BlackMaria
Doberman
Jersey Devil
Sharpening the Fence Posts
Posts: 126
|
Post by BlackMaria on Jun 5, 2006 10:53:46 GMT -4
This applies to the animation arts, too, but just because the main characters are young &/or children doesn't necessarily/automatically mean the work is directed at, meant for, or appropriate for youngsters. Sounds weird...but yeah, it's my logic. BTW, I've heard children are getting eye strain & headaches tring to read these HP books that could easily crush them to death if dropped on them.
|
|
|
Post by EGBFan on Jun 5, 2006 13:34:52 GMT -4
This applies to the animation arts, too, but just because the main characters are young &/or children doesn't necessarily/automatically mean the work is directed at, meant for, or appropriate for youngsters. Sounds weird...but yeah, it's my logic. Well, ok, that's true. But Harry Potter, I'm sorry, was originally aimed at children (whereas now JK aims them at everyone and no one, as far as I can tell) and no one will ever persuade me otherwise. They were bought by primary schools to line the shelves of their libraries. The books are still found in the children's section in bookshops to this day (although "grown-up" additions are published, so any adults who don't want to think they're buying a children's book don't have to - the children's editions come out first though). JK Rowling is referred to by critics and such as a 'children's author'. Harry Potter is cited as an example of children's literature in The Writers' and Artists' Yearbook 2004. And besides all this, the language of all the books, but particularly the earlier ones, suggests that they were written with children in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Silent Seraphim on Jun 5, 2006 17:46:46 GMT -4
Well, ok, that's true. But Harry Potter, I'm sorry, was originally aimed at children (whereas now JK aims them at everyone and no one, as far as I can tell) and no one will ever persuade me otherwise. Personally, I get the impression that she is writing for children of Harry Potter’s age in each book, if you get my drift. The whole series is about his growing up, and I think she’s expecting the kids who read her books to kind of grow with him, as it were. It probably helps them identify with his character a bit more if the readers are of a similar age. In the earlier books, Harry was very young, and the books reflect that in the way they are written. As Harry reaches his early teenage years in The Goblet of Fire, things get a little darker, and the books are in turn written more for the teenage market. That’s what I get from it all, anyway.
|
|
sayersong
Fresh Meat
"Tell me child ... Do you like playing with fire?"
Posts: 8
|
Post by sayersong on Aug 22, 2006 12:27:56 GMT -4
Well, ok, that's true. But Harry Potter, I'm sorry, was originally aimed at children (whereas now JK aims them at everyone and no one, as far as I can tell) and no one will ever persuade me otherwise. Personally, I get the impression that she is writing for children of Harry Potter’s age in each book, if you get my drift. No need for drifts. Rowling actually stated that fact before the 4th book even came out. It was when they first really started selling the HP merchandise and costumes and were making the first movie. She said that the first book was intended for 11 year olds and that as those same 11-year olds grew up, so would Harry, hand in hand. When Harry was twelve, she intended for the readers to be 12. At age 15, she intended the readers to be 15. Of course that was before they became ultra popular with adults and it took more than a year for her to get them out. BTW, for any who are interested, I do not believe he is dead.
