SERIOUSLY WHAT ARE YOU EVEN DOING HERE IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK?mrcentipedeJuly 23 2007, 04:07:08 UTC
Aberforth/Harry = Ewww!
Yeah, I would've thought Fred would've made it to the list, too, but maybe George had a kid and named him that first. Also, perhaps a middle name? Knowing how much planning J.K.R. seems to put into these things, I bet she thought of that.
I did laugh when I read the name of Draco's son: Scorpius. That's one to look out for at the bicycle license plate stand next time you're at the gift shop.
Do you suppose she's going to write a sequel in (quickly does the math) 2016, when the new kids arrive at Hogwarts? Pick up where the last one left off? Probably not, but if so, will we still be excited about it?
I don't recall Lilly's Patronus being mentioned in DH, but it was probably mentioned before, back in PA perhaps. I think it was actually a neat bit of subtlety, since Harry's was a Buck it was cool to see that connection without being hit over the head with it, which can sometimes happen in which did happen in the Harry Potter books, sometimes. (Got to get used to the past-tense). Either way, it was probably a lot of fun for the kids who were really paying attention, memorizing all the spells, and who's wand was what, and everyone's patronus, etc. They would've been lead to believe that Lilly was back, perhaps?
As for why the binding curse didn't work, that one actually made sense to me, see Harry had 'given up' his life for the people he loved (pretty much all of Hogwarts plus the Order) the same way Lilly gave up her life for Harry, so all of Voldemort's spells were ineffective against the gang to a lesser degree then they were ineffective against Harry... Well, that's what I thought was going on. I think Harry mentioned that to Voldemort right before the confusing end duel, but I can't be sure, since Michael is reading the book now, and it's his anyway, so I can't reread it just yet, much as I'd like to.
I was not really surprised that Snape was a good guy. I will admit that I was surprised that he turned out to be a better guy then Dumbledore in a lot of ways, however. I really liked the way the Skeeter book turned out to be the more factual appraisal of Dumbledore then what's-his-name's eulogy, even if the biography was done so venomously.
Oh... was I supposed to have read the book?gnarledfingersJuly 23 2007, 07:15:36 UTC
Okay, about Aberforth and Harry- Harry was hard up about Albus most of the last book, and Aberforth looks just like his brother, right?
Yeah, going along with doing the math on things, I was amazed to realize that Harry was born in 1980. The tombstone of his parents read that they both died in 1981, so that means that the events of the final book take place in 1998. That's freaky. It's, like, reading a book- from the past! Insane. But to answer your question- will she write a sequel? I really don't know. She probably wouldn't really do it out of want for money- she's richer than the pope. I suspect she might publish a series of short stories. Although I confess I don't know much of the woman, what I've read of and from her, she seems to have a high opinion of her writing and she seems to love the Harry Potter series.
Like, physically. Like something only the writers of All My Circuits could come up with.
I'd put a dollar on her writing another book in five years (our time) set ten years ahead (their time).
And would I read the book? Probably. Would I buy it and try to get my hands on a copy of it with any haste? Probably not.
What I love is the frequent jokes about wands being Phallic symbols. It's, like, no one seemed to get that until now. I've been snorting during all the books and movies- and it seems I've been chortling all by my lonesome until now.
Sure, jokes could be made about Ron wanting the Elder Rod and how Hermoine actually states that it's not the "power" of the "wand", but how the "wizard" "uses" "it".
So let's quit picking just on Phalli- let's bring up some yonic imagery. In Order of the Phoenix, Rowling describes Ron's small, family-hand-me-down, rusting out cauldron. So, does Ron have Crotchrot?
Food (albeit rotten) for thought. Just don't put any of your lips on it.
And if anyone's still reading this who hasn't read the book yet, bugger off.
What do you think about Mrs. Weasely being a Death Eater?
Mrs. Weasely being a Death Eater was pretty easy to tell. There were a lot of clues in the last three books. I have to say, I was a little disturbed at how frequently Peeves was dropping the F-bomb, though. That seemed a little crass, even for a poltergeist.
As for the phallic wand thing, I may certainly be wrong on this, but I kind of doubt that it is ever referred to in the book as the elder "rod". If it was, she was just asking for it, wasn't she? But, no, I think this is just your sick little creation, you perv.
No bet here, but I'm not so much folding as I am getting some more pretzels this hand. JKR might write another HP something. She has mentioned that she might do an HP encylopedia type thing, but a short story compilation would make more sense. I am kind of hoping she moves on and does something else for a while, eventually.
I thought we were talking about her Scrabble hands...gnarledfingersJuly 24 2007, 06:54:21 UTC
You caught me. I was recently rereading the Encyclopedia Magica and I've been calling wands rods, books librams, and my younger brother a Mirror of Opposition Doppleganger. So maybe it wasn't the Elder "Rod" so much as it was an Elder "Wand".
Did you ever hear about that Nancy Stouffer who sued JK Rowlings for copyright and trademark infringement? Did you ever read the summation of the book that Stouffer claims was stolen from her?
W H A T D O Y O U G E T W H E N Y O U M U L T I P L Y S E V E N B Y S I XmrcentipedeJuly 24 2007, 08:01:17 UTC
Woah!
I just looked at it. I didn't have the stomach to give the summation a truly thorough reading, but I get the gist of it. Just from that description, which might not be fair, I am reaffirmed in my belief that too many people give up when they shouldn't, and not enough people give up when they should.
One thing I am confused about is the fact that whoever republished the thing didn't actually bother to correct or edit it. Stouffer, who is going by the name N.K. Stouffer, claims that better editing and proof-reading will give her a second chance, however, the quality of writing on her site doesn't fill me with any desire to actually read the creepy looking thing.
