CCBC-Net Archives
Goblet of Fire
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Lisa Falk <lfalk>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:47:05 -0700
Regarding previous comments (cut and pasted below)...isn't it AMAZING how we can all read the same words and come away with such different impressions of a book!?!
I thought that the senseless killing of Cedric (I, like Preston, also considered him a minor character) by Voldemort showed *just* how evil Voldemort is, and really demonstrated his complete disregard for life muggle or magic. I thought that act, and the ensuing struggle with Harry, certainly pointed toward what the rest of the world, magic or muggle, can expect from Voldemort as he regains his strength and power. Especially considering the actions of Cornelius Fudge in chapter 36, I think the stage is set for a scarily magnificent battle of good against evil.
As for questioning Rowling's ability to write about boys by generalizing that "Boys don't do this. In order to settle arguments boys go out in the school yard and have a fist fight." - well! The adolescent boys I know don't act like that! I think Rowling does quite a good job capturing the anguish that boys AND girls feel when they are at odds with their best friends....especially boys and girls of the age that Harry and Ron are in Goblet of Fire. I think the reaction is quite believable with Harry especially because, really, who else does he have?
I loved Goblet. I loved that I got to read for more than a day before it ended. I love that children of widely varying ages, 7 to 13, in my experience, will come to the library and excitedly discuss the most minute details of the story, at length and ad nauseum. I'm hopeful that, having read this book, they will be unintimidated by other wonderful books of length that they might not have been willing to try to read before.
Just another opinion!
Lisa Falk Children's Services Los Angeles Public Library
(Opinions, obviously, are my own!)
Preston McClear said: Rowling is out of her league when she is trying to write about how boys behave. Harry seems to have a crush on Ron. He pouts and moans when Ron won't talk to him. Boys don't do this. In order to settle arguments boys go out in the school yard and have a fist fight. Afterwards they're best of friends again. Boys don't sulk and pout over one another.
And Preston added: I didn't care about the supposed major character who died because he wasn't a major character. On top of this, his death isn't even heroic. He gets zapped doing nothing. Wouldn't it have been better if he died fighting along side Harry? Voldemort can't even beat a child. Why would anyone follow him?
Faye Peattie wrote: Sadly I felt as if this was a 'formula' book. ie. Having found
a winning formula the author is dishing up more of the same in a
reorganised manner. Perhaps Harry cannot effectively last for the
proposed seven books.
Received on Thu 07 Sep 2000 07:47:05 PM CDT
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:47:05 -0700
Regarding previous comments (cut and pasted below)...isn't it AMAZING how we can all read the same words and come away with such different impressions of a book!?!
I thought that the senseless killing of Cedric (I, like Preston, also considered him a minor character) by Voldemort showed *just* how evil Voldemort is, and really demonstrated his complete disregard for life muggle or magic. I thought that act, and the ensuing struggle with Harry, certainly pointed toward what the rest of the world, magic or muggle, can expect from Voldemort as he regains his strength and power. Especially considering the actions of Cornelius Fudge in chapter 36, I think the stage is set for a scarily magnificent battle of good against evil.
As for questioning Rowling's ability to write about boys by generalizing that "Boys don't do this. In order to settle arguments boys go out in the school yard and have a fist fight." - well! The adolescent boys I know don't act like that! I think Rowling does quite a good job capturing the anguish that boys AND girls feel when they are at odds with their best friends....especially boys and girls of the age that Harry and Ron are in Goblet of Fire. I think the reaction is quite believable with Harry especially because, really, who else does he have?
I loved Goblet. I loved that I got to read for more than a day before it ended. I love that children of widely varying ages, 7 to 13, in my experience, will come to the library and excitedly discuss the most minute details of the story, at length and ad nauseum. I'm hopeful that, having read this book, they will be unintimidated by other wonderful books of length that they might not have been willing to try to read before.
Just another opinion!
Lisa Falk Children's Services Los Angeles Public Library
(Opinions, obviously, are my own!)
Preston McClear said: Rowling is out of her league when she is trying to write about how boys behave. Harry seems to have a crush on Ron. He pouts and moans when Ron won't talk to him. Boys don't do this. In order to settle arguments boys go out in the school yard and have a fist fight. Afterwards they're best of friends again. Boys don't sulk and pout over one another.
And Preston added: I didn't care about the supposed major character who died because he wasn't a major character. On top of this, his death isn't even heroic. He gets zapped doing nothing. Wouldn't it have been better if he died fighting along side Harry? Voldemort can't even beat a child. Why would anyone follow him?
Faye Peattie wrote: Sadly I felt as if this was a 'formula' book. ie. Having found
a winning formula the author is dishing up more of the same in a
reorganised manner. Perhaps Harry cannot effectively last for the
proposed seven books.
Received on Thu 07 Sep 2000 07:47:05 PM CDT
