for Harry Potter: A very critical review8/22/2006 c1 
4Elle Marlene
A few things I thought about while reading this:
1) I agree, it is rather silly that he just keeps fixing his glasses. I thought something similar to this when I watched The Island (if they can reproduce humans and use them for extra body parts, why doesn't everyone get laser eye surgery instead of wearing glasses?) haha.
2) Harry's unjustifiable anger: what teenage boy doesn't shout at people for no apparent reason? I'd chalk that one up to hormones.
3) What if (theoretically) the prophecy had said that some terrible tragedy would befall Voldemort if Harry was killed? In that case, the Death Eaters would be in a whole lot of trouble if they had killed Harry first instead of finding out what the prophecy actually said. So maybe they weren't that stupid after all...
A very interesting read!
4Elle MarleneA few things I thought about while reading this:
1) I agree, it is rather silly that he just keeps fixing his glasses. I thought something similar to this when I watched The Island (if they can reproduce humans and use them for extra body parts, why doesn't everyone get laser eye surgery instead of wearing glasses?) haha.
2) Harry's unjustifiable anger: what teenage boy doesn't shout at people for no apparent reason? I'd chalk that one up to hormones.
3) What if (theoretically) the prophecy had said that some terrible tragedy would befall Voldemort if Harry was killed? In that case, the Death Eaters would be in a whole lot of trouble if they had killed Harry first instead of finding out what the prophecy actually said. So maybe they weren't that stupid after all...
A very interesting read!
9/9/2005 c1 Charity F
Ha ha ha ha! very nicely thought out and executed! wonderful! i, myself am a HP fan, but not an obsessive, fanatic, emotionally deranged sad case fan...
i also, find a few flaws in the series, and i value other's opinions and criticisms of JK...i mean, not like she'd care - she's already richer than the Queen herself so how's it going to affect her?
even if i utterly despised the book i would still buy it, (as in the recent case of HBP being released), just to find out what really happens...and somehow find out more reasons to critiscise her...and its about time she decides to sacrifice some of her $0's to a worthy cause...
~Tabitha The GReat
PS. loved your essay by the way...
Ha ha ha ha! very nicely thought out and executed! wonderful! i, myself am a HP fan, but not an obsessive, fanatic, emotionally deranged sad case fan...
i also, find a few flaws in the series, and i value other's opinions and criticisms of JK...i mean, not like she'd care - she's already richer than the Queen herself so how's it going to affect her?
even if i utterly despised the book i would still buy it, (as in the recent case of HBP being released), just to find out what really happens...and somehow find out more reasons to critiscise her...and its about time she decides to sacrifice some of her $0's to a worthy cause...
~Tabitha The GReat
PS. loved your essay by the way...
5/14/2005 c1 4vashsunglasses
Thestrals ARE in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. I will quote the passage below, it is found under "Winged Horse" on the last page of the book.
"Winged horses exist worldwide. There are many different breeds, including the Abraxan (immensely powerful giant palominos), the Aethonan (chestnut, popular in Britain and Ireland), the Granian (grey and particularly fast), and the rare Thestral (black, possessed of the power of invisibility, and considered unlucky by many wizards). As with the Hippogriff, the owner of a winged horse is required to perform a Disillusionment Charm upon it at regular intervals (see introduction).
So she didn't mess up after all. ;)
~vashsunglasses
4vashsunglassesThestrals ARE in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. I will quote the passage below, it is found under "Winged Horse" on the last page of the book.
"Winged horses exist worldwide. There are many different breeds, including the Abraxan (immensely powerful giant palominos), the Aethonan (chestnut, popular in Britain and Ireland), the Granian (grey and particularly fast), and the rare Thestral (black, possessed of the power of invisibility, and considered unlucky by many wizards). As with the Hippogriff, the owner of a winged horse is required to perform a Disillusionment Charm upon it at regular intervals (see introduction).
So she didn't mess up after all. ;)
~vashsunglasses
5/14/2005 c1 6Carleon
Jason...
