I doubt snape will ever help harry potter, he hates him. However, Wormtail still owes a debt to him. Malfoy will also fight against lord voldermont I imagine, because Malfoy was never really that evil just a douche.
Also, R.A.B is Regulus Black if you missed me mentioning that earlier. His final sacrifice was probably destroying that amulet.
I doubt any more ghosts will come about because its a really bad decision to become one.
I doubt both Hermoine and Ron will die, one or the other might to dramatize things though. I think Hagrid will probably die too.
Harry Potter will die though. Im pretty much sure of that.
Stories do follow a formula, this makes you angry?
Good stories aren't formulaic.
I don't care much about Harry Potter, but I don't like the assertion that a story would be "better" if it followed an explicit formula - i.e., if it was formulaic. There's no point in even reading a story if it's the same as all the others.
Granted, Harry Potter isn't exactly 'great literature.' But even stories written primarily for entertainment should try to never adhere a formula - especially not a terrible one.
Then again, I'm fairly sure you're just trolling anyway, based on your explanation for using smilies. That or you're clueless. Either way saves me the trouble of caring enough about whatever your next inane response will be to drag the thread off-topic.
Stories do follow a formula, this makes you angry?
Good stories aren't formulaic.
I don't care much about Harry Potter, but I don't like the assertion that a story would be "better" if it followed an explicit formula - i.e., if it was formulaic. There's no point in even reading a story if it's the same as all the others.
Granted, Harry Potter isn't exactly 'great literature.' But even stories written primarily for entertainment should try to never adhere a formula - especially not a terrible one.
Then again, I'm fairly sure you're just trolling anyway, based on your explanation for using smilies. That or you're clueless. Either way saves me the trouble of caring enough about whatever your next inane response will be to drag the thread off-topic.
If you want a story that doesn't adhere to another's formula, why exactly are you reading Harry Potter? What part isn't from something else? I ask this in all seriousness, because from what I can see, it conforms to the themes and events of several stories.
Agem. I don't really follow your line of reasoning about the Smilies. And if I am clueless, feel free to waste your words on someone else.
However, you speak in absolutes, so I am guessing you have not got a lot of experience with the world. Good stories aren't formulaic, eh?. None of them?.
You are quite right, if a story was the same as all the others, there wouldn't be any point in reading it. Only, where do we get the concept of genre from?. Thats the trouble with speaking in absolutes. If you write a murder mystery, but steer so far afield from the accepted formula that you lose your audience, well you have written something other than a murder mystery.
Her books so far have been very good examples of formula writing. Not nobel prize material.
Seriphus on
It had hitherto been the peculiar felicity to the Romans, and in the worst of times their consolation, that the virtue of the emperors was active and their vice indolent.
Gibbon.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited December 2006
I don't like agreeing with him, because he really doesn't seem to know what he's talking about, but Seriphus is accidently correct.
Your post is just some gratuitous insult, or you have a point you care to substantiate?.
Seriphus on
It had hitherto been the peculiar felicity to the Romans, and in the worst of times their consolation, that the virtue of the emperors was active and their vice indolent.
Don't tell me you actually, when reading a book or watching a movie, actually think, 'Hey, this is just following ______ formula, making it just like ______."
Sepah on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Don't tell me you actually, when reading a book or watching a movie, actually think, 'Hey, this is just following ______ formula, making it just like ______."
No, but when a book basically punches me in the face with it, I don't really ignore it. However, I read a lot so I pick up on this sort of thing quite frequently, since no book in the history of time is completely original. The better ones take existing themes and transform them into something new. The mediocre ones take them and make it look like it's something new, when in reality it isn't.
Don't tell me you actually, when reading a book or watching a movie, actually think, 'Hey, this is just following ______ formula, making it just like ______."
Don't tell me you actually, when reading a book or watching a movie, actually think, 'Hey, this is just following ______ formula, making it just like ______."
Personally I do, but I have a DEGREE in it.
