The Harry Potter books suffer from a "big picture" problem. There seems to be a large population of wizards, some who live in their own town (Hogsmeade), though most live in mixed-Muggle/Wizard places. How do these wizards earn a living? They can't create food from nothing (a rule arbitrarily introduced in the last book), and there is such a thing as wizard poverty, so there must be wizard farmers and labourers somewhere. But what do all the other wizards do? Most of the wizards whose occupations are known are working in service industries:
Bill Weasley works at the bank.
Percy and Arthur (and many other characters) work for the government.
Many wizards work in education.
Some wizards work in stores, but it seems that those that do also manufacture their own goods; Ollivander makes his own wands; Fred and George make their own Wheezes, etc.
Harry and Ron want to be Aurors, i.e. police. Do wizards pay taxes to support the police?
Also it seems that even as the young wizards approach their final years of school they have nowhere near the skills of the teachers in the school. Even Harry never wins through magical skill; in fact his talents seem negligible compared to Dumbledore, who can walk into a cave and determine what spells were performed there years ago. This suggests that there must be a higher education institute somewhere where they can learn more applied magic, but it is never mentioned, and in fact quitting school to strike out on your own is perfectly acceptable.
Finally the wizard community is remarkably aloof and isolationist when it comes to the Muggles. They can never understand anything non-magical, not even the money, though basic math should fix that... oh wait, they don't study math at Hogwarts. In fact they don't study anything mundane. But surely someone who can understand how to run a household or investigate a crime or make change in Galleons and Sickles should be able to understand how to use a telephone after a try or two. But there seems to be some kind of mental block that applies to all the characters not raised by Muggles. This suggests that muggledom is akin to a language, in that you can learn the muggle way as a child but not easily as an adult.
It's possible that by raising these objections I'm missing the point, which is that these are kids books about a group of friends growing up in a tough world. But I feel that a more thorough approach to this issue would have made these books remarkable. Instead they have an inconsistent world where many of the characters show signs of insanity or incompetence and the world's limitations are numerous and arbitrary.
Showing posts with label Harry Potter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harry Potter. Show all posts
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
I just saw Harry Potter 6 yesterday. I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised by the movie. 4 and 5 were not great movies; the pacing was too fast and too much dialogue had been cut to make the movie fit the 2.5 hour format. With Harry Potter 6 they managed to redeem themselves and make the movie work.
There are a few notable plot changes in the movie; most crucially there was a battle inserted in the middle and one removed from somewhere else. Some minor details here and there were changed, sometimes in ways that seemed odd, and sometimes in ways that violate the canon of the story, but nothing truly important was tampered with. Most characters appear without introduction and if you didn't recognize them from the books or previous movies you won't be able to recognize them now either. But aside from that the movie progressed fairly well and in accordance with the original story.
This is perhaps the best instalment so far since the first movie, which was the most true to the book.
One thing that bothers me is that the Death Eaters seem to have the ability to fly. In the 7th book they point out that Voldemort can fly and everyone is surprised by that. Oh well, it's not an important detail.
One thing I found funny is that certain actors have aged A LOT since the first movie and others don't appear to. This makes Rupert Grint, who's 21, look really out of place in Hogwarts, where the incoming students are 11. And some of the teachers in the school have aged a lot and I worry that they won't be around to play their roles in book 7. Maybe the director will film the end of that book sooner, since the teachers play a bigger role at the end than at the beginning.
Anyway, overall I recommend this movie to all fans of the books or the movies. It won't really disappoint; as far as movie adaptations go it's one of the better ones.
There are a few notable plot changes in the movie; most crucially there was a battle inserted in the middle and one removed from somewhere else. Some minor details here and there were changed, sometimes in ways that seemed odd, and sometimes in ways that violate the canon of the story, but nothing truly important was tampered with. Most characters appear without introduction and if you didn't recognize them from the books or previous movies you won't be able to recognize them now either. But aside from that the movie progressed fairly well and in accordance with the original story.
