Breaking Dawn
discussion
Is the Harry Potter/Twilight debate really so one-sided?
Jocelyn wrote: "I think the main appeal of Harry Potter to adults is not its messages, but its allusions to everyday society.
I mean, Sesame Street teaches life lessons, like Cassie says. Do adults randomly turn ..."
That is true.
I mean, Sesame Street teaches life lessons, like Cassie says. Do adults randomly turn ..."
That is true.
Okay, I just saw Cassie's rating of certain books and wow....you gave Harry Potter and Jane Eyre two stars ....and rated Twilight saga so well....ummm...
To each their own I guess:/
To each their own I guess:/
Gattaca wrote: "But grown men and women would not have loved Harry Potter if the main target/message was to little kids. I had professors and doctors tell me they loved Harry Potter lol.There is more there than "hey guys, friendship is great" lol. Did you read all the Harry Potter books?"
I'm not trying to represent the world's entire population here, just myself.
I don't care how many adults like harry Potter.
Some adults like Harry Potter, so what? Why does this mean I have to like it too?
Yes, I read all of them.
Gattaca wrote: "Okay, I just saw Cassie's rating of certain books and wow....you gave Harry Potter and Jane Eyre two stars ....and rated Twilight saga so well....ummm...
To each their own I guess:/"
Yes, everyone just has to agree to disagree.
Out of curiosity Cassie (and you don't have to answer if you don't want to, nor am I saying that your ratings suck or anything) what do you keep in mind while rating a book?
To each their own I guess:/"
Yes, everyone just has to agree to disagree.
Out of curiosity Cassie (and you don't have to answer if you don't want to, nor am I saying that your ratings suck or anything) what do you keep in mind while rating a book?
Jocelyn wrote: "Out of curiosity Cassie (and you don't have to answer if you don't want to, nor am I saying that your ratings suck or anything) what do you keep in mind while rating a book? "How much I enjoyed the reading experience.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Gattaca wrote: "Okay, I just saw Cassie's rating of certain books and wow....you gave Harry Potter and Jane Eyre two stars ....and rated Twilight saga so well....ummm...To each their own I guess:/"
Well I did say I enjoy Twilight much more than Harry Potter.
Cassie wrote: "Gattaca wrote: "Okay, I just saw Cassie's rating of certain books and wow....you gave Harry Potter and Jane Eyre two stars ....and rated Twilight saga so well....ummm...
To each their own I guess:..."
Okay.
To each their own I guess:..."
Okay.
I felt the opposite but people are different:)
Cassie wrote: "I really don't like Harry Potter at all.
I found it to be incredibly predictable, filled with stereotypes, discrimination, and contradictory morals (considering that they were written for children..."
Just out of curiosity though? How was there discrimination and contradiction in Harry Potter?
I found it to be incredibly predictable, filled with stereotypes, discrimination, and contradictory morals (considering that they were written for children..."
Just out of curiosity though? How was there discrimination and contradiction in Harry Potter?
And what were the life lessons you learned in Twilight?
Again, I am very curious.
Again, I am very curious.
Okay, I am going off to bed but it was nice talking to you people.:)
Gattaca wrote: "Just out of curiosity though? How was there discrimination and contradiction in Harry Potter? "I see the entire concept of sorting as discrimination. Well not much discrimination on its own, but discrimination coupled with stereotyping.
I mean, they're eleven year old kids and they're sorted into groups that will inevitable define what type of person they become.
There was a lot of discrimination against the Slytherins.
All the Slytherins at hogwarts were treated as evil, despite the fact that there have been numerous good Slytherins in history. for example, when ALL the Syltherins were locked in dungeons just because ONE of them wanted to turn Harry in.
But not once were all the Gryffindors locked away or punished at all (besides having a few points knocked off) because Harry or Hermione did something stupid. Stupid and more severe than simply *wanting* to do something bad.
Not to mention that there were Death eaters from all houses, but still, Slytherins were the ones assumed to be dark and evil. They're just kids, you know?
And then there's the muggle vs human thing.
As for the morals, at first you think Hogwarts is an exciting school, teaching kids that school is a great place, then you realize that not much teaching actually took place. They learned what they really needed to learn from books or by doing what other people have done, but only when they need the information, which contributes to the phrase "When am I going to need to know this in real life?"
In Harry Potter, they mostly only learn information they need at the moment. (There is Hermione, but she's only one character)
Harry's lack of action. People always did things for him. Really, almost every conflict he was in, there was always someone to jumped to take the bullet for him. That could teach that if you have lots of friends, you don't have to worry about anything because those friend should always take the heat for you.
