Finally Completed! HP & TOTP

Well, I just finished reading "Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix" this week. To begin:

Wow.

This book is the longest of the books, but the shortest of the movies, which I have yet to see. (I'm scared to see how much and what all was cut out!) As in all the "Harry Potter" books, J.K. Rowling delivers tremendously when it comes to imagery, subplots and character development. However, I felt that this novel was seriously lacking in its overall plot. The book hosts a huge secret and the extinction of a primary character, but nothing particularly twisted or surprising happens.

Near the end of the story it almost seems as if Rowling gets tired of showing the reader things, and Dumbledore and Harry have a long expository conversation in which Harry learns secrets of his past through an oh-so-uncreative way: a conversation. I wish that I could have seen him learn these things instead of just hearing Dumbledore rattle facts off.

It was during this book that I became confused about some of the fundamental principles of Harry's world. For one, I was led to believe through reading the first four books that only purebloods can be sorted into Slytherin. I also believed Harry to be a pureblood because both of his parents were magical. This led me to be confused by Voldemort's relating to Harry because they were both half-breeds. However, there is apparently a clause I missed somewhere that explains that wizards are still "mudbloods" if a grandparent was non-magical, which is true in Harry's case. Other long-time "Harry Potter" fans can explain it better than I can.

Harry Potter lineage

To be completely honest, it feels like Rowling got genealogy/sorting hat facts mixed up somewhere down the line and tried to fix it through a few comments Sirius makes in the fifth book.

Another mild point of contention I have with this book is Harry's violent mood change. Though he is a pubescent 15-year-old now, the shift seems too dramatic. Harry has always had it rough and he hasn't always been necessarily peachy, but I've never thought him to be mean until this book. He has some downright evil thoughts at times.

With the end of the series looming in my near future, I do find myself getting sad. Reading the "Harry Potter" series has been sheer fun, and I'm not looking forward to that fun ending.

**Up next on the book posts: "Girl With a Pearl Earring" by Tracy Chevalier

Korianne Speaks is offering a Twilight package contest!

To view the contest rules and get your name entered, go here:

Korianne Speaks's Blog

Happy entering!

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

As previously said, I am reading the fifth installment in the "Harry Potter" series right now. I haven't seen the movie yet or listened to the audio books, so no one PLEASE post anything that will give anything away. My hairdresser actually let slip that an important character leaves us in this book, and, well, I was devastated. There's just something about not discovering it for myself....

Anyway, this book is far darker than the last four. Harry is now 15 years old, and his moods are shifting as quickly as his hormones. (Many props to J.K. Rowling for taking that bit of realism in to account, btw.) The language begins to shift with the aging characters, as well. Ron, his brothers, and Harry have taken to calling one another "mate," possibly the British (or Australian?) equivalent of "bro" or "dog." Harry finally encounters his first bit of romance and his thinking patterns emulate that of a boy coming of age.

Perhaps my favorite part of this book thus far is the deep-set struggle between good and evil, even within the ranks of those on the "good" side and those on the "bad" side. Professor Umbridge (bad) of the Ministry of Magic (good) lands the coveted Defense Against the Dark Arts position, but immediately abuses her position by acting as spy (bad) for the Ministry. She particularly gives Harry and his peers in Gryffindor a hard time, while favoring Slytherin students. (And everyone knows Slytherins are eeeviiil.)

What most impresses me about these books is Rowling's ability to produce vivid images for the reader absent of flowery language, which so many writers overuse. Her attention to detail is uncanny and she subtly satirizes those things which we "Muggles" so easily accept. Take for instance, the use of "Muggle medicine" in book five. "Healers" (the magical community's equivalent to doctors) attempt to use stitches instead of magic to heal a patient. Molly Weasley thinks this is absolutely preposterous, and though Rowling doesn't dwell for long on the absurdity of trying to sew someone up like a garment, the reader is led to note that, well, it is odd, isn't it?

I'm on page 553 of 870, and though I have a bookshelf full of other books I want to get to, I'm savoring the magic that is "Harry Potter" while I can. I only hope another series as gripping comes along soon.

Girly Books

Girly books, schmirly books. I never much liked them.

