What's new

Harry Potter

^ I didn't like POA much though the movie was great..chamber was good..explored the racism theme ...didn't like the ending though ..wish riddle and Harry duelled that would have been awesome
 
Ya lol Chamber of Secrets was my guilty pleasure, it was the most fun out of all 7, donno whether it's the best and all but still :))
 
its quite related to book 6..you know half blood prince was original working title for COS..we gotta admire Rowling for the clues she leaves in the books ..I mean who could have thought the diary was a horcrux.
 
Last edited:
Her continuity is quite impressive. The Snape strand was beautifully done, always seemingly a sub-plot but in the end absolutely central.

Even when his true motives have been revealed, his character remains in shadow. Every memorable series needs a great ambivalent character.
 
Snape one was bit OTT imo ..though he s one of my favorite characters but seriously I don't think one can love someone that much..his behavior towards Harry explained that there was much more back story than just simple hatred for James.
 
James said:
Honestly, you can laugh all you like. In academia, yes, this is a fact - and there is an existing debate around it at much higher levels than our discussions here.

Universities have never taken LotR seriously because it is a fantasy universe, and stylistically Tolkein is too self-indulgent and amateurish to create sympathy and allegory. Do not confuse creativity with writing ability. I am glad to see a reference to CS Lewis who is both a better writer and more relevant.

This is what literary study entails: referencing and dramatising real-life issues through what is ostensibly fiction. Potter achieves this because Rowling is more in touch with race, religion, culture and history. Also she is clever in her realisation that fantasy struggles to achieve real depth, whereas her avenue of magic realism offers genuine scope. Depending on how you read it, Potter is a coming-of-age tale, a disentanglement of tense racial issues, an allegory of Christ, various forms of resurrection, and good and evil, and a daring representation of the Holocaust.
Click to expand...
For the record I didn't laugh as I would take your opinion seriously when speaking on english literature.

Well she is more in touch with current issues because she is a contemporary writer. That's quite obvious. So the issues she covers although universal are still current and hence she is more relevant now.

And all of those themes you mentioned can be seen and more on LOTR. Depending on how you read it of course ;)

You call it self indulgence. I call it immersive genius.
 
Last edited:
James said:
Her continuity is quite impressive. The Snape strand was beautifully done, always seemingly a sub-plot but in the end absolutely central.

Even when his true motives have been revealed, his character remains in shadow. Every memorable series needs a great ambivalent character.
Click to expand...

I'll give her that.

Although I think there were some things she could have explored more or should have taken certain plot routes towards.

One thing I think she didn't explore enough was Ron feeling second best in front of Harry. In other words I wanted Ron to turn to the dark side.

Draco was too simple early on to the point of being unbelievable. He was explored a lot more in the final books but I think she left that too late. And I do realise he was a child early on but even still. Too one dimensional.

I also think Neville was one of the best characters in the book and should have been put on a pedestal a little more.

All that said the woman can make billions more if she decides to write some prequels.
 
I meant issues current to their respective time of writing. Considering it was produced in the wake of the two Great Wars, LotR doesn't exactly carry a unifying or moral message.

People who clamour for it to be studied need to read Orwell (same time period) and such to understand how strong, ambiguous, allegorical and relevant literature needs to be to be taken seriously.
 
Last edited:
Dolores Umbridge was my favourite villain of the series. Harry was slightly a bigger jerk in the books than the movies. Justified in that all kinds of crap happens to him.
 
James said:
Honestly, you can laugh all you like. In academia, yes, this is a fact - and there is an existing debate around it at much higher levels than our discussions here.

Universities have never taken LotR seriously because it is a fantasy universe, and stylistically Tolkein is too self-indulgent and amateurish to create sympathy and allegory. Do not confuse creativity with writing ability. I am glad to see a reference to CS Lewis who is both a better writer and more relevant.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I've only read the Narnia stories. On that basis I'd say that comparing Lewis with Tolkien is like comparing a JAMODI series with the 2005 Ashes.

If you want allegory, you may consider the War of the Ring as WW2. Tolkien also considers addiction and mental illness, and the impact of industrialisation on the environment. I felt sympathy for many of the huge cast of characters.

