Harry Potter ***possible spoilers within***

[lapland]

The thing with the elderwand actually made more since then the changes she made in how underage magic was detected. The total change made the whole story seem like fan fiction rather then the authoritive book.

Albus lost his wand (the elderwand) to Draco, thus he was the new owner of it. The next time that Draco lost his wand, even though it wasn't the elderwand, was to Harry. Thus the Elderwand chose the new, greater, wizard of the two.

The change in the underage magic detection was appalling. In book six there was a lot made of the fact that the ministry couldn't detect who performed magic, only where it was performed. Which ment if any adults were in the area of Harry, or he was were adults could be then he could be detected. His house was so well guarded that the ministry could detect if any magic adults were in the area. But nowere else was set up that way. Once he got away from his house he clearly should have been able to use magic. The presents of magical adults alone should have set off enough bells at the ministry. Who used the magic then wouldn't have mattered. They couldn't have detected it and couldn't have blamed him for it. In this book it's clear there is a magical detection on underagers that is lifted or wheres off when they turn 17. How is this put on or are they born with it. Even LV couldn't detect minors in the cave, although he himself used lots of strong magic as a minor all over Briton it would seem. Why could TR the minor get away with it while HP the minor would be detected. Besides, what difference would there be. He used it anyway and he wasn't tracked with it. There was a big issue of it and it didn't matter in the story. Why make such a startling change when it made no difference in the story.

The only area it changed was when they went to that cafe and the deatheaters followed. He thought he still had the tracker after he left. The whole thing just bugged me.

[Eurasier]

J.K. Rowling has just answered a whole onslaught of post-DH question in a Web chat

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/ ... transcript

- drawn to my attention by my well-informed daughter

[MommyDoom]

Spoiler

Show

no, but it's a powerfull magical item, it could "feel" Harry beat malfoy

OK, I've been re-reading the 7th Harry book and this is what I have a huge problem with.

Spoiler

Show

Harry didn't BEAT Draco in Malfoy Manor. Dobby dropped a chandelier on him and Harry waltzed over and took his wand out of his hand. No magical battle. No NOTHING. Harry says later in the book that he "took the wand by force".

*unsatisfied*

MD

[zebuddha]

As much as people like to do just this, HP & JK Rowling is no LOTR/Tolkien. It's clear to anyone that likes to read (and is critical of WHAT they read) that the HP "universe" is not consistent. It's not something carefully thought/laid out before even putting pen-to-paper. Every single book has some little inconsistencies, some things that don't really make sense, and sometimes even right-out contradictions.

Should you care? No. Potter isn't literature *shock and wail* Yes. It isn't literature. Well, except perhaps (and arguably so) childrens literature. So what if people die? people die in the Hobbit too... doesn't stop it from being written for and in a style/language befitting of children. Anyhow... back to what I was saying after this little detour. HP is a good, entertaining read. Great for taking with you on holidays to read on the beach, or on a lazy Sunday afternoon or on some random rainy day.

For all of those who act all disappointed because there's something that doesn't fit perfectly from a previous book: You write 7 books on exactly the same characters, over a period of as many years, and not mess up once. So ok, there's some writers who manage to. But that's often after YEARS of careful laying out, plotting and growing an entire world WHEREIN the story takes place (LOTR, Dune, etc.).

Aside from this little rant, I found this book severely disappointing. The cheesy ending has a definite stench of roquefort with camembert (and add some goat-cheese in there for good measure)... but then again, I remind myself that, truth be told, the entire series is just cheesiness heaped up on top of itself, time and again. So instead of letting it bug me, I just accept these books for what they are: mass entertainment - simplistic, predictable and fun to read.

I much preferred reading Fel's books

And now, after dissing the "greatest bestseller of..." uhmm... the last century? (just guessing) *puts on his fire-retardant suit* let the torching begin

[Metatrone]

Mmm, I'm not sure what provoked your "little rant", but still I would like to reply. You remind me a bit of my cousin, who has never read a single HP book, and still passes it off as children books. From what I've gather about people who don't like the series there are basically to kind those who say it's too popular to be any good, and those who say it's for children therefor it cannot be any good. Anyway, you both defend the inconsistencies of the books and call them undeserving literature, but I get the feeling that you tend to agree with the 'too popular to be good' people. By the way you glorify Tolkein too much, true he was a oxford linguistics professor in his fifties when he wrote LOTR, but still LOTR was never published until it was thorоughly edited and Silmarillion was written, so as brilliant as he was you can't really give him much credit for consistency. And Herbet's Dune is such a drag he could've hardly made a mistake in his obscurity.
Truth be told stylewise HP is a childish book, but only at the beginning. I mean the difference in the writing and targeting between the first and the last book is truly palpable. I rather think people don't give HP the credit it deserves as far as literary quality goes. The phenomenal success is more a testament to its virtues and quality than a result of good marketing and hysterical trendiness.

[zebuddha]

Mmm, I'm not sure what provoked your "little rant", but still I would like to reply. You remind me a bit of my cousin, who has never read a single HP book, and still passes it off as children books.

Well, I have read them, all 7 in fact (usually within a month or two of them coming out). And as I said, they ARE fun to read. But so is an opinion-column in a newspaper.

From what I've gather about people who don't like the series there are basically to kind those who say it's too popular to be any good, and those who say it's for children therefor it cannot be any good.

