A
atreides
Guest
lol...
Although I staunchly maintain that Harry Potter is a complete and utter tard, and gets worse with each book, I still love the series. The only character who actually develops, aside from Hermione, is Snape. After six books, and as many readings each, I have concluded that aside from the obvious use of the 'Holy Quartet', and a few glimpses of esoteric brilliance, the books are devoid of any real meaning.
The HQ btw is the classic never fails character formula to ensure any stories vast and unceasing success. Coupled with the Comedic Duo, you can't fail, Harry Potter employs both.
The HQ is thus: 1 guide, 1 emotional, 1 intellectual, 1 physical.
examples: Wizard of Oz, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Star Wars etc.
Dorothy = Guide; Scarecrow = Intellect, Cowardly Lion = Physical, Tin Man = Emotional
Giles = Guide; Willow= Intellect, Buffy = Physical, Xander = Emotional
Obi Wan = Guide; Leia = Intellect, Luke = Physical, Han Solo = Emotional (Duo=C3PO, R2D2)
Dumbledore = Guide; Hermione = Intellect, Harry = Physical, Ron = Emotional (Duo= Fred & George)
Mallrats would have done much better had Smith adhered to this formula, he had the duo in Jay and Silent Bob, but fell short with only the Physical (T.S. Quint) and the Emotional (Brody Bruce). An argument could be made for Intellect (Brandi Svenning), but her Leia like role didn't come through properly.
Aside from the HQ and the Duo, Potter comes up useless, although there are a few interesting Anagrams, Salazaar Slytherin = Harry Satanizes All
Don't ask me how I came up with that one. The famous I am Lord Voldemort, which was funny enough. There are some breezing mentions of mythic figures, and Flamel, Cereberus (my favorite).
The upside of Harry Potter is that they are rather inspired books, her ability to use loaded words throughout, great descriptive language, and a penchant for the wacky makes it fun, but you come away feeling un-fullfilled. Sorta like you just watched Jackson's LOTR. The books were so much better.
Although I staunchly maintain that Harry Potter is a complete and utter tard, and gets worse with each book, I still love the series. The only character who actually develops, aside from Hermione, is Snape. After six books, and as many readings each, I have concluded that aside from the obvious use of the 'Holy Quartet', and a few glimpses of esoteric brilliance, the books are devoid of any real meaning.
The HQ btw is the classic never fails character formula to ensure any stories vast and unceasing success. Coupled with the Comedic Duo, you can't fail, Harry Potter employs both.
The HQ is thus: 1 guide, 1 emotional, 1 intellectual, 1 physical.
examples: Wizard of Oz, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Star Wars etc.
Dorothy = Guide; Scarecrow = Intellect, Cowardly Lion = Physical, Tin Man = Emotional
Giles = Guide; Willow= Intellect, Buffy = Physical, Xander = Emotional
Obi Wan = Guide; Leia = Intellect, Luke = Physical, Han Solo = Emotional (Duo=C3PO, R2D2)
Dumbledore = Guide; Hermione = Intellect, Harry = Physical, Ron = Emotional (Duo= Fred & George)
Mallrats would have done much better had Smith adhered to this formula, he had the duo in Jay and Silent Bob, but fell short with only the Physical (T.S. Quint) and the Emotional (Brody Bruce). An argument could be made for Intellect (Brandi Svenning), but her Leia like role didn't come through properly.
Aside from the HQ and the Duo, Potter comes up useless, although there are a few interesting Anagrams, Salazaar Slytherin = Harry Satanizes All
Don't ask me how I came up with that one. The famous I am Lord Voldemort, which was funny enough. There are some breezing mentions of mythic figures, and Flamel, Cereberus (my favorite).
The upside of Harry Potter is that they are rather inspired books, her ability to use loaded words throughout, great descriptive language, and a penchant for the wacky makes it fun, but you come away feeling un-fullfilled. Sorta like you just watched Jackson's LOTR. The books were so much better.