in the book.) actuall i like the pair hari and dumbledor yay i can see it now dumbledor keeping secretes telling hagrid than harid slowly telling harry through the whole thing perfect hey basicly harid gets secretes and telles em to harry and harry tells his freins and dumbledor does not know.

[Gadget Girl]

i am a 15 year old reader of all the HP books, and i am saddened by the fact that there wont be any more.

Don't be. The Harry Potter mania is still there! Rowling will publish HP encyclopedia to support the things that she didn't mention in all seven books like the background of Dean Thomas, the kid at the train station (7th book), McGonagall, etc.

[Oniw17]

In third grade I kind of liked the first book. Not enough to read the others though.

[Lily Adams]

Don't be. The Harry Potter mania is still there!

Whoah, that's for sure. It won't go away. No worries. That's the benefit of liking very popular things.

Anyways, I read up to the fourth book enjoyably over a span of...a year or two, when I was nine or ten, but I became intensely bored when my mom wanted me to read the fifth one to her. I find that it's the same plot over and over again and that irritated me.

So no, I dont like it, but I do enjoy seeing millions of rabid fans in line to get their books or to get into a Harry Potter party or get their books signed by Rowling herself.

[sreeja]

I agree with you .I also very much interested in reading Harry potter.

[zionforsale]

Let see: I owe all seven Harry Porter books. I read them all, every single one of them. I also enjoyed them all very much. If I ever had kids, I would surely encourage them to read HP. Why? Literature starts somewhere. When I was a kid, my parents coursed me to read fairy tales, then Le Petit Prince, then Sans Famille, then Little Women, then Gone With the Winds, then Anna Karenina, then Shakespeare, etc; basically I was lucky to have parents who were very concerned about my knowledge of literature. It is ok to enjoy HP, for kids to enjoy HP. But it is NOT a classic, in my personal opinion.

I think a classic needs to be thought provoking. It needs to be a representation of the art of language. It needs to ask questions and makes us think about humanity and the universe. The battle of evil and good is a fact, not questions like "What is man?" "What is the relationship between human beings and deity?" "Is our nature evil or innocent?" etc. All the while a classic also needs to have a compelling story. One example is tragedies. When you read tragedies, you know that people are going to die. It is predictable, but still you want to read on. That is a good tragedy! You read it for more than just a good story. You read it to learn about bigger things, to discover bigger questions, and to find bigger answers.

It bothers me greatly that in a recent poll, HP stood at the most re-reading book in UK. I think the difficult classics are the ones that should be re-read many times, not HP. I think I might read it again someday in one of those moments where I'm the mood for something entertaining and light, but I have no desire to re-read it now. I also think the amount of money that J.R got from HP is appalling. But that is beside the point!

[Joreads]

I also own all of the Harry Potter books andIo love them. Not all books that you read need to be considered great literature by others. Sometimes it is wonderful to read a book that takes you out of your life and into another world, and that is my aim with reading and what ever does that for you is a great book and for me great literature.

[yewon]

How did you find this final Harry Potter?

Personally I thought it was okay, but my friends thought it was too normal, which means- wasn't enough to their expectations, even boring.

What do you guys think? About the flot and the reverse, all of the characters?

[Latin]

I absolutely agree with your friends....(to normal..)
After all these troubles and "death", Harry at last became the happy family person. Usual "the american dream" has come true..Has not amazed...
If you wish to read really interesting stories about Harry Potter and all characters see http://www.fanfiction.net/book/Harry_Potter/
and enjoy...:cool:

[Joreads]

I have to agree the last HP book did not live up to all the hype but i wonder if any book could have. I still love the series though and would recommend to anyone. For me Order of the phoenix was the best book.

[Gadget Girl]

No, Half-Blood Prince was the best one.

[Dark_Twinkle]

I like Harry Potter, the first four were brilliant because there was a lot of mystery created, and we slowly get to know more about Harry's past and family background.

The fifth, sixth and seventh are now all to reveal the mystery and slowly join the pieces of the puzzle.

The good thing about HP is that JK Rowling has made it feel so real - she has names for everything in the magical world which makes it more believable

[I AM JINX]

I have been reading Harry Potter for a very long time, I loved buying the books when they were really cheap because no-one was really in to them when they first came out.
I waited years for the last one, but was very disapointed, as I would have liked there to be a little more content in the book, as it was rather slim compared to number five. The end of the book came as no suprise really, however I found it hard to supress a laugh when I read that Harry had had children. :)
I actually cried when Dumbledore died, however I was very happy that he was remembered through out the rest of the book. Snap did not suprise me either, I knew he had not converted, I see that one coming, but the end, him and Lilly! OMG! ^.^ I never would have thought it, never!
Well over all every book make me read all night long, and in the early morning, I really could not put them down, some parts disapointed me, but it is like that with every book really, there are parts you like and parts you do not. Harry Potter was amazing, and will always be in my heart.

[eyemaker]

Somehow I find it dragging and nice!!! :D

[Shea]

I think a classic needs to be thought provoking. It needs to be a representation of the art of language. It needs to ask questions and makes us think about humanity and the universe. The battle of evil and good is a fact, not questions like "What is man?" "What is the relationship between human beings and deity?" "Is our nature evil or innocent?" etc. All the while a classic also needs to have a compelling story. One example is tragedies. When you read tragedies, you know that people are going to die. It is predictable, but still you want to read on. That is a good tragedy! You read it for more than just a good story. You read it to learn about bigger things, to discover bigger questions, and to find bigger answers.


