Posts Tagged ‘JK Rowling’


The Tales of Beedle the Bard

JK Rowling recently produced seven handwritten copies of The Tales of Beedle the Bard, a book of fairy tales referenced in her last novel, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Six were given to close personal friends of the author; the seventh was auctioned. The winning bid came from Amazon.com, which now has on its Web site images and reviews of the book.

The sale has unfortunately received a mixed reaction, as some fans are decrying the limited nature of the book will prevent them from ever reading the complete Harry Potter story. On his blog, Star Trek novelist Dayton Ward offers his an intelligent and well-mannered perspective response. I'll further point out that it's hard to criticize anyone who would invest so much time and energy into a unique product that so few will read; not only has Ms. Rowling forsaken that satisfaction and feedback, she also used the opportunity to raise $4 million for her favorite charity. There's no better gift, especially at this time of year; kudos to Amazon.com for being a significant player in this transaction.


A casual fan's review of Harry Potter 7: The Deathly Hallows

Worst book of the series. By far. To a casual fan such as Hiphopguy23, the books in the series really got worse and worse. And by worse, Hiphopguy23 means more labyrinthine and self-referential. Reading Harry Potter 7, Hiphopguy23 felt like he needed a reference guide or a wiki page open at all times to fill in the gaps that J.K. Rowling was glossing over. Hiphopguy23 had many unanswered questions that only the Harry Potter zealots would be able to answer on the spot, such as:

  • Why did Dumbledore drink that goblet full of poison again?
  • Whatever happened to that evil teacher who caused Harry to write on his hand?
  • Who the heck is Mundungus Fletcher?
  • How many freaking Horcruxes are there, and how many has Harry identified?

Hiphopguy23 realizes the "true" fans loved this book because it answered all these unanswered questions and, "Oh look, J.K Rowling mentioned a purple-belly HackleSnork on Page 145 of Book 1 and now she talks in detail about it in this book!" Meanwhile, Hiphopguy23 is trying to figure out what in blazes a purple-belly HackleSnork is and why it is more dangerous than a yellow-tailed DingleBerry.

Nonetheless, like a trooper, Hiphopguy23 stayed all the way until the end…well, mostly the end. The last chapter / epilogue was pure sap and utter trash. Hiphopguy23 read three paragraphs of the epilogue and then found something more productive to do, like trying to see how long he could hold his breath. But the reason Hiphopguy23 (mostly) finished was because he wanted these questions answered:


  1. Will the special magic truant officer be after Harry for skipping school for a year?
  2. Does Harry Potter die at the end?
  3. Does Harry Potter die at the end and then come back to life completely unexplained?
  4. Why did Snape kill Dumbledore?
  5. Is Dumbledore really dead?
  6. No, seriously, is Dumbledore really dead?
  7. Will Harry continue getting out of impossible situations by his foolproof magic spell — Deus Ex Machina?
  8. Was this book really worth the $34.99 cover price and did anybody actually pay that much?

J.K Rowling answers some of these questions, but not all. Hiphopguy23 gives this book a generous thumbs down.


Dumbledore Is Gay

Various news wires are reporting that J. K. Rowling has outed the Harry Potter character Albus Dumbledore as gay.

My response: So what? What's the purpose in her revelation at this point in the franchise's life? Dumbledore has been dead for more than two years, and his sexual preference never proved to be a factor in the role he played at Hogwart's, in Harry's life, or in the fight against Voldemort — all of which are now closed chapters. Is this just Ms. Rowling's attempt at generating more controversy and thus inciting sales now that the summer months of The Deathly Hallows ' release are past? Granted, she's already released other details that were not in the books, but those were substantive. Anything else is immaterial.


The Deathly Hallows

Review, ruminations, and plenty of spoilers after the jump.

Continue Reading »


Demon of the Gibbet

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the film to be released on July 13th, will be followed eight days later with the literary franchise's seventh and final installment: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

Naturally, I'm looking forward to the book more than the movie. As I previously commented, the fifth book was more voluminous than it needed to be, serving as a dull but perhaps necessary bridge in the series. Its successor, on the other hand, was my favorite of them all (with Goblet of Fire running a close second), with an ending that left me eager and excited for the next book — something none of the other five books had done.

I'm one of the rare few who has read each book only once, though, so I will likely see the movie anyway, just to refresh my memory as to some of the vital details of which Rowling is fond of not reminding her audience. Watching the film will certainly be a succincter reminder than rereading the book.

But it won't be the only such film vying for audience's attention this year. I remember in March 2000, when I first told someone about the Harry Potter books, she thickly asked, "Is it about a bunch of rabbits?" Apparently, Hollywood has finally realized the opportunity to cash in on that confusion.


Hufflepuff, The Missing Pokémon

Previously available only in theaters and on YouTube, the trailer for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is now on Apple's trailers Web site.

I've commented to several people, "I hope the film is better than the book." Knowing Potheads to be almost as fanatical as Trekkers, I half-expected this sincere comment to be met with outrage. Yet, without fail, their response has been, "How could it not be?" I'm surprised that other people have found this fifth book in the entry to be a slow and tedious, if somewhat necessary, bridge between the outstanding fourth and sixth books in the series. It's nice to know that not everyone is blinded by what is considered to be the genius of J.K. Rowling.

Of course, she's no Gene Roddenberry.