OMG JOO DEGREE WAVING ASSHOLE!
I don't mind the formulaic qualities of the Harry Potter series. It bugs me in so far as I'm aware of it...but it doesn't take away much from the series. If anything it fosters a feeling of familiarity.
Don't tell me you actually, when reading a book or watching a movie, actually think, 'Hey, this is just following ______ formula, making it just like ______."
Personally I do, but I have a DEGREE in it.
OMG JOO DEGREE WAVING ASSHOLE!
I don't mind the formulaic qualities of the Harry Potter series. It bugs me in so far as I'm aware of it...but it doesn't take away much from the series. If anything it fosters a feeling of familiarity.
My degree is bigger than your penis.
--
My point was that it's not exactly uncommon thing. It's why people seek novel literature. If you see the same fricking crap everywhere, it gets boring to read.
Of course, some people like watching/reading the same story over and over and over and over again.
If you want a story that doesn't adhere to another's formula, why exactly are you reading Harry Potter? What part isn't from something else? I ask this in all seriousness, because from what I can see, it conforms to the themes and events of several stories.
Ugh... I don't want to take this off topic, remember?
First of all, I'm not reading Harry Potter. I read the first couple books; that's it. So I'm not a huge fan personally, but that the series has become so popular is a testament of Rowling's ability to write entertaining fiction.
Secondly, having a "part from something else," if you mean it drawing from mythology, legends, and other fantasies, is not the same as being formulaic. If you want to be disparaging or if it seems as though the author claimed the work as his or her own, that's being derivative, which is different. Formulaic means different things depending on who's using the term, but being formulaic is following a basic, commonly used formula for your story rather than making your own. Something general like start->middle->end or buildup->climax->resolution isn't being formulaic in and of itself. Specifically having certain characters die at the end of your story because "it follows the traditional formula," on the other hand, is very obviously being formulaic.
No, but when a book basically punches me in the face with it, I don't really ignore it. However, I read a lot so I pick up on this sort of thing quite frequently, since no book in the history of time is completely original. The better ones take existing themes and transform them into something new. The mediocre ones take them and make it look like it's something new, when in reality it isn't.
Basically, I agree with you.
See, having the same themes doesn't mean it's formulaic. Despite what I just said, neither does having the same plotline, actually - at least, not necessarily. If, in the natural evolution of a piece it just happens to end up looking like X or being similar to X, that doesn't mean it's formulaic. The kind of stuff Seriphus is suggesting - explicitly molding your story to fit a "traditional formula" - is, again, definitely being formulaic.
I've been known to reread some series a dozen or more times.
This isn't what I meant, so I guess I wasn't clear.
If you enjoy reading something, there's absolutely nothing wrong with reading it more than once. If it's just for enjoyment, it's still enjoyable to do so, and if it's for something like literary analysis - well, let's say that's usually not based on a single reading. Many books gain on the second, third, or fourth reading.
I just mean if you go to the store and they have an entire shelf of different novels with a little summary on the wall saying "in these books, [explanation of the general events of the books, which all follow the same formula]," there's a pretty good chance you're not going to buy from that shelf more than once, unless you have some sort of obsession with that storyline, want to see how different authors approached it, or other bizarre exception.
Being formulaic is a bad thing because formulaic stories tend to be bad. The authors substitute the work of other author's for their own, and tend to produce inferior work.
A formulaic author is not necessarily one who reads a story and thinks "this is okay, but I think I could do it better." A formulaic author is one who reads a story and thinks "I will make my story like this one because it's easier than coming up with my own ideas."