This is what literary study entails: referencing and dramatising real-life issues through what is ostensibly fiction. Potter achieves this because Rowling is more in touch with race, religion, culture and history. Also she is clever in her realisation that fantasy struggles to achieve real depth, whereas her avenue of magic realism offers genuine scope. Depending on how you read it, Potter is a coming-of-age tale, a disentanglement of tense racial issues, an allegory of Christ, various forms of resurrection, and good and evil, and a daring representation of the Holocaust.
Click to expand...

I read the first book, thought it a good childrens' adventure story and didn't read further because Rowling's prose is so bland. If she could write prose, build atmosphere and describe fight sequences like Tolkien, I'd have been there until the end.
 
Last edited:
Never understood why people liked it so much... It was just shrewd marketing.. Never watched one complete harry potter movie in one go...
 
TM Riddle said:
Umbridge was annoying...Bellatrix was real deal
Click to expand...

I liked( read despised) both. But Umbridge is more realistic. Sadistic government officials exist in real world too. Bellatrix is more hands on evil. Both are great fun to read and watch.
 
leatherface58 said:
I liked( read despised) both. But Umbridge is more realistic. Sadistic government officials exist in real world too. Bellatrix is more hands on evil. Both are great fun to read and watch.
Click to expand...

Bellatrix was paranoid and fanatically devoted to Voldemort..she actually enjoyed murdering people like voldy ...A witch of prodigious abilities she was most dangerous deatheater imo..I admit I sort of cried when she killed Sirius(I was very young) ..
 
James said:
I meant issues current to their respective time of writing. Considering it was produced in the wake of the two Great Wars, LotR doesn't exactly carry a unifying or moral message.

People who clamour for it to be studied need to read Orwell (same time period) and such to understand how strong, ambiguous, allegorical and relevant literature needs to be to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but I don't see why everything that is written needs to be a social commentary of sorts for you to rank it. Why can't it be just a good read?
 
Robert said:
Hmm, I've only read the Narnia stories. On that basis I'd say that comparing Lewis with Tolkien is like comparing a JAMODI series with the 2005 Ashes.

If you want allegory, you may consider the War of the Ring as WW2. Tolkien also considers addiction and mental illness, and the impact of industrialisation on the environment. I felt sympathy for many of the huge cast of characters.



I read the first book, thought it a good childrens' adventure story and didn't read further because Rowling's prose is so bland. If she could write prose, build atmosphere and describe fight sequences like Tolkien, I'd have been there until the end.
Click to expand...

Agree with this.
 
Harry Potter is the legend of our generation. Books were exceptional, movies however were good only till Goblet of Fire. :(
 
And LOTR is incomparable. It's the mother of all fantasy novels. For Gondor my brothers of middle earth!
 
Saqib S said:
Fair enough but I don't see why everything that is written needs to be a social commentary of sorts for you to rank it. Why can't it be just a good read?
Click to expand...

This approach is why you're not a literati mate ;-) The world needs us both.
 
guys this is not a Lotr vs hp thread..please keep the discussion related to Harry potter series only...I must admit I was kinda shocked when Rowling announced that Dumbledore was gay ..lol it was weird..I think it explained why did he prefer those high heeled sandles lol
 
James said:
This approach is why you're not a literati mate ;-) The world needs us both.
Click to expand...

I guess.

TBH I used to be very similar in that regard to the music I listened to and movies I watched. Everything had to have a meaning or some sort of social commentary for me to take it seriously.

Then I started to slowly become something I despise - a high-brow smug critic of what is essentially only made to entertain (at its essence).

Now, if it entertains, I am happy with it I guess. More so with Music, less so with films - still have the similarly high expectations of films.

A much simpler world to live in ;)
 
leatherface58 said:
Dune anyone? Not a page turner but a very compelling and interesting read.
Click to expand...

It's on my list to read.

I think the only other Fantasy series that comes close to being as rich in history as LOTR is the Magician series. Loved all four books in that. Now if we can get a capable director to sit behind the camera in making that into a film - that would be amazing.

