Big flame bait post...(Harry Potter rant)

[Archae]

To be absolutely honest with everyone here, I absolutely *HATE* Harry Potter, both the books and movies.

They are written for the kiddies.
I prefer ADULT fantasy stories, like "Lord Of The Rings."

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. My dear Archae!

SO?

Go ahead.........it doesn't bother me!

I happen to love love love both Harry Potter and The Lord of the Ring stories!

No accounting for taste, is there?

:popcorn:

[JVS]

2. screw LOTR, read medieval stuff

[jpgray]

90. The Icelandic sagas, the Heimskringla and the Kalevala are all great, and much was nicked by Tolkien

[Shell Beau]

3. OMG! And to think I almost missed this because I am going to bed.

I HATED TLOTR!!! HATED it. Now, I do own TLOTR set but I would much rather see any of the Harry Potter series. Any day! Did I mention that I HATED TLOTR?? If I didn't then let me say it again... :P

[XemaSab]

12. Word

It was written for teenage boys. :shrug:

[billyskank]

29. Actually he originally told the stories to his children

so they WERE children's tales to begin with. But I don't think many children read 1,000+ page books. (Except you, I dare say).

[billyskank]

30. It's over between us.

:P

[Shell Beau]

52. You're still alive!! Where have you been!?!

:bounce: :hug:

[Danger Mouse]

4. Meh

I love Harry Potter.
:shrug:
Hate away. I don't care.

[LostinVA]

8. Me too, and I think they're for adults as much as "kiddies"

Especially the later books.

They are well-written, engrossing, and have characters that I care about.

[Danger Mouse]

17. I totally got into book 6.

I used to be a Harry hater too. Thought it was silly that grown men and women were reading kids' books. Then I saw the first three movies. Decided to read the books. Couldn't put them down. Books 3 and 6, especially, were great.
I've especially come to love Snape, and insist that despite appearances, he's not a bad guy. Am I the only one who sees this? ;)

[AllegroRondo]

18. Have you seen the ads for book 7?

the bookstores have ads that encourage kids to take sides, either "Snape is good" and "Snape is evil". It should be a major theme in book 7.

[Danger Mouse]

20. Yeah, but Snape is totally not evil.

It's pretty obvious if you read book 6 closely. Well, at least, it was to me.

[LostinVA]

22. No, I agree -- SPOILER AHEAD

I think he only killed D because he had promised D he would if certain things happened. I think he's totally a good guy -- just a tool.

[Danger Mouse]

25. I think when D was begging Snape...

He was begging him to kill him. D wouldn't beg for his life, that would be TOTALLY against character. Snape had every reason to LOVE Dumbledore (the only person who ever truly believed in him) and probably hated himself for having to do it.
Also, Snape was under the oath he made with Draco's mother to help Draco...and it's almost certain D knew about the oath as well.

[LostinVA]

33. OOOO -- me too!

[Danger Mouse]

43. Woohoo! I wasn't the only one who noticed ;)

Rowling has created very well-crafted characters.

[WildEyedLiberal]

59. You both are totally correct

I have a "Trust Snape" sticker I got from Borders when I reserved my copy :D

[xmas74]

37. He made an oath w/ Malfoy's mother

remember, it was an unbreakable oath. Besides, if he broke that oath it would be obvious that he was not on their side. His cover would have been found and he would have been killed.

Dumbledore had been sick. It was repeated throughout the book that he seemed drained and his hand was not as it used to be. IMO, Dumbledore was saving both Malfoy (who I suspect will do the right thing when the time comes-remember how scared he really was? I don't think he's as bad as he wants everyone to believe, he just has a family history of nastiness to live up to!) and saved Snape. In doing so I think he managed to keep things in order.

