And so now the hurly-burly's done, the battle's Lost and won — the Battle of Hogwarts, that is — and all the secrets are out of the Sorting Hat. Those who bet Harry Potter would die Lost their money; the boy who lived turned out to be exactly that. And if toi think that's a spoiler at this late date, toi were never much of a Potter fan to begin with. The outrage over the early reviews (Mary Carole McCauley of The Baltimore Sun, Michiko Kakutani of The New York Times) has faded...although the acide, sure taste lingers for many fans.
It lingers for me, too, although it doesn't have anything to do with the ultimately silly concept of ''spoilers,'' ou the ethics of jumping the book's pub date. The prepublication vow of omertà was, after all, always a thing concocted par publishers Bloomsbury and Scholastic, and not — so far as I know — a part of either the British Magna Carta ou the U.S. Constitution. Nor does Jo Rowling's impassioned protest (''I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish...reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children...'') cut much ice with me. These livres ceased to be specifically for children halfway through the series; par Goblet of Fire, Rowling was écriture for everyone, and knew it.
The clearest sign of how adult the livres had become par the conclusion arrives — and splendidly — in Deathly Hallows, when Mrs. Weasley sees the odious Bellatrix Lestrange trying to finish off Ginny with a Killing Curse. ''NOT MY DAUGHTER, toi BITCH!'' she cries. It's the most shocking chienne in récent fiction; since there's virtually no cursing (of the linguistic kind, anyway) in the Potter books, this one hits accueil with almost fatal force. It is totally correct in its context — perfect, really — but it is also a quintessentially adult response to a child's peril.
The problem with the advance reviews — and those that followed in the first post-publication days — is one that has dogged Rowling's magnum opus ever since book 4 (Goblet of Fire), after the series had become a worldwide phenomenon. Due to the Kremlin-like secrecy surrounding the books, all reviews since 2000 ou so have been strictly shoot-from-the-lip. The reviewers themselves were often great — Ms. Kakutani ain't exactly chopped liver — but the very popularity of the livres has often undone even the best intentions of the best critical writers. In their hurry to churn out column inches, and thus remain members of good standing in the Church of What's Happening Now, very few of the Potter reviewers have a dit anything worth remembering. Most of this microwaved critical mush sees Harry — not to mention his Friends and his adventures — in only two ways: sociologically (''Harry Potter: Boon ou Childhood Disease?'') ou economically (''Harry Potter and the Chamber of Discount Pricing''). They take a perfunctory wave at things like plot and language, but do little more...and really, how can they? When toi have only four days to read a 750-page book, then write an 1,100-word review on it, how much time do toi have to really enjoy the book? To think about the book? Jo Rowling set out a sumptuous seven-course meal, carefully prepared, beautifully cooked, and lovingly served out. The kids and adults who fell in l’amour with the series (I among them) savored every mouthful, from the appetizer (Sorcerer's Stone) to the dessert (the gorgeous epilogue of Deathly Hallows). Most reviewers, on the other hand, bolted everything down, then obligingly puked it back up half-digested on the book pages of their respective newspapers.
And because of that, very few mainstream writers, from Salon to The New York Times, have really stopped to consider what Ms. Rowling has wrought, where it came from, ou what it may mean for the future. The blogs, par and large, haven't been much better. They seem to care about who lives, who dies, and who's tattling. Beyond that, it's all pretty much duh.
It lingers for me, too, although it doesn't have anything to do with the ultimately silly concept of ''spoilers,'' ou the ethics of jumping the book's pub date. The prepublication vow of omertà was, after all, always a thing concocted par publishers Bloomsbury and Scholastic, and not — so far as I know — a part of either the British Magna Carta ou the U.S. Constitution. Nor does Jo Rowling's impassioned protest (''I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish...reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children...'') cut much ice with me. These livres ceased to be specifically for children halfway through the series; par Goblet of Fire, Rowling was écriture for everyone, and knew it.
