Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: Slant on January 16, 2003, 02:43:22 AM
-
For those of you who haven't yet heard, the fifth Harry Potter book (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) is coming out on June 21st of this year and will be 734 pages long!! And yes, this is official!! Place your order now, folks.
-
I just heard that earlier today. While I'm glad it's *finally* got a release date, after all the delays and crap I can't seem to get myself excited about it. And it sounds like it's going to be LONG.
-
well,it only took like 2 1/2 years to come out. But i realy think how long it took this book to comeout will hurt the Harry Potter craze. It will sell very well, but i just don't think that it will ever reach the level of popularity that it had when the fourth book was released. Just the fact that the second movie dropped out of the top 5 in less then a month shows that it's not as popular. But i could be wrong just have to wait and see i guess.
-
When the 4th book came out, I happened to be working at a Waldenbooks. I got to work at 9 or so (we opened at 10) and there was a CROWD outside waiting for the store to open up. I'm talking some 200 people, many of whom had been waiting since 7 AM. Just to be a complete tosspot, I grabbed one of the books from out of the back and stood some ten feet away from the gate reading bits of it to myself and going "oh wow" and "now THAT is awesome!" They kept screaming at me to read it out loud from the beginning and I told 'em "sorry, I can't; against company policy." I am so eeeeevil.
-
Bwahaha, you just got the award for coolest thing ever done at a bookstore.
-
I would have to disagree with Spriggan. Harry Potter has only been out for 9 weeks and has made 255 million. The only movies on the current list that have made more are Star Wars 2 - 310 mil in 11 weeks and LOTR - 283 mil in 4 weeks. If I was in a mood to do more research, I would look up the first Harry Potter to see what it made, but I'm feeling lazy.
-
The only problem I see is that her target audience is aging. Of course, her books have gotten progressively more advanced, so it's not really. Plus, I imagine for every kid who grew into a teenager and now think HP are "stupid kid books" there are probably ten new kids who have just read them. Not to mention the adults.
Rumor has it that this book is 1/3 longer than the fourth, which puts it around 1000 pages if I'm not mistaken.
I'm really looking forward to this.
-
I still haven't read any of these books, but from the way that you guys are talking about them I may have to break down and give them a shot.
-
I was the same way Nicadymus, until my sister got all four for Christmas a few years back. I had an open night and thought I'd give the first one a read...Six hours later I had finished the first three.
They really are entertaining.
-
I suppose I will have to break down and read them, but I have to finish Robert Jordan's, The Eye of the World first.
-
No you don't, you just think you do.
-
Actually the Harry Potter books are a much more fun read than the Wheel of Time series. The first bookk was a bit childish, but with each book she becomes more sure in her writing style and more confident in her world, and it shows. I found myself trying to slog through the Wheel of Time. While it is good, the main character is whiny and I just can't find myself empathising with any of the characters. Having gone to a huge and prestigious boarding school in my youth, I feel much more a part of the world of Harry Potter. Plus, I hear that in the last book Harry uses his magic to hook up with Britney Spears. No, I'm tellin' ya, it's gonna happen! What? You don't believe me?
Hmmph! Muggles!
-
I got through four of the Wheel of Time books before I gave up. The first one is good, but it's a steady downhll slide after that. Despite being much less mature, the Harry Potter series is certainly more entertaining in my book.
-
I will agree that the main character is pretty whiny, and that I am having a hard time connecting with any of the characters, but I just thought the book was slow getting started. If it isn't going to get any better I may just not spend my time reading a book that I am not really enjoying.
Thanks for the info.
