Posted on 08/01/2007 6:59:32 AM PDT by ParsifalCA
I am warning those who have not finished the series . . . and there must be still a few of them by now. . . that there are spoilers ahead. I have just finished the last book . . . having spent an enjoyable evening with it thanks to Sam’s Club and an indulgent wife.
I am done with Harry Potter and enjoying the literary aftertaste the way one enjoys a fine meal almost as much after it is done as when it is being consumed . . . though it is a bit sad that the series is finished.
And it is really finished . . .
Will one be able to re-read the books with pleasure?
I think the answer is only a tentative “yes.” If one knows the “puzzles” and “the secrets” of the book, it will not take away the charm of the characters or the fun of a good Quidditch match, but the first read will always be the best.
The strength of these books is in the plot and the second read, when everything is known, will be satisfying for finding all the clues to what happens . . . but I am hard pressed to know if I will want to re-read them a third or fourth time.
A really great book is as good on the fourth read . . . and some children’s books (Little White Horse) are better.
I deeply enjoyed the last book and thought the ending satisfying. For those who found them quite Christian, they will find much in this last book to give strength to their idea.
(Excerpt) Read more at exilestreet.com ...
I’ve got thousands of books, most of which I’ve never read. I go to the bookstore about once a week and buy several books that look interesting. Unless it’s an author I know I like, I only give a book a few chapters to interest me. Don’t ask me why I do it, it’s just a quirk.
That would be me, if we didn’t have so many people in the house, and didn’t move all the time.
We just can’t let books force us out of the house. However, I often check books out of the library and find I’m not that interested after a chapter or two, and then return it. That’s the great thing about the library; it doesn’t cost you anything to pick up a book that it turns out you don’t like!
About once a year I box a bunch up and take them to a center for battered women and unwed mothers.
Especially forms of fiction that incorporate elements of magic (*shudder*) and are marketed to children. Like this stuff:
I mean that ol' Walt Disney was quite the occultist. Witches, wizards, enchantments, fairy godmothers, animal sidekicks (familiars, anyone??). Why he even had the world wishing on a star. Just dastardly.
That's true, because it would still be FICTION!!
I was agreeing with the premise of the article (that there were things to learn in a Harry Potter book) and citing my own observations of what I thought could be taken away from it that was applicable to present day politics; while politely disagreeing with another posters observation that people who follow politics don't read Harry Potter-using myself as anecdotal evidence.
hair trigger INDEED!
I thought I was more of a Patronus than a Dementor in that exchange (A big friendly Bear Patronus).
You weren't.
hair trigger INDEED!
Yeah, that was me. I admit it. I'm sorry.
I thought I was more of a Patronus than a Dementor in that exchange (A big friendly Bear Patronus).
Just what we need a nekkid Patronus...
Aha! I missed that point BIG.
And the point you did make, you are right about.
*blush* *nevermind*
But I reread the full article and have to disagree with the premise that there are weak female characters.
Neither Harry or Ron are more than middling wizards (although Harry keeps his cool in a fight rather well) and both are basically CARRIED academically and militarily by Hermione who is a singularly gifted witch. Also a very strong character who let Ron HAVE IT, rather than crying in his arms when he came back. I laughed so hard when Ron whispered to Harry that at least she didn’t set a flock of golden birds upon him like last time when they heard her mutter from her bunk “I haven’t ruled it out!”.
She was smarter than them, more gifted, and Ron was rightly frightened of what she could do.
No doubt Harry is the titular character, but if not for the prophecy, and Voldemort marking him as his equal, Harry would have been nothing more than a gifted Seeker. Harry’s predominance was plot driven not character driven, while Hermione’s character really shone throughout the book, even when the plot relegated her to the back row.
JMO.
That’s nice! We give books to the Friends of the Library, to the church sale, and to collections for the troops. When my brother was posted in Saudi Arabia, he said they were so bored they’d read *anything*, even romance novels :-).
I don't recall anyone saying that we were.
A book - a movie, big difference.
Yes, quite a difference. Those of us who have both read the books and seen the movies know that to be true.
You, on the other hand, are making it up.
1) I'd probably draw the line about my children being taught a lesson on occultism in society.
2) My (older) son's fifth grade teacher introduced him to Harry Potter by reading it to the class. My wife decided she wanted to know what it was about. The rest they say, is history. Incidentally, that son just returned from his fourth oversees mission trip.
Quite honestly, I think I might have a problem if HP was required reading. Not because of a concern over the book necessarily, but because there are other things teachers should be teaching. Harry Potter should be about making reading fun.
Molly Weasley taking on Bellatrix was one of the greatest moments in a book with many great moments.
Exactly..If there was even one case, JK Rowling and her editors etc would have been sued..I hear she’s made pretty good money from these books.
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.