I know I said I'd be posting about Harry Potter, but indulge me in this extremely brief vent. The Bar Exam is in a week and, obviously, it's taking up like 95% of my time. I've been doing a lot of practice multiple choice questions, and I'd like to comment on something that I find extremely annoying -- the use of names in the practice questions.
Here's the thing: if you need to name some people for a hypothetical ("Jane and Doe are riding their bikes when Bob, who is driving negligently, strikes Jane with his car") it is nice to use names that are (1) easy to remember and (2) easily identifiable as male or female. Because if "Griddle, Ozarka, and Blue" are involved in a conspiracy and then all of a sudden "she decides to confess" I HAVE NO BLOODY IDEA WHO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Is "Griddle" a woman's name? Or Ozarka? Blue? Seriously, it's super confusing and it annoys me that I have to spend time just figuring out who is who, when I should be figuring out who is liable.
Here are some of the actual names used in some of the practice questions:
1. Aiken, Bacon & Cogg
2. Panda
3. Menachem
4. Rogan Josh (yes, this is the name of an Indian food)
5. Orizaba
6. Biddlebaum
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Things unknown . . . .
Okay, anonymous poster's theory (see Comment to previous post) would tie up a LOT of loose ends, but here are some others that I think are interesting:
1. JK has said that it's very important that Harry has his mother's eyes. No idea yet what that could be about. She also said that Lily's wand was especially good for charms.
2. JK has said one important question no one has asked is why Dumbledore had James' invisibility cloak. Was D there the night Harry's parents died??
3. What was with the "gleam of triumph" in D's eyes when Voldie was able to touch Harry without being burned? My guess is that this indicated Voldie had become more human/killable.
4. There was one character that was going to be cut from Movie 5, but JK advised that doing so might create problems for later movies. If you've seen Movie 5, you know that Kreacher is in the movie, but he has no part of the plotline, so everyone is guessing that JK was talking about him. What will Kreacher do in Book 7? I'm wondering if maybe he'll help them find the locket.
5. What will become of Percy?
6. This relates to the Snape-is-connected-to-Lily thing, but why would Voldie have spared Lily?
There's a full list of open questions listed on Mugglenet.
1. JK has said that it's very important that Harry has his mother's eyes. No idea yet what that could be about. She also said that Lily's wand was especially good for charms.
2. JK has said one important question no one has asked is why Dumbledore had James' invisibility cloak. Was D there the night Harry's parents died??
3. What was with the "gleam of triumph" in D's eyes when Voldie was able to touch Harry without being burned? My guess is that this indicated Voldie had become more human/killable.
4. There was one character that was going to be cut from Movie 5, but JK advised that doing so might create problems for later movies. If you've seen Movie 5, you know that Kreacher is in the movie, but he has no part of the plotline, so everyone is guessing that JK was talking about him. What will Kreacher do in Book 7? I'm wondering if maybe he'll help them find the locket.
5. What will become of Percy?
6. This relates to the Snape-is-connected-to-Lily thing, but why would Voldie have spared Lily?
There's a full list of open questions listed on Mugglenet.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Just for Dean - will Harry survive?
Oh, the speculation! Will poor Harry lose his own life in the fight against Voldie? People seem pretty split on this issue; I'd say at least a third of the HP readers think Harry is going to die. Dan Radcliffe has even said that he hopes Harry dies. And that when he dies, he's naked. And cuddling with a horse.
All that aside, I'm pretty skeptical. Again, not putting it past JK, but it just doesn't make sense. People keep saying that this is a "christ-story" as evidence that Harry will die, but I don't find HP to have nearly as much connection with Christian imagery and metaphor as many other books. And even many blatant christ-stories don't include the death of the savior. Case in point: Aragorn, LotR. He's tested, he has to sacrifice, but he lives through the book and gets to boink Liv Tyler. What I mean is that there are many ways to tell a story about a prophesised redeemer, and many of the ones we're familiar with don't include the hero being killed.