I really don't understand why so many people were disappointed with the seventh book. I found it excellent and lived up to your description here Zion. When I got to the end of the HBP, I thought Rowling was really turning Voldemort into her version of Hitler. I really wanted to see that come out in the DH. To my delight, that's exactly what happened. I saw the Holocaust in the final book.

Maybe it's because of my experience teaching at a high school where racism and biggotry was an issue that I had to deal with in the classroom almost every day. But I loved the fact that she was able to address the evils of biggotry in such a compelling and inoffensive way. Granted, any good author could have done the same, but her popularity make it that much better!

[sun & sky]

I saw Harry Potter as movies , unles the last one , and I liked it !


but I didn`t read any book ,, I`ll this summer ,, as soon as I finish my exams .. Oh My God ..!

[Lioness_Heart]

I loved the seventh book so much: it's definately my favourite. I thought I'd not like it so much because I just love the world of Hogwarts - I've been an HP fan since I was 8, so it's kind of a second home to me!

But I agree, I was really impressed with the way that Ms Rowling dealt with way bigger themes in the seventh - she created a terrifying world. And because children (and adults, though it would probably have more of an impact on children because they would know less about the horrors of humanity) are so engaged in the HP world, they'll take the messages on board so much more effectively.

I like the way that she's taken our world and shown us what it's like , using magic to exaggerate some of the things that we can't see clearly in our own muggle world.

[LadyW]

No, Half-Blood Prince was the best one.
Agreed, had me hooked to the end that book.
I love the books - hate the films.

[RingoLass]

I have been reading the books since I was in 3rd grade and have loads of times since. I am basically as HP maniac. Alan Rickman adds a nice touch to the films but other than that they are just a big joke. All just silly entertainment! And that's okay!

[DapperDrake]

I voted yes, though I've only read the first 3 books. For what they are (children's books) they're excellent, they tick every box and I'm all in favour of anything than encourages children to read... and as an adult if you want a bit of mindless entertainment they tick that box too.

[Hank Stamper]

I voted yes, though I've only read the first 3 books. For what they are (children's books) they're excellent, they tick every box and I'm all in favour of anything than encourages children to read... and as an adult if you want a bit of mindless entertainment they tick that box too.

I agree, I haven't read the last two books (too much else to read - might as well wait for the movies!) but it seems so few children read these days at least this has got them interested and excited about reading... I grew up on Roald Dahl and although children obviously can still read him now, it was different looking forward to his latest book coming out (I remember being very excited about The BFG!)... Harry Potter has clearly had a similar effect...

[kevinthediltz]

I honestly dont like the harry potter books. Ive read all 7 but its one of those storys where you get to the end and think "what the hell was the point of that?" I just dont think there is anything of value to get from the books. There is no deep meaning, no symbols, and no real value to be gained from it, other than the oh so unused "good conqures evil in the end." it is mediocer (or however you spell it) writing at best. Although it is entertaining. But on the same note, so are shiny objects and things that make noise.

[Hank Stamper]

I honestly dont like the harry potter books. Ive read all 7 but its one of those storys where you get to the end and think "what the hell was the point of that?" I just dont think there is anything of value to get from the books. There is no deep meaning, no symbols, and no real value to be gained from it, other than the oh so unused "good conqures evil in the end." it is mediocer (or however you spell it) writing at best. Although it is entertaining. But on the same note, so are shiny objects and things that make noise.

It's interesting that you don't like them but you still managed to read all seven! I'm not sure if you should be looking for deep meaning or symbolism in childrens books, but the value is what we have said - that it gets younger children excited about reading


Yes, I have a problem. I'm an adult with mature tastes in literature.

Just reading some of the earlier replies. Hilarious how people (adults) seem to be offended by Harry Potter and J.K Rowling. It is a childrens book. You would hardly expect a 10-year-old to be reading Tolstoy. There are some seriously haughty attitudes on here! Literary snobbery does make me chuckle. Right, back to Chaucer. :thumbs_up

[pgwodehousefan]

I am 15, started reading harry potter at 7 and Istill love the books. I think you can have ''mature tastes in literature'' and still enjoy the books. I mean I love Wodehouse, Kafka, Balzac, Saki and O Henry but that does not mean I dont thumb my nose at HP. They have tons of entertainment and 'masala' with the occasional profound moment.

[Remarkable]

Harry Potter is like an endless fountain of fantasy.Since I read book one,I always loved them,I grew up with them and I've been anxious for them.And the last three books are definitely very adolescentesque...

[kasie]

My grandson (now 21 and reading Physics and Maths at Imperial College, London) put me on to Harry Potter at the ripe old age of eleven, after he had read the first book and couldn't wait for the second to come out. I thought I'd read it to see what all the fuss was about and have read all of them. Yes, they are children's books, so I suppose there is still a bit of child in me. I love a cracking good story - the stories move on apace, the characters are believable and even as an adult, I can learn something about courage, perseverance, the support of friends, sharing strengths, facing fear, self-reliance, humour, the uses of learning and application, dealing with loss and sorrow. The books aren't deep - they're not meant to be, they're aimed at young readers. I'm sorry for the readers who can no longer take pleasure in a good tale well told, no matter what their age - the loss is theirs.

