Harry Potter

[Mathor]

What is there to not understand? Let me say again, I am not saying anything different from the scenes your or anyone else is descripting (and yeah, I wrote book in a harshness, but It is not necessary to edit the posts, since it is already done, right?), just pointing the explanation that Hermonie does not investigate what she saw because she knows about her timetravel clone is far fetched. In the movie she does not say it at all. And it is Dumbledore and not Hermnonie that suggests the use of time traveling device - if she already knew about it she would not first urge Dumbledore to change things and that the trio could testify. It was necessary Dumbledore to give tips for her to consider the use (and even when and where she should go, something that should be obvious if she saw herself).
This implies that either Mortal is right about the sunden lack of curiosity of the trio (by the way, it is not Hermonie that moves them away from the pumpkin field, so it was not a decision taken by her reasoning either) or that Hermonie (if saw herself) is a bit... slow. You can pick which one.
Of course, JK Rowling had no blame here. The book is slightly different, isnt?

But hey, if you think Harry Potter is a prroduct of a master and reflects it, there is very little I can do except talk about a time when a Master director was Stanley Kubrick and a master film was Clockwork Orange... But maybe I am a dimwit like Harold Bloom.
Now I would come back to read Chesterton, someone should.

yes, Kubrick is my favorite director of all time. But i do not understand the point you are making. And 2001: A Space Odyssey was his best work anyway (or maybe Dr. Strangelove), though I really love A Clockwork Orange.

As JBI pointed out, it's true that she would age through the use, but her use of time travel over that year would equate about an hour per day for like let's say 250-300 days (I don't know how long the semester at Hogwarts is). So Hermione would be about 300 or so hours older (so like ten days, nothing even slightly noticeable). I do not understand how this is flawed, if this device changes the rules for time-travel altogether?

Hermione had been using this time travel device for an entire year. To come up with the conclusion that somehow she didn't know about it later when Dumbledore mentioned it seems kind of nonsensical. Of course she knew about it, but Harry did not. Dumbledore mentioned it as a way of unveiling it to Harry (so Hermione could discontinue lying about it and not mentioning it). And Dumbledore never said where she should go to or what she should do when she went back in time either. She knew exactly where to go, because she had SEEN it before. So she goes back in time and goes right for the pumpkin patch, where she initially saw herself and Harry running. When Harry asked her what she saw, she was like "oh nothing, i thought i saw something", because to tell Harry would completely make no sense to Harry.

[JCamilo]

I do not really believe you are arguing with me about the effects of time travel when I have not said a single word about this.

To come up with the conclusion that somehow she didn't know about it later when Dumbledore mentioned it seems kind of nonsensical. Of course she knew about it, but Harry did not.

No, she did not. Otherwise she would not first appeal to Dumbledore to solve everything. It is only after Dumbledore suggests the time travel that she decides to use it. Before she was appealing him to hear their testimony. It is nonsensical to believe she "had to go back in time" and would still try to convice Dumbledore.
You know why? Because she did not knew. She did not saw herself in the forests at all. She was not sure of what was and she move away without invensting, thus Mortal critic is just correct.

Dumbledore mentioned it as a way of unveiling it to Harry (so Hermione could discontinue lying about it and not mentioning it).

No, Dumbledore just like to be cryptic. It make no sense of such effort to hide from Harry and explain everything to him 2 minutes later.

And Dumbledore never said where she should go to or what she should do when she went back in time either.

Actually He did. He tell her how many turns she should do (3) and to follow his steps.

She knew exactly where to go, because she had SEEN it before. So she goes back in time and goes right for the pumpkin patch, where she initially saw herself and Harry running. When Harry asked her what she saw, she was like "oh nothing, i thought i saw something", because to tell Harry would completely make no sense to Harry.

Meh, she did not even knew that she had to threw rocks. She do not tell anything to Harry because she did not knew. That simple. Since Dumbledore do explain where and when to go back, at that time she had no notion of it. (And in the book she is even surprised by the idea).

