|
This could just be a false memory, but weren't the HP books always meant to be read while the reader was the same age as the characters? I think that's why Stone and Chamber feel more like fairytales than the later books. So the series tranforms from children's books to YA naturally.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 11:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
Bad Wolf posted:This could just be a false memory, but weren't the HP books always meant to be read while the reader was the same age as the characters? I think that's why Stone and Chamber feel more like fairytales than the later books. So the series tranforms from children's books to YA naturally. I don't think it was an intentional move on Rowling's part but rather the series and maturity evolved as she did as a writer. She very much wrote what she wanted to write and she was selling so many books that she wasn't listening to anyone telling her otherwise. Rowling was a pretty inexperienced writer and it's due to that she didn't make a conscious decision to write the whole series for a particular age point. She wrote authentically to her characters age levels. If you compare that to the Percy Jackson series, while a great MG series, you can see the author has carefully targeted the books to a certain demo and reading level throughout the series. I think that sort of stopped PJ from having as much "adult" success as Harry Potter did. Wittgen posted:I read the first two books when I was almost 11. Book five came out just before I turned 15. I think future generations will enjoy the books, but only we will have had the experience of growing up with the books, being the same age as the characters every time a book came out. I think feeling like we were growing up with the books is what is really going to entrench Harry Potter in our generation's minds because it feels like part of our childhood. It's why things like Twilight and The Hunger Games are going to feel more flash in the pan than HP. Those series just came out too quickly for a lasting attachment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Why would you say that the Harry Potter series "growing" is the result of inexperience and incompetence while the other YA series not "growing" is the result of experience and competence, if you say that the Harry Potter series "growing" is what caused it to become classic relative to the other YA series?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:Why would you say that the Harry Potter series "growing" is the result of inexperience and incompetence while the other YA series not "growing" is the result of experience and competence, if you say that the Harry Potter series "growing" is what caused it to become classic relative to the other YA series? I never said that Rowling was incompetent just that what she did was unprecedented because of her inexperience with the genre which was a good thing. Prior to that Children's Lit series were very much structured around particular age groups. Stuff like The Famous Five, Goosebumps and Sweet Valley High were the norm. The exponential success of HP put her in a position to write what she wanted to write which was overall beneficial in creating the series we know and love. Her inexperience let her avoid the traps of conventional series and create a generational work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Ah, so when you say "experienced" you mean "rigidly stuck in a preexisting formula to the point of stagnation"? That's kind of unintuitive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:Ah, so when you say "experienced" you mean "rigidly stuck in a preexisting formula to the point of stagnation"? That's kind of unintuitive. Sorry about that. I thought I'd linked that to my Percy Jackson example enough to carry my point. I think inexperience or ignorance especially in creative fields can sometimes end up producing innovative work. Conventional wisdom can definitely encourage stagnation. Rowling I think had a story she wanted to write and simply wrote it and it evolved as she grew as a writer. Whereas Percy Jackson's author Rick Riordan had experience as a genre writer and Percy Jackson is much more of a premeditated attempt to cater to a particular market. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
You could also argue that Harry Potter's initial success gave Rowling a bit of a 'blank check' for her later books, where they might have been more strictly edited otherwise. With stricter editing, it's possible her editor might have said "You know, this is pretty dark for a children's book. Let's dumb it down and cheer it up a bit!" The flip side of that coin is if an author is given free rein and really could've used a more draconian editor. Take a look at the mid-series Wheel of Time books for an example of that!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
syphon posted:You could also argue that Harry Potter's initial success gave Rowling a bit of a 'blank check' for her later books, where they might have been more strictly edited otherwise. With stricter editing, it's possible her editor might have said "You know, this is pretty dark for a children's book. Let's dumb it down and cheer it up a bit!" Absolutely. I think it overall ended up being a good thing but Rowling did have some flaws that a stronger editor might have curbed. That's very easy to say with hindsight though. It's incredible how a 1000 print run book ended up being a 15 billion dollar empire. It's going to be interesting how they're going to transition to a new generation while still catering to the originals. How the new movies perform is going to be something to watch out for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Absolutely. I think it overall ended up being a good thing but Rowling did have some flaws that a stronger editor might have curbed. That's very easy to say with hindsight though. The thing is that she also had strengths a "stronger" editor might have eroded. That's the trouble with editors; they're not magically better at making decisions about the work than the writer is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:The thing is that she also had strengths a "stronger" editor might have eroded. That's the trouble with editors; they're not magically better at making decisions about the work than the writer is. So, anyone looked at the Time Turner-Plot Hole critique that was discussed by Jim Butcher and Patrick Rothfuss? I liked how they pointed out the problem with the Time-Turners, and how anyone could go back in time and change events to their liking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Variant_Eris posted:So, anyone looked at the Time Turner-Plot Hole critique that was discussed by Jim Butcher and Patrick Rothfuss? I liked how they pointed out the problem with the Time-Turners, and how anyone could go back in time and change events to their liking. But only if it already happened that way, presumably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Variant_Eris posted:So, anyone looked at the Time Turner-Plot Hole critique that was discussed by Jim Butcher and Patrick Rothfuss? I liked how they pointed out the problem with the Time-Turners, and how anyone could go back in time and change events to their liking. The argument about Time Turners is addressed in the first book it shows up in. The time travel is stuff that already happened. You can't go back and change something, you only do things that already happened. If you tried to go back and change the past then you'd inevitably fail because it doesn't work that way. Harry and Hermione only succeeded because they had already succeeded. (Or Harry couldn't have saved himself the first time.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Anyone complaining about logical inconsistencies in Harry Potter are forgetting that, quite literally, a wizard did it
