Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Shame I can't register for a new account from work...

[Raiden no Kishi]

Children's films: srs bzns, apparently.

[GhostontheNet]

I smell 2 dissertations.

Well, I'm still quite a ways from writing a master's or doctoral thesis (I'm still working on my associates), but I do think I'm at least on the right track. Actually, I've been thinking a lot about writing an essay on Luna Lovegood, and how her character relates to the problem of the Other.

Honestly, I'm just waiting for a new member named Harold_Bloom to show up and jump right in. XDD

Well, that just goes to show that no matter how big you get, there's always a bigger fish out there.

Children's films: srs bzns, apparently.

Of course it's "srs bzns", society relies on these texts and films to carry out the induction of children into the symbolic order. These are the works that form the subject's first ideas about how the world works, and what patterns of behavior they should adopt. Despite their superficial outer layer silliness and simplicity, there's actually a great deal of real ideas and complexity lurking beneath the surface. So in a crucial sense, the works of Dr. Seuss are far more important than the works of William Shakespeare. So you can sneer and mock me for taking these works as seriously as their authors do, but society would never disseminate these texts as widely as it does if they did not perform an important social function. The burden of proof rests with you, then, to demonstrate why I should not take children's books and films seriously. Children certainly wish to be taken seriously as thinking and feeling subjects, and not a mere appendage of their parents. What better way to do that, then, but to take the works that fill their subjective and cultural lives seriously?

[goldenspines]

Dropping a note to say please be nice to each other like you all were earlier.

[Radical Dreamer]

[ich1990]

I think I am starting to get a feel for your position, Ghost. While I don't agree with all of your views, I can respect our differences. In light of that, I think we will just have to agree to disagree on some of these topics and start moving this enjoyable discussion towards its end. Also, for those who are having trouble reading these gigantic posts, I have tried to make the experience a bit easier by switching my writing style to alternating current mode.

When J.K. Rowling published Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, she had us going by revealing that one of the major characters was going to die. In this way, the suspense was maintained for the original audience by unsettling normative assumptions about who does and does not survive in the narrative. Of course, it's fairly obvious that Harry Potter is going to survive for far too many reasons to mention (most of which lie outside the narrative world), but a flicker of doubt always manages to keep things exciting.

Despite my arguments to the contrary of your position on this scene, I am glad you were able to enjoy your flicker of doubt and ensuing suspension of disbelief. Personally, I was unable to unsettle the normative assumptions I developed upon reading a myriad of other novels from a similar genre. While I hardly think that this one scene is the deciding factor in relation to the question of which volume of the respective series is of the darkest tone, it certainly makes its own contribution. It is my assumption that numerous similar instances have cropped up due to our own misaligned viewpoints, leading to our mutual disagreement concerning the narrative, moral, and general coloration of the each cinematographic installment in this series.

For this reason, Quidditch can't just be thrown out willy nilly, but must be taken account of. However, because Quidditch is a film convention of the series, the fact that a game occurs doesn't mean that it is brighter or darker than its peers. Well, I suppose that Deathly Hollows will likely be darker for its lack of Quidditch match owing to the the way it reveals the destabilization of a stabilizing norm, but that's another matter.

Oh, I agree that Quidditch has more than meets the eye and its absence might even cause extra drama in the Deathly Hollows movies. My point is that because Quidditch is a stabilizing norm the World Quidditch Cup must be even more stabilizing (it is a bigger event, has more tradition behind it, etc.).

Yes, the event certainly has important psychological and sociological dimensions, both in terms of the film world and the audience, although we could probably be here a while figuring them all out. J.K. Rowling's original book could not have been created in a cultural context of terrorism because she could not have anticipated the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks in 2000 at the time of the novel's publication. If what you are saying is accurate, than her concern would seem to be to address issues of racially oriented mob violence directed against the hated Other..... Waiting until nightfall to make your attack is a classic tactic. If the Greeks could send in a Trojan Horse and wait until nightfall to take the city unawares, I see no reason the Death Eaters could not do the same. So no, at this stage the Death Eaters couldn't win in direct combat, but the impact of their attack is felt as acutely as the friends my dad lost to terrorist attacks in Germany.

