The Deathly Hallows become my favortite after I finished reading it...especially the epilogue, before that it was Order of the Phoenix.
Favorite Harry Potter novel?
- Thread starter Argus Skyhawk
- Start date
That's incredible.
It's been so long since I've read any of them, but I prefer GoF.
Would I be correct if I assumed you had hoped the plot would go in a different direction?
I had, certainly--I wouldn't hope for such terrible developments.
I've hoped for plots to go in different directions in plenty of entertainment however and whenever they feel justified or more creative than I could come up with it turns out to at least be pleasant. Deathly Hollows was laughable in many places for me.
Just read up on the Elder Wand stuff on Wikipedia, and it's worse than I thought:
The problem with Voldemort is that he, and by extension his goons, are boring. Darth Vader had an interesting vulnerbility in his reliance upon his mechanical breather, and then became genuinely interesting when we learned who he really was. Voldemort's evil from the get-go, even as a child.
Thus, the two books that have the least to do with him, being Azkaban and Goblet, are the best, imo.
Er... riiiggghht. That's pretty stupid.
The problem with Voldemort is that he, and by extension his goons, are boring. Darth Vader had an interesting vulnerbility in his reliance upon his mechanical breather, and then became genuinely interesting when we learned who he really was. Voldemort's evil from the get-go, even as a child.
Thus, the two books that have the least to do with him, being Azkaban and Goblet, are the best, imo.
My vote's for OotP. I don't think it's the best written of the books, and it could probably have done with a great deal of editing, but it's my guilty pleasure book because it has so much background information about the characters and the WW in general. Plus, Umbridge is probably my favourite of the HP Big Bads. After that, I'd probably say Goblet, Chamber, Azkaban, Philosopher's Stone, Half-baked Plot then Hallows.
I'm another who's a bit surprised at all the DH love. To me, it gets worse on each reread. It's not just the plot holes you could drive a bus through, or the relentless dei ex machinis; one can grant a certain amount of leeway for those things in fantasy. I think it's the constant undermining of the ostensible moral keynotes of the series that get to me most.
The slavery theme of the house-elves ends up being "slavery's all right as long as you treat your slaves well - I wonder if my house-elf who has just fought at my side in the final battle will make me a sandwich?"
Unforgivable curses are unforgivable - unless they make for an easy shortcut or somebody is mean to a teacher whom you quite like.
It is our choices which show what we are, we should not judge others by their blood. Unless it's magic blood inherited from their martyred mother.
The fact that Harry's survival in the Forbidden Forest is predicated on him a)choosing not to fight and b) deliberately choosing not to think for himself because it's too hard also gets to me.
I'm another who's a bit surprised at all the DH love. To me, it gets worse on each reread. It's not just the plot holes you could drive a bus through, or the relentless dei ex machinis; one can grant a certain amount of leeway for those things in fantasy. I think it's the constant undermining of the ostensible moral keynotes of the series that get to me most.
The slavery theme of the house-elves ends up being "slavery's all right as long as you treat your slaves well - I wonder if my house-elf who has just fought at my side in the final battle will make me a sandwich?"
Unforgivable curses are unforgivable - unless they make for an easy shortcut or somebody is mean to a teacher whom you quite like.
It is our choices which show what we are, we should not judge others by their blood. Unless it's magic blood inherited from their martyred mother.
The fact that Harry's survival in the Forbidden Forest is predicated on him a)choosing not to fight and b) deliberately choosing not to think for himself because it's too hard also gets to me.
Makes sense to me. The Elder Wand is the ultimate wand, hence, it's got special properties that don't apply to normal wands; hence, the whole mastery thing becomes more important (there was always a certain amount of relationship between the wand and its owner, as the selection process in #1 made clear).
Goblet is all about his scheme to return; the whole climax revolves around him.
The whole house elf thing was, from the start (or, from book four, when their status became an actual issue) portrayed as complicated. The Hogwarts elves resented Hermione's intrusions into their perfectly nice lives, for example (for me, one of the key aspects of the elves is where exactly they come from).
Huh?
I'm not sure I follow here. Harry understands that his death is necessary to kill part of Voldemort's soul, and so he selflessly allows that to happen.
I didn't say it didn't make sense; I rather thought that it was too much history to give an inanimate object, and a shoddy way to dispose of the villain.
Thank you, I've read the book and seen the film. You'll notice, however, that Voldemort had very little to do with the Tournament that took up the considerable majority of both.
Goblet of Fire is my favourite book, narrowly beating The Prisoner of Azkaban. Azkaban has an incredible narrative and a really clever time-travel story that fits together almost seamlessly, but GoF has too many excellent character moments and that thrilling last 100 pages, with an incredibly gripping payoff.
After that it's probably Deathly Hallows and Order of the Pheonix.
The best of the films, though, is definitely Order of the Pheonix.