[Paulclem]

No, she did not. Otherwise she would not first appeal to Dumbledore to solve everything. It is only after Dumbledore suggests the time travel that she decides to use it. Before she was appealing him to hear their testimony. It is nonsensical to believe she "had to go back in time" and would still try to convice Dumbledore.

I say tomato, you say tomaato. If it's a case of she did/ she didn't then the debate has no point. I'm clear that she does see and suspects it is herself. Nothing has happened at that point so she has to go through with the initial thread of time. Dumbledore does advise her to go back, but he is the mentor of the children.Is it odd that she would wait for his go-ahead?

Is the physics thing relevant? You have accept the conveniant fiction of many novels. And again - it is a teen book.

It reminds me of The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Graeme.(Right spelling?). The whole scale thing of the toad, badger weasels, humans, cars etc bothered me when I read it as an adult. As a kid it just didn't figure. I don't think you can crticise a work of teen fiction too much for not having a consistent theory of time.

Does the person who posts las twin the thread?

[JCamilo]

It is only relevant as either Hermione is out of character or not, so Mortal critic stands. A quick review of the pages of the book shows that she see nothing at all and she is surprised by Dumbledore suggestion. So, it obviously a case that the script predicted the fact that a movie shows more than a page, but forgot to adjust the kids behaviour. Also, it is pretty clear she do not step away because she sees herself (It is not even her iniciative to move away). Albeit, I could careless, it is nitpick.
Also, she is not waiting Dumbledore at all. The kids often bypass any restriction and in fact, she was already using time travel for her own safe and the trio was hiding behind pumpkins because they could not be seen by the addults (Dumbledore included), so wating for his go-ahead is just non sense.
Another thing, being a teen-book (or movie)does not make it impervious to criticism. I find no such flaws in Alice in Wonderlands.
Finally, I really do not care about the physics thing. It is as I said a plot devide like most magical stuff, the consequence of its use is never explored. This is a negative for the book and JBI have every right to question this, but I do not care and said nothing about it. In fact in my opinion the most strange thing is that she may come back time and study extra 8 hours, but her body would be tired in the same manner, so she would eventually have a "time travel lag", with excessive use, be much more tired than the other kids, just like we do when instead of sleeping we spend the night studying. It was not that effective, but since the movie does not explain how many times she used it, it is a bit pointless to consider the effects.

[Mathor]

It is only relevant as either Hermione is out of character or not, so Mortal critic stands. A quick review of the pages of the book shows that she see nothing at all and she is surprised by Dumbledore suggestion. So, it obviously a case that the script predicted the fact that a movie shows more than a page, but forgot to adjust the kids behaviour. Also, it is pretty clear she do not step away because she sees herself (It is not even her iniciative to move away). Albeit, I could careless, it is nitpick.
Also, she is not waiting Dumbledore at all. The kids often bypass any restriction and in fact, she was already using time travel for her own safe and the trio was hiding behind pumpkins because they could not be seen by the addults (Dumbledore included), so wating for his go-ahead is just non sense.
Another thing, being a teen-book (or movie)does not make it impervious to criticism. I find no such flaws in Alice in Wonderlands.
Finally, I really do not care about the physics thing. It is as I said a plot devide like most magical stuff, the consequence of its use is never explored. This is a negative for the book and JBI have every right to question this, but I do not care and said nothing about it. In fact in my opinion the most strange thing is that she may come back time and study extra 8 hours, but her body would be tired in the same manner, so she would eventually have a "time travel lag", with excessive use, be much more tired than the other kids, just like we do when instead of sleeping we spend the night studying. It was not that effective, but since the movie does not explain how many times she used it, it is a bit pointless to consider the effects.

nothing you are saying makes any sense. You are arguing with my points but not providing any sort of evidence other than "it's obvious that that's not true"

And she didn't use the time-travel thing to study more. She used it because she had two classes consecutively. So she was only using it one hour per day. You are mistaken.