[spoiler:3b26aca962]There are 6 Horcruxes, as theoretically stated in the books. This is supported by the idea that Voldemort wanted to have his soul split into 7 portions, seven being a powerfully occult number. Thusly, 6 Horcruxes and the portion of his soul left in his body make 7. The Diary and Slytherin's locket have been destroyed, leaving 4 Horcruxes still, in theory, existing. These consist, supposedly, of an artifact of Ravenclaw's, an artifact of Gryffindor's, Hufflepuff's Cup, and Nagini, Voldemort's pet snake.[/spoiler:3b26aca962]
[spoiler:3b26aca962]Harry is not a horcrux. Voldemort intended to make his 6th and final Horcrux utilizing the murder of his prophesied rival(Harry Potter). He failed to kill Harry, and later utilized the murder of the muggle groundskeeper to make Nagini into his 6th Horcrux.[/spoiler:3b26aca962]
[spoiler:3b26aca962]Based on all this, Harry has to destroy 4 horcruxes. Nagini should be fairly easy, being almost always kept near Voldemort. He at least knows what one of the others are, Hufflepuff's cup. He still has to discover what 2 of the remaining Horcruxes are.[/spoiler:3b26aca962]
Based on all this, I predict a very damned long book.
[spoiler:3b26aca962]You missed a horcrux: Marvolo's Ring that Dumbledore destroyed
1. Voldemort himself (Intact)
2. Riddle's Diary (Destroyed)
3. Marvolo's Ring (Destroyed)
4. Slytherin's Locket (MIA, might be destroyed)
5. Hufflepuff's Cup (Unknown, likely intact)
6. Something of Ravenclaw or Gryffendor's (Unknown, likely intact)
7. Nagini (Intact)
So, other than voldy himself, there's 3-4 hocruxes left, depending on whether or not R.A.B. destroyed the locket. 'course R.A.B. might have been onto another Horcrux or two, and possibly destroyed another one, so there could be even less to worry about.[/spoiler:3b26aca962]
Undead Scottsman on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
hmm..how Harry will die in the book?
there must be some creative way for this ultimate hero to die.
maybe something from "Final Destination" can give a good impact for us to remember him.
I heard someone put forward a theory on another forum that the sequence of deaths in the books was something to do with alchamy and colours. Black, white (Albus), then Red(Rubeus) and that they'll die in the reverse order Harry met them, making each slightly more personal.
But quite aside from that, I want him to die just cause I've never really liked him. Screw Grawp and his beastie of the week.
Basically what you are saying, is you allowed my having an opinion to annoy you. You are not going to find that a useful philosophy in life, sport. People will persist in having an opinion, and when it is a purely subjective topic, such as how some popular author ought to structure one of her books, it is a sad weakness in you, to allow yourself to lose your composure over someone elses opinion.
I honestly think the woman ought to follow the formula she has BEEN following, to its traditional end. Won't be high art, but it may provide some benefit to the children that read it.
Don't allow my feeling this, to annoy you, it is bad for your health.
Seriphus on
It had hitherto been the peculiar felicity to the Romans, and in the worst of times their consolation, that the virtue of the emperors was active and their vice indolent.
Gibbon.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
hmm..how Harry will die in the book?
there must be some creative way for this ultimate hero to die.
maybe something from "Final Destination" can give a good impact for us to remember him.
Why does everyone think he's going to die? I don't think he's going to die. I know for a fact he won't be working at the school though. It would have been nice to see him as the permanent DatDA teacher, but I think that should go to Neville.
hmm..how Harry will die in the book?
there must be some creative way for this ultimate hero to die.
maybe something from "Final Destination" can give a good impact for us to remember him.
I've been known to reread some series a dozen or more times. :oops:
Pratchett(Discworld, mostly), Song of Ice and Fire, Wheel of Time, Sword of Truth... Legacy of the Force, New Jedi Order, most recently.
I own every book of Wheel of Time, and each time a new book is released, I sit down and re-read the series. Takes about 1-2 weeks.
Fuck you Robert Jordan. Fuck you and your paid by the word gig.
Man I hope he doesn't die before the last one is written. Then we'll have to wait decades before his sons find his notes and journals and then write a really bad version of the last book.
If I thought jokes about that sort of thing were funny, I would answer you, Shinto, with something like " You have the young boys, I will take the young girls, and we will have a race".