I think, upon re-evaluation, that the lithographic version of the Death Eater's nocturnal strike and the cinematographic version have two entirely different emphases. I stand by my claim that, in the book, the Death Eater's main focus is the (as you put it) hated Other. I am willing to concede, however, that you are correct in regards to the cinematographic version of the event. Having read the novel before I viewed the film, it seems that my impression of the former overwhelmed the actual events of the latter.

So fast-forward to the mystics and monastics, and you start to find contemplatives with much in the way of opportunity to explore their spirituality and create art, but little in the way of being able to explore their sexuality. Ever resourceful, these mystics and monastics begin to channel and sublimate their sexual drive into spirituality and art to achieve some truly magnificent results.

I am pretty sure this is one of those issues on which we do not agree, and our interpretation of the movie differs a bit because of it. You've got what seems to be a Freudian view of psychology. I prefer Frankl's. You say that the monks' art is great because of their redirected sexuality. I say it is great because they have found purpose and meaning in their lives]Love may be defined as a passion or quest for the reciprocally expressed and expressive connection with another subject. At its deepest level, this connection is expressed in warm and intimate sexual union, which unites together both subjects in body and soul, links back to God and nature and the entire symbolic order, and invites the possibility of the formation of a new subject. To say that love is not necessarily creative, then, would be to go against the ontology of the thing, and deny their link to the Creator. Rather, where love does not result in something creative, or even results in something destructive, it would be more fair to say that something frustrated the quest from being truly fulfilled. I therefore refer to these as the creative passions, which is a very useful term to use. [/quote]
If you are speaking solely of eros type love (which seems to indeed be the case), then I guess we are of a similar mindset on some, if not all, levels. After all, eros is a rather significant factor in the production of children. Prior to your elaboration, I was under the impression that you were defining all forms of love as “creative passions”.

Whether we are talking about a loose cannon or a carefully guided cannon depends on the individual(s) in question, but the general ability to go boom is a good thing.

Fair enough. I would think, though, that being able to avoid firing at all is also useful.

I think Severus Snape's has a kind of love-hate relationship to Harry that can see a dimension to him that no one else can...... And as for that line complaining to Dumbledore about Harry that "you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter," the reference to the prophet Isaiah is rather obvious. There we read of the suffering servant that "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth]
Interesting exegesis. As for the more direct Snape and Harry conflicts, I think we could also bring up the “spare the rod; spoil the child” verses (Proverbs 13:24 and Proverbs 23:13-14). I wonder, however, how Snape has seemingly come to be so familiar with Jewish holy books and dietary laws.....

So what do I mean about the scene depicting Severus Snape making The Unbreakable Vow resembling the marriage ritual of handfasting?...... And while I'm grateful that director David Yates has done our faith the service of being represented in a positive light, I'm more than a little concerned about the possible vilification of Neopagans, who are already a feared and hated minority.

Again, neat idea. If it is any consolation, I highly doubt Yates or Rowling meant to cause Neopagans harm. If anything, I would say they took a stab at traditional marriage with the whole “unbreakable vows cause death” theme.

I think that was my longest post ever.

[GhostontheNet]

I think I am starting to get a feel for your position, Ghost. While I don't agree with all of your views, I can respect our differences. In light of that, I think we will just have to agree to disagree on some of these topics and start moving this enjoyable discussion towards its end. Also, for those who are having trouble reading these gigantic posts, I have tried to make the experience a bit easier by switching my writing style to alternating current mode.

Well played, friend. I'll just try to clear up a few things, and we'll go from there.

Despite my arguments to the contrary of your position on this scene, I am glad you were able to enjoy your flicker of doubt and ensuing suspension of disbelief. Personally, I was unable to unsettle the normative assumptions I developed upon reading a myriad of other novels from a similar genre. While I hardly think that this one scene is the deciding factor in relation to the question of which volume of the respective series is of the darkest tone, it certainly makes its own contribution. It is my assumption that numerous similar instances have cropped up due to our own misaligned viewpoints, leading to our mutual disagreement concerning the narrative, moral, and general coloration of the each cinematographic installment in this series.

Right, this is a game we have played many times before. But in terms of the cinematic spectacle, the final outcome isn't usually betrayed by the formal elements of the misse-en-scene to keep things exciting as we watch.