Currently reading Patrick Rothfuss Kingkiller Chronicles Book 2 (Wise Man's Fear)

A breath of fresh air.
 
TM Riddle said:
guys this is not a Lotr vs hp thread..please keep the discussion related to Harry potter series only...I must admit I was kinda shocked when Rowling announced that Dumbledore was gay ..lol it was weird..I think it explained why did he prefer those high heeled sandles lol
Click to expand...

Don't be hating on gay men, their life their choice.
 
It was not Harry Potter's story. But Dumbledore's story. Should have been titled: Dumbledore and the Journey from Homosexuality to Asexuality.
 
TM Riddle said:
I have seen GOF movie for about million times..Order of the Phoenix was worst of them.
Click to expand...

Order of Phoenix, Half Blood Price and TDH1 all sucked. This is how i rate them -


1) Chamber of secrets
2) Prisoner of Azkaban
3) Deathly Hallows 2
4) Goblet of Fire
5) Sorcerer's Stone
6) Half Blood Prince
7) Deathly Hallows 1
8) Order of the Phoenix
 
leatherface58 said:
It was not Harry Potter's story. But Dumbledore's story. Should have been titled: Dumbledore and the Journey from Homosexuality to Asexuality.
Click to expand...

LOL :))


But thats true. Dumbledore was the heart of the novels. The most intriguing character along with Tom Riddle and Sirius Black.
 
Forgot Severus Snape. One of the best characters ever. Remarkably similar to John Locke from LOST. Although, Locke suffers far more.
 
Severus was kind of a guy you won't like to have dinner with ..he was malicious and sinister teacher..had lots of insecurity that's why he turned to dark side so that he could look cool in Lilly's eyes..but he was indeed brave , sort of anti hero..I loved how he used to intimidate Gryffindor students esp Neville..but still I didn't get it that he loved Lilly that much..this was bit over the top from Rowling.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
Order of Phoenix, Half Blood Price and TDH1 all sucked. This is how i rate them -


1) Chamber of secrets
2) Prisoner of Azkaban
3) Deathly Hallows 2
4) Goblet of Fire
5) Sorcerer's Stone
6) Half Blood Prince
7) Deathly Hallows 1
8) Order of the Phoenix
Click to expand...
David Yates has ruined the series..they used to be so good until goblet of fire ..
 
^ that would have been epic..Alfonso cuaron also did a good job with POA ..sadly he refused to direct others
 
Deathly Hallows II is my favourite of the films. Chamber and Goblet also stand up to repeat viewings.

One problem I've always had with Prisoner of Azkaban is the lack of Voldemort.
 
what I didn't like in deathly Hallows 2 was its ending..looked a bit bollywoodish to me .I mean in the book harry finishes Voldemort in the great hall with everyone around him ..they should have kept it like this.
 
Hollywood always dilutes things like that. It's disappointing.
 
haven't read or watched anything Harry pothead

there are better things in life, ya know :asif
 
Prisoner of Azkaban is when I started to take the films a bit more seriously. I thought it's production value and cinematography were far better than all the others. Thanks to Alfonso.
 
Azkaban was much darker compared to first two movies..shrieking sheck and time travel scenes were just awesome..what I didn't like was Michael gambons acting..he doesnt act like Dumbledore at all ..in books dumby was shown to be a cheerful guy while gambon is always in angry mood ..Richard lewis was far better.
 
James said:
I quite like the whole thing having been kinda brought up around it. In comparison to The Lord of the Rings I find it less original and grandiose, but nonetheless more coherent and enjoyable. Tolkein broke new ground in the fantasy genre and was intellectual enough to come up with new worlds and languages, but unfortunately his themes are one-dimensional and his prose is awful, which is why he has never been studied within academia. Meanwhile Potter is full of cultural reference, Christian allegory and Holocaust imagery so has already been taken more seriously.
Click to expand...

I don't quite see your point. How does the fact that Harry Potter has more subtext and more semantics make it more exquisite? Any writer who's trying to get his first novel published will have his book filled with coffee philosophy themes like racism, machism, war (and whanot), most of the time treated with a lack of subtility and some heavy/obvious metaphores, does that mean they're richer than a Lotr whose interest lies elsewhere, primarily in the richness of its languages. The way I see it, from a poetical point of view, you're comparing Virgile to Nerval (for the subtext part, but the comparison obviously too kind for both Tolkien and Rowling, more so Rowling).

