CNN.com - New Potter book goes public June 21
Yes! I can't wait either. I really really liked the fourth one. Matter of fact, I didn't really get to talk about it much, so let this thread be the start of my new Harry Potter discussion. Feel free to bring in relevant info from other fantasy literature, and be warned: the very first comment is going to have spoiler info, so stay away if you haven't read the books yet.
What the hell is up with the sacrifice seen at the end of the fourth book? Little kids read this stuff? Potter tied to a headstone, watching somebody cut their own hand off, and then having his blood sacrificed? Damn.
And for those of you who have read Tolkien, what do you think of Rowling? Any comparison? Different completely?
harry potter is 11 when he first enrolls at hogwarts. that makes him 14 by the time he's tied to a headstone. harry potter's REAL magic tricks involve getting adolescents to identify with him. to me, that says that harry's target audience in book 4 is comprised of 14 year olds, and not these friggin 8-year-olds who line up to see his movies with badly-drawn lightning bolts painted on their foreheads. i see rowling as tolkien light, but not in terms of talent. if you enjoy these two authors, i recommend lloyd alexander's prydian chronicles.
The age thing is a good point.
As for Rowling vs Tolkien, Tolkien's skills were in creating the world: he made middle earth (actually, he would argue that it was there all along, he just showed it to us). Rowling takes a world that exists, ours, and modifies it to add magic. I've been reading an essay by Tolkien about fantasy, which I'll post some quotes from later. For now, though, let me say that he makes a point about fantasy having to do with desire. I think the reason that so many people enjoy Potter is because we all desire the ability to do magic, and we all desire the chance to become a hero as well as the rewards that come with it.
As for author recommendations, another good one in this vein is David Eddings, who has multiple series' out.
Aaron brings up a good point. I don't think I would want to take my 11 or 12-year old kid to see either Potter movie. That's some freaky shit to see alive and on-screen.
But as for the content of the book, C.S. Lewis wrote a sacrifice scene in his The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. The White Witch kills Aslan, and the two young heroines, Lucy - who is based on Lewis's young niece, I believe, and whom the book was specifically written for - and Susan witnessed the whole event on the sly. This is as questionable as Rowling's final encounter in Goblet of Fire, if either are to be questioned at all concerning the appropriateness of young eyes.
But I say, if an 8-year old can trudge to the end of Goblet of Fire, then he/she's ready for what he/she'll get. I have no other recommendations of other authors along this genre, as I am skeptical and closed minded of most sci-fi and fantasy authors. I'll mention Terry Pratchett, although his works tend to be more satire and brilliant slapstick and wordplay dressed up in sci-fi clothes.
jay, i agree with you fully about tolkien vs. rowling. his middle earth was used as a backdrop for a lot of 70s and 80s fantasy literature and games. i guess that makes him an original gangsta! but anyway...about this potter guy.
i'm really excited to see what role remis lupin will play in book 5. other potter buffs believe that dumbledore dies pretty soon. hey cory, how does this speculation fit in with the hero myth?
by the way jay. more days than not i wish that there was more magic in the world. besides greenspan, i mean.
Ok, the greenspan thing was funny.
I recently read a book that gave facts about where Tolkien got his inspiration from as he was researching and writing different parts of the books. One of the things they mention there and again in The Shadow Returns, the first book of the History of the Lord of The Rings by Christopher Tolkien, is that Tolkien wanted to fill in what he perceived to be a gap in English history. Many of the verses he wrote in the trilogy were either based on older verses so as to seem like they had been passed down through time or were versions that he wrote so as to appear older versions of verses that were already known to have been passed down, as if the newer ones were based on the ones in Middle Earth. Also, which I didn't realize, is that Middle Earth's geography maps back to currently existing places.
I enjoy both authors for different reasons: Tolkien for his reality and depth (he actually says in an essay that if you can't actually believe it exists, an't be absorbed to the point where you completely believe, it's not good fantasy) and Rowling for the way she sucks you slowly into her characters. The books get longer as the series goes on because she slowly sucks you in, telling you more and more as she goes.
As for the new book, I'm interested to see how many characters get killed. I don't think it will just be dumbledore.