And if you "quickly reviewed the pages" then quote where this happens, because I do not believe such an occurence happens in the book.

And in response to Paulclem, being that time travel has never been discovered in reality, I do not think there is any established "right" and "wrong" as far as time machines. One particular time machine allows for you to travel back and forth between time zones, another you are stuck in that time period until you live up to the present. I do not think either of them are less than sensible.

[Paulclem]

This is a negative for the book and JBI have every right to question this,

JBI does.

Also, she is not waiting Dumbledore at all.

I thought we were discussing the film. She sees Dumbledor in the hospital where Ron is laid up. This is where he advises her.

Another thing, being a teen-book (or movie)does not make it impervious to criticism.

Absolutely not, but I think there is a crediblity scale in fiction. What a teen or child's book can get away with, an adult orientated book can't. Hence in an adult HP, you might have got an explanation even if it just sounds credible.

[Hank Stamper]

And in response to Paulclem, being that time travel has never been discovered in reality, I do not think there is any established "right" and "wrong" as far as time machines.

This is absolutely right and why arguing about JK Rowling's use of time travel in a fictional children's book about magic is completely pointless

Obviously physicists have put forward various hypotheses about the physics of time travel and there is probably some consensus, but the bottom line is it is all just theory and therefore open to interpretation - especially in fictional children's books about magic!

[JCamilo]

nothing you are saying makes any sense. You are arguing with my points but not providing any sort of evidence other than "it's obvious that that's not true"

And she didn't use the time-travel thing to study more. She used it because she had two classes consecutively. So she was only using it one hour per day. You are mistaken.

This kind or argument is why Bloom may be ripping his last hairs. Taking class is studying. Only Students take classes. They Study. Classes are taken by students. I will you are that analytic when dealing with the movie...

[Paulclem]

The only things that the pro HP on this thread have said is that JKR wrote good teen/children's books, it helped them to go onto other writers, it was an interesting story, etc. No-one has claimed them to be classics - though time will tell. Bloom stated that it trained people for Stephen King - another writer who is disliked a lot. Some of us recognise that there are stages in reading, and that HP books might be a good step along that track, as is King. The reality of reading is that most people, who even aspire to read better/ classic books, have to start somewhere when they are younger.Why not HP or Stephen King?

Reading is a process that people either choose to develop - if in fact they have the opportunity - or not. For all the flaws in HP, I think it can help to prepare for that choice. The text is not sophisticated in the sense of having lots of writer technques such as metaphors etc. I does address themes such as racism, as Darshadow has pointed out, and it does include a reasonaly sophistcated plot for the teen market. I think this makes it a satisfying read, and perhaps a good read for the aspiring teen. Plenty of people on this thread have said as much in that it was a staging post for them. For that I think it is worth pointing out the good points.

[Mathor]

This kind or argument is why Bloom may be ripping his last hairs. Taking class is studying. Only Students take classes. They Study. Classes are taken by students. I will you are that analytic when dealing with the movie...

No. Because when you said study you mentioned "8 hours" or more that would take up her time from time-traveling. The truth is she would take her class, then go back an hour in time and take a different class. Whether or not that is considered "studying" is not the argument. It is that the amount of her aging would be almost nonexistent, really.

EDIT:

Paulclem, I think what people misunderstand is that people like myself really don't even like Harry Potter all that much. It's a book I haven't read in years, that I enjoyed between the ages of like 9-12(among many other books). When I was younger I read anything I could get my hands on. A lot of Dostoevsky, a lot all sorts of literature passed by me. I read Harry Potter, I read all sorts of things, and most of them I grew old of. Harry Potter I surely grew old of, but none of that stuff was trash. It's just one of many books I read when I was little. I don't like it or hate it. And I didn't start out reading Harry Potter, and I didn't become obsessed with Harry Potter.

