Monday, June 30, 2003
The Order of the Phoenix
Post HP5 thoughts: Harry Potter is arrogant, irresponsible and prone to acting on impulse without any thought to the consequences. I cannot identify with the character anymore.
Leave a Reply
You can respond with a photo by tagging it on Flickr with
achitnis — Jul 1, 2003 2:51:39 AM — # ↩
I think that JKR has done a marvellous job turning Potter into something much more human and identifiable with, away from that goody-goody superman image of the first four books.
No wonder kids (and adults) the world over loved this book.
karthik — Jul 1, 2003 9:49:23 AM — # ↩
I think most humans act more on impulse than on logic and thought.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Jul 1, 2003 1:45:39 PM — # ↩
Am I the only one who felt no sense of loss for the "important character" Rowling killed in this book?
grafixgirl — Jul 1, 2003 8:47:03 PM — # ↩
- I did !
I loved the book but Harry Potter got on my nerves. I put it down to his being a normal teenager - angry, rebellious ... typical teen. Hopefully he would have grown outta it in the next book :)
grafixgirl — Jul 1, 2003 8:48:20 PM — # ↩
sidcarter — Jul 1, 2003 6:11:46 AM — # ↩
Can't really say anything about the arrogant part. Yes, he is irresponsible, acts out of impulse. The part which I disliked is, where he is told constantly to learn Occlumency by his closest friends and despite that he ignores - probably that is what is arrogance.
But then again, I have to ponder, isn't that what has been told about HP ever since the First Book - Just like his father.
achitnis — Jul 1, 2003 10:34:48 AM — # ↩
> The part which I disliked is, where he is told constantly to learn Occlumency by his closest friends and despite that he ignores - probably that is what is arrogance.
No, that is resistance to change, and resistance to doing something he doesn't understand. Both very human traits.
Had he quietly "followed instructions" and still come out tops, I would have labelled this book as idealistic crap.
Heck, when is that *you* last did something you were told, when you didn't understand why? ;-)
sidcarter — Jul 1, 2003 2:26:41 PM — # ↩
doing something he doesn't understand.
Doesn't HP know why he was told to learn Occlumency ?
achitnis — Jul 2, 2003 3:38:37 AM — # ↩
No, he doesn't. He *thinks* he knows, but he actually has it the wrong way round.
I thought you read the book?
tariquesani — Jul 1, 2003 10:00:27 AM — # ↩
Will the book really matter 5/10/20/50 years from now...
mrinal — Jul 1, 2003 11:22:38 AM — # ↩
satyap — Jul 1, 2003 12:45:51 PM — # ↩
oivas — Jul 2, 2003 2:45:54 AM — # ↩
Yayy! Now there are two others I know of... I haven't seen the movie either.
And basically i don't think that that anyone should give a schitt about whether Harry is 'crabby' or 'peaches and strawberry'.
Anyway, what is world coming to... Grownups discussing a character that was meant to entertain li'l kids.
Gimme Pinkwhistle and friends anyday... at least they had lovely tea complete with hot buttered scones, pastries, cookies, ginger ale and lemonade... What does Harry have?
PS. When it comes to magic I think Pinkwhistle'd kick Harry's ass - he was always good at teaching 'horrid' children a lesson.
achitnis — Jul 2, 2003 3:41:25 AM — # ↩
Huh?
> Now there are two others I know of... I haven't seen the movie either.
...
> When it comes to magic I think Pinkwhistle'd kick Harry's ass
How can the latter be factual if (according to the former) you havent read the books or seen the movies?
oivas — Jul 2, 2003 3:47:58 AM — # ↩
> How can the latter be factual if (according to the former) you havent read the books or seen the movies?
How can you look for facts when you're discussing two protagonists who use magic and inhabit the realm of make believe?
If you promise to get real... I'll promise to be factual :P
achitnis — Jul 2, 2003 4:07:07 AM — # ↩
He he he - nice diversion tactic ;-)
OK, in English: how can you compare two things (and proclaim one to be better than the other) when you (by your own admission) haven't even seen one of the two things you are comparing?
This really has nothing to do with the actual things being compared.
As for getting real - reading books, and trying to understand the characters in them, is very real to me. but it doesn't mean that I think the characters are real (as you seem to imply I do).
oivas — Jul 2, 2003 4:41:50 AM — # ↩
OK, in English
Ouch! :)
how can you compare two things (and proclaim one to be better than the other) when you (by your own admission) haven't even seen one of the two things you are comparing?
Since we are discussing stories meant for children, in my own childlike way I don't really need logic to support my point :)
How else can you explain the other child-like argument as to who's daddy is really stronger. I say My daddy, you say yours...
Since you apparently like Master Potter you seem to think he is the better of the two... likewise with me and Mr Pinkwhistle.
The only way to really sort this matter would be to get Master Potter into the ring with Mr Pinkwhistle which i doubt will really happen.
So the best thing to do, i guess, would be that you stick to your side of the ring and I to mine :)
I still however stick to my statement that Mr Pinkwhistle kicks ass... whether the ass belongs to Master Potter or not is of little or no consequence to me.
BTW, you should read the Pinkwhistle stories... mebbe you'd change sides then ;)
Damn! Now you got me discussing stuff meant for kids :)
achitnis — Jul 2, 2003 4:51:16 AM — # ↩
LOL!
Where did I compare Potter to anyone/anything? ;-)
I have no clue who Mr.Pinkwhistle is/was (just as you probably have no clue who Old Shatterhand or Winnetou were ;), and nowhere in the thread (before you stepped in) was any "comparing" going on IAC!
And *I* didn't get you to discuss "kid stuff" - you hopped into the thread all on your own, without external assistance or arm-twising!
As for PW kicking HP's ass - hmmm, you seem to forget that we are talking about imaginary characters here - you really shouldn't take things so seriously...
Gottcha! ;-)
oivas — Jul 2, 2003 5:07:03 AM — # ↩
Gottcha! ;-)
So this is what it was all about... You really didn't care about Potter or Pinkwhistle anyway :(
Anyway, me thinks me'll go sum other place and find meself another deadhorse to kick...
:::walks away sulking... still believing that Mr Pinkwhistle kicks ass, "So what what if they don't believe, Mr Pinkwhistle'll make them believe. As for Mr Chitnis, he'd better be careful 'cos Mr Pinkwhistle is looking for those 'horrid' people who don't believe.":::
Have a nice day, you. :)
achitnis — Jul 2, 2003 5:19:00 AM — # ↩
LOL!
beatzo — Jul 2, 2003 4:47:01 AM — # ↩
Irresponsible and prone to acting on impulse without any thought to the consequences - I thought these particular traits have been valid ever since Philosopher's Stone. I mean, this guy breaks rules and goes on midnight adventures, and puts his friends in danger all the while. Hasn't that been a plot point all throughout?
Anonymous — Jul 7, 2003 4:18:14 AM — # ↩
hm?
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Jul 7, 2003 4:51:18 AM — # ↩
Myself.
Anonymous — Jul 10, 2003 8:31:01 AM — # ↩
So, in other words, A = A ? Tautologies are rarely useful tools. Neither is circular logic.
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Jul 10, 2003 9:40:44 AM — # ↩
Perhaps you didn't notice tongue's position relative to cheek?