But my real skepticism comes from something much more technical. Throughout the novels, we only see what Harry sees - with 2 exceptions. (1) The interaction between the human and magical ministers (2) Snape's conversation with Bellatrix and Narcissa. Aside from thos conversations, we have no insight beyond what Harry experiences. If you're writing a book that's almost a first-person narrative without actually being in first-person, what do you write when the character dies. Would JK just switch to a more omniscient voice in the final chapters? Wouldn't that be obvious and annoying? Would she write a bunch of Book 7 like that? It wouldn't seem to flow very well with the other 6 books, would it. Technically, I can't think of a good way to make that work (which certainly doesn't say much.) Maybe have the very last words of the next-to-final chapter be Harry's dying thoughts? (JK has said that the very last chapter is sort of a prologue with info about what happens in the lives of the characters in future years.)
I think what's most likely is that Harry will have to sacrifice something really, really big. Ginny? Ron? Or maybe something we haven't even thought of. Regardless, let's all keep out fingers crossed that I'm right, and that Harry defeats Voldemort, marries Ginny, and everyone lives happily ever after.
All that aside, I'm pretty skeptical. Again, not putting it past JK, but it just doesn't make sense. People keep saying that this is a "christ-story" as evidence that Harry will die, but I don't find HP to have nearly as much connection with Christian imagery and metaphor as many other books. And even many blatant christ-stories don't include the death of the savior. Case in point: Aragorn, LotR. He's tested, he has to sacrifice, but he lives through the book and gets to boink Liv Tyler. What I mean is that there are many ways to tell a story about a prophesised redeemer, and many of the ones we're familiar with don't include the hero being killed.
But my real skepticism comes from something much more technical. Throughout the novels, we only see what Harry sees - with 2 exceptions. (1) The interaction between the human and magical ministers (2) Snape's conversation with Bellatrix and Narcissa. Aside from thos conversations, we have no insight beyond what Harry experiences. If you're writing a book that's almost a first-person narrative without actually being in first-person, what do you write when the character dies. Would JK just switch to a more omniscient voice in the final chapters? Wouldn't that be obvious and annoying? Would she write a bunch of Book 7 like that? It wouldn't seem to flow very well with the other 6 books, would it. Technically, I can't think of a good way to make that work (which certainly doesn't say much.) Maybe have the very last words of the next-to-final chapter be Harry's dying thoughts? (JK has said that the very last chapter is sort of a prologue with info about what happens in the lives of the characters in future years.)
I think what's most likely is that Harry will have to sacrifice something really, really big. Ginny? Ron? Or maybe something we haven't even thought of. Regardless, let's all keep out fingers crossed that I'm right, and that Harry defeats Voldemort, marries Ginny, and everyone lives happily ever after.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Harry Potter Countdown: 5 days to go
Theory #1: Ron will die.
I know that would totally suck, but it kind of makes sense. JK is pretty good at foreshadowing, and I can't help but think about the first Harry-Voldie confrontation. The way it played out was that Ron sacrificed himself so that Harry could go on, and circumstances prevented Hermione from taking the final step with Harry. That exchange does seem to kind of define the relationship between them. So I wouldn't be surprised if Ron dies, Hermione for some reason can't go on, and - I think - Harry will have to do the final killing of Voldie without either of them.
Theory #2: Snape is somehow connected to Lily Potter.
This has been pretty played out on the net, but I think it makes sense. Dumbledore told Harry that after Snape realized the prophesy meant Voldie would go after the Potters, he tried to fix things and ended up betraying the Death Eaters. Why would Snape give a rat's ass if Lily and James got killed? We know he hated James. But the memory in the Penseive (the sort of put on aloofness between Lily and Snape) is good evidence that there's some connection. Are they related? Was Snape in love with Lily? Who knows. Also notice (if you're re-reading this week) that when Harry questioned D about Snape's allegiance, D seemed to be considering something before re-affirming that Snape is a good guy. Perhaps he was considering whether or not to let Harry in on his mother's connection with Snape
Theory #3: Hagrid will die.
I have no basis for this in anything. Just a gut feeling.
Theory #4: Fawkes will somehow help Harry on his journey/ Harry is the heir of Gryffindor.
I guess these are two separate issues but - hey! - it's my blog. The heir if Gryffindor idea is also tossed around the net a lot, and while it might seem too obvious it certainly would make sense.
Theory #5: Neville was present when Harry's parents were killed.
