Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows...

I started reading HP because Jack Chick said I will go to hell if I do, and I was pleasantly surprised.

Yeah, Chick's a nut. But fruitcake or not, one of his pamphlets brought my Dad to thinking seriously about Christ as a teenager (he's a far more mature Christian than Jack Chick nowadays ;) )
 
I've never read a Harry Potter book, never seen it's movies and quite frankly I wonder what is so great about it. It just sounds so weird to me that I can't possibly make sense of it.

I'm sorry and I really don't mean to pick on you, but you're saying that you've never read any of the books or seen any of the movies and you still haven't been able to figure out the appeal? I think I may have detected a flaw in your methodology there . . .
 
I enjoy the Harry Potter books; they aren't too hard to understand, but they include a bit of depth.

I can't wait to see what will happen next! I bet that Harry and Voldemort will die, and that Dumbledore is still alive.
 
I'm going with Dumbledore is dead deady dead, Snape killed him for the good of the Order (but will die in the last book, probably in some Harry-saving way). Harry will survive.
 
My opinion is that Snape is not currently working for the Order: he is either pursuing his own ends or a bona fide agent of Voldemort's. But I also think he'll switch sides at the end, or at least die in a virtuous and helpful way.
 
Her stories are fine, It's her writing style that needs work. I found it amateurish.

But since I'm not a gifted writer either (and it's been a while since I read them), that's the best explanation I can give right now.

It's not so much amateurish as written for the younger; The Hobbit possesses many of the same overtones of being written for children. They're an easy and always enjoyably read, and the characters are usually either easy to relate to or easy to understand, even the evil ones. Obviously, the books are not deep commentary on life, but frankly such books always get the meaning of life wrong anyway.

Spoiler :
Dumbledore is definitely, 100% dead, but Snape is still a good guy. There was some plotting going on between Snape and Dumbledore, and Dumbledore managed to convince Snape that he (Snape) had to kill him (Dumbledore). That's what the argument Hagrid overheard was about.

Just IMO, of course, but I think it's the most likely explanation.
 
My opinion is that Snape is not currently working for the Order: he is either pursuing his own ends or a bona fide agent of Voldemort's. But I also think he'll switch sides at the end, or at least die in a virtuous and helpful way.

Either way though, he has to die. If he's evil then it's a pretty standard finish, but if he's good - he killed Dumbledore! So he has to go, which is where I think we'll see him sacrificing himself to help Harry.

Which will throw my hopes for Harry Potter 8: Snapes Big Adventure right out the window :(
 
Either way though, he has to die. If he's evil then it's a pretty standard finish, but if he's good - he killed Dumbledore! So he has to go, which is where I think we'll see him sacrificing himself to help Harry.(

Yeah, that was an interesting turn of events. I really wondered if Snape hadn't pre-arranged a "fake" killing of dumbledore, but that seems a bit much.

However, it seems to portend that Draco will eventually come to Potter's side.
 
Yeah, that was an interesting turn of events. I really wondered if Snape hadn't pre-arranged a "fake" killing of dumbledore, but that seems a bit much.

The death was real, but from the earlier stuff about Snape arguing with Dumbledore, as well as Dumbledore's 'pleading' with Snape at the end (can go eitherway), I'm going with the pre-planned death crowd.

However, it seems to portend that Draco will eventually come to Potter's side.

Actually, this was one thing about the book I didn't expect. The books main 'bully' character suddenly realising what he had gotten himself into and not quite willing to go along with it. Suddenly a pretty plain character may have a good ending :)
 
How do you define dead though?

Spoiler :
Dumbledore might be "dead" but that doesn't mean he's permanently dead. Voldemort isn't the only one who can use a Horcrux (sp) to avoid death.


Don't forget which character has a pet Phoenix ;)
 
Spoiler :
I guess the arguement was D telling S his infiltration was more important than anything except H. If it came to choosing between D and the integrity of his cover S was to choose his cover. H however was to come first.

I agree he may well have to die to satisfy the fans, but I think it will be in a still ambivilent way on some level.
 
(he's a far more mature Christian than Jack Chick nowadays ;) )

Is there anyone who isn't?

I have a link to Chick's anti-D&D tract in my sig, and from there one can find the rest. Like I said, I am serious that I started reading HP because Chick condemns it.

As for me, I have read all the books several times, and I knew that Snape has to be good. He was forced to kill D, it took me a few readings (I was pretty mad the first time I read it) to see this.

I think that the finale will go down like this: remember, when V resurrected he did so using Harry's blood, in an attempt to capture the "power" that allowed Harry's mom to save him. But that was love, the very thing that V rejects and one of the most powerful forces in the universe. So that will come back to get him, I bet.
 
I've never read any of them either, but then again, I generally don't read at all.

This is the last book? Harry's gotta die, else the fans will whine for another book. If she's serious about ending the series, that's the best way to do it.
 
He's good, but his characters are way too archetypal. The Good Guy, the Bad Guy, the Mentor, the Lover (usually a princess, of course)... The Wheel of Time has this problem, too.
Now take a song of Ice and Fire. No characters are morally simple, no characters are "good" or "bad".

I agree...another thing I like about A Song of Ice and Fire is that, to me, it relates the absurdity of war. I mean, almost every character, at some level, you can sympathize with...and for me, it leaves me wondering, how can they all hate each other and want to kill each other? Martin does a great job of getting the reader attached to characters on all sides of the struggle.

For those of you who don't like Tolkien, I can understand your frustration. However, I still believe that his writing style and pure writing ability far surpasses any other fantasy (or any genre for that matter) writer (at least from what I've read).
 
My only real beef with the Harry Potter storyline is that Dumbledore is so preposterously more powerful than everyone else. Voldemort is the only one who's even in the same ballpark, and he has an explanation.
 
Who reads this stuff? There isn't enough liquor in the world to make a Harry Potter book even remotely entertaining.
 
Who reads this stuff? There isn't enough liquor in the world to make a Harry Potter book even remotely entertaining.

:lol:

My thoughts exactly... after reading two pages.

(well, not really, I forced myself to read the first book.)
 
Now take a song of Ice and Fire. No characters are morally simple, no characters are "good" or "bad".

Bright day
This again. Except for Daenerys which came down with Stockholm syndrome, and old Stark who failed at everything he could, who is flawed and not a complete swine?
 
Spoiler Jonny discusses CG's Spoiler :
I don't believe that. I'm convinced that Snape "killing" Dumbledore was part of a master plan by Dumbledore.

Spoiler :
I agree with you completely. There was someting in snapes behaviour that was a little fishy as he was runnung off at the end with Harry trying to kill him. There must be some magical object that we don't know about that allows people to be brought back at the 'Deathly Hollows', perhaps onr of the Horocrux's. Seems like Harry will have a difficult set of choices to face in this book.
 
Back
Top Bottom