• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
haven't got around to reading it yet, but just found out who dies.

Interesting..........I'd thought that person might have played a role in later installments.
 
Exclusive! Harry Potter Grows up!

We say- MAGIC!!!!!
 
I've been studiously ignoring this thread since its inception (you would, too, if 2 years ago you'd innocently stumbled across a Usenet thread entitled "IS BRUCE WILLIS DEAD IN THE 6TH SENSE?"), but yesterday I finished Order of the Phoenix and was very pleasantly surprised.

I think of all the books this is the most complex, dark and emotionally involving. My only complaint would be that the death scene was a little rushed (but perhaps realistically); I must admit I got quite worked up reading the denouement as pretty much everyone seemed to be on the verge of carking it; I was even tempted to skip forward a few pages to see what happened, but managed to restrain myself.

Personally, although I'm as scathing as anyone about adults who go into paroxyms over Harry Potter, I do think the series is brilliant and I can understand how and why kids get excited about these titles: they're well-written, exciting and involving. I also think JK Rowling is one of those rare creatures who relates to children on their own level and doesn't condescend to them (something I hated as a child and still dislike), which is part of its broad (and, ironically, adult) appeal.

I also agree that each book is targeted at the age range Harry is at the time, and I can perfectly believe that JKR had the entire story arc plotted out in some detail long before she wrote all the books -- it's not uncommon to plot out all conceivable outcomes of a character's decision in fiction writing.

Also, I doubt that Bloomsbury took her on on the promise of a seven-book series, but on the strength of her initial manuscript(s); the concept of sequels would just be a bonus.
 
I just heard the words "I see dead people" in the

Orbyn said:
...ignoring this thread since its inception (you would, too, if 2 years ago you'd innocently stumbled across a Usenet thread entitled "IS BRUCE WILLIS DEAD IN THE 6TH SENSE?")...
I suspect that even if you hadn't come across that thread, you'd have sussed it after just the first 15 minutes of the movie... (It was ridiculously obvious, especially given all the hype about it having 'a twist ending'. Surprise development only you've been snogging your date all the way through and not paying attention to the movie. -Or if your IQ's in single figures (tabloid movie critics). :nonplus: )
 
Re: I just heard the words "I see dead people" in

Zygon said:
I suspect that even if you hadn't come across that thread, you'd have sussed it after just the first 15 minutes of the movie...

Well, I would have liked the opportunity to find out for myself...

As it was, I spent the entire film expective this revelation to pop up every few minutes. When Haley Joel Osment leaned forward and said "I have something to tell you", I thought he'd continue with "you're dead"!

I was exhausted by the end ;)
 
I feel generous....


THIS POST CONTAINS SPOLIER ABOUT WHO DIES!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hear hear @ everything Orbyn said!

And Zygon, bare in mind some among us aren't very bright. I didn't guess the Sixth Sense twist until about fifteen minutes to the end. I like to think it's because I was doing other things at the time and not really caring, but realistically, it's probably because I'm dense. And hadn't read any handy spoilers before hand that would allow me to be smug to my friends.

Mind you, I did predict (edited at request of more than one poster who really didn't want to know yet - Stu) death from about chapter 3 of OOP (Can I say who died now? Ah well, I just did) As soon as he and this bit edited by me cos it gives it away too if you have passing knowledge - sorry folks! thought "You're for it, mate." And lo! I win.
 
Slytherin said:
And Zygon, bare in mind some among us aren't very bright.
...but ...but ...but I'm not allowed to make that assumption. :nonplus:
 
The true message of Harry Potter

It is my opinion that the Harry Potter books have been written in such as way as to bring about a republic in Britain. Consider these facts:

1. The hero is Harry Potter. He was born a wizard. All wizards are born into wizard families.
2. Muggles i.e. non-wizards, are portrayed early on as being oafish, ignorant, selfish individuals.
3. HP is a lazy b*stard. His power is derived more from his heritage rather than actual ability.
4. Wizards are stuck in a bygone age.