The clearest sign of how adult the livres had become par the conclusion arrives — and splendidly — in Deathly Hallows, when Mrs. Weasley sees the odious Bellatrix Lestrange trying to finish off Ginny with a Killing Curse. ''NOT MY DAUGHTER, toi BITCH!'' she cries. It's the most shocking chienne in récent fiction; since there's virtually no cursing (of the linguistic kind, anyway) in the Potter books, this one hits accueil with almost fatal force. It is totally correct in its context — perfect, really — but it is also a quintessentially adult response to a child's peril.
The problem with the advance reviews — and those that followed in the first post-publication days — is one that has dogged Rowling's magnum opus ever since book 4 (Goblet of Fire), after the series had become a worldwide phenomenon. Due to the Kremlin-like secrecy surrounding the books, all reviews since 2000 ou so have been strictly shoot-from-the-lip. The reviewers themselves were often great — Ms. Kakutani ain't exactly chopped liver — but the very popularity of the livres has often undone even the best intentions of the best critical writers. In their hurry to churn out column inches, and thus remain members of good standing in the Church of What's Happening Now, very few of the Potter reviewers have a dit anything worth remembering. Most of this microwaved critical mush sees Harry — not to mention his Friends and his adventures — in only two ways: sociologically (''Harry Potter: Boon ou Childhood Disease?'') ou economically (''Harry Potter and the Chamber of Discount Pricing''). They take a perfunctory wave at things like plot and language, but do little more...and really, how can they? When toi have only four days to read a 750-page book, then write an 1,100-word review on it, how much time do toi have to really enjoy the book? To think about the book? Jo Rowling set out a sumptuous seven-course meal, carefully prepared, beautifully cooked, and lovingly served out. The kids and adults who fell in l’amour with the series (I among them) savored every mouthful, from the appetizer (Sorcerer's Stone) to the dessert (the gorgeous epilogue of Deathly Hallows). Most reviewers, on the other hand, bolted everything down, then obligingly puked it back up half-digested on the book pages of their respective newspapers.
And because of that, very few mainstream writers, from Salon to The New York Times, have really stopped to consider what Ms. Rowling has wrought, where it came from, ou what it may mean for the future. The blogs, par and large, haven't been much better. They seem to care about who lives, who dies, and who's tattling. Beyond that, it's all pretty much duh.
Many of us are familiar with Harry Potter's Diagon Alley but somehow... it sounds weird to hear A Diagon Mall. I am a third an student taking up Advertising and we are assign think of a topic that suit our satisfaction. Our topic is about Thematic Branding and I am thinking about doing the Harry Potter's Diagon Alley. Since the place is already a commercial place for the wizardy world I have decided to pick it up as my thesis. Now I would like to gather commentaires about my proposal about Advertising Diagon Alley and make it not just an ordinary place in a magical world.
Since the 7th book is out and has probably been read par most of the Harry Potter fans, does this really mean that the Potter mania is over? When I finished the book, I immediately reread it just trick to myself into thinking it wasn't over. For a while I was in a state of Potter denial. I kept thinking that it's not over and there will be loads plus livres after the 7th. I have finally realized that it's over and done with. But it got me thinking.
Will we ever have another great series like Harry Potter?
It's possible that we might not see another great series for 5, 10, ou even 20 years. It might not be as good as Harry Potter, but there's hope.
But maybe we won't have to wait. Maybe the Potter mania isn't really over. With Fanfic, Fanart, Wizard Rock and everything wizard related the Potter legacy still continues. So, maybe it isn't the end.
Will we ever have another great series like Harry Potter?
It's possible that we might not see another great series for 5, 10, ou even 20 years. It might not be as good as Harry Potter, but there's hope.
But maybe we won't have to wait. Maybe the Potter mania isn't really over. With Fanfic, Fanart, Wizard Rock and everything wizard related the Potter legacy still continues. So, maybe it isn't the end.