As a child, I was mostly entranced by such mystery sagas as “Nancy Drew,” “The Hardy Boys,” and “The Boxcar Children.” To put it mildly, I was a book snob. I wouldn’t read just anything, no, no, not this sleuth in training. The snobbery followed me through middle school and high school. I started reading Mary Jane Clark, Mary Higgins Clark, Harlan Coben, P.J. Parrish, John Grisham and Agatha Christie novels while my friends were reading “Gossip Girl.”

Though my love for reading was deep, it was not very wide. Through shunning what I deemed “mindless gar-bage,” I also shut out such novelists as Nicholas Sparks and Jodi Picoult — you know: girly-book authors. With all the love and romance I so easily turned my back to, I also missed out on comedy, fantasy (as in sci-fi) and inspiration. It was last summer when a close friend told me about “a vampire story that totally sounds stupid, but is totally amazing” when I finally decided to step out on a limb and read something new. I was in for it.

I won’t bore you with the details, but I did read “Twilight” - all 528 pages in about 16 hours. I was hooked. Over the next couple of weeks I finished the series, with the exception of the fourth book, which I had to wait until August ‘08 for.

After the “Twilight” saga, when I thought my world was ending, I came to a reading drought. Would any book series ever stir me the same way? The resounding question from my classmates was: “I take it you haven’t read ‘Harry Potter?’” I hadn’t. But I have currently read up through chapter six of the “Order of the Phoenix” and can’t wait to finish the next two books before the new movie comes out this summer. I guess “Harry Potter” doesn’t really fit in with the whole girly-book theme, but it was still something I hadn’t read and hadn’t considered reading.

Peppered throughout the last few months have been several different books of varying levels of girlyness, which I have enjoyed immensely. There have been some British comedies, some Junior League-worthy-name-dropping style books and coming-of-age stories. Most recently, however, I read “The Notebook” by Nicholas Sparks. Shocking really, that I just read the book, considering it was first published in 1996 and the movie (starring Rachel McAdams and Ryan Gosling) was released in 2004. For anyone who has read and loves the book, you may want to stop reading now:

This was the first time I’ve seen a movie and read the book (as is required, I’m told) and actually liked the movie better. And not by a little bit — byalotabit. The book is short — only 207 pages in paperback. And it is good. Just not as good as the movie. There is very little dialogue and the story is more about Allie’s disease (Alzheimer’s) than about the heavy, heated romance Noah and Allie share in the film. The book is lacking the inspiration the movie elicits. I guess it inspired enough, though, to make it a New York Times Bestseller. The book doesn’t have the same heart as the movie. The reader doesn’t get to know that Noah is a jokester, a charmer. We don’t know the sweet tendencies the couple shared and we certainly don’t hear the same spark of emotion in their voices. We get brief glimpses into a fun summer, but very few specific stories. The book is simple. The movie is complex. The book has a much more depressing, sad tone than the movie. The movie left me feeling uplifted, while the book left me empty.

The best thing about reading “The Notebook” and being disappointed, I think, is that now I crave more girly books. This one doesn’t fit the mold I for so long believed existed. It wasn’t a story of coming of age — it was a story of coming of old age. And I guess I can’t be too disappointed — this was, after all, Sparks’ first published novel. You can read more about that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Sparks_(author)

I suppose I need to give a big thank you to a few people at this point: to Carissa, thanks for “Twilight.” Thank you for being persistent in coaxing me to read it. That one small gesture will make a world of difference for me, since I want to go into book publishing. I need to be willing to read anything, not just my favorite things (because, along the way, I might just find new favorite things.) To Stephenie Meyer, thanks for “Twilight” and to J.K. Rowling, thanks for “Harry Potter.” ‘Nough said. To Monica, thanks for checking girly books out of the library for me. To Samantha, thanks for chatting with me about them all. To Danielle, thanks for the signed copy of “The Notebook.” To Nicholas Sparks, thanks for signing it. (And I don’t think you’re a bad writer — I just think the screenwriter outdid you on this one — “The Lucky One” is coming up on my list soon.) To my mom, thanks for teaching me to read and love books at 3. To Elliott, thanks for writing. And to readers (of girly books or otherwsie), keep it up. There aren’t too many of us left, but some people aren’t accepting that fate:

http://www.adn.com/24hour/entertainment/books/news/story/653293.html