Reading/Book Pet Peeves

[lady_disdain]

That makes me glad for series like Harry Potter that had a well defined end to the series with an author that would not add any more to the series once it was done.

I got a shiny nickel says there'll be more Harry Potter books within, say, ten years. I could be wrong - lord knows Rowling doesn't need the money - but I think there will be. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, if she sticks to fleshing out the world and the history rather than making it "Harry Potter and the Threat That's Even Worse Than Voldemort!"

I concur here. Read and enjoyed the Potter books, though was never an ardent fan. I took the most pleasure, in the crazy and intricate world built by Rowling; more than in the IMO "identikit" and hackneyed titanic-struggle-between-good-and-evil-with-the-world's-fate-at-stake, or the character-interplay-and-development aspect.

I loved the first books - they were intricate, quirky and the reader explored an amazing world with Harry. However, once the world was mostly fleshed out and the titanic struggle became the center issue, I thought they started getting worse. The angsty teenager Harry was also annoying and shows up at around the same time, so it was a double blow. I have only vague memories of the last book.

And as time went on, the books not only started getting worse, they got -- in the main -- longer. I have to feel that the execution of the series is, basically, messy. I don't hold the austere view which some do, that any literary offering has to be a brief-and-spare masterpiece of jeweller's / watchmaker's minimalist precision, or else it's rubbish -- there is a place in literature for discursive-and-waffly works -- but "Potter" in the later books, just seemed to go off lengthily in all kinds of pointless blind-alley directions. I gather that Rowling has claimed that she had the entire content meticulously in mind, from a very early date: in this, frankly I don't believe her.

I believe her just as much as I believe George Lucas when he said that he had the entire Stars Wars trilogy/hexalogy/ennealogy in mind. Because that little incest side plot really added to character development.

[cabbageweevil]

And as time went on, the books not only started getting worse, they got -- in the main -- longer. I have to feel that the execution of the series is, basically, messy. I don't hold the austere view which some do, that any literary offering has to be a brief-and-spare masterpiece of jeweller's / watchmaker's minimalist precision, or else it's rubbish -- there is a place in literature for discursive-and-waffly works -- but "Potter" in the later books, just seemed to go off lengthily in all kinds of pointless blind-alley directions. I gather that Rowling has claimed that she had the entire content meticulously in mind, from a very early date: in this, frankly I don't believe her.

I believe her just as much as I believe George Lucas when he said that he had the entire Stars Wars trilogy/hexalogy/ennealogy in mind. Because that little incest side plot really added to character development.

Writers have to safeguard their livelihood, I suppose, and present it in the best light; sometimes, though, willing suspension of disbelief on the customers' part, gets a bit strained.

And Le Mon writes:
"...she just didn't cut out the extras. Though by the final book, everyone was used to how big the last was and that the next would be larger. But come on already, enough camping."

Enough of that stuff, amen ! Regardless of the splendour of the whole -- thank heaven that it was indeed limited to seven books.

[Jocelyn]

I believe her just as much as I believe George Lucas when he said that he had the entire Stars Wars trilogy/hexalogy/ennealogy in mind. Because that little incest side plot really added to character development.

I remember reading an interview with Lucas in which he stated that he'd made Leia younger than Luke so she could be a love interest for both Luke and Han.
I remember this so clearly because everyone I mentioned it to at the time (c. 1979) said, 'Leia is YOUNGER than Luke?'

[zyrs]

I remember reading an interview with Lucas in which he stated that he'd made Leia younger than Luke so she could be a love interest for both Luke and Han.
I remember this so clearly because everyone I mentioned it to at the time (c. 1979) said, 'Leia is YOUNGER than Luke?'

She certainly didn't seem so.

[twiggy]

I remember reading an interview with Lucas in which he stated that he'd made Leia younger than Luke so she could be a love interest for both Luke and Han.
I remember this so clearly because everyone I mentioned it to at the time (c. 1979) said, 'Leia is YOUNGER than Luke?'

She certainly didn't seem so.

I'm pretty sure they were twins, so I guess Leia could be younger,  but not by much

[Piratelvr1121]

I thought they were twins.  It's been a while since I saw the third installment of the prequels but I'm pretty sure someone says that Padme had twins, a boy and a girl.

[HoneyBee42]

Well, they *became* twins, but in the early scripts of what became episode IV, Luke was stated to be 20, Leia 16.  I saw Star Wars the first time in '77, and there is *no way* that I believe that the whole arc of stories was in George's mind at that time.

On Harry Potter, I can believe that she had a pretty good idea of the final confrontation between Harry & Voldemort, but not so much the "how to get there" from book 1.