This is perhaps the best instalment so far since the first movie, which was the most true to the book.
One thing that bothers me is that the Death Eaters seem to have the ability to fly. In the 7th book they point out that Voldemort can fly and everyone is surprised by that. Oh well, it's not an important detail.
One thing I found funny is that certain actors have aged A LOT since the first movie and others don't appear to. This makes Rupert Grint, who's 21, look really out of place in Hogwarts, where the incoming students are 11. And some of the teachers in the school have aged a lot and I worry that they won't be around to play their roles in book 7. Maybe the director will film the end of that book sooner, since the teachers play a bigger role at the end than at the beginning.
Anyway, overall I recommend this movie to all fans of the books or the movies. It won't really disappoint; as far as movie adaptations go it's one of the better ones.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
I just watched Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
Spoilers for book/movie 5 follow
To recap the plot, the Ministry of Magic is trying to suppress any news that Voldemort is back, they are interfering with Hogwarts in the form of Dolores Umbridge, the new teacher of defence against the dark arts, and Voldemort is trying to do something nefarious yet clandestine.
This fifth instalment in the Harry Potter movie series was a faithful adaptation of the book but it failed to convey the emotions which form the basis of the fifth book's themes. The fifth book is probably the most frustrating book because Harry is an angry teenager, who feels that the adults are still treating him like a child, he doesn't know how to deal with girls, and also Dolores Umbridge is making Hogwarts living hell for the students. Of these themes, only Dolores Umbridge is properly portrayed by the movie; the other themes merely get their token scenes to placate the readers. For example, a significant portion of this book deals with Harry's relationship with girls, Cho Chang specifically. In the movie this is represented by a total of 4 scenes. More importantly, not enough time was spent dealing with Harry's relationship to Dumbledore and the rest of the Order of the Phoenix. Throughout the book Harry is constantly sidelined while the Order tells him to stay out of trouble, etc, and Dumbledore is absent or ignoring Harry. This isolation has significant consequences for Harry, but the movie doesn't explain this to the same extent as the book does. It's only because I read the book that I realized that Dumbledore was more absent than normal. As with Cho Chang, the Dumbledore storyline is shown with a scant handful of scenes that do not do justice to the story.
Granted: this book is one of the longest yet and thus is more challenging to filmmakers. Unlike the Goblet of Fire (which, I might add, also made a rushed and confusing movie) there is hardly any action, thus there is lots of dialogue and exposition that needs to be crammed into a few hours. The movie thus crops every sub-plot until it's recognizable only to those who've read the story. Anyone who hasn't seen the other movies or read the books won't know why that red-headed girl is following Harry around at the end (it's Ginny Weasley), nor who the man with the long white hair is that leads the Death Eaters (it's Lucius Malfoy). Now, these details aren't critical, but basically if you don't know the story already you'll be left to dangle along, unsure about what's happening and bored by the lack of excitement.
Spoilers for book/movie 5 follow
To recap the plot, the Ministry of Magic is trying to suppress any news that Voldemort is back, they are interfering with Hogwarts in the form of Dolores Umbridge, the new teacher of defence against the dark arts, and Voldemort is trying to do something nefarious yet clandestine.
This fifth instalment in the Harry Potter movie series was a faithful adaptation of the book but it failed to convey the emotions which form the basis of the fifth book's themes. The fifth book is probably the most frustrating book because Harry is an angry teenager, who feels that the adults are still treating him like a child, he doesn't know how to deal with girls, and also Dolores Umbridge is making Hogwarts living hell for the students. Of these themes, only Dolores Umbridge is properly portrayed by the movie; the other themes merely get their token scenes to placate the readers. For example, a significant portion of this book deals with Harry's relationship with girls, Cho Chang specifically. In the movie this is represented by a total of 4 scenes. More importantly, not enough time was spent dealing with Harry's relationship to Dumbledore and the rest of the Order of the Phoenix. Throughout the book Harry is constantly sidelined while the Order tells him to stay out of trouble, etc, and Dumbledore is absent or ignoring Harry. This isolation has significant consequences for Harry, but the movie doesn't explain this to the same extent as the book does. It's only because I read the book that I realized that Dumbledore was more absent than normal. As with Cho Chang, the Dumbledore storyline is shown with a scant handful of scenes that do not do justice to the story.