There are more things, but I feel like i'm being way too negative and I don't like picking out things I don't like about books. I'll go on if asked for specifics.
I never really said I learned life lessons from Twilight, but I did learn a bit about myself from reading it.
I learned when it's okay to be selfish, because I do firmly believe that being selfish is a good thing, when displayed at the right time.
I learned that it's possible to hold yourself to a different standard than most people without feeling like you're arrogant and putting other people down for their decisions.
Most of all, Trust your rational instincts (not the irrational, superficial instincts that tell you to do crazy things) no matter how outside parties feel about it. In the end, it's how you feel that matters.
Cassie wrote: "Gattaca wrote: "Just out of curiosity though? How was there discrimination and contradiction in Harry Potter? "
I see the entire concept of sorting as discrimination. Well not much discrimination ..."
How is sorting discrimination if the hat put them in the group they wanted? All four groups were equal. The hat listened to their wish and put them in the group they would most be happy in since that was their own wish. Dumbledore said that many times.
I would not call the sorting process discrimmination because I felt that all of the four groups were respected equally, it was usually INDIVIDUALS who were not treated unfairly for their behavior .....not the whole clan.
Also, even if they were, Rowling is not saying that being discriminated against is good, I think she might be showing kids the harms of discriminating people and teaching us about discrimmination based on a group. I think we should thank her, not say she is endorsing discrimination which is crazy!!
Do you truly bealive she is trying to teach kids to discriminate? If anything, she was teaching us what happens in real life.
Plus, she had many POV characters who showed great bravery and I salute her.
You said it yourself that many good people were in slytherin but wouldn't it be actual stereotyping if every single person in slytherin was bad! Severus Snape was a good person who in Slytherin so how was he the stereotypical bad guy who is in Slytherin?! The sorting represented character types, which everyone have....it was not about good and bad groups.
I think Rowling wants to show us how some things can get into our heads and Draco bealived that he was bad because of his family history and he was being someone who he thought should be....living up to his family name.
You see, there was never the stereotypical character....except for Voldemort but he was a sociopath which exist in real life. Every single character was complex and had good/bad parts. Harry, Hermione, Ron, Neville, Ginny.....they were not perfect. They all had their complex characteristics.
I could go on till night about their characters.
Anyway, Pros of sorting include :
1. The Sorting Process is a time honoured tradition of Hogwarts and arguably serves as a kind of initiation ceremony and common experience for all Hogwarts students. Tradition helps to unify people and to create a shared sense of identity.
2. Entry to Hogwarts is a potentially daunting experience for new students, especially as there is the risk that shyer students will become ‘lost’ in the crowd. The Sorting process provides new students with a ready- made support network of like- minded people. This helps new students to feel more included and reduces the risk of isolation. Students are usually protective of fellow housemates and will often protect them against bullying.
3. As someone else pointed out, the house system fosters a sense of team spirit and the kind of skills and qualities that are associated with team work. Most schools are able to achieve this through interschool competitions. However, because this is rarely possible for Hogwarts (being the only magical academy in Britain) this function is performed through inter-house competition.
4. Housemates often share certain values and goals and tend to cooperate with one another to achieve these common goals. For instance, Ravenclaws are usually interested in academic learning and achievement and enjoy learning from one another. Also, Ravenclaws may choose to prioritise academic team goals while Gryffindors (who tend to be competitive and sport orientated) may choose to collectively excel at Quidditch. The sense of competition helps to bring out the best in many of the Hogwarts students.
5. The Sorting process helps students to identify their strengths and talents, which can promote self confidence and enable students to recognise their true potential.
6. It is probably easier for students to bond with like- minded people. New students know on entry into their respective houses that they share some common ground with their housemates. If students were placed more randomly, some students may struggle to establish commonalities with their housemates. This could potentially lead to some students becoming isolated within their own house.
I mean,I wish I had the sorting process in my school since I would have met people who were similar to me.
I see the entire concept of sorting as discrimination. Well not much discrimination ..."
How is sorting discrimination if the hat put them in the group they wanted? All four groups were equal. The hat listened to their wish and put them in the group they would most be happy in since that was their own wish. Dumbledore said that many times.
I would not call the sorting process discrimmination because I felt that all of the four groups were respected equally, it was usually INDIVIDUALS who were not treated unfairly for their behavior .....not the whole clan.
Also, even if they were, Rowling is not saying that being discriminated against is good, I think she might be showing kids the harms of discriminating people and teaching us about discrimmination based on a group. I think we should thank her, not say she is endorsing discrimination which is crazy!!
