Deathly Hallows 2

Off Topic
101

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]OsakaNate wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?

Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]

Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.

It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.[/quote]

Damn Dixie you have spent some time with these books. Almost makes me want to read them.[/quote]

You should.

They may not be the most brilliantly written books ever, but the story is fairly well thought-out and entertainingly told. If you read them with that in mind they are quite enjoyable.

These books can stand with Narnia and Lord of the Rings.
[/quote]

Okay since I cannot really give an opinion cause I have never read Narnia or Harry Potter, however I have a very hard time putting those two on the same level as LOR. I have read LOR at least 6-7 times in my life and was first introduced to Tolken my Freshman year of HS. I am biased but to me he set the bar for fantasy.

How many people would put Narnia, Potter and LOR on the same level?[/quote]

Not me.

LOR and Narnia have stood the test of time and have each had to wait decades before technology caught up with the fantasy aspects of the stories to tell them on the big screen.

HP is contemporary, and was able to be translated onto the big screen almost immediately.

We won’t know about HP until 50 years from now, in my opinion.

102

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]OsakaNate wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?

Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]

Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.

It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.[/quote]

Damn Dixie you have spent some time with these books. Almost makes me want to read them.[/quote]

You should.

They may not be the most brilliantly written books ever, but the story is fairly well thought-out and entertainingly told. If you read them with that in mind they are quite enjoyable.

These books can stand with Narnia and Lord of the Rings.
[/quote]

Okay since I cannot really give an opinion cause I have never read Narnia or Harry Potter, however I have a very hard time putting those two on the same level as LOR. I have read LOR at least 6-7 times in my life and was first introduced to Tolken my Freshman year of HS. I am biased but to me he set the bar for fantasy.

How many people would put Narnia, Potter and LOR on the same level?[/quote]

No, not on the same level. Not as well written or well thought out.

103

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]OsakaNate wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?

Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]

Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.

It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.[/quote]

Damn Dixie you have spent some time with these books. Almost makes me want to read them.[/quote]

You should.

They may not be the most brilliantly written books ever, but the story is fairly well thought-out and entertainingly told. If you read them with that in mind they are quite enjoyable.

These books can stand with Narnia and Lord of the Rings.
[/quote]

Okay since I cannot really give an opinion cause I have never read Narnia or Harry Potter, however I have a very hard time putting those two on the same level as LOR. I have read LOR at least 6-7 times in my life and was first introduced to Tolken my Freshman year of HS. I am biased but to me he set the bar for fantasy.

How many people would put Narnia, Potter and LOR on the same level?[/quote]

Are the Harry Potter books great books? Yeah.

Same level as Narnia and LOTR? Absolutely not.

104

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]OsakaNate wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

[quote]thogue wrote:
It made it sound like Harry himself was the Horcrux, not just that the Horcrux was a separate entity inside of him. In which case how could the Horcrux/Harry be destroyed without Harry/Horcrux being destroyed?

Just seemed way too convenient and arbitrary. If the Resurrection stone was responsible for reviving him, I think I would have been more satisfied. Oh well.[/quote]

Harry himself was the horcrux. A piece of Voldemorts soul was housed inside him. Harry WOULD have been killed by the killing curse that destroyed the piece of the soul, BUT he wasnt because Voldemort took Harry’s blood in the 4th book, tethering them to each other. The horcrux was destroyed, while Harry was still able to live.

It seems arbitrary, but it has a point. Over and over Dumbledore emphasizes that Voldemort does not and refuses to search into and understand certain areas of magic, namely love. Voldemort, because he blindly pressed forward thinking only of naked power, did not understand that he was creating his own downfall.[/quote]

Damn Dixie you have spent some time with these books. Almost makes me want to read them.[/quote]

You should.

They may not be the most brilliantly written books ever, but the story is fairly well thought-out and entertainingly told. If you read them with that in mind they are quite enjoyable.

These books can stand with Narnia and Lord of the Rings.
[/quote]

Okay since I cannot really give an opinion cause I have never read Narnia or Harry Potter, however I have a very hard time putting those two on the same level as LOR. I have read LOR at least 6-7 times in my life and was first introduced to Tolken my Freshman year of HS. I am biased but to me he set the bar for fantasy.

