Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

[inked]

Nurv,

I AM IMPRESSED!!!!

Forestry is doing you good, girl! Excellent exposition above!

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks Inked!

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

There's a thread here with a link wher someone wrote why HP was better than LotR. I think Pytt started the thread and Elemmire found the site. You should check it out.

EDIT: The site is here.

The original post was deleted by the poster, probably because the poster Edwyn Lilac destroyed the original arguments. Maybe they were preserved in that thread you mentioned.

You might also enjoy this thread: Blatant LotR Copy-Cats. (I bumped it over in the Middle-earth forum).

Spock has a point (though this excercise can still be useful) - you can probably find similarities between every fantasy book and every other fantasy book. The question is, are they relevant? In the case of LotR versus Harry Potter, I would say no, at least from a copycat standpoint.

[strider8]

Originally Posted by strider8

I think that Lupin will die and Harry will feel like there's nothing left to live for.

i think that Lupin will be killed by some type of relative named Romulos probobly a brother(Just like Roman Mythology) .

[emily leonard]

i think that nevil will destroy voldimort as to use the avrercadavera crse you need to have real emotion behind it nevil has had to wacth his parents liv in a mad state wherase harry can hardly remember his parents . i think that dumbuledore could turn evil and die in the last book

[Spock]

..wow, I hope you're wrong about D.

[emily leonard]

it would be a great story line!

[Spock]

I'm really fond of the character and his way of handling difficult times at Hogwarts. I think he's an excellent example to the students also and has more power than he reveals.

[emily leonard]

he is all of that but in the goblet of fire....... ( 'he said th protection my - my mother left in me - he'd have it too and he was right he could touch me withought herting himself, he touched my face.' for a fleting second, Harry thought he saw a gleam of triumph in dumbledore's eye's.) dosent this segest that he mmay be tryamfont in voldimots sucsess?!?

[Nurvingiel]

I didn't read that part as Dumbledore feeling triumphant about Voldemort's success at all! Personally I think you're reading into it a little too much, but to each her own.

Originally Posted by Spock

I'm really fond of the character and his way of handling difficult times at Hogwarts. I think he's an excellent example to the students also and has more power than he reveals.

Dumbledore certainly has his faults, but I definitely don't think he will turn evil. My main complaint with him is how much information he hid from Harry, apparently pointlessly.
I mean... his reason for not telling him about the Prophecy was because Harry already had enough to deal with. Well, I think Harry pretty much understood that it's kill or be killed with him and Voldemort. Of course they can't both remain alive in the same world forever - Voldemort tries one time per year to murder him! Harry would be much better served armed with all the knowledge possible. Voldemort has it, why not even the playing field? Besides, Harry has already dealt with so much crap that he could probably handle anything Dumbledore could throw at him.

My other issue with Dumbledore is the amount of unfairness he allows in the school. True, it's possible he's more occupied with keeping all his students from getting killed, so I'll cut him some slack here. But why is Snape allowed to be completely biased, and abuse Neville at every turn? This is intolerable in a teacher. Think of all the future Potions researchers/experts/specialists/etc. that have been turned away by non-Slytherins who can't help but loathe his class. When he deigns to teach non-Slytherins, he certainly seems like an extremely knowledgeable and capable teacher.

This is probably why he isn't allowed to teach the highly important subject of Defence against the Dark Arts, but then again, he really picked winners for that class (barring Lupin, who was awesome). I mean... Gilderoy Lockhart? Not one other person anywhere would take the job? I can accept that, but even Snape would have been a better teacher than him. At least Snape knows what he's doing.

Also, just because professor Binns continues to exist is not a good reason to keep him employed as the History teacher. Lille Vän, my houseplant, would do a better job. Seriously. At least people wouldn't associate history with stupefying boredom, and might do some research on their own - as everyone did on the Chamber of Secrets. Hogwarts students do seem to make themselves familiar with the library other times too.

Well that's my whole Dumbledore rant. I think he's awesome, a great leader and wizard, and a pretty good headmaster too. But he lets some things slide that I personally would not accept. His character is made that much more interesting by (what I perceive to be) these flaws.

[Spock]

Well thought out reasoning. IMO D protected H by not giving him all the information too early in his apprenticeship because he couldn't utilize all his powers ...he hadn't been schooled in them enough.

[emily leonard]

mabey your right about reading to much into it but i do think that it might meen sumthing . and dumboldore is a fab carrictor but he did anoy me when he told harry everything in 1 chapter

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Dumbledore certainly has his faults, but I definitely don't think he will turn evil. My main complaint with him is how much information he hid from Harry, apparently pointlessly.
I mean... his reason for not telling him about the Prophecy was because Harry already had enough to deal with. Well, I think Harry pretty much understood that it's kill or be killed with him and Voldemort. Of course they can't both remain alive in the same world forever - Voldemort tries one time per year to murder him! Harry would be much better served armed with all the knowledge possible. Voldemort has it, why not even the playing field? Besides, Harry has already dealt with so much crap that he could probably handle anything Dumbledore could throw at him.

I really can't get this part. I mean, how's the prophecy more hard to deal with than that the most powerful wizard ever is after you? How is the prophecy harder? It just tells him what he knows - and it would prevent Sirius' death.
I can't really understand why Rowling had a prophecy in her books. Prophecies just ruin books IMO... and make Harry Potter more like others. I don't know.. I just really don't like it. Can't see how it made the book better anyway..