Do you truly bealive she is trying to teach kids to discriminate? If anything, she was teaching us what happens in real life.
Plus, she had many POV characters who showed great bravery and I salute her.
You said it yourself that many good people were in slytherin but wouldn't it be actual stereotyping if every single person in slytherin was bad! Severus Snape was a good person who in Slytherin so how was he the stereotypical bad guy who is in Slytherin?! The sorting represented character types, which everyone have....it was not about good and bad groups.
I think Rowling wants to show us how some things can get into our heads and Draco bealived that he was bad because of his family history and he was being someone who he thought should be....living up to his family name.
You see, there was never the stereotypical character....except for Voldemort but he was a sociopath which exist in real life. Every single character was complex and had good/bad parts. Harry, Hermione, Ron, Neville, Ginny.....they were not perfect. They all had their complex characteristics.
I could go on till night about their characters.
Anyway, Pros of sorting include :
1. The Sorting Process is a time honoured tradition of Hogwarts and arguably serves as a kind of initiation ceremony and common experience for all Hogwarts students. Tradition helps to unify people and to create a shared sense of identity.
2. Entry to Hogwarts is a potentially daunting experience for new students, especially as there is the risk that shyer students will become ‘lost’ in the crowd. The Sorting process provides new students with a ready- made support network of like- minded people. This helps new students to feel more included and reduces the risk of isolation. Students are usually protective of fellow housemates and will often protect them against bullying.
3. As someone else pointed out, the house system fosters a sense of team spirit and the kind of skills and qualities that are associated with team work. Most schools are able to achieve this through interschool competitions. However, because this is rarely possible for Hogwarts (being the only magical academy in Britain) this function is performed through inter-house competition.
4. Housemates often share certain values and goals and tend to cooperate with one another to achieve these common goals. For instance, Ravenclaws are usually interested in academic learning and achievement and enjoy learning from one another. Also, Ravenclaws may choose to prioritise academic team goals while Gryffindors (who tend to be competitive and sport orientated) may choose to collectively excel at Quidditch. The sense of competition helps to bring out the best in many of the Hogwarts students.
5. The Sorting process helps students to identify their strengths and talents, which can promote self confidence and enable students to recognise their true potential.
6. It is probably easier for students to bond with like- minded people. New students know on entry into their respective houses that they share some common ground with their housemates. If students were placed more randomly, some students may struggle to establish commonalities with their housemates. This could potentially lead to some students becoming isolated within their own house.
I mean,I wish I had the sorting process in my school since I would have met people who were similar to me.
I have to agree with Gattaca. It isn't really discrimination. If anything, it helps the kids feel better because they're part of something, a bigger community with people just like them.
As an addition to Gattaca's comment, there are other people besides Snape who were good, or had good-guy qualities. Draco turned out not to be totally evil. Plus, at one point Rowling does acknowledge that he behaves the way he does because he was raised that way, not because he's like innately evil. While Lucius and Narcissa Malfoy were definitely jerks, they still understood what it meant to love someone and they're both devoted to their kid. They don't care whether Voldemort wins or not, they just want Draco to be safe. Is that evil either?
I guess I broke my promise not to continue the Harry Potter conversation. *shrug*
As an addition to Gattaca's comment, there are other people besides Snape who were good, or had good-guy qualities. Draco turned out not to be totally evil. Plus, at one point Rowling does acknowledge that he behaves the way he does because he was raised that way, not because he's like innately evil. While Lucius and Narcissa Malfoy were definitely jerks, they still understood what it meant to love someone and they're both devoted to their kid. They don't care whether Voldemort wins or not, they just want Draco to be safe. Is that evil either?
I guess I broke my promise not to continue the Harry Potter conversation. *shrug*
Okay, You are talking about Harry being dependent?! I think that is hypocritical since Bella is one of the most dependent characters I have ever read in the history of reading books, and I have read many. Honest to god, she is freaking weak. Only when she turns into a vampire is when she gets strong but what kind of message do you think that is sending out to kids?
She hurt herself, tried to kill herself, was suicidal for a MAN. A man. Would Hermione want to kill herself for a man? No, she teaches girls to be independent, follow yor dreams, work hard, go to school and believe in yourself.
What I learned from Bella is that I am nothing when I am not with a man. Because that is what Bella turned into.....nothing.
Harry is one of the strongest characters out there....he has his strengths just like he has his weaknesses. He always finished what he started and his bravery showed through. Rowing believes in unity and that is why she always had Harry being being accompanied by loved ones. But he was the one one who finished it...by himself.
