The Official Harry Potter Book Discussion

[MonteGss]

Ok, back to topic.

For me, anything an author says about a book after it has already been written is like an extra piece of candy after dessert. It is really cool and entertaining to learn more but ultimately I don't care too much about it because it wasn't said in the book. The trio's professions after Hogwarts? Don't care, because it wasn't written in the books. Interesting, yes, but not important to me.
Dumbledore's sexuality? Interesting and it's a fun fact but I simply don't care. I've read those books a lot of times and after Rowling outted him, you can perhaps point to passages of interest in the series which might cause you to look at them in a different perspective. That doesn't, however, change my feelings for the story nor is this new fact Harry Potter "cannon."

To put it simply: Harry Potter is a good series and anything that is said about it or the characters afterwards is of no importance.

[Mattrick]

Just because it wasn't in the book doesn't mean we have to discuss it here, either. The assumption you made was not based on anything in the text, and was obviously intended solely to express your unhappiness with the book. I hope it stops here, and any other expressions of unhappiness will be more closely related to the text.

I was being sarcastic. Never read Rowling, don't plan on it. I was merely making a joke in light of this.

Ok, back to topic.

For me, anything an author says about a book after it has already been written is like an extra piece of candy after dessert. It is really cool and entertaining to learn more but ultimately I don't care too much about it because it wasn't said in the book. The trio's professions after Hogwarts? Don't care, because it wasn't written in the books. Interesting, yes, but not important to me.
Dumbledore's sexuality? Interesting and it's a fun fact but I simply don't care. I've read those books a lot of times and after Rowling outted him, you can perhaps point to passages of interest in the series which might cause you to look at them in a different perspective. That doesn't, however, change my feelings for the story nor is this new fact Harry Potter "cannon."

I think what Rowling did was bullshit. If she wanted to include that stuff she should have simply wrote it into the book. The whole Dumbledore being gay thing, not sure if it was hinted in the book, but there is still no factual reference to back it up from what I here. It sounds more like Rowling's plan for attention than filler information.

This is like Stephen King coming out tomorrow, with a press conference, declaring 'Roland was Mexican!'

[Mattrick]

She's written seven books. Its not like she just wrote one book and has been living off the success alone. Now that she's finished Harry Potter, she's writing different stuff. And keep in mind that King himself has been in the game for a teensy weensy bit longer than Rowling has, so its not exactly a grand achievement that he did more than she did.

Seven books with the same story and same characters and a flowing plot. It's not as if she came up with seven original plots with different characters for each or anything...that's the real challenge.

Stephen King's first book was in 1974. Rowling's in 1997. If she had written her first book in 1974 you might have a leg to stand on. And just because someone writes more than the other doesn't necessarily make them better: quality, not quantity. (And I'm ignoring the fact that 90% of King's films were utter shit.)

You're misreading me. My point isn't that King has written more. It's that he's proven that over his life he can write different plot after different plot with new, fresh and interesting characters even after 60 books and 35 years. Let's not forget his 7 book series was in the shadows up until recently. It was and, even still is, a niche audience. While it may be growing, I doubt the audience of The Dark Tower is even less than 5% of Harry Potter.

Let's not forget King doesn't have merchandise from T-shirts, to lunch boxes to scissors (yeah, I have a pair of Harry Potter sciccors a friend left here) and god knows a thousand other products. Harry Potter is a merchandiser's dream. All this still with her one, single, marketable idea. My point this matter is that while King has and always will work and write for his money we've got Rowling with all the merchandise and off the movies that make far, far more money than anything based from King's work, which are mostly all low budget horror films. And the ones that aren't are infinitely better than the Potter movies (I've seen the first two, which are supposed to be the best ones too, sad).

Yeah, many of the movies based off of King's works are shit. I'm sure many people on this site would agree that's hardly this fault so what point are you actually trying to make?

And if someone never read a single word of Stephen King and was making the rash judgments that you're making, I can bet you'd be all up in arms over them.