Here's the thing. We know Nev's parents were powerful, very strong wizards. This seems to lead to strong wizard children. Nev is extremely forgetful, and JK has casually thrown in the fact that an overly powerful memory charm can permanently damage a person's abilities, notably their memory. Note also that Nev can see thestrals, and when asked who he's seen die he very evasively answers that he's seen his grandfather die (or was it his uncle?). Even if Voldie, after hearing the beginning of the prohesy, felt it more likely that Harry was his nemesis, you'd think he would at least plan to kill both babies, just to be safe. Why not grab Neville and then head on over to the Potters? The only kink in this theory is that witnessing death as a baby doesn't seem to be "witnessing death" in the way that gives rise to thestral-seeing. Although JK herself has said that it's about when you see death and it "sinks in."
Theory #6: Each book has had Harry coming into contact with one of the six horcruxes.
There are six horcruxes for the first 6 books, and already we can pin down that in three of the six books, Harry comes into contact with a horcrux --
Book 1: ??
Book 2: the diary.
Book 3: ??
Book 4: Nagini
Book 5: the locket
Book 6: the ring
Book 7: The part that is Voldie?
So the guess is that the cup and the unknown something-of-Gryffindor-or-Ravenclaw are in Books 1 and 3.
More tomorrow - what are your theories?
I know that would totally suck, but it kind of makes sense. JK is pretty good at foreshadowing, and I can't help but think about the first Harry-Voldie confrontation. The way it played out was that Ron sacrificed himself so that Harry could go on, and circumstances prevented Hermione from taking the final step with Harry. That exchange does seem to kind of define the relationship between them. So I wouldn't be surprised if Ron dies, Hermione for some reason can't go on, and - I think - Harry will have to do the final killing of Voldie without either of them.
Theory #2: Snape is somehow connected to Lily Potter.
This has been pretty played out on the net, but I think it makes sense. Dumbledore told Harry that after Snape realized the prophesy meant Voldie would go after the Potters, he tried to fix things and ended up betraying the Death Eaters. Why would Snape give a rat's ass if Lily and James got killed? We know he hated James. But the memory in the Penseive (the sort of put on aloofness between Lily and Snape) is good evidence that there's some connection. Are they related? Was Snape in love with Lily? Who knows. Also notice (if you're re-reading this week) that when Harry questioned D about Snape's allegiance, D seemed to be considering something before re-affirming that Snape is a good guy. Perhaps he was considering whether or not to let Harry in on his mother's connection with Snape
Theory #3: Hagrid will die.
I have no basis for this in anything. Just a gut feeling.
Theory #4: Fawkes will somehow help Harry on his journey/ Harry is the heir of Gryffindor.
I guess these are two separate issues but - hey! - it's my blog. The heir if Gryffindor idea is also tossed around the net a lot, and while it might seem too obvious it certainly would make sense.
Theory #5: Neville was present when Harry's parents were killed.
Here's the thing. We know Nev's parents were powerful, very strong wizards. This seems to lead to strong wizard children. Nev is extremely forgetful, and JK has casually thrown in the fact that an overly powerful memory charm can permanently damage a person's abilities, notably their memory. Note also that Nev can see thestrals, and when asked who he's seen die he very evasively answers that he's seen his grandfather die (or was it his uncle?). Even if Voldie, after hearing the beginning of the prohesy, felt it more likely that Harry was his nemesis, you'd think he would at least plan to kill both babies, just to be safe. Why not grab Neville and then head on over to the Potters? The only kink in this theory is that witnessing death as a baby doesn't seem to be "witnessing death" in the way that gives rise to thestral-seeing. Although JK herself has said that it's about when you see death and it "sinks in."
Theory #6: Each book has had Harry coming into contact with one of the six horcruxes.
There are six horcruxes for the first 6 books, and already we can pin down that in three of the six books, Harry comes into contact with a horcrux --
Book 1: ??
Book 2: the diary.
Book 3: ??
Book 4: Nagini
Book 5: the locket
Book 6: the ring
Book 7: The part that is Voldie?
So the guess is that the cup and the unknown something-of-Gryffindor-or-Ravenclaw are in Books 1 and 3.
More tomorrow - what are your theories?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)