|
Post by Jeff on Jul 21, 2005 0:11:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Jul 21, 2005 9:59:47 GMT -5
I don't remember how Occlumency works exactly... Do you have access to any and every thought, or is the scope of available thoughts/memory/information more narrow? For instance, could Snape have snatched out information Harry had gained from his private lessons with Dumbledore while going after what Harry knew about the potions book, or would he have to specifically be focusing on that to have access to it?
It would obviously behoove Harry to team up with a trusted mentor to practice Occlumency.. maybe that will be addressed in the next book. Though will he really have time to do so?
|
|
|
Post by katie on Jul 21, 2005 21:29:41 GMT -5
Good question about Legilimency and Occlumency. When Snape tried to teach it to Harry in Book 5, he pulled out seemingly random memories--but I'm inclined to think that if he had been trying to find a particular memory, he could have.
In Emerson's interview with JKR, they discuss Draco's study of Occlumency and also how/why Harry was never very good at it. JKR says: I think Draco would be very gifted in Occlumency, unlike Harry. Harry’s problem with it was always that his emotions were too near the surface and that he is in some ways too damaged. But he's also very in touch with his feelings about what's happened to him. He's not repressed, he's quite honest about facing them, and he couldn't suppress them, he couldn't suppress these memories. But I thought of Draco as someone who is very capable of compartmentalizing his life and his emotions, and always has done.
So I guess Harry is probably through with Occlumency. Like you said, where's he going to find the time? And also, he's just not very talented at it!
The Mugglenet interview, by the way, is very good. Emerson and Melissa ask some very good questions-lots better than the type JKR usually gets. They were allowed to interview her after reading Book 6, so there are spoilers about that book and (sort of) about Book 7--so don't read it if you don't want hints on Book 7!!!
|
|
|
Post by katie on Jul 21, 2005 21:56:06 GMT -5
Jeff, great article from slate! In the same interview I mentioned above, Emerson asked JKR whether terrorism factored into the writing of this book....
JKR: No, never consciously, in the sense that I've never thought, "It's time for a post-9/11 Harry Potter book," no. But what Voldemort does, in many senses, is terrorism, and that was quite clear in my mind before 9/11 happened....So no, not consciously, but there are parallels, obviously. I think one of the times I felt the parallels was when I was writing about the arrest of Stan Shunpike, you know? I always planned that these kinds of things would happen, but these have very powerful resonances, given that I believe, and many people believe, that there have been instances of persecution of people who did not deserve to be persecuted, even while we're attempting to find the people who have committed utter atrocities. These things just happen, it's human nature. There were some very startling parallels at the time I was writing it.
Still sounds like she did it consciously to me!
The slate article brings up an interesting point: With references to current events, such as terrorism, how will the Harry Potter books stand the test of time? Will they be classics in fifty years if there are too many references to our present time? I wonder why this is an important question. I don't think JKR set out to write classic children's literature. Why do these books have to measure up to say, the Chronicles of Narnia--can't they just be a good read in the here and now?
And if slate is correct and it was a valid question that they posed, I'd say that most books are influenced by the times that they are written in. We still read Twain and Dickens, don't we? We still understand the symbolism and terror evoked in A Tale of Two Cities, even though the use of guillotines has (thankfully) not been widespread for a couple centuries. And Tolkien's experience in World War I colored The Lord of the Rings and that's considered a fantasy classic. So why shouldn't our experiences with terrorism (and our responses to terrorism) be included in modern literature?
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jul 22, 2005 9:34:44 GMT -5
I think making Harry his Horcrux totally makes sense for dear Voldie. If he took the prophecy to heart (which apparently, he did) then he would cover his bases if he made it so that as long as one of them (Harry or Tom) were alive, then a bit of his soul would remain.
We are, of course, operating under the assumption that the only way to remove the soul from a Horcrux is to destroy it. We need (young, tender, ever-blossoming) Hermione to do some serious research into the subject, since there seems to be little on it in Hogwarts. Perhaps Harry's great strength, love, is what will save him once again.
On another point, I was sorely disappointed (as a person, not as a reader [this is no judgment on JKR]) that Snape turned out to be bad. I had this hope that we would think him ill until the last book when he redeemed himself somehow.
Then again... maybe Albus and Severus have been cooking this up from day one... maybe Albus knew he had to die to solidify Severus' standing with Voldie... okay, that's wishful thinking... I just still haven't gotten over the audible yelp I made when I turned that page and read "Avada kedavra!"