Stephen King isn't around every corner. Kids don't play Pennywise trading card games. I also could care less if people insult things I like. The fact that I like it is all that matters. I love how you just assume I'd be pissed off.

This is just a repetition of "If I don't like it, I don't want to hear about it." When the last Dark Tower novel came out King was sucking up all the limelight like a sponge and again, I don't see you whining about that.

The fact I didn't even hear anything about it and just seen DT7 in stores one day (was checking chapters every week) yet I hear about Dumbledore being gay, just through the grape vine. You're comparing apples and oranges here. I also think, his DT7 is a much more media worthy achievement that HP7. I also doubt this lime light you discuss was in the same league as the attention Rowling got when HP7 came out.

And Stephen King, while popular, I don't think is ever going to reach his peak again either.

And I bet he's not the least bit concerned about it...nor am I. Not all writers are like Rowling and are media whores.

[Darkthoughts]

I don't understand the viewpoint that she would be throwing these extra details out there for "attention" or publicity, it's not logical as she doesn't need the publicity or the attention. I see it more as her treating the fans and enjoying the fact that she can answer any HP question thrown her way, without worrying about spoilers.

You're all so jaded

[Darkthoughts]

Seven books with the same story and same characters and a flowing plot. It's not as if she came up with seven original plots with different characters for each or anything...that's the real challenge.

Mattrick, this is tantamount to talking crap because you haven't got a clue what's in the stories. How on earth can you state that each book has the "same story", when you've never read them?! All seven books share characters and a common aim, but the stories are all very different and original.

I can't really take your opinions on this aspect of her books seriously, because your opinions are completely uninformed.

You're misreading me. My point isn't that King has written more. It's that he's proven that over his life he can write different plot after different plot with new, fresh and interesting characters even after 60 books and 35 years.

And you're misreading Cyber, because Cyber's point was - JKR has just gotten started, you can't compare the careers of King and Rowling until 35 years down the line when she's had the opportunity to show what she's also capable of in that time.

Let's not forget King doesn't have merchandise from T-shirts, to lunch boxes to scissors (yeah, I have a pair of Harry Potter sciccors a friend left here) and god knows a thousand other products. Harry Potter is a merchandiser's dream. All this still with her one, single, marketable idea.

This isn't the authors doing, it's the publishers and the film companies marketing departments.

Stephen King isn't around every corner. Kids don't play Pennywise trading card games.

But what's your point? How is this in anyway detrimental to JKR's writing skill?

Not all writers are like Rowling and are media whores.

Media whore? Do you have any idea how often she is not in the papers? She's quite determined about only giving publicity in relation to her books, which is understandable and sensible even, if you wrote a book and no one heard about it and therefore read it, what would be the point?

[MonteGss]

You're all so jaded

I certainly hope you are not including me in that statement, Lisa. What I said in my post does not fall in line with what the next one claimed.

Also, I don't post with the hopes of pissing people off, I leave that job for other types.

[MonteGss]

Oh why do you bother, Lisa?
Your arguments make complete sense and are solid...which is why he'll probably continue to argue his simple nonsense.

Go Rowling! I am sure this book with find its way into our hands eventually.

[Darkthoughts]

Not you, but like Mattrick quite a few people have commented with the opinion that shes just hyping herself/her books. I don't see it that way

[Darkthoughts]

I totally hope it does !!!

[sarah]

Thank you darkers for throwing it down! well said!

[sarah]

I don't see it that wait either (hyping herself up). I mean I think she did a great thing for charity to put this book together. It took time and effort to handwrite that all out and have the binding hand made. She did it all for charity. Did she know that it was going to make a buttload of money? sure she did. I'm sure that was part of the reason for doing it. Also, she has been so invested in Harry Potter for 15 years that I'm sure it is hard to let it all go.

Personally, I love JKR. I feel lucky to be all wrapped up in it all while it was happening. I missed the beginning of the Dark Tower. I wasn't around when The Lord of the Rings came out. It was awesome waiting in line to get the wrist band so that i could wait in line to get book seven. It was a great experience to be in it all. Authors can do whatever they please in their personal lives. I personally think it rocks that JKR decided to give millions away to kids.

so there. :p

[Darkthoughts]

Same here

Famous people all over the world have tons of money, and do bugger all with it except spend it on themselves. Why then, try to trash someone who is spending their money on good causes - not just that but actually getting hands on involved in good causes?