Harry Potter has bad morals?......that is one if the craziest things I have ever heard. Harry Potter teaches kids/grown ups to stay strong and yes, believe in yourself.
She hurt herself, tried to kill herself, was suicidal for a MAN. A man. Would Hermione want to kill herself for a man? No, she teaches girls to be independent, follow yor dreams, work hard, go to school and believe in yourself.
What I learned from Bella is that I am nothing when I am not with a man. Because that is what Bella turned into.....nothing.
Harry is one of the strongest characters out there....he has his strengths just like he has his weaknesses. He always finished what he started and his bravery showed through. Rowing believes in unity and that is why she always had Harry being being accompanied by loved ones. But he was the one one who finished it...by himself.
Harry Potter has bad morals?......that is one if the craziest things I have ever heard. Harry Potter teaches kids/grown ups to stay strong and yes, believe in yourself.
Gattaca wrote: "Okay, You are talking about Harry being dependent?! I think that is hypocritical since Bella is one of the most dependent characters I have ever read in the history of reading books, and I have rea..."
Actually, I have to admit that Harry was a little dependent. Not explicitly; he didn't go cationic like Bella did. But people are always conveniently saving him by sacrificing their own lives, yet he is portrayed as this super-strong character.
Actually, I have to admit that Harry was a little dependent. Not explicitly; he didn't go cationic like Bella did. But people are always conveniently saving him by sacrificing their own lives, yet he is portrayed as this super-strong character.
Jocelyn wrote: "Gattaca wrote: "Okay, You are talking about Harry being dependent?! I think that is hypocritical since Bella is one of the most dependent characters I have ever read in the history of reading books..."
It is funny because she is comparing the two and saying Harry is weak...then what is Bella? Lol
It is funny because she is comparing the two and saying Harry is weak...then what is Bella? Lol
And Harry was never dependent on other people to accompany him because he would have gone alone if no one went with him. If he was set on something, he was set. He was just really lucky in having friends that wanted to go with him...you know?
Gattaca wrote: "It is funny because she is comparing the two and saying Harry is weak...then what is Bella? Lol "Okay, I'm not comparing anytihng, I don't know where you're getting this from.
I'm not really looking for a debate here, I'm not saying Harry Potter is a bad series. People should read them and I'm glad so many people enjoy them.
I'm not saying JK Rowling is a bad person or that she's trying to ruin children's lives or anything like that.
I'm just saying what I got out of it, only because YOU specifically asked for it. I didn't offer this information freely, I'd gladly keep it to myself.
Also, I'm not saying dependency is a bad thing. It's good to rely on others for support. I just don't think it's wise to have all your friends try to take bullets for you all the time when it's all your responsibility in the first place. In Twilight, everyone who stepped in to help Bella had a responsibility to do so.
But the main difference I find between Harry Potter and Twilight is that Harry Potter is for children and Twilight is not.
I think all people who write children's books should be extra careful, much more careful than any other genre writers, because you're dealing with children. I'm always critical toward books for kids.
Cassie wrote: "Gattaca wrote: "It is funny because she is comparing the two and saying Harry is weak...then what is Bella? Lol "
Okay, I'm not comparing anytihng, I don't know where you're getting this from.
I..."
I think Harry Potter's main audience should be or is actually targeted towards everyone over the age of 10, not just children. I read these series when I was around 11 years old, the same age as Harry in the first book. I loved it and my love for reading grew because of how much one book gave me so much joy and happiness. I learned from these books. I learned from Harry and I never thought that I should have my friends take the bullet for me. Harry never wanted that and always wanted to keep his friends safe. His loyalty was very powerful.
After each book, I felt like I was growing with Harry and this process in a way helped me with my loneliness. If you don't have friends in real life; Harry, Hermione and Ron were your friends. I think that is why Rowling depended so much on friends. She wanted to give readers who didn't have friends.....friends. Even if they were in books. Also, to tell readers to go out there and find good people who will compliment you and help you grow.
She was not just sending out Sesame Street messages, which is good for children:), but helping readers cope and feel like "I am okay". I mean, the Harry Potter series really helped a lot of people. I think it helps kids too, just like how they helped me. Heck, I have heard that adults say how much they learned from Harry Potter.
I actually know more adults who love the HP series, more than children. Although, I have seen girls as young as nine read Twilight. I know that Twilight is not targeted for children, but some parents let them read Twilight.
I don't know, I am also not looking for a debate (I hate this) but I just feel a little compelled to comment.