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Didn't most of the Time Turners get smashed at the Department of Mysteries anyways? Or am I pulling stuff out of my rear end?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Why yes, they were. They were an existential threat to institutions and civilization, and they deserved nothing less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Joanne realised how big of a plothole they were so she had that one Death Eater destroy them all (then get his hosed up head turned into a baby what the gently caress happened in that weird 'let's study metaphysics' place)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Pidmon posted:Joanne realised how big of a plothole they were so she had that one Death Eater destroy them all (then get his hosed up head turned into a baby what the gently caress happened in that weird 'let's study metaphysics' place) I'm still a little curious about the brain room.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
TARDISman posted:I'm still a little curious about the brain room. "Thoughts" or "A mind", vs "Time", "Fate", "Death", there's probably one with a open freezer full of human hearts where Dumbledore discovered about Lily's sacrifice by experimenting on Love.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Pidmon posted:"Thoughts" or "A mind", vs "Time", "Fate", "Death", there's probably one with a open freezer full of human hearts where Dumbledore discovered about Lily's sacrifice by experimenting on Love. I thought for the longest time that the death archway (Stargate?) was going to come up again. I think that's why they pointedly made sure to show that Sirius was dead already before he fell into the archway in the Order of the Phoenix movie. ashez2ashes fucked around with this message at 01:54 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
I will never get over that Harry literally had a magic loving cell phone that was sitting in the bottom of his trunk that he could have used to contact sirius at like any time. Harry, you poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I will never get over that Harry literally had a magic loving cell phone that was sitting in the bottom of his trunk that he could have used to contact sirius at like any time. Book 5 was really good at portraying how lovely and stupid teenagers can be, I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I will never get over that Harry literally had a magic loving cell phone that was sitting in the bottom of his trunk that he could have used to contact sirius at like any time. To be fair, it was wrapped up and Harry never unwrapped it. But then you have to wonder why he never unwrapped it, despite his mental anxieties at the time. So yes. Harry, you poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
ashez2ashes posted:I thought for the longest time that the death archway (Stargate?) was going to come up again. I think that's why they pointedly made sure to show that Sirius was dead already before he fell into the archway in the Order of the Phoenix movie. It would've been a better focus for the final book than the loving Hallows that's for sure. God, I hate those loving things and that lovely retcon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
I know it's crappy fanfiction, but I really wanted to see more loose ends wrapped up in book 7. Like more about the death archway and the magic mirror -- perhaps letting Harry go back and try to rescue Sirius and then getting the Marauders back together to kick Voldie's rear end. I also wanted Mr. Weasely's car to make a triumphant return from the forest and drive over Pettigrew. Anything would have been an improvement over the Horcrux crapola and that awful Epilogue. I didn't mind the Deathly Hallows (the fairy tale part in the film was beautifully-done by Tim Burton), but it might have been better if JFK had focussed more on that since the Hallows were found all through the books. Dumbledore even had all three of the Hallows at one time -- why didn't he go defeat Voldie himself? Inveigle fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Nov 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Inveigle posted:it might have been better if JFK had focussed more on that since the Hallows were found all through the books. Chapter one: The er, uh, boy who lived
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Inveigle posted:it might have been better if JFK had focussed more on that since the Hallows were found all through the books. Dumbledore even had all three of the Hallows at one time -- why didn't he go defeat Voldie himself? The Chowdah of Secrets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Inveigle posted:I know it's crappy fanfiction, but I really wanted to see more loose ends wrapped up in book 7. Like more about the death archway and the magic mirror -- perhaps letting Harry go back and try to rescue Sirius and then getting the Marauders back together to kick Voldie's rear end. I also wanted Mr. Weasely's car to make a triumphant return from the forest and drive over Pettigrew. Anything would have been an improvement over the Horcrux crapola and that awful Epilogue. Dumbledore was never master of all three Hallows - the Stone came into his possession after he gave harry the cloak (which he was never master of anyway, if you want to be literal). Having the three hallows does not make one Unbeatable Wizard Goku anyway. Plus, bringing Sirius back obliterates one of the biggest themes of the book, which is that death is permanent and natural and that accepting that and its inevitability makes one it's Master far more than three magic items of dubious providence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Variant_Eris posted:To be fair, it was wrapped up and Harry never unwrapped it. But then you have to wonder why he never unwrapped it, despite his mental anxieties at the time. Because Voldemort was scrambling his brains constantly with negative emotions for the entire period that he had the mirror. He only finds it after Voldemort is wounded by the power of love and all that jazz and he is able to think relatively clearly. This is probably the most subtle plot-thread that JKR wrote in the entire series, to be fair, but it's pretty clear, I think, that Harry acts like a massive poo poo in book 5 for way more plot-relevant reasons than generic teenage angst. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Inveigle posted:Dumbledore even had all three of the Hallows at one time -- why didn't he go defeat Voldie himself? Dumbledore never had all three Hallows at one time. He had the Wand and the Cloak, gave up the Cloak and found the Ring only just before he died. Even despite that he says himself he wasn't fit to wield them, only to possess them, because he was tempted by their power. He literally killed himself in his rush to abuse the Resurrection Stone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:it's pretty clear, I think, that Harry acts like a massive poo poo in book 5 for way more plot-relevant reasons than generic teenage angst. I listened to an interview between Stephen Fry and JK Rowling from 2005 the other day, and she talks directly about her reasoning behind this. quote:Well Phoenix - I will say, in self defense, Harry had to, because of what I'm trying to say about Harry as a hero, because he's a very human hero, and obviously, there's a contrast between him as a human hero and Voldemort, who has deliberately dehumanized himself... and Harry, therefore, did have to reach a point where he did always break down and say he didn't want to play anymore, he didn't want to be the hero anymore, and he'd lost too much, and he didn't want to lose anything else. So Phoenix was the point at which I decided he would have his breakdown... and now he will rise from the ashes, strengthened. thexerox123 fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:generic teenage angst. There's a pretty good argument to be made for legitimate PTSD, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
No but teens are so dumb and stupid. Now I'm in my 20s/30s I'm so much more wisened
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
I thought Harry's attitude in book 5 made a lot of sense. After all the poo poo he's been through, it was about time he started to get pissed about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
I was thinking, JKR says that Dumbledore was about 150 when he died, and Bathilda Bagshot was already a well known historian when the Dumbledore's moved in next door we can assume she was at least 30, and she apparently died a few months after Dumbledore, she was at least 170 years old. Why does anyone even need a philosophers stone in this world?  By comparison Voldemort was a spry 71 (approximately) when he died, easily looking forward to another 100 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2014 11:54
|
|
|
GodFish posted:I was thinking, JKR says that Dumbledore was about 150 when he died, and Bathilda Bagshot was already a well known historian when the Dumbledore's moved in next door we can assume she was at least 30, and she apparently died a few months after Dumbledore, she was at least 170 years old. Why does anyone even need a philosophers stone in this world? Good question. Also, how would you die of "natural causes"? I mean, dealing with non-magical ailments like cancer or pneumonia or heart disease can't be that hard. You could just cast a vanishing spell on a tumour or whatever. Also, it seems like we don't know of anyone that died of natural causes in the entire series, except (possibly) Hagrid's dad. Maybe I'm misremembering, mind you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Good question. Also, how would you die of "natural causes"? I mean, dealing with non-magical ailments like cancer or pneumonia or heart disease can't be that hard. You could just cast a vanishing spell on a tumour or whatever. Nicolas Flamel and his wife both likely died of natural causes after they ran out of Philosopher's Stone-derived elixir.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Good question. Also, how would you die of "natural causes"? I mean, dealing with non-magical ailments like cancer or pneumonia or heart disease can't be that hard. You could just cast a vanishing spell on a tumour or whatever. On Pottermore JK mentioned that there's wizard specific diseases that muggles can't get. Wizard cancer I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
ashez2ashes posted:On Pottermore JK mentioned that there's wizard specific diseases that muggles can't get. Wizard cancer I guess. Dragon pox got mentioned a few times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
I think the explanation of why muggles don't notice magic stuff wasn't "Oh, we do everything literally undergound, or if muggles get near magical sites they see condemned buildings or have a sudden urge to be elsewhere." Like, that works for stuff run by wizards..but what about all the magical flora and fauna? I mean, I guess there's the explanation that if a dragon decided to fly over a village they just oblivate everyone who saw it...but I much prefer the Dresden Files answer. Normals see magic stuff ALL THE TIME, but just rationalize it away or pretend it didn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
GodFish posted:I was thinking, JKR says that Dumbledore was about 150 when he died, and Bathilda Bagshot was already a well known historian when the Dumbledore's moved in next door we can assume she was at least 30, and she apparently died a few months after Dumbledore, she was at least 170 years old. Why does anyone even need a philosophers stone in this world? Wizards seem to live for an exceptionally long time, but they do not live indefinitely nor are they immune to disease. Voldemort is not satisfied with having 100 years to rule. He wants to rule for all eternity and without the threat of whatever diseases would cripple a normal wizard during their lifetime. Also, in Voldemort's case, the Stone doesn't seem to be a way to avoid death so much as a way to rebuild his body. In The Chamber of Secrets, Riddle's diary saps Ginny's life to give himself a physical form. Voldemort planned to use the Stone in the same way, using its energy to create a body of his own. I'm almost positive this is stated outright at one point, but can't remember where or by whom. I have a question of my own: Is the Ministry of Magic a part of the British government or its own separate entity? Who determines who serves as the Minister of Magic? Do wizards recognize the queen? Is there any indication in the series as to how the magical government is intended to function? QuoProQuid fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 04:40
|
|