But I do not think so. Happily married/non child molesting New Zealander, so I think the young Americans are safe from me. Its too far to go.
Anyone that hasn't read Pride and Prejudice 10 times, for the pleasure of running the beautiful words through their brain AGAIN, hasn't really read it properly. And really well written books always repay re-reading. No one is smart enough to draw every nuance from great writing, on its first digestion.
Young people maybe have the understandable impluse of going onto the new, and not contemplating the old, they are young after all.
Seriphus on
It had hitherto been the peculiar felicity to the Romans, and in the worst of times their consolation, that the virtue of the emperors was active and their vice indolent.
Seriph: I haven't posted in ages, but just to say, i wasn't trying to be a prick in my first post to you. From back what i've written before i was trying to make the statement that Rowling wouldn't go this route due to her constantly wanting to add moral lessons to her books.
The sacrifice thing would be a lesson, yet, because she seems to want the younger readers to have less of a scarred relationship as to what sacrifice actually means. (in that it's a metaphore and not an actual link to suicide).
We all know someone's going to die, and Harry might, but if he does it will be by being killed during his fight with Voldermort, and not by actually throwing himself to his death.
When you were talking about her following a trend in how books metaphorically showing sacrifices having to be made, or any "traditional form" you made it out as if this was a good thing and that it would make the story more interesting, and that it would take courage to actually stay commited to these forms. (just what i ascertained from the post).
I think, if she uses these "traditional forms" in new ways that intrigue and draw in the reader then sure. I do firmly believe though, that staying away from these forms could also create a much more interesting read, and are normally the best way to create "twists" in the story.
Johannen it's all good, I didn't think you were being a prick. It's all just our opinion, eh?. One of us will be wrong maybe, or both, or whatever. And actually, if I was so smart as all that, I would be writing me OWN blockbusters, right?.
If someone DOESN'T die, it sort of makes Voldy look a softcock, I think, and the whole thing an anti-climax.
The WORST thing would be if somehow they allow Dumbledore to come back from the dead. *spew*.
Alright if it was just a ploy, and he never really died, but lets have no reserrections.
Seriphus on
It had hitherto been the peculiar felicity to the Romans, and in the worst of times their consolation, that the virtue of the emperors was active and their vice indolent.
Posts
Also, R.A.B is Regulus Black if you missed me mentioning that earlier. His final sacrifice was probably destroying that amulet.
I doubt any more ghosts will come about because its a really bad decision to become one.
I doubt both Hermoine and Ron will die, one or the other might to dramatize things though. I think Hagrid will probably die too.
Harry Potter will die though. Im pretty much sure of that.
Neville will I imagine do something really epic.
I don't care much about Harry Potter, but I don't like the assertion that a story would be "better" if it followed an explicit formula - i.e., if it was formulaic. There's no point in even reading a story if it's the same as all the others.
Granted, Harry Potter isn't exactly 'great literature.' But even stories written primarily for entertainment should try to never adhere a formula - especially not a terrible one.
Then again, I'm fairly sure you're just trolling anyway, based on your explanation for using smilies. That or you're clueless. Either way saves me the trouble of caring enough about whatever your next inane response will be to drag the thread off-topic.
"Promise me money, promise me power, promise me anything I want."
"Anything, anything!"
"I want my parents back you son of a bitch! AVADA KEDAVRA!"
Oh Neville.
If you want a story that doesn't adhere to another's formula, why exactly are you reading Harry Potter? What part isn't from something else? I ask this in all seriousness, because from what I can see, it conforms to the themes and events of several stories.
However, you speak in absolutes, so I am guessing you have not got a lot of experience with the world. Good stories aren't formulaic, eh?. None of them?.
You are quite right, if a story was the same as all the others, there wouldn't be any point in reading it. Only, where do we get the concept of genre from?. Thats the trouble with speaking in absolutes. If you write a murder mystery, but steer so far afield from the accepted formula that you lose your audience, well you have written something other than a murder mystery.
