-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
SPOILER WARNING: A thread about the Harry Potter books
- Thread starter Edena_of_Neith
- Start date
sckeener
First Post
Loincloth of Armour said:
Courage without morals is close to being just ambition...
Which just makes me think both Gryffendor and Slytherin are very close to being the same house, same alignment....just Gryffendor is LN with good tendencies and Slytherin LN with Evil tendencies.
Edena_of_Neith
First Post
Both Gryffindor and Slytherin seen to think it's ok if you:
Break the school rules.
Harass, tease, and play injurious jokes on other students.
Assault other students (including ones in your own house.)
Play dirty.
Lie to the staff, trick the staff, and make tom-fools out of the staff.
Realize that it's all about what you can get away with.
However, Gryffindor seems to appreciate the value of friendship, loyalty, and courage in standing up for your beliefs and values.
Slytherin doesn't value any of these things.
It is pretty hard to excuse James Potter, Sirius Black, Lupin, or Peter Pettigrew for what they did to Snape and to other students. Detention did not stop them. Short of expelling them, they should have been relegated to Filch's mercies for several weeks.
Just my opinion.
Break the school rules.
Harass, tease, and play injurious jokes on other students.
Assault other students (including ones in your own house.)
Play dirty.
Lie to the staff, trick the staff, and make tom-fools out of the staff.
Realize that it's all about what you can get away with.
However, Gryffindor seems to appreciate the value of friendship, loyalty, and courage in standing up for your beliefs and values.
Slytherin doesn't value any of these things.
It is pretty hard to excuse James Potter, Sirius Black, Lupin, or Peter Pettigrew for what they did to Snape and to other students. Detention did not stop them. Short of expelling them, they should have been relegated to Filch's mercies for several weeks.
Just my opinion.
Donovan Morningfire
First Post
In Book 5, Sirius comes right out and says that he and James were jerks, not looking to apologize for what they did back then, only saying that he and James were different people. Only Lupin seemed to try to apologize for it, but Sirius cut him off. Also, the only one we see tormented is Snape. I don't think they would have been as popular overall if they made a habit out of tormenting every other student like you seem to imply. Given that James and Sirius were compared favorably to the Weasley twins, I'd imagine their antics were along a similar vein. During the Marauders' school days, they may have had a file drawer all to themselves much as Fred and George had.Edena_of_Neith said:
As for pranks, most of what we've seen have been perpetrated by the Weasley twins. And they seem to go out of their way (most of the time) to ensure there's no lasting damage, save when they've been provoked (such as a Slytherin trying to attack them prior to a Quidditch game). Heck, they were even willing to test their entire line of joke products on themselves before using them on anyone else.
Also, the reason Fred and George stand out is because we're seeing the entire book through the "Harry filter," in that we generally only read about the stuff that Harry notices or happens around him. I'm sure Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff have their troublemakers; we just don't know about them becuase they're out of Harry's sight. Also, prior to Professor Slughorn, we've had a pretty narrow view of Slytherins courtesy of Malfoy and his ilk. There may well be a peeping tom in Hufflepuff with a proclivity for sneaking peeks into the girl's showers that we don't know about simply because his antics haven't shown up on Harry's rader.
I think your view on the tactics of Gryffindor and Slytherin is grossly simplified, but I've not the time to rebut them at the moment.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Edena_of_Neith said:
I think the terms you're looking for are:
Gryffindor: high spirited, but with their hearts ultimately in the right place
That's what makes up the difference between Gryffindors and Slytherins, and a whopping big difference is it. It's only a superficial comparison that makes Gryffindor seem a lot like the Slytherins. There may be Slytherins that don't have their hearts in the wrong place, but it's hard to argue they've really got them in the right place.
Donovan Morningfire
First Post
To build on what you said a little.billd91 said:
True Gryffindors do what they know is right, even if it costs them, holding true to what they believe. They'll bend rules where needed, some a lot more than others, but generally stick to "what is right" over "what is easy." For the Weasley twins, they view it as "right" that they "liven things up," though by their own admissions they've always stopped just shy of real mischief prior to Umbridge taking control of Hogwarts in OotP. For Hermoine, it would be easy to just let Ron (and Harry to a degree) flunk out, but she sees it as right that she helps her friends succeed. For most of Harry's earlier escapades (Books 1 and 2), it would have been easy for him to sit them out and mind his own business, but it was the right thing to get involved.
True Slytherins can be "brave," but they'll use any and all means at their disposal to look out for number one. In the end, a Slytherin's biggest focus is on themselves. So far, we've only seen in the books that Slytherins have foul purposes, but again we're only seeing things as Harry sees them, with the closest Slytherin we've meet so far to being "good" is Slughorn, who is most certainly self-indulgent, but by all appearances doesn't by into the pure-blood mania, setting him apart from the rest of the Slytherins we've seen so far. We've also got Snape the wild card, and though his loyalty appears to lie with Voldemort after HBP, I'm pretty sure he's been playing both sides against each other to his benefit, with the events of HBP forcing him to finally "choose" a side.
