Seventh Harry Potter Book Named 449
Croakyvoice writes "JK Rowling has today given fans of the Harry Potter books the name of Book 7 of the very popular series via a Christmas present on her site, to get to the name you need to follow a complicated procedure but thankfully the name of the book has been revealed as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows."
Re:The Title (Score:3, Insightful)
Harry Potter And The Slow News Day? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe this is on the Beeb and Slashdot's front pages.
Re:The Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's a Hallow? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps a good translation of the title might be
Re:The Title (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think anyone's saying that, especially not to kids. It's the hordes of adults who go on about it being some quantum leap in the evolution of literature, who are somewhat bemusing (or annoying, depending on your perspective).
Re:The Title (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me of that quote from Spacebattles:
"Evil will always win... because good is STUPID!"
It just annoys the hell out of me that the bigots always lose because they're bigoted. Sure they're bigots, but I really don't care. The fact that Harry's incompetent bugs the hell out of me a lot more.
Re:Spoiler (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite your troll, you've almost got it right. The final chapter of the final book will actually be entitled "The Boy Who Lived," just like the first chapter of the first book.
Note how clever that turn of phrase is: you can look at the table of contents and see that chapter title, but you won't know until you read the book whether it means 1) the boy who used to live, or 2) the boy who fought Voldemort (again) and lived.
Re:Christmas (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Title (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at Bilbo, Frodo (as you pointed out), or, actually, most contemporary (low- or high-brow) fantasy, you're going to find bumbling characters who make mistakes and only pull through because of Deus Ex Machina, luck of the draw, or some moral accomplishment.
I think it's the fact that we all recognize our own faults and inner issues, and can see them portrayed in these characters, that makes us, as readers, identify with the heroes of these stories.
We fuck up. We make mistakes. Sometimes, we're jerks to our friends, we don't put enough time into our relationships, and we make the wrong moral decisions.
Superman doesn't have those problems.
Harry Potter has those problems.
Remember the success of Spider-Man? From the Wikipedia article: The Spider-Man series broke ground by featuring a hero who himself was an adolescent, to whose "self-obsessions with rejection, inadequacy, and loneliness" young readers could relate.
Re:www.jkrowling.com (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Title (Score:2, Insightful)
Harry is not incompetent -- he is described many times as an extremely talented young wizard. Rowling has clearly put a lot of thought into the precise nature of this talent, and it's a subtle characterization. There is an element of raw power -- recall when Harry and Voldemort's wands are locked together, Harry is able to push back with more than equal force. Harry thinks very quickly under extreme pressure, and has an uncanny ability to react instantly and correctly -- recall, for instance, when he stabs Voldemort's diary with the basilisks fang...
Of course, talent in wizardry is not something that a muggle could readily comprehend :-)
Re:The Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Harry Potter And The Slow News Day? (Score:2, Insightful)
On the BBC it only came a few stories down from the war in Iraq! Important it might be to people who enjoy the books but on that sort of scale? Some people need to give their heads a shake.
Re:The Title (Score:1, Insightful)
- Maybe Backstreet Boys aren't listed on "great music" lists, who cares. Kids are listening, and that is really the most important part.
- Maybe Jerry Springer isn't listed on "great cinema" lists, who cares. Kids are watching, and that is really the most important part.
- Maybe McDonald's isn't listed on "great dining" lists, who cares. Kids are eating, and that is really the most important part.
- Maybe TV newsmagazines aren't listed on "great journalism" lists, who cares. Kids are glued, and that is really the most important part.
Sometimes not caring about the quality of the things we consume allows cracks to form in the dams that keep society from being awash in filth.Re:The Title (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:www.jkrowling.com (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Harry Potter And The Slow News Day? (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not you like her work, J.K. Rowling is the most financially successful author in the history of the written word. And, no, that is not hyperbole: that is a mathematical fact. According to Forbes magazine, she is the first person in the history of the world to become a billionaire by writing books. Whatever her place in the history of writing as an artform, she has a major place in the history of writing as an industry--equal to Samuel Johnson, the first person to earn a full-time living as a writer in the English language.
