Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [mythsoc] Re: O.W.L.'s in Harry Potter

Expand Messages
  • David Bratman
    ... with ... The first one was GOOD cotton candy. It was no Tolkien, but it was good for what it was. The later books are trying to be something more in the
    Message 1 of 71 , Aug 1, 2005
      At 06:56 PM 8/1/2005 -0400, Grace Monk wrote:

      >As I think I wrote earlier, to
      >me the first two were the equivalent of cotton candy and so I don't agree
      with
      >David's opinion of their freshness, etc.

      The first one was GOOD cotton candy. It was no Tolkien, but it was good
      for what it was. The later books are trying to be something more in the
      Tolkien direction ... and failing.


      >They were fun but left me with no desire to pursue the story further

      OK, this is where you lose me. To me, the response to a good book does not
      include the "desire to pursue the story further." When you read LOTR, does
      it leave you burning with desire to read the Further Adventures of Mayor
      Sam? A good book is its own reward. When I read a good book, the desire
      it leaves me with is the desire to read it again sometime.

      Same goes for Sara Ciborski's comment: "Although I enjoyed 1 and 2, I
      thought they were a bit light and wouldn't have read on had not one of my
      (adult) children urged me." Enjoying a book 2 but not wanting to go on and
      read a book 3 does not strike me as a criticism of book 2. It strikes me
      as an indication that two books was the right length for the series, and
      the author should have stopped there.


      >Harry's relationship with Dumbledore

      More and more, the relationship stuff in these books seems to me to be
      coming with a cheerleader on the sidelines, hollering "EE-MOTE! EE-MOTE!"
      If LOTR Book IV had been written like this, I wouldn't have finished
      reading it either.


      >and the seen at the underground lake

      You mean the Birdbath of Doom? That was ... how shall I put it ... risibly
      overwrought.



      At 01:08 PM 8/1/2005 -0700, Matthew Winslow wrote:

      >We may agree here, David, so maybe clarification is needed, but when
      >you write 'allowing uncontrolled sequelitis', it sounds like you're
      >claiming that she didn't plan the entire series (to some degree) up
      >front.

      It's one thing to decide in an advance that you're going to write seven
      books and have some vague idea of major plot points; it's another to plan
      them out in detail. Since Rowling didn't actually write all seven before
      publishing the first, it doesn't really matter how much detail she planned
      them out in. Sequelitis can clearly still strike an author who knew she
      was going to write sequels.



      At 06:04 PM 8/1/2005 -0700, Berni Phillips wrote:
      >I liked this one a lot better than the last. I thought
      >there was plenty of plot development.

      Lack of plot development was hardly the problem. Turgidity and over-detail
      was the problem.

      DB
    • Larry Swain
      ONe tidbit I didn t see mentioned in the various takes on the theory: at the end Harry rather considers getting Snape as a possible by-product, but isn t
      Message 71 of 71 , Aug 14, 2005
        ONe tidbit I didn't see mentioned in the various takes on the theory: at the end Harry rather considers "getting Snape" as a possible by-product, but isn't overly concerned with Snape or Malfoy. One could counter that he is focused on Voldemort, but I'm not sure I buy that as just putting Snape out of mind.

        --
        _______________________________________________
        Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
        Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com

        Powered by Outblaze
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.