SPOILER WARNING: A thread about the Harry Potter books

[Merlion]

Where is there enough time for Harry to find Voldemort's four remaining Horcruxes in Book Seven? Return of the Jedi needs Books 5, 6, and 7, as it were, not just book 7 (even if you leave out those ewoks ...)

Well bear in mind that book 7 is probably going to be quite a long book regardless, just judging from the ones going before it. And there are only 4 horcruxes remaining, and he does have some information to go on.


Basically Rowling is just going to have to reign in the sub-mysteries and focus on tying up the story in book 7.

But is he going to just go off and do this alone? He should realize from his own background that teamsmenship is the only way to win. He needs Hermione and Ron. He needs Neville and Lucy. He needs Ginny. He needs George and Fred. He needs McDonagall, Sprout, Flickwick, Hootch (sp?), and Lupin. And yes, he needs Snape (unfortunately, seems like Voldemort has pretty much convinced everyone on that one.)

He will no doubt realize that as book 7 progresses, although I wouldnt be surprised if it did come down to just him and Voldemort in the end.

But why this dark? Why focus on the dark so very much?

Because its the end of the story. Because as mentioned, the darker things look towards the end, the more powerful it will be when good triumphs in the end.

I would like to see more of Flitwick and Sprout, more of Hagrid, more of Nick, more merriment and humor and lightness

Thats what the first four books...well, the first three and most of four...were for. Even though things took a more serious tone in book 3, from the begining till the end of Goblet of Fire, the story is pretty lighthearted. Now its time to really get serious.

It just seems like Voldemort and his influence has come in and taken over, right from the start. Before Harry ever had a chance to really grow to love Hogwarts as he should have loved it, Voldemort came in and poisoned everything.

I disagree. Harry comes to love Hogwarts immediately, and experiences four years of (very eventful) happiness there. Nothing that has happened has actually changed that.

This is why I say it should go in the Oliver Twist category. That famous series, by the renown Charles Dickens, focused on the darkness and tragedy also

I'm not really a big fan of genre labels or catagories, so this doesnt really make any difference to me.

But I think this series is going to be a little rough on kids. It needs to lighten up: not everything is grim gloom

Except right now, everything is. That will change in the course of book 7 (unless Rowling turns out to be an idiot).

If Rowling kills Harry Potter, as some people thought she might do, then my point is made in spades. But I hope that it doesn't come to that. What is the point of that? Where is the joy in reading for the reader if that happens? If Ron and/or Hermione fall, the same thing goes, to a lesser extent.

I agree entirely on both counts. Killing any of the three main characters would be a very poor decision on various levels. I also feel that killing off any of the central, well loved good guy types would be unwise as well. Hagrid, McGonagall, Lupin, the Weasly parents etc should, in my opinion, all make it through. Really the only main character who's death I wouldnt consider a huge mistake would be Snape.


The thing I dislike about current events is that for me, for reasons I'm not sure I entirely understand, the current situation in the book is wearing the rather tenious suspension of disbelief about things like the seperation of the Muggle and Wizard worlds a bit thin.

Also I dislike the execution of the Horcruxes. I have no problem with the fact that they are cliche; I dislike the bit about "killing breaks apart the soul". Apparently not just murder but any killing. Which ties into my overall dislike of Rowling's aproach to magic where any spell that could truly hurt someone physically is "dark" and/or forbidden

 

[Merlion]

Oh and also my other disapointment...and I'm sure I will get some negative replies for this but oh well...is this.


The Harry Potter series, mainly Harry's life itself could easily be cast as a metaphor for growing up gay (or different in any way, but come on he lived "in the closet" for 11 years litterally), and I had thought there might be a slim chance that she might've been planning to really do something with that. Have Harry be gay, or at least go through a period of confusion, or at least have a gay student character in there somewhere.


However it now looks as if that is unlikely. Of course disapointment probably isnt the right term...I knew it was unlikely, since it would create immeasurable horribly negative backlash for her and everyone related to the books and movies, but my impression of Rowling's personality made me think something just might happen.