[Spock]

Perhaps it's writers insights and though patterns that determines these things. These type of books, IMO, are not for debate, nor critical deconstruction. They simply are for enjoyment and to pique your curiosity.

[emily leonard]

i think your right you read this book for enjoyment not to question why its the way it is put together

[Manveru]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

I can't really understand why Rowling had a prophecy in her books. Prophecies just ruin books IMO... and make Harry Potter more like others. I don't know.. I just really don't like it. Can't see how it made the book better anyway..

prophecies dont ruin all books. The High King by Lloyd Alexander is an awesome book and it has a prophecy in it

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Manveru

prophecies dont ruin all books. The High King by Lloyd Alexander is an awesome book and it has a prophecy in it

Maybe I didn't say it clearly... didn't mean all books. Just that.. there are too many prophecies in books IMO, and adding one to Harry Potter doesn't really make the book better. In my opinino anyway.

[inked]

RtB,

But isn't this prophecy motif quite ancient in literature? JK Rowling is merely using a specific motif to engage the reader in seriously consideration of the personages of the story whe is writing. Certainly JRRT and CSL use this type of material, as well the ancients in Greece, Rome, and Germanic literatures.

Do you object to it in general or specifically how it is employed by Rowling? Hers, I admit, is more Delphic than perhaps either author I have mentioned.

[sun-star]

I think what Radagast is saying is that the prophecy in HP doesn't add anything to the book, and I agree with him. The prophecy didn't reveal anything Harry or the reader hadn't already guessed - Harry has to kill Voldemort. Prophecies in literature work best as foreshadowing (e.g. Macbeth) or as a statement of a fate which seems shocking and alien to the reader's expectations (e.g. Oedipus). Those are the only ways they can move the plot forward. The HP prophecy is simply expository backstory.

Originally Posted by Spock

These type of books, IMO, are not for debate, nor critical deconstruction.

There's no such thing as a book which is not for critical deconstruction

[Spock]

There's no such thing as a book which is not for critical deconstruction [/QUOTE]

Only for deconstructionalists.

[inked]

Originally Posted by sun-star

I think what Radagast is saying is that the prophecy in HP doesn't add anything to the book, and I agree with him. The prophecy didn't reveal anything Harry or the reader hadn't already guessed - Harry has to kill Voldemort. Prophecies in literature work best as foreshadowing (e.g. Macbeth) or as a statement of a fate which seems shocking and alien to the reader's expectations (e.g. Oedipus). Those are the only ways they can move the plot forward. The HP prophecy is simply expository backstory.

There's no such thing as a book which is not for critical deconstruction

Sun-Star,

Oh, really! Then you assume that the prophecy intends only Harry? That is the mistake (?) Voldemort made, too. Except that Voldie actualized it by his choice of whom it referred to, didn't he (or did he?)? Recall that Voldemort's spy did not get the whole prophecy. And that Voldemort was himself so eager to get it all that the entire OOTP happened.

For further evaluation, we have JK Rowling's comments (credit to Quick Quotes):

1. J.K.Rowling Official Site - Harry Potter and more •••
...The prophecy Harry hears in Dumbledore's office suggests to me that both he and Voldemort will have to die, is that true? Both Madam Trelawney and I...
...Both Madam Trelawney and I worded the prophecy extremely carefully and that is all I have to say on the subject! ©2005 J.K. Rowling. All Rights Reser...
63% Sat, 15 Jan 2005 04:28:13 GMT http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/faq_view.cfm?id=23


2. J.K.Rowling Official Site - Harry Potter and more •••
...parents. I can’t say too much about this because it touches too closely on the prophecy and how many people knew about it, but the Lestranges were not i...
62% Sat, 15 Jan 2005 04:29:39 GMT http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/ru...view.cfm?id=25


3. Quick Quotes Quill: Interviews with J.K.Rowling, 2004 ••
JK Rowling's World Book Day Chat, March 4, 2004 JK Rowling says: Hi everyone, I'm here LIVE and ready to answer your questions!...
...starlinguk: Do you believe in prophecies in real life? JK Rowling replies -> No, I don't. And even in the wizarding world, as McGonagall explains in...
...JK Rowling replies -> Harry will tell his nearest and dearest about the prophecy when he's ready. He needs time to digest the news himself first....
51% Mon, 03 Jan 2005 06:30:39 GMT http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/art...4/0304-wbd.htm

Plus, when does the prophecy become active in regard to the action? It is a miniature prequel if you will. It is primarily Delphic in construction, it has many potential interpretations - corpus throughout. So, the motif is a dominant one in regard to plot construction. And there is the prophecy of the Centaurs, too............ ................ ..................... .

None of this strikes me as non-integral to the books individually nor the large story. And while it is expository back-story, it is more than that. I suspect that if you extracted the prophecy from the books and tried to read them without it, you would find the task most difficult and without a single binding thread of such importunance or importance.

So with King Arthur, so with Cair Paravel and its inhabitants, so with Aragorn....

And I quite agree that there is no book to which critical deconstruction can not be applied, but would contend that it is valueless in most cases as the critics rarely accomplish much. (See THE PERSONAL HERESY by CS Lewis!)