Harry Potter portrays an elitist utopian society. Kids and adults love it, even though it involves a highly stratified society to which they have no access. They can pretend all they like but all is fruitless. It is the nature of human beings to want to belong to a successful, powerful group. Children crave this in particular. It is, afterall, essential for their survival.

Soon 'the children' will realize that they are muggles. The world of wizards will have less and less relevance to their lives. Their antipathy toward the 'world of Harry Potter' will be transferred to other anachronistic organisations, i.e. the Royal Family. The monarchy will fall and we'll have Cherie Blair as our first lady. I say again to all those Republicans panting in the wings, we'll have Cherie Blair as First Lady.

Ponder this and tremble.
 
Nice theory, but lanced by these facts:

a) you don't have to be born into a wizarding family to be a wizard. This is a key feature of the mythology. The obvious example is Hermione, whose parents are muggle dentists with no history of wizardry

b) those wizards who behave in an elitist fashion towards the muggles are invariably the baddies. Everyone is appalled when Draco calls Hermione a "mudblood". The Harry Potter stories are underpinned by plots that emphasise the desirability of muggles and wizards living side by side in peace. If anything, the wizards are the guardians of the muggles, saving them from threats they aren't even aware of.
 
If you think about it, magic most likely is a metaphor for intellegence.

Some people are born into rich families (wizard families) and do well due to their prestigue and wealth more than the individual intellegence (Draco, who seems a god sportsman but not nearly as smart as Harry & Co.).

Some are middle class (HP's best pal's family), some are born poor (Hermiony). Harry is an intellegent lad from a well-off family who inherents his intellegence and shines even in his dire household until liberated by ... school? By learning?

I think the film is about the worth of education. Most children are smart, but some get caught up in other things (like the Slitherin house). But other children, Harry and his pals, and indeed most of the kids at Hogwarts, use their magic (intellegence) as a tool to learn and do well by others.
 
I thought it was a book about wizards and stuff.
 
A Semiotician Prognosticates...

taras said:
I thought it was a book about wizards and stuff.
Books are never just about what it says on the cover! ;)
 
Conners_76 said:
Nice theory, but lanced by these facts:

a) you don't have to be born into a wizarding family to be a wizard. This is a key feature of the mythology. The obvious example is Hermione, whose parents are muggle dentists with no history of wizardry

b) those wizards who behave in an elitist fashion towards the muggles are invariably the baddies. Everyone is appalled when Draco calls Hermione a "mudblood". The Harry Potter stories are underpinned by plots that emphasise the desirability of muggles and wizards living side by side in peace. If anything, the wizards are the guardians of the muggles, saving them from threats they aren't even aware of.

I'd say that these points reinforce my theory.
 
Emperor Zombie said:
Much as I rather like your theory, and it certainly makes for interesting after dinner conversation when I'm entertaining my non-muggle friends...I'm rather interested as to HOW Conners points reinforce your theory?

Yes, my thoughts also.
 
Re: The true message of Harry Potter

Mana said:
It is my opinion that the Harry Potter books have been written in such as way as to bring about a republic in Britain. Consider these facts:

1. The hero is Harry Potter. He was born a wizard. All wizards are born into wizard families.
2. Muggles i.e. non-wizards, are portrayed early on as being oafish, ignorant, selfish individuals.
3. HP is a lazy b*stard. His power is derived more from his heritage rather than actual ability.
4. Wizards are stuck in a bygone age.

Harry Potter portrays an elitist utopian society. Kids and adults love it, even though it involves a highly stratified society to which they have no access. They can pretend all they like but all is fruitless. It is the nature of human beings to want to belong to a successful, powerful group. Children crave this in particular. It is, afterall, essential for their survival.

I'll absolutely agree with that last point. It's the ulitmate disaffected kid's fantasy - to be taken out of your mundane life and told you're someone special.