-
robert jordan rules. :P
seriously, i like his stuff. ive got 1 - 9 of the wheel of time. hes taking his own sweet time writing them tho.
yes, the main character is whiny. later on however, he becomes an absolute bastard. hes more coldhearted than dracula, apart from women. he manages to nearly die about 3 times because he refuses to attack women.
the other characters do improve a bit, and more come in (plus some die).
as far as i can tell, it is impossible for the series to end before book 12, considering all the plot lines lying around.
the magic system is one of the best. not as good as Mage : the Ascension from white wolf (i bought it recently. good game), but better than most other fantasy series.
and harry potter is poo. the story is told well, and the author has managed to appeal to a lot of people, but i take exception to a book that uses words like "hogwarts". plus, some people act like its this most incredible and revolutionary tale. is it bo**ocks. ursula le guin did the whole wizard school thang anges ago, and hogwarts is nothing, nothing compared to the majesty of terry prattchets Unseen University (UU) - you know a university where the library has no fixed size, and the librarian can stack shelves while hanging upside down from other shelves has a lot going for it.
-
Since everyone's always takling about them, I went out and grabbed a bunch of Pratchett books and started reading them. Having now read four, will I get lynched for saying that he's not all he's cracked up to be? The city guard is very good, but the rest of the world just seems a little too...forced. Like he's trying to be as wacky as he can, and all he can think of is having the alchemists blow up every now and then, and making all the clowns sad.
-
The Discworld series are a mixed bag. Many are tedious, but there are quite a few gems mixed in. One of my favorite characters is Cohen the Barbarian, a gutsy, sword-swinging tough guy who happens to be pushing eighty, yet is still out there with a sword in one hand and a girl in the other. The vampire book (Carpe Jugulum) is also well written and funny.
-
Carpe Jugulum is sitting on my shelf, but I disliked the last witch book (Lords and Ladies) enough that I'm hesitant to read it. I'll probably give it a try, on your recommendation.
-
well... its funny, but I am a college student going into education and I get a great kick out of reading the Harry Potter series. But then, I grew up reading things like the Redwall series and other sets like it. Hey, if it's enteraining and people like it, then I don't see any harm. At least people are reading instead of watching tv (excepting the movies).
-
I've only actually read the last chapter of the last Harry Potter book, but I saw the first two movies and I listened to the 3rd and 4th on CD on a road trip. Having now established my Harry Potter credentials (meager as they are) I want see if anyone has predictions about the forthcoming fifth book...
-
While I don't have any real predictions, since the books have gotten progressively better I look to this next one to be really good...and something of a turning point.
I think the whole focus of the series may shift. The door has certainly been left wide open for just about anything.
-
These are my predictions. Keep in mind that they have no basis in fact, so are not spoilers. They are merely where I think the books are going.
* Harry Potter will get in serious trouble, and hero himself out of it.
* There will be a romantic triangle.
* Snape will be revealed as a vampire.
* The real Mad-Eye will make at least a token appearance.
* Harry will use his magic to get jiggy with Britney Spears.
Okay, so the last one is more of a wish-fulfillment thing than a prediction, but if I were a teenaged boy with magical powers, I wouldn't be sitting in a cold room in some weird castle trying to mix potions.
-
I think one of these years Harry should actually get expelled. He's got to have some kind of ego for all that he gets away with and is rewarded for. Maybe he'll carry it too far and actually do something really stupid and get sacked. That probably couldn't happen until book six or seven, unless they finagle some way of reinstating him on probation or something like that.
-
Without spoiling the fourth book, I'd just like to say tha given what's happened that I really doubt school will be the focus of at least the next book. Once things calm down I imagine school life will get on like it once was, but I given how big a target Hogwart's is I don't see how they can have classes.
I do predict that Harry's Aunt and Uncle will be targeted though and Harry must save them and perhaps they would come around...
-
Part of me wants a massive 4 book arc to start: with a continuity instead of the brief episodes. I kinda think this is where it's going. After alll, Gryffendor won't have a problem with the cup, and they've won Quidditch. (of course, they introduced a new, better player to face down Harry,so that could be restored).
Another part of me thinks that will get away from the charm of the earlier books.
-
I'm with Mr. P, I don't think the daily events at the school will be as a large an issue in this next book.
I think it would be cool if Harry's aunt and uncle were targeted and then discovered they had magical powers too.
I can see Malfoy being kicked out of school, or withdrawn from the school, or completely rebelling and becoming Harry's new best friend. I think something has to happen to that character, he just can't stay at the school and pretend nothing happened.
