|
|
Post by Justicez17 on Oct 25, 2009 19:55:14 GMT 12
After seeing Manda's post in the suggestion section and seeing wolfofdoom's post flaming the last book, why not we discuss what we think is good and bad about the story. Why not we try and keep it as pairing-neutral as we can?
Good
- Story was interesting
- Showed how someone can beat all odds and come out on top
- Friendship Themes(applies only to Harry and Hermione, Ron seems to only be with them when it suits him)
Bad
- Random references or some chapters that are completely useless in the plot( the prime minister's chapter, all the references to Love potions that makes you wonder if it was used(not counting Romilda Vane))
- Dumbledore's questionable actions (Why on earth did he FLY to the MOM in the first book when he could floo, used fawkes or even aparate outside of hogwarts)(He seems to know everything that happens in school, yet leaves everything to Harry to do)(pretty sure there are a lot more)
-The Epilogue was crap and was very vague about what life was after the war.
|
|
|
|
Post by cascade88 on Oct 25, 2009 20:23:42 GMT 12
First off all, good idea for a discussion thread.
Now lesse.
I disagree that the friendship terms only applied to Harry and Hermione. Ron was very much a good friend to them both, not counting a good portion of Book 4. My only agreement in this is that after Book 4, he shouldn't have had another falling out with Hermione (Book 6) and with her and Harry (Book 7). It made him seem bad and off-character.
I mean, if he got over it his angsty issues in GoF, they shoudn't have come back twice more. That aside, he was still a good friend, over all, it's just harder to remember that considering his behavior in the last book.
As for the "bad" things.
I believe that the Prime Minister's chapter was used to give the reader a sense of just how truly dangerous the sitatution at hand is. Not only is the wizarding world in danger and at risk, but even the Muggle world as well. It was meant to give a sense of magnitude to the danger of Voldermort.
The Love potion references weren't random at all. In fact, if you look just beyond the adventure of the story, it's very pulse belongs to a love story.
Love is mentioned right from Book 1 to be highly "magical", but this isn't even entirely meant to be taken literally. Technically, yes, there is a true magical property to Lily's blood protecting Harry, but it was the effort of the sacrifice of herself for her son, made out of love, that caused the "spell" to activiate. It's also said right there in the begining that it's our choices that make us who we are. This all comes back later, of course.
Skipping on ahead to Book 5, we come across a room in the Dept. of Mysteries that is locked and blocked off so much, that the attempt to break in melts Sirius's freaking knife. The substance? Love, of course. It was meant, obviously, to kind of give a physical property to just how strong it is, considering that it's a recurring theme.
Now I'm sorry, but there was clearly a greater way that Love Potions came into play beyond Romilda Vane's cauldron cakes.
Voldemort's mother ring a bell? She hooked Tom Riddle with a Love potion if you'll remember, and it ulitmately led to her deceiving herself into believing he might honestly just love her for who she was. Of course, he didn't, and she wound up giving birth and then dying, and this is how the Darkest Wizard of all time came to be. So of course Love Potions played a major part in the entire history of the story.
Also, those cauldron cakes almost killed off a main character (Ron), and ultimately served as a way to get one of the canon couples (R/Hr) back together. Now whether or not you or I or anyone else likes that couple is not the point, I only say it to prove the point of potions definitely playing a key role. They weren't referenced randomly at all.
Anyway, going back to my initial point of this being a love story. Harry chose to love his friends, to love Sirius, his professors, etc., and it saved him from possession by Voldemort. Love for Lily Potter was the sole reason Dumbledore trusted Snape, too. It's all about love, in the end.
About Dumbledore, there probably are issues like that. Maybe J.K. didn't have quite every detail entirely worked out initially. I know she never writes in the book about Harry getting the Marauder's Map back, but yet he somehow gets it back anyway.