But thats fine, it just means I will have to create some young gay rolemodels in fantasy fiction myself

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Hold up there. Let's not go off in that direction. This is ENWorld, and it could get this thread closed. (You know how sensitive the moderators are here to anything that could be considered political, and indeed political = trouble so they are quite right to suppress such talk, IMO.)

A more appropriate course, within the context of ENWorld's rules, would be to say that Harry Potter was born an OUTCAST.
Many children are born as outcasts, and grow up as outcasts.
Harry Potter can do magic (in our game, we'd call him a sorcerer with the ability to also be a wizard.) That sets him apart. That makes him different. In the eyes of Aunt Petunia, that makes him a freak. Sadly, there are so many correlations to this kind of thing In Real Life that th analogy fits all too well. And I think every 11 year old knows it well, and can easily recognize what Rowlings is doing.

Why don't we keep it on that tone? Let's avoid a subject that is basically verboten on ENWorld. We all get the picture that Harry Potter is an outcast.

(look of irritation)

Now, after what the Dursleys did to him, it would have been NICE if he had received more support at Hogwarts at the start, and later on.
By dark, I'm referring to the dark from Book One.
For example, you'd think McGonagall would have more brains and judgement. Instead, she ignores danger right in front of her. Harry, Hermione, and Ron lost all faith in her intelligence and judgement (with good reason) early on, were rebuked when they tried to obtain her help, and finally took saving Hogwarts and stopping Voldemort into their own hands. (A pitiful shame, that First Years had to stop Voldemort when a cadre of professionals was there who supposedly knew what they were doing. Of course, it made for a GREAT story, but again it reflects badly on McGonagall.)
Snape is ... well, when you give in to hatred, bad things happen. The Emperor in Return of the Jedi would have loved Snape (use your feelings, boy. Let the hate, flow through you!) In Snape's case, he is intelligent enough, but hatred has made an idiot out of him nonetheless.
Hagrid? Great guy. No problem there. The more Hagrid, the merrier.
Flickwick? Nice guy. I wish we could have seen more of him.
Hooch? Threatening to expel students for flying? Ok, why wasn't Draco Malfoy expelled? (and don't tell me she didn't know. Half the school witnessed and/or learned what happened.)
Sprout? Very neat character, very wizardry. No problem there.
Quirrel? Doing his job for Voldemort. No problem there. One of the most competent of the teachers, actually.

Dumdledore, nice guy. Archetypical nice old wizard. So why does he allow bullying, abuse, and general badness at the school? He is not omniscient, but he knows enough (he found Harry at the Mirror of Erised quickly enough) to know better.
Or does he believe mistreatment, abuse, and bullying builds character? Draco Malfoy believes that, but Draco Malfoy is honest about it.

And that's just Book One. The problems get worse, and the darkness deeper, in Book Two, and so on through Book Six.

If it had not been for his friendship with Ron and later Hermione, Harry would never have confronted Voldemort, Voldemort would have returned early, and finis Hogwart's and everyone else.
Then these people, the staff at Hogwarts and the Ministry of Magic, go around acting superior and like ingrates to the boys and girl who saved them. LOL. (Snape should have been on his knees thanking Harry from the end of Book One on (50 points to Gryffindor for this, 50 points to Gryffindor for that!) Or would he have have preferred the tender mercies of Voldemort? And Voldemort WOULD have seen a traitor for a traitor, which Snape was. We know all too well the painful fate Voldemort accords his own servants, much less traitors.)

 

[Merlion]

Hold up there. Let's not go off in that direction. This is ENWorld, and it could get this thread closed. (You know how sensitive the moderators are here to anything that could be considered political, and indeed political = trouble so they are quite right to suppress such talk, IMO.)

Discussion of politics is forbidden. I am in no way discussing politics. I'm discussing something I felt about a particular aspect of a work of fantasy fiction.