But you kind of misunderstand the point of reading a book like that as escapism, if you think the readers will come to resent Harry Potter and his pals. Kids identify with the characters as they're reading, they don't see themselves as muggles. Any kid with half an imagination imagines themselves a wizard. And when they grow up a bit, they become this thing called "well-adjusted" which means they don't resent the successes of fictional characters; they look back on the sweet escapism of HP books with nostalgia.

Besides, portraying your run-of-the-mill human being as oafish, ignorant and selfish is hardly a new idea in fiction. It resonates so, because in general people are ignorant and selfish. It never usually causes resentment because any reader with eyes can see it's a reasonable point; People like the Dursleys (the only muggle characters in the HP books) do exist in a less caricatured way in the real world, and they are contemptable. But it's necessary for Harry's own family to be singularly unpleasant in order for the whole disaffected-kid-fantasy to work. If they were nice, he wouldn't need to be taken away. The idea that muggles in general are naturally inferior, though, is one that's opposed by the main "good" characters in the book, who promote an ideal of tolerance and co-existance between all peoples.

Harry Potter does indeed portray an elitist society, but it's hardly a utopia. It portrays it as *bad*. The wisest and most talented young character in the books is probably Hermione - she has muggles for parents, and she acquires a large part of her skill through hard work - book work - not through inheritance. One of the central themes of the books is that it's your conduct, not your breeding, that makes you a good person.

I absolutely agree that HP has a very liberal message, but it's hardly a sinister one. In fact, it's pretty damn obvious. And though you can be a liberal without being a republican, it could also be intepreted as a republican message (The wizarding world, incidently, though extremely prone to corruption, does appear to be democratic - there's a minister, not a monarch at the head of the community)

But it's hardly going to achieve that ends by turning kids against itself and driving them into the arms of the politicians. More likely, they'll be "taught" by the leading wizard characters in the book and carry that message away with them. Which would be nice. But most kids I know are so thoroughly familiar with the idea of fiction vs real life that they don't take the books that seriously at all. They leave that to the adult fans.



(incidently Mr RING, you have your characters a bit mixed up - Harry's best friend Ron is from a poor family, albiet a pureblood wizarding one. Hermione is from a middle-class muggle family.)
 
Re: Re: The true message of Harry Potter

Slytherin said:
(incidently Mr RING, you have your characters a bit mixed up - Harry's best friend Ron is from a poor family, albiet a pureblood wizarding one. Hermione is from a middle-class muggle family.)

Not if magic is a netaphor for intellegence. Ron is from a fiscally poor family. They ARE a magician's family, but not as heavy in the high power wizard traditions like the Potters or Draco's folks, so that would make them a magical middle class.

Hermione is born from a muggle household, which I'd equate with being from a magic-poor household. Isn't she the most put out by Draco with the muggle-blood comment? It's because if Draco's type had their way, she wouldn't be included - not Ron Weasly's family. And how often is it in the "real world" that rich powerful families want to prevent the middle class from their educational institutions rather than the poor?

Harry, Ron, and Hermiony are all magical, (aka intellegent). Harry comes from a family that has a tradition of attendence at Hogwards (aka Harvard, Oxford, etc). Ron's family goes to Hogwarts but they can barely afford it (aka not a rich family, but through the family's hard business work and the kid's intellegence, they attend Harvard, very middle class). Hermiony is the first person in her family to attend Hogwards based on her magical abilities (aka she is from a poor family without a tradition of higher education who wins a scholarship to Harvard).

At least it makes sense to me!
 
Emperor Zombie said:
See the way I see it with conners' point is like this (sorry conner...just gotta do it)

Go for it, EZ! Although I see you ended up on Mana's side!

I am also confused, Mana, about why you think my points support rather than challenge your theory.

It seems to me that

1. You said "All wizards are born into wizard families", and I said that's not true, and offered Hermione as an example.

2. You said that muggles are depicted as oafish and ignorant, and imply that wizards are depicted as superior. And I said that in fact the stories are keen to promote the idea of harmony between the two. Muggles are certainly lampooned in some instances, but shown in a postive context in others.

