[Spoon Poetic]

Haha. I dunno, I thought he was rather boring in the first few books, and then he got bitchy and was still boring in the last couple of books. *shrug* And I don't think JK's lying about him being dead, but I do think that somehow his character will live on some other silly way like the picture frame or somehow the pensieve version of him will suddenly be able to communicate with outsiders, blah blah... She likes him too much to cut him completely out.

[Gobbler]

Sounds like someone's got a father-complex alright.

[Gobbler]

I'm sorry. I should take these discussions more seriously instead of just posting not-so-funny one-liners.







... but I can't. So have a look at this:

http://sephkillspotter.ytmnd.com/

[civilian_number_two]

Azerty: I don't think you have a "different" view of Harry Potter after all. I think you go too far in blaming American consumerism for the padding and dumbing of the succevive chapters (Rowling remains English and that is a culture as much dumbed down by consumerism as any other), but essentially that's what everyone feels. The books were ok until Rowling tried to pretend she'd had a "long" story in mind all along(I've compared her once before with George Lucas; I'll avoid doing it again here). Once that idea got going, she couldn't finish one story on its own, preferring to make the novels into separate (very long) chapters of the long story. Nothing happens in the last two books; I am really curious to see whether they'll be able to hide that obvious fact with this coming film.

MC: Yes, as said, deathly is a word. At best, it is a slightly different word than "deadly," with meanings that "deadly" cannot cover, as in "a deathly silence" or "a deathly pallor." In exactly the way that Rowling uses it, it is just an archaic synonym for "deadly," and IMO shouldn't have been used.

So, I take it this is the title of the next book, then? I'm not holding my breath, I frankly don't care who's dead and who lives, it's all just gotten too silly. 200 pages of the last book were about Harry thinking Ron and Hermione didn't like him anymore, AND NOTHING ELSE. The first novel was about as long on its own.

[David-kyo]

What Civ 2 said. Personally, I used to like the series, but it's gotten too long to keep me interested, just like the Lost series. It has tension, anticipation, has an interesting plot but is too f**king long. You can't build up tension, and resolve it by just starting to build up tension somewhere else. You need to resolve stuff eventually in a conventional way..

This post has been edited by David-kyo: 23 February 2007 - 08:46 AM

[Madam Corvax]

"Deathly silence"?? Gee, you always learn. I thought that proper form would be "dead silence". Anyway, it does sound archaic and rather artificial.

As to resolving tension, that is why I got tired by it, because after Goblet of Fire which I think was the last decent one, I had so many questions...Will Percy see the light and stop being opoortunist snot? Will they clear Sirius Black's name? Who exactly does Hermione have the hots for? etc, etc. And none of these things were resolved in the next TWO books! So, should I expect another SW Prequel -like solution whnere the last book/film in the series did not answer the questions raised in the first films/books? An I am afraid that's the situation, and it makes me slightly sad that I contributed to all that hype .

[azerty]

You're right Civilian Number Two... but going too far beats not going far enough.

I think it's more than just possible Rowling had a bigger story in mind when she wrote the first books. If she didn't when she started out, she has certainly been clever in fitting things and characters back into her story. I like that it has never been explained why Hagrid got expelled. I like that Aunt Petunia may know more than she lets on. The deal with Mrs Figg was reasonably clever. The rat, the missing toe, and the faked death were intricately woven into the plot. The room of requirement skipped several books, I believe, before it came in handy later on, etc. Same with that killer willow tree too. It's intelligently complicated and elaborate for a kids series, and probably better than it needs to be to keep selling books.

Rowling's book titles have become less revealing too, which is a good thing. Philospopher's Stone and Chamber of Secrets are sort of self explanatory. Prisoner of Azkaban is slightly less revealing (prisoner FROM Azkaban, OF Azkaban). Goblet of Fire is even less obvious. Order of the Phoenix (I assumed it was going to be a Pour le Mérite kind of order) told us very little. Half Blood Prince was a total red herring, and since Deathly Hallows can mean anything, it maintains interest without giving anything away. It beats a 'Tarzan versus the Ant Men" kind of sequel title, anyway.