|
|
|
Post by EGBFan on Mar 3, 2007 7:46:41 GMT -4
So apparently the people of Warner Brothers are furious with Daniel Radcliffe for being naked in this very controversial sounding play, Equus (I'm not familiar with it myself). They've been really building up to Harry's Chaste kiss with Cho in Order of the Phoenix, and we can't even see it until the summer. Still, Daniel's been naked on stage now, and there isn't very much they can do about it - they'd be shooting themselves in the foot if they sacked him as Harry. I probably shouldn't be sitting here typing this - it's not really any of our business what Daniel Radcliffe decides to do with his career. It's not as though I disapprove, or anything - although I'm faintly surprised that seventeen year olds are allowed to be naked on stage. Moving on from that, The Deathly Hallows is coming out two days after my birthday this year. I had such a dumb argument with my brother; he said he wanted to give it to me for my birthday like he did with the last two books so I'd get my present two days late, and I said I'd rather buy it myself and get a different present on the day. I think I won - he's now told me not to buy the new Horrible Histories book when it comes out. (We're such children. )
|
|
|
Post by Silent Seraphim on Mar 3, 2007 12:56:10 GMT -4
So apparently the people of Warner Brothers are furious with Daniel Radcliffe for being naked in this very controversial sounding play, Equus (I'm not familiar with it myself). Actually, Warner Brothers are fine with it. There were rumours that they were angry with him for appearing in the play, but they've issued a statement saying that they fully support Daniel Radcliffe in the artistic choices he makes as an actor. He's also just signed up to play Harry for the last two Harry Potter films, which I think is a very public stamp of approval from the studios. It's not really any of our business what Daniel Radcliffe decides to do with his career. Exactly, and I personally don't think it should be any of Warner Brothers' business, either. Equus is a very prestigious and complex play about religion and psychology, studied in drama schools all over the UK. I highly recommend reading the book before seeing the play itself, and try not to get too caught up in the fact that Harry Potter is naked in it. It's not as though I disapprove, or anything - although I'm faintly surprised that seventeen year olds are allowed to be naked on stage. It's part of the play. It would have been an almighty cop-out if he didn't appear naked in it. It's almost a requirement in this play, and if you read it you'd understand why. Like I said before, it's studied in drama schools by teens, and acted by teenagers. The first guy to play the character of Alan Strang was a teenager and that was back in the 70s. He's over the age of consent - if he's comfortable and if no-one's pushing him to do it, then why shouldn't he be allowed to be naked on stage? I've read that schoolkids are descending on the play just for a glimpse of Harry Potter in the buff, but the play itself is about a lot more than that. Kudos to Daniel Radcliffe for making such a brave move. He's certainly impressed me by having the guts to take on this play.
|
|
|
Post by EGBFan on Mar 3, 2007 13:05:09 GMT -4
No one's saying seventeen year olds shouldn't be allowed to be naked on stage, and obviously I realise it's part of the play. No one is more pro-nakedness in the name of literature than I am (not that I'd ever have the courage to do it myself). I'm only saying that it surprised me at first - it seemed like it might be the kind of thing they might want you to be eighteen for. If that was the case, they'd cast someone else rather than omit the scene - I really don't think I implied they should have done that. But as it's allowed, that's a moot point. If I knew anything else about the play, I'd mention a little something more than the nakedness; but at this stage I only know what I've learnt from the press.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Vincent Belmont on Mar 3, 2007 15:51:30 GMT -4
I wonder if this little debacle will effect Deathly Hallows sales?
|
|
|
Post by Silent Seraphim on Mar 3, 2007 23:05:47 GMT -4
If I knew anything else about the play, I'd mention a little something more than the nakedness; but at this stage I only know what I've learnt from the press. Yeah, the nakedness thing is a small part of the play - only a few minutes at the most. Unfortunately, it is the only thing the press seems to concentrate on for one reason or another. If it was anyone other than Daniel Radcliffe playing this part, I really don't think there'd have been such a fuss about it. I wonder if this little debacle will effect Deathly Hallows sales? I doubt it, unless it's got a chapter involving Harry Potter riding buck naked on a horse. ;D Seriously though, I think most people can differentiate between the different roles an actor chooses to play. At least I hope they can! I don't think it would adversely affect sales of anything Harry Potter related - in fact, with all the publicity, I'd be surprised if it doesn't increase ticket sales for the next Harry Potter film. I think the role will probably do him good, acting-wise. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought his earlier performances of Harry have been a little wooden at times.