I also think he knew it was him time to go. I believe that Snape was actually the most loyal of them all to Dumbledore. He didn't want to kill Dumbledore but realized, from an earlier conversation they had, that this was his duty and his solemn promise to do so. The others see D as a father, a grandfather, a teacher, a leader, a friend. I believe that Severius sees him as his savior and because of that he would do whatever was asked. (In some ways it's no different than the argument about Christ and Judas but that's another discussion. I've gone on too long about how bright Rowling really is and all the cool references I've noticed in her books.)

[Danger Mouse]

41. I had forgotten about that scene...where Dumbledore and Snape were arguing...

yeah...I also believe that Snape is the most loyal to Dumbledore, and that at the end, he was trying to help Harry as well (telling him to close his mind or he'll never have a chance, making him realize how weak he is)...

[xmas74]

46. Most think that Snape is evil

until I remind them of that scene. Once they reread it they usually agree with me-Snape was set up to kill Dumbledore by Dumbledore himself. He knew his time was closing in and I think he wanted it to end on his terms.

Snape fulfilled his terms and I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's truly tearing him apart. I also wouldn't be surprised to find that, in the end, Harry realizes he has more in common with Snape than he ever expected. Friends? No, but they will respect each other.

[Danger Mouse]

51. Yeah, I think in the end they'll come to understand one another.

Reading it, sometimes you want to knock their heads together like coconuts :D

[LostinVA]

63. Yup, I totally agree with you

He knew Snape was probably teh only person who had the balls to do it.

[xmas74]

75. The others would hem and haw.

Snape would do it because he saw the big picture.

[opiate69]

49. My theory on Dumbledore..

Remember in book one, he was a friend of Nicholas Flamel (the guy who had made immortality elixer with the Sorcerer's Stone). I haven't ever seen anywhere where Rowling says exactly how old DD is.. she just makes reference to how old he looks.. I think he was a contemporary of Flamel (which would make him somewhere around 6 or 700 years old), and when the stone was destroyed at the end of book one, he made himself enough elixer to keep him around long enough to see Harry finish school, but maybe in his efforts to find the Horcruxes, he was forced to take more than his allotment, so he ran out and knew he was slowly dying anyway.

[haf216]

50. My theory is he might be back,

Ok, I know this is way out there, but his animal is a phoenix. It's probably just wishful thinking,but.....

[badgerpup]

67. here's a website you might like...Everything Harry Potter and then some...

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/index-2.html

It's been cleared with Ms Rowling - in fact, she said she sometimes uses it herself when she can't remember something and needs to get finicky little details right for continuity.

I'll warn you right now that it's quite fascinating and can suck up an amazing amount of time if you're not careful...


pssst...Dumbledore was only about 150 years old according to this...

[opiate69]

72. Damn..awesome, awesome site.. thanks!

[deucemagnet]

57. I have to disagree.

Don't you remember in the end of book 5 when Harry tried to use an unforgivable curse in the Ministry of Magic, but was unable to make it work? Then somebody (Bellatrix, I think) told him that you had to have hatred in your heart, to really want to hurt somebody, and enjoy doing it in order for an unforgivable curse to work.

Face it, Snape is an evil rat bastard, and I hope he pays dearly in book 7. :grr:

[LostinVA]

64. When did Snape ever use the unforgiveable curse on someone???

[deucemagnet]

66. He used Avada Kedavra to kill Dumbledore. n/t

[Danger Mouse]

70. I disagree.

Why did Dumbledore plead with Snape? He certainly wasn't begging for his life...that goes against Dumbledore's personality COMPLETELY. Also, Snape was obligated to help Draco under any circumstances because of the oath he was forced to make. I don't think what Bellatrix said was true, though, since unforgivable curses had been used other times by other characters (By Moody in Book 4, by Fat Evil Cow Woman in Book 5) under different circumstances.

[deucemagnet]

77. Well, that wasn't actually Moody, it was Barty Crouch, who was a Death Eater.

I'm not familiar with your Fat Evil Cow Woman reference. Do you mean Delores Umbridge?

On edit: I found the quote from Bellatrix LeStrange after Harry tried to use the Cruciatus Curse on her.

"Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy? You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really cause pain--to enjoy it-- righteous anger won't hurt me for long..."

[Danger Mouse]

83. Right.

And I know it wasn't Moody, I was just saying it out of laziness.
Anyway, I'm sure Snape MEANT it when he killed Dumbledore...he knew he had to. The look of hate in his eyes was probably self-hatred.
Dumbledore was (most likely) pleading with Snape to go through with it, to do the deed, because (from an earlier argument in the book) Snape was very reluctant. If Snape HADN'T killed Dumbledore, it would've ruined everything for them. Snape's position on Voldemort's side is very important to the Order of the Phoenix, I would say crucial. If Snape hadn't killed Dumbledore, he would've ruined that as well as died himself (he would've violated his oath to Narcissa to help Draco).

[deucemagnet]

84. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Bellatrix's explanation implies a malicious intent that Snape couldn't possibly have if he were truly on Dumbledore's side. Self-hatred isn't going to cut it anymore that Harry' righteous anger.

If JKR is going to reveal Snape as a good guy in book 7, then she had better have one hell of a good justification for the cold-blooded murder of a main character in front of witnesses using an illegal curse that in itself carries a life sentence. None of the "Snape is good" hypotheses I've heard yet supply an adequate justification.

[Danger Mouse]

85. I would ask...

what he was to do otherwise? He was under the oath he made to Narcissa...so it was either his life or Dumbledore's.
And why did Dumbledore plead with him? We're supposed to believe that he was begging for his life? Everything we know about Dumbledore suggests that he wouldn't have done such a thing, and was prepared to die when his time had come.

[deucemagnet]

86. Well he had both Malfoy and a convenient escape route via..

...the Vanishing Cabinet that Malfoy was using. Why not take the kid and get the hell out of there? He would still be upholding the oath to protect Malfoy, while preserving the life of an ally. Seems like a pretty solid plan if you're truly with the good guys. As to why Dumbledore was pleading with him, we aren't told why, but pleading for his life and pleading to be killed are hardly the only two options. For all we know, it was Dumbledore's concern for Snape's future that compelled him to plead for him to change his course of action. Or possibly Malfoy's future. Or Harry's.

Since turn about is fair play, I would ask, "What purpose did killing Dumbledore serve?" Yes, it would ensure Voldemort's favor for Snape, but that hardly seems like a sound reason to dispatch your most powerful ally. And, again, why would the killing curse work for Snape when we know you have to be a dark-hearted bastard in order for it to be effective?

[Danger Mouse]

87. Sure, he could've run off...

...and Voldemort would've avenged himself on Draco's family in reprisal, and would've surely been out to kill both of them at the first opportunity. Additionally, that would not have saved Dumbeldore's life. There were many Death Eaters present, any one of which would've been more than happy to kill Dumbledore. Had Snape and Draco fled, Dumbledore would've been just as dead anyway.
If you have to be a dark-hearted bastard in order for the curse to work, why were Umbridge and Wormtail able to use them? I don't think that Wormtail is pure evil, just completely weak-willed and servile...he's so cowardly and snivelling, that he'd do anything for Voldemort, including killing. Umbridge I don't see as being dark-hearted either...just power hungry, narcissistic, and really twisted.
Besides, all we have to go on is what Bellatrix said, which isn't necessarily true...it was, after all, a taunt from a psycho woman who DEFINITELY enjoys using the torture curse.

[deucemagnet]

88. J.K.R. does not leave loose ends dangling.

If what Bellatrix said were not true, the Cruciatus curse would have worked for Harry. That means that either Snape is evil, or J.K.R. left a glaring contradiction in the book. Wormtail was a Deatheater, for all practical purposes. I don't have my copy of Half-Blood Prince with me, and I can't remember Umbridge using a unforgivable curse. I'll take your word for it (until I can look it up on the 'net, at least ;) ), but considering the nature of the character, that's hardly strong support for your hypothesis.