How many people would put Narnia, Potter and LOR on the same level?[/quote]

Well, if you’ve never read the Narnia books I guess it would be difficult to compare. They are also great books and I highly recommend them.

Now, you’ll notice that I said that the Potter books ‘may not be the most brilliantly written books ever.’ I meant that; the writing and literary style does not compare to the other books. I was commenting on the story she told and the world that she created. In that respect the Potter books can stand with the others.

I was also introduced to Narnia, Earthsea, and LoR in my youth, (I mean, come on, ‘The Hobbit’ is Dungeons and Dragons) but I still found the Potter books to be a worthwhile read and would have them on my bookshelf with the others. That’s all I was saying.

105

^ Thanks, was looking for honest feedback. I go in cycles where I read for months then slack off some and play video games more then slack off and watch football during the season. So probably in the spring I will read the Narnia and Potter books.

106

Potter books bring in so much detail, to the descriptions of the living paintings to every flavour jelly beans, etc.

Kids’ll eat that stuff up, daydream about it, and have it part of their imaginary lexicon for a long time.

107

[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ Thanks, was looking for honest feedback. I go in cycles where I read for months then slack off some and play video games more then slack off and watch football during the season. So probably in the spring I will read the Narnia and Potter books. [/quote]

Cheers for that.

For the record, I was just responding to you saying that you found them a bit inaccessible, and was only offering my perspective.

One other thing I might mention, since I’m thinking about it, is that, for me at least, my age when I read these books impacted how they affected me. What I mean is, I was a kid when I read LotR, and I imagined myself as an adult adventurer in Tolkien’s world. With HP, it’s the opposite; I imagine myself as a kid wizard in Rowling’s world.

Maybe that shift in perspective is what allows me to enjoy them both. I don’t know.

As an aside, though, if you only can make time for one of the series, I’d go with Narnia, but that’s just my opinion.

108

How many books are in the Narnia series?

109

[quote]DJHT wrote:
How many books are in the Narnia series?[/quote]

Seven.

But they’re shorter than HP.

‘The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe’
‘Prince Caspian’
‘The Voyage of the Dawn Treader’
‘The Silver Chair’
‘The Horse and His Boy’
‘The Magician’s Nephew’
‘The Last Battle’

In that order.

110

[quote]OsakaNate wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:
How many books are in the Narnia series?[/quote]

Seven.

But they’re shorter than HP.

‘The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe’
‘Prince Caspian’
‘The Voyage of the Dawn Treader’
‘The Silver Chair’
‘The Horse and His Boy’
‘The Magician’s Nephew’
‘The Last Battle’

In that order.[/quote]

Are they old books like LOR? Seriously never looked them up. I know about them caused I watched the first two movies.

111

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]OsakaNate wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:
How many books are in the Narnia series?[/quote]

Seven.

But they’re shorter than HP.

‘The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe’
‘Prince Caspian’
‘The Voyage of the Dawn Treader’
‘The Silver Chair’
‘The Horse and His Boy’
‘The Magician’s Nephew’
‘The Last Battle’

In that order.[/quote]

Are they old books like LOR? Seriously never looked them up. I know about them caused I watched the first two movies.[/quote]

Yes, written in the 40’s, published in the 50’s. IIRC, Lewis was a contemporary of Tolkien and they corresponded regarding their works.

112

^ Wow thats pretty cool. I tend to read certain authors and stick with them if I like there writing style.

113

[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ Wow thats pretty cool. I tend to read certain authors and stick with them if I like there writing style. [/quote]

Yeah, I’ve been meaning to read some of CS Lewis’ other stuff, but haven’t gotten around to it.

Always heard that ‘The Screwtape Letters’ was pretty good (memos from hell written by a lesser demon. Seriously).

114

^ I could probably get a ton of those for free or dirt cheap for my nook.

115

^For certain. Hope they’re to your liking.

116

Narnia sucked imo

117

[quote]OsakaNate wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ Wow thats pretty cool. I tend to read certain authors and stick with them if I like there writing style. [/quote]

Yeah, I’ve been meaning to read some of CS Lewis’ other stuff, but haven’t gotten around to it.

Always heard that ‘The Screwtape Letters’ was pretty good (memos from hell written by a lesser demon. Seriously).[/quote]

“The Great Divorce” is my favorite C.S Lewis work, definitely recommend it.