Each of her last three books has set a record for the fastest-selling book in history, only to be surpassed by her next book. The best-selling book of 2004 was The Da Vinci Code, which sold about 6 million copies in its first year of release. The best selling book of 2005 Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which sold 6.9 million copies in its first 24 hours. Again, putting aside any artistic considerations, JK Rowling sits atop a hugely profitable and influential industry. Imagine if Apple or Ford only announced one product every two years. Don't you think the announcement of that product would get major media attention?
Finally... For those of us who DO love the Harry Potter books, a major part of the fun is engaging in debate and speculation with other fans. This gives us an excuse to do so. And, most likely, after the final book comes out, we'll never again have quite the same opportunity. With any serial fiction--whether it's "Lost" or the Star Wars movies or the Harry Potter series--there comes a point when the secrets of the story become public knowledge, and you can no longer have the pleasure of concocting your own theories to explain the mysteries. So, hey--let us have our fun.
Re:The Title (Score:2, Insightful)
And I would cast another light on the poor role model complaint - people who make good role models are not perfect. If that was a requirement, then no one on the entire face of the planet would qualify. The fact that Harry Potter is not portrayed in an idealistic/impossible manner - with all his faults and failings laid out in front of us - makes the story more interesting and accessible.
I can't really think of any character from any work of serious fiction (fantasy, sci fi or otherwise) who doesn't have faults. I would probably go as far as to say that a recurring theme in fiction is the consequence and sometimes resolution of the protaganists failings.
Re:Christmas (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Christmas (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Christmas (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Christmas (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Title (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Christmas (Score:5, Insightful)
I say Dumbledore asked Snape to take the vow because I believe they were friends, which makes Snape a tragic figure. He was always hated and misunderstood. Even the girl he had a crush on (Harry's mom) laughed when the other boys would torment Snape, and she even married his chief tormentor. Her protests to stop tormenting Snape were only half-hearted at best. Dumbledore was the ONLY friend Snape ever had, and Snape was forced to kill him. If Rowling makes him the hero in the last book, I will be VERY impressed. As much as I like the books, I only like them because she can spin a good yarn. If she was planning the Snape tragedy from the start, wow. If Snape became a death eater on his own, and who could blame him, while the whole world already hated him? If he chose to be a death eater, then I think Dumbledore ASKED him to take the vow. If Dumbledore asked him to become a death eater to spy on Voldemort, then the unbreakable vow is not needed, Dumbledore has reason to trust Snape, and Snape, in spite of being hated by everyone, and having reason to hate Harry himself, is even more of a heroic figure.
About Harry: Harry IS the final horcrux (or at least the scar on his head is) which makes his hunting and destroying the other horcruxes kind of ironic. We found out in the last book that horcruxes could be living things, such as the snake that embodied Voldemort. When the snake curled around Harry and taunted Dumbledore, telling him that he now has the opportunity to destroy Voldemort forever, I wonder if Dumbledore finally realized that Harry was the horcrux? No one could figure out how Harry managed to survive the attack that killed his parents, the scar was linked to Voldemort (it always hurt when he was around) and it gave Harry powers similar to Voldemort. It was also the scar that the sorting hat wanted to put in Slytherin.
When Dumbledore revealed the prophesy to Harry, we find out that the prophesy could have meant either Potter or Longbottom would be the one to ultimately destroy Voldemort. Dumbledore and Potter did not know why Voldemort had chosen to "attempt to destroy" Harry, but Dumbledore claimed that that was Voldemort's mistake, and the botched attempt was the accident that created Harry and gave him the power to ultimately destroy Voldemort. WRONG! Voldemort's mistake was only in thinking that Harry was the chosen one, his placing of the horcrux was an insurance policy to attempt to cheat fate (and we know from Greek mythology how well that always turns out). Longbottom is the chosen one, he is still the Charlie Brown figure, the one that can't get things right, but who always gets up and tries again. He has been steadily growing in skill and confidence throughout the books, and he will be the one to destroy the final horcrux. The only question is, can the horcrux in the scar be destroyed without also killing Harry?