-
I *don't* think Malfoy will become Harry's friend. It's not characteristic of him or of the book's progression. Though I'd love to see how Snape's hartred of Potter and favoritism for Malfoy works out. Rowling has some real potential to pull off some zinger reversals with that situation.
-
I agree with St. Ehlers in that the Snape - Potter relationship is great. It's my favorite part of the books.
I don't see how Rowling can leave the school, though. It would be too much of a departure from her formula (which has worked tremendously well.) Perhaps it's in her best interests but my prediction is she'll do what's easy and keep her bajillions of readers and stay at Hogwarts. The next book will have Harry's romantic life as a focus.
-
I'm with you Kije. I imagine that by August no one will have seen Voldemort for three months and everyone is just a little warily nervous. There'll probably be heightened security at the school, but things will progress pretty much as they have in the last four.
That's not what should happen, but I bet it will. After all, how many bad things have gone on in that school and they just carry on unconcerned?
-
Part of the charm of the books is how nonchalantly they shrug off horrible events--when Harry loses all the bones in his arm they just sigh and give him a potion and that's the end of that. On the other hand, one of the most mind-numbingly frustrating things about the books is that they take the same attitude with legitimate danger. The end of the fourth book is essentially the first time the adults get in gear and realize that this is bigger than prep school shenanigans, and the world breathed a collective sigh of relief. I think that if Rowling goes back to her standard formula, people will hate her.
She's really at a turning point--the end of the fourth book promised a lot of more serious adventure than we've ever seen before, and on top of that her core audience is getting older. But at the same time, her formula has worked very well so far and she's probably reticent to leave it behind. If this book is just another romp at school where they get into detention and ignore the serious dangers, there will be a big backlash. If the book strays too far from the formula there will be a similar backlash. She'll be treading a very fine line, and I'm interested to see how she pulls it off.
-
That's probably why it took her so stinking long to write it.
I'm still voting for sticking with the formula. School won't get cancelled. They'll still have to take classes and the janitor will still be after them and Snape will still sneer at him. A little romance perhaps with Hermione and Ron. A main character dies - my guess is McGonagall. It won't be one of the kids, unless it's one of Ron's siblings or Malfoy's toadies.
If "school must go on" to the point where, in book three, they bring in the Dementors to guard the place, then I doubt it will close now.
-
I'm kind of the same mind. You have to have classes and exams to be cancelled or Hermione won't have soemthing to freak out about missing.
Most of the world doesn't even believe that Voldemort is back, so things will at least be normal on the surface. Under the surface, things have never been normal anyway, so that won't change. However, the END of book 4 was VERY different in feeling, so we WANT something different. This will be a real test of Rowling's skill to see if the quality stays high and makes us want more.
-
I really want to see her break the formula.
I don't want this one to start out with a chapter or two with Harry back at his Aunt and Uncle's dealing with mundane crap when so much is on the line. I don't want things to be the same only with more security around Hogwarts. And I don't think it will be.
I think, and hope, this one will be a goodly bit different than the rest.
-
I agree with HoM when he said that the complicated issues surrounding the 5th book is part of the reason that Ms. Rowling took so long getting this book out (that and she got married, and had a baby, and produced a few movies). According to rumors, she thought she had finished the book, and then decided it needed to be completely rewritten.
The resurrection of Voldemort causes some serious problems, especially for those who fought against him before (re: Dumbledore, Sirius, Snape), and, of course, the cause of his first downfall and the three subsiquent failed attempts at resurrection, Harry Potter. I'm sure Hogwarts will also be an obvious target, but I'm not sure that Voldemort is ready to take the school in a head on attack. He's got to rebuild his former power and supporters. Maybe he can do that in 3 months, but I doubt it.
Besides, fear of Voldemort was the biggest problem the first time. Everyone was so busy being frightened of "You Know Who" that they didn't do anything to try and stop him. This is one of the greatest themes in Rowling's books. To fear something is to willingly give it power over you. I'm hoping that as Harry Potter grows through this situation (he'll be 15 this year) that he will be able to develop as a leader. Someone who can inspire courage rather than fear. I also think they should keep the school open for this reason. To close it is to admit defeat.