Moreover, I think that any theory attributing some complex political endeavour to Joanne Rowling's stories gives her far too much credit. They're just mildly diverting kids' tales is all.

One thing I would say is that the parallels other posters have drawn between Hogwarts and the state vs private school experience are spot on.

As someone who attended a public school as a fully government-sponsored pupil, I often find Rowling's observations about the experiences of Ron (poor) and / or Hermione (wrong type of family) spot on. The way you can feel excluded by the Malfoys of this world, who express their feelings of intellectual inadequacy by lashing out at people without money or status, and yet rise above this to get the most out of the opportunity, is something that must be common to lots of lower-middle or working class kids like me who got a shot at private schooling.

Rowling also co-opts lots of little public school rituals into her depiction of Hogwarts life as well. (On the other hand, it may be that what I see as "traditionalist" rituals are in fact a common feature of state / grammar school life in Scotland or other parts of England. In south London, however, they are peculiar to public or church schools.)
 
Quite a bit has been said here. I'll try to cover all the points as best as I can.

Hermione is the wild card. No matter how talented she is she will always be marked as 'one from the outside', and she will always be conscience of her status. Hermione should be the character that the readers most identify with. However since the character is female (females are never taken seriously) and has dentists for parents (no-one likes dentists) the character's function is subversive. She represents the working middle-class who think that a little bit of wealth makes them equal to anyone. But the wizards are the books' aristocracy and we all know that being an aristocrat is not about having money or a good education, it's about blood-ties. Hermione will be lucky if she rates as being 'posh'.

Now about the muggles. Can you think of a more offensive name for those 'outside the family'? And as for good and bad, well, good muggles are those who do not threaten or criticise the status quo, the bad ones are obviously the opposite. Need I say more?

When I used the word 'utopia' to describe the wizards' world I was actually being ironic. Utopia is humanity's impossible dream because while we continue to eat and defacate we'll always need lowly workers. I feel that it neatly fits the stratified society described by Rowling.

EZ said this which I just love!

If anything, the wealthy are the guardians of the working class, saving them from threats they aren't even aware of.

The problem with super heroes, i.e. wizards, is that you need super villains. Cue massive destruction etc, muggles caught in the middle, but are grateful at the end because they were 'saved'. Yeah right! :rolleyes: These heroes are just trouble magnets. How long will the ordinary person put up with all this hero/villain malarky disrupting their lives? When the fight is over, does the hero do anything useful like finding a cure for cancer. Nope, he's just resting and waiting for his next fight. So these heros have got to go. They are a metaphor for the power base that exists only to serve itself.
 
not a lot of people know this but gildroy lockheart was infact loosely based on tony blair. he starts off with everyone reading (chamber of secrets) the book seeing him as this heroic peson with a good smile and everyone in the book seams to think he's great dispite evidence to the contary.
by the end of the book hes been exposed as a lieing phoney that cheated his way through life at the expence of others.
 
Shearluck said:
not a lot of people know this but gildroy lockheart was infact loosely based on tony blair. he starts off with everyone reading (chamber of secrets) the book seeing him as this heroic peson with a good smile and everyone in the book seams to think he's great dispite evidence to the contary.
by the end of the book hes been exposed as a lieing phoney that cheated his way through life at the expence of others.
Good Grief Shearluck! How do you do it?

Yes. The upside of the Potter books is that Rowling does seem to be trying to expose the nastiness of adult life in Britain today, the hype and the claptrap, racism and class hatred. It's very pronounced in the latest tome. Whether she can really do it successfully in in such a traditional and small 'c' conservative genre, as the boarding school novel, I'm still not totally convinced.
 
Mana said:
Hermione should be the character that the readers most identify with. However since the character is female (females are never taken seriously)

Apart from by other females, who happily constitute about half the population, and more than half of Harry Potter's readership. Oh, and the author.