I am pretty sure this is one of those issues on which we do not agree, and our interpretation of the movie differs a bit because of it. You've got what seems to be a Freudian view of psychology. I prefer Frankl's. You say that the monks' art is great because of their redirected sexuality. I say it is great because they have found purpose and meaning in their lives] Freud was surely wrong in reducing all human behavior to redirected libidinal drives, but his work is important in that he made us realize just how tightly interwoven sexuality is into being human. Here it is fitting to reproduce Simone de Beauvoir's remarks in The Second Sex. She writes, "As Sartre and Merleau-Ponty have observed, the proposition ‘Sexuality is coextensive with existence’ can be understood in two very different ways; it can mean that every experience of the existent has a sexual significance, or that every sexual phenomenon has an existential import. It is possible to reconcile these statements, but too often one merely slips from one to the other." Viktor Frankl, being a pioneering existential psychologist, much prefers the latter in his analysis as an expression of the "will to meaning." Personally, my approach is to take sexuality, spirituality, and art as expressions of the will to connection, the desire for alterity with the Other (both human and divine) that would give life-affirmation to one's own existence. To me, the dividing lines between these three creative passions are relatively fluid, and could easily be channeled or misdirected from one to another. So yes, the concern for meaningful connection remains near and dear to all three spheres of human existence, and this is good.

If you are speaking solely of eros type love (which seems to indeed be the case), then I guess we are of a similar mindset on some, if not all, levels. After all, eros is a rather significant factor in the production of children. Prior to your elaboration, I was under the impression that you were defining all forms of love as “creative passions”.

Technically, the creative passions are charged by all three forms of love spoken of by the Greeks. However, since eros dominates Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, most of our discussion centers on it unless otherwise specified.

Fair enough. I would think, though, that being able to avoid firing at all is also useful.

Maybe. I used to have a really dark view of love and romance, and of human sexuality in general. But then after years of not feeling attracted to anyone, I fell in love with another genius, and it radically reshaped my whole outlook. We never actually ended up together romantically, but she had enough of an impact upon me that I don't regret those feelings. It was like the reawakening of a power long dormant, something vital and vibrant that drastically improved my quality of life.

Interesting exegesis. As for the more direct Snape and Harry conflicts, I think we could also bring up the “spare the rod; spoil the child” verses (Proverbs 13:24 and Proverbs 23:13-14). I wonder, however, how Snape has seemingly come to be so familiar with Jewish holy books and dietary laws.....

Well, you know those sneaky authors, they like to discretely slip in thematic material even if its full significance is lost both to the characters and much of the audience. To Snape, it could very well be just a blunt metaphor, although the savvy reader will pick up on its underlying symbolic meaning to the narrative. [spoiler]Then again, Tobias, the name of Snape's Muggle father, is a very common Jewish name, so direct familiarity with the Tanakh (Old Testament) is not implausible.[/spoiler]

Oh, and as an important aside, let it be noted that Proverbs was written in a cultural context of rampant social banditry. So far from promoting the sanctification of child abuse, its concern is the prevention of a far deadlier form of violence to which youth fall both predator and prey.

Again, neat idea. If it is any consolation, I highly doubt Yates or Rowling meant to cause Neopagans harm. If anything, I would say they took a stab at traditional marriage with the whole “unbreakable vows cause death” theme.

Thank you! I'll have to get back to you on the implications of the scene for a marriage rooted in a Christian ethic, that's a bit complicated.

[Bobtheduck]

So I was listening to old pottercasts that I hadn't listened to because I was annoyed by the delay, and they said (in february) that the old voice of Dobby was confirmed to come back for Deathly Hallows.

Consider me relieved.

[Radical Dreamer]

So I was listening to old pottercasts that I hadn't listened to because I was annoyed by the delay, and they said (in february) that the old voice of Dobby was confirmed to come back for Deathly Hallows.

Consider me relieved.

Oh good! The lack of Dobby in the other movies (aside from Chamber, obviously) has made me sad, but I'm glad they're putting him in Deathly Hallows! I have no clue how they'd handle several scenes without Dobby. XD

[xblack_x_rosesx]

On another note, I went to see the movie opening day, and my mother saw it as well. She doesn't exactly... follow the Harry Potter stuff very well, but always takes my brothers to the movies, so she's forced to sit through them.