For having read both hp in Lotr when everyone was getting crazy about them (because of the book for the former and the book for the second) before middle school, and then having re-read them many times because they were the only books I took on a certain boring holiday, I must be close to somewhat knowing all the details by heart (including Silmarilion, the Hobbit,...) and, to me, there is no absolutely no doubt for me that, while Tolkien's style is somewhat classical (not in a quality way, but more in the epurated and to the point style), but Rowling's is far from being the grand oeuvre of english litterature. Where the real difference stands is Lotr is Tolkien's book are set in an incredibly rich world and in complete adequation with it's author goals where HP looks to me as an intended rich novel, both in Tolkien and traditional litterature style, but ended up as a popular but naive novel and borderline satire.

I read somewhere above ''Never would have thought Riddle's book is a Horcrux''. I mean, seriously? The book was there in book 2, Horcruxes in book 6, nature of the book 6 and, inbetween, no reference at all to horcruxes. Same with Deathly Hallows. Or the part on Harry Potter being a Horcrux (from the spell of love to horcrux, passing by the chosen one). I mean, where were those famous clues? It doesn't look premeditated at all to me, Harry Potter is closer to the Hangover than to Kill Bill in this aspect. Just 7 seperately written books with cliff hangers inbetween.
 
Last edited:
endymion248 said:
I don't quite see your point. How does the fact that Harry Potter has more subtext and more semantics make it more exquisite? Any writer who's trying to get his first novel published will have his book filled with coffee philosophy themes like racism, machism, war (and whanot), most of the time treated with a lack of subtility and some heavy/obvious metaphores, does that mean they're richer than a Lotr whose interest lies elsewhere, primarily in the richness of its languages. The way I see it, from a poetical point of view, you're comparing Virgile to Nerval (for the subtext part, but the comparison obviously too kind for both Tolkien and Rowling, more so Rowling).

For having read both hp in Lotr when everyone was getting crazy about them (because of the book for the former and the book for the second) before middle school, and then having re-read them many times because they were the only books I took on a certain boring holiday, I must be close to somewhat knowing all the details by heart (including Silmarilion, the Hobbit,...) and, to me, there is no absolutely no doubt for me that, while Tolkien's style is somewhat classical (not in a quality way, but more in the epurated and to the point style), but Rowling's is far from being the grand oeuvre of english litterature. Where the real difference stands is Lotr is Tolkien's book are set in an incredibly rich world and in complete adequation with it's author goals where HP looks to me as an intended rich novel, both in Tolkien and traditional litterature style, but ended up as a popular but naive novel and borderline satire.

I read somewhere above ''Never would have thought Riddle's book is a Horcrux''. I mean, seriously? The book was there in book 2, Horcruxes in book 6, nature of the book 6 and, inbetween, no reference at all to horcruxes. Same with Deathly Hallows. Or the part on Harry Potter being a Horcrux (from the spell of love to horcrux, passing by the chosen one). I mean, where were those famous clues? It doesn't look premeditated at all to me, Harry Potter is closer to the Hangover than to Kill Bill in this aspect. Just 7 seperately written books with cliff hangers inbetween.
Click to expand...

no reference of horcruxes in between?? if you have read book 5 then locket was mentioned ...in book 4 Voldemort indirectly mention about them in graveyard so I don't buy your this stuff that Rowling didn't provided enough clues about horcruxes.
 
TM Riddle said:
no reference of horcruxes in between?? if you have read book 5 then locket was mentioned ...in book 4 Voldemort indirectly mention about them in graveyard so I don't buy your this stuff that Rowling didn't provided enough clues about horcruxes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, reading retrospectively with Rowling's far-stretched cliff-hangers on last 2 books, obviously, you've got clues :facepalm:
 
endymion248 said:
I don't quite see your point. How does the fact that Harry Potter has more subtext and more semantics make it more exquisite? Any writer who's trying to get his first novel published will have his book filled with coffee philosophy themes like racism, machism, war (and whanot), most of the time treated with a lack of subtility and some heavy/obvious metaphores, does that mean they're richer than a Lotr whose interest lies elsewhere, primarily in the richness of its languages. The way I see it, from a poetical point of view, you're comparing Virgile to Nerval (for the subtext part, but the comparison obviously too kind for both Tolkien and Rowling, more so Rowling).