But the wizards are the books' aristocracy and we all know that being an aristocrat is not about having money or a good education, it's about blood-ties.


It's part of the whole point that Hermione, despite having absolutely no blood-ties, is the most talented student in her year, thus demonstrating that people who get wrapped up in breeding are pig-ignorant inbreds themselves. Hermione is only an outcast to the villains of the piece - to the good guys, she's an indispensable ally. You're talking like you think the author advocates this elitism, when the whole theme of the books are anti-elitist. She created a flawed and prejudiced society so her characters could expose how nasty it is and fight against it.

The problem with super heroes, i.e. wizards, is that you need super villains. Cue massive destruction etc, muggles caught in the middle, but are grateful at the end because they were 'saved'. Yeah right! These heroes are just trouble magnets. How long will the ordinary person put up with all this hero/villain malarky disrupting their lives? When the fight is over, does the hero do anything useful like finding a cure for cancer. Nope, he's just resting and waiting for his next fight. So these heros have got to go. They are a metaphor for the power base that exists only to serve itself.


Did Superman abuse you as a child, or anything? Because the anger you have which is aimed at fictional characters is really quite disturbing! Harry Potter Cures Cancer (That would be Book 8) would be very worthy, but hardly rollocking reading. They are story books. Books full of exciting stories! And Harry Potter is doing something quite useful - he slays a metaphor for prejudice. Over and over again. They're extremely moral books, to the point of "yawn" on occasion, and as such I find it difficult to get angry at them.

muggles caught in the middle, but are grateful at the end because they were 'saved'. Yeah right!


Incidently, this particular scenario has never yet happened in the books, which barely feature any muggles at all. The whole story concerns an internal battle within the self-contained wizarding world. Those under threat are the ones with muggle parents - not the muggles themselves- who are quite able to defend themselves without any help from pureblooded wizards.

I may be wrong, but I see no evidence that you've read the books at all - you seem to have missed most of the major plot points. If you have read them, I suggest you stop, because they seem to upset you unnecessarily ^_^

It's entirely possible JKR has republican sympathies; from what I know about her, she seems to lean left politically. But as Conners said, attributing this complex political agenda to them is really quite bizarre. They do have a message of liberal morals, but it's hardly subtle or subversive. It's kind of the whole plot of the books.
 
Slytherin said:
It's part of the whole point that Hermione, despite having absolutely no blood-ties, is the most talented student in her year, thus demonstrating that people who get wrapped up in breeding are pig-ignorant inbreds themselves.
While I broadly agree with your other points, I think you've missed something significant about Hermione. She isn't the most talented pupil -Harry is. What Hermione is, is the averagely talented person who excels because she just about kills herself working. She's the swot. The bookworm. The one who does the reading and who never leaves her homework -sorry, her 'prep'- until the last minute. She works bloody hard! :D


And for that reason I don't think she'll survive book 7: in the real world, you don't get ahead through hard work kiddies -they tell you that you can, but in the end the privileged ones -money, family, connections- will grind you down.
 
Zygon said:
While I broadly agree with your other points, I think you've missed something significant about Hermione. She isn't the most talented pupil -Harry is. What Hermione is, is the averagely talented person who excels because she just about kills herself working. She's the swot. The bookworm. The one who does the reading and who never leaves her homework -sorry, her 'prep'- until the last minute. She works bloody hard! :D


And for that reason I don't think she'll survive book 7: in the real world, you don't get ahead through hard work kiddies -they tell you that you can, but in the end the privileged ones -money, family, connections- will grind you down.
No. Not true. She is very talented and wise beyond her years. She works hard, but she's got a shrewd grasp of 'how things work.'

Harry blunders along, a prickly and insecure minefield of angst. Hermione is a real force to be reckoned with, full of confidence in her own abilities, occasionally taking on nasty adults and quite able to make mincemeat of them, if necessary.