[Margo]

Well, they *became* twins, but in the early scripts of what became episode IV, Luke was stated to be 20, Leia 16.  I saw Star Wars the first time in '77, and there is *no way* that I believe that the whole arc of stories was in George's mind at that time.

On Harry Potter, I can believe that she had a pretty good idea of the final confrontation between Harry & Voldemort, but not so much the "how to get there" from book 1.

I belive that she had the main story in her mind, and probably most of the main plot points. Having heard a lot of writers talk about how they write, I do believe that there are those who do have very clear, long term plans, just as there are others who don't write in that way. 
I went to a talk by Rowling a couple of weeks ago - she mentione dthat she has no intention of writing other Potter books - she deliberately tied up the loose ends and wanted a firm, happy ending ("I know not everyone liked the epilogue, but I wanted to be clear that it had ended. My Characters, My rules")  She mentioned that she didn't think prequels were generally successful so she didn't see her self doing those.

She did mention she is currently working on a (non-Potter) children's story although it's in the very early stages.
I agree that the later books could have used some firm editing.

[Jocelyn]

I remember reading an interview with Lucas in which he stated that he'd made Leia younger than Luke so she could be a love interest for both Luke and Han.
I remember this so clearly because everyone I mentioned it to at the time (c. 1979) said, 'Leia is YOUNGER than Luke?'

She certainly didn't seem so.

I'm pretty sure they were twins, so I guess Leia could be younger,  but not by much

The interview was after Star Wars, but before Empire or Return. No one at that time knew they were siblings. So I do doubt that Lucas had worked that detail out in advance, otherwise it's really odd that he would call Leia a love interest for Luke.

[Betelnut]

To be fair to Robin Hobb (from my original post), the Wild Rains Chronicles never said anywhere that is was going to be a trilogy.  I just assumed that based on the previous books that she wrote.

[Piratelvr1121]

My biggest HP related pet peeve is with the last movie, the scene where Harry says "Let's finish this the way it started! Together!" then puts his arms around Voldemort's neck and throws them both off the cliff.

WHY?? That makes absolutely no sense, did NOT happen in the book and was just plain stupid!  Well I have a theory as to why.  They wanted to make use of the 3D effects.  That and having Voldemort dissolve into ashes.  I guess the thinking was that he was basically soulless since all the horcruxes had been destroyed but still...I really wish they hadn't made it 3D because it seems to make movies so dark when you watch them without 3D.  We have the movies on blu-ray but not 3D blu-ray since we don't have a 3D tv and some scenes are so dark you can't make out what's what.

[Redwing]

My biggest HP related pet peeve is with the last movie, the scene where Harry says "Let's finish this the way it started! Together!" then puts his arms around Voldemort's neck and throws them both off the cliff.

WHY?? That makes absolutely no sense, did NOT happen in the book and was just plain stupid!  Well I have a theory as to why.  They wanted to make use of the 3D effects.  That and having Voldemort dissolve into ashes.  I guess the thinking was that he was basically soulless since all the horcruxes had been destroyed but still...I really wish they hadn't made it 3D because it seems to make movies so dark when you watch them without 3D.  We have the movies on blu-ray but not 3D blu-ray since we don't have a 3D tv and some scenes are so dark you can't make out what's what.

I am such a Potter-phile that I very rarely criticise something in the books.  The movies, though, are another story.  I hated the way the did the final battle in Deathly Hallows.  Everything about it was wrong. 

[Piratelvr1121]

It's been a while since I read the book but I had that feeling too, it just felt like they were just out to utilize the 3D effects.    Though my favorite parts are when Molly says to Bellatrix "Not my daughter, you b****!!* and Neville beheading Nagini.

And before everything really gets started, Prof. McGonagall casting the piertotom locamotor spell and saying "I've always wanted to use that spell!"

[Luci45]

I am such a Potter-phile that I very rarely criticise something in the books.  The movies, though, are another story.  I hated the way the did the final battle in Deathly Hallows.  Everything about it was wrong.

This is why I never see a movie of a book I loved - except of course To Kill a Mockingbird.

[RebeccainGA]

I am such a Potter-phile that I very rarely criticise something in the books.  The movies, though, are another story.  I hated the way the did the final battle in Deathly Hallows.  Everything about it was wrong.

This is why I never see a movie of a book I loved - except of course To Kill a Mockingbird.

I loved the books. Loved the movies. Had to separate them as totally different things about movie three. They were, and will always be, two loosely related but wholly separate forms of entertainment.