Re:Christmas (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from that, past evidence has made it fairly clear that Dumbledore wouldn't be one to run away from death. - "To the well-ordered mind, death is merely the next great adventure" (paraphrased).
That doesn't mean he's gone. Remember the painting. That gives us the "Obi Wan" factor. He probably won't speak much directly to Harry - he not being a Hogwarts Headmaster, but he's there, and the painting may well know everything he knew prior to his death - hence the "out" for Snape.
And I don't think Snape is going to take over Dumbledore's position as the behind the scenes "leader" in any way. He's a spy, working for the downfall of Voldemort, of course, but he's the "Bad Guy, working for Good". He'll do what needs to be done to bring down V, even if it means taking out any number of good or bad players in the process (so long as one of them isn't Snape - or Harry). I also suspect Snape took an Unbreakable Vow with Dumbledore to make sure he was willing to do anything including kill Dumbledore.
Snape knows he can't kill Voldemort (yet, Trelawney's prophecy doesn't say Harry will kill him, just that neither can survive while the other lives), though he may or may not know why - nobody knows at this point exactly how much Dumbledore - or Regulus Black (Sirius' brother, probably the one that destroyed the amulet Dumbledore risked his life to get just before his death), would have told Snape.
A couple things I think may come into play in this last book are a couple seemingly minor details mentioned throughout the previous books:
Harry's eyes - Everyone seems to dwell on the fact he has his mothers eyes. I don't know how, but I think it's important.
Voldemort's means of return - in Goblet of Fire, Voldemort uses Harry's blood to overcome the magic protection instilled by Lilly's sacrifice. When Harry mentions this to Dumbledore, his expression suggest an almost victorious feeling, and his response (I don't remember the exact wording) suggests that there may have been a trap of some kind in there. There's also the fact that Pettigrew brought harm to Harry after Harry saved his life in Prizoner of Azkaban. Pettigrew owes Harry a serious debt, and he violated it. That's gonna come back on him hard.
Can't wait.
Re:Christmas (Score:3, Insightful)
I seriously doubt Longbottom is the true chosen one. After all, Voldemort chose Harry. That isn't to say Neville won't be an important figure in the end. He has as much reason to hate Voldemort and the Death Eaters as anyone - more than most, and though he doesn't exactly emanate courage, he's proven more than once that he does posess it in reasonable supply.
Re:Christmas (Score:3, Insightful)
Harry and Voldemort are linked of course, and the reason Harry survived is answered by Dumbledore in book one. Whether Harry survives the series depends on things other than his being a Horcrux. Finally, Voldemort wants the Horcruxes to survive, there would be no point in putting a Horcrux in Harry if he wanted him dead. Because killing Harry if he was a Horcrux, would destroy the Horcrux, and that is contrary to what Voldemort wants.
Re:Hating Harry Potter (Score:3, Insightful)
I must admit up front that I've never read the HP books, only seen the movies. So on those grounds, I admittedly have a weak case to criticize. Nevertheless, I will. (I'm a huge Stephen King fan, yet 98% of his screenplays have been utter crap)
I find Rowling's character names to be absolutely Dickensian (Dumbledore, Slitherin, Malfoy, Voldemort), which alone makes me bristle. Mal- bad, mort- death, etc etc. Names that fairly clearly tell you if you should or should NOT like a character the first time you learn their name, if it hasn't already been decided for you. Often times the "bad" characters are positively dripping with malevolent charm, making no attempt to appear as though they've got any righteous principles of any kind. "Ooh, he's wearing black, is constantly scowling, and has pointy eyebrows. Quite clearly, he's a bad, bad man." Often there's very little deceit of any kind -- we know from the word "go" who is good and bad, and we have only to watch the magical deus ex machina work, saving HP from doom.