Sorry, but what sense does it make to say that if a book is popular it can't be good? Quite the opposite. As a matter of fact I say so myself: It IS good. You don't sell millions of copies of paperweight. What I AM saying, however, is that it's no literary masterpiece. Translation: I would be very much worried if they started adding Harry Potter books to the booklists for A-level English. NOTE: I don't know if, say, LOTR is in there - I'm pretty sure the likes of Dune isn't - I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't either, and agreeably so. After all, thematically LOTR is rather simplistic - good vs. evil & good wins after much hardship. The End. And I could say exactly the same for HP. Thematically, or otherwise, there are MANY books more varied, captivating AND interesting than either LOTR or HP...

Anyway, you both defend the inconsistencies of the books and call them undeserving literature, but I get the feeling that you tend to agree with the 'too popular to be good' people.

Undeserving literature? What does that mean? I think you and me are using different definitions for the word literature...

By the way you glorify Tolkein too much, true he was a oxford linguistics professor in his fifties when he wrote LOTR, but still LOTR was never published until it was thorоughly edited and Silmarillion was written, so as brilliant as he was you can't really give him much credit for consistency.

Glorify Tolkien? All I say is that Rowling is no Tolkien (in this case a stylistic/linguistic comparison) - and later on some bit about how the LOTR doesn't have (as many) inconsistencies due to how it was written/published. Which you yourself agree with and even clarify.

Truth be told I think that a probable reason for some of the "sloppiness" in HP is due to them being rushed (by who I will not claim to know) - and yes, I do believe they were rushed, particularly the last one. There is NO author that writes a book and that's it, it can go straight off to print. Style-editing, proofreading, consistency editing (yes, that is done too), etc. are all very much time consuming and - just like in the software industry's equivalent debugging - less and less thoroughly done.

I read the LOTR the first time when I was about 11y/o. So yes, I'm biased. However I do admit to the simple fact that Tolkien DOES get long-winded at times (I love it and have parts where I struggle to get through), and the entire story is utterly predictable from pretty much page 1.

As far as the inconsistencies go in HP - lets just say that the fact that they stayed in there probably had a lot to do with wanting to keep the books flowing, printing and selling.

And Herbert's Dune is such a drag he could've hardly made a mistake in his obscurity.

I'm not going to argue vague statements of opinion without arguments/reasoning.

Truth be told stylewise HP is a childish book, but only at the beginning. I mean the difference in the writing and targeting between the first and the last book is truly palpable.

Yes, the books have matured with each successive one. The first one was centered on 12-y/o children, the last one's "lower" end of target audience was probably teens (lets say, 14+, just to pick something), although more centered in late teens maybe even early twenties (and going far beyond that on the upper end of the age scale).

I rather think people don't give HP the credit it deserves as far as literary quality goes. The phenomenal success is more a testament to its virtues and quality than a result of good marketing and hysterical trendiness.

I think it's not a matter of either/or, but rather of both. The success is BOTH a result of its value AND of marketing/trendiness. If it were JUST quality/value, then I think even you could not argue against the fact that there ARE better books out there (which sold a LOT less), while on the other hand the fact that it's been such a success 7 books in a row could not have been accomplished solely through good marketing.

Personally I think the great success of the HP series lies largely in it's widespread appeal, both across age and social/cultural divisions. And, contrary to what you _might_ think of me, I am more than glad with its success, not in and of itself, but rather because it has made many people who previously rarely picked up a book gain (or renew) an interest in reading...

I never said the HP books were bad, I just said they were not literary masterpieces, and thus people should stop nitpicking at them for small inconsistencies. I compared them to LOTR and Dune NOT because those ARE necessarily literary masterpieces, but because those ARE consistent, because contrary to HP (which is very limited in its scope and portrayal of the "universe" in which it all takes place - ie. it focuses mostly only on that which takes place directly around the characters with little if any real depth or explanation behind most of it) those two create an entire world beyond that which the characters experience. And whether it's the chicken or the egg that came first I don't know, but I think it's relatively safe to say that those two are closely related. I mean, how consistent do you think all the various D&D-based books (by so many different authors) would be if it weren't for the very much structured and already-existing world on which they are all based.

____________________

There was a roar like the scream of a camel who has just seen two bricks.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Soul Music)

[Metatrone]

Wow hold the flame war I probably came off a bit judgmental and harsh, I didn't mean to set you off.
I didn't say you haven't read the books, I just said you reminded me of my cousin who hasn't. You have obviously read and thought about them. I was a bit curious about what you consider good literature. That's why wrote my little comment, actually. I just thought that you were giving LOTR and Dune as examples, seeing how you repeated them a couple of times.
I usually know most of the books halfway by heart after my first reading so I'm used to "nitpicking" them pretty thoroughly no matter how good they are.
I've read all the Dune book a while back, 7-8 years maybe, so I don't remember details, but what I remember is a remark I made to a friend that after the first couple of books the whole thing becomes about generating needless amounts of text and still managing to keeping rather vague universe. I still liked it though, I rather cherish the imperfections more than the positives.
As for the "literary masterpiece" thing, after coultless arguments with my literature teachers I'm still unconvinced about what constitutes a masterpiece, so I kinda reserve judgment on that. By the way, I saw a recent English language textbook, a couple of months back, that had extracts form HP in the modern literature section, so it's already on the list I guess
If there is anything I haven't covered from your answers it's probably because I agree with what you've said. And no hard feeling so don't bite my head of with the return mail.