Fame and fortune is enviable, but theres no need to destroy the heroes of our time because of it - especially those who are good role models. The media does enough of that!

[CyberGhostface]

Seven books with the same story and same characters and a flowing plot. It's not as if she came up with seven original plots with different characters for each or anything...that's the real challenge.

Until you actually read the books you're speaking out of your ass.

My point isn't that King has written more. It's that he's proven that over his life he can write different plot after different plot with new, fresh and interesting characters even after 60 books and 35 years.

And you don't know about Rowling. She's working on a crime novel right now, so its not like she's going to be churning out Potter after Potter. As for King doing new, fresh and interesting characters...how many interchangeable writers has he written about? The only memorable character in a book that King published recently that I can think of is Blaze...and that was written during his Salem's Lot days.

Let's not forget his 7 book series was in the shadows up until recently. It was and, even still is, a niche audience. While it may be growing, I doubt the audience of The Dark Tower is even less than 5% of Harry Potter.

So? Your point?

Let's not forget King doesn't have merchandise from T-shirts, to lunch boxes to scissors (yeah, I have a pair of Harry Potter sciccors a friend left here) and god knows a thousand other products.

So what? Stephen King's tailoring to different audiences. A lot of Harry Potter fans are kids. If they could sell Stephen King merchandise to kids, they would, but they wouldn't sell.

Harry Potter is a merchandiser's dream. All this still with her one, single, marketable idea. My point this matter is that while King has and always will work and write for his money we've got Rowling with all the merchandise and off the movies that make far, far more money than anything based from King's work, which are mostly all low budget horror films.

Rowling isn't the one making or selling the merchandise. Notice how all the merchandise came out when the films did. Its Warner Bros. thats selling all the stuff with her characters.

And the ones that aren't are infinitely better than the Potter movies (I've seen the first two, which are supposed to be the best ones too, sad).

You've just proved how ignorant you are. The first two are the WORST out of the films. Its only until the THIRD film that they started getting good.

Yeah, many of the movies based off of King's works are shit. I'm sure many people on this site would agree that's hardly this fault so what point are you actually trying to make?

Its not Rowling's fault either as I pointed out. You're looking the other way with King but not with her. She sold the rights but she's not crazy about all the merchandise being sold.

Stephen King isn't around every corner. Kids don't play Pennywise trading card games.

Again...because kids aren't the audience for Stephen King books! If he was, and marketers saw a way to get big bucks, they'd be on it in a second. Instead we get overpriced limited editions of his books. Like the Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon pop-up book that cost a thousand dollars.

The fact I didn't even hear anything about it and just seen DT7 in stores one day (was checking chapters every week) yet I hear about Dumbledore being gay, just through the grape vine. You're comparing apples and oranges here. I also think, his DT7 is a much more media worthy achievement that HP7. I also doubt this lime light you discuss was in the same league as the attention Rowling got when HP7 came out.

Actually, there was quite a big promotion when the last Dark Tower book came out. Maybe not as a big as Harry Potter, but still pretty big. And since you've never read HP7, you don't know how it compares to DT7. I've read both, and I can say that Rowling ended her series in a much more satisfying way than King did.

And I bet he's not the least bit concerned about it...nor am I. Not all writers are like Rowling and are media whores.

When Rowling shills herself out for credit cards like King has, you can call her a media whore.

[MonteGss]

Well said Cyber! You rock!

[ZoNeSeeK]

Mattrick: Are you Rowling's accountant? From your incredibly insightful comments I assume that you organise her finances - as you seem to have some big ideas about what she does, should and shouldnt do with her money.

This board aims to be as flame free as possible - please avoid from posting contentious opinions that are pure guesswork. How about spending some time in the happy bouncing sunshine thread?

