[Rhubarb]

Hey yeah! That would make so much sense. I always thought the whole "Voldemort zapped you with magic and it sapped him of his powers so that's why you're like him now" explanation was really halfcocked. If Harry's actually been carrying a bit of Voldemort's soul all this time, that's pretty damn awesome.

[SithAvenger]

I also thought that Harry was a Horcrux as well. It would be cool that after destroying the Horcruxes and defeating Voldemort, Harry kills himself to save the world.

The reason this can happen: So Rowling doesn't get tons of fan mail to write more Potter books.

[Chyld]

Well, it does make more sense than the whole "love stops evil death magic" thing (I can't see how someone sacrificing themself to save you is so unique to young Mr Potter), but fuck it, I like playing devils advocate, so lets have a go.

You remember in the chapter about Horcruxes, how Dumbledore mentions "to confide your soul to something that can think and move for itself is obviously a vert risky business"? Wouldn't it be quite a bit worse to confide it to a conscious being? A conscious being who could, were he to realise the magnitude of the situation, kill himself to unHorcrux himself? In this case, a conscious being whose parents you've, rather famously, murdered? Prophecy or no prophecy, that ain't such a hot idea.

I did have another argument, but its gone. I'll come back to it.

Rhu: I haven't studied it, but hit me with a condensed version and I'll see if I understand. And as to the Occlumency argument, I'm going to clasp at straws and remind y'all that the Harry-Voldemort connection is supposed to be a special case. And also, if we run with the Harry-is-a-Horcrux thing, then this would suggest Harry having a measure of Voldemorts power, hence some immunity to having his mind pokey'd around in.

However you choose to look at it, it still seems she's painting herself into a corner, methinks.

[civilian_number_two]

I think Dumbledore pulled a Ben Kenobi, and Snape knew all about it. No reason Dumbledore couldn't have got his wand back, or sprung another one, during all that talking with Malfoy, before the real baddies came in. If Dumbledore trusted Snape implicitly, it's pretty uninteresting to reveal that Harry had been right all along. Besides, like folks here have pointed out, Snape has been too useful and helpful in the past suddenly to be evil.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 01 September 2005 - 02:15 PM

[Rhubarb]

Yeah. And I mean, she's already provided kind of a preview to the Snape Are Good revelation, with the H-BP's Potions book. Harry took to relying on that book and thinking of the previouss owner as a friend. Then it turned out to be Snape's! It was obviously significant, I mean, it's the fucking title of the novel. If that just goes nowhere, it's literally pointless.

Besides, along with her leftwing propeganda, she's already shown that she's heavily into 'don't judge people by surface impressions' themes, such as (in no particular order) Sirius not being an evil psycho murderer, Quirrel being evil, Tom Riddle (such a pretty young man) being Voldemort, Viktor Krum being a decent guy, Luna being quite sharp, and Fleur not being shallow, not to mention the *countless* times Harry suspected Snape as the villain and was proven wrong. She can't break that pattern, it goes against all the previous themes, and for all her faults, she's a good enough writer to know that's a bad idea.

There was other stuff but I forgot.

[civilian_number_two]

Wow for a bunch of grown-ups we're really into this kids' book. Survey: kids' cover, or adults'? (kids')

[floppydisk]

Thats pretty much the way I thought about it, until after I finished it and decided that the final Horcrux is obviously Harry Potter himself. I think Dumbledore said that Voldy only had 6 when he killed Potters parents. This is probably going to be the real meaning of the prophecy. If this is true, it should lead to a nice satisfying climax.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Basically what Chyld said. It's a bad idea to put it into a living person, and Voldemort's too smart to do something dumb like that. Plus, if we can believe Dumbly, there's seven peices, six in items, the seventh in V. himself. Seven's always been a number associated with magic stuff.

Wow for a bunch of grown-ups we're really into this kids' book. Survey: kids' cover, or adults'? (kids')

I think she intended it to be a kid's book series at first, but when she realized the scope of people who read it, she made the next few more complicated and more accesible to people of all ages.

This post has been edited by floppydisk: 31 July 2005 - 11:41 AM

[Rhubarb]

Or maybe it's just the fact that just because a book is apparently aimed at children doesn't mean it's automatically shite, ie. Roald Dahl.

I wouldn't call it any more complicated or accessable. I think she just started writing it that way naturally. The story isn't about a wide-eyed eleven-year-old cutiepie suddenly stumbling into a world of magic anymore. It's about a sixteen-year-old amateur wizard preparing for a final showdown with the ultimate evil.

The alternate theory is that the final horcrux is Hogwarts. But I find the Harry one much more plausible. There's been a million characteristics that link Harry to Voldemort... same kind of wand, almost went in Slytherin, telepathic scar thing, and all the other countless things I forget... and putting that all down to "some of his magic got left in you somehow," is as stupid as the prophesy idea originally was, or how the "VOLDEMORT IS IMMORTAL THROUGH SOME MAGIC OR SOMETHING" explanation was before the horcrux stuff came up.