Furthermore, the use of magic is so far removed from what I'm accustomed: typically magic is difficult to control, and generally weak (cantrips, etc) for all but the most experienced and mature. But in HP's world, magic stuff seems to be coming off a mass assembly-line, and is cheap and plentiful.
I one of the movies I watched, I found it amazing that in a "wizard contest" of some sort, the contestants' friends were put in mortal danger without the consent or knowledge of them OR the contestants. Endangering lives of friends for the purpose of a voluntary contest? Seems like madness in which nobody would ever want to participate again. "Harry, please don't put your name on a piece of paper. I don't want to be drowned/dismembered/burned alive" and such.
Mostly the "magic is cheap" concept pervading the movies really bothered me. Do you feel this experience is better represented in the books? Would I be equally disappointed?
Re:Hating Harry Potter (Score:4, Insightful)
The importance of this truth to the Potter books hit me when I was reading one of the many passages in which Professor MacGonagle, a good and benevolent adult character, fails to listen and uses her authority in an unreasoning way
Holy crap that's gotten tiresome after 6 fucking books about "dumb adults".
In other words, the message of the Harry Potter books is subversive.
But not subtly so. Reading Rowling's subversive message is like stepping in front of a train.
There's another series of books out there called "A Series of Unfortunate Events" - which is also centered around the idea of stupid adults. Only the book is so obviously on the campy side, it's not as painful to watch as the lives of the protagonists get worse and worse on the failings of adults. It's funny, in a black way. The subversive genius of these books is the moral self-doubt the protagonists go through, as they question the morality of their own actions, as necessity for survival. Mister Snickett's prose is a lot more fun to read as well. Rowling had started out on the campy side in her first book, but quickly abandoned that, so now the whole series is situated uncomfortably somewhere inbetween campy and serious.
Rowling makes Harry exceptional only in ways that enable him to fight power, never in ways that allow him to wield it over others.
Two words. Septus Semprum. To me - this is the only interesting thread in the whole series; Will Harry learn the lesson Snape learned (though failed to teach, out of his inability to forgive)? - only it's the same lesson Anakin Skywalker learned.
You really need to read the books (Score:3, Insightful)
You've nailed it here--magic is basically an alternate technology base for a parallel society. Rowling does a pretty good job defining the rules and then exploring their implications. For one thing physical harm is not nearly as dangerous as magical harm. One of the characters is discovered to be a wizard when he falls out a second story window as a baby and simply bounces like a rubber ball. People are constantly breaking arms, having all their bones magicked out of their body, getting cut and bitten and burned--and all getting healed by magic. But no trauma to the psyche/soul is healable by magic (including death). The base concept seems to be making real the perceived distinction between body and mind.
Consider our technologies--we live in houses with electrical voltages that can kill us, natural gas lines, various powerful poisons, etc. We drive multi-ton vehicles down the road at 80 MPH. There's actually a fair amount of humor in the books based around technology differences--like the horror the main characters feel toward our medical practices ("They actually stitch people up with needle and thread? How barbaric!" - paraphrase) As we grow up we learn to manage and operate around our societal dangers. In the Harry Potter books the children are doing the same thing--the physical dangers are greatly exaggerated though, because the technology to mitigate/recover from them is so much better (magic). Thus it helps tell the story that all children know well--learning that things that seem scary at first are managable as you learn more and get older. When you're three, a stove is scary dangerous thing. When you're 13, you're expected to heat your own soup.
If you're going to read the series, there's one more thing to keep in mind--they are written to the age of Harry in the book. So the first several books are shorter, simpler, and more rah-rah. But as Harry ages into a teenager, the books get longer, more morally complex, and darker. You have to set your expectations accordingly.