It's no classic, but it's no piece of trash either. It's just a simple little series. People in this forum tend to hate on the well-recieved teen fiction and praise the less popular teen fiction. But it's all the same, really.

[JCamilo]

See, Bloom must be right.
Take this as example. I said she may , not that she did. There is a difference you know.If the fact that hypothetical was not clear (how come) the final sentence where I said that it is pointless to consider the effects since the movie does not mention how many times she did would suffice.
But the amazing part is you talking about aging, something I do not mention. I mention getting tired just like she would if she went to sleep a little later that night. And either 1 hour or 8 hours, it would be studying. Studying is not how many hours you take, but what you do.

[Paulclem]

Paulclem, I think what people misunderstand is that people like myself really don't even like Harry Potter all that much. It's a book I haven't read in years, that I enjoyed between the ages of like 9-12(among many other books). When I was younger I read anything I could get my hands on. A lot of Dostoevsky, a lot all sorts of literature passed by me. I read Harry Potter, I read all sorts of things, and most of them I grew old of. Harry Potter I surely grew old of, but none of that stuff was trash. It's just one of many books I read when I was little. I don't like it or hate it. And I didn't start out reading Harry Potter, and I didn't become obsessed with Harry Potter.

Yes that's my impression. I read the books when my kids were reading them. As you say they are good stories. I think the criticisms here are too extreme, and I can see the value of a series that encourages reading. The books have been boosted by the films following in quick succession - a phenomenon that no doubt has inceased the readership and profile, and I think it a symptom of the inclinations of kids in that they are surrounded, and are increasingly responding to visual media via computers etc. A series that can buck this trend in itself deserves praise because where are the readers of the classics going to come from if they don't start fairly young in developing a sophisticated reading habit. I just don't think that has been appreciated. Bloom's criticism, recorded earlier in the thread, I thnk has little relevance in the Western World where kids are not being trained to read King - if only - they are being trained to read screens where there is even more competition from the multiimedia experiences available.

[Drkshadow03]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]

Yes that's my impression. I read the books when my kids were reading them. As you say they are good stories. I think the criticisms here are too extreme, and I can see the value of a series that encourages reading. The books have been boosted by the films following in quick succession - a phenomenon that no doubt has inceased the readership and profile, and I think it a symptom of the inclinations of kids in that they are surrounded, and are increasingly responding to visual media via computers etc. A series that can buck this trend in itself deserves praise because where are the readers of the classics going to come from if they don't start fairly young in developing a sophisticated reading habit. I just don't think that has been appreciated. Bloom's criticism, recorded earlier in the thread, I thnk has little relevance in the Western World where kids are not being trained to read King - if only - they are being trained to read screens where there is even more competition from the multiimedia experiences available.

Heh. I did actually defend the merits of Harry Potter. The irony of course with King is that his novels introduced me to a variety of "good" poets that I had previously never heard of such as Wallace Stevens when I was younger.

[Mathor]

See, Bloom must be right.
Take this as example. I said she may , not that she did. There is a difference you know.If the fact that hypothetical was not clear (how come) the final sentence where I said that it is pointless to consider the effects since the movie does not mention how many times she did would suffice.
But the amazing part is you talking about aging, something I do not mention. I mention getting tired just like she would if she went to sleep a little later that night. And either 1 hour or 8 hours, it would be studying. Studying is not how many hours you take, but what you do.

1.it DID say how many times she used it.
2. 1 extra hour per day might make a person slightly more tired, but it wouldn't be noticeable, as i have reiterated over and over again.

[Paulclem]

The irony of course with King is that his novels introduced me to a variety of "good" poets that I had previously never heard of such as Wallace Stevens when I was younger.
__________________

I read some King in the 80s and The Shining last year. They are good at what they do aren't they. Of course you move on if you want more from reading, but it's nice to go back for a change of pace. Horses for courses I say.