More guts and more skill. But she strikes me as more a servant type than master. She's in love with the idea of control and regulations, regardless of whether they're morally right or wrong. For Umbridge, The System is to be supported no matter who's running it, because it represents ultimate power over how everyone else must live. Even though she's certainly had unique ideas on how to enforce the rules, I don't know if she'd do as well at the very top of the power structure. As you say, it takes guts to reach for that.

... So why is it nothing awful happend to her?

Sevelle wrote:

Ragnarok wrote:

... So why is it nothing awful happend to her?

Yeah I know, I was really hoping that JK would include a paragraph on the destruction of Umbridge, but she didn't.

She tried to kill her, but she just wouldn't die. Like a cockroach, I think.

Well Joe Bonano died peacefully at age 100 and so will Karl Rove. That is in fact part of the "gray" of the story.

I finished HP7 on my vacation, and proceeded to reread it 10+ times to pick it apart most unmercifully. It was a rather well written book, but... I found the whole thing rather sappy. The whole epilogue in particular.... that was just.... completely off-putting when I read the table of contents. Grarh.

I was rather amused by JKR's plothole of Hermione's usage of Memory Charms. She used them on her family before joining with Harry, but when confronted with the need to do them on Tottenham Court Road, she said she'd never done them before.

Also, I was highly vindicated when I found out Harry was a Horcrux. My friends argued me down from that point after we'd all read HP6, probably because they couldn't accept the idea that Harry would have to die.

Speaking of which, I was completely pissed that JKR had the guts to kill Harry AND THEN BRING HIM BACK. I threw the book across the room the first time I read that and refused to continue reading for nearly a day. (Curiosity of what else JKR could do to piss me off made me pick it back up.)

None of the character deaths meant anything to me, really, not through the whole series. It was all part of Dumbledore's plan, you know, all of it. For the Greater Good, even until his death.

To say the least... I was highly disappointed. It was so incredibly boring for so long in the middle, and then WHAM! Everything happens. There's a reason why I don't like roller coasters, and this book only cements that dislike into my mind.

brian wrote:

In fact it's a bummer that the Utena movie was so savage to its "bad guys" Kozue and Shiori who are surely more deserving of redemption or a chance for redemption than the characters I just mentioned.

And it begins, Utena can be compared to anything or vice versa.

Lady Chani wrote:

None of the character deaths meant anything to me, really, not through the whole series. It was all part of Dumbledore's plan, you know, all of it. For the Greater Good, even until his death.

Another fault of Dumbledore is his choice of the greater good, which to get there is no always good. But this is a human trait, seeing as countless wars and disputes have been done in the name of the greater good.

Oh and according to JK in an interview, Harry never died. This would completely undermine her sub-plot of "Once dead, always dead." The best theory I can come up with is Harry was put into a deep comatose and maybe Astral Projected himself to the fuggy mess that is between the living and dead.

Aww- If you pull your hair out, remember to donate it to Locks of Love.


*heeheeheehee*

I didn't want any of them.  I'm pacifistic, I don't like to "hide," and I like death to be the end of things.  Rest in peace and all.

As much as I hate Ron (sorry, the way he and Hermione interact really, really bothers me, it feels too much like an emotionally abusive relationship to me) I did like when he left, although I wish he'd stayed gone.   It made him a nicely realistic character there, even if I can't stand him.

Last edited by Cerise (08-23-2007 01:16:21 PM)

Lady Chani wrote:

Oh, I do have a random conversational question. When you heard the story about the Hallows, which did you automatically want, and why, if you want to answer? Be honest, plz.

Actually, I would want the stone. Why? Because I am a very selfish person, and I could never live without my mother, whether she would want to be dead or not. I know people say "if you love them, let them go", but bullshit. If you loved them so much, wouldn't you want them to be with you as long as you possibly can, whether or not it's immoral? I can never let my mother go, no matter what. I've already pledged to myself that the day she dies I will die, too.

I wouldn't want to be the master of death in any state of the word. I have no desire to flee death so that rules out the cloak, and the stone... I don't think I could live with myself if I tore people away from their... whatever they get after dying. The wand is tempting, but I don't think I'd become someone the current version of me would approve of if I had that kind of power.

Lady Chani wrote:

Oh, I do have a random conversational question. When you heard the story about the Hallows, which did you automatically want, and why, if you want to answer? Be honest, plz.

I wanted the Elder Wand. I don't really know why, maybe because it looked like the most powerful to me. Besides, I think I wouldn't choose it to avoid Death -it's not something that worries me right now; it's more the powerful feeling you get from being its master what appeals to me.

If something, I would look for the stone to keep my beloved ones with me, as Lady Nilamarthiel says. I feel nothing for the cloak

Ragnarok wrote:

The thing I liked best about the story is it's an allegory for Voldemort, Dumbledore and Harry.

Why I never realise about such things? That was a great call, Ragnarok!

I was interested in Harry Potter at first, but then JK Rowling started turning it into an angst-fest, and I quickly lost any desire to follow it through to the end. The humorous cliche of the horrible step parents and all the fun magical antics at the beginning just didn't sit well with the kind of teen drama that followed. There was no balance and no comfortable medium. I don't think she's a bad writer, and I appreciate what she did for the fantasy genre-- pulling it even further into the mainstream-- but her work does have its faults, and I just couldn't enjoy the later installments.

Baka Kakumei Reanna wrote:

I was interested in Harry Potter at first, but then JK Rowling started turning it into an angst-fest, and I quickly lost any desire to follow it through to the end. The humorous cliche of the horrible step parents and all the fun magical antics at the beginning just didn't sit well with the kind of teen drama that followed. There was no balance and no comfortable medium. I don't think she's a bad writer, and I appreciate what she did for the fantasy genre-- pulling it even further into the mainstream-- but her work does have its faults, and I just couldn't enjoy the later installments.

Well I don't know about you, but the angst goes with the plot of the story. I mean the very first chaptre in the very first book was not the happiest of occasions. Unless ones parents being brutally murdered and you are left on the door step of an extension of your family that loaths you at birth. And Harry is greatly affected by that, of course not in the beginning because of his innocence, but as the years go by and the death toll rises . . . especially the death of his God-Father . . . it gets to him.