Her books so far have been very good examples of formula writing. Not nobel prize material.
Gibbon.
Gibbon.
Don't tell me you actually, when reading a book or watching a movie, actually think, 'Hey, this is just following ______ formula, making it just like ______."
No, but when a book basically punches me in the face with it, I don't really ignore it. However, I read a lot so I pick up on this sort of thing quite frequently, since no book in the history of time is completely original. The better ones take existing themes and transform them into something new. The mediocre ones take them and make it look like it's something new, when in reality it isn't.
Personally I do, but I have a DEGREE in it.
OMG JOO DEGREE WAVING ASSHOLE!
I don't mind the formulaic qualities of the Harry Potter series. It bugs me in so far as I'm aware of it...but it doesn't take away much from the series. If anything it fosters a feeling of familiarity.
My degree is bigger than your penis.
--
My point was that it's not exactly uncommon thing. It's why people seek novel literature. If you see the same fricking crap everywhere, it gets boring to read.
Of course, some people like watching/reading the same story over and over and over and over again.
Pratchett(Discworld, mostly), Song of Ice and Fire, Wheel of Time, Sword of Truth... Legacy of the Force, New Jedi Order, most recently.
I own every book of Wheel of Time, and each time a new book is released, I sit down and re-read the series. Takes about 1-2 weeks.
Fuck you Robert Jordan. Fuck you and your paid by the word gig.
Then again, my taste is all over the place.
[spoiler:0846012606]Harry dies, then gets brought back to life by Miracle Max? Am I a fool to dream?[/spoiler:0846012606]
o_O
I will never understand this.
My having a memory, as horribly bad as it is, keeps me from reading or watching almost anything twice, ever.
It's not that I don't know what happens, it's just that compelling stories are fun to read.
First of all, I'm not reading Harry Potter. I read the first couple books; that's it. So I'm not a huge fan personally, but that the series has become so popular is a testament of Rowling's ability to write entertaining fiction.
Secondly, having a "part from something else," if you mean it drawing from mythology, legends, and other fantasies, is not the same as being formulaic. If you want to be disparaging or if it seems as though the author claimed the work as his or her own, that's being derivative, which is different. Formulaic means different things depending on who's using the term, but being formulaic is following a basic, commonly used formula for your story rather than making your own. Something general like start->middle->end or buildup->climax->resolution isn't being formulaic in and of itself. Specifically having certain characters die at the end of your story because "it follows the traditional formula," on the other hand, is very obviously being formulaic. Basically, I agree with you.
See, having the same themes doesn't mean it's formulaic. Despite what I just said, neither does having the same plotline, actually - at least, not necessarily. If, in the natural evolution of a piece it just happens to end up looking like X or being similar to X, that doesn't mean it's formulaic. The kind of stuff Seriphus is suggesting - explicitly molding your story to fit a "traditional formula" - is, again, definitely being formulaic. This isn't what I meant, so I guess I wasn't clear.
If you enjoy reading something, there's absolutely nothing wrong with reading it more than once. If it's just for enjoyment, it's still enjoyable to do so, and if it's for something like literary analysis - well, let's say that's usually not based on a single reading. Many books gain on the second, third, or fourth reading.
I just mean if you go to the store and they have an entire shelf of different novels with a little summary on the wall saying "in these books, [explanation of the general events of the books, which all follow the same formula]," there's a pretty good chance you're not going to buy from that shelf more than once, unless you have some sort of obsession with that storyline, want to see how different authors approached it, or other bizarre exception.
Being formulaic is a bad thing because formulaic stories tend to be bad. The authors substitute the work of other author's for their own, and tend to produce inferior work.
A formulaic author is not necessarily one who reads a story and thinks "this is okay, but I think I could do it better." A formulaic author is one who reads a story and thinks "I will make my story like this one because it's easier than coming up with my own ideas."
Hopefully this clears things up.
:?
I will never get you people.
By you people I mean people.
