Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows

[Caoimhin]

*CAOIMHIN'S POST IS WAY TOO LONG*

I just thought that I should be the first to scream...

WALL OF TEXT!11!1

Anyway, I finished the book... wow. That was really, really strange. In fact, I feel as if I understood nothing.

At least now I know that my previous guesses as to the 'purpose' of certain events, especially the final events of the 6th book, actually turned out to be true.

Looking back on it, that last paragraph resembles nothing more than rambling because I was trying so hard to avoid spoilers...

Useless tiny text! Woohoo! 10110111

There are no spoilers in mine. I was just making a thorough analysis of what I read so far (the actual writing not the events). I make a few references but they are so general and non-specific it shouldn't be a problem. Also I'm wondering where that typo was...

[Gecko]

Anyway, I finished the book... wow. That was really, really strange. In fact, I feel as if I understood nothing.

At least now I know that my previous guesses as to the 'purpose' of certain events, especially the final events of the 6th book, actually turned out to be true.

Looking back on it, that last sentence resembles nothing more than rambling because I was trying so hard to avoid spoilers...

Useless tiny text! Woohoo! 10110111

There are no spoilers in mine. I was just making a thorough analysis of what I read so far (the actual writing not the events). I make a few references but they are so general and non-specific it shouldn't be a problem. Also I'm wondering where that typo was...

^_^

[Caoimhin]

I appeared to have mixed up 'sentences' and 'paragraphs' somehow o_O. Sorry for causing confusion.

[Bocaj Claw]

I found a cool thing. An abridged copy of the Deathly Hallows. Epic, hoooge, hilarious spoilers.

[Muninn]

I liked it. The first 100 pages or so were a little dull, there were some contrived plot twists and some stuff seemed like Rowling was just trying to get through the story without extra writing, but it was good.

[Rooster]

HARRY POTTER MAY BE BETTER THAN THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

Well yeah. To be honest Lord of the Rings never held my interest. Harry Potter does. The end.

Agreed.

You're all freaking nuts

LOTR is one of the greatest literary feats ever published, wheras Harry Potter is a crudly written child's book that's gotten out of hand.

[Doc Sigma]

LotR is good, but it's grotesquely overrated.

[Arloest]

I'm going to have to go with that, except I don't even think it is good, but that is my own problem since the traditional dragons, wizards and elves theme always puts me to sleep no matter what it is. Same thing with Sci-Fi. I could never get into it.

[nickspoon]

I really did think that LotR was incredibly dull. Tolkien spends far too long determining exactly where everything is as if it were important and then expecting you to know it all. Precious little actually happens, then they get attacked by flying things. I much preferred The Hobbit actually.

The talking trees were pretty good though.

[Caoimhin]

The talking trees were pretty good though.

"I am no tree... I am an Ent."

Anyway. The first book in the series was merely a childrens book, possibly for a younger set than The Hobbit. However I would agree with Rooster that it wasn't exactly well written, and you would have to have grown up with the books to get anything out of it. When I read the Socceror's Stone I was 10 or 11 (I can't recall maybe a little younger) basically the same age as the characters. Then I was also around the same age when the Chamber of Secrets came out. And as the books went on I was able to follow it and be able to grasp the topics discussed in later books pretty easily. However right now anyone who is about 16 and has not read the first book will not likely do so, as the first book is rather childish and not really complex. Now that all the books are published a ten year old would start reading the series but then may not be able to fully grasp the story but the fourth book.

But all that aside, after finishing the book I feel that Rowling has developed better writing and the story has developed quite nicely. I have to say that it was time well spent. But still I think she went overkill with some of the deaths (its not a spoiler if she has already announced character deaths before the release of the book). After the Goblet of Fire she did this more for shock value it seemed and none of the deaths seemed well executed (even the one in the Goblet). In a realistic world, shit happens, so to speak; but you don't really want it piling up to much when you're writing a book for kids (the book is still juvenile). Its hard to talk about a book without discussing key points and having to be vague and general about things .

[Tom Flapwell]

I finished Book 7 minutes ago. While I had been seeing a general downward trend in my enjoyment of the HP books, this was a major rebound, saving the series from the quality doom I expected after Book 6. From what few comments I've read (not just here), the bulk of others' disappointment is in a few slow parts and an epilogue with both too much detail and too little. Neither really bothered me. I'm beaming.

As for LotR, you probably guessed from my avatar that I rather like it. I'm no fanboy of it -- few of the characters interest me as characters -- and there definitely are some long stretches I pretty much tuned out, but it has enough class, especially in the first book's poetry, to keep me rapt in the better parts. And <i>The Hobbit</i> appeals to my kiddie side.

Rowling clearly got some of her ideas from Tolkien, but that doesn't necessarily make the latter my pref. After all, Superman was the inspiration for many superheroes, but he's hardly my fave. (No, despite my species, it's not Batman either.) I'd rather not try to measure the authors against each other.

[Caoimhin]

The Times had a book review by Cristopher Hitchens. He made some very good points, although he seemed to rant about God too much. Despite those few lapses in the review I highly recommend it. He addressed some issues such as Voldemort's localization that also irked me. Which brings up another point, whats with Albania? Now I know in the real world some things happen by chance, sometimes things don't really have a point, its just the way something happens to be. However, its different when writing a book; Albania seems random in this context, its never explained why after being subdued to a fragment of a soul Voldemort decided to flee there where he met Professor Quarrel (excuse the spelling its been many years and I havn't reread the Philosopher's Stone). The whole Grendalwald business lends a hand in an explanation to its signifigance, but still something seems missing.

[Tom Flapwell]

Just found and read the Christopher Hitchens article. His objections are mostly valid, but he obviously has a rather different weltschmerz from me. I'm not fond of Philip Pullman, for one thing.

[Amber]

Now would be an odd time to be reading book 1, wouldn't it?

Well, I can no longer say I haven't read any Harry Potter, because now I am.

I was GOING to wait for the tide of fandom to wash over, but a constant flow of nagging from friends and family drove me to it.

It's pretty good. Something about the writing style makes it hard for me to read a lot at once, unless it's at a climax.

I'm in the midst of book 4 now.

[Rooster]

I'll just wait for the next Gaunt's Ghosts novel to come out for my reading fix.

That, or maybe I'll read The Life Of Pi again....but it's not really a book you read twice.