Even for someone who initially had R/Hr as their OTP, I agree that the epilogue seemed just kinda tacked on at the end. She could've either elongated and detailed it, or left it off altogther, but hey, what can you do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justicez17 on Oct 26, 2009 6:59:48 GMT 12
The Love potion references weren't random at all. In fact, if you look just beyond the adventure of the story, it's very pulse belongs to a love story. Love is mentioned right from Book 1 to be highly "magical", but this isn't even entirely meant to be taken literally. Technically, yes, there is a true magical property to Lily's blood protecting Harry, but it was the effort of the sacrifice of herself for her son, made out of love, that caused the "spell" to activiate. It's also said right there in the begining that it's our choices that make us who we are. This all comes back later, of course. Skipping on ahead to Book 5, we come across a room in the Dept. of Mysteries that is locked and blocked off so much, that the attempt to break in melts Sirius's freaking knife. The substance? Love, of course. It was meant, obviously, to kind of give a physical property to just how strong it is, considering that it's a recurring theme. Now I'm sorry, but there was clearly a greater way that Love Potions came into play beyond Romilda Vane's cauldron cakes. Voldemort's mother ring a bell? She hooked Tom Riddle with a Love potion if you'll remember, and it ulitmately led to her deceiving herself into believing he might honestly just love her for who she was. Of course, he didn't, and she wound up giving birth and then dying, and this is how the Darkest Wizard of all time came to be. So of course Love Potions played a major part in the entire history of the story. Also, those cauldron cakes almost killed off a main character (Ron), and ultimately served as a way to get one of the canon couples (R/Hr) back together. Now whether or not you or I or anyone else likes that couple is not the point, I only say it to prove the point of potions definitely playing a key role. They weren't referenced randomly at all. Anyway, going back to my initial point of this being a love story. Harry chose to love his friends, to love Sirius, his professors, etc., and it saved him from possession by Voldemort. Love for Lily Potter was the sole reason Dumbledore trusted Snape, too. It's all about love, in the end. You're really getting into this aren't ya?(why does it seem to only be the 2 of us most of the time in most of the threads?  ??) Sometimes i find it strange that someone like Harry even managed to turn out well when he was growing up with the Dursleys. Don't get me wrong, but i mean he spent most of his life being put down, abused and so on yet it seemed to have very little negative impact on him. And you would think that someone from the wizarding world(apart from Mrs. Figg) might actually keep them in-line while Harry was living with them. |
|
|
|
Post by cascade88 on Oct 26, 2009 9:35:59 GMT 12
You're really getting into this aren't ya? I can at times with certain things, if I really care about them. HP is one of these things.  (why does it seem to only be the 2 of us most of the time in most of the threads? ??) You know, I don't know. I find it amusing that people want this board to be more "alive", yet they won't bother to post, and as of late it's depended on me, you, and Sp1derp1g and NaurtoNinja44 on occasion. Sometimes i find it strange that someone like Harry even managed to turn out well when he was growing up with the Dursleys. Don't get me wrong, but i mean he spent most of his life being put down, abused and so on yet it seemed to have very little negative impact on him. And you would think that someone from the wizarding world(apart from Mrs. Figg) might actually keep them in-line while Harry was living with them. Well, realistically, yeah, Harry should've been a bit more angsty than the average bear, all things considered. But maybe there was a point to this, in J.K.'s mind. Tom Riddle grew up badly as well, and he took it badly. To the 50th extreme. Feeling neglected and unloved arguably taught him to not love, that love isn't important. Harry grew up badly, feeling not loved, but it managed to teach him to hold on to and cherish/value the love he had for the friends he made and vice/versa. I guess that was the point, Harry and Voldemort happen to be remarkably similar, but Harry chose to be a better person (way back from begging to not be in Slytherin while under the sorting hat) and so he was better for it, simple as that. He did get his era of angst anyway, in the beginning of Book 5. Totally emo to a point at times. But then again, maybe it took him until the age of 15 to truly feel angsty. I can't say I've personally come across many angry/brooding 11 year olds. They might have issues, but they don't fully become full-blown "WTF" towards life until a couple of years later, when their minds can better understand injustice and so on and so forth. Hm I might as well bring up a topic. Does anyone find it annoying that most of Ginny's arguable badassery appeared "off-screen"? I mean she wasn't give tons of book time after Book 2, and then suddenly she's this powerful, clever witch? Did it make you like her character any less? |
|
|
|
Post by Justicez17 on Oct 26, 2009 10:23:47 GMT 12
Does anyone find it annoying that most of Ginny's arguable badassery appeared "off-screen"? I mean she wasn't give tons of book time after Book 2, and then suddenly she's this powerful, clever witch? Did it make you like her character any less? Not really. Throughout the whole story, I've been fairly neutral about her. As you said everything about her has been developed off-stage so its really hard for me to judge her character. And although it did end up as the canon pairing(although i'm H/Hr, i'm rather neutral about this) many of the people supporting it were rather let down by the lack of foreshadowing(might be some, but it felt like it just *poof* happened). Lets see. What do you guys think of Sirius Black's character and how his life has been since he was introduced formally to the series(3rd book, although he was mentioned in book 1). I mean he spent 13 years(?) in Azkaban for a crime he did not commit without a trial(shows how corrupt the ministry is). Then it seemed that even after breaking out, he was constantly on the run or trapped inside his own home. (And can we have more people join this discussion? I am actually a really poor debater) |
|
|
|
Post by DaveTheFishandChipsGuy on Oct 26, 2009 11:29:15 GMT 12
(I'm crap at debating too >.>)
I liked Sirius. Even from the start, for some reason. I can't remember my initial reactions, cos my memory of things like that is really bad, but I know that as soon as I worked out he was the dog, I figured that he can't be as bad of a character as the other characters were implying. The fact that he managed to SURVIVE Azkaban shows that he was a good man, as he was unable to be driven mad by the Dementors, as all the other prisoners were (mostly).
