Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
Warren Ockrassa wrote: I don't believe they are like every other children's title out there. They are a mix of familiar elements from two strands of children's literature - boarding school and fantasy - that in terms of quality sit somewhere in the middle of the field. I'll wager you're more immersed in better books for kids. For that reason I'm guessing you don't live in the States. ;) I remember Reading Rainbow used to always harp on the Carnegie Award winners, and I remember teachers that also did that. Interesting to find out later in life that the Carnegie Awards are British. Odd to see such a major instance of our having to import good thinking. I find it ironic, too, that the worst player in the Franchise Books for Kids, with their awful advertising direct in our public schools, the Scholastic Corporation, also just happens to be the ones publishing the American editions of the Harry Potter series. -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ Support Open/Free Mythoi: Read the manifesto @ mythoi.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 26, 2005, at 2:12 AM, Martin Lewis wrote: On 7/25/05, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: They are fun books and encouraging children to read is always a good thing but in what possible sense have they raised any bar? Have you read them? Yep. :D OK. I figured you had, but it doesn't hurt to establish that right out. Some people don't like HP but haven't read the books. Some base the judgment only on the first movie, which is a little like dissing ST:TOS based on a viewing of ST:TMP. The arc of storytelling isn't the only thing that develops; the depth of writing and of issues tackled by Rowling has also increased from novel to novel. I don't know of any other children's series that matures along with its readers. It's true the books have matured; whilst still not exactly subtle Rowling has toned down the broader, most childish elements. Yeah, and there are times when I wonder if she always planned it to be that way, or if she's been developing as a writer too, or if there are editors avidly encouraging her, or if marketing punch alone is letting her take a more mature tone, or what. However there's no way the books have matured with their readers, rather they have moved from the 9-10 level to the 11-12 year old level. Hmm, I'll have to disagree there. Starting with book 4 much heavier issues are covered, things that tend to be deeper than are recognized as "acceptable" lit for the barely preteen crowd. Any one who has kept pace with Harry in years as they have read the books will have far out matured the book. Definitely, but that's partly because the books aren't released one per year. ;) There's a huge crossover into adult readership at least partly because of that. Why would that explain the crossover? Why would adults start reading a book for ten years olds on the off chance the series will become for seventeen years olds? Oh, they wouldn't, you're right about that. I was thinking more of adult readers who came to the series later, say with book 3 or 4 (maybe picking one up one day to see why son/daughter is so enamored), and realized they didn't suck at all, so decided to start from the beginning and read the whole series. Certainly no one reading in 1998 or '99 or so would have thought things could have developed they way they have over time. And, of course, the books are simply, strictly *better* than most of what passes for kids' titles out there. They really aren't. You could walk into the children's department of a bookshop and quite easily pick up a better book. You could pick up a worse book too but that's not the point. Um, I'm not sure which bookstores you're familiar with, but in the States, that's not so readily true. The vast bulk of children's writing marketed in the US is crap. Most of it seems to be thinly-plotted obviously formulaic franchise drivel, roughly the text equivalent of any "Law and Order" or "CSI" series. And some of it is so devastatingly unreadable that I can't imagine it would *promote* literacy in youth. It's the textual equivalent of shit-flavored ice cream: Sure to leave an unforgettably bad taste in the mouth, guaranteed to affect opinions for a lifetime. I'd ask, rather, in what way you believe the books to be like every other children's title out there. I don't believe they are like every other children's title out there. They are a mix of familiar elements from two strands of children's literature - boarding school and fantasy - that in terms of quality sit somewhere in the middle of the field. I'll wager you're more immersed in better books for kids. For that reason I'm guessing you don't live in the States. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On 7/25/05, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > They are fun books and encouraging children to read is always a good > > thing but in what possible sense have they raised any bar? > > Have you read them? Yep. > The arc of storytelling isn't the only thing that > develops; the depth of writing and of issues tackled by Rowling has > also increased from novel to novel. I don't know of any other > children's series that matures along with its readers. It's true the books have matured; whilst still not exactly subtle Rowling has toned down the broader, most childish elements. However there's no way the books have matured with their readers, rather they have moved from the 9-10 level to the 11-12 year old level. Any one who has kept pace with Harry in years as they have read the books will have far out matured the book. > There's a huge > crossover into adult readership at least partly because of that. Why would that explain the crossover? Why would adults start reading a book for ten years olds on the off chance the series will become for seventeen years olds? > And, of course, the books are simply, strictly *better* than most of > what passes for kids' titles out there. They really aren't. You could walk into the children's department of a bookshop and quite easily pick up a better book. You could pick up a worse book too but that's not the point. > I'd ask, rather, in what way you believe the books to be like every > other children's title out there. I don't believe they are like every other children's title out there. They are a mix of familiar elements from two strands of children's literature - boarding school and fantasy - that in terms of quality sit somewhere in the middle of the field. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 25, 2005, at 4:20 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Yes, he has teenage angst in Phoenix, and does some dumb things, but he really doesn't do wrong. Is teenage angst in Phoenix anything like fear and loathing in Las Vegas? :D -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3 > > That's true, but I think it understates the power of > the scenes where Harry is at the Dursley's. There > he's clearly the oppressed one, and Rowling > (significantly, until this book) is careful to give us > a good long taste of what it's like for Harry to live > there. Sure, but after his first year at Hogswarts, he is acually more powerful than his opressors. He does, of course, lose control in "Prisoner" and inflate his uncle's sister, IIRC. But, the ministry of magic dismisses this as minor. After that, he's bright enough to see that he can do a lot to them in small ways to make their life as miserable as they make his. But, he doesn't. He behaves ethically from the beginning. Yes, he has teenage angst in Phoenix, and does some dumb things, but he really doesn't do wrong.I think it is somewhat amazing that Rowling can make the arch from doing the right thing because one wishes to please a father figure (Dumbledore), to still doing the right thing after finding out that he can get very mad at Dumbledore, and that Dumbledore does make mistakes. It's amazing because she also has him as inherently good from the start, perhaps due to the magic of his parent's love supporting him after their deaths (blood