So, at the end of this movie, she came to me, astonished, and said:

"... For the past five movies, I thought his name was DumbleDWARF, and I always wondered why he was so tall..."

I couldn't stop laughing. Thought someone might get a giggle out of it here ;P

[Bobtheduck]

SO... I know IMDb isn't always reliable with this stuff, they've been getting better about fixing it. I looked over the cast credits on Deathly Hallows, and I saw a lot of names I didn't expect to see in the movies.

Rufus Scrimgeour, played by Bill Nighy

Bill Weasley, played by Domhnal Gleeson (son of Brendon Gleeson, who played Mad Eye)
Which of course means Fleur is back

Krum is back, too! He was really not important, movie wise. I could see the information about the swastika... Oh, sorry, I mean the [spoiler]Deathly Hallows mark[/spoiler] being given to Harry another way.

Umbridge is back

Percy is back (how are they going to make up for the last 3 movies' lack of Percy? I guess he was in OotP for about 2 seconds, and didn't talk, but... Nothing to lay the way for DH)

They're FINALLY introducing Mundungus. Not only that, but he gets an assistant, because they were going to try to avoid exposition by doing something with his assistant...

Hermione's mother is in the movies... ANd played by a different woman than she was in Chamber of Secrets... Guess her dad got divorced (yes, I'm being sarcastic) Considering she wasn't actually IN the book, I guess this will be an added scene (again, to turn exposition into visuals)

Of course Dobby is back finally, and Kreacher is back.

Just reading this casting list makes me think this will be another good (2) movie(s) It's about time they started getting them right. Looks like it will end on a great note. After OotP, I didn't think I'd be excited for these movies anymore, but HBP showed me they could do it right, and with 2 movies to work with for the last book, and that cast list, I think they can really do great with the last book.

[NarutoAngel221]

I have watch this twice and I am glad that Harry Potter movie is beginning to answer my question on why snape can talk with snake before and he is good in making potions

[Bobtheduck]

I have watch this twice and I am glad that Harry Potter movie is beginning to answer my question on why snape can talk with snake before and he is good in making potions

Snape can't talk to snakes. Harry can, and the "why" is definitively answered in Book 7. He's good at potions, likely, because he practiced at home. I have a theory about Potions. Many of them don't require wand work and book 7 proved they can't be traced like most magic can. He probably studied long before he went to Hogwarts, though he also studied curses before he went, probably to vent his hatred for his father (this was revealed in books before 6, so it's not really a spoiler as it's just a detail the movies have left out)

[NarutoAngel221]

Snape can't talk to snakes. Harry can, and the "why" is definitively answered in Book 7. He's good at potions, likely, because he practiced at home. I have a theory about Potions. Many of them don't require wand work and book 7 proved they can't be traced like most magic can. He probably studied long before he went to Hogwarts, though he also studied curses before he went, probably to vent his hatred for his father (this was revealed in books before 6, so it's not really a spoiler as it's just a detail the movies have left out)

Lol my bad yeah I forgot Harry is the one who can talk with snake indeed ...Thanks for sharing some tips in this one I have not read the book 7 yet and I am still planning just read some spoilers ...

[Derek_Is_Me]

Nooo, Don't Read Spoilers It Ruins The Book!!!!!!

[GhostontheNet]

Krum is back, too! He was really not important, movie wise. I could see the information about the swastika... Oh, sorry, I mean the [spoiler]Deathly Hallows mark[/spoiler] being given to Harry another way.

I trust you have serious textual or intertextual evidence for these sinister implications, as opposed to being a windbag using weasel words for mere shock value?

[Bobtheduck]

I trust you have serious textual or intertextual evidence for these sinister implications, as opposed to being a windbag using weasel words for mere shock value?