For having read both hp in Lotr when everyone was getting crazy about them (because of the book for the former and the book for the second) before middle school, and then having re-read them many times because they were the only books I took on a certain boring holiday, I must be close to somewhat knowing all the details by heart (including Silmarilion, the Hobbit,...) and, to me, there is no absolutely no doubt for me that, while Tolkien's style is somewhat classical (not in a quality way, but more in the epurated and to the point style), but Rowling's is far from being the grand oeuvre of english litterature. Where the real difference stands is Lotr is Tolkien's book are set in an incredibly rich world and in complete adequation with it's author goals where HP looks to me as an intended rich novel, both in Tolkien and traditional litterature style, but ended up as a popular but naive novel and borderline satire.

I read somewhere above ''Never would have thought Riddle's book is a Horcrux''. I mean, seriously? The book was there in book 2, Horcruxes in book 6, nature of the book 6 and, inbetween, no reference at all to horcruxes. Same with Deathly Hallows. Or the part on Harry Potter being a Horcrux (from the spell of love to horcrux, passing by the chosen one). I mean, where were those famous clues? It doesn't look premeditated at all to me, Harry Potter is closer to the Hangover than to Kill Bill in this aspect. Just 7 seperately written books with cliff hangers inbetween.
Click to expand...

What a post.
 
Not really, just builds up a big straw man claiming I've said Rowling is exquisite and poetic when I merely feel her prose is more concise, allegorical and accessible. Neither are great writers, they write fantasy at the end of the day.
 
James said:
Not really, just builds up a big straw man claiming I've said Rowling is exquisite and poetic when I merely feel her prose is more concise, allegorical and accessible. Neither are great writers, they write fantasy at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

I agreed with his part on fantasy books not having to have countless not so subtle metaphors for social issues and just be self indulgent as you said in the fantasy world they created.
 
Tolkien's goal was to create a myth cycle for the English, who don't have one of their own. The Irish have their Gods of Llyr and Don, the Welsh have King Arthur and The Mabinogion, the Scandinavians have their Odin and the Germans their Siegfried, but we poor old English don't.

In this, I think old JRR did rather well.
 
You might have heard of Troll 2-the (designated) worst movie of all time. But there was a Troll Part 1 released in 1986 which actually had a troll. Guess what was the lead character's name? Yep. Harry Potter! And the movie concerns Harry Potter and a world of wizards, witches, magic and trolls. 11 years before Rowling even wrote a letter of Philosopher's Stone. Weird really...

Even JK thinks she MAY have seen the movie.
 
James said:
Not really, just builds up a big straw man claiming I've said Rowling is exquisite and poetic when I merely feel her prose is more concise, allegorical and accessible. Neither are great writers, they write fantasy at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

It's funny you would talk about false interpretation because I have not talked about you claiming Rowling is more poetical, nor have I said you claim it exquisite. Really, the only part where I talk about their style is in the second paragraph, to say exactly what you just wrote. And a fully agree with myself.

Or is prose some kind of synecdoque (don't know how to say in english) for the whole book?
 
Saqib S said:
I guess.

TBH I used to be very similar in that regard to the music I listened to and movies I watched. Everything had to have a meaning or some sort of social commentary for me to take it seriously.

Then I started to slowly become something I despise - a high-brow smug critic of what is essentially only made to entertain (at its essence).

Now, if it entertains, I am happy with it I guess. More so with Music, less so with films - still have the similarly high expectations of films.

A much simpler world to live in ;)
Click to expand...

Well said. Went through the same.

Personally I quite enjoyed the HP books although it was very cartoonish at times with almost everyone firmly on one side of the good and evil divide and no real depth to any of the characters. Even the more interesting ones like Sirius and Snape at the end turned out to be on one side at the end.

