Posted on 07/24/2007 11:20:15 AM PDT by PercivalWalks
Blair took a maternity leave? LOL, what a leftie thing to do. He could set his own work hours and spend extra time at home with them. Silly.
I'm only slightly ashamed to admit that I bawled my eyes out when I read that part. I though about it being a circle, Harry being little Teddy's godfather an all. =)
Wasn’t orphaned, though, his maternal gradmother survived.
Thus uniting the Weasley and Lupins. =)I was surprised that Ron and Hermione only had Hugo and Rose. They need at least 5 more kids to be Weasleys. =)
This misses the whole point of the scene. Lupin wasn’t “leaving his wife behind and trying to help Harry”, he was running away from his responsibilities. He didn’t want to be a father, mostly because he was a werewolf and feeling guilty about fathering a child who might be a werewolf too. Harry, who grew up parentless, craving parental love, could never have let someone else abandon their child.
Harry recognized that Lupin was trying to run away. When he showed up at the end to help with the ultimate battle, having accepted his parental responsibilities, Harry welcomed his help.
Did you notice that they all must have waited some years to marry and start families? Looks like Rowling, who was a single mother, was set on two parents raising children as the ideal.
People read this stuff?
I saw the first Harry Potter film - it was ok, but didn’t sell me on the franchise. I’ve missed all the sequels. Well, I didn’t miss them - I had no intention of seeing them. Not that they are bad, it’s just that I don’t find it compelling.
Should have read the books, not watched a movie. The books were much better, not that the movies were so bad.
Indeed I did. Harry was 17, so 19 years later makes him 36. He’s sending Albus Severus off to Hogwarts, and his older brother James was messing with him. So we know James is at least 12, that makes Harry 24 and Ginny 23 when they have him. So they were a little younger when they were married. I think that’s a good time for marriage. I may be biased though, as I was married at 23.
I mostly read nonfiction, I admit. Not a big modern fiction reader. The first movie was ok, just nothing special. Didn’t make me want to come back for more.
Ah, but the movie is never as good as the book.
I can't blame you for that, the first movie was based off the first book, which was very kid friendly. I find it interesting that you like non-fiction. I can't stand the stuff.
The movie is seldom as good as the book, but there are exceptions.
I think the original Planet of the Apes film is much better than Pierre Boulle’s book. That comes immediately to mind.
Haven’t read the book in a couple of decades, though. As a general principle, the book is usually far more textured and satisfying than movie incarnations.
I like nonfiction - biographies and memoirs of people I am interested in. I have a bias that a personality has to be on the far side of age 60 or so to write a autobio or memoir, just because I think perspective is essential in those formats, and relative youth doesn’t lend to that kind of wisdom.
I like history and investigative accounts. Books on recent events are fascinating to me, also. Den of Thieves, though not that recent at all (15+ years old now?) is a good example of the kind of investigative accounts I like, and essential to understanding those events and personalities..
I like politics and analysis, also, like Londonistan and America Alone, stuff like that. I like sports accounts, also, like The Bronx Zoo
I scan the new fiction titles now and then and none of them make me want to pick one up. The fiction I do read tends to be older stuff, I admit. But it’s nonfiction 9-1 for me.
Sheesh, what’s next... Harry Potter as an analogy for hard water stains on tub and tile?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.