Granted: this book is one of the longest yet and thus is more challenging to filmmakers. Unlike the Goblet of Fire (which, I might add, also made a rushed and confusing movie) there is hardly any action, thus there is lots of dialogue and exposition that needs to be crammed into a few hours. The movie thus crops every sub-plot until it's recognizable only to those who've read the story. Anyone who hasn't seen the other movies or read the books won't know why that red-headed girl is following Harry around at the end (it's Ginny Weasley), nor who the man with the long white hair is that leads the Death Eaters (it's Lucius Malfoy). Now, these details aren't critical, but basically if you don't know the story already you'll be left to dangle along, unsure about what's happening and bored by the lack of excitement.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Well, I've finished reading the book. Overall it's not bad, about what we've come to expect from Ms. Rowling. There are some flaws, however, which I will try to discuss without spoiling the story for those of you who haven't finished yet. There are, however, spoilers from book 6 here.
First, as I mentioned in my previous post, book 6 ends with the bad guys cleaning up with Harry because he's unable to make spells silently. This, I thought, proved that Harry was, compared to his elders, completely unprepared to deal with adult wizards who were performing magic. Ms. Rowling didn't address this at all in the 7th book and instead most spells were spoken aloud and it was considered a good defence to render your opponent mute. This brings us closer to the other books where such things were normal, and highlights the problems with book 6.
Secondly, there are things that happened in book 7 that seemed a little incredible. As you can probably guess, there is a war going on between the bad guys (Death Eaters) and good guys (various). Naturally the Death Eaters are making headway and a decisive victory is required by the good guys but this victory is elusive. Things have to get worse before they get better, otherwise it's a boring story. The problem is that things get worse so fast in book 7 that it's really not believable that the wizards would let it happen. People achieve positions of power without the outcry you'd expect from others. I'd expect to see, or at least hear about, good guys resorting to more extreme measures in order to prevent the ascent of evil: We are, after all, talking about bad guys so EVIL that nothing is beneath them. I mean, they have spent the last several books trying to kill children, among other nefarious deeds.
Finally, the book contains some rather predictable plot "twists" which many people have seen coming. Thankfully most of these were reasonably well explained but still it would have been nice to have a bit of surprise. The only part that surprised me was when one of the characters said the word "Bitch".
The book does have its good points, but the main improvement over the previous books is the acceptance by the characters that they are at war, and that lives are truly at stake. One person says "we duel to kill" and this is indicative of the tone. However there are still too few good guys using Avada Kedavra. Overall, the book is a pretty good end to the series.
First, as I mentioned in my previous post, book 6 ends with the bad guys cleaning up with Harry because he's unable to make spells silently. This, I thought, proved that Harry was, compared to his elders, completely unprepared to deal with adult wizards who were performing magic. Ms. Rowling didn't address this at all in the 7th book and instead most spells were spoken aloud and it was considered a good defence to render your opponent mute. This brings us closer to the other books where such things were normal, and highlights the problems with book 6.
Secondly, there are things that happened in book 7 that seemed a little incredible. As you can probably guess, there is a war going on between the bad guys (Death Eaters) and good guys (various). Naturally the Death Eaters are making headway and a decisive victory is required by the good guys but this victory is elusive. Things have to get worse before they get better, otherwise it's a boring story. The problem is that things get worse so fast in book 7 that it's really not believable that the wizards would let it happen. People achieve positions of power without the outcry you'd expect from others. I'd expect to see, or at least hear about, good guys resorting to more extreme measures in order to prevent the ascent of evil: We are, after all, talking about bad guys so EVIL that nothing is beneath them. I mean, they have spent the last several books trying to kill children, among other nefarious deeds.