Obviously, Lucius will again be one of Voldemort's chief supporters, but Malfoy seems too much of a coward to be enthusiastic about it, and I wonder if Malfoy might have a change of heart at sometime.
My biggest question is what will the consequence of mixing Harry Potter's blood into his own have on Voldemort? Dumbledore seemed rather pleased about it, or at least hopeful. Any ideas?
-
Working off memory, harrys blood going into Voldermort meant he was immune to the love spell thingy. My guess.... its both ways. Voldermort is imune to that spell, but Harry, due to his blood being in the bugger, will be immune to any defensive powers around Mr V (i think it would be cool if Dumbledore went around saying "Watch out for Mr V, fool!"). So it essentially comes down to Harry vs Voldermort.
-
I think it's a good point that Harry has now passed teh middle of his Hogwarts experience. He's no longer an underclassman, so to speak.
And no, there will be no seige, far as I know Voldemort never worked that way. He's mroe into the ninja strike from the shadows sort of thing. so i think we'll see a serious threat. The big question is can it carry on for 3 more books. Probably yes. I just want to see how she does it.
-
OH, and I want to point out how Rowling, who writes for kids, gets considerably less criticism than either Terry Brooks or Robert Jordan, who are the more "serious" writers. (oo! Maybe I just turned this into a Brooks bashing thread on accident!)
-
Or Jordan, however you want to put it. AOL had a little snippet of the audiobook, about 1 minute 46 sec. It was something. I think I should read books 3 & 4 first though. Let me go get on that.
-
Yes, but I can think of only one Brooks character that I really liked, and several Rowling characters that I love. I think the criticism goes where it is due, and not just because of the audience the authors write to.
-
Part of Rowlings success is to take the Fantasy genre and adapt it so that a new audience can like it. Her books are sort of like a merger between fairy tales and lord of the rings. Her other strength is characters - she has a good ability to create believable characters who are very strong. Something that both Brooks and Jordan had trouble with. (For the record, Brooks is just glorified fan literature. I could probably write a book just as good as his ones.)
-
Then why don't you? You'd be rich.
I definitely think Brooks is better than he is commonly given credit for. But then, I think Jordan is worse than he is commonly given credit for.
-
I agree. I enjoy reading Brooks, but his characters get on my nerves. Especially when I'm reading the 3rd series and all of the characters seem the same. I like his writing style.
Can't say anything about Jordan though. I vowed not to get involved with a series that was that long, and all 3 people I've talked to about it seem to think that it looses a lot of it's initial quality about halfway through the series
-
Anyone care to take a bet???
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2003270170,00.html
-
Waldenbooks got it's shipment of book 5 this morning in preparation for next week, and a mate of mine who shall remain nameless snuck out a copy from the box opened by the store employees to give to me. It is officially 870 pages with a dark blue cover, making it stand out from the others. I am right now on page 79 and am enjoying it immensely.
-
I don't think the odds are made right. i find it terribly likely to be Harry or someone close to him. It's called the Order of the PHOENIX for goodness sake. Resurrection.
Oh, and slant, I'll have you destroyed later. After you send me your copy.
-
OH, and I want to point out how Rowling, who writes for kids, gets considerably less criticism than either Terry Brooks or Robert Jordan, who are the more "serious" writers.
Okay, okay, remember--"serious" does not equal "not children's." There are some pretty serious things going on in children's lit nowadays. It's no easier to write a children's book than an adult book--might be a bit shorter, depending on the age group and whether, like Rowling, you can get away with such a ridiculous length, but that just makes it all the more important to choose your words wisely and economically.
I hope you weren't making that assumption, SE, because I could go ON and ON about the merits of children's lit. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however. Mainly because I should be in bed and I don't want to spend anymore time writing this... ;D
-
No, I had no intention of slamming children's lit. Quite the opposite. I use "serious" in quotes whenever I'm referring to what is typically considered worthwhile reading when the referrer is obviously ignorant of things outside that realm: such as graphic literature or childrens lit. Does that make sense?