There is one small detail that I've come across on one website that would resolve this contradiction. It is a small, but important point. I'll put it in white text below to avoid spoilers.

When Snape used the killing curse, Dumbledore's body was lifted up and over the side of the tower. In every other instance of the killing curse being used in the books, the victim simply dropped dead on the spot. If Snape were unable to cast a proper killing curse on Dumbledore, and it was the fall rather than the curse that killed him, then I could consider the possibility that Snape might be good, but I would have to dig out my copy of the book from wherever in the hell it's stored and review the details.

[Danger Mouse]

89. Umbridge used the Cruciatus curse on Harry in Book 5

Wormtail is a Deatheater, but only because of lack of will and cowardice. He'd switch sides in a heartbeat if it was in his best interests or to save his own hide. I don't think that this implies him being an evil bastard. In any case, I think there are strong arguments either way. I think Snape and Draco are big question marks and it'll be interesting to see what they do.
In reference to Dumbledore falling...that's an interesting point. I hadn't considered that. Makes one look at it from a different perspective.

[deucemagnet]

93. Yeah, I plan on re-reading the series before book 7 comes out,

and I'll have to have another look at the Snape situation with fresh eyes. I based a lot on Bellatrix's statement, because aside from establishing that Harry couldn't cast an Unforgivable Curse, it was pretty much a throw-away line. The series has been very carefully plotted out to this point, and it would be very much unlike JKR to contradict herself in the very next book with such an easily fixable bit of dialog. However, given the loophole I mentioned above, it definitely bears reconsideration on the next reading.

I'm finding myself looking forward to the next reading after our little conversation! :)

[LostinVA]

21. I think he's not a nice guy but that he's a good guy

If you get what I mean.

[Danger Mouse]

24. He's an anti-hero.

Definitely. My favorite kind of good guy...puts the right thing before anything else, despite the hell he has to go through. Even at the end when Harry was trying to attack him, he was taunting Harry but trying to teach him (seemed pretty clear to me).
I'll be really interested to see what happens with Draco, as well.

[LostinVA]

28. I think Draco will become a Deatheater

Will he turn back at the end, away from his father and Voldemort? Maybe.

[Danger Mouse]

32. Hmm...I think he will....he's a dick, but not completely evil...

at least I don't think so.

[LostinVA]

34. Even though his father is

[Danger Mouse]

42. Yeah, his father's a total scumbag

[xmas74]

47. I don't think Draco will be a Deatheater.

His father wants it but his mother...I'm not so sure. Remember why she went to Snape in the first place? To protect her son.

I suspect that his own mother will do her damndest to keep that from happening, even though she is loyal to Voldemort. Seems to me she doesn't want the fate of many friends to happen to her son. (Which would make her a much more sympathetic character than we would expect.)


And he couldn't kill Dumbledore. He stumbled and not all of it was from inexperience or fear. I don't think he could handle it.

Will he still be a dick? Yes. But will he be a Deatheater? I don't think so. I suspect he might be one of those who turns-a fate similar to Snape's many years beforehand.

[LostinVA]

61. I think he may BECOME a Deatheater, but be like Snape

And decide that, even if he;s not a nice guy, he's not evil.

[xmas74]

76. That's another possibility.

[badgerpup]

55. I think Snape will turn out to be a tragic hero at the end...

...and that Alan Rickman in his "Snape" costume, with that
dark chocolate voice is just devastating.

But for all-over hotness factor, I'd pick Hagrid.
Hey, I like big hairy guys who get along well with animals...:crazy:

[LostinVA]

62. SPOILERS IN BODY I think Snape and Harry will have to trust one another in the end

And fight side-by-side, and that it'll be hard for each of them. But, I think that's how "the end" will happen: Snape and Harry against Voldemort, with Snape maybe falling in battle, possibly by saving Harry's life.