will tell is certainly not the reason). >Similarly, it may be true that only Snape is against him - but the other teachers really do little > to help him, while Snape does a great deal to harm him. So I think it's true that Harry stuck by > ordinary people from the beginning - but it's different to do so when your primary identification is > as one of the downtrodden, and another when you're the elite. Hmm, doesn't his house patron get him on the Quiddich team after he is found flying when he really isn't suppose to? And, he has Dumbledore in his corner from day one. Even though Snapes can give him a really hard time, having the headmaster on one's side is akin to holding trumps. > I think that it's true that he was only an outcast at > Hogwarts for some periods. But he was an outcast for > _the first 11 years of his life_. And Rowling is > careful to make that status clear in all of the > earlier books. Sure she does, but she let kids know that things would get better for Harry very early in even the first book. In a sense, the books ask this question: "you've been taken out of a very opressive situation and now have chances and potential that are truely magical. What are you going to do with this chance? Once he gets to Hogswort he doesn't deal with real opression any more; just conflict. One very good example of this is how, at the beginning of "Phoenix" everyone expects him to be the proctor. Instead, it is Ron. Even Ron's mom is shocked. The moral challange for Harry was to be happy for his friend, even though everyone kinda expected the honor to naturally belong to Harry. > > I agree that, after setting up a classic "prince in > > hiding" scenario, > > Rowling changes it into what you saidwhich is > > well done. I think that > > our disagreement on Snape is tied into the nuances > > of the moral message we > > think Rowling is teaching. If Snape turns out to be > > a hero in the end, I > > think that it will tied up with a key lesson that > > Harry has to learn. > > > > Dan M. > > I'm not really sure what the lesson would be, though. > Things aren't always what they appear? Didn't Harry > learn that from the Sirius Black affair? Whether or > not Snape turns out to be a good guy, he's an awful > person who, at best, is seeking to redeem himself for > unforgiveable acts. He shows himself to be a tremendously flawed person, who is doing a dreadful job of overcoming the problems of his early years. He lets his feelings/attitudes show with Harry from the beginninghe cannot/will not separate Harry from the torment Harry's very popular father inflicted on him. In many little ways, his has often done the wrong thing. But, until this book, when the chips were down, he did the right thing. He is the only deatheater that we know of to have repented (assuming my read of the end of the story is correct). I see the potential for a significant moral lesson in the finale. Let me offer one potential scenario...Rawling will probably be better at this than I am. ;-) Harry rightfully considers Snape a jerk, who has not treated Harry very well, who has done horrible things in the past, and who has killed Dumbledore...who's man Harry still is. Somewher
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
- Original Message - From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:33 PM Subject: Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3 > > I'd ask, rather, in what way you believe the books to be like every > other children's title out there. I'll certainly agree that the Harry Potter is far above the common crowd in youth/children's books. I think though, that a fair criterion for "setting the bar higher" is superiority over those books that have already set the bar: i.e. award winning books for youth and children. There are, actually, some very good books for children that have been written in the past 50 years. Off the top of my head, I think there are two ways that Rowling's work is superior. 1) It has reached many more people than other children's books. While commercial success is not a measure of quality, a book series that manages to be very good while being immensely popular should get bonus points for reaching an expanded audience. A popular formula book doesn't become a good book though popularity, but I think it takes extra skill to write good fiction that becomes a phenomenon vs. just writing good fiction. 2) Rowling has written for kids that have grown up seven years with the book. Every book appears appropriate for readers about Harry's age. I cannot think of a book series that grows with the subject in that manner. As you know, I think the book is well written, teaches important lessons (as Guatam says) about growing up as the right type of person, etc. But, I do not consider this to be unique in all of children's literature. IMHO, the two points I raised are Rowlings unique contributions. The rest is consistent with her just being an excellent author. :-) Dan M. 2) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 25, 2005, at 1:39 PM, Martin Lewis wrote: They are fun books and encouraging children to read is always a good thing but in what possible sense have they raised any bar? Have you read them? The arc of storytelling isn't the only thing that develops; the depth of writing and of issues tackled by Rowling has also increased from novel to novel. I don't know of any other children's series that matures along with its readers. There's a huge crossover into adult readership at least partly because of that. And, of course, the books are simply, strictly *better* than most of what passes for kids' titles out there. I'd ask, rather, in what way you believe the books to be like every other children's title out there. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On 7/25/05, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is amazing that the filmmakers were able to tie together and > > contract such a great cast for the movies. There aren't as many > > great, classically trained actors in work outside of Shakespearean > > performances, and here they are doing "kid's movies". > > > > Of course, I still find it amazing that the books have pushed kids to > > read several thousand pages of text. > > I suspect it's the fact of the latter graf that's influenced the events > you described in the former. The books have done a lot for youth > literacy and have raised the bar regarding what's acceptable children's > lit. They are fun books and encouraging children to read is always a good thing but in what possible sense have they raised any bar? Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 24, 2005, at 11:11 PM, Max Battcher wrote: It is amazing that the filmmakers were able to tie together and contract such a great cast for the movies. There aren't as many great, classically trained actors in work outside of Shakespearean performances, and here they are doing "kid's movies". Of course, I still find it amazing that the books have pushed kids to read several thousand pages of text. I suspect it's the fact of the latter graf that's influenced the events you described in the former. The books have done a lot for youth literacy and have raised the bar regarding what's acceptable children's lit; I'd bet that had a real influence in which actors/actresses were willing to be recruited for the movies. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
Jim Sharkey wrote: I've always wondered if she didn't create Snape's visuals with Rickman in mind. He's just too perfect a fit. What's fun about the movies is watching these fine English actors hamming it up and having a good time. Emma Thompson in particular cracked me up. I've been very partial to Rickman since GalaxyQuest (I'll admit I'm a dork). Whether or not Rowling wrote the character with Rickman in mind, I'm sure it was probably somewhere between Rickman and McKellan that I saw in the part. Dame Maggie Smith, I thought, was another brilliantly cast actor. It is amazing that the filmmakers were able to tie together and contract such a great cast for the movies. There aren't as many great, classically trained actors in work outside of Shakespearean performances, and here they are doing "kid's movies". Of course, I still find it amazing that the books have pushed kids to read several thousand pages of text. -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ Support Open/Free Mythoi: Read the manifesto @ mythoi.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