[bounty]

I agree, I haven't read the last two books (too much else to read - might as well wait for the movies!) but it seems so few children read these days at least this has got them interested and excited about reading... I grew up on Roald Dahl and although children obviously can still read him now, it was different looking forward to his latest book coming out (I remember being very excited about The BFG!)... Harry Potter has clearly had a similar effect...


i flew through the last two books---soooooo many unanswered questions, mysteries and tensions to be solved...

[curlyqlink]

I used to think that the HP books were fine, innocuous at worst. A bit odd that so many adults were reading these children's books, but hey, what's the harm of a good potboiler?

Reading Harold Bloom's comments on HP made me think again. He kinda has a point. There's room for doubt that the these books are going to make kids future Tolstoy readers. More likely they'll graduate to read Stephen King. Is reading such a good thing in itself, that it really doesn't matter what one reads? Bloom also makes the point that Rowling is not a good writer. She's not particularly imaginative-- and here Bloom excels at rooting out the source material that she mines in assembling Harry Potter's world. He also faults her style as flat and repetitive.

There is a discouraging trend in the whole HP franchise. The lemming-like frantic stampede at the local superstore, the marketing hype, the me-too trendiness. I like to think of the world of books as being about independent thinking and a variety of different voices. The movie business is all about blockbusters... look at the result. Do we really want the publishing world to follow suit?

Given that the Harry Potter books are neither particularly original nor terribly well-written, what is to account for their phenomenal success other than marketing hitched to herd mentality?

[Hank Stamper]

I like to think of the world of books as being about independent thinking

which is why you base your views of Harry Potter on what Harold Bloom says. Great independent thinking that. ;)

The reason Harry Potter has been so successful is because they appeal to children - Rowling's writing might not be up there with Austen or any of the Dead White Male's Literary Canon, but she is writing for CHILDREN not literary critics. If people wrote solely to impress literary critics then there would be nothing but tedious and pretentious guff on the shelves

Will these children end up reading Tolstoy? Maybe not. But that doesn't mean they won't read anything else of 'value'. Taste is subjective anyway. So what if they start reading Stephen King? It won't stop you enjoying Tolstoy will it? :thumbs_up

[JBI]

The reason Potter has been so successful has nothing to do with children. Children don't buy books, because children don't have money. Parents by books, meaning parents read reviews, meaning word of mouth affects the parents choice to buy the books. In other words, Harry Potter is advertised, therefore it becomes cool, therefore parents buy it for their kids, who, after reading the first novel, and having no real reading experience beyond a picture-book/mass-produced mediocre paperback level, seek the next volume in the series, meanwhile enjoying a high-budgeted film adding to more advertisement. I don't know any 8 year olds with 50 bucks and the permission to line up at 12:00 down the block from a bookstore on a Saturday night.

If one had never heard of Shakespeare, how do you think a seeing of West-Side Story would go? If no one knows what good is, how can they know what bad is (I'm tossing in a little Tao Te Ching for good measure here). The absence of experience always ends with the requirement of guidance, I.E. a teacher must teach a student who doesn't know. Thereby the market is acting as the teacher, and the reader is the student. If no one is refuting the market, then he it is taken as law. If the market tells the ignorant this is a great find, what do the readers know?

All I know is, every review you see in the paper for any book passed book 1 is a load of rubbish. All the bad reviews stopped after the 3rd book at best, it being idiotic to keep going if you didn't like the first. That being said, it is no surprise that you get almost all positive reviews for the second volume onward, and those reviews tell nothing but that the reviewer likes the book. It creates another advertisement bias.

On that subject, what other book has had that much exposure? Toys, action figures, video games, coloring books, wide translations, posters, movies, news coverage, a feature on every news paper, and every news station for a week prior to release, what other book? none that I can think of. But, unlike Viagra, the ultimate best-seller product, the book exhausts its usefulness quickly.

I am not talking good or bad here, I am simply pointing out that opinions are biased beyond a doubt, since they are coming from ignorant people. The amount a book sells tells nothing about its quality, it being a fact that MacDonalds sells more burgers than any real restaurant.

The problem, I think, Bloom, amongst other critics has with the books, is the insistence fans of the book have at placing it as a beacon of culture, causing a fabled increase in child readership. I have seen statistics showing that reading rates amongst kids have actually gone down, as projected, since the publication of the first Potter book, and therefore feel confident in saying that Potter leads kids only to read Potter.


Now to the critical criticism:

If for instance, one feels confident in saying that Potter is one of the top 1000 books ever written in any genre, in any language, then the Potter books can be deemed excellent. I have my doubts about such claims, of course. If one can say it is in the top 5000 books ever written, then perhaps one can argue it is a good book. Anything more than that seems to indicate that reading this book is causing one to miss out on reading a better book, since there are only so many hours in ones lifetime where they can read.

I would like to argue that None of the Potter books (or all of them if you accept them as one massive book) fit in the top 5000 written in the history of literature. I feel confident to say, that when one reads Potter, they are missing out on reading a better book (the size of the children's canon is quite large, and, has to be cut even further by readers in order to fill in the time while the age is still in focus). More importantly however, more than half of Potter's readers, according to statistics I have seen, are not children, and most of the original readers are already in their late teens. We therefore can compare this book to the long-list canon of books (Bloom's list has around 2000 works, but that is only the west, and limited by language. The full canon is much longer, when one factors in all of the Eastern tradition). Does the book hold up?

