Re: [mythsoc] Re: O.W.L.'s in Harry Potter
- Lezlie <lezlie1@...> wrote:
> I think themaking
> real issue here is that it's so very popular, and the author is
> bundle off it. I think I have witnessed more than a few "Green-eyedown
> Dragons" amongst writers of fantasy—eh? Maybe we should all
> just get over it and write our own stories. To each generation its
Talk about a cheap shot -- attempting to replace reasoned discussion
of the merits and flaws of the books with an _ad hominem_ attack
against those who find the books lacking.
This approach is all too reminiscent of the sorts of comments that were
freqently made on this list during discussions of the Jackson movies.
People like me who found the movies lacking were often told, in effect:
"The movies are wildly popular, have made a gajillion dollars, and were
given a wheelbarrow full of Oscars. That proves we're right and you're
wrong. Now get over it, shut up and go away."
Sorry, but sales figures and big profits are NOT what determines
artistic merit -- and as for Oscars, let's not forget that Marisa Tomei
won an Oscar for "My Cousin Vinny". Enough said. Maybe what some
of us need to get over is the fact that there will always be people who
do not like the books and movies we like, and for perfectly valid
PS. I like the Harry Potter books just fine, thanks.
- 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