It is just a kid's book. ;)
 
AndroMan said:
No. Not true. She is very talented and wise beyond her years. She works hard, but she's got a shrewd grasp of 'how things work.'

Harry blunders along, a prickly and insecure minefield of angst. Hermione is a real force to be reckoned with, full of confidence in her own abilities, occasionally taking on nasty adults and quite able to make mincemeat of them, if necessary.
Sure Harry blunders along, but the point of talent is that the things that should be difficult simply aren't. Look at all the grown ups impressed by his stag ('animus' IIRC, Christ don't tell me I'm gonna have to read them again already): common comment "Impressive in one so young" or words to that effect.

To keep up in the Harry-led DADA lessons, Hermione has to try (not as much as some, and certainly not all the time, but nonetheless she still has to push herself): therefore she primarily serves -IMO- as an example of what you can achieve if you really apply yourself.

Yes, she has ability, and yes she's wise beyond her years, but what counts is the fact that she makes a serious effort all the time, unlike the boys. Meanwhile Harry leaves his prep til the last minute, and when he's given important homework -homework that people's lives might depend on- by Snape, he doesn't do it, but nonetheless manages to muddle through with his skin intact.
 
Zygon said:
Yes, she has ability, and yes she's wise beyond her years, but what counts is the fact that she makes a serious effort all the time, unlike the boys.
She's a girl, like the person writing the book. ;)
 
AndroMan said:
She's a girl, like the person writing the book. ;)
I wasn't going to throw the direct spotlight on that particular can o'worms, AndroMan. :D
 
What Androman said ^_^ I think Hermione's the most clued-up character in the book, while part of Harry's charm (or his lack of it) is that he never has a *clue* what is going on, right up until the Scooby-doo ending. Hermione's usually got there in about the third chapter.

Harry does seem to stutter by on luck, helpful adults and some natural talent - he's good at Quidditch, and DADA, but he doesn't shine at much else. (His stag is a patronus - Yes, I know these books too well ^_^) And let's not undermine Hermione's natural girlpower just because she does the work - what's that saying about genius being 10% talent and 90% practise? Having the talent's not enough, if Harry doesn't bother to use it, and mostly he doesn't. And magic aside, Herm's way ahead in the emotional maturity stakes, and she seems to have that talent naturally. She's got better real life skills coming out of her ears - she's a better thinker, she understands people better, she sees the bigger picture better. Harry, typical bloody fifteen year old, is entirely self-centred ^_^

Meanwhile Harry leaves his prep til the last minute, and when he's given important homework -homework that people's lives might depend on- by Snape, he doesn't do it, but nonetheless manages to muddle through with his skin intact.


But Harry monumentally screwed up in Order of the Phoenix - he couldn't have done worse if he'd tried (okay, he could have died, I'll grant you that, but then the last two books would kind of lose their charm for a lot of readers) I assume you're referring to Harry's learning Occlumency from Snape. Despite being told in no uncertain terms by everyone he should know to trust - Dumbledore, Lupin, my girl Herm- he didn't practise, and so he led a bunch of his school mates into a bloody and unnecessary battle. People had to come and save him from the mess he'd got himself into, and consequently, Someone Who's Name I'll Be Told Off For Saying Again died. Okay, the fault wasn't entirely Harry's, but if he'd listened to Hermione in the first place, before running off... well, you know the rest. ^_^
 
Harry Potter next film snippet

I got a friend whos in the next Harry potter film. She was aparently requested for the top table cos of her balck sticky up hair. As an extra its important that u get days of work and they are worth while. They wanted her and others for four days and actuly only had them for one day and half a day...half a day takeing all round pics of each actor..... CGI is takeing over from the bottom up. as the extas dont have any power.... But say u were an extra and the Director took such a fancy to ur face u almost became the star?..... there isnt a day pay rate for screen time...just for time ur on the job.... odd ah.
 
Wasn't it the Columbia woman with the torch who got paid a pittance (if at all) for posing? Or is that a UL?
 
Back
Top