[Mattrick]

Fame and fortune is enviable, but theres no need to destroy the heroes of our time because of it - especially those who are good role models. The media does enough of that!

I'm no means trying to destroy her, I just think this press conference was bogus. Even if she was trying to 'privilege the fans' by giving them all this info that she coud have included in the book. How hard is it to write 'dumbledore is a homosexual' amist 7 books? My problem was that her facts contributed nothing to the works. Like you said, she's been in the Harry Potter world for 15 years (it took her five years to write the first book?) and she's terrified of being out of it. This press conference was a way for her to stay with it.

Do you need a press conference learning that Jake Chambers grew up to be a congressmen and Eddie died of cancer 20 years after DT ended? Or that Calvin Tower started a cheese club? Anything relevant was already in the book. We don't need 'additional info' to understand it or it would've been in the book. Thus, BULLCRAP.

Robot Chicken did it best when Rowling was a bum keeping warm with a fire in an old drum. Then someone told her she would write best selling books and be the most famous person in the world and that it would be about a racoon or something like that. Rowling was so happy she ran off to write it. The guy laughed and we find out he's from the future and wanted Harry Potter to never exist. This guy is a hero for a fictional character with no name.

[Darkthoughts]

It wasn't a press conference. It was part of the US book launch of Deathly Hallows.

She gave a reading in the UK on the night of the launch - it was fans only, chosen at random from anyone who had entered the draw. That was followed by a Q and A session.

She did the same Q and A deal in the States, which is when she was asked the question "Has Dumbledore ever been married" by a fan.

[CyberGhostface]

Bullcrap? What, are we in South Park all of a sudden?

I would actually like it if King gave the fans little tidbits about what happened after the series. And if we're going to be whining about Rowling doing it, fair is fair; King did the same exact thing once. In an interview about Rose Madder, King said that abuse creates abuse and that Danny Torrance is probably beating up his kids now. Its not exactly the same thing Rowling did, but its on a similar wavelength. And King has revealed DT information outside of the books: Roland had a brother AND a sister and that he knew Antubis are the ones on top of my head although there's probably more.

[Mattrick]

It wasn't a press conference. It was part of the US book launch of Deathly Hallows.

She gave a reading in the UK on the night of the launch - it was fans only, chosen at random from anyone who had entered the draw. That was followed by a Q and A session.

She did the same Q and A deal in the States, which is when she was asked the question "Has Dumbledore ever been married" by a fan.

Wow, you get the chance to ask a question to Rowling (a god in some eyes) and that is the question someone asked? That is retarded. Really, who cares if dumble dore was ever married? If it was pertinent to any realm of reality I'm sure we'd have known it. The fact people want to know more about fake people makes you wonder...


cyber...what King's Danny Torrence reference is not even close or on the same wavelegnth. It was a comment and with the passing of time since the book was written it would make sense. That was a 'hey, Danny Torrence, at the age of 23 developed alcoholism and started beating his kids, just so you know that I thought of that in my head!'



That's what this whole business is. She could be spouting off any random answer that comes to her head. If you can't include what you want to include after seven books...

[OchrisO]

To my knowledge, it was a kid that asked the question. Woe be unto the child who is not witty enough to ask a question to suit Mattrick's standards.

Plus, they didn't actually ask if he was ever married. She also mentioned how she had, in the past, had to correct some stuff for criptwriters of the movies because they had Dumbledore mentioning something about a girl in the sixth movie, so I don't think it was just thought upf or the press. Here is how it went:

The question was: Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fall in love himself?

JKR: My truthful answer to you... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay. [ovation.] ... Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it excused Dumbledore a little more because falling in love can blind us to an extent? But, he met someone as brilliant as he was, and rather like Bellatrix he was very drawn to this brilliant person, and horribly, terribly let down by him. Yeah, that's how i always saw Dumbledore. In fact, recently I was in a script read through for the sixth film, and they had Dumbledore saying a line to Harry early in the script saying I knew a girl once, whose hair... [laughter]. I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter, "Dumbledore's gay!" [laughter] "If I'd known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!"