If the moderators dont like it, they are of course free to remove it, warn me, ban me etc. But it is already understood that politically or religious topics may arise somewhat in discussion of the main things this site is about; it happens all the time. There have been entire threads discussing the experiences of gay gamers in their RPG groups etc with no problems.

Why don't we keep it on that tone? Let's avoid a subject that is basically verboten on ENWorld. We all get the picture that Harry Potter is an outcast.

Yes of course we do. And he is an outcast regardless. But that doesnt have anything to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about the possibility that he may eventually have been portrayed as being gay (something even some literary observes have commented on).

Of course if its not something you personally wish to discuss, I'm not going to make you. But wether or not the conversational direction is apropriate is up to the mods. They arent going to automatically close your thread. If they consider it a problem...which is a big if judging from my own past experiences, they will post and warn me. If they do, I wont bring it up again. But its a topic people on ENworld have shown themselves to be capable of discussing reasonbly.

For example, you'd think McGonagall would have more brains and judgement. Instead, she ignores danger right in front of her. Harry, Hermione, and Ron lost all faith in her intelligence and judgement (with good reason) early on, were rebuked when they tried to obtain her help, and finally took saving Hogwarts and stopping Voldemort into their own hands. (A pitiful shame, that First Years had to stop Voldemort when a cadre of professionals was there who supposedly knew what they were doing. Of course, it made for a GREAT story, but again it reflects badly on McGonagall.)

One, I wouldnt call this "dark."

Two, children face this sort of thing, and worse, at ALL schools, with great frequency.

Next, some of it is simply writers neccesity. Having McGonagall get involved and solve the problem wasnt what the author had planned. As you say it does reflect badly on McGonagall, but it made for a good story. I think Rowling has gotten better at handling that in later books.

Snape is ... well, when you give in to hatred, bad things happen. The Emperor in Return of the Jedi would have loved Snape (use your feelings, boy. Let the hate, flow through you!) In Snape's case, he is intelligent enough, but hatred has made an idiot out of him nonetheless

We dont really know exactly what Snape's whole deal is yet. However I tend to agree...I never really understand people who show no regard for the feelings of others.

Dumdledore, nice guy. Archetypical nice old wizard. So why does he allow bullying, abuse, and general badness at the school? He is not omniscient, but he knows enough (he found Harry at the Mirror of Erised quickly enough) to know better.

This is an odd one for me. On the one hand, as I mentioned in an earlier post, it seems odd to me to be surprised that a school would allow/turn a blind eye to bullying, because its standard procedure in all schools. In the case of most public compulsory schools such as those here in the US, bullying is in fact part of the insitution's real purpose.

However, this is a fantasy school of magic run by a very powerful, very benevolent wizard. So there are I think two answers to why this is in this situation.

One: Dumbledore believes that he should allow people to make their own decisions, rather than using his power to force people to behave themselves. He'd rather have them figure it out on their own.

Two (the real reason), because it would interfere with the author having the events she wants to take place, take place.

If it had not been for his friendship with Ron and later Hermione, Harry would never have confronted Voldemort, Voldemort would have returned early, and finis Hogwart's and everyone else.Then these people, the staff at Hogwarts and the Ministry of Magic, go around acting superior and like ingrates to the boys and girl who saved them. LOL. (Snape should have been on his knees thanking Harry from the end of Book One on (50 points to Gryffindor for this, 50 points to Gryffindor for that!) Or would have have preferred the tender mercies of Voldemort? And Voldemort WOULD have seen a traitor for a traitor, which Snape was. We know all too well the painful fate Voldemort accords his own servants, much less traitors.)

People dont always do the right, logical, or sensible thing. In fact, they frequently do the oposite. And in stories, if your characters always do the best thing, you rarely have much of a story.

Also I think it reflects the life of children and young people very well. From age 5 or 6 children are sent into a hostile enviroment full of adult strangers who may or may not give a fflip about them. Their word is rarely accorded much credence. And they are kept in this state of subservient childhood even after their minds and body's are mostly grown.