Warren Ockrassa >Julia Thompson wrote: >>p.s. the best thing about Snape, as far as I'm concerned, is the >>actor who's played him in the movies >Alan Rickman. He was also the Metatron in DOGMA, the Sherriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and the Spock-like character in Galaxy Quest. I've always wondered if she didn't create Snape's visuals with Rickman in mind. He's just too perfect a fit. What's fun about the movies is watching these fine English actors hamming it up and having a good time. Emma Thompson in particular cracked me up. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
Warren Ockrassa wrote: >I see your point, and it'll be interesting to see if it resolves >that way or not. It could break either direction, really. That's part of Rowling's appeal for me. She's pretty careful to keep you guessing, and as Gautam pointed out, makes a concerted effort to "play fair" with her readers. It's one of her best qualities. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
[Spoiler space] On Jul 20, 2005, at 5:16 PM, Matt Grimaldi wrote: >> I'm thinking that he did have Dumbledore's blessing. >> Looking at the death scene, it's very clear that >> Dumbledore was trying to rescue Draco from having >> blood on his hands. Warren Ockrassa wrote: > That's a damned astute observation. He was > definitely delaying Draco, and I'd be very > surprised if it were from *fear* that he > was doing it. He was waiting for someone > to show up, and when Snape finally does, > it's almost like he's egging him on. I have a hunch that Draco's task was similar to Snape's "original sin that he's trying to atone for" backstory. Anyway, Dumbledore prime concern was definitely *not* trying to prolong his own life in that scene, but rather trying to protect both Harry and Draco. As for Harry himself being one of the Horcruxes; I had that idea too while reading this book, but set it aside. If his scar really was one of those things, they would have made some effort at removing it long ago. I have a feeling that the final "truth" about that scar will be much more complicated, and probably will explain why Harry has such difficulty with occulomancy (sp). -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 20, 2005, at 10:17 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: [Mo' space] Now, my question is, is _Harry_ a horcrux? That would give Voldemort a Gryffindor-tied horcrux, which is exactly what he wants. I was wondering that too. Maybe Moldy didn't really *want* to kill him when he was an infant. Maybe Harry ended up containing a piece of Moldy's "soul". Heh, and you thought you had problems with *roaches*! ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
--- Matt Grimaldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My big question is about the object they retrieved. > Who is RAB, how many other horcruxes did he find, > how long ago, and did he destroy them? > > Another angle is that maybe Harry really does have > the Horcrux, and has been duped by misinformation. I think RAB has to be Regulus Black, Sirius's brother who was killed by Voldemort. The horcrux he took would then be the locket that gets briefly mentioned while they're cleaning out 5 Grimmauld Place in OotP. My guess is that this locket was stolen by what's-his-name, the guy Harry gets upset with in this book, and they'll have to find it and retrieve it in book 7. Now, my question is, is _Harry_ a horcrux? That would give Voldemort a Gryffindor-tied horcrux, which is exactly what he wants. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 20, 2005, at 5:16 PM, Matt Grimaldi wrote: [Spoiler space] I'm thinking that he did have Dumbledore's blessing. Looking at the death scene, it's very clear that Dumbledore was trying to rescue Draco from having blood on his hands. That's a damned astute observation. He was definitely delaying Draco, and I'd be very surprised if it were from *fear* that he was doing it. He was waiting for someone to show up, and when Snape finally does, it's almost like he's egging him on. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
-- [Spoiler room] . . . >> The look on Snapes' face is a clue I think. His >> reaction to being called a coward is another. I >> think it would be a wonderful twist if Snape, who >> has now lost all honor, actually did it because >> he promised Dumbledore that he wouldand because >> it was necessary for Harry to succeed. > That's an interesting suggestion. So Snape took the > oath because he knew he had to, in order to be a kind > of fifth column in the Death Eaters, and he did it > with Dumbledore's blessing? Hmm! I'm thinking that he did have Dumbledore's blessing. Looking at the death scene, it's very clear that Dumbledore was trying to rescue Draco from having blood on his hands. Once the other death-eaters showed up, he knew his life was ending; but he strove to the very end to protect every one of the students in his school. Snape, on the other hand, was probably near panic, watching whatever plans he was working on fall apart around him. My big question is about the object they retrieved. Who is RAB, how many other horcruxes did he find, how long ago, and did he destroy them? Another angle is that maybe Harry really does have the Horcrux, and has been duped by misinformation. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
(No spoilers) On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:08 AM, Julia Thompson wrote: p.s. the best thing about Snape, as far as I'm concerned, is the actor who's played him in the movies -- now I'm hoping Rowling can convince me there are better things about him (although that particular actor is very hard to top, in my book) Alan Rickman. Yeah, he's got a real personality, doesn't he? He was also Marvin's voice in the dreadful movie version of _Hitchhiker_ -- and, IMO, the single asset the movie had -- and he was the chief bad guy in _Die Hard_, which I hadn't realized at all until seeing the movie again comparatively recently. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 19, 2005, at 7:34 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote: [Yep, spoilers] Warren Ockrassa wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: S P O I L E R S P A C E Snape is revealed. Is he? I think Ms. Rowling *still* left enough wiggle room for >>Severus not to be the bad guy. Yes, he did kill Dumbledore, but there are signs both in that scene and in Harry's pursuit of him that suggest there's more to it than "Snape is on the Dark Side." This isn't a Lucasian world where a single act of good can redeem a murder (a la Vader at the end of RotJ). And Snape, unlike Draco, *chose* to take on the task should Malfoy prove unable. He elected to take the oath; he wasn't under anyone's compulsion. I don't think there's any way to recover from that. This is true. However, I think it's clear that Snape may have been told to do whatever it takes to stay in Voldemort's inner circle. *And* Dumbledore's pleading with Snape could just as easily have been him pleading for Snape to do what was necessary to save Malfoy and his family. Not to mention that it was just as possible that even Snape couldn't take on four Death Eaters, meaning if he tried to save Albus all that would have happened was that everyone (including Dumbledore) would have died pointlessly. I see your point, and it'll be interesting to see if it resolves that way or not. It could break either direction, really. Finally, his "parting shot" to Harry: "Blocked again and again and again, Potter, until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed." Sounds like good advice to me. And while Voldemort is supposed to kill Harry, as Snape points out, why not stun him and bring him to the Dark Lord rather than let him go? Voldy already proved he's not above having Harry served up on a platter in GoF. Might have been a little too inconvenient to be dragging him along for his disapparition, perhaps, or just one of those things that bad guys do for plot convenience. You've got an interesting outlook, and as I was thinking about it before I remembered Dumbledore's pleading tone as well and got to wondering what exactly it meant. Did he paralyze Harry to save him from being torched by the Death Eaters, or to stop him from interfering in something he knew had to be done? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: "Maru Dubshinki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 10:57 PM Subject: Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3 Spoiler Space Returned And I felt very annoyed when the Prince turned out to be Snape rather than Voldemort. I feel a little cheated at such dishonesty- one expected the Prince to be actually a prince, no? I knew from the very start that Voldermort was not the Prince. There was a big clue before the book came out. (Rowling said he wasn't.) :-) Dan M. I missed that statement from her. :) I, like Maru, thought it was Voldemort. But I like being surprised by a book, so that was OK. Very pissed at Snape, but I need to go back over some things that may help explain to me *why* he did what he did. Julia p.s. the best thing about Snape, as far as I'm concerned, is the actor who's played him in the movies -- now I'm hoping Rowling can convince me there are better things about him (although that particular actor is very hard to top, in my book) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
Warren Ockrassa wrote: >Jim Sharkey wrote: >>S >>P >>O >>I >>L >>E >>R >> >>S >>P >>A >>C >>E >>> Snape is revealed. >>Is he? I think Ms. Rowling *still* left enough wiggle room for >>Severus not >>to be the bad guy. Yes, he did kill Dumbledore, but >>there are signs both in that scene and in Harry's pursuit of him >>that suggest there's more to it than "Snape is on the Dark Side." >This isn't a Lucasian world where a single act of good can redeem a >murder (a la Vader at the end of RotJ). And Snape, unlike Draco, >*chose* to take on the task should Malfoy prove unable. He elected >to take the oath; he wasn't under anyone's compulsion. I don't >think there's any way to recover from that. This is true. However, I think it's clear that Snape may have been told to do whatever it takes to stay in Voldemort's inner circle. *And* Dumbledore's pleading with Snape could just as easily have been him pleading for Snape to do what was necessary to save Malfoy and his family. Not to mention that it was just as possible that even Snape couldn't take on four Death Eaters, meaning if he tried to save Albus all that would have happened was that everyone (including Dumbledore) would have died pointlessly. Finally, his "parting shot" to Harry: "Blocked again and again and again, Potter, until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed." Sounds like good advice to me. And while Voldemort is supposed to kill Harry, as Snape points out, why not stun him and bring him to the Dark Lord rather than let him go? Voldy already proved he's not above having Harry served up on a platter in GoF. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
[No spoilers here] On Jul 17, 2005, at 10:17 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: When she's done with Harry Potter, I rather imagine that she's going to turn into a heck of a mystery writer. That's a neat idea. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 17, 2005, at 9:00 PM, Dan Minette wrote: [Spoiler!] From: "Maru Dubshinki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 10:57 PM Subject: Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3 Spoiler Space Returned And I felt very annoyed when the Prince turned out to be Snape rather than Voldemort. I feel a little cheated at such dishonesty- one expected the Prince to be actually a prince, no? I knew from the very start that Voldermort was not the Prince. There was a big clue before the book came out. (Rowling said he wasn't.) :-) I was relieved. The constant references to Moldyfart were actually getting pretty trite. There was a nice break from the JKR formula here -- actually the whole book was a breach from the trend set in the first three or four volumes -- that I found quite refreshing. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 17, 2005, at 3:57 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: [Spoilerplate] . . . --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 2. OK - this is really the part of the book I find most interesting. The extent to which these books are, in a sense, didactic is quite remarkable to me, and I really admire both Rowling's skill and her principles. There are a few scenes in particular that, to me, send this message. But let's set the context a little bit. In the earlier books Harry was, in general, a poor, downtrodden kid. I don't think so. He is _the_ Harry Potter almost from the beginning. He is a favorite of the headmaster, of many of the teachers, and is a rare first year Seeker, who is remarkedly good at it, too. He is proclaimed a hero at the end of the first book, and wins glory for his house with his actions. Only Snape, who distrusts the family, and Malfoy and his henchmen are against him. Further, Malfoy is against him because he turned down an invitation to join him very publically. Harry was sticking by ordinary people (a poorer wizzard family and a Mudblood from the the very beginning. That's true, but I think it understates the power of the scenes where Harry is at the Dursley's. There he's clearly the oppressed one, and Rowling (significantly, until this book) is careful to give us a good long taste of what it's like for Harry to live there. Similarly, it may be true that only Snape is against him - but the other teachers really do little to help him, while Snape does a great deal to harm him. So I think it's true that Harry stuck by ordinary people from the beginning - but it's different to do so when your primary identification is as one of the downtrodden, and another when you're the elite. It just occurred to me how very Dickensian a lot of this story is. Harry's more or less the perfect iconic Dickens hero -- a boy who survives tremendous oppression, an orphan, who manages to maintain a sweet spirit, and who over time and in the right environments flourishes as a really fine young man. When was he an outcast? He had two great friends, he was a key player on _the_ sports team, etc. It wasn't until book 4 & 5 that people in general started questioning him because he said that You-Know-Who was back and that he fought him. I think that it's true that he was only an outcast at Hogwarts for some periods. But he was an outcast for _the first 11 years of his life_. And Rowling is careful to make that status clear in all of the earlier books. One of the striking things about the books, really, is how _angry_ they are. You get the feeling that Rowling works herself up into a howling rage at the British class system - something she is able to do despite being a billionaire. That was the biggest insight to come out of Slate's Book Clubs on Harry Potter, I think. And that again is what feels so much like Dickens. (Well, that plus the books are turning into great whopping thick wedges of pulp, another Dickens hallmark. ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 17, 2005, at 12:19 PM, Dan Minette wrote: [Spoiler room] . . . The look on Snapes' face is a clue I think. His reaction to being called a coward is another. I think it would be a wonderful twist if Snape, who has now lost all honor, actually did it because he promised Dumbledore that he wouldand because it was necessary for Harry to succeed. That's an interesting suggestion. So Snape took the oath because he knew he had to, in order to be a kind of fifth column in the Death Eaters, and he did it with Dumbledore's blessing? Hmm! There is one more clue concerning this, Dumbledore knows something about Snape that no-one else does. He was not fooled by Tom Riddle, and I don't think he was fooled by Snape. Or maybe it was simply his sense of optimism regarding pretty much everyone. I get the sense that he *wanted* to see the good in Riddle but, over the years, began to recognize that it was impossible. Someone in book 6 made a comment to the effect that Dumbledore has no choice but to see the good in almost everyone, and that it would be his downfall. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 17, 2005, at 8:12 AM, Jim Sharkey wrote: [More space…] Gautam Mukunda wrote: 1. A few quick thoughts on the plot 2. Some more serious thoughts on the moral messages and ideas I think Rowling is trying to convey (and why they make me far more impressed by her writing than I was before reading this one) 3. A few brief thoughts on the extent to which Rowling is engaging in - at least to a small extent - some political allegory S P O I L E R S P A C E Snape is revealed. Is he? I think Ms. Rowling *still* left enough wiggle room for Severus not to be the bad guy. Yes, he did kill Dumbledore, but there are signs both in that scene and in Harry's pursuit of him that suggest there's more to it than "Snape is on the Dark Side." Ah, but Dumbledore, in his discussion of horcruxes, makes it clear that murder destroys the soul. This isn't a Lucasian world where a single act of good can redeem a murder (a la Vader at the end of RotJ). And Snape, unlike Draco, *chose* to take on the task should Malfoy prove unable. He elected to take the oath; he wasn't under anyone's compulsion. I don't think there's any way to recover from that. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
On Jul 16, 2005, at 11:07 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: [Ye Olde ƒpoiler-ƒpace.] . . . 1. The plot of this book was actually very sparse. In terms of the main plot - the war - what happened? There wasn't much of a sense of a larger scale, but then, none of the HP books have *ever* been about anything but Harry, Hermione and Ron, really, set largely at Hogwarts. She couldn't open the scale of the narrative without reducing the focus, I thought. That said, there did seem to be some glossings-over of affected students' families, but then, given how the book ended, maybe the thought was that the emotional impact of the last few chapters was more than enough. Just as Rowling doesn't delve extensively into intimate relationships, she doesn't seem to want to describe, in rich detail, the collateral damage of the war. Too, there's the fact that much of it is kept underground to begin with. There's a sense of suppression of sorts, but then, think back to your high school days. How much active discussion of current wars was going on in formal classroom settings? Three chief events. Dumbledore is killed. Snape is revealed. We learn what Harry will have to do to defeat Voldemort. That's all I can think of. Mm, development of Ron & Hermione, which didn't surprise me; and Harry and Ginny's brief tryst, which also didn't surprise me, and which I expect will be revisited… The big shock was not Dumbledore dying, of course - it's been obvious that that had to happen at the end of Book Six since, well, Book 1, probably. What is a huge shock, of course, is that _Snape_ would be the one who murders him. Yeah, me too -- I had the impression that at first Malfoy was told to target Harry, but when Ron drank the poisoned mead I realized Dumbledore was the target. And I kept expecting Snape to somehow figure out a way to break the oath and survive, or maybe let Dumbledore "win" in a duel, or maybe that D. had something up his sleeve, so to speak, in his slow floorward progress on the parapet. I am quite impressed by Rowling's skill in setting this up. As in each of her other books, she plays absolutely fair with the reader. We had enough information to figure out (before Harry does) what Malfoy was doing, for example - although I doubt many people will. Ahh, the mead's a dead give-away, isn't it? To me it was one of those clues like the "flowery" scent Harry smells near the love potion, and then a few chapters later the "flowery" scent he notices just before Ginny shows up. And as far back as book 4 (maybe even 3) or so she was clearly carrying a torch for him. But in each book Rowling has carefully crafted a structure - we suspect Snape, we hate Snape, we discover that Snape is actually a good guy. By this book, of course, I was so used to that structure that I completely failed to suspect Snape. I kept vacillating, FWIW. I really wanted to believe he was playing a part, I suppose. His duplicity in the end -- or was it, really, duplicity? -- did catch me off guard. I think I was hoping that Rowling was going to make a point about intentions sometimes being masked by necessities, but of course Harry was right all along. So when Snape appeared at the last minute - I expected him to rescuce Dumbledore (somehow) or perhaps even die in glorious but futile defense of him. Yeah! Exactly. I certainly didn't expect the murder. Yet again, here - Rowling actually provides us with a Voldemort-approved explanation for his behavior, and we knew (from Harry's Occlumency lessons) that Snape was a half-blood - although I don't recall _anyone_ suggesting Snape as the Half-Blood Prince, and it certainly didn't occur to me while I was reading. I only suspected it toward the end, after Harry curses Malfoy in the bathroom. It occurred to me that maybe somehow it was Snape's book after all (earlier I'd suspected it was another one of Moldyfart's oblique historical artifacts), but then of course there was the female "Prince" Hermione found out about. There's a theme here dealing with mudbloods too. The Dark wizards all seem to be fanatically uptight about "purity" -- and yet not ONE of the major players, even Moldy himself, happen to have the "purity" of blood they so crave. They're self-loathing first, it seems, and rather than deal with it in a healthy way they decide to spread the misery around. The focus was clearly (as it says on the dust jacket flap, of all things) on the home front. We got to see relationships further develop at Hogswarts - in a highly amusing and enjoyable fashion, of course. To slip into discussion of the movies for a moment, I was very satisfied with the way Cuaròn dealt with this in the third film. He ushers all three of the characters into the maturity of young adulthood in a way that simply would have been impossible for Columbus. CC would have made sure there was a lot of mugging, eye-rolling and other goof
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
No spoilers here. On Jul 17, 2005, at 4:45 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: One of the striking things about the books, really, is how _angry_ they are. You get the feeling that Rowling works herself up into a howling rage at the British class system - something she is able to do despite being a billionaire. I believe she was all but homeless shortly before HP&tPS sold, however. That may go a long way to explaining things. She was a struggling single mother, yes, and living in a bit of a hovel. And in the attempts to get the first book published she was rejected by a LOT of editors, many of whom might not be able to find work anywhere any more. She's certainly not fond of elitism or class prejudice, I would suspect. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
