Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince by J.K. Rowling
The newest Harry Potter book went on sale this morning at midnight. My daughter was one of those silly people lining up to buy a copy at midnight and she stayed up all night reading the entire book. She told me that the books are getting darker and Hogwarts isn't the fun escape it used to be. Someone very important dies in this book. (She told ... (See the whole review)
The pic didn't show up in the description so here it is.
I enjoy Harry Potter books despite the mystical wizard theme. I haven't read the book yet, because the kids get to read it first. Even without his magic powers Harry would be quite an amazing kid. Harry at times has more courage than sense and searches for the truth beneath the surface....an admirable trait in my book.
My wife and I would have gotten our copy yesterday, but we were at the cinema when the mailman showed up. So we'll get it this week, and I'll probably get through it first since she's still re-reading the first five.
I have enjoyed the series, even though I find it a bit formulaic. I keep in mind that its written for a particular age group and enjoy the story never-the-less. I really enjoy the fact that it has introduced a huge number of young people to reading.
Just finished the 6th installment of the Parry Otter saga. Took me five evenings to finish it after my son finished it in one day and promptly spoiled everything for me. :-(
There are again some interesting new characters, some new puppy romances (maybe they will last this time), lots of fun stuff, and an extremely intriguing ending. It's a better book than the last one, IMO.
Yes, these were the books that hooked my son into reading. I've read through book 1-3 as bed time stories to my son when he was 6. And I told him that I was not going to read the 4th and 5th ones, both having 800+ pages. So, "HP and Goblet of Fire" is the very first serious book my son ever read...Now he is re-reading everything for the 4th or 5th times!
I wish some Objectivists would stop being such literalistic dolts when approaching fantasy fiction. Fantasy is a perfectly legitimate genre: nobody takes the metaphysical premises of fantasy and sci-fi stories seriously; these worlds simple allow the author (and audience) to "play" with ideas, exercise their imaginations and explore issues (including matters of good and evil) in symbolic forms that rarely exist so purely in the real world.
I've read all the Harry Potter novels to date, and am about 100 pages into the latest installment. J. K. Rowling is a creative genius; I laugh with delight about once every page at her inventiveness, satirical brilliance and sheer literacy.
The "magical" parallel universe of Harry Potter conforms to its own very strict internal rules; magic is treated as a kind of a science, with its own unbreakable facts and principles which students are required to study and master. It often serves as a hilarious satire on the real world, with Rowling inexhaustibly creative in coming up with clever metaphors for our actual daily lives.
Most important to these stories -- and a large part of their universal appeal -- is not their metaphysics, but their morality. The "good" kids Rowling depicts in this long, imaginative coming-of-age series are all brave, intelligent, rational, loyal and honorable. They face their fears, standing up to irrational and evil adults, sticking to their knowledge, their principles and each other.
Moreover, they are all individualist misfits in one way or the other. Rowling celebrates their uniqueness as well as their virtues, making them wonderful role models for children (and adults, for that matter).
It's no surprise that the Harry Potter series has become a modern literary phenomenon, for it conveys -- with wit and whimsy and wonder -- timeless virtues and values that are entirely consistent with Objectivism. I can think of no greater gift to a youngster than to introduce him or her to Harry and his world. For it may just give a child exactly what he needs to face a world of far less admirable Muggles.
> I wish some Objectivists would stop being such literalistic > dolts when approaching fantasy fiction. Fantasy is a > perfectly legitimate genre: nobody takes the metaphysical > premises of fantasy and sci-fi stories seriously; these > worlds simple allow the author (and audience) to "play" with > ideas, exercise their imaginations and explore issues > (including matters of good and evil) in symbolic forms that > rarely exist so purely in the real world.
I agree. The trappings of fantasy and science fiction are just that, trappings. If attending the theater, is it more important to pay attention to the actors, or to the stage? When reading a novel, is it not a mistake to focus on the setting and ignore the plot and the characters?
If I had children, I would read to them the Harry Potter books. And if Ayn Rand objects, she can drag herself out of her grave and tell me so in person. Frankly, I'd rather see my son look up to Harry Potter instead of 50 Cent, and I'd rather my daughter emulated Hermione instead of that talentless trollop Jessica Simpson.
I'd have to agree with both of the above posts. The trappings of science fiction and fantasy often offer a filter through which other factors which the author deems worth study become more clear.
And on a side note Mr. Bidinatto you've once again done an excellent job of explaining a deeply held conviction of my own with more skill than I would be capable of. Well I'm hoping to be capable some day.