The answer is of course, to me at least, no. It is perhaps an enjoyable read, but is it more important than lets say Alice in Wonderland? should we judge it on itself or on what came before? There are 7 books, spanning around 4000 pages give or take (I am mentally calculating here) meaning in the time it takes a reader to read this, they could have read about 40 books of poetry, or 10 other important novels, or even all the major works of any major author. To read Potter, in my mind, is to not read something else. I, a self confessed bibliophile, find it difficult to decide which books get read, and which don't for myself, for fear of wasting an hour or two of my reading time. This is, lets say at 50 pages an hour, 80 or so hours of reading of other works disappearing, so no, I am not a fan of the Potter, I am a fan of Faulkner. I am a fan of Lewis Carrol, of Edward Lear, of Rudyard Kipling, but I am not a fan of mediocrity, which this clearly, according to me, is.

[kevinthediltz]

The reason Potter has been so successful has nothing to do with children. Children don't buy books, because children don't have money. Parents by books, meaning parents read reviews, meaning word of mouth affects the parents choice to buy the books. In other words, Harry Potter is advertised, therefore it becomes cool, therefore parents buy it for their kids, who, after reading the first novel, and having no real reading experience beyond a picture-book/mass-produced mediocre paperback level, seek the next volume in the series, meanwhile enjoying a high-budgeted film adding to more advertisement. I don't know any 8 year olds with 50 bucks and the permission to line up at 12:00 down the block from a bookstore on a Saturday night.

all i can say is hell yes.

[Hank Stamper]

The reason Potter has been so successful has nothing to do with children. Children don't buy books, because children don't have money. Parents by books, meaning parents read reviews, meaning word of mouth affects the parents choice to buy the books. In other words, Harry Potter is advertised, therefore it becomes cool, therefore parents buy it for their kids, who, after reading the first novel, and having no real reading experience beyond a picture-book/mass-produced mediocre paperback level, seek the next volume in the series, meanwhile enjoying a high-budgeted film adding to more advertisement. I don't know any 8 year olds with 50 bucks and the permission to line up at 12:00 down the block from a bookstore on a Saturday night.

Right so parents are forcing their children to read Harry Potter?

I'm not denying Harry Potter has been shrewdly marketed, but the series is successful precisely because the book appeals to children. If it didn't appeal to children - i.e. they didn't enjoy reading Harry Potter - then it wouldn't be successful.

[kasie]

The reason Potter has been so successful has nothing to do with children. Children don't buy books, because children don't have money. Parents by books, meaning parents read reviews, meaning word of mouth affects the parents choice to buy the books. In other words, Harry Potter is advertised, therefore it becomes cool, therefore parents buy it for their kids, who, after reading the first novel, and having no real reading experience beyond a picture-book/mass-produced mediocre paperback level, seek the next volume in the series, meanwhile enjoying a high-budgeted film adding to more advertisement. I don't know any 8 year olds with 50 bucks and the permission to line up at 12:00 down the block from a bookstore on a Saturday night.

While I take your point about 8 year olds not having $50 (did the books really cost that much? I bought mine in hardback for £8.50, about $17), I think you may not be altogether correct. The early HP phenomenum spread in the UK through word of mouth - it was the children themselves who passed on the message. Rowling's original target audience were the children who were of an age with Harry himself, the eleven, twelve year olds and these children do have pocket money, or at least many of them do, and some of them are already in the book buying mode. I don't think my grandson was alone in using his pocket money on books - he asked his mother if it was possible to order a book; she replied that it was and on learning that he wanted to order book two of the HP series, suggested that he waited until it came out in paperback when it would be cheaper. No, was his reply, he wanted to read it as soon as possible and didn't want to wait; he then went on to point out that his mother had always said he could spend his pocket money on whatever he wanted and she could hardly object to his wanting a book. (That boy will go far!)

I agree that the later hype was fuelled by the publicists but the first few books were sold as books - the films didn't start to appear until later. Also don't underestimate the pest power of children who want to be part of a trend. I would have been a bit doubtful about putting the books in front of younger children, especially the later books which are very dark. Interestingly, the Philip Pullman books were also a word of mouth success among children themselves but never caught on in the same way partly I suspect because they are much darker and more difficult to read and the readership stayed with older children - even the film has not created a similar surge of interest in the books. I would never have recommended them to younger children, especially the last title, The Amber Spyglass, which I would have found deeply disturbing as a child.

As for the Lit Crit reaction to the books, I can't help remembering Dorothy Parker's assessment of The House At Pooh Corner - she produced a response that she hoped would show how sophisticated she was -'Tonstant Weader threw up' - and was ridiculed from all sides, as people pointed out the books were written for children not New York literati.

With regard to children catching the reading habit young, I can only say as a former teacher of children to the age of eleven, the younger they start finding pleasure in books, the more likely they are to carry on reading. I knew I had 'caught' them when I heard them laugh at something they were reading for themselves. As for whether they go on to read anything of quality, I suspect that depends entirely on the teaching they receive subsequently on how to judge books, or any other experience for that matter.




........no, I am not a fan of the Potter, I am a fan of Faulkner. I am a fan of Lewis Carrol, of Edward Lear, of Rudyard Kipling, but I am not a fan of mediocrity, which this clearly, according to me, is.