I cannot tell you how thankful I am to you for proving that there is, at least, one sane person left in this world of chaos and confusion. Thank you again.
A clarification about my point regarding Rotter's soul. Now in a story like The Lord of the Rings, which is epic in scope, and mythincal in proportion, pure characters are fitting. However HP is earthy, and Rowling can never, ever aspire to write like Tolkien does, and in her "fantasy" novels, pure characters are a huge liability.
Cheers
6CarleonJason...
I cannot tell you how thankful I am to you for proving that there is, at least, one sane person left in this world of chaos and confusion. Thank you again.
A clarification about my point regarding Rotter's soul. Now in a story like The Lord of the Rings, which is epic in scope, and mythincal in proportion, pure characters are fitting. However HP is earthy, and Rowling can never, ever aspire to write like Tolkien does, and in her "fantasy" novels, pure characters are a huge liability.
Cheers
5/14/2005 c1 2Jason2004
I am by no means a fanatic Harry Potter fan; in fact I do not even like the books, or the character, or the fantasy world in which they exist. I believe that much of "Potter" is shallow, cheap and an existential nightmare. The last book was absolutely revolting and actually quite sickening.
Despite my own personal angst, and despite the admiration I feel for your effort, I do feel that your review has some weaknesses. I point these weaknesses out to you so that, in the event that you write a review of the forthcoming book, it might be even stronger than this one.
Your Point 2: Fantasy is the one genre noted for mindless rambles off into absolute irrelevancy. Even Tolkien spent years developing an entire Elvish language, complete with grammar, symbology and punctuation. This was often spoken by his characters as they walked through unnecessary forest trails and had mystic chats with bizarre oddities that had little to do with the overall destruction of Evil. Therefore, Rowling can be, I think, forgiven if she has chosen to weave elements into the plot that do not, overall, serve the story's ultimate premise.
Your Point 3: Actually, nice as pie characters, when written properly, can be just as interesting, if not more so, than a character riddled with vices. The cynical view that unless a fictional person has obvious vices, and repellant aspects he or she cannot be accepted as "fully human" is a myth. Many people in our world around us are actually charming, nice and sincere, and we accept them as being "fully human" and not angels in disguise.Again, in Lewis' fantasy, and in Tolkien's books, there were many characters who were unspeakably good. Some of the Elves, and even Gandalf (who is so pure that he "comes back" white rather than grey - a metaphor that run like a delicate chainsaw in the book; intended for those who miss the obvious symbology). On the other hand, as you in fact pointed out later, Harry Potter is far from being virtuous beyond virtue. He is, in fact, an annoying, spoiled, pampered, tempestuous, dimwitted, meddlesome, spiteful, arrogant, haughty, self-indulgent, whinging, disrespectful little twerp.
Your Point 5: Gentle interjection - I car as much about the correct use of English as you evidently do. But Rowling never had it much in the first place. I'd given up many books earlier.
Your points about Dumbledore are precisely correct. Dumbledore is such a liar that I wonder if he is a closet leftist. In fact, he sounds very Buddhist often. I would not be surprised if he begins preaching Koans at Potter in the next book. Maybe things like:
"Ah, Potter. A broken leg, eh? Falling of your broomstick? Well, as a great teacher once said: 'He who falls is one who rises; and he who drowns is one who breathes'."
OR,
"So you got into ANOTHER FIGHT WITH MALFOY POTTER? Well, as the great Bulldusti Khan once said: 'He who fights makes peace; and he who cuts open his foe heals his foe's wounds.'"
OR,
"Ah Potter, Potter? What have you done THIS TIME? Gorged yourself on alcoholic chocolate and rode one of the bizzaro beasts into a school building, causing an entire wing to cave in on 50,0 little wizards? Well, as the Dribbli-Wordi once said: 'He who causes the death of those you are responsible for gives you more responsibility; and when they buried under rubble, they have become one with their studies.'"