You need characters with a bit more depth to really get you emotionally attached to them. The writing is at times very sloppy and and a lot of the books were pretty much the same formula. Harry believes something is wrong or someones evil, nobody believes him, adventures happen, everyone believes him.

That being said thry were still a bloody good read!
 
leatherface58 said:
You might have heard of Troll 2-the (designated) worst movie of all time. But there was a Troll Part 1 released in 1986 which actually had a troll. Guess what was the lead character's name? Yep. Harry Potter! And the movie concerns Harry Potter and a world of wizards, witches, magic and trolls. 11 years before Rowling even wrote a letter of Philosopher's Stone. Weird really...
Click to expand...

In 1990, Neil Gaiman wrote a graphic novel about a bespectacled boy wizard with a pet owl.

It's shedloads better that Rowling's first novel.
 
I miss Harry Potter.

I grew up with it so its a very strong connection.

Piertotum Locomotor :amir
 
I read each of the books from the 4th one onwards in one night whenever they were released. As I said before, not fantastic from a literary point of view but thoroughly enjoyable and impossible to put down.
 
Saqs said:
Prisoner of Azkaban is when I started to take the films a bit more seriously. I thought it's production value and cinematography were far better than all the others. Thanks to Alfonso.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

It portrays the dark grim atmosphere of Hogwarts like no other movie.

DH2 is excellent as well.

HB Prince and Order of the Phoenix are forgettable.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
I read each of the books from the 4th one onwards in one night whenever they were released. As I said before, not fantastic from a literary point of view but thoroughly enjoyable and impossible to put down.
Click to expand...

wow didn't know you were a fan dv , welcome to the club :sachin
 
Re: Harry Potter.

I read them in the order: 3 4 1 2 5 6 7. Extremely enjoyable. A big fan of it and abhor people who bash it without reading. :danish
 
Books are brilliant, movies are great.

Who cares about the haters.
 
Regarding Dumbledore, Richard Harris had the perfect look for it but IMO he was too soft. I can't visualize him engaging in a duel with Voldemort for example.

Gambon had the perfect voice for the role, but he was too aggressive and didn't have the grace of Dumbledore.

A mixture of the two actors would have been ideal.

McKellen would have been amazing for this role, but he is Gandalf so it would have been weird to see him play a Wizard again.
 
Mamoon_ said:
Regarding Dumbledore, Richard Harris had the perfect look for it but IMO he was too soft. I can't visualize him engaging in a duel with Voldemort for example.

Gambon had the perfect voice for the role, but he was too aggressive and didn't have the grace of Dumbledore.

A mixture of the two actors would have been ideal.

McKellen would have been amazing for this role, but he is Gandalf so it would have been weird to see him play a Wizard again.
Click to expand...

Dude dumby was always supposed to be soft , imo Richard Harris was perfect. I hated his voice though
 
I'm a fan too! And Mamoon, spin off series? Are you sure!?? As far as I know, there was a joke on April 1st but is this for real?
 
Can't help loving all things Potter. It has such a radiant national identity, quintessentially English. Just one of a hundred reasons why I would much rather sit down with a Potter film or book than a Tolkien one. His prose is so dour and emotionally uninvolved.
 
Harry Potter decade without any doubt. 8 movies, 7 books, the craze was amazing and rightly so.
 
start reading them in 2002-2003 and loved them all....last book got released next day of my valima here in germany and not to mention me and my wife did bought late night after 12 as the shop had special deal to remain open till 3 at night just for harry potter fans :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Major
Has Godse defeated Gandhi?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Champ_Pal
C
MenInG
What was the most significant death in 2022?
Replies
8
Views
945
JaDed
JaDed
MenInG
The strange case of the cricket match that helped fund Imran Khan’s political rise
Replies
42
Views
6K
MenInG
MenInG
TM Riddle
Harry Potter or A Song of Ice and Fire
Replies
28
Views
1K
TM Riddle
TM Riddle
MenInG
Is it ok for religious figures to indulge in commercial activities to earn money?
Replies
0
Views
759
MenInG
MenInG
Back
Top