Dumbledore's funeral made me sob as much as Dumbledore's eulogy after Cedric died (and OMG, when I read Cedric's words asking Harry to take his body back to his parents... :cry:).

[hfojvt]

71. book 3 WAS great

I hated book 4 so much that I quit reading them.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. well good for you!

Personally, I like the Harry Potter books - they get kids to read. They target a different age-group than LoTR.

I think the books are magnificent.


Edit: I will always admire any books that make young people read. And Harry Potter does that in spades.


And a real rant should constitute more than three sentences.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

23. I would ask for your post to be deleted -- major spoiler

[Neoma]

7. I hate the movies.

Love the books. *shrugs*

[aljones]

10. I love the books and hate the movies also

[deadparrot]

15. Same here.

:hi:

[Skittles]

9. I'm with you there, Archae

juvenile stuff

[datasuspect]

11. does it matter that it is insipid?

[XemaSab]

13. I thought LOTR was unreadable

Somehow I managed to FORCE myself through all three books *and* the Hobbit HOPING they would become entertaining at some point, but they never did.

[MedleyMisty]

14. Have you read all the books?

I'm an adult. So is my husband. We both enjoy the books.

The LOTR movies have the Potter movies beat, but the Potter books are a lot less dense and a lot more entertaining. I think it took me three days to read through the Helm's Deep bit. I like the style in the book about Bilbo, but the style of LOTR is a bit stilted for me.

Also, OotP (the fifth book) is a clear statement on current politics.

[unpossibles]

16. well, we can't all be so superior

but I like both. The HP books, which I was reluctant to read, start off for very young readers and get more mature as they progress. Then again, The Hobbit was not exactly Finnegan's Wake was it now?

[KitchenWitch]

19. Silly rabbit - books are for readers!

I absolutely cannot stand books authored by James Joyce.

[LadyAziz]

26. True Dat

I hate HP also, I find the books and movies a bit kid-ish. Adults should not be so into to it, leave it for the children.
I don't like LOTR either.

:hide:

[KittyWampus]

27. I prefer studying the Qabala and really learning how to do "magic".

:D

[KamaAina]

31. OK, so you're a Muggle.

No shame in that. I mean, it's not like you're a repuke or anything. :-)

[Maine-ah]

35. huh.

I read LOTR when I was a kid....:shrug:

[xmas74]

38. So did I.

I read them as a third and fourth grader many years ago.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

36. Good for you.

[Kajsa]

69. LOL- Duckie!- Where did you get the "mooner"?

:rofl:

[YellowRubberDuckie]

82. Found it on the internets.

Glad you like it.

[Withywindle]

39. I love HP and LOTR *and* James Joyce, what does that make me?

Seriously, that HP vs. LOTR rivalry thing is SO 2001. It's not like they have much in common.

[xmas74]

48. Besides, Randal answered which was better in Clerks 2.

And the answer? Star Wars.

(Love the bit about LOTR in that movie. "They're walking, they're walking, they're walking" then simulates dropping the ring "They're walking, they're walking, they're walking..."

[kath]

78. Oh, man! The LOTR vs Star Wars stuff in Clerks 2 was absofuckinlutely hilarious.

That kid Elias was hilarious - "One Ring to Rule them All". And the scene where he was talking about his girlfriend's pussy-troll - Oh. My. God.

[xmas74]

80. Let's remind ourselves of how funny that scene is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0sc-gS9AqM

and pillow pants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk3TD_4aUus&mode=related&search=

[xmas74]

81. And let's add the Buffalo Bill dance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuGMxlXBTnY&mode=related&search=

[Taverner]

40. Fantasy is a superflous reduncancy

The human mind is already so fantastic as to make any fantasy uninteresting.

Phillip K Dick proved that

[datasuspect]

68. are you going out of your way to be admirable?

damn, what you said.


reminds me loosely of the old saying: "only boring people get bored."

[RoyGBiv]

44. Ummm ...

I suppose you're not aware that Tolkien intended his work to be absorbed by children?