--- Maru Dubshinki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Spoiler space added > But I must quibble with one bit: > How on earth can you claim that we could've figured > out Malfoy's plot? > We knew that there was a plot, yes, and that it > would involve > smuggling past the security (here's an interesting > and timely > parallel: for all the endless cameras and paranoid > signs I saw in > London, the bombers *still* got through handily, > just as Malfoy and > the Deatheaters did with the endless reams of > security 'round > Hogwarts.), and that two large objects would be > involved I don't think we could have figured out the details of the plot, no. But we _could_ have figured out that the room of requirement was involved, because Rowling carefully mentioned people sitting outside it on multiple occasions. They were always disguised, but at this point I feel like I should have realized that a first-year who drops their scales (or whatever the other thing was - I don't remember offhand) was not just a casual Hogwarts event, it was a clue to what was really going on. She always does this - remarkably so. In Goblet, for example, we _could_ have figured out what was up with Rita Skeeter before Hermione did, because Rowling carefully makes sure that a bug is mentioned each time there's a conversation that we overhear. When she's done with Harry Potter, I rather imagine that she's going to turn into a heck of a mystery writer. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
- Original Message - From: "Maru Dubshinki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 10:57 PM Subject: Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3 Spoiler Space Returned >And I felt very annoyed when the Prince >turned out to be Snape rather than Voldemort. I feel a little cheated >at such dishonesty- one expected the Prince to be actually a prince, >no? I knew from the very start that Voldermort was not the Prince. There was a big clue before the book came out. (Rowling said he wasn't.) :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > The big shock was not Dumbledore dying, of course - > it's been obvious that that had to happen at the end > of Book Six since, well, Book 1, probably. What is a > huge shock, of course, is that _Snape_ would be the > one who murders him. I am quite impressed by > Rowling's skill in setting this up. As in each of her > other books, she plays absolutely fair with the > reader. We had enough information to figure out > (before Harry does) what Malfoy was doing, for example > - although I doubt many people will. But in each book > Rowling has carefully crafted a structure - we suspect > Snape, we hate Snape, we discover that Snape is > actually a good guy. By this book, of course, I was > so used to that structure that I completely failed to > suspect Snape. So when Snape appeared at the last > minute - I expected him to rescuce Dumbledore > (somehow) or perhaps even die in glorious but futile > defense of him. I certainly didn't expect the murder. > Yet again, here - Rowling actually provides us with a > Voldemort-approved explanation for his behavior, and > we knew (from Harry's Occlumency lessons) that Snape > was a half-blood - although I don't recall _anyone_ > suggesting Snape as the Half-Blood Prince, and it > certainly didn't occur to me while I was reading. Very enjoyable analysis, Gautam. The plot was defintely slower than usual because of all the revelations/memories/ backstory (which, as I said, improve the previous ones. A dab bit of retconning.). But I must quibble with one bit: How on earth can you claim that we could've figured out Malfoy's plot? We knew that there was a plot, yes, and that it would involve smuggling past the security (here's an interesting and timely parallel: for all the endless cameras and paranoid signs I saw in London, the bombers *still* got through handily, just as Malfoy and the Deatheaters did with the endless reams of security 'round Hogwarts.), and that two large objects would be involved, but we had no information suggesting that the pair of objects would be the key to circumvention. Even stretching Harry's observation that the security would ignore poison in a bottle doesn't lead us to all of Malfoy's plot, and most definitely not to a pair of space-twisting chests or whatevers as the mechanism, esp. a pair of chests which have never been mentioned before (IMO... I could have missed a reference or two. Correct me here if I'm wrong please.) And I felt very annoyed when the Prince turned out to be Snape rather than Voldemort. I feel a little cheated at such dishonesty- one expected the Prince to be actually a prince, no? ~Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
Gautam Mukunda wrote: >One of the striking things about the books, really, is how _angry_ >they are. You get the feeling that Rowling works herself up into a >howling rage at the British class system - something she is able to >do despite being a billionaire. I believe she was all but homeless shortly before HP&tPS sold, however. That may go a long way to explaining things. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > So, spoilers ho! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The plot of this book was actually very sparse. > In > > terms of the main plot - the war - what happened? > > Three chief events. Dumbledore is killed. Snape > is > > revealed. We learn what Harry will have to do to > > defeat Voldemort. That's all I can think of. > Each of > > these is important, of course, but it's really not > > much for a 652 page book. > > I'll bet against #2. Say first time we meet after > book 7, the loser buys > drinks? There are some indications that things are > more complicated than > we think. From memory after reading yesterday, Dan hasn't completed his thought here, unfortunately. Jim made the same point (Hi Jim! I deleted your post by accident, or I would be responding to it first). Thinking about it a little more after both your posts, I think you're both right. This probably was a setup by Rowling - something that takes particular strength, I think, from the fact that she has stated that she thinks of this book and the 7th one as really a single, longer book, in which case she'd be maintaining her pattern if we're supposed to be surprised by Snape's innocence at the end. That being said, if it turns out that way, I'll be both happy with Rowling (because it would be a little annoying if Harry was right all along about Snape) and disappointed (because given the way it was set up, it seems to me that Snape could have rescued Dumbledore if he wanted to - he had the opportuntity to take all four Death Eaters by surprise from behind, and we know that Snape is an exceptionally dangerous combatant). But I'll take your bet, Dan, even though I think you'll probably win it :-) I think there's one other point that further strengthens this argument. We know that Harry's father saved Snape's life, we know that a powerful bond is formed when a wizard saves another wizard's life, and we know that Snape "repayed" James by being indirectly responsible for his murder. What happened to that debt? It has to have been passed along to Harry, and knowing that, it seems unlikely to me that Snape can really have turned. > > 2. OK - this is really the part of the book I find > > most interesting. The extent to which these books > > are, in a sense, didactic is quite remarkable to > me, > > and I really admire both Rowling's skill and her > > principles. There are a few scenes in particular > > that, to me, send this message. But let's set the > > context a little bit. In the earlier books Harry > was, > > in general, a poor, downtrodden kid. > > I don't think so. He is _the_ Harry Potter almost > from the beginning. He > is a favorite of the headmaster, of many of the > teachers, and is a rare > first year Seeker, who is remarkedly good at it, > too. He is proclaimed a > hero at the end of the first book, and wins glory > for his house with his > actions. Only Snape, who distrusts the family, and > Malfoy and his henchmen > are against him. Further, Malfoy is against him > because he turned down an > invitation to join him very publically. Harry was > sticking by ordinary > people (a poorer wizzard family and a Mudblood from > the the very beginning. That's true, but I think it understates the power of the scenes where Harry is at the Dursley's. There he's clearly the oppressed one, and Rowling (significantly, until this book) is careful to give us a good long taste of what it's like for Harry to live there. Similarly, it may be true that only Snape is against him - but the other teachers really do little to help him, while Snape does a great deal to harm him. So I think it's true that Harry stuck by ordinary people from the beginning - but it's different to do so when your primary identification is as one of the downtrodden, and another when you're the elite. > When was he an outcast? He had two great friends, > he was a key player on > _the_ sports team, etc. It wasn't until book 4 & 5 > that people in general > started questioning him because he said that > You-Know-Who was back and that > he fought him. I think that it's true that he was only an outcast at Hogwarts for some periods. But he was an outcast for _the first 11 years of his life_. And Rowling is careful to make that status clear in all of the earlier books. One of the striking things about the books, really, is how _angry_ they are. You get the feeling that Rowling works herself up into a howling rage at the British class system - something she is able to do despite being a billionaire. That was the biggest insight to come out of Slate's Book Clubs on Harry Potter, I think. > I agree that, after setting up a classic "prince in > hiding" scenario, > Rowling changes it into what you saidwhich is > well done. I think that > our disagreement on Snape is tied into the nuances > of the moral message we > think Rowling i
