In This World and the Next Chapter 14

[szaleniec1000]

ITWATN has no surprises left, or so I thought. We've had Percy being fed to Fluffy for nothing at all. We've had Ron (but not Ginny, Neville or Luna) being inherently prone to blood supremacy, which justifies a group of nominal adults victimising an eleven-year-old. We've had, of course, a "shit wizard" being somehow able to overpower Hermione

Comments

[sickbritkid2]

He's called the "Chosen One", everyone worships him for what his very existence has done, he gave his life for the sake of killing his foe, somehow survived, and his influence apparantly managed to shield all the good guys in the final chapter and free Neville of a Body-Bind Curse.

And the entire point of people nigh-worshiping Harry was to show exactly WHY him being raised by the Dursleys was a good thing, as explained by Dumbledore in Order.

He gave his life because if he didn't, said foe wouldn't die. While the whole "giving his life" thing could be, in theory, tied back to a Christ allegory, Christ didn't die for the sake of vanquishing an enemy.

The entire point of the King's Cross scene in Deathly Hallows was specifically to point out that Harry survived due to Voldemort's arrogance in taking in Lily's protection of him through Harry's blood. That's not Harry "somehow surviving."

And Harry's sacrifice for the sake of everyone at Hogwarts shielded them from Voldemort's power just like Lily's sacrifice shielded Harry. This was setup at least as far back as the first fucking book!

If the portrait doesn't have his brains, then why is he giving instruction to Snape, or praising Harry for throwing away the Elder Wand and Resurrection Stone?

Again: It's not Dumbledore, it's a magical portrait with Dumbledore's personality. Much like how all other magical portraits aren't the actual people themselves.

That Limbo scene was ridiculous and you know it.

No, it really wasn't. It was actually one of my favorite parts of the series because of how excellently it laid out how everything Rowling had written through the past seven books was leading to the one moment where Voldemort would try to kill Harry again.

Which is why I was pissed as all hell that it was glossed over in the film. Then again, the films, in retrospect, simply weren't as good as the books.

So was the Deluminator's spontaneous soul-hearing-and-location-giving power.

Again: Rowling most definitely has an explanation for it working that will make sense if it's ever revealed.

Rowling is a woman who mashed together every cliche in the entire world to create a series of well-recieved children's books, accidentally managed to make the third book pretty good thanks to Lupin and Sirius, then ditched her editor to create four bloated, cliched, pretentious books that lived or died on wealth of unnecessary detail to exxagerate her only real technique in narrative misdirection to drive her readers into insanity after her lucky break at getting a movie deal, then spent the rest of her life from book 6 onwards attacking her fans for thinking things she didn't like.

You know, for someone who claims to be a fan of the Harry Potter series, you sure do enjoy bashing on the Harry Potter series. >_>

[greener221]

While the whole "giving his life" thing could be, in theory, tied back to a Christ allegory, Christ didn't die for the sake of vanquishing an enemy.

That's the point. To quote Ferretbrain, "'Killing yourself in order to kill your enemies' isn't noble, it's suicide bombing."

Again: It's not Dumbledore, it's a magical portrait with Dumbledore's personality.

Doesn't stop it from somehow having his memories.

Much like how all other magical portraits aren't the actual people themselves.

*citation needed*

It was actually one of my favorite parts of the series

Oh my god, you really are a troper.

Again: Rowling most definitely has an explanation for it working that will make sense if it's ever revealed.

*citation needed*

You know, for someone who claims to be a fan of the Harry Potter series, you sure do enjoy bashing on the Harry Potter series. >_>

I was never a real fan, and I haven't claimed to be one. I want a story that doesn't fall completely to pieces under scrutiny, and a creator that doesn't have some kind of dubious morality. There's nothing that should prevent Rowling from being criticized any more than Robst or Stephenie Meyer.

[sickbritkid2]

"'Killing yourself in order to kill your enemies' isn't noble, it's suicide bombing."

Which only goes to show how fucking insane and nonsensical Ferretbrain is.

I want a story that doesn't fall completely to pieces under scrutiny

Dark Souls' story can fall to pieces under scrutiny. As can literally any work of fiction ever made by anyone, even George Martin or Tolkien.

Because you can always find those little nitpicks to take them apart.

For fuck's sake, that's Cinema Sins' entire MO, and they've gone after undisputed classic films like Pulp Fiction.

There's nothing that should prevent Rowling from being criticized any more than Robst or Stephenie Meyer.

You just compared JK Rowling to Stephanie Meyer and Robst.

Any opinion you have, from now on, is completely and utterly invalid.

[greener221]

Which only goes to show how fucking insane and nonsensical Ferretbrain is.

No, it shows how badly Rowling thought out her moral.

Dark Souls' story can fall to pieces under scrutiny. As can literally any work of fiction ever made by anyone, even George Martin or Tolkien.

Because you can always find those little nitpicks to take them apart.

For fuck's sake, that's Cinema Sins' entire MO, and they've gone after undisputed classic films like Pulp Fiction.

Then I suppose I have incredibly high standards.

You just compared JK Rowling to Stephanie Meyer and Robst.

Any opinion you have, from now on, is completely and utterly invalid.

You are a reflexive bandwagoner.

[sickbritkid2]

I ain't bandwagoning shit. I'm just not stupid enough to compare JK Rowling to Stephanie Meyer, boyo.