Okay, I'm not comparing anytihng, I don't know where you're getting this from.
I..."
I think Harry Potter's main audience should be or is actually targeted towards everyone over the age of 10, not just children. I read these series when I was around 11 years old, the same age as Harry in the first book. I loved it and my love for reading grew because of how much one book gave me so much joy and happiness. I learned from these books. I learned from Harry and I never thought that I should have my friends take the bullet for me. Harry never wanted that and always wanted to keep his friends safe. His loyalty was very powerful.
After each book, I felt like I was growing with Harry and this process in a way helped me with my loneliness. If you don't have friends in real life; Harry, Hermione and Ron were your friends. I think that is why Rowling depended so much on friends. She wanted to give readers who didn't have friends.....friends. Even if they were in books. Also, to tell readers to go out there and find good people who will compliment you and help you grow.
She was not just sending out Sesame Street messages, which is good for children:), but helping readers cope and feel like "I am okay". I mean, the Harry Potter series really helped a lot of people. I think it helps kids too, just like how they helped me. Heck, I have heard that adults say how much they learned from Harry Potter.
I actually know more adults who love the HP series, more than children. Although, I have seen girls as young as nine read Twilight. I know that Twilight is not targeted for children, but some parents let them read Twilight.
I don't know, I am also not looking for a debate (I hate this) but I just feel a little compelled to comment.
Yes, lots of peopel read Harry Potter, but a large portion of those readers are children, and I think that should play a huge factor.I didn't say only children read it.
You love Harry Potter, good for you. I don't, I didn't get anything out of it. That's one of the only reasons I don't enjoy it.
I really don't think anything anyone can say is going to change it, it's over and done with.
You can tell me over and over again what you learned from the books, that is not going to make me fly into the past and also learn these lessons. Really, I don't think there's anything left to learn, even if I try rereading it.
Oh, I am not trying to make you like HP series. I am just sharing my experience of reading the HP series as a child. That, as an 11 year old, I enjoyed it very much and there might be many children like me who might enjoy it too. Help them like how it helped me. That's all.
Gattaca wrote: "Cassie wrote: "Cinthya wrote: "What? I also started reading Harry Potter books when I was 10 and watching the movies when I was 7 and I can tell you that Harry Potter teaches a lot of "life lessons..."Of course I`ve read all the Harry Potter books, if I didn`t I wouldn`t be writing :) I try not to give my opinion about things I don`t know.
About the dependency thing...
I always rate teamwork FAR higher than dependency. Always. Always, always, always. And while I dislike Bella, I have to admit that Harry is kind of dependent...a little past the point when he becomes lucky.
Like Cassie said, he just has his friends "take bullets" for him. He doesn't pull his weight and stick it together to really ACTIVELY do something until the very end of the series.
I always rate teamwork FAR higher than dependency. Always. Always, always, always. And while I dislike Bella, I have to admit that Harry is kind of dependent...a little past the point when he becomes lucky.
Like Cassie said, he just has his friends "take bullets" for him. He doesn't pull his weight and stick it together to really ACTIVELY do something until the very end of the series.
Gattaca wrote: "Cassie wrote: "Gattaca wrote: "It is funny because she is comparing the two and saying Harry is weak...then what is Bella? Lol "Okay, I'm not comparing anytihng, I don't know where you're gettin..."
Well... I`m not going to read everything you have written ( it`s too much! and I speak Spanish) I just want to say that:
* Twilight fans and Harry Potter fans will always think that the one they like is better than the other.
*Cassie: I didn`t understand why you learned that been selfish is okey... but... ok.
*Gattaca about: "Oh, I am not trying to make you like HP series. I am just sharing my experience of reading the HP series as a child. That, as an 11 year old, I enjoyed it very much and there might be many children like me who might enjoy it too. Help them like how it helped me. That's all. " -----I think the same------
*I have asked a lot of people why they like Twilight (I do really want to know)but they have never aswered something "good"
*I used to be a Twilight fan until I realized it didn`t have much of sense...
I accept Twilight fans opinions! I have a lot of friends that like the books and the movies, and I understand how they feel about it but can you really tell me why you like it?
From: A big fan of HP :)
Jocelyn wrote: "About the dependency thing...
I always rate teamwork FAR higher than dependency. Always. Always, always, always. And while I dislike Bella, I have to admit that Harry is kind of dependent...a litt..."
I just never felt that he was dependent on people.....ever. They worked in a team and it was never his friends and loved ones dragging him along. He was always determined to do things by himself.......he always worried about his friend's safety and in many cases, did not want to involve them at all.
