[Madam Corvax]

Could anyone from the native English-speaking community please explain to me what sort of semantic construction is DEATHLY? Is it just a word with no connection to noun "death" at all? (because if it is, should it not be "deadly") What could tha author mean?

Also: who bets that Harry Potter dies at the end of the book?
Another question: who is still interested enough in the series to even bother to think of it, let alone answer?

[Gobbler]

Oh, I can answer that last question: Not me. Granted, I'll read it, to be able to talk about it/know what all the fuzz is about.

There's no real attachment to the characters in my case. Well, I wish they'd all die and get it over with, but I guess that doesn't really count.

By the way, was anyone else laughing his head off when Dumbledore died totally in vain? That ending really made my day back then.

[Spoon Poetic]

According to the dictionary, "deathly" means fatal, whereas "deadly" means it will only probably cause death... *shrug* I thought it was kind of weird structure, as well. And I'm guessing the word "Hallows" refers to those relic/artifact thingies he apparently has to go around collecting now, so I guess maybe they're going to bring about someone's (Harry's?) death.

And I guess I'm pretty interested to see how the whole thing ends, but mostly because I hate cliffhangers, I want to see Harry die, and I haven't been waiting around for this for ten years - I only read any of the other books back when the 6th book came out, when I was stuck in bed due to knee surgery. And doped up on pain drugs, which made the reading experience even more interesting.

[David-kyo]

Since Rowling said that she'd kill Harry in order to get rid of any obligations to make any follow-ups to the story (and, of course, to avoid shitty fan-fiction), I guess it's a safe bet.

Gobbler: I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that Dumbledore didn't really die at the end of the 6th book but is alive and well somewhere in Hawaii and this all was just a big scam on Snape's and Dumbledore's part to fool the whole world including Voldemort's lackeys. Those pranksters.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Since Rowling said that she'd kill Harry in order to get rid of any obligations to make any follow-ups to the story (and, of course, to avoid shitty fan-fiction), I guess it's a safe bet.

That won't stop the fanfiction authors. Trust me.

[David-kyo]

Yes, but it still stops any Harry-Hermione hentai fanshit from appearing all over the net (hopefully) and killing Harry is a small price to pay for that.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Yes, but it still stops any Harry-Hermione hentai fanshit from appearing all over the net

It would take a lot more than that to stop that stuff.

[azerty]

I take a different view of Harry Potter.

Rowling simply wrote a book in 1997 that wasn't too bad for a kid's book. I mean, it was amusing enough, had some clever names, an interesting locale, and was fairly easy to read. British kids seemed to like it, so Rowling wrote the second installment within the next year. So what? I read it
myself, and liked it. So I read the second book as well. What's not to like?

Rowling didn't start the hype, the waiting in line all day dressed up in your wizard robes to buy the next installment at midnight, and all that stupid stuff. That is an American phenomenon - the desire to take something that seems to be popular somewhere else and then start beating the living shit out of it until you have squeezed the last atom of profit from it. Then of course you leave it for dead and move on to the next thing. Maybe afterwards you wonder why you feel a vague dissapointment, but maybe not.

You can note the exact moment that this thrashing of Harry Potter began; it was the year 2000. This is the turning point in the saga of Harry Potter, for several reasons.

America had no interest in Harry Potter up to this point. Scholastic reluctantly published the first novel 14 months after the initial British release date, and a couple of months after the second book was published in Britain. (They had to change the title, of course, and de Englishify some of the text, and change the cover art, and add illustrations.)

read this - http://www.nytimes.c...ing-gleick.html

or this if they are trying to make you pay to read the above -

http://209.85.135.10...3...t=clnk&cd=1

By "reluctantly published", I mean that Scholastic only printed 1000 copies, because who would want to read about some four eyed skinny English dork with magical powers? It's a big risk, you know!

Back to the turning point. The first three Harry Potter books were just little books, read by little kids. Everybody is happy and satisfied. Next we hear in 2000 that Hollywood is making a blockbuster movie out of the first novel. There is nothing wrong with movies of course, and Rowling herself thinks that Terry Gilliam might be a good choice for a director. No, no no, say the American's, we don't want a weirdo like that involved, just look at Brazil and 12 Monkeys, what we need is somebody like that guy who directed that most excellent film "Home Alone!" That's the level we are aiming at. Is the Culkin kid available too? Everybody loves him. Don't worry, we're professionals, we're taking over now, and we know what we're doing.

Rowling finally puts the hammer down and demands an all English cast and filming in England. There is a lot of head scratching amongst the producers. Very dodgy! How will the American kids identify with people talking with those funny accents? There won't be any drinking of tea will there? Well, we'll get Chris Columbus to direct it anyway. He'll manage to grind it all down into the most bland pablum possible. And we can film 2 versions and redub all the long words into American, so don't worry.

In 2000 the shift in the Harry Potter world crosses over to the novels as well. The next novel to be published is Goblet of Fire. It's gotta be bigger and it's gotta be hyped and it's gotta be released at exactly midnight. It's gotta sell 6 million copies sold in the first 24 hours! We need video games, action figures, websites, big diorama displays, a Harry Potter ipod, and it's all gotta tie in with Coca Cola and the movie! Because the books are really just advertising for the movie you know. That's the important thing. Rowling! You've got responsibilities now! Plus you have to pay off that huge advance we have given you, so get on it!