-
Perfect sense. I thought at first that's what you were saying, but then I over-thunk it.
Speaking of serious children's lit, though, I'm going to be taking a class this summer (if i can afford it) discussing the theme of gardens in children's lit and how that relates to our cultural perceptions of childhood as close to nature. If we regard kids as close to nature, is that a good thing or a bad thing (i.e., original sin/beastliness or inherent innocence). It's a very interesting question. And there are a *lot* of gardens in children's books.
-
When I think gardens and children I think innocence. Primarily because of Garden of Eden. Though closeness to nature certainly comes in, especially with a book like The Secret Garden with that boy who is assumed to talk to animals.
I'm not as familiar with children's literature though, so I'm not sure I have a lot more to contribute to that discussion without some prompting.
-
Well, if you're ever interested in contemplating more, here are a few samples from the reading list:
The Secret Garden
The Tale of Peter Rabbit
Sleeping Beauty (as in the Disney video version)
Weslandia--which is illustrated by BYU graduate Kevin Hawkes, written by Paul Fleishman
I tried to pick out titles that would be more well-known, but I don't recognize many of them. This should be an interesting summer. Cramming 20 books a week in, it seems like.
I think Peter Rabbit would probably be on the mischievous close to nature side, the side that demands that children tame that nature. Weslandia is a great book--you should read it sometime. It's a picture book, so it's a quick read. It's about this outcast kid who discovers a new plant in his backyard, then ends up learning to use it to make clothes, dyes, hats, buildings, food, and eventually an entire civilization. I can just see the guys on this board going gaga over it, "Now why couldn't *I* have had that plant when I was a kid?" 8)
-
Yes, I'd say that ranks right up there with a real lightsaber.
-
You realize that Kindergarten just means Garden of Children in German. In Mexico the really young kids go to Jardin do Ninos, which means...Garden of Children. Western civilization identifies children with gardens pretty constantly, and I'm interested to see what you come up with in this class.
I'd point out, though, the different between "nature" and "garden." One is wild and independent, the other is (usually) controlled and tamed. In The Secret Garden the situation is even more complicated--the garden moves from "dead" to "alive" while simultaneously going from "wild" to "tame" and "overgrown" to "pruned." The main reason for that, I imagine, stems from an unconscious attitude of British civilization--that you become powerful and alive only by reigning in yourself in--but there's plenty of other ideas to explore in there.
-
The main reason for that, I imagine, stems from an unconscious attitude of British civilization--that you become powerful and alive only by reigning in yourself in
Don't suppose you could name some other examples to support this view?
Not arguing against yah, just interested to see what gave you that opinion.
-
I tend to see the garden as a microcosm for Mary's life. As she began to allow others into her life, she became kinder, prettier and more enjoyable. Mary started out in the book as a selfish little brat no one would want to spend time with and by the end she had friends and was a friend.
Though I won't deny that Bristish themes generally do point to the idea that the more you deny and discipline yourself, the better you are, I think you could easily also draw the conclusion that order in one's life means a greater chance for happiness. I'm not saying you have to be OC organized to be happy, but you do have to set priorities, find out what you enjoy and make time for it, and also be there for other people and other things as Mary was for Collin and the garden. She was much happier then, than when she spent her days ordering people around and play in the sand.
I want to see your papers Stacer. It sounds like a very interesting class. What about The Velveteen Rabbit? That was one of my favorites as a child, and it brings up all sorts of questions and implications.
-
I referred to it as a British attitude because the writer was British, but it's actually pretty prevalent in a lot of Western countries. It's obviously prevalent in Mistress of Darkness. In some ways you could argue that the garden, as a primal force of nature, is a sort of Id, and that you can only become truly happy (and mentally healthy) by cleaning it up and forcing it to follow rules. I don't deny that the garden is symbolic of Mary's life, because that's pretty explicit, but I'm saying that the contrast of happiness and order vs. despair and chaos is a theme that doesn't usually get explored in discussions of the novel. Is a garden an inherently better place than a forest? Is it possible to represent the emotional growth of a main character through an uncultivated forest, or is the concept of civilization and industrialism (at whatever level) inherent to the concept of maturity?