Hhmm - so are we to deduce from this that you have not read HP, JBI?


That you are criticising books you have not actually read?

[Hank Stamper]

I am not talking good or bad here, I am simply pointing out that opinions are biased beyond a doubt, since they are coming from ignorant people.

who are you calling ignorant? you have an opinion, which you have kindly spouted here, and you are biased beyond a doubt AGAINST Harry Potter, so does that make you ignorant too?

I agree that Harry Potter is never going to be in any literary canon (nor should it) and I agree that for an adult, to read Harry Potter is to not read something else... however, the criticism of Harry Potter by literary critics is the same - to borrow your analogy - as a restaurant critic going into McDonalds and complaining because the cheeseburgers are not made from foie gras and caviar. They are massively missing the point.

[JBI]

Right so parents are forcing their children to read Harry Potter?

I'm not denying Harry Potter has been shrewdly marketed, but the series is successful precisely because the book appeals to children. If it didn't appeal to children - i.e. they didn't enjoy reading Harry Potter - then it wouldn't be successful.

Do kids not enjoy happy meals? You are throwing out a sophism that implies children have developed acute tastes to the point that they can distinguish between good and bad literature. Either way, the bulk of Potter readers are no longer children. The people who read the first book at publication are now 10 years older. So lets say they were 8, they are now 18.

[Hank Stamper]

I have seen statistics showing that reading rates amongst kids have actually gone down, as projected, since the publication of the first Potter book, and therefore feel confident in saying that Potter leads kids only to read Potter.

just out of interest where did you see these statistics? and who compiled these statistics / where was the survey taken? America? UK? Global?

[JBI]

who are you calling ignorant? you have an opinion, which you have kindly spouted here, and you are biased beyond a doubt AGAINST Harry Potter, so does that make you ignorant too?

I agree that Harry Potter is never going to be in any literary canon (nor should it) and I agree that for an adult, to read Harry Potter is to not read something else... however, the criticism of Harry Potter by literary critics is the same - to borrow your analogy - as a restaurant critic going into McDonalds and complaining because the cheeseburgers are not made from foie gras and caviar. They are massively missing the point.

What's the point? We are supposed to enjoy mediocrity because it is mediocre? The Potter books cost more than any other books at release (I know some of them set the record for most expensive hard-back children's book). Don't you think they should be getting something worth it? Why should people be subject to mediocrity.

If you have not read the greatest books, how do you know what the greatest books are? What judge can rule with out precedents of something that has been done time and time again? You are saying that people who know nothing about literature are not ignorant. I am calling you a) too optimistic, and b) ignorant. Would Manet's Olympia be the same without the Titian Venus of Urbino as its precedent? Can it be viewed the same way without those? Or without knowing what it represented in the development of painting?

You are implying that, essentially, there is no good and bad judge of art. I am implying that you are implying that you are a philistine. Of course there are good and bad critics. Of course there are developed tastes. Of course a person taking his first sip of wine cannot judge the vintage.


just out of interest where did you see these statistics? and who compiled these statistics / where was the survey taken? America? UK? Global?

The one I saw was from an article in the New York times. I could try and dig for it if you would like.

edit, it took 5 seconds, I unfortunately got the source wrong, it was from the San Fransisco Chronicle, Read it here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/15/MNGN7R0Q1N1.DTL

Note, the article enjoys a lot of bias, it featuring a different subject than this thread, and does not bring into question the quality of these works. All quotes referring as much can be taken to mean absolutely nothing, since I don't think a spokesperson from Scholastic has any right to comment on the books.

Also, stick this one in there using, I think, the same study. http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/07/09/in_end_potter_magic_extends_only_so_far/

In other words, Harry Potter has lead to 325milion odd books being read, and perhaps a couple more, but nothing seriously important to the development of literacy and readership. This is also assuming that people who read Potter would not have read other books, another logical slip made by the Potter-Loving press. Who is to say that the readers who still read of the bunch would not have done so if they had not read Potter?

[Hank Stamper]

Do kids not enjoy happy meals? You are throwing out a sophism that implies children have developed acute tastes to the point that they can distinguish between good and bad literature. Either way, the bulk of Potter readers are no longer children. The people who read the first book at publication are now 10 years older. So lets say they were 8, they are now 18.

you like your maccy dees dont you! ;)

I don't think children are capable of distinguishing between good and bad literature in the sense that you are implying, however they are capable of telling a good story from a bad story, and Harry Potter is clearly a good story, well written for children.

The fact that the 'original' readers of Potter are now 18 does not make a difference. Harry Potter is still a children's book, 10 year olds are still reading it. Some of those 'original' readers will have remained loyal to the series but with any luck they will be reading more challenging novels as well

[JBI]

Is it a children's book? Perhaps the first 3, but as I hear, they get "darker" as they go, and feature more "complex" relationships and themes. I find that the true indicator of periodpieceness, the fact that the book evolves with its original readers, meaning consecutive readers do not enjoy the same growth feeling. As it has been seen, from my above posts, They are not reading more challenging books, they are simply not reading. You imply that they go on to better stuff, or different stuff as you will put it, but the data gathered by researchers smacks you with a false in your face.

A nice little tid-bit here. I have seen a few of the movies, and I find it rather "bloody brilliant" to use her cliché, that you can literally here the male characters' voices drop an octave in between the films.