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jul 22, 2005 9:41:53 GMT -5
I read that Slate article the other day and it annoyed the hell out of me. People holding on to old things just because they're old pisses me off. Narnia is chock full of references to all kinds of non-timeless things, but because they don't have direct correlation (as Harry Potter's correlations seem to), then they're somehow better and "timeless." Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.
And moreover, I rather don't care if Harry Potter is timeless or not. The idea that children's literature is somehow something that should be codified and unchangable is ridiculous and is the last refuge of adults who refuse to let go.
And, in case you can't tell, I'm bitter. Whatever. I thought The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe was boring. Long and boring. There's a reason kids don't read it anymore (or wait, did they ever). Boo hoo to you Narnia lovers.
|
|
|
Post by amanda mcbride on Jul 26, 2005 9:26:13 GMT -5
What are the odds that Snape turned out to be one of Dumbledore's "huge mistakes"...? I've mostly convinced myself otherwise by talking to Katie and Chris about Snape's betrayal and his behavior afterwords, but, well, you know, what if we're wrong? Oh, and, Chris, stop talkin' that smack about CS Lewis.
|
|
|
Post by rickus on Jul 27, 2005 21:54:45 GMT -5
Katie thinks Coca Cola has cocain in it. I really liked the book. And I'm eager to read the next one.
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Jul 27, 2005 21:57:45 GMT -5
Doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by rickus on Jul 27, 2005 22:00:34 GMT -5
Sorry. No Apple works either. Damnit Jim, I'm a designer. Not God.
|
|
|
Post by amanda on Jul 27, 2005 22:07:43 GMT -5
That's crazy talk. Next thing you know, you'll say something like, oh, I dunno, the Harry Potter board is too something or other for the likes of you..
|
|
|
Post by nick on Jul 30, 2006 19:20:13 GMT -5
I think there are only 6 horcruxes, because he wanted to tear his soul into 7 pieces and he has to keep 1 in himself. And also, I think Harry might not go back to hogwarts and might spend the last book destroying horcruxes full-time.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jul 30, 2006 22:29:24 GMT -5
Nick is correct; there are decidedly six horcruxes. I think the confusion came from the fact that (like Nick said) Voldemort divided his soul into seven parts, and kept one. (HBP, p. 503) www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/devices/horcruxes.htmlI wonder if *anyone* will go back to Hogwart's this year. With Dumbledore dead, a lot of the defenses of Hogwarts may be compromised, and the Ministry of Magic might close it for the year. An interesting essay on the Harry/horcrux theory: www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-is-harry-a-horcrux.htmlThen again: www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-cmckinnon01.shtml"Wait. What did you say? Did I just hear you ask about the evidence pointing to Harry as a Horcrux? Are you completely nutters? There is no way Harry could be a Horcrux. Dumbledore clearly states that no part of Voldemort can exist inside of Harry (33). It causes Voldemort too much pain. More to the point, Voldemort, on the night of his return, told his Death Eaters that he couldn’t even touch Harry that night in Godric’s Hollow, because of the magic that protected him (34). If he couldn’t touch him, how could he turn him into a Horcrux? Any part of Voldemort that wound up inside Harry would have disintegrated just like Quirrel did. The night Dumbledore took Harry to the Dursleys, he confirmed to McGonagall that Voldemort’s “power somehow broke” (35)."
|
|
|
Post by mj on Jul 31, 2006 0:27:57 GMT -5
*spoilers* (has everyone read HP & the HBP...?)
I'm still secretly hoping that Harry is a horcrux. It's more fun to think about... It's Rowling's last book, after all. She's already mentioned that either Harry or Voldemort will have to die as they can't continue co-existing. So...What if she kills them both? Harry as horcrux could be placed in a position of having to sacrifice himself in order to rid everyone of Voldemort once and for all. Or not.
What do you think the chances are of Dumbledore rising again like, say, a phoenix in the last book? Slim, to be sure. Still, he was a very popular character..
|
|
|
Post by mj on Jul 31, 2006 0:28:46 GMT -5
Oh, and has there been any word, yet, on when the last book will be out?
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jul 31, 2006 7:59:47 GMT -5
There are rumors... but nothing confirmed... that it's due on 7/7/07 Get it? www.mugglenet.com/app/category/show/8(I like how J.K.R. has confirmed that the Sorting Hat is NOT a horcrux. 8^)
|
|
|
Post by jtmx1 on Jul 31, 2006 19:07:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by chris on Aug 1, 2006 17:04:33 GMT -5
Equus, huh?
Harry Potter and the Horse's Bone
|
|
|
Post by chris on Aug 3, 2006 10:59:31 GMT -5
|
|