2Jason2004I am by no means a fanatic Harry Potter fan; in fact I do not even like the books, or the character, or the fantasy world in which they exist. I believe that much of "Potter" is shallow, cheap and an existential nightmare. The last book was absolutely revolting and actually quite sickening.
Despite my own personal angst, and despite the admiration I feel for your effort, I do feel that your review has some weaknesses. I point these weaknesses out to you so that, in the event that you write a review of the forthcoming book, it might be even stronger than this one.
Your Point 2: Fantasy is the one genre noted for mindless rambles off into absolute irrelevancy. Even Tolkien spent years developing an entire Elvish language, complete with grammar, symbology and punctuation. This was often spoken by his characters as they walked through unnecessary forest trails and had mystic chats with bizarre oddities that had little to do with the overall destruction of Evil. Therefore, Rowling can be, I think, forgiven if she has chosen to weave elements into the plot that do not, overall, serve the story's ultimate premise.
Your Point 3: Actually, nice as pie characters, when written properly, can be just as interesting, if not more so, than a character riddled with vices. The cynical view that unless a fictional person has obvious vices, and repellant aspects he or she cannot be accepted as "fully human" is a myth. Many people in our world around us are actually charming, nice and sincere, and we accept them as being "fully human" and not angels in disguise.Again, in Lewis' fantasy, and in Tolkien's books, there were many characters who were unspeakably good. Some of the Elves, and even Gandalf (who is so pure that he "comes back" white rather than grey - a metaphor that run like a delicate chainsaw in the book; intended for those who miss the obvious symbology). On the other hand, as you in fact pointed out later, Harry Potter is far from being virtuous beyond virtue. He is, in fact, an annoying, spoiled, pampered, tempestuous, dimwitted, meddlesome, spiteful, arrogant, haughty, self-indulgent, whinging, disrespectful little twerp.
Your Point 5: Gentle interjection - I car as much about the correct use of English as you evidently do. But Rowling never had it much in the first place. I'd given up many books earlier.
Your points about Dumbledore are precisely correct. Dumbledore is such a liar that I wonder if he is a closet leftist. In fact, he sounds very Buddhist often. I would not be surprised if he begins preaching Koans at Potter in the next book. Maybe things like:
"Ah, Potter. A broken leg, eh? Falling of your broomstick? Well, as a great teacher once said: 'He who falls is one who rises; and he who drowns is one who breathes'."
OR,
"So you got into ANOTHER FIGHT WITH MALFOY POTTER? Well, as the great Bulldusti Khan once said: 'He who fights makes peace; and he who cuts open his foe heals his foe's wounds.'"
OR,
"Ah Potter, Potter? What have you done THIS TIME? Gorged yourself on alcoholic chocolate and rode one of the bizzaro beasts into a school building, causing an entire wing to cave in on 50,0 little wizards? Well, as the Dribbli-Wordi once said: 'He who causes the death of those you are responsible for gives you more responsibility; and when they buried under rubble, they have become one with their studies.'"
5/12/2005 c1 3eldoronian
Ok well I have to say that I admire you for comming out and voicing your opinions. Although most of your points were valid to some degree, you should have done a bit more research before assuming certain things.
a)You implied that Harry was somewhat of a perfect character. While that is true in that he has all the good qualities of a hero (at least until book 5) he is not perfect because he faces so much conflict in his life. I realise that that doesn't make he himself any less perfect, but it is Rowling's way of balancing things out. Most people would be content with that, but you obviously are one of the few that see beyond the surface.
b)Harry did actually have a reason for being angry. He had just witnessed Cedric being killed, pretty much because Harry had done the noble thing and waited for him in the maze. Understandibly, Harry is feeling angry with himself. Plus he feels out of the loop when it comes to the Order, who have pretty much left him out of everything, even though it's all about him. At the end of the book, Harry is yelling at Dumbledore because Dumbedore never told him about the prophesy, which would have helped alot if he had known earlier.