-
Doesn't Secret Garden also have that wild kid who lives essentially out on the heath and talks to animals? Yet he's the one who can cultivate a garden. That certainly complicates things, as the guy who can commune with the wild is the one who can restore the tame. Which is to say, perhaps it takes some wild to make things grow, even if they need the restraint.
-
Dicken is who SE is referring to.
I wonder if, going along with Fell point, it has something to do with the heath and the forests are supposed to be wild, but the garden is expected to be orderly. Something along the lines of "bloom where you are planted" or "maturity is the ability to handle your life as it is."
Conversely, what can be said about Collin? If civilization makes you happy, then why isn't he? He has rejected the outter world of "wild things" completely. I ask only for argument's sake.
-
Whoot another Happry Potte book theft.
http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?news=125665
Kazza here I come. j/k
-
Perhaps his point is that you need elements of both. Mary begins the book essentially as a feral child (she follows no rules because she's never had any) while Collin begins as a lifeless corpse (so burdened with strict rules that he has come to identify himself in their terms). Mary has to learn to cultivate herself, using order to direct her energy into useful paths, while Collin has to learn to set himself free--loosening his order enough to allow in some life. Essentially there is a manor and a forest on opposite ends of the spectrum, and the garden is a hybrid of both.
There's plenty of wholes in that theory, most prominent of which is that I think Mary doesn't begin the book as a representation of wild growth--I think she comes from outside of the system altogether--but it's still pretty interesting.
-
I was thinking about this after I went to bed last night and I think I rejected Fell's theory entirely. Mary is from this wasteland (India is hardly realisticaly a wasteland, but the book makes it seem like nothing but a festering source of disease). She comes to England, wehre the weather is more temperate. Collin encourages wild things but also can grow tame things. They just don't form that cohesively for me along those lines. I remain unconvinced.
I think the garden more represents privacy, hidden secrets (hence the SECRET Garden), and how growing things helps you grow. I don't think it has much to do with the relative tameness/wildness of hte character or the growing things.
-
Like I said, there's plenty of holes in my theory. And while it is true that most of what we're discussing was probably not intentionally included in the book, that's only relevant to a certain point. From an archetypal point of view, you can't talk about something without referencing things you don't intend to reference. A garden is a tamed and controlled portion of nature whether the author wanted to deal with that aspect or not.
So yeah, you're right, but that doesn't mean that our discussion is useless.
-
is it controlled or symbiotic?
granted cutting back a garden and pulling weeds may seem controlling, but a well tilled garden is also a very sybiotic affair...
Why symbiotic you ask, well the garden plants get the best care any vegatable could ask for, food, water (even when its dry out) and good soil. The tender gets serenity, a sense of accomplishment and something beautiful to look at.
-
You know if she killed off Dumbledor the movie folks would have a little easier time of it...
-
They'd still have to deal with books three and four even if she did. I'm sure Ian McKellan will do a fine job and moviegoers will have no trouble adjusting. They're already used to him as a wizard from LotR. (Ian McKellan is who they got to replace Richard Harris, right?)
-
No, but that rumor is going around. Look it up on imdb--I can never remember the guy's name.
-
I didn't mean to say it was useless. I just don't find it as convincing as I'd like. I think she chose a garden to represent a vitalizing force, and the relative tameness/wildness is less important than the life itself. Sybiosis, as Jeffe points out seems more constructive.
-
Well, today's the day. Did anyone bother to go to a bookstore at midnight? I'm off to go get mine now.
-
With book 4, my father and I happened to be shopping at the Base Exchange the day it came out. There were stacks everywhere of them. We just grabbed a copy with all the other stuff we got. It was hard to feel like there was a need for ANYONE to stand in line for this book this time. I'll get a copy. When my mom finishes hers, probably.
-
My parents and my sister both ordered copies. I'll probably grap my sister's copy when she leaves for Russia.