Finally, the book contains some rather predictable plot "twists" which many people have seen coming. Thankfully most of these were reasonably well explained but still it would have been nice to have a bit of surprise. The only part that surprised me was when one of the characters said the word "Bitch".
The book does have its good points, but the main improvement over the previous books is the acceptance by the characters that they are at war, and that lives are truly at stake. One person says "we duel to kill" and this is indicative of the tone. However there are still too few good guys using Avada Kedavra. Overall, the book is a pretty good end to the series.
Petitioners demand more Potter
Harry's fans are at it again. Not content to get the seventh and final book, they have started a petition demanding that J.K. Rowling continue to write the adventures of the boy wizard. As a fan myself, I would like to raise my voice and say, "No!" Please let the story end when it ends. There are rumours that Harry will die. If he does, he must stay dead. Nothing makes a story lamer than when authors resurrect characters who are meant to remain dead. I fear, however, that Ms Rowling will take a lesson from George Lucas, and she will succumb to the desire to make more money, despite the damage done to the artistic integrity of her work. Feel free to re-use aspects of the Potter universe, Ms Rowling, if you aren't brave enough to create a new setting, but please don't bring back all the same old characters again.We've endured irritating house-elves, blast-ended skrewts, rules of magic changing under our noses, movies that get more rushed and confusing with every instalment, and, worst of all, an interminable wait between books, please do what's right for the story and put it to rest when its time comes.
Harry Potter
JK Rowling is about to release the culmination of her life's work thus far, the seventh and final Harry Potter book. I figure now is as good a time as any to blog about her previous book, since most people will have read it by now.
Spoilers may (well, ok, they do) follow.
Book 6 was called "Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince". The title refers to a mystery character whose identity is revealed at the end, who considers himself to be a "half-blood", that is, half-wizard, half-muggle. This lineage is apparently important to some wizards but not to others, given that muggles can have powerful wizard children and even pure-blood wizards can have weak offspring or offspring completely incapable of magic. However it would appear that the ability to use magic is somewhat genetic, giving lie to the books sometimes theme about how lineage is not important. On one hand, Rowling writes about how good Hermione is as a witch, while "evil" characters like Draco sneer at her "mudblood" status, but on the other hand wizards almost always beget wizards, while muggles practically never do, and even a squib has some magical ability, if only peripheral, such as the ability to see a Dementor. Given that genetics are seemingly important for magical ability, it would seem that Rowling's constant harping on the unimportance of lineage is contradictory. If magic defines power, and genetics define magic, then lineage is of the utmost importance. But I've only begun this post and already I digress.
My main concern with book 6 is the untenable situation Harry finds himself in. The problem is that book 6 changed all the rules for magic. In the first books we are shown how magic works; you have to have the proper incantation, you need the proper wand movement, and you need the proper willpower. Incantation and wand movement were demonstrated in the first book when the children are learning to levitate items. It's only when they emphasize the right syllables and swish the wands the right way that the items float. Willpower is demonstrated in the third book, when Harry learns the Patronus spell, and in the fourth book, when Moody (actually Crouch Jr) mentions that if the whole class tried to use the killing curse he'd receive not so much as a bloody nose. However in the 6th book magic changes, and we now learn that magic is customarily done silently, in order to prevent people from anticipating your spells and counteracting them.
This twist introduces some problems, not least of which is the battle between Harry and Voldemort in book 4. Voldemort has lots of willpower and personal strength but he speaks his killing curse aloud, despite having a good idea (we learn in book 5) that he desperately needs to kill Potter in order to fulfill some prophecy. Having tried three times now to kill Potter, you'd think he'd at least take a basic precaution such as sub-vocalizing the spell, but instead he speaks it aloud. The same can be said of the battle with the death eaters in book 5; on multiple occasions someone is rendered helpless simply by making them unable to talk in some fashion.