[Slade]

I must concur with Rhubs, Snape was such a great character, and there's no way he can just turn around and be evil at this point, though Dumbledore did say that his mistakes were much larger than normal, and that would be an enormous mistake. Harry is an idiot for hating Snape, though Snape's not roses either, since he hated Harry because Harry's dad and friends were assholes to him, like many others. His fascination with the dark arts is no surprise. And the whole SNAPE LIKES THE MACABRE, HE IS T3H EVIL! thing got old four books ago.

All of the romance crap should have been omitted, and it irked me when the women got so huffy because Fleur entered the room. Such petty jealousy...

Am I the only person besides ScubaSteve who realizes that Luna is such a kickass character? If she could lay off the tabloid theories or just turn them into good conspiracy theorys, I'd be more crushing than So-and-so and Cheerleader combined. She's the only one in the book who's managed to say "I just don't care" to all of the stupid foolish social stigmas and groupthink that highschool teenagers sucumb to. I cringed every time he felt awkward because she told the truth or he felt like he'd rather be with someone "cooler"...

[Rhubarb]

Am I the only person besides ScubaSteve who realizes that Luna is such a kickass character?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I mentioned her a couple of times in my *cough* 'review', and she's definitely one of the best characters, right up there with Snape and Lupin and the late Dumbledore. It really said a lot to me about both Rowling and English schools that literally everyone including Harry thought she was a total freak. Most people I went to school with would have just been all over this chick as the epitome of cool.

[scubasteve4lyfe]

I completely fell in love with Luna upon reading this passage from Book Five, where the kids are all caught in Umbridge's office:

There was a silence in the office except for the fidgetings and scufflings resultant from the Slytherins' efforts to keep Ron and the others under control. Ron's lip was bleeding onto Umbridge's carpet as he struggled against Warrington's half nelson. Ginny was still trying to stamp on the feet of the sixth-year girl who had both her upper arms in a tight grip. Neville was turning steadily more purple in the face while tugging at Crabbe's arms, and Hermione was attempting vainly to throw Millicent Bulstrode off her. Luna, however, stood limply by the side of her captor, gazing vaguely out of the window as though rather bored by the proceedings.

Plus Luna is just so totally hot for wearing her wand behind her ear and being able to see thestrals.

[Slade]

I think your school was the exception. In the United States those people are ostracised far, far worse than Rowling portrays. Any breach of the status quo is met with immediate hostility which will only end when the xenophobes die or the person tries to fit in. Sadly, the former doesn't happen often enough, and it's usually a school shooting, not a freak accident or virus that only targets morons.

[Chefelf]

I started reading the Harry Potter books last month and I just finished HBP. I was confused by all this talk about the book covers until I found out that apparently there are different covers in different countries.

To see the different versions in different countries click here.

Also, it's odd that in America the first book is called The Sorcerer's Stone and in the UK it's apparently called The Philosopher's Stone. I think that the UK thought that America was not ready for the word philosopher.

[azerty]

There are more differences than just the covers, actually, especially in the first book. Quite a few Englishisms are Americanized, and the whole Philosophers stone/Sorcerers stone thing of course. Examples off the top of my head are Dudley saying "won´t" instead of "shan´t", calling trainers sneakers, Dumbledore eating Sherbet Lemons rather than Gumdrops, etc. Also the English versions don't have the little drawings at each chapter heading.

Changing the philosophers stone is a bit more of a big deal, since there really was a search for the philosophers stone, and Nicolas Flamel was a real person, (and there is a Rue Nicolas Flamel in Paris). I have no idea why they publishers would do that. HP was already massive outside the states before Schoolastic picked it up. It´s not like they rescued a dying book from obscurity by changing the title.

However, I believe that the American versions of the later books have been changed less than the earlier ones. There is more talk of bins rather than trash cans, etc. This is all for the best, since the books have an English flavour anyway, and a few exotic words won't be a distractiuon for the American reading public.

Other countries have kept the Philosophers stone, but in Italy, for example, Professor Snape becomes Professor Piton, Dumbledore is called Albus Silente, McGonagall is McGranitt, and there are a few others I can´'t remember right now.

This post has been edited by azerty: 01 September 2005 - 02:58 AM

[Chefelf]

Hmmm. Odd. I hate when they change things so that Americans will get it. It's so insulting to think that an American won't know what "trainers" are. Sure, they're kids books but just like any other word you look it up or as your Mom and then you know it forever. It's doing children a disservice to have these things edited.

The versions I have definitely call sneakers trainers.

Changing the names in other languages is just moronic. What does that achieve? Most of the names have some sort of linguistic meaning (in English or Latin). Unless they keep those meanings the same what is the purpose. Do they just translate the word Fudge into Italian and call the character Cornelius Fondente?

I think I like the change from the Philosopher's Stone to the Sorcerer's Stone. It shouldn't be a real (legendary) thing. That just makes Harry Potter a contemporary Indiana Jones.