After that it's probably Deathly Hallows and Order of the Pheonix.
The best of the films, though, is definitely Order of the Pheonix.
I've just started a book re-read, inspired by the movie, and I had to revisit this thread to point out: although not explicitly explained in as much depth as it is in Deathly Hallows, the concept we were discussing earlier that a wand belonging to someone else won't work properly for you is actually right there in The Philosopher's Stone - Ollivander says it to Harry on his first meeting with him. So it's not quite as out of the blue as it seems - it was just rarely discussed in the intervening books - and to be fair, it rarely came up.
Thespeckledkiwi
Vice Admiral
I find Voldemort and his goons very interesting. I wish they expanded a little more on them. Voldemort's evilness wasn't from the get-go if you read the books right.
It's actually even stupider than that.
The reason why the Elder Wand transfers it's allegiance to Harry is cos Harry snatched Draco's wand from him. First of all, the Wand now has to become omniscient (to know what has happened to Draco when it's not even being wielded by Draco). Second, it seems that you don't have to have a "real" battle or even a long battle (please cast your mind back to the super-long battle between Gellert Grindelwald and Dumbledore) - the first little expelliarmus trick against the elder wand , the elder wand is liable to transfer it's allegiance away. It doesn't matter if you then do an accio and continue fighting. Heck, you don't even have to do an expelliarmus or anything - if you stick your leg out and cause the Elder Wand carrier to trip or something, the Elder Wand is liable to transfer allegiance to a new True Owner (after all, Harry doesn't really defeat Draco - he just snatches the wand away).
It's beyond stupid!!
Btw, I disagree that Goblet is good cos of the lack of Voldemort. It's best feature (besides giving the first true glimpse of the wider Magic world) is 'Voldemort Rising' in those gripping last 100 pages. It's just unbelievably well plotted, written, edited stuff - absolutely unputdownable.
The Goblet of Fire is my favourite but I haven't read the Deathly Hallows yet and I hear it's suppost to be great.
My list is as follows:
Goblet of Fire
Prisoner of Azkaban
Chamber of Secrets
Philosopher's Stone
Order of the Phoenix
I haven't read the last two books yet.
My list is as follows:
Goblet of Fire
Prisoner of Azkaban
Chamber of Secrets
Philosopher's Stone
Order of the Phoenix
I haven't read the last two books yet.
Shame that the first 634 pages are so boring.
Yes. Yes it is.
I actually agree with you that that section is awesome - but part of the reason it's awesome is because it wasn't the main focus of the book until then. If HBP and DH had been 200-300 pages or so, maybe they could have been as cool. But at 600+ pages apiece, with no compelling plot digressions to distract, they just don't work.
As Christopher Hitchens wrote: "Voldemort becomes more tiresome than an Ian Fleming villain."
I think Rowling meant it to be a joke from the beginning-she gave Hermione decent arguments but had Harry, Ron and the Elves she was fighting for not care or actively oppose the idea. It's up to the reader to consider the issues, but it makes sense that Ron and Harry would favor convenience. Indeed, given that there are only a few good non-Gryffindors and that Dumbledore is nearly sanctified until the last book, I'd say that an unfortunate theme of the books is conformity, not rocking the boat (there was the negative portrayal of Fudge, but he was presented as an aberration, people and governments usually being better).
I can't say I necessarily see where you're coming from on that one. Dumbledore is portrayed, particularly in books 4 through 6, but partly earlier on (a fondness for muggle sweets, for example) as being a non-conformist and a very independent character. His fleshed out backstory from Book 7 only cements this. And the hero of the story, whose perspective we see 99% of the time, is definitely a non-conformist. He breaks rules in every book, almost always with positive results. He lies, cheats and deceives when he feels it necessary, and stubbornly does what he wants even when his closest friends are telling him to drop it, again almost always with the right results.
Furthermore, the arc of the 'conformist' character, Hermione, is one in which she slowly learns the value of breaking rules, of taking a step outside the boundaries of what it says in Hogwarts, A History, to do what is right in the face of adversity.
Meanwhile, authority figures who conform to rules and regulations, or those who follow the person in power blindly, are consistently portrayed negatively - Fudge, Crouch, Umbridge, Percy.
If anything, I would say a major theme of the books is an opposing one to what you describe - that conformity for the sake of conformity is bad, and thinking and acting for yourself is good.
SPEW is one of my least favorite aspects of the series. If Hermione should be fronting any sort of political campaign, imo, it'd be for openness between the magical and nonmagical communities, with wizards fighting third world disease, hunger, helping to mediate conflicts, etc.
That the wizarding world hides itself away and mentally assaults those who happen to notice it is bad enough; to have Hermione be overtly political yet never once broach the subject drives me up the wall. Bless the filmmakers for ignoring it entirely!
Similar threads