I do think it would be a good idea to write and publish a series of total garbage children's books with dozens upon dozens of characters with common names, so that when somebody does publish something a few years later that happens to actually use those name, I will be in a prime position to sue them. I'm not saying Stouffer intentionally did this, though, because she is not in a prime position to sue anybody.
Wait- Your brother isn't a Mirror of Opposition Doppleganger?
Yeah, I would've thought Fred would've made it to the list, too, but maybe George had a kid and named him that first. Also, perhaps a middle name? Knowing how much planning J.K.R. seems to put into these things, I bet she thought of that.
I did laugh when I read the name of Draco's son: Scorpius. That's one to look out for at the bicycle license plate stand next time you're at the gift shop.
Do you suppose she's going to write a sequel in (quickly does the math) 2016, when the new kids arrive at Hogwarts? Pick up where the last one left off? Probably not, but if so, will we still be excited about it?
I don't recall Lilly's Patronus being mentioned in DH, but it was probably mentioned before, back in PA perhaps. I think it was actually a neat bit of subtlety, since Harry's was a Buck it was cool to see that connection without being hit over the head with it, which can sometimes happen in which did happen in the Harry Potter books, sometimes. (Got to get used to the past-tense). Either way, it was probably a lot of fun for the kids who were really paying attention, memorizing all the spells, and who's wand was what, and everyone's patronus, etc. They would've been lead to believe that Lilly was back, perhaps?
As for why the binding curse didn't work, that one actually made sense to me, see Harry had 'given up' his life for the people he loved (pretty much all of Hogwarts plus the Order) the same way Lilly gave up her life for Harry, so all of Voldemort's spells were ineffective against the gang to a lesser degree then they were ineffective against Harry... Well, that's what I thought was going on. I think Harry mentioned that to Voldemort right before the confusing end duel, but I can't be sure, since Michael is reading the book now, and it's his anyway, so I can't reread it just yet, much as I'd like to.
I was not really surprised that Snape was a good guy. I will admit that I was surprised that he turned out to be a better guy then Dumbledore in a lot of ways, however. I really liked the way the Skeeter book turned out to be the more factual appraisal of Dumbledore then what's-his-name's eulogy, even if the biography was done so venomously.
Reply
Yeah, going along with doing the math on things, I was amazed to realize that Harry was born in 1980. The tombstone of his parents read that they both died in 1981, so that means that the events of the final book take place in 1998. That's freaky. It's, like, reading a book- from the past! Insane. But to answer your question- will she write a sequel? I really don't know. She probably wouldn't really do it out of want for money- she's richer than the pope. I suspect she might publish a series of short stories. Although I confess I don't know much of the woman, what I've read of and from her, she seems to have a high opinion of her writing and she seems to love the Harry Potter series.
Like, physically. Like something only the writers of All My Circuits could come up with.
I'd put a dollar on her writing another book in five years (our time) set ten years ahead (their time).
And would I read the book? Probably. Would I buy it and try to get my hands on a copy of it with any haste? Probably not.
What I love is the frequent jokes about wands being Phallic symbols. It's, like, no one seemed to get that until now. I've been snorting during all the books and movies- and it seems I've been chortling all by my lonesome until now.
Sure, jokes could be made about Ron wanting the Elder Rod and how Hermoine actually states that it's not the "power" of the "wand", but how the "wizard" "uses" "it".
So let's quit picking just on Phalli- let's bring up some yonic imagery. In Order of the Phoenix, Rowling describes Ron's small, family-hand-me-down, rusting out cauldron. So, does Ron have Crotchrot?
Food (albeit rotten) for thought. Just don't put any of your lips on it.
And if anyone's still reading this who hasn't read the book yet, bugger off.
What do you think about Mrs. Weasely being a Death Eater?
Reply
Read this.
Mrs. Weasely being a Death Eater was pretty easy to tell. There were a lot of clues in the last three books. I have to say, I was a little disturbed at how frequently Peeves was dropping the F-bomb, though. That seemed a little crass, even for a poltergeist.
As for the phallic wand thing, I may certainly be wrong on this, but I kind of doubt that it is ever referred to in the book as the elder "rod". If it was, she was just asking for it, wasn't she? But, no, I think this is just your sick little creation, you perv.
No bet here, but I'm not so much folding as I am getting some more pretzels this hand. JKR might write another HP something. She has mentioned that she might do an HP encylopedia type thing, but a short story compilation would make more sense. I am kind of hoping she moves on and does something else for a while, eventually.
Reply
Did you ever hear about that Nancy Stouffer who sued JK Rowlings for copyright and trademark infringement? Did you ever read the summation of the book that Stouffer claims was stolen from her?
Rita Skeeter, eat your heart out.
Reply
I just looked at it. I didn't have the stomach to give the summation a truly thorough reading, but I get the gist of it. Just from that description, which might not be fair, I am reaffirmed in my belief that too many people give up when they shouldn't, and not enough people give up when they should.
One thing I am confused about is the fact that whoever republished the thing didn't actually bother to correct or edit it. Stouffer, who is going by the name N.K. Stouffer, claims that better editing and proof-reading will give her a second chance, however, the quality of writing on her site doesn't fill me with any desire to actually read the creepy looking thing.
I do think it would be a good idea to write and publish a series of total garbage children's books with dozens upon dozens of characters with common names, so that when somebody does publish something a few years later that happens to actually use those name, I will be in a prime position to sue them. I'm not saying Stouffer intentionally did this, though, because she is not in a prime position to sue anybody.
Wait- Your brother isn't a Mirror of Opposition Doppleganger?
Reply
Leave a comment