From a writer for time.com's account, she even seemed reluctant to say it:

The author was in the U.S. this week for a book tour, mainly for schoolchildren, but I had been lucky enough to win a ticket in a sweepstakes for the only evening event in New York City. So there I sat, gazing down in awe as she read from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, answered questions from the audience, and then signed two thousand books, including mine. As Rowling settled down, the crowd did not. On the edge of their seats, they clung on to every word coming from the woman on the velvet-covered throne, often bursting into applause or laughter. As she started to read a passage from the book, the last in the Harry Potter series, it was clear that she was just as excited as the audience. She read with obvious delight, putting on brilliant voices that rang true to every character, and even bursting into a fit of giggles when Ron, holding up the magical Deluminator gadget, said he heard Hermione "coming out of my pocket."

But when the questions began — they had been submitted by audience members before the event — she came into her own. Finally able to talk freely about the end of a series that had been so long-anticipated, she left nothing out. The big revelation of the night came when she was asked if Dumbledore had ever found love. With a sigh, she seemed on the verge of saying no, but then revealed, "my truthful answer to you... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay." After a collective gasp, the audience roared with applause. Rowling was clearly astonished by the positive reaction and exclaimed, "if I'd known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!" She went on to say that she thought Dumbledore had fallen in love with Grindelwald, a Dark Wizard he defeated in battle in 1945, which possibly made it forgivable that he had not seen Grindelwald's true nature, because "falling in love can blind us to an extent."

The rest of this article is here: http://www.time.com/time/arts/articl...674073,00.html

[Mattrick]

I'm not reading that. Why are you so intent on Rowlducating me? I could care less if she was reluctant or her actual word choice or if a kid asked the question. She got all upset at the screenwriter for not being telepathic enough to know Dumbledore was gay. I love how it says 'if I'd known it would make you so happy, I'd have announced it years ago!' She used announced so she must think it's very important news. Sad to have an ego so huge. Not to mention, if she'd known this long why not include it into the books. Did she find it funny thinking that millions read it and see the movies without knowing Dumbledore was gay. I bet she LMAOed every night over it. HE'S GAY!! DUMBLEWHORE!!! HAHA

[OchrisO]

If you aren't going to read what people say or bring to the discussion, then kindly step out of the thread and shut up. *shrug*

If you aren't reading everything people say, you aren't discussing, you are just mouthing off.

The rest of the article aside from my quotation isn't relevant to the point I am making, I just cite sources.

My point in bringing up that a kid asked the question is that the question asked was a rathe rgood question for a youn g person to ask. You wer eimplyinmg that it was a dumb question to ask, I'm implying that it wasn't at all just because a kid doesn't stand up to your adult question standards.

Also, "In fact, recently I was in a script read through for the sixth film, and they had Dumbledore saying a line to Harry early in the script saying I knew a girl once, whose hair... [laughter]. I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter, "Dumbledore's gay!" hardly sounds like she was angry. All accounts that I have read seem to make it out as a jovial telling, like she was just letting them know so taht they didn't present the wrong idea for the character taht she has in her head, not taht she was angry about it. I don't at all see how you get angry and egotiostical out of that, but you have your mind set on her being egotistical, so you will project it on anything, I suppose.

[CyberGhostface]

There's nothing I could say that you haven't just said OChrisO, so I'll just say..."Well said." If you can't read the others' arguments, then what's the point of arguing in the first place?

That, and its Christmas, and my aunt brought her dogs over so I'm going to keep my post for now to a minimum.

[Darkthoughts]

I'm not reading that. Why are you so intent on Rowlducating me? I could care less if she was reluctant or her actual word choice or if a kid asked the question.

That's weird Mattrick - for someone who couldn't care less, you've made an awful lot of posts in this thread

Chris, I applaud you - well said

[Vasagi]

Awesome! Thanks for posting Sarah!

Rupert Grint is so so cute I just can't stand it! and I can't wait to see how the Ron and Lavander scenes turn out as well.

You just wanna see some snoggin!