[Hank Stamper]

What's the point? We are supposed to enjoy mediocrity because it is mediocre? The Potter books cost more than any other books at release (I know some of them set the record for most expensive hard-back children's book). Don't you think they should be getting something worth it? Why should people be subject to mediocrity.

If you have not read the greatest books, how do you know what the greatest books are? What judge can rule with out precedents of something that has been done time and time again? You are saying that people who know nothing about literature are not ignorant. I am calling you a) too optimistic, and b) ignorant. Would Manet's Olympia be the same without the Titian Venus of Urbino as its precedent? Can it be viewed the same way without those? Or without knowing what it represented in the development of painting?

You are implying that, essentially, there is no good and bad judge of art. I am implying that you are implying that you are a philistine. Of course there are good and bad critics. Of course there are developed tastes. Of course a person taking his first sip of wine cannot judge the vintage.

The point is THEY ARE CHILDREN'S BOOKS!

This is all I am implying - to judge Harry Potter as anything other than a children's book is completely irrelevant

But you are right I do believe that there is no good and bad judge of art. It is all subjective. I am a philistine :D

ps thanks for the link :)

[JBI]

Are they Children's Books? Who says? You? The readers who are mostly teens+? The author who said that she made the books mature as they went, or the publishers, who sell them as any other book? They were even released with special adult covers, if you cared to look, implying that they are NOT targeted only for children.

[Hank Stamper]

Are they Children's Books? Who says? You? The readers who are mostly teens+? The author who said that she made the books mature as they went, or the publishers, who sell them as any other book? They were even released with special adult covers, if you cared to look, implying that they are NOT targeted only for children.

Yes. They are children's books. They have had (to Rowling and the publisher's surprise) cross-over appeal, hence the special adult covers (that is marketing for you - they will never miss an opportunity to cash in) - but they are not written for adults. The books inevitably mature as Harry matures but they are still written for children. But if it makes you feel better, or rather if it makes your argument seem more valid, then you can keep telling yourself otherwise.

[JBI]

Yes. They are children's books. They have had (to Rowling and the publisher's surprise) cross-over appeal, hence the special adult covers (that is marketing for you - they will never miss an opportunity to cash in) - but they are not written for adults. The books inevitably mature as Harry matures but they are still written for children. But if it makes you feel better, or rather if it makes your argument seem more valid, then you can keep telling yourself otherwise.

Right back at you. You self-distructed your argument in your last sentence. Rather than offer proof of anything, you have essentially said, yes they have matured with their readers (who if they were 8 are now 18, no longer children and now teenagers) and b)"But if it makes you feel better, or rather if it makes your argument seem more valid, then you can keep telling yourself otherwise." right back at you son. You have given no proof beyond your word, whereas you acknowledge my statements as being true, and also acknowledge that these books are being marketed at older audiences. Are they still Children's literature, or is it you who are telling yourself a falseness to buff up your already declining argument. You essentially have said nothing beyond "I think children like these books." Why not try to read a little, and perhaps back your argument up, instead of throwing out silly sophisms for the sake of sounding smart (yummy intentional alliteration, just for emphasis.

I think it rather ignorant of you to deny that the books are no longer kids books, when, as I hear, the death toll in the last book is quite high, where main characters drop like flies. How many other books feature not only enemies that kill good guys, but also good guys who kill greyish baddies? I've also been told that the term ""*****" is also used in the last volume. I trust that is within the children's literature bracket.

When half a book is donated to coming of age relationship conflict, and detailing about snogging in the bathroom and whatnot, I cannot see how you can argue for these being children's books.

[Joreads]

If people think HP is a great series of books them good on them I say, I will declare my interest I love the books. Books that are termed literature are not for everyone and you should not be made to feel that you are less than for liking any sort of books. I am not sure how many people have read the series but surely we can not all be wrong. And for the record I love a great literary read also

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts resorting to inflammatory remarks will be deleted without any further notice.

[Hank Stamper]

Why not try to read a little, and perhaps back your argument up, instead of throwing out silly sophisms for the sake of sounding smart

You have read all seven Harry Potter novels then? Or are you just basing your argument on what other people have said?

I will concede I have not read the last two books and I will concede they have cross-over appeal, but I refuse to accept they are not primarily children's books. The fact that Harry matures is a condition of the series and therefore the content will change to reflect this - however, what you are implying is, that the readership of Harry Potter depends on the age of Harry Potter in each book. Whether the latest two books are teen novels - maybe. But they are not adult books (I'll have to borrow your trick and base this on what other people have told me) and therefore my argument (or 'silly sophism') still stands, to judge them as anything other than children's books is an exercise in irrelevance.

There are so many terrible books out there (see Martin Amis, Melvin Burgess, etc), which I would rather spend my time arguing about! Good debate though JBI :)

[jikan myshkin]

harry potter is not just a children's series, it's a damn good children's series! the last book in my opion was a huge anticlimax with many predicatabilites along the way but then again i was reading it as a 21 year old so it is unfair for my to slander a book that is aimed at those of a younger age bracket. the adult covers are only for those who feel ashamed to sit on the train reading a childrens book, i'd be more ashamed to be reading the daily mail or just sat there feeling bored!