c)About the thestral thing. I doubt that JK made up the thestrals between book 4 and 5, but even if she did, her reasons for leaving it out of "Fantastic Beasts" are understandible. When Harry starts seeing thestrals, we have no idea what they are, and Harry starts to believe that he is crazy. Including thestrals in fantastic beasts, which came out before book 5, would elliminate all mystery surrounding them.
d)Alot of people have criticised Rowling for killing Sirius. It's like they expect her to write whatever will please them. When it comes down to it, it is HER book, not ours, and she can kill whoever she likes. I have a feeling most of this critiscism would never be voiced against a less popular author. In this case I believe Rowling is a victim of her own success. Plus she haas cited repeatedly that she has a good reason for killing Sirius.
6)It makes a certain amount of sense that Luna Lovegood didn't appear until book 5, because, as was said, she wasn't very popular or noticeable, plus she was in a different house and year than Harry and the gang. Also, perhaps JK needed to introduce that character. I'm sure it's been done before, without an ounce of protest. Once again JK is a victim of her own success.
All in all, you make good points, but most of them can be argued both ways. I commend you on refusing to blend in with the crowd, as well as on your essay writing abilities. (Please excuse my spelling, it's late.)
3eldoronianOk well I have to say that I admire you for comming out and voicing your opinions. Although most of your points were valid to some degree, you should have done a bit more research before assuming certain things.
a)You implied that Harry was somewhat of a perfect character. While that is true in that he has all the good qualities of a hero (at least until book 5) he is not perfect because he faces so much conflict in his life. I realise that that doesn't make he himself any less perfect, but it is Rowling's way of balancing things out. Most people would be content with that, but you obviously are one of the few that see beyond the surface.
b)Harry did actually have a reason for being angry. He had just witnessed Cedric being killed, pretty much because Harry had done the noble thing and waited for him in the maze. Understandibly, Harry is feeling angry with himself. Plus he feels out of the loop when it comes to the Order, who have pretty much left him out of everything, even though it's all about him. At the end of the book, Harry is yelling at Dumbledore because Dumbedore never told him about the prophesy, which would have helped alot if he had known earlier.
c)About the thestral thing. I doubt that JK made up the thestrals between book 4 and 5, but even if she did, her reasons for leaving it out of "Fantastic Beasts" are understandible. When Harry starts seeing thestrals, we have no idea what they are, and Harry starts to believe that he is crazy. Including thestrals in fantastic beasts, which came out before book 5, would elliminate all mystery surrounding them.
d)Alot of people have criticised Rowling for killing Sirius. It's like they expect her to write whatever will please them. When it comes down to it, it is HER book, not ours, and she can kill whoever she likes. I have a feeling most of this critiscism would never be voiced against a less popular author. In this case I believe Rowling is a victim of her own success. Plus she haas cited repeatedly that she has a good reason for killing Sirius.
6)It makes a certain amount of sense that Luna Lovegood didn't appear until book 5, because, as was said, she wasn't very popular or noticeable, plus she was in a different house and year than Harry and the gang. Also, perhaps JK needed to introduce that character. I'm sure it's been done before, without an ounce of protest. Once again JK is a victim of her own success.
All in all, you make good points, but most of them can be argued both ways. I commend you on refusing to blend in with the crowd, as well as on your essay writing abilities. (Please excuse my spelling, it's late.)
5/12/2005 c1 5Dream2Aspiration
Not to flame or anything, this is more of a disappointment rant than a critique, but whatever.
Now tot he points that you're making. 1. OoP isn't just grotesque, actually, it's not grotesque at all. I find it very amusing. frustrating...but amusing
2. Harry's soul is anything but stainless...we just didn't see it until now...
3. It's the writer's choice to kill whoever she feels like it. I like Sirius too and I am mad that he is dead, but it's her story not mine not yours...deal with it
4. I agree with you on this one...most characters do just sit pretty while harry does most of the work...or the important work anyway...