I was sad when he died. I didn't actually work that out at first, I didn't get why they didn't try to get him back, he only fell through an archway. So yeah, I like Sirius.
<.< Told you I was crap at this >.>
|
|
|
|
Post by Justicez17 on Oct 28, 2009 23:19:35 GMT 12
Dead already??? Lets try discussing another aspect.
Do you think the movies or the books are better? To me i prefer the books because after reading it, you tend to be overtly critical of the movie, however i do prefer some parts of the movie over the book though.
|
|
|
|
Post by cascade88 on Oct 29, 2009 0:40:54 GMT 12
I of course prefer the books over the movies, but I actually tend to not be overly critical of the movies based off of them.
Basically, if you compare the two outright, well duh: books > movies.
However, in their own medium, judging strictly by the quality/content of the film itself, I don't think they remotely disappoint. To be honest, I like the first two movies the least, and it's probably because they stuck a little too closely to the books, if that makes any sense.
Reading a book, you need tons and tons of detail layed out for you, to help you create a mental image in your mind. However, on screen, you can just blatantly see everything before you, so keeping in too many details, too much from the book itself, can make for a boring movie over all. Therefore, I think that filmwise, when they make cuts and leave tidbits out, or add newer ones, it's all fair play, and it works perfectly well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justicez17 on Oct 29, 2009 5:07:59 GMT 12
However, in their own medium, judging strictly by the quality/content of the film itself, I don't think they remotely disappoint. To be honest, I like the first two movies the least, and it's probably because they stuck a little too closely to the books, if that makes any sense. I guess i understand what you're trying to say. Apart from that, what do you think about the portrayal of Dumbledore as a person who is supposedly the most powerful wizard in the world? I mean its often shown that he is the most powerful warlock, heck, he also has a wand that can not be beaten in a duel. |
|
|
|
Post by cascade88 on Nov 3, 2009 8:17:16 GMT 12
I think that while he might have seemed over all infallable, well that was still averted by way of the events of Book 6.
I think that usually, in most fantasy series, there is that one all powerful wizard/witch. For example, LoTR had Gandalf. At the very least, Dumbeldore was given a backstory in the Last book that told how he started out life as a bright, but more than human, individual.
Hm, maybe a new topic? What was your reaction to the revealled Snape/Lily backstory? Did you see it coming, did it catch you off guard, did you like or dislike it; why?
|
|
|
|
Post by Justicez17 on Nov 3, 2009 9:01:48 GMT 12
Meh. I'm not really sure what to think. I guess i could have seen it coming, but i'm fairly neutral about what happened because i'm not sure what to think of it.
How about the Malfoys what is your overall impression of them?
|
|
|
|
Post by cascade88 on Nov 7, 2009 9:05:38 GMT 12
Well, I think that at first, I just viewed the Malfoy's as pesky, and not so much villainous. Later on, I found myself deciding that while Lucias Malfoy was more or less just a coward who craved power, Draco was kind of a good guy, where it truly counted.
He was a total jerk, true. He was mean, rude, nasty, but not seriously evil. Just kind of like an anti-hero with an unforunate disposition I guess.
After the events in Book Six, where you ever tempted to not trust Snape anymore?
|
|
|
|
Post by Justicez17 on Nov 7, 2009 9:28:41 GMT 12
Honestly, i never really liked snape, even from the very beginning, so you could say that i never trusted snape at all, even if he did have his moments like the 1st quidditch match and so on. Go ahead and say i'm biased, but hey, you can't like everyone.
How did you start reading the books in the first place anyway? My father passed me the books once to read, but i didn't like it at first. Only when i got bored a year later did i bother to read all of it(4 books then) did i get hooked on the series.
|
|
??)