Yes. Plenty. Nothing "windbag" here, and for someone who's spent so much time studying these books, I'm shocked you missed something so obvious and not requiring more than a surface look to see. [spoiler]The entirety of the actions of the death eaters as well as the parallel actions of Grindelwald before them was a huge, not even vaguely hidden analogy to the nazis (Grindelwald even has the dates to match up). The Deathly hallows symbol was used as Grindelwald's symbol, and so to many wizards it represented a dangerous regime, but the symbol itself was much older than Grindelwald, and didn't mean anything remotely sinister before he started using it. Krum's response to it was similar to the response the Swastika (in either direction) receives today, even though it wasn't always associated with Nazis and has various meanings to the different groups (hindu, buddhist, Native American, etc) that used it and its variations. Look up "Deathly Hallows Swastika" and you'll find numerous articles and comments about this. [/spoiler]

Thanks for assuming I'm just going for shock value and insulting me before I have a chance to respond, though. Makes things so much easier.

[GhostontheNet]

Yes. Plenty. Nothing "windbag" here, and for someone who's spent so much time studying these books, I'm shocked you missed something so obvious and not requiring more than a surface look to see. [spoiler]The entirety of the actions of the death eaters as well as the parallel actions of Grindelwald before them was a huge, not even vaguely hidden analogy to the nazis (Grindelwald even has the dates to match up). The Deathly hallows symbol was used as Grindelwald's symbol, and so to many wizards it represented a dangerous regime, but the symbol itself was much older than Grindelwald, and didn't mean anything remotely sinister before he started using it. Krum's response to it was similar to the response the Swastika (in either direction) receives today, even though it wasn't always associated with Nazis and has various meanings to the different groups (hindu, buddhist, Native American, etc) that used it and its variations. Look up "Deathly Hallows Swastika" and you'll find numerous articles and comments about this. [/spoiler]
Thanks for assuming I'm just going for shock value and insulting me before I have a chance to respond, though. Makes things so much easier.

Actually, up until this point I've limited my comments to the films, making references to the books only where specific passages are brought up by other posters. A bit of background in film and literature goes a long way in digesting any text you come across, as all texts make reference to those that have come before. Strictly speaking, "weasel words" is a term in logic for the logical fallacy of using unclear language to imply a cause-effect relationship that cannot be established by the argument. I see you were not completely asleep at the wheel in regard to your use of textual and intertextual elements, you were merely irresponsible in neither producing them nor discussing their meaning. In Western semiotics, the Swastika evokes the deepest fear and loathing owing to its historical connection to Nazi tyranny, and this is the primary assumed meaning in this cultural context. The fact that the Swastika has far more ancient and benevolent meaning in the context of Eastern religion is irrelevant if no contextual appeal is made to this pre-existing meaning resting outside Western culture. Thus, by failing to discuss the meaning of intertextual references to the Swastika within the Harry Potter text, your own post implicitly assumes the normative (read:Western) interpretation of the symbol, evoking shock and abjection toward the Harry Potter text and its views on racism. Consequently, you also make the logical fallacy of poisoning the well, presenting superficially unfavorable information about the text to discredit it prima facie without recourse to textual and intertextual elements. [spoiler]It is no accident that the more benevolent implications of the Deathly Hollows mark are explained to Harry by Xenophillus Lovegood, whose very name evokes not the hate of the Other, but the love of the Other.[/spoiler] So no, you weren't being a windbag after all. Rather, you were being irresponsible, using weasel words, and poisoning the well, an accusation sustained by the preceding argument.

[Radical Dreamer]

Actually, up until this point I've limited my comments to the films, making references to the books only where specific passages are brought up by other posters. A bit of background in film and literature goes a long way in digesting any text you come across, as all texts make reference to those that have come before. Strictly speaking, "weasel words" is a term in logic for the logical fallacy of using unclear language to imply a cause-effect relationship that cannot be established by the argument. I see you were not completely asleep at the wheel in regard to your use of textual and intertextual elements, you were merely irresponsible in neither producing them nor discussing their meaning. In Western semiotics, the Swastika evokes the deepest fear and loathing owing to its historical connection to Nazi tyranny, and this is the primary assumed meaning in this cultural context. The fact that the Swastika has far more ancient and benevolent meaning in the context of Eastern religion is irrelevant if no contextual appeal is made to this pre-existing meaning resting outside Western culture. Thus, by failing to discuss the meaning of intertextual references to the Swastika within the Harry Potter text, your own post implicitly assumes the normative (read:Western) interpretation of the symbol, evoking shock and abjection toward the Harry Potter text and its views on racism. Consequently, you also make the logical fallacy of poisoning the well, presenting superficially unfavorable information about the text to discredit it prima facie without recourse to textual and intertextual elements. [spoiler]It is no accident that the more benevolent implications of the Deathly Hollows mark are explained to Harry by Xenophillus Lovegood, whose very name evokes not the hate of the Other, but the love of the Other.[/spoiler] So no, you weren't being a windbag after all. Rather, you were being irresponsible, using weasel words, and poisoning the well, an accusation sustained by the preceding argument.