I *love* Tolkien, FWIW, and it's because I love his work that I can appreciate the masterful job Rowlings did crossing generational lines. Tolkien did the same thing.

I don't think the Potter movies are all that wonderful, btw, not in comparison to the books anyway. But, I think your dichotomy is flawed.

[RedCappedBandit]

45. Happy Feet was for kiddies..

i loved that too!

Nothing wrong with enjoying some childish things once in a while.

[marzipanni]

53. I didn't see Happy Feet

but I like Wallace and Gromit, Curious George, My Neighbor Totoro, and a bunch of other children's movies. We were all kids once, so we should still be able to appreciate, or identify with, these characters...;)

[RedCappedBandit]

54. Exactly!

In fact, some of us never seem to grow up.

:silly:

[badgerpup]

56. Wallace and Gromit was a total hoot!

and it had a lot of very subtle stuff in it that a lot of Americans might miss.
For instance, when Gromit is sitting in the car, and he's bored and flips on the radio. A song comes on; Art Garfunkel's unmistakable counter-tenor singing "Bright eyes.." and Gromit disgustedly flips off the radio.
That's only funny if you've seen the movie Watership Down, which is about a quest a bunch of rabbits must make to find a new home. Bright Eyes was the title song.

The movie had an awful lot of quick, throwaway stuff like that.
Brilliant. :applause:

[uppityperson]

58. i hate people who look down their noses @ me 'cause I can't quote LOTR

I mean, so what if you memorized every little bit, every line of those incredibly boring books (oh look, another 15 pages describing the forest they are going through)? So what if I didn't like the books, thought they were sslllooowwww moving with a lot taken from King Arthur legends and thought the movies were too violent (thwak! thwak! thwak! ok, we get the idea he is being shot over and over with arrows must we continue to watch at least it's not total slow motion aka Matrix crap)? So what? Get a LIFE!! And no, never, ever, ever call me m'lady. I ain't your lady.

Harry Potter books have gotten better as the characters and audience aged. Yes, they are formulaic also. Harry goes to school, reuiniting with his friends and enemies. Around Halloween there will be A Big Problem. Winter break is spent trying to figure out how to Solve the Problem. Come end of the year, fight with Voldemort in some form and whoopsy! School is over for another yr. I like Alan Rickman and other actors, though the first couple movies had me wishing Harry would bite it and end the series. That said, I look forward to the last couple movies as I like Alan Rickman.

How about Susan Cooper's books (The Dark is Rising, first of the series), bunch of kids do wonderful things, many legends, not much "magic" though there is magic. No wands. No rambling pages of text to memorize and quote back at each other. Very good adventures with lots of legends interwoven.

Don't get me started on Eragon.

[WildEyedLiberal]

60. I don't think they're really that comparable

Just because both get lumped as "fantasy" because they contain elements of magic, they're not similar at all -LOTR is basically Northern European mythology retold in a medieval fantasy world, whereas HP is set in an "underworld" of contemporary Britain.

I love them both, FWIW.

[QMPMom]

65. I *tried* to read Harry Potter. I found it incredibly boring and stopped.

my son loves the books. Harry Potter movies are the only thing guaranteed to keep my daughter in one place for the amount of time the movie runs. Want a quiet evening in our house? Throw in a Harry Potter DVD and there's complete silence - except for the sound of the movie coming from the dining room.

[Mojambo]

91. I actually managed to get through 2 and a half books.

But it just became so played out.

I can't believe it's still this popular 6 books in.

[EstimatedProphet]

73. OK

This you call flame bait?

[Ariana Celeste]

74. I've never read the HP series

My ex was really into it though.

I love LotR but I've read better series (imo).

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

79. I hate LOTR

Much prefer Harry Potter, books and movies. The only LOTR movie I liked was the third one in the trilogy. And the books made me yawn a lot.

[SaveElmer]

92. Arvada Kadavra...

Take that!