[JBI]

I've read a couple of them, The first 2, about half of the third, half of the fourth, most of the 5th, and about 1/3 from each the last two volumes. I tend to skip pages that progress only plot, and not character. Of course, I was not reading with my usual pencil, but I feel I have grasped enough to make fair comments. And no, I did not read the books for enjoyment, or even because I really wanted to; The first two were read to my grade 6 class, out loud, by my teacher to the whole class, right about the time when the second book was published (yes, I know, 10 year olds if you can believe it, though I appreciate my teacher's enthusiasm for literature). The rest was read over the past couple of years, simply for the sake of conversation. I substituted the skipped pages with plot summaries, available in depth on-line.

My personal impression from the works, was that they weren't too bad compared to whats out there (with mediocre literature everywhere, they are better than most) however I will not say they are worthy of their status. I'll try to bring a few more viewpoints into the argument;

Marxist: The book features many complex Marxist components, many unintentional, but nonetheless brought in through the subconscious actions, or accidental actions of the author. The first is the struggle between rich and poor. I find it somewhat despicable how she handles the relationship between the Weasley family, and the Malfoy family. The Weasley family is always surrounded by symbols of lower-classness. For instance, at the beginning of every book, where Ron is announced, as if ceremonially, Rowling feels it is necessary to reinstate that they are poor. Another example of this is the red hair which is always described by them, perhaps alluding to a racial divide, being that many people of Celtic origin have read hair. The Weasley's are, I would argue, a representation of the middle class, siding with the "filthy" lower class. This is seen with their "leftist" politics towards the so called muggles (I would argue, representing the lower class) and their exile from aristocratic circles (I.E the Slytherin bunch). Malfoy's family is portrayed as being extremely aristocratic, enjoying all the luxuries of being wealthy. By default, all the rich people seem to be piled into that house, creating a marxist divide amongst the wizards. But wait, where are all the low class unmagical people placed? Oh, in the dump, for sure, it being clear that their deaths are insignificant in the book. The muggle family, the Dursleys are the worst sort of people. Everywhere they are portrayed as stupid, useless, and often cruel, to the point where the wizard must use magic to keep them in line. There are of course those that get away, the Mud-bloods (an essential synonym for parvenus) who are rejected from the magic world, for being mud-bloods, and must make do with being poor people in Hogwarts, with no friends. Even Hermione, the smartest in her year, is forced to be ridiculed, not for being poor mind you, but rather for being too smart, too over-achieving, too bright. It is as if they old money people (this even includes Harry and Ron by the way) for seeking to achieve more than them.

Now of course, there are more examples, but that is just a basic idea of how one can unwind these books, and find the most trivial situations in a society that is not only snotty and self-righteous, but also racist, featuring only (with the exception of 2 mud-blood black people) all white Christians.

That isn't all of it of course, but I must leave that for now, there are other angles.

Religious. It can be determined that Harry Potter is in many ways a religious allegory. The ending is the most definite clue, it being a direct biblical allusion. But why should a reader, who, not being a Christian, like many people aren't, be taught Christian morality at such a despicable level. Why should I get a biblical lesson, when all I want is to read a book? Why should one suffer another C.S. Lewis (nice use of biblical language there)? The answer is, these books are written for the simple, to act the same way Lewis's work does. To opiate the population. This again ties back in with the Marxist angle. If one is to be a true Harry fan, as is deemed "cool" by many, one must, therefore, be a believer in this sort of allegory, a sort of quasi bible by someone who doesn't understand a 10th part of the book. It is insufferable, it is cruel almost, and it is preaching a value system that should not be taught in this manner.

Part 2, Gender Studies.

The book features, in many ways, a conflict between boys and girls. It is clear, without even drawing many comparisons, that Mrs. Rowling's work is not what we may call Feminist literature. The work features women submitting to men everywhere. The ideal woman, Mrs. Weasley, is a stay at home mom, who is nervy, and frets over the most trivial things. She breaks down constantly. The fourth novel features a scene of direct anti-feminist, the ball, which forces the female characters to await the gratuitously accepted invitation from their male friends, in order to have the privilege to attend a ball, where they will be gocked at by their peers for being the most attractive, or ridiculed for not being attractive. The whole society of the wizards employs a pre-second-wave-feminism mentality, involving women, who are smarter than their peers mind you, giving over on the side lines, facilitating but gaining no credit, achieving, but being ridiculed for it, and basically being forced to become a Mrs. Weasley. The ugliness of a female character is always pointed out thoroughly. The ugliness of a male character is always made sympathetic, especially in the case of one Neville Longbottom (who by name is supposed to be laughed at) who is deemed a tragic hero by many definitions contrasted with Hermione, who until the ball-room scene in the fourth novel, is always surrounded with ugliness imagery with regard to her appearance (there are others, I use her out of necessity of memory). It is without a doubt clear, with characters like Professor McGonagall (sp?) who are imbued with the characteristics of Margret Thatcher, and characters like Fleur Delacour (sp?) who are failures though very pretty, that Mrs. Rowling's perception of females is not only way out of wack, but at times even offensive. It would appear that she is a product of a mentality driven by the class system in Britain, combined with personal experience as a single mother, and experience as a proletariat, and that these feelings create a sympathetic Mrs. Weasley as the alfa-female, an unjust bias in the scheme of social impact. These views are not only out-dated, but also harmful. They set the world in a time bubble back to around 1950 or so, where it was the womans "job" to have dinner waiting on the table, and a clean house for her husband to walk into. Why should females be subject from such a young age, as you, my critics argue, to such conditioning. Would it not be better to teach a child about achievement, about feminism, about the fact that there are more options than to dress up nicely and perhaps be asked to the ball? After all, we don't need any Ginny Weasleys walking around waiting for whatever will take them, despite the fact that they, as Rowling points out, have the potential to be even greater than their male counterparts. It is clear to me at least that the arch female-villain is one Bellatrix Lestrange, a basic sado-masochistic slave to one Lord Voldemort, who, like every female in the book, simply rides along in the shadows of men.