Edena_of_Neith
First Post
But what did you'all think of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, compared to the other books?
Raven Crowking
First Post
Just my 2 cp (and there are untagged spoilers, so don't read it if they bother you):
The Harry Potter books will always have a place in my heart because, after the first film, I could hear a child behind me whisper "The book was better".
However, while I find the HP books to be adequate reading, they don't hang together well (certainly there is no unified theory of magic behind the snippets of classes we see), they are adequately written (but not inspiring), and I keep reading them more for the soap opera quality rather than because each new book is a brilliant gem.
I think that The Philosopher's Stone was a book intended to be taken lightly, a fairly good children's adventure yarn that proved far more popular that expected. The next book, Chamber of Secrets, is the weakest IMHO. Having killed off her main villian, JKR is forced to make the memory of him into the villian. I feel that the Chamber movie was superior to the book, for no other reason than that the film makers had a better idea as to where the series was going than JKR did when she wrote the book. I know that this isn't what JKR says, but I think it shows in the plotting, the writing, and the retconning that comes in the later books.
Only on the 3rd book do we see any sense that there is a metaplot, and it is done by (apparently) retconning what happened previously. Also, in this book JKR seems to realize that she has to do something about the magic system she created in the previous two books, and begins to take steps to retcon what is being taught at Hogwarts. I would say that her writing definitely grows here. There are still quite a few problems (the biggest that the whole muggle world/magical world dichotomy is given only the barest lip service; the second biggest that only Harry Potter, of all the children the Death Eaters killed, was apparently loved enough by his parents to be protected!).
Will she be remembered 20 years from now? Undoubtably. She is very good at getting the "children in school" thing right. She uses a very strong premise with the "special boy" and "underdog" combined theme.
As for The Half-Blood Prince, I think it is fairly obvious that:
So, while I agree that they are interesting and have energy, I don't buy that they are great literature. The depth of the series has increased over time, but not to the degree that many people seem to think.
IMHO, anyway.
RC
The Harry Potter books will always have a place in my heart because, after the first film, I could hear a child behind me whisper "The book was better".
However, while I find the HP books to be adequate reading, they don't hang together well (certainly there is no unified theory of magic behind the snippets of classes we see), they are adequately written (but not inspiring), and I keep reading them more for the soap opera quality rather than because each new book is a brilliant gem.
I think that The Philosopher's Stone was a book intended to be taken lightly, a fairly good children's adventure yarn that proved far more popular that expected. The next book, Chamber of Secrets, is the weakest IMHO. Having killed off her main villian, JKR is forced to make the memory of him into the villian. I feel that the Chamber movie was superior to the book, for no other reason than that the film makers had a better idea as to where the series was going than JKR did when she wrote the book. I know that this isn't what JKR says, but I think it shows in the plotting, the writing, and the retconning that comes in the later books.
Only on the 3rd book do we see any sense that there is a metaplot, and it is done by (apparently) retconning what happened previously. Also, in this book JKR seems to realize that she has to do something about the magic system she created in the previous two books, and begins to take steps to retcon what is being taught at Hogwarts. I would say that her writing definitely grows here. There are still quite a few problems (the biggest that the whole muggle world/magical world dichotomy is given only the barest lip service; the second biggest that only Harry Potter, of all the children the Death Eaters killed, was apparently loved enough by his parents to be protected!).
Will she be remembered 20 years from now? Undoubtably. She is very good at getting the "children in school" thing right. She uses a very strong premise with the "special boy" and "underdog" combined theme.
As for The Half-Blood Prince, I think it is fairly obvious that:
- Snape isn't really a bad guy. He is going undercover in a plan concocted by Dumbledore.
- This plan requires that Snape be trusted absolutely, so Dumbledore allowed himself to be "killed" and Harry to witness it.
- Dumbledore isn't actually dead. Which is why attention is given in the book to a potion that can fake the effects of death.
So, while I agree that they are interesting and have energy, I don't buy that they are great literature. The depth of the series has increased over time, but not to the degree that many people seem to think.
IMHO, anyway.
RC
sckeener
First Post
Edena_of_Neith said:
I thought the time turner was the plot device of a lazy author. I hate time travel in my novels.
What I did like about PoA is that the series finally started having an edge. Starting with that book I got the feeling that we were dealing with shades of gray and more mature themes.
IMHO Order of the Phoenix is still the best (though I do not think JKR can write men in love well) and Goblet of Fire is the worst.
Similar Threads