As for whether the upcoming film will be able to hide or reveal anything, I don't care. All the films except Azkaban have been absolute rubbish. Not only in comparison with the books, but they don't even have any internal consistency or show the most basic understanding of the plot or story. I've said it before, but they are abridged readings of the text with accompanying special effects, of interest only to those born without an imagination. They are boringly one dimensional and colorless. Only in Azkaban did I feel that the Potter world wasn't just a few stage sets, and the characters not just actors carefully reading lines from a script.

Rowling is worth some amount of Billions of Dollars, right? I'm impressed she is still bothering to write the Potter books at all, when she could be doing the Steve Fossett thing or whatever with her money. She must still care at least a little bit, and that's got to be worth some points.

Madam Corvax - Deathly Silent, Deathly Pale, and Deathly Still are the only three ways I can think of to use deathly in a sentence. And, like a lot of English exp​ressions, (I had to explain the term "Keep going" to someone today) you can't translate the sentence word for word and have it make any sense. Maybe the name of the new book will make sense after we read it.

[civilian_number_two]

Azerty: I don't believe that Rowling had in mind the plots of the later books when she wrote the earlier ones. Shoehorning details from earlier books into later stories is a standard in sequel writing - remember how they brought Spock back to life? At best there are clever uses of earlier works, at worst it's weak retconning and fanboy drivel, ie all the Boba Fett stuff in the STAR WARS prequels.

My main point when talking about the next HP movie was that I think it will be an amazing work of art of it manages to feel like a story at all. I say this because in the novel, as in the Half-Blood Prince, NOTHING happens. In Order of the Phoenix, Harry just mopes around and deals with puberty before settling inevitably on dating Ron's sister. Then some stuff happens in the last two chapters that looks like action. Loads of characters are introduced who are then forgotten or ignored in the next book, in the classic style of an author who has found herself in a corner. In Half-Blood Prince, the only time the polt moves forward is in the flashbacks. Then again, suddenly, some action takes place at the very end of the book and we're asked, no begged, to give a shit. In order to salvage the weakest narrative in the series, the author kills a major character - a trick she's already tried in the previous book! - but it's so poorly handled that the majority of the readership thinks it didn't really happen.

The next book had better be a seriously brilliant masterpiece if she's going to redeem herself for the last three two.

[TruJade]

What Civ 2 said. Personally, I used to like the series, but it's gotten too long to keep me interested, just like the Lost series. It has tension, anticipation, has an interesting plot but is too f**king long. You can't build up tension, and resolve it by just starting to build up tension somewhere else. You need to resolve stuff eventually in a conventional way..

Yes! i completely agree
Lost has lost ( ha ha )
all appeal to me i don't
even bother to watch anymore.

I just have someone fill me in
on the bits which isn't much.
Civ 2 has a point as far as the Harry Potter books
being pretty long.Theres alot to digest.

Personally it took me 2 3/4 days
to read the last book with only total of 8 hours sleep.
That is ridiculous! it took me less time
with Book 5 which i believe was bigger.

And the last of my agreements are with azerty.
The Prisoner of Azkaban is by far the best book
and not so much the movie
cuz it ended out of sequence.

Azkaban also has little to do with
Harry and Voldemort and i like that very much.
i find that Harry is a bit to whiny for my taste.
'I never wanted this" or "why me?" well it happened

so by the chamber of secrets you really should've just accepted it.
And Voldy is just way crazy, like dude was never good.
Deathly Hallows will probably be much like ROTS
a checklist in aswering unaswered questions.

[Slade]

Once the characters hit puberty they all got stupid and whiney and I wanted to see them all get killed. Harry especially is very emo these days. Poor me, always getting into trouble and actively going on adventures, waah, a big scary wizard wants me dead, waah, I have to do school work, et. cetera, ad infinitum.

Civ: Ah yes, I do recall deathly in conjunction with pale, and it seems reasonable, but I too pointed out that it was archaic in its usage as a book title.

[Spoon Poetic]

I just had to point out that they did reveal why Hagrid was expelled - young Voldemort blamed him for opening the Chamber of Secrets. I'm pretty sure that was just the second book, wasn't it?