Hogwarts is still a lot better than real schools.

 

[shilsen]

If Rowling kills Harry Potter, as some people thought she might do, then my point is made in spades. But I hope that it doesn't come to that. What is the point of that? Where is the joy in reading for the reader if that happens?
If Ron and/or Hermione fall, the same thing goes, to a lesser extent.

Just a simple question - why are you assuming that engendering joy in the reader is the only point to a story? While that might be a laudable aim, that's hardly the only possible one. There are thousands of great stories out there that don't end with a sense of joy for the reader, but that doesn't stop them from being excellent stories nevertheless.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Just a simple question - why are you assuming that engendering joy in the reader is the only point to a story? While that might be a laudable aim, that's hardly the only possible one. There are thousands of great stories out there that don't end with a sense of joy for the reader, but that doesn't stop them from being excellent stories nevertheless.

That's quite true. In the stories of Charles Dickens, things are quite grim but the stories are extraordinary.
Harry Potter doesn't *have* to survive for the Harry Potter series to become Classics. He doesn't even have to live for these to be great children's stories.
I just sorta thought it'd be nice if he did live. And if Hermione and Ron lived. That's just me. I was a fan of the Oz books as a kid, and would not have liked it if Dorothy, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Woodsman all died. (Well, ok, the Oz books are aimed at a younger audience than Harry Potter is, but that's the best analogy that comes to mind at the moment.)

So your point is made. I just wish that Rowlings wouldn't kill any of the three main characters. Personal taste.

And ... I may get nuked for this, but ...

I would consider it to be false advertising in a literary sense, if they do.
Book One is a MUCH LIGHTER book than Book Six, and it advertises a lighter story with a lighter ending. So, if the series ends in a trainwreck of this sort, no warning of this was given to the reading in Book One, and that reader might just feel betrayed. (In the First Star Wars Trilogy, we at least know *where* Anakin is headed. There is no question as to the galatic trainwreck there. We were forewarned. We might not have been forewarned about *Jar Jar Binks*, but we know Anakin becomes Darth Vader.)

 

[frankthedm]

Just a simple question - why are you assuming that engendering joy in the reader is the only point to a story? While that might be a laudable aim, that's hardly the only possible one. There are thousands of great stories out there that don't end with a sense of joy for the reader, but that doesn't stop them from being excellent stories nevertheless.

Rowling has made her cash already. Hell if she makes it end badly, she can retire in peace, rather than having hordes of fans who continuously want more more more. Her being successful makes fan favorite characters legal targets for being killed at the writer’s whims.

The comment about Potter being a closet dweller was very funny and should be used to annoy potter fans as often as possible.

Heck, in book 6 I assumed Rowling was making a bit of a joke at the Harry 'slash' Draco fan fiction that overloads the net.

If Hagrid gets done in, I just hope it is while doing what he loves, taking care of really dangerous creatures.

Put me in the camp that hopes Harry is one of Lord Moldybutt’s phylacteries {horcrux}.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

Discussion of politics is forbidden. I am in no way discussing politics. I'm discussing something I felt about a particular aspect of a work of fantasy fiction.
If the moderators dont like it, they are of course free to remove it, warn me, ban me etc. But it is already understood that politically or religious topics may arise somewhat in discussion of the main things this site is about; it happens all the time. There have been entire threads discussing the experiences of gay gamers in their RPG groups etc with no problems.

I'm just trying to keep this thread as congenial as possible. We have serious differences over Harry Potter, and we do not want an argument. Just a discussion. I've seen too many threads closed due to overheating and arguing.
A little courtesy and caution are in order, is all. Harry Potter may or may not be gay. If he turns out to be gay, and this is in the books (a lot of money says it won't be) then we can discuss it freely, no?

(snip)

Of course if its not something you personally wish to discuss, I'm not going to make you. But wether or not the conversational direction is apropriate is up to the mods. They arent going to automatically close your thread. If they consider it a problem...which is a big if judging from my own past experiences, they will post and warn me. If they do, I wont bring it up again. But its a topic people on ENworld have shown themselves to be capable of discussing reasonbly.

