Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
discussion
This book did not have an appearance from Voldemort. Do you think this is good or bad?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Anthony
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Apr 08, 2012 12:20PM
I personally think that her taking a some-what break from Voldemort(he is still mentioned) was pretty good for the book, and helped the series develop even more.
reply
|
flag
I agree with you. Voldemort may not have been there but his presence was still known. This book had other dark forces in it and I agree with you-the break really helped. Voldemort wasn't quite strong yet either, it makes more sense that he waited.
I Agree, I think it sort of eased the series into the darker books later in the series. I mean it was a kids series to start with and i think the break sort of let us grow up as the series progressed.
Yes, I would agree with J.K.'s decision to leave Voldemort out of the third book. I could not imagine Harry have a (so he thought) murderer after him and face fighting Voldemort. The ending was exciting, with twists and turns, and shock moments, and I don't think it would have been as good with Voldemort included.
i thought J.K did have a description for Voldemort.
I do think this was a great idea. The Sirius stuff replaced it really as the 'bad guy' presense in the story. I think there was so much going on, loads of suspence etc., that an inclusion of Voldemort wouldn't have been as good.http://divaliciouzbookreviews.blogspo...
Anthony wrote: "I personally think that her taking a some-what break from Voldemort(he is still mentioned) was pretty good for the book, and helped the series develop even more."
I agree.
I agree.
I thought it was beneficial to the plot, and created suspense while the reader does not know of Voldermorts' whereabouts. Plus: Some already find Harry Potter too predictable (I not included). It was good for J.K. Rowling to step out of the usual, per say.
And it would have made the events that occurred a lot less powerful because--surprise--Sirius was never working for Voldemort in the first place, like people believed. Everyone said he was one of Voldy's biggest followers, when he never even made contact with He Who Must Not Be Named himself, let alone devoted himself to the Death Eater cause. If Voldemort was around, he would have known a partial truth--that it was Pettigrew, not Black, that betrayed the Potters, and I don't think he would have had much trouble with admitting to this.
it's been a couple of years since i've read the book, but...If you want to get technical, he was not in the second book either, (view spoiler)
although old voldy is the main bad guy for the series, doesnt mean he has to be the bad guy in every book.
I think it was a great way of establishing his presence whether he was directly involved or not. The same case was for Half-Blood Prince where although we see him in the pensive he doesn't appear in person.
Good, is it really realistic for these kids to be able to continuously defeat him time and time again. Also there is more evil in the world than just Voldermort which I think this book supports.
Spoilers!!!In the first book we see the part of Voldemort that was damaged when Harry was a baby. He had escaped in Albania where Quirrell found him and got possessed. That is the part of Voldemort that is reserected in the fourth book.
In the second book (second year) we come across with the part od Voldemort's soul that he hid in the journal long time ago.
In the third book, his "most loyal servant" comes back to him.If the events of the third book hadn't happen Voldemort would not had return. It's because of Warmtail, who fed Voldemort and took care of him in general, that his return is possible.
The two year gap give to that part of Voldemort's soul the time to prepare for his return.
The Harry Potter series is so well thought of that every little thing makes sense at the end!!!
I agree with Little. This was about Voldemort's most loyal servant, Wormtail and clearing up the mystery of Sirius...not being his loyal servant but the antithesis of that. These two keep Voldemort in play, but in the shadows. He's always in the back of every wizard's mind.
I think the fact that Voldemort wasn't included in this book really sets the stage for the next book. Also, leaving out Voldemort helps readers focus more on Sirius and Harry.
I think that Vol***mort not being in this book is not very good. This means that he could be plotting something and everything that he plots is NO GOOD!
The plot of these books runs the risk of being very formulaic. Being formulaic isn't necessarily a bad thing. Mystery novels are a formula. Romance novels are a formula. Formula exists for reasons. However, if every book in a series has the major formulaic components, it turns the comfort and ease of formula into predictability and boredom. Authors need to play around with the formula to some extent. In this case, he's still present, just not in person. So, no, I don't think it was a bad thing to have the major villain not maker a personal appearance in this installment.
I was happy that he was not in book 3. He was also not in book 6 physically just shown in memories but I think that was good idea. I thought it was interesting. When there were two books that he was in physically. In one he was just mentioned and in another book just sown in memories.
I was also very happy to not see Voldemort in prisoner of azkaban. It was a great idea to not put him in every book. Every book had a goal so it was not necessary for the main antagonist to be there.
The fact that He-Who-Needs-A-Nose-Job wasn’t in the 3rd book actually was kind of good because it helped build the stories plot
Prisoner of Azkaban introduced the Marauder's Map which is my favorite magical device in the series. I didn't miss the Vman. E. S. Hazard
I think It's really irony that the book shows how even though there is not much mention of Voldemort but his actions [ old actions ] are still affective.