Another angle I would like to stab at is the femininity of male characters. To me at least, Harry, seems to be a girl trapped in a male body. It is obviously clear that Rowling doesn't know much about being an adolescent boy, her never having experienced such things, but unlike other authors (such as the Emily Bronte) she is unable to interpret or pretend. Her character is imbued with female stereotypical emotions, and experiences none of the male emotions associated with growing up. His romantic exploits are those of Rowling herself, transferred over to a melodramatic male character, who unlike other boys in that situation, acts the way a stereotypical female character would. I would love to see a psychoanalytical critic's take on this book, especially surrounding male characters.

Now, there are far more arguments, and a lot more points I can add. I am just going through my memory bank and digging up chapters in my head of the book, and trying to apply them. Had I re-read, or not skipped many parts of the series, I am sure I could name more. But the point remains, that these books, from these angles, all seem quite hurtful. I am not the only person who has thought of these things, so I know it isn't the fancy of my mind nitpicking, but rather valid observations picked through the phrases and chapters I remember.

[PeterL]

JBI, That was a great example of the deficiencies of Marxist literary analysis; although your admitted lack of familiarity also came into play.

I wonder though, you mentioned in your mention of the religious reading that you thought that the values should not be presented not be presented in that manner? Why?

The gender analysis has the most potential, and I think that is what Rowling was thinking about most of the time. After reading whichever one Ginny was held prisoner in that she and Harry would end up together.

I think that the easiest way to regard the series is as a modern set of myths. I see a great deal of parallel between Potter and any of the ancient innitiation myths. Compare it with The Odessey for one.

[JBI]

No, it is not the same. It is allegory, not anything else. It is the bible on ice, an uninnocent take on history, and a rather simplistic approach to the world. It says, to me at least, either you fight with Jesus, or you are against Jesus. There is too much literature already that features Jesus as a protagonist, this is just a popular example. These, I would argue, are not a modern set of myths, but a retelling of a dated set of myths.

[PeterL]

No, it is not the same. It is allegory, not anything else. It is the bible on ice, an uninnocent take on history, and a rather simplistic approach to the world. It says, to me at least, either you fight with Jesus, or you are against Jesus. There is too much literature already that features Jesus as a protagonist, this is just a popular example. These, I would argue, are not a modern set of myths, but a retelling of a dated set of myths.


I agree that it is a retelling, but it is far from modern, and it is not Christian, not that it is anti-Christian. It is a sort of turn-about on the way that the Christian missionaries converted Iceland; they said that Ragnarok had happened, but it wasn't exactly as the myth said. Rowling is saying, in effect, that the ancient faiths are still there, but we just don't notice them most of the time.

I think that the Christians who preach that Harry is anti-Christian are almost right.

[JBI]

They say it is because of a line from Exodus;

Exodus 22, King James Version

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

That is the reason why. Of course, that is a mistranslation, but what can you do. There is enough commentary on the meaning of מכשפה to render this interpretation of the text idiotic by most Jewish commentators. Many commentators actually dispute the true meaning of the word. The definition given by Christians for the term "witch" is actually derived from other pagan traditions. The meaning in the Tanakh stems from more of a witch-doctor tradition or a false medium. In short, someone who professes that they have powers from other places than the one god. The allegorical characters in Harry Potter hardly fit this category. The prophet Isaiah is believed to have had even more power than that. Elijah is believed to have have flown in a chariot to heaven, I see that as no less grand than flying in one to a school. The Witch definition that seems to be formed from the Jewish tradition is often also linked to a follower of Lilith, the first wife of Adam who went against god and the angels. Either way, Harry Potter has nothing to do with this.

It is a very Christian text in many ways. The ending is the most obvious, but also the nature of the conflict. All of these good verses bad novels seem to be rooted in Christianity, since according to most traditions, they don't exist in that form.

Rowling is saying nothing about ancient myths. She is pushing Christianity, which has very dated. She, a firm follower of Lewis, is to some degree even pushing Lewis. Her works are too firmly rooted in her personal beliefs to be read as anything than a justification on her way of life verses another.

[Hank Stamper]

You have clearly given Harry Potter a lot more critical thought than me! I'm not going to argue that any of your analysis is wrong, I'm merely saying it is irrelevant. I agree with you that Harry Potter is - compared to the Great Works of Literature - completely insignificant BUT it is a children's book and therefore (in my opinion) should only be judged as such

Your critical analysis was an interesting read though :)

[Drkshadow03]

Uhm, except Harry Potter isn't an allegory by any stretch of the imagination. I think the books have more in common with Tolkien than they do with Lewis.

Symbolic allusions to the Bible or to be more blunt scenes practically stolen right out of the Bible do NOT necessarily an allegory make. There are so many other ways to read Harry Potter than from a "religious perspective."