|
|
|
Post by EGBFan on Mar 4, 2007 8:45:59 GMT -4
I doubt it, unless it's got a chapter involving Harry Potter riding buck naked on a horse. ;D Nah - it'd be a hippogriff. True indeed - and I will add that most people will also differentiate between the Harry on the page and the Harry portrayed by Daniel Radcliffe. I realise I'm making some assumptions here, but considering how popular the novels were before the first movie was made, I think most fans loved the books before they have the movies - personally, I much prefer them. People will want to read the next installment, and in a lot of cases Daniel Radcliffe probably won't even enter their heads. I was having a chat with a teacher I'm incredibly pally with the other day, about Harry Potter, and she thinks the writing is going downhill - she put it down to Rowling now having only one editor due to secrecy issues. I pointed out that she also might not try quite as hard now that she, rather than her publisher or agent, is calling all the shots - but hey, that's probably a rotten thing to say. Honestly, though, I do agree, at least in part. There were parts of Half-Blood Prince that I didn't like, most specifically the romances - the history and the mystery and the adventure aspects all had me hooked, but my personal opinion is that Rowling doesn't write romance nearly so well as she does the other genres. The only one I care even slightly about is Ron and Hermione, which she's had going right from the start and has developed thoroughly over time. With the later books, Rowling has tried to cram too much in. As well as Ron & Hermione and Harry & Ginny (which didn't grab me at all, I'm afraid - I just don't care), she had Bill & Fleur (random!) and Tonks & Lupin (ditto). And they were all just so quick, and sudden, and just skimmed over - I think she would have done better to leave some of those aspects out, and leave herself room to develop the core elements of the story (let's say the Harry/Ginny romance) more thoroughly. Actually, I'm writing my dissertation on Harry Potter and Narnia (it's really fun ;D) - I just wrote a chapter on gender, and I think I somehow came to the conclusion that Harry Potter is more sexist than Narnia. That should help me pick up some marks. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Silent Seraphim on Mar 4, 2007 9:28:45 GMT -4
There were parts of Half-Blood Prince that I didn't like, most specifically the romances - the history and the mystery and the adventure aspects all had me hooked, but my personal opinion is that Rowling doesn't write romance nearly so well as she does the other genres. I can't really quote everything you've said, but I agree with it all 100%. The Harry/Ginny thing came totally out of left field, and the other romances were too forced. As you say, the only well-written romance seems to be between Ron and Hermione. And Malfoy also seems to be written in a very formulaic way most of the time - until the Half Blood Prince, where his character actually contributed to the story for a change. The rest of the time he's just a very stereotypical bully, without any other purpose than to sneer at and taunt Harry and his friends. Personally, I don't think his character is even needed in most of the books. It's as though he's just shoved into a scene when Rowling remembers he exists.
|
|
|
Post by EGBFan on Apr 6, 2007 10:23:57 GMT -4
Ohmygosh I'm so excited about July!! I just realised! The new Ash album is coming out on the 2nd, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is in cinemas from the 13th, the 19th is my birthday (how old do you have to be before you stop getting excited about your birthday?) and Deathly Hallows comes out on the 22nd. Roll on July!!!
...I'm sorry, I had to get that off my chest.
|
|
|
Post by Kingpin on Apr 6, 2007 12:23:48 GMT -4
Ohmygosh I'm so excited about July!! I just realised! The new Ash album is coming out on the 2nd, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is in cinemas from the 13th, the 19th is my birthday (how old do you have to be before you stop getting excited about your birthday?) and Deathly Hallows comes out on the 22nd. Roll on July!!! ...I'm sorry, I had to get that off my chest. What have you done with Rosey? You're not cynnical, bitter or sarcastic... I demand answers!
|
|
Jason Knetge
Doberman
The Data Says He Will Kick Your Ass
Posts: 115
|
Post by Jason Knetge on Apr 6, 2007 15:43:41 GMT -4
(how old do you have to be before you stop getting excited about your birthday?) it was 17 for me
|
|
|
Post by EGBFan on May 19, 2007 10:08:53 GMT -4
I noticed a very irritating continuity error while I was reading Order of the Phoenix yesterday. In the earlier books, Hermione has absolutely no problem with saying Voldemort's name - I would imagine partly because she's both sensible and courageous, and largely because she knew nothing about him before she got to Hogwarts (therefore having no memory of him, and not having been brought up to fear the name like Ron and Ginny have been).
However, I've been re-reading Order of the Phoenix, and she's been uncomfortable with Harry saying "Voldemort". Every time that happened, I was thinking, What? Then in the last chapter I read yesterday, she says something that finishes with, "V-Voldemort". It then says that Harry's amazed because this is the first time he's heard her speak Voldemort's name. Is the boy deaf??
It's been bugging me is all - but on the other hand, I've been enjoying the satirical aspects of the novel immensely (it's a while since the first time I read it). The Ministry interfering in education is beautifully handled, and so true: the inspections, the emphasis on quotes in books, Umbridge writing the "Course Aims" on the blackboard - it is just like a real British educational institution.
One thing that this book is, is loooooooong. Even without all the bits that aren't at all necessary (several, in my opinion), there's a lot of material in there - it'll be interesting to see how they handle it in the movie. (That is, the movie I've been looking forward to, because astonishingly I am capable of positive thought - goodness knows what I've done to earn the labels "bitter" and "cynical".)
|
|