Are people pissed that Seriphus thinks Rowling will kill off Harry et. al, or that he's comparing the Harry Potter books to old British pulp fiction?
Ah. I really couldn't care less. Harry Potter isn't exactly profound literature or anything.
[spoiler:3b26aca962]You missed a horcrux: Marvolo's Ring that Dumbledore destroyed
1. Voldemort himself (Intact)
2. Riddle's Diary (Destroyed)
3. Marvolo's Ring (Destroyed)
4. Slytherin's Locket (MIA, might be destroyed)
5. Hufflepuff's Cup (Unknown, likely intact)
6. Something of Ravenclaw or Gryffendor's (Unknown, likely intact)
7. Nagini (Intact)
So, other than voldy himself, there's 3-4 hocruxes left, depending on whether or not R.A.B. destroyed the locket. 'course R.A.B. might have been onto another Horcrux or two, and possibly destroyed another one, so there could be even less to worry about.[/spoiler:3b26aca962]
I'm pissed because he missed the point, which was fucking obvious.
there must be some creative way for this ultimate hero to die.
maybe something from "Final Destination" can give a good impact for us to remember him.
I heard someone put forward a theory on another forum that the sequence of deaths in the books was something to do with alchamy and colours. Black, white (Albus), then Red(Rubeus) and that they'll die in the reverse order Harry met them, making each slightly more personal.
But quite aside from that, I want him to die just cause I've never really liked him. Screw Grawp and his beastie of the week.
Basically what you are saying, is you allowed my having an opinion to annoy you. You are not going to find that a useful philosophy in life, sport. People will persist in having an opinion, and when it is a purely subjective topic, such as how some popular author ought to structure one of her books, it is a sad weakness in you, to allow yourself to lose your composure over someone elses opinion.
I honestly think the woman ought to follow the formula she has BEEN following, to its traditional end. Won't be high art, but it may provide some benefit to the children that read it.
Don't allow my feeling this, to annoy you, it is bad for your health.
Gibbon.
That Harry Potter draws from something a little larger than "Stories for Boys".
Not enough Neville love after OotP
"Harry Potter And The Harry Potter Dies?"
I'm totally down with the old school.
Unless you are cruising for young boys by posting about childrens books.
In which case we can compare notes.
Man I hope he doesn't die before the last one is written. Then we'll have to wait decades before his sons find his notes and journals and then write a really bad version of the last book.
But I do not think so. Happily married/non child molesting New Zealander, so I think the young Americans are safe from me. Its too far to go.
Anyone that hasn't read Pride and Prejudice 10 times, for the pleasure of running the beautiful words through their brain AGAIN, hasn't really read it properly. And really well written books always repay re-reading. No one is smart enough to draw every nuance from great writing, on its first digestion.
Young people maybe have the understandable impluse of going onto the new, and not contemplating the old, they are young after all.
Gibbon.
I like Corona.
The sacrifice thing would be a lesson, yet, because she seems to want the younger readers to have less of a scarred relationship as to what sacrifice actually means. (in that it's a metaphore and not an actual link to suicide).
We all know someone's going to die, and Harry might, but if he does it will be by being killed during his fight with Voldermort, and not by actually throwing himself to his death.
When you were talking about her following a trend in how books metaphorically showing sacrifices having to be made, or any "traditional form" you made it out as if this was a good thing and that it would make the story more interesting, and that it would take courage to actually stay commited to these forms. (just what i ascertained from the post).
I think, if she uses these "traditional forms" in new ways that intrigue and draw in the reader then sure. I do firmly believe though, that staying away from these forms could also create a much more interesting read, and are normally the best way to create "twists" in the story.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
Not gonna happen.
If someone DOESN'T die, it sort of makes Voldy look a softcock, I think, and the whole thing an anti-climax.
The WORST thing would be if somehow they allow Dumbledore to come back from the dead. *spew*.
Alright if it was just a ploy, and he never really died, but lets have no reserrections.
Gibbon.