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
- Original Message - From: "Jim Sharkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 10:12 AM Subject: RE: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3 > > Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > >1. A few quick thoughts on the plot > >2. Some more serious thoughts on the moral messages > >and ideas I think Rowling is trying to convey (and why > >they make me far more impressed by her writing than I > >was before reading this one) > >3. A few brief thoughts on the extent to which Rowling > >is engaging in - at least to a small extent - some > >political allegory > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > S > P > A > C > E > > > Nor could I. Though Rowling doesn't seem to mind the wizards' anti-Muggle prejudices as much as >their prejudices against other magical creatures. Yes, most wizards reject the term Mudblood, et. al., >but most still look down on the non-magical as your average person on the street looks down at a > mentally retarded person. That is one thing that's always bothered me a trifle about her books, frankly. But, one of the three main characters is a Mudblood. Three critical characters are half-breeds. The pure blood ancestors of Tom Riddle were "wizzard trash." I think she was just being subtle about this, not ignoring it. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
- Original Message - From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:07 AM Subject: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3 > So, spoilers ho! > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. The plot of this book was actually very sparse. In > terms of the main plot - the war - what happened? > Three chief events. Dumbledore is killed. Snape is > revealed. We learn what Harry will have to do to > defeat Voldemort. That's all I can think of. Each of > these is important, of course, but it's really not > much for a 652 page book. I'll bet against #2. Say first time we meet after book 7, the loser buys drinks? There are some indications that things are more complicated than we think. From memory after reading yesterday, 1) I see a parallel between the arguement between Snapes and Dumbledore and the arguement between Potter and Dumbledore. Dumbledore made Harry promise to do what he said, no matter what the consequences were to Dumbledore. Harry lied to Dumbledore about what he was drinking towards the end, knowing full well he could be killing him. My guess is that Dumbledore had some guess of the chances of he, Potter, and the Death Eaters being together. He would have given Snape an "if this happened, do this" order. Because Snape did it, Malfoy still hasn't killed anyone. The look on Snapes' face is a clue I think. His reaction to being called a coward is another. I think it would be a wonderful twist if Snape, who has now lost all honor, actually did it because he promised Dumbledore that he wouldand because it was necessary for Harry to succeed. There is one more clue concerning this, Dumbledore knows something about Snape that no-one else does. He was not fooled by Tom Riddle, and I don't think he was fooled by Snape. > 2. OK - this is really the part of the book I find > most interesting. The extent to which these books > are, in a sense, didactic is quite remarkable to me, > and I really admire both Rowling's skill and her > principles. There are a few scenes in particular > that, to me, send this message. But let's set the > context a little bit. In the earlier books Harry was, > in general, a poor, downtrodden kid. I don't think so. He is _the_ Harry Potter almost from the beginning. He is a favorite of the headmaster, of many of the teachers, and is a rare first year Seeker, who is remarkedly good at it, too. He is proclaimed a hero at the end of the first book, and wins glory for his house with his actions. Only Snape, who distrusts the family, and Malfoy and his henchmen are against him. Further, Malfoy is against him because he turned down an invitation to join him very publically. Harry was sticking by ordinary people (a poorer wizzard family and a Mudblood from the the very beginning. > Abused by his parents (aunt and uncle, which is important I think) >often an outcast at school, When was he an outcast? He had two great friends, he was a key player on _the_ sports team, etc. It wasn't until book 4 & 5 that people in general started questioning him because he said that You-Know-Who was back and that he fought him. >not all that successful with girls (when it became important) and > so on. I think the lack of success with girls was not atypical for a 15 year old boy. :-) >One message of the earlier books was thus a > powerful one sent to readers - many of whom (before > the books took off) would, of course, fall into that > category. That's a powerful and important message, > and I appreciate Rowling doing it. But that's a > routine message in children's literature. How many > kids books _don't_ focus on the downtrodden outcast > who ends up being a hero? It's not exactly rare. I agree that spans the first part of the first bookeven the first book. But, by the second book, being famous was getting to be a problem, IIRC. I think that Rowling is good in that she started playing variations on this familiar story rather early. > Harry _chose_ to be a hero, as Snape and > Voldemort choose to be evil. In emphasizing the > centrality of choice, Rowling says something to all > her readers. Harry isn't special because of a > prophecy or destiny. He is special because of the > choices he makes - and you too can make choices. I agree that, after setting up a classic "prince in hiding" scenario, Rowling changes it into what you saidwhich is well done. I think that our disagreement on Snape is tied into the nuances of the moral message we think Rowling is teaching. If Snape turns out to be a hero in the end, I think that it will tied up with a key lesson that Harry has to learn. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