I think i agree with J.K. desicions to put him out from the third book, because even though voldemort doesn't have an appearance on this part. This figure is still mentioned in some parts of the conversations. But i think it also more effective to not put him on all parts of the book. Because we need to pay attention of the entertaining score, that we shouldn't put the main antagonist in every sections of the book.
I feel that Rowling decided to take a break from Voldemort because the series would have gotten a little repetitive if the only major antagonist was Voldemort. I think that it's a good thing that Rowling took a break and started to develop the plot more.
Harry Potter books were my favourite books at school! And Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was the best part for me. I didn't like to read a lot at that time, but those books made me addicted. I think it has helped me with my essay writing skills. Even my teachers said that because I stopped using https://ca.edubirdie.com/pay-for-essay-writing for many of my assignments and started to explain my mind with my own words. That was a great feeling and result that gave me a stimulus and a portion of motivation! What about the appearance of Voldemort, it was the bigger intrigue.
POA is a great transitional novel and I think that is due in large part to the exclusion (directly) of Voldemort from this novel. I think that we needed a break from the Voldemort attacks at the end of the year formula for a bit to help set up and transition the novel from a middle grade read in to a more mature series. The absence of Voldemort sets up the Wizarding World to introduce other dark elements like Death Eaters and dementors. It allows an exploration of some deeper story elements like justice and questioning authority in appropriate ways. Don't get me wrong, I loved Voldemort as an antagonist because he was complex, but for me he is not the best "villain" because he is evil for evil's sake. He had every opportunity once at Hogwarts to become a better person and deliberately thwarted any attempts to be good. More compelling antagonists include Draco Malfoy and Snape. They are not necessarily truly evil characters. You can understand their motives. You can sympathize with them at certain parts of the novel even. But Voldy --- he just is irredeemable in the fact that he feels zero remorse for anything he has ever done ---- he is the epitome of evil. But not a very compelling antagonist overall (though I loved the Horcruxes).
It was needed for the plot; I don't see why he needed to be in it.
I agree that the lack of Voldemort's presence was a good choice for the book. It created a shift in focus and helped the readers take in all of the new information, such as the introduction of the Marauders, and enjoy it without the extra addition of Voldemort. Personally, I found the change in antagonist quite refreshing because I feel that if Harry ended up fighting Voldemort (or some form of him) in every book then it would have been too repetitive and not as intriguing. Finally, this book still helped to develop the plot in different areas and I think that break from Voldemort was needed for that to happen so that the series could continue with a well flowing story.
It is good but weird since all other books has
agrego mas tensión en la historia pensando en que algún momento iba a aparecer sinceramente me ENCANTO
I think its good as it gave us a fresh goal/antagonistic force, and gave us a new character which many people ended up liking! The absence of Voldemort also built up tension, as it suggested that he was up to a bigger plan that needed more time to be properly fleshed out.
Not really good or bad, it was kind of a filler book but not really because it obviously set up the dark tone of the later books. And I would say it's quite foreshadowing - obviously with the introduction of Trelawney and her prophecy, the whole mess with the marauders and Pettigrew. It kind of showed how there was much more to just Voldemort being a threat - perhaps it also symbolised friendship and heartbreak, the horrors of another generation's war, and it of course introduced the recklessness of Sirius Black
It was probably good that no nose did not appear in this book because it gave a chance for another villian to appear and for Sirius and Harry to build a relationship
Airedale Girl ♥️ wrote: "It was probably good that no nose did not appear in this book because it gave a chance for another villian to appear and for Sirius and Harry to build a relationship"I agree, and I think Sirius & Harry's relationship is one of the best parts of the story
So sad when Sirius dies in the 5th book though I totally saw Harry moving in with Sirius one day😭
Hai wrote: "it's been a couple of years since i've read the book, but...If you want to get technical, he was not in the second book either, [spoilers removed]
although old voldy is the main bad guy for the ..."
Well if you want to get more technical, he was in the book because the diary was a horcrux, which had part of his soul..
I really liked the development of Harry and his relationship with his godfather Sirius. I don't think Voldemort needed to be mentioned much as there were references to his presence than physical form.
That's probably why it's my favorite book of the series.
I liked the 5th book and movie the best but this one was pretty funny 2...
J wrote: "Airedale Girl ♥️ wrote: "It was probably good that no nose did not appear in this book because it gave a chance for another villian to appear and for Sirius and Harry to build a relationship"I ag..."
Airedale Girl ♥️ wrote: "So sad when Sirius dies in the 5th book though I totally saw Harry moving in with Sirius one day😭"Same it was pretty sad. I wish that he was still alive...
It disappointed me the first time I read this book. I had noticed the pattern of a faceoff with Voldemort in each novel and kept thinking it would happen in this one, but then the story ended without us seeing him. Later, though, I came to appreciate the book with all its great action!
I honestly loved the book but it was kinda sad...
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