I hadn't actually thought about Dumbledore dying. That's a pretty heavy thing. I doubt he'll die until Sirius Black is free to take on a more prominent role, if you want my opinion influenced by any sort of residue of hero mythology. But to me, the character of Lupin seemed to be very powerful in his influence over Harry, but then he left as well, but with the idea that he may return.
The basic gist of the hero myth is Obi Wan in Star Wars. If you can find the Obi Wan to Harry's Luke, then that's who will die. Dumbledore is as prime a candidate as any. Normally it's a father-type figure, which makes Sirius a candidate, but he seems to be more like fate's compensation to Harry for being an orphan, I think.
But I am glad that Cedric Diggory got it. Stealing Harry's girl and all. Not that Harry didn't bring it on himself by being spineless, but what's a 14 year-old going to do?
Other food for thought: What fun will we see out of the newly funded Fred and George Weasley? Which makes me beg three other things: 1) Aside from Harry and maybe Dumbledore, which Potter character brings the most to the stories? 2)Who will replace Wood as Gryffindor Quidditch Captain? 3)As Gryffindor Keeper? 4)Won't Hufflepuff's Qudditch Team suck a dick now that Diggory's dead and can't Seek?
fuck tolkien
Ah, look, a troll. The first real one I've had, and what a brilliant comment too! Two whole words, and one of them 'fuck'. Definitely makes Mike qualified to comment on Tolkien. Maybe I should protect my site with an IQ test or something. You'd have to pass before you could read anything here. Although, is I did that, some days I probably wouldn't be able to access my own site... Oh well...
I can't wait for book 5 to come out though my brother thinks that Rowling is trying to copy Tolken and jfournier, don't say bad words, I'm ten.
I'm sorry I said it three times, somthing happened to my computer.
I am really looking forward to the fifth book, but i honestly dont think rowling can be compared to tolkien! dont get me wrong, they are both incredible writers. its just that tolkien happens to be a wider thinker and writer than rowling.
Did you know J.K. is richer than the queen of England...Damn son. Her books must have something good. And by the way, I think Hagrids gonna get it.
Pratchett is much better than Rowling. Anyone else read his work?
J.K Rowling has more money than the Queen of England, yes. However, she also had to work harder for it. I didn't hear any stories about the QoE being on wellfare... You?
Terry Prachett or Terry Pratchett? Is there a difference?
I don't believe I've read any of his works. Saying he's better than Rowling leaves me wondering a little. I mean, I like the Potter stuff, but Rowling is no literary genius. She crafts a great story, but saying someone is better than her puts them between average and great, not automatically on top. I guess what I'm saying is that popularity doesn't equal quality and becoming quickly famous doesn't mean this is more than a passing fad. What makes Pratchett so much better Yasar?
Please post more comments, I will visit this site again soon.
Tolkien is obviously a better writer than Rowling because his epic not only has a great story line, which is by the way not only good verses evil, it has a history and can be logically put together. Whereas Rowling's Harry Potter books have no basis as to where these wizards come from, how they got their powers and likewise. Tolkien created a world in which is explained thoroughly in his book THE SILMARILLION. It is therefore, without a doubt, that Tolkien is, as Catie puts it, a "wider thinker and writer than rowling."
Make sure to shop around for used suvs as well as new suvs before choosing.
"The fuckery of Tolkien"
In this belated comment, I'd like to point out that Mike on 1/19/03 apparently (and intelligently) put his real e-mail address, which is romeo283@hotmail.com. (Stares straight forward)
As to Tolkien's actual fuckery, besides Sarah's chastising of the person who runs this site (frown) his works were way overhyped, as his books were both excellently crafted and incredibly creative, and read by every geek on the planet--and then the movies, imo, the first one being an incredible piece of work, the second boring as hell and the third containing twelve different endings, all strung together.
This compared to Rowling's not-as-epic series, which is as quirky and yet strikes a perfect balance in each movie, whose books are making her an obscene amount of money, which have been read by everyone I can think of, including my ex-fiancee. Mucking fuggles.
harry...
nice site asbestos cancer
"fuck tolkien
Posted by: mike on January 19, 2003 06:25 PM #"
Hey f*** you too buddy!
Tolkien owns, he is like the father of all fantasy! There probably wouldn't even be a Harry Potter if it wasn't for brilliance to inspire it.