It is good to depend on people, but being dependent on people is another meaning. He was never dependent on people.
I always rate teamwork FAR higher than dependency. Always. Always, always, always. And while I dislike Bella, I have to admit that Harry is kind of dependent...a litt..."
I just never felt that he was dependent on people.....ever. They worked in a team and it was never his friends and loved ones dragging him along. He was always determined to do things by himself.......he always worried about his friend's safety and in many cases, did not want to involve them at all.
It is good to depend on people, but being dependent on people is another meaning. He was never dependent on people.
Cinthya wrote: "Gattaca wrote: "Cassie wrote: "Gattaca wrote: "It is funny because she is comparing the two and saying Harry is weak...then what is Bella? Lol "
Okay, I'm not comparing anytihng, I don't know whe..."
Yay....HP fan:))
Okay, I'm not comparing anytihng, I don't know whe..."
Yay....HP fan:))
Gattaca wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "About the dependency thing...
I always rate teamwork FAR higher than dependency. Always. Always, always, always. And while I dislike Bella, I have to admit that Harry is kind of de..."
Maybe "depending" is too strong of a word. He doesn't go insane like Bella when he's alone, after all. But to me, someone who appreciates teamwork is someone who both knows how to work together and someone who knows how to be independent. There should be a balance.
I always rate teamwork FAR higher than dependency. Always. Always, always, always. And while I dislike Bella, I have to admit that Harry is kind of de..."
Maybe "depending" is too strong of a word. He doesn't go insane like Bella when he's alone, after all. But to me, someone who appreciates teamwork is someone who both knows how to work together and someone who knows how to be independent. There should be a balance.
Jocelyn wrote: "Gattaca wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "About the dependency thing...
I always rate teamwork FAR higher than dependency. Always. Always, always, always. And while I dislike Bella, I have to admit that Har..."
I thought him, Ron and Hermione worked great as a team. They were like one perfect organ:). There was a balance with him and his friends. It was never just them doing all the work though.....he was a big part of the teamwork. He kept the team's determination alive.
I always rate teamwork FAR higher than dependency. Always. Always, always, always. And while I dislike Bella, I have to admit that Har..."
I thought him, Ron and Hermione worked great as a team. They were like one perfect organ:). There was a balance with him and his friends. It was never just them doing all the work though.....he was a big part of the teamwork. He kept the team's determination alive.
Gattaca wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Gattaca wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "About the dependency thing...
I always rate teamwork FAR higher than dependency. Always. Always, always, always. And while I dislike Bella, I have t..."
Perhaps so, but as the series progresses Harry doesn't seem to be able to do much without Hermione doing all the work for him. Then Cedric dies. Then Sirius. Then Dumbledore. Then Dobby. Then...yeah. Mostly because of Harry.
I always rate teamwork FAR higher than dependency. Always. Always, always, always. And while I dislike Bella, I have t..."
Perhaps so, but as the series progresses Harry doesn't seem to be able to do much without Hermione doing all the work for him. Then Cedric dies. Then Sirius. Then Dumbledore. Then Dobby. Then...yeah. Mostly because of Harry.
Jocelyn wrote: "Gattaca wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Gattaca wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "About the dependency thing...
I always rate teamwork FAR higher than dependency. Always. Always, always, always. And while I dislike..."
Whaaaaaa? Lol I thought it was mostly because of Voldemort and his nazi followers though:/
I always rate teamwork FAR higher than dependency. Always. Always, always, always. And while I dislike..."
Whaaaaaa? Lol I thought it was mostly because of Voldemort and his nazi followers though:/
Gattaca wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Gattaca wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Gattaca wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "About the dependency thing...
I always rate teamwork FAR higher than dependency. Always. Always, always, always. And..."
No, I meant that they sacrificed their lives for Harry. Which is fine, but it doesn't seem to motivate him to be more active about taking a stand.
I always rate teamwork FAR higher than dependency. Always. Always, always, always. And..."
No, I meant that they sacrificed their lives for Harry. Which is fine, but it doesn't seem to motivate him to be more active about taking a stand.
Everyone would have died without Harry. He was the only person who could kill Voldemort and did so rather brilliantly:) I was clapping and cheering so hard, my neighbors heard me.
Gattaca wrote: "He reminded me of Hitler though.....freaking sociopath."
Actually, Rowling has compared Voldy to Hitler. Bellatrix is the female counterpart.
Actually, Rowling has compared Voldy to Hitler. Bellatrix is the female counterpart.
Bellatrix was badass though.....she was crazy but I liked her.
