Re: [mythsoc] Re: O.W.L.'s in Harry Potter
- At 06:56 PM 8/1/2005 -0400, Grace Monk wrote:
>As I think I wrote earlier, towith
>me the first two were the equivalent of cotton candy and so I don't agree
>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 furtherOK, 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 DumbledoreMore 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 lakeYou mean the Birdbath of Doom? That was ... how shall I put it ... risibly
At 01:08 PM 8/1/2005 -0700, Matthew Winslow wrote:
>We may agree here, David, so maybe clarification is needed, but whenIt's one thing to decide in an advance that you're going to write seven
>you write 'allowing uncontrolled sequelitis', it sounds like you're
>claiming that she didn't plan the entire series (to some degree) up
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 thoughtLack of plot development was hardly the problem. Turgidity and over-detail
>there was plenty of plot development.
was the problem.
- 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