[Supes]

That's correct. Hagrid's expulsion and the reasons for it were dealt with fairly early on.

Don't forget deathly quiet people!

I have a bit of a mixed view of Harry Potter. I didn't start reading the books until the 5th one came out and I read them all in succession. I think it was "azerty" who was talking about the titles originally being open and then not giving much away, but to be honest I have felt the opposite.

"The Half-Blood Prince" - When I read the title of the book I said to myself it is either Harry or Sanpe. It wasn't that far into the book that I worked out it was Snape. Please remember that at their heart they are still kids books.

"The Goblet of Fire" - Well this really was pretty straight forward. Much of the story revolved around the attainement of entry into this event and then the winning of it.

"The Prisoner of Azkaban" - Again didn't leave a lot to the imagination when we found out that Sirius had escaped. It was pretty clear he was going to be an important part in the Harry mythology. As to his death (the first major character), well it had to happen. You couldn't have Harry getting to happy to soon. And now he's dead they don't really need to clear his name, because the "important people" know the truth.

Anyway, I could go on, but the simple fact is I still find these books enjoyable. I wont say that they are spinning my had with their unpredictability, because that would be lying, and I have Superman as an Avatar so therfore I cannot lie! I do get frustrated with the stupidity of the childish antics of the characters and the trivial things they get caught up on. But at the same time I also ralise that they are supposed to be children and to be honset in reality these are the things that children, and young adults, do get caught up on. I don't think it's so much that J.K. is out of touch, but more that she knows her audience and is writing to that group despite what the hype is looking for. The angst and teenage crap that most of us find so annoying and dull is actually what many of her readers are looking for.

Did she have the full series in mind? I'm of the opinion that most have, and that is no she did not. I'm sure that there are few "un-established writers" out there with a 7+ book series running around in their heads. They are writing to achieve a publishing contract and then going from there. I'm a reader of fantasy fiction. If you want to see writers who can take a story arch and then develop it further go and read Raymond Feist. Stay the hell away from Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time though. That will only cause you more pain.

Coming back to "deathly" though. I actually like this word. It has a softness and smoothness that belies it's meaning. It is a descriptior of death. "Dead silence" is harsh and gives the impression if finality. "Deathly silence" though gives you the impression of that state and feeling of nothing. It resonates quiet and a menace that you do not get from the finality of death.

People do not be upset with the creation of new words. Shakespeare did it and we love him for it. Words are the identification of our age. Embrace it, but at the same time do not be afraid to look to the past for wonderful descriptors. I am in very good company when it comes to this idea with some of the writers and talents we have. And in very many ways I am a poor advocate for this ascertion.

This post has been edited by Supes: 25 February 2007 - 04:28 AM

[Slade]

The problem with deathly is that it already is a word and just seems very out of place in modern English.

It was said on this very board that every time Robert Jordan starts a new story arc, God kills a kitten. I liked the books until that started happening. And then he spent half a book on the dull, corrupt and conniving politics of people in their branches of government. There's nothing I love more in a fantasy book then a half-book lull in the action for slow political subterfuge that goes almost nowhere!

[civilian_number_two]

The problem with deathly is that it already is a word and just seems very out of place in modern English.

What you mean Slade is "contemporary" English, and I agree. In the context in which she uses it, ie not to describe an idea or a state, as in the nice "deathly silence" that Supes mentions, but to describe, apparently, a physical place, "Deathly Hollows" (or possibly a goth group formed by Ron and his brothers), in this context it is awkward.

Anyway, "Modern" English describes the English language from about the time of Shakespeare on. Every time someone, and I don't mean you in this case, says that it's hard reading Shakespeare when one is accustomed only to "modern" English, Shakespeare kills a kitten. At present count he's covered head to toe in cat's blood, and drowned half his audience as well.

[Spoon Poetic]

Sorry to be a nitpick, but it's Deathly Hallows, not hollows. As in, like, holy relics or saints. Which makes it even weirder, for me. However, I guess "Deadly Hallows," while having a clearer meaning (apparently, the relics [probably the horcruxes] bring about death), doesn't sound as... Enigmatic? I'm not sure.