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 ...
All fictional villains do.
It gives the good guys a chance to escape...
Yeah, but she’s not a character. She’s the name of an author on a book which is mentioned *once*, in passing. Like mentions of Merlin, Paracelus, and Nicholas Flamel, the name is there to add color and depth, not to promote occultism. Which you’d know if you read the books instead of flawed internet critiques.
I once read a critique that said Rowling was racist because she had a villian named Black; which proved the reviewer hadn’t bothered to read the book he was reviewing. Most of these so-called reviews are the same.
I’m listening to GoF on tape currently. He’s very full of himself. Iirc, in whichever book Dumbledore and Harry go through the memories of Tom Riddle, there’s a pattern of overconfidence and overreaching.
Voldemort demonstrates some skills in Legilimancy, but some of his so-called abilities are just in his head.
Having an entourage of fawning death eaters would turn all our heads!
Yo Wormtail, get me a beer!
JenB, did you see the article that said Ms. Rowling was "size-ist" because Vernon and Dudley Dursley were mean characters and were FAT?
LOL!
One of fiction's most annoying dramatic devices, whether it's giving the good guys or the bad guys time to escape! "Just shoot him, already ... SHOOT him!"
Don't forget those nappy headed ho-cruxes.
Gilderoy Lockheart. The John Edwards of the wizarding community.
Either that or the bad guy coming up with some incredibly convoluted manner of killing the hero instead of just bashing them with a shovel.
Hmmmmm.... Should I just Avada Kedrava Longbottom, or show off with a flaming hat... that's the ticket!
LOL!
*snort*
That has Photoshop potential.
You owe me a keyboard.
I’ll see what I can do tonight.
I’ve know about Madam Blavatsky for quite some time. I was surprised to find a reference to her in HP. She was a truly evil woman.
But there’s no “real occultism” in HP - right?
Not even references.
OTOH sometimes its wonderful!
I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?
LOL!
Actually, I think Lockheart is more honorable than Edwards.
Got it. A humorous, slightly-scrambled reference to a historical figure is “real occultism.”
This is headache-inducing. I’m going to go turn on my “Goblet of Fire” tape and work on supper. Maybe I’ll have a Guinness, too. Is it Five O’clock Somewhere yet?
Got it. A humorous, slightly-scrambled reference to a historical figure is “real occultism.”
More like a tip of the hat. Your “historical figure” was called the Priestess of the Occult in her day.
Obsessed people make my teeth hurt.
Have a nice day, though.
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.