So what do we have in the end? People step in at some point in the series of novels, and they say, "I like everything I've read so far, but the new book is just is overhyped rubbish." It doesn't seem to matter where the readers step into the story. People feel proprietary towards the characters and the plot, and they think that what they themsleves want to happen next is what has GOT to happen next.

The first book was good, but the rest are crap. No, the first THREE are OK, but the fourth is crap. No, it's Order of the Phoenix which is too slow, actually the Goblet of Fire wasn't too bad, etc. The Harry Potter dissapointment is increasing, because the readership is increasing, the hype in increasing. (Look at the sales records of the books. Half Blood Prince had a initial realease of 10.9 million copies. A big step from the initial 1000 copies of Sorcerer's Stone.) Nothing on earth could match the hype sorrounding Harry Potter. Just remember who started the hype and who all the disspointed people are. It's you. (Or them, if you prefer.)

This is basically a Star Wars web site. I stepped in at "Star Wars" and thought the rest were rubbish. Some people stepped in at Empire and thought Jedi was rubbish. The vast majority stepped in after the "Original Trilogy" and think the "Prequel Trilogy" is rubbish.. And of course, all the kids love the whole damn thing. Then there are the people who think that George Lucas ruined their childhoods.

Anybody who hates Harry Potter is crazy. To say "I would have liked it, except now that everybody else likes it, I have decided to hate it because I am better than them," is just crazy. Of course, maybe you personally are not doing that, maybe you really do find every page of the novels boring and objectionable, predictable and obvious.

Reading the Harry Potter books are like eating a Mars bar. When somebody says "You sure are enjoying that Mars bar..." you can only reply "Yep!" and keep eating. Afterwards you can lament about the lack of protein, vitamins, trace elements, omega 3 acids, fiber, etc, but really, you knew all that before you peeled the wrapper off. At least, I hope so.

[Madam Corvax]

I certainly don't *hate* Harry Potter. It is just a children's book, with funny names as azerty mentioned, which are mostly stolen from Agatha Christie. I believe Edith Nesbit wrote better books as far as the story and imagination goes. And certainly there were less disgusting than some of the Rowling's attempt at lavatory humour (smelly socks, and general fascination with toilets).

I am not that influenced by hype - I am just curious how she is going to wrap up the story. Is she going to be lazy and just kil off everyone not convenient? Dumbeldore's death did point in that direction. His death was certainly pointless. While reading the part about his drinking the vile stuff I had the urge to scream "just die already". It was every bit as agonising and painful as torture scene in Braveheart... ANd then I could not help myself thinking, in true lavatorial spirit, that after drinking so much the poor guy was certainly bursting to pee... Which I am sure was not the effect Rowling wanted...

[Slade]

Thoughts:

I too, think "deathly" is a silly word that instead of being perhaps archaic/unused is an awkward, imaginary construction, and that normal people should use deadly, if only for comprehension's sake. It's very sad that publishers are so blatently dumbing material down for American consumption. It would have taken me a little while to pick up lorry meaning truck, but I have no problem with tea or crumpets or putting things into the boot of a vehicle, although I prefer the word trunk for conceptual and habitual reasons. I'm rather meh on the books. They were entertaining at the start and have devolved into trite and totally predictable bleh.

Gilliam directed 12 Monkeys?!

I've never eaten a Mars bar. However, I do enjoy the United States counterpart, Milky Way.

I prefer the phrase "lavatory humor" to "toilet humor". I think I'll have to assimilate that into my vocabulary.

[Gobbler]

Whoa, now that's what I call sorta off-topic... I wanna do that too!

Yesh, the one and only Terry Gilliam. Knowing this makes it all the more fun, eh?

And I've eaten both Mars and Milky Way. Just you wait, people, one day I'll swallow the whole galaxy, too!

... though that would be kinda weird, I guess.

[Otal Nimrodi]

And I've eaten both Mars and Milky Way. Just you wait, people, one day I'll swallow the whole galaxy, too!

Nah. Barend'll beat ya to it.

[TruJade]

I really didn't know that
deathly was a word.

But naturally i just assumed that if
you're rich and vaguely famous

the priviledge to make up words is yours.
Like the Backstreetboys song

Shape of My Heart
the use of the word 'tragical'.

Destiny's Child's 'Bootylicious'
Homer Simpsons 'D'oh' and apparently 'Muggle(s)'

were added to Webster's Dictionary
who knows 'Fergilicious' is probably next.

Anyway the point is though the phrasing
is strange at least she knows how to

wrap up a series the first time around.
And yeah Dumbledore has to be alive,

Snapes still a good guy
Malfoy (father and son) will expire

Harry will die, Voldermort too.
Ron and Hermione get married.

Thats how it should end or don't
kill Harry, whatever i just need closure

[Spoon Poetic]

Sorry, Rowling has stated multiple times that Dumbledore is definitely dead. Maybe his ghost/picture fram dude/memories/something will come into play, but he's dead dead dead, according to J.K. herself. Frankly, I'm glad. He was getting mean and stupid and a plain shitty character there at the end. *shrug* And eeeeveryone has to have Snape be a good guy... Making up so many reasons why Snape really can't be evil. I hope she makes him evil just to get people mad! Which is pretty funny, to see people get mad and so totally into this stuff.

[TruJade]

NOOOOOOOOO!
Spoon you have been possessed!

Did you evey think thst JKR is
telling us Dumbledore is dead

just to make his comeback a surprise.
I actually could accept that Snape is evil

that wouldn't be to much to handle.
But YOU, the hate you have for the

world's greatest wizard is beyond me.