The other aspect of the magic that makes Harry's position untenable is shown in the trick Dumbledore performs when they are trying to find the Horcrux. Dumbledore is able to analyze a cave, that hasn't been visited in years, and determine what kind of spells protect it. Now, he is a powerful wizard, but Voldermort is his rival and you have to assume that Voldemort is basically equal to Dumbledore; given Dumbledore's abilities it would seem a half-trained child like Harry would be completely unable to defeat him. This notion is reinforced when Snape and Harry duel at the end of book 6; Snape mops up with Harry despite Harry having all the anger and willpower he needs to pull off the most dangerous curses. Harry's been training for years and he can barely take care of himself.
You might argue that Harry's done alright so far; I'd argue that he got by on a lot of luck. First, he didn't die as a baby not because of anything he did or because he was special, but because his mother protected him by giving up her life for him. This granted him a protection from the killing curse. Second, there's a convenient plot device which is that Harry, while an "under-aged wizard", can not be harmed (by Voldemort, anyway) while in the care of a relative. Handy, that. It means he gets the summers off, anyway.
Third, he defeated Quirrel in book 1 because of the same protection he had as a baby, so that hardly counts. He defeated the basilisk because Tom Riddle happened to mock Dumbledore, and somehow Dumbledore sent magical items to help Potter because Potter stood up for Dumbledore. Killing a basilisk: cool. Doing it because you were totally unprepared for your battle but someone happened to send help, that you only received because you happened to get indignant about your schoolmaster's reputation: lame. In the third book nothing major happens except Harry misreads the whole situation and manages to unravel the mystery and save the day only with the help of a time machine. Luckily even Rowling knows what a mess a time machine can do to a plot so she broke them all in book 5. Harry only narrowly escaped in book 4, and that only after he (unwillingly) aided in the recovery of Voldemort. In book 5 Harry totally screws up the whole situation, leading to the death of a friend and his own near defeat until Dumbledore saves the day. In book 6 Dumbledore is killed and Harry is shown to be totally unprepared to deal with a true adult wizard who is ready for battle. Not a great track record so far.
My only conclusion is that Harry can not possibly win. Harry has been a slacker all along, cheating on his homework, barely able to do potions unless he has help, and unable to perform spells without talking. He has yet to defeat a wizard in a duel, and while it's nice to emphasize non-violent solutions to problems, the only possible solution to a problem like Voldemort is to kill him (which raises another question, about whether killing Voldemort is grounds for an automatic life sentence in Azkaban). Yet Harry isn't up to the job.
I will read book 7, when it comes out, but there had better be a good explanation behind Harry's victory, or I will be sorely disappointed. Assuming, of course, that Harry isn't the 7th (or 8th?) Horcrux, and thus fated to die anyway.
Spoilers may (well, ok, they do) follow.
Book 6 was called "Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince". The title refers to a mystery character whose identity is revealed at the end, who considers himself to be a "half-blood", that is, half-wizard, half-muggle. This lineage is apparently important to some wizards but not to others, given that muggles can have powerful wizard children and even pure-blood wizards can have weak offspring or offspring completely incapable of magic. However it would appear that the ability to use magic is somewhat genetic, giving lie to the books sometimes theme about how lineage is not important. On one hand, Rowling writes about how good Hermione is as a witch, while "evil" characters like Draco sneer at her "mudblood" status, but on the other hand wizards almost always beget wizards, while muggles practically never do, and even a squib has some magical ability, if only peripheral, such as the ability to see a Dementor. Given that genetics are seemingly important for magical ability, it would seem that Rowling's constant harping on the unimportance of lineage is contradictory. If magic defines power, and genetics define magic, then lineage is of the utmost importance. But I've only begun this post and already I digress.