Hm... Just to clarify, I don't mean to say that harry depended on everyone else, just that everyone else made much greater sacrifices than Harry did, even though Harry was the one who was destined to fix everything in the end.He was the one who was supposed to sacrifice everything, but he really didn't.
Everyone else did the sacrificing for Harry. Even the bad guys.
You know, even Bella sacrificed her life and safety more than Harry did.
Cassie wrote: "Hm... Just to clarify, I don't mean to say that harry depended on everyone else, just that everyone else made much greater sacrifices than Harry did, even though Harry was the one who was destined ..."
But he wanted to sacrifice his own life to save the people he loved. He really thought he was going to die but knew that he was doing something that was bigger than him.
But he wanted to sacrifice his own life to save the people he loved. He really thought he was going to die but knew that he was doing something that was bigger than him.
I do agree with Cassie for the most part, but in defense of HP...it's possible that Rowling was trying to build up to the end, to use the other deaths to foreshadow the possibility of Harry's. It is a pretty incredible burden, to bear the weight of almost knowing you're going to die.
(I know that was completely contradictory to what I said before, don't worry, I just feel compelled to defend Harry Potter.)
But now that Cassie points it out...well, as much as I hate to admit it, Bella DOES sacrifice her life and safety more than Harry does. Perhaps rather selfishly, but it doesn't make it any less of a sacrifice.
(I know that was completely contradictory to what I said before, don't worry, I just feel compelled to defend Harry Potter.)
But now that Cassie points it out...well, as much as I hate to admit it, Bella DOES sacrifice her life and safety more than Harry does. Perhaps rather selfishly, but it doesn't make it any less of a sacrifice.
Gattaca wrote: "But he wanted to sacrifice his own life to save the people he loved. He really thought he was going to die but knew that he was doing something that was bigger than him. "Well, Harry fought because he had to, he didn't really have any other option. I don't see that as much of a sacrifice. It's like being drafted into war, I don't think being forced to fight for your country is as noble as volunteering to fight for your country. Though there's still a level of respect either way, just vastly different levels.
Fortunately, he won because Voldemort was beyond stupid and somehow forgot that he was half inside Harry (or whatever it was) and that he had Harry's wand.
More? I don't understand. You have to look at the reasons, not how much.
What did he sacrifice his life for? What did she sacrific her life for?
What did he sacrifice his life for? What did she sacrific her life for?
Cassie wrote: "Gattaca wrote: "But he wanted to sacrifice his own life to save the people he loved. He really thought he was going to die but knew that he was doing something that was bigger than him. "
Well, Ha..."
Yes, I definitely agree with you. Voldemort made a lot of stupid cartoon villain mistakes and it was soooooooo anticlimactic I had to smack my head in frustration.
Though to be fair, Breaking Dawn was pretty anticlimactic as well. All the plot points build up to...nothing.
Well, Ha..."
Yes, I definitely agree with you. Voldemort made a lot of stupid cartoon villain mistakes and it was soooooooo anticlimactic I had to smack my head in frustration.
Though to be fair, Breaking Dawn was pretty anticlimactic as well. All the plot points build up to...nothing.
I feel like you guys are just really tearing Harry down though, which is very strange to me.
He had a huge weight on his shoulders, more than we could have taken at his age. Starting from age 11. He was a normal individual who just wanted to fit in to the world he was given but with the circumstances given. He was not a weak and selfish guy who was the reason why most of the people died....I mean that is kind of harsh.
Yes, he had friends who loved him and wanted to help him....but it was not like he stood by the sideline and watched people fight for him. In all the books, he is mainly doing all the fighting.
It actually would have been boring and unrealistic if he did everything by himself and saved the day all by himself. Rowling wanted to include unity.
He had a huge weight on his shoulders, more than we could have taken at his age. Starting from age 11. He was a normal individual who just wanted to fit in to the world he was given but with the circumstances given. He was not a weak and selfish guy who was the reason why most of the people died....I mean that is kind of harsh.
Yes, he had friends who loved him and wanted to help him....but it was not like he stood by the sideline and watched people fight for him. In all the books, he is mainly doing all the fighting.
It actually would have been boring and unrealistic if he did everything by himself and saved the day all by himself. Rowling wanted to include unity.
Jocelyn wrote: "Though to be fair, Breaking Dawn was pretty anticlimactic as well. All the plot points build up to...nothing. "Well yeah, but I find that to be a little different since more effort was being put toward not fighting than actually fighting. They trained for battle a few times, but most of the effort was put toward avoiding a fight, which they did.