Gautam Mukunda wrote: >1. A few quick thoughts on the plot >2. Some more serious thoughts on the moral messages >and ideas I think Rowling is trying to convey (and why >they make me far more impressed by her writing than I >was before reading this one) >3. A few brief thoughts on the extent to which Rowling >is engaging in - at least to a small extent - some >political allegory S P O I L E R S P A C E >Snape is revealed. Is he? I think Ms. Rowling *still* left enough wiggle room for Severus not to be the bad guy. Yes, he did kill Dumbledore, but there are signs both in that scene and in Harry's pursuit of him that suggest there's more to it than "Snape is on the Dark Side." For example, Dumbledore had to know he had no chance of surviving his encounted with four Death Eaters, weakened as he was by his (as it turned out, fruitless) pursuit of Voldemort's horcrux. Was his pleading to Snape actually a desire to save the lives of Malfoy and his family, and of Snape himself, rather than him hoping that he hadn't been wrong about Snape all along? Of course, on the flip side of that is how Dumbledore repeatedly insists that his few mistakes are inevitably enormous ones. Which only furthers the ambiguity, but I like that Ms. Rowling is trying to keep us guessing. :) >Well, I'm sure that Harry will, in fact, return to Hogwarts, >despite what he says at the conclusion. I hope you are right. I think a "quest for the horcruxes" book would be doing a disservice to the many secondary characters she's created, especially after giving Neville and Luna (two fan favorites from what I've seen) such short shrift this time around. >In this book, however, the situation is different - and here, in a >real sense, I am more impressed. Now, Harry is the king of Hogwarts. >A hero to most of his peers, adored by girls, the favorite of most >of the teachers, captain of the Quidditch team. Harry isn't the >downtrodden outcast. He's the elite. What does he do? He (in my >single favorite moment of the book) invites Luna Lovegood to a >prestigious party. Now that the books are being read by everyone, I >think Rowling is taking advantage of this popularity to send a new, >much rarer message. Now, knowing that the kings of the school will >also be reading her books, I think Rowling is trying to teach _them_ >something. This is how you should behave. You reach out to the >poor kids, the unpopular kids. That's not a common message, because >most kids lit doesn't have the popular kids as the heroes. That's a very interesting analysis, Gautum. It's one heck of a message to send, I agree, and it's the kind of quality of character I hope my own children will have. I see it in my son; he hates for anyone, even the "weird" kids, to feel left out, despite the fact that he has some quality about him that makes almost everyone want to be his friend. I can only hope that he keeps that as he gets older. >Character is, I have always thought, the product of choice. You are >who you choose to be. Absolutely. I remember reading a saying that said something along the lines of "Character is the choice you make when no one is watching." In the course of the books, Harry tries very hard to make the right choices. And even when they are the wrong choices, he makes them for the right reasons. >I could not imagine a better set of messages than the dual ones of >rejecting bigotry and accepting differences while also focusing >on the importnace of recognizing evil and fighting it when you see >it. Nor could I. Though Rowling doesn't seem to mind the wizards' anti-Muggle prejudices as much as their prejudices against other magical creatures. Yes, most wizards reject the term Mudblood, et. al., but most still look down on the non-magical as your average person on the street looks down at a mentally retarded person. That is one thing that's always bothered me a trifle about her books, frankly. I truly enjoyed your analysis, Gautum. Thanks for taking the time to post it. Jim When's book seven coming out? Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Harry Potter Discussion (Spoilers!!!) L3
Well, ask and ye shall receieve. There are three major threads of analysis here, the last two of which are intertwined and I'm vaguely thinking about turning into something a little more serious. Anyways, they are: 1. A few quick thoughts on the plot 2. Some more serious thoughts on the moral messages and ideas I think Rowling is trying to convey (and why they make me far more impressed by her writing than I was before reading this one) 3. A few brief thoughts on the extent to which Rowling is engaging in - at least to a small extent - some political allegory So, spoilers ho! 1. The plot of this book was actually very sparse. In terms of the main plot - the war - what happened? Three chief events. Dumbledore is killed. Snape is revealed. We learn what Harry will have to do to defeat Voldemort. That's all I can think of. Each of these is important, of course, but it's really not much for a 652 page book. The big shock was not Dumbledore dying, of course - it's been obvious that that had to happen at the end of Book Six since, well, Book 1, probably. What is a huge shock, of course, is that _Snape_ would be the one who murders him. I am quite impressed by Rowling's skill in setting this up. As in each of her other books, she plays absolutely fair with the reader. We had enough information to figure out (before Harry does) what Malfoy was doing, for example - although I doubt many people will. But in each book Rowling has carefully crafted a structure - we suspect Snape, we hate Snape, we discover that Snape is actually a good guy. By this book, of course, I was so used to that structure that I completely failed to suspect Snape. So when Snape appeared at the last minute - I expected him to rescuce Dumbledore (somehow) or perhaps even die in glorious but futile defense of him. I certainly didn't expect the murder. Yet again, here - Rowling actually provides us with a Voldemort-approved explanation for his behavior, and we knew (from Harry's Occlumency lessons) that Snape was a half-blood - although I don't recall _anyone_ suggesting Snape as the Half-Blood Prince, and it certainly didn't occur to me while I was reading. The focus was clearly (as it says on the dust jacket flap, of all things) on the home front. We got to see relationships further develop at Hogswarts - in a highly amusing and enjoyable fashion, of course. We get to see Harry mature a great deal. We get to see the alliances and relationships that will be crucial to the final confrontation finally fall into place. All of this is important, but no exactly eventful. The book is successful, I think, largely because at this point we have so much invested in the characters that I (at least) really do find myself caring about what happens to them - even their relationships, not just the war effort. Rowling has earned our (or at least my) affection enough that I'm willing to read the book just to spend time with her characters, even if not a lot happens. If you don't feel that way about them (and you don't care about the stuff I'll write about in my next two points), you probably won't like the book nearly as much as I did. So, what does this say for the final book? Well, I'm sure that Harry will, in fact, return to Hogwarts, despite what he says at the conclusion. I presume that McGonagall will take over permanently as Headmaster - which implies a new head for Gryffindor and (of course) Slytherin. Malfoy will not be back - and Hogwarts without Malfoy and Snape doesn't have much potential for dramatic conflict, so I'm guessing that while Harry will be there, not that much of the plot will actually take place there. I bet he does end up taking his NEWTS, though. One wonders what Rowling would do to the SATs. 2. OK - this is really the part of the book I find most interesting. The extent to which these books are, in a sense, didactic is quite remarkable to me, and I really admire both Rowling's skill and her principles. There are a few scenes in particular that, to me, send this message. But let's set the context a little bit. In the earlier books Harry was, in general, a poor, downtrodden kid. Abused by his parents, often an outcast at school, not all that successful with girls (when it became important) and so on. One message of the earlier books was thus a powerful one sent to readers - many of whom (before the books took off) would, of course, fall into that category. That's a powerful and important message, and I appreciate Rowling doing it. But that's a routine message in children's literature. How many kids books _don't_ focus on the downtrodden outcast who ends up being a hero? It's not exactly rare. In this book, however, the situation is different - and here, in a real sense, I am more impressed. Now, Harry is the king of Hogwarts. A hero to most of his peers, adored by girls, the favorite of most of the teachers, captain of the Quidditch team. Harry isn't the downtrodden outcast