My main concern with book 6 is the untenable situation Harry finds himself in. The problem is that book 6 changed all the rules for magic. In the first books we are shown how magic works; you have to have the proper incantation, you need the proper wand movement, and you need the proper willpower. Incantation and wand movement were demonstrated in the first book when the children are learning to levitate items. It's only when they emphasize the right syllables and swish the wands the right way that the items float. Willpower is demonstrated in the third book, when Harry learns the Patronus spell, and in the fourth book, when Moody (actually Crouch Jr) mentions that if the whole class tried to use the killing curse he'd receive not so much as a bloody nose. However in the 6th book magic changes, and we now learn that magic is customarily done silently, in order to prevent people from anticipating your spells and counteracting them.
This twist introduces some problems, not least of which is the battle between Harry and Voldemort in book 4. Voldemort has lots of willpower and personal strength but he speaks his killing curse aloud, despite having a good idea (we learn in book 5) that he desperately needs to kill Potter in order to fulfill some prophecy. Having tried three times now to kill Potter, you'd think he'd at least take a basic precaution such as sub-vocalizing the spell, but instead he speaks it aloud. The same can be said of the battle with the death eaters in book 5; on multiple occasions someone is rendered helpless simply by making them unable to talk in some fashion.
The other aspect of the magic that makes Harry's position untenable is shown in the trick Dumbledore performs when they are trying to find the Horcrux. Dumbledore is able to analyze a cave, that hasn't been visited in years, and determine what kind of spells protect it. Now, he is a powerful wizard, but Voldermort is his rival and you have to assume that Voldemort is basically equal to Dumbledore; given Dumbledore's abilities it would seem a half-trained child like Harry would be completely unable to defeat him. This notion is reinforced when Snape and Harry duel at the end of book 6; Snape mops up with Harry despite Harry having all the anger and willpower he needs to pull off the most dangerous curses. Harry's been training for years and he can barely take care of himself.
You might argue that Harry's done alright so far; I'd argue that he got by on a lot of luck. First, he didn't die as a baby not because of anything he did or because he was special, but because his mother protected him by giving up her life for him. This granted him a protection from the killing curse. Second, there's a convenient plot device which is that Harry, while an "under-aged wizard", can not be harmed (by Voldemort, anyway) while in the care of a relative. Handy, that. It means he gets the summers off, anyway.
Third, he defeated Quirrel in book 1 because of the same protection he had as a baby, so that hardly counts. He defeated the basilisk because Tom Riddle happened to mock Dumbledore, and somehow Dumbledore sent magical items to help Potter because Potter stood up for Dumbledore. Killing a basilisk: cool. Doing it because you were totally unprepared for your battle but someone happened to send help, that you only received because you happened to get indignant about your schoolmaster's reputation: lame. In the third book nothing major happens except Harry misreads the whole situation and manages to unravel the mystery and save the day only with the help of a time machine. Luckily even Rowling knows what a mess a time machine can do to a plot so she broke them all in book 5. Harry only narrowly escaped in book 4, and that only after he (unwillingly) aided in the recovery of Voldemort. In book 5 Harry totally screws up the whole situation, leading to the death of a friend and his own near defeat until Dumbledore saves the day. In book 6 Dumbledore is killed and Harry is shown to be totally unprepared to deal with a true adult wizard who is ready for battle. Not a great track record so far.
My only conclusion is that Harry can not possibly win. Harry has been a slacker all along, cheating on his homework, barely able to do potions unless he has help, and unable to perform spells without talking. He has yet to defeat a wizard in a duel, and while it's nice to emphasize non-violent solutions to problems, the only possible solution to a problem like Voldemort is to kill him (which raises another question, about whether killing Voldemort is grounds for an automatic life sentence in Azkaban). Yet Harry isn't up to the job.
I will read book 7, when it comes out, but there had better be a good explanation behind Harry's victory, or I will be sorely disappointed. Assuming, of course, that Harry isn't the 7th (or 8th?) Horcrux, and thus fated to die anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)