5. on the beast thingy...i have to check on that if it's true that's funny
Ok, now about the book in all, I like it. It's not my favorite, but I like it. It's funny though it's dark...I thin Rowling has done a pretty good job...she's not the greatest writer in the world, but she has a very good story to tell. I don't think she plan on being a writer...but sometimes a story just pops into your head and forces it being written...
5Dream2AspirationNot to flame or anything, this is more of a disappointment rant than a critique, but whatever.
Now tot he points that you're making. 1. OoP isn't just grotesque, actually, it's not grotesque at all. I find it very amusing. frustrating...but amusing
2. Harry's soul is anything but stainless...we just didn't see it until now...
3. It's the writer's choice to kill whoever she feels like it. I like Sirius too and I am mad that he is dead, but it's her story not mine not yours...deal with it
4. I agree with you on this one...most characters do just sit pretty while harry does most of the work...or the important work anyway...
5. on the beast thingy...i have to check on that if it's true that's funny
Ok, now about the book in all, I like it. It's not my favorite, but I like it. It's funny though it's dark...I thin Rowling has done a pretty good job...she's not the greatest writer in the world, but she has a very good story to tell. I don't think she plan on being a writer...but sometimes a story just pops into your head and forces it being written...
5/12/2005 c1 32eldrin
A very, er...interesting...review. Considering that most of your criticisms are unfounded (everyone knows that the occurance of the improbable and over-the-top-ness are cornerstones of fantasy writing) they are written in such a way as to be almost convincing.
32eldrinA very, er...interesting...review. Considering that most of your criticisms are unfounded (everyone knows that the occurance of the improbable and over-the-top-ness are cornerstones of fantasy writing) they are written in such a way as to be almost convincing.
5/12/2005 c1 1ishysunny
Interesting article, you need to do some research too support your claims. Harry is not a flawless character, his anger and angst were actually quite annoying in the fifth book. Everything is not as predictable as ou make it seem, the prophecy may not be everything it seems. Harry did not cooly defeat 12 death eaters, he simply escaped them in a moment of panic, the Order members actually foought them. I am a fan of Harry Potter and have tried to remain unbiased in this review, but please support your arguments.
1ishysunnyInteresting article, you need to do some research too support your claims. Harry is not a flawless character, his anger and angst were actually quite annoying in the fifth book. Everything is not as predictable as ou make it seem, the prophecy may not be everything it seems. Harry did not cooly defeat 12 death eaters, he simply escaped them in a moment of panic, the Order members actually foought them. I am a fan of Harry Potter and have tried to remain unbiased in this review, but please support your arguments.
5/12/2005 c1 2TheShadowAvenger
Haha that was harsh. But I have to agree with you on somethings. Especially how Harry, despite how people say has had a tragic life with his parents dead and stuffus, is a perfect child. I despise perfect characters. Of course that doesn't stop me from making them in my stories, but still. Anyway, I thought it was interesting, and usually I don't read reveiws, but this one was pretty sharp. I like Harry Potter, but it seems that Rowling's books are becoming darker and darker. Maybe she's going through depression. Anyway, nice review- you really get down to the nittygritty of it, instead of just the face surface. You review well and sharply, and you don't have hesitation to completely obliterate a well-known and loved author's book. Nice.
~SHadow the Avenger
2TheShadowAvengerHaha that was harsh. But I have to agree with you on somethings. Especially how Harry, despite how people say has had a tragic life with his parents dead and stuffus, is a perfect child. I despise perfect characters. Of course that doesn't stop me from making them in my stories, but still. Anyway, I thought it was interesting, and usually I don't read reveiws, but this one was pretty sharp. I like Harry Potter, but it seems that Rowling's books are becoming darker and darker. Maybe she's going through depression. Anyway, nice review- you really get down to the nittygritty of it, instead of just the face surface. You review well and sharply, and you don't have hesitation to completely obliterate a well-known and loved author's book. Nice.
~SHadow the Avenger