Even Aro didn't want to fight in order to preserve his power and reputation.
In Harry Potter, they all knew they were going to fight, and then they did and it was stupid.
Gattaca wrote: "I feel like you guys are just really tearing Harry down though, which is very strange to me.He had a huge weight on his shoulders, more than we could have taken at his age. Starting from age 11. ..."
Sorry, I'm not doing it intentionally, I just think Harry could have been a little more vital, considering that he was the protagonist of an adventure fantasy novel.
If Neville had ended up being the chosen one, I probably wouldn't be saying any of this.
Cassie wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Though to be fair, Breaking Dawn was pretty anticlimactic as well. All the plot points build up to...nothing. "
Well yeah, but I find that to be a little different since more effor..."
I guess it's different for both of us. You rate your books based on personal enjoyment, I go into lengthy (sometimes over-)analysis about plot, pacing, writing, characterization, thematic development, blah blah blah. To me it was just a basic lack of story structure. All books must have a climax (unless they use a different structure, like the Three Act Structure). A diplomatic negotiation is definitely not a climax. To each their own, I guess.
But you're right in that the climax of HP and DH was pretty stupid. I read it, put the book down, and nearly yelled out loud, "Now, Rowling, where's my REAL climax hm?"
Well yeah, but I find that to be a little different since more effor..."
I guess it's different for both of us. You rate your books based on personal enjoyment, I go into lengthy (sometimes over-)analysis about plot, pacing, writing, characterization, thematic development, blah blah blah. To me it was just a basic lack of story structure. All books must have a climax (unless they use a different structure, like the Three Act Structure). A diplomatic negotiation is definitely not a climax. To each their own, I guess.
But you're right in that the climax of HP and DH was pretty stupid. I read it, put the book down, and nearly yelled out loud, "Now, Rowling, where's my REAL climax hm?"
Cassie wrote: "Gattaca wrote: "But he wanted to sacrifice his own life to save the people he loved. He really thought he was going to die but knew that he was doing something that was bigger than him. "
Well, Ha..."
Are you serious? Wow.
He sacrificed his life because he wanted to save the people he loved. This just tells me you did not really even get into the books because there is no way someone who has actually read the books with an open mind would say something like this....thank you for proving to me that you read HP books with a closed heart.
Well, Ha..."
Are you serious? Wow.
He sacrificed his life because he wanted to save the people he loved. This just tells me you did not really even get into the books because there is no way someone who has actually read the books with an open mind would say something like this....thank you for proving to me that you read HP books with a closed heart.
Sure, if you say so...
Gattaca wrote: "I feel like you guys are just really tearing Harry down though, which is very strange to me.
He had a huge weight on his shoulders, more than we could have taken at his age. Starting from age 11. ..."
Maybe. I mean, I'm all for unity. I love unity. I love the feeling of working together, being part of a bigger force, in both literature and real life. Who doesn't, after all?
But I don't think it's as "unified" as I would have liked. Maybe it's "realistic" for Harry...but this is the hero of the story. The one who is supposed to defeat everything. I'm not saying that because of this he has to be 100% Superman, if that happened I wouldn't like Harry Potter as much as I do. To me, he was just way too passive. It's a huge pet peeve of mine when the MC sits on her/his ass and whines, instead of getting up and doing something about it, which Harry didn't do until the Deathly Hallows.
He had a huge weight on his shoulders, more than we could have taken at his age. Starting from age 11. ..."
Maybe. I mean, I'm all for unity. I love unity. I love the feeling of working together, being part of a bigger force, in both literature and real life. Who doesn't, after all?
But I don't think it's as "unified" as I would have liked. Maybe it's "realistic" for Harry...but this is the hero of the story. The one who is supposed to defeat everything. I'm not saying that because of this he has to be 100% Superman, if that happened I wouldn't like Harry Potter as much as I do. To me, he was just way too passive. It's a huge pet peeve of mine when the MC sits on her/his ass and whines, instead of getting up and doing something about it, which Harry didn't do until the Deathly Hallows.
Cassie wrote: "Sure, if you say so..."
Okay then. Now you can go and endorse Bella and her suicidal behavior as vital.
Okay then. Now you can go and endorse Bella and her suicidal behavior as vital.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I mean, Sesame Street teaches life lessons, like Cassie says. Do adults randomly turn on the TV and watch it for its life lessons?
HP has a lot of social relevance and reflects our society today, as well as in the past. I think that's why it spans the ages as well as it does; the social relevance appeals to older audiences, and the characters appeal to the younger audience.