Regardless of the above, we as a staff have been watching this thread, and we've decided that your words toward Bob were certainly harsher than they needed to be in a thread about Harry Potter. Please be kinder in your approaches to other members in the future--even if you do believe yourself to be "right," there are ways of expressing this without making the other feel stupid.

[GhostontheNet]

Regardless of the above, we as a staff have been watching this thread, and we've decided that your words toward Bob were certainly harsher than they needed to be in a thread about Harry Potter. Please be kinder in your approaches to other members in the future--even if you do believe yourself to be "right," there are ways of expressing this without making the other feel stupid.

Alright, I'll mellow down, but I don't think I'm the only one who feels that nonchalantly implying the Harry Potter series has crypto-fascist sympathies without justification is far more more serious than anything I have said here. That would be to imply that the text and its author have used their influence over millions of children around the world to try to inspire the reenactment of the worst racist atrocities of the 20th century. As an author, I know that if anyone ever tried to pull that one on me, I would fight them tooth and nail, because it's my credibility and livelihood that's on the line. Who wants their children to read books by a neo-Nazi? You certainly wouldn't buy little Johnny and Susie The Grinch Meets Heinrich Himmler, would you? Because J.K. Rowling is not here to defend her reputation as an author, the obligation to do so stands with those who are able.

[goldenspines]

Alright, I'll mellow down, but I don't think I'm the only one who feels that nonchalantly implying the Harry Potter series has crypto-fascist sympathies without justification is far more more serious than anything I have said here. That would be to imply that the text and its author have used their influence over millions of children around the world to try to inspire the reenactment of the worst racist atrocities of the 20th century. As an author, I know that if anyone ever tried to pull that one on me, I would fight them tooth and nail, because it's my credibility and livelihood that's on the line. Who wants their children to read books by a neo-Nazi? You certainly wouldn't buy little Johnny and Susie The Grinch Meets Heinrich Himmler, would you? Because J.K. Rowling is not here to defend her reputation as an author, the obligation to do so stands with those who are able.

I agree with everything RadicalDreamer said.
People will have different opinions from you wherever you go in life. But that does not give you the right to ridicule them in a less than nice fashion.
Your discussions on proving your own opinion in this thread are fine, but personal attacks towards other members is not, despite your relationships towards them (whether good or bad).

[Bobtheduck]

I never once stated I thought Rowling was fascist or a Nazi sympathizer. You overreacted to something I said assuming I meant one thing when I meant something entirely different.

The only relatively negative thing you should have been able to pull from that is that I view the analogies made by the books to be rather plain and too straightforward. [spoiler]The DH mark with its dual meaning (just like the swastika), the "undesirables", the "wandless" and "stealing" magic, the year that Grindelwald and Dumbledore had their duel... There has been a persistent WWII and Nazi analogy made, and a rather simple one.

The nazish traits (including the hijacking of a much more benevolent symbol for malevolent uses by Grindelwald, and to a lesser extent, Dumbledore in his earlier years) were always done by bad guys or people who were in the wrong at the time.[/spoiler] There were no "weasel words" or "poisoning the well" because I never once said anything to try to make people think Rowling was in SUPPORT of any of these things. That's why it was always for villains or the negligent and cowardly that these comparisons were drawn.

I will admit that the swastika's non-nazi origin and alternate meaning (and continued meaning outside of the Western World) isn't quite common knowledge (though it SHOULD be), but especially people who read Deathly Hallows should have seen the incredibly transparent parallels she made between Death Eaters / Grindelwald and the Nazis and groups that have borrowed from them later on (though those parallels start in the first book, with Ron's chocolate frog card).