Think of it this way:
I am writing here, on ENWorld, knowing the real life equivalent of Professor McGonagall (but with far more intellect than McGonagall) is watching and reading everything I, and you, say. Now in the books McGonagall could be pretty strict: would you cross her, or provoke her? Or would you be quietly respectful?
Me, I'd be quietly respectful. The last thing I want is a real life equivalent of a McGonagall temper fit thrown at me (anymore than Harry wanted 150 points taken from Gryffindor, plus detention, plus public humilation, plus the entire school turning on him, plus McGonagall's continued anger and outrage.)
Call that my ENWorld Philosophy.

One, I wouldnt call this "dark."

It is dark because Rowlings chooses to focus on it.
Consider the plight of Neville Longbottom. We know that Harry and his friends have the psychological strength to withstand the public humilation and public denunciation that they received from everyone in the school, after the 150 point + detention punishment received, right?
But what about Neville. I do not honestly think Neville could have withstood this. (although he can withstand it if Rowlings makes him withstand it, obviously.) I think that someone like Neville would have cracked up. He would have quit Hogwarts and gone home, probably right then. Or just cracked up, been unable to continue his studies, and flunked out at the end of the year.
So, ask yourself this: why didn't Neville go to Dumbledore? He should have. And if he would not, why didn't Harry go to Dumbledore and explain? The incident was Hagrid's fault. Hagrid choose to acquire the dragon. Why should Neville pay for what Hagrid did? Why should Neville be broken over Hagrid's illegal behavior?
Again, I do not think Neville could have survived what happened. The author made him survive it. I think honestly that he would have broken and quit, or flunked out. Certainly, what happened did not help him with his studies or his grades! All of this, because he want out afterhours to help some friends stay out of trouble? Neville never knew what was going on. He never knew anything about a dragon.
Where was Dumbledore. This is what I call 'Dark.'

Two, children face this sort of thing, and worse, at ALL schools, with great frequency.
Next, some of it is simply writers neccesity. Having McGonagall get involved and solve the problem wasnt what the author had planned. As you say it does reflect badly on McGonagall, but it made for a good story. I think Rowling has gotten better at handling that in later books.

True enough, and true enough. If McGonagall was up to the challenge, there would be no story. This, however, is a flaw in itself: why is she deputy headmistress if she is not 'up to it'? Dumbledore would not appoint an incompetent as deputy.
I think Rowlings should have approached this from a different storyline. Just my opinion. (Quirrel incapacitated her? Deluded her? Sent her off on a wild goose chase?)


I don't question that children are mistreated. They are, in spades. Many are destroyed by this mistreatment.
Rowlings intended her books, I think, as an anthology to real life, so you would expect bullying and harshness in Harry Potter.
I just think she should not so empathize this, for lack of better terminology. Yes, there is darkness, but there is also light.
Seems to me that, by the end of Book Six, the light has been stamped out. Again, just my opinion, and none of us will know until Book Seven is released. But if Harry turns out cynical, uncaring, and - worst of all - mundane, then the light is gone. With it goes the special quality of this set of books, where friendship, loyalty, honor, courage, and the spirit of youth makes the good things happen.

 

[kingpaul]

I think that any novel that can't be held in one hand to read is too long!

No offense, but your hands must be fairly small then.

At one point I thought I was reading a Wheel of Time novel, if you know what I mean...

I never got to that point in reading the HP books.

 

[kingpaul]

As to Snape, I hope he turns out alright. It certainly seems that way to me, kind of blatantly so, which means I'm dreading that I'm wrong.

No, I agree with you. I think Snape will turn out alright in the end as well.

And is it just me, or does anybody else now picture Snape as Alan Rickman? It's almost automatic when I read about him.

No, not just you. Since I've watched the movies, I see/hear the characters from the movies as the ones in the books. And for me, its the 1st Dumbledore that has stuck.