What are you currently reading?

[North Star]

Rereading Harry Potter books, it seems I have grown into love-hate relationship with it, as seems to be case with more and more works that I read.

Sorry about having so old quote from North Star but when I was browsing through this topic, this caught my attention.
I don't know. Part of me believes that wasn't the only reason he got in team. I think it's a case of bit of a protagonist centered morality. While I have no doubt that it was part of the reason he got in the team I think it is remarked at least once, I think in Philosopher's stone, that Draco really is a good flyer. Harry is perhaps better than him, having won against him several times, but I'm not sure if that makes him a bad one (a flyer, that is, as person, see below). I remember that you said earlier in that post that Slytherin team really wasn't that bad, that remark about him buying his way in team just caught my attention. I am sure the bribe from Lucius played a part, maybe even a big part in it, I just don't think that was the only reason.

Now, about other things in Harry Potter. The biggest problems I have with this book are the main character being much of a Mary Sue, succeeding in almost everything (sure it is mentioned that in past, before he knew he was a wizard, he was always picked as last one in physical education: the thing is we never actually see those moments, the moments we actually see are mostly him about winning again and again and again.). Other important part I don't like in these series is the afore mentioned protagonist centered morality. I think the worst parts of this are evident when:
a) In philosopher's stone Dumbledore first congratulates Slytherin about winning a house cup but then says he has to give a "few" last minute-points, which end up being, if I remember correctly, 170 points, just enough for Gryffindor to win Slytherin. Seems rather unfair and prejudiced, doesn't it, considering Dumbledore himself was in Gryffindor.

Surely you can't mean that the points he awarded were unfair - or that Snape giving points to his students and taking from others at whim is less objectionable, and not further justification for those additional points (which, again, were more than deserved)? I doubt that Dumbledore's own house when he was a student there literally a hundred years earlier influenced his judgement there.

b) In one book it is mentioned that Fred and George shove this guy named Montague in vanishing cabinet, which, it is mentioned, could have have fatal consequences. He is mentioned having tried to take unfairly points from them but does that justify essentially attempted murder? Even Hermione is only worried that Fred and George would get in trouble for doing this, not because their actions were, you know, homicidal. The fact that they don't care about things like that (including many others, I think one book actually ends with Draco and his friends turned into some slug-like creatures) makes it inconsistent when, in Half-blood Prince, Harry is horrified when he uses Sectumsempra against Draco, almost killing him. And in that instance using a spell like that sounds to me more understandable, considering that Draco didn't try to take points from him but to use a cruciatus curse on him. Sure, it was still a horrifying occurrence but you know, they didn't care about things like that earlier.

Remember that Harry used the curse without knowing what it would do - of course he is horrified to discover that this curse he saw written in his school book by a former student was so severe. Sectumsempra was also irreversible when it cut a body part away. Most of the other nonlethal curses, poisonings or other physical damages were curable or reversible.

c) Portraying Slytherins as jerks. Sure there are nice slytherins like Slughorn but I don't think that's quite enough. Even though Rowling herself has said that there are many nice Slytherins. Then there are guys like Snape and Draco, who are definitely jerks but in the end they try to take steps of atonement for their wrong-doings. Which leads us to things that I really love in these books.

Slughorn did have his unpleasant features too - possibly a paedophile, who 'collects' the most promising students, and "you can only say 'no' to the Death Eaters so many times" was rather ambiguous too. Trouble is, the nice Slytherins may be there, but they aren't likely to be included in the stories, as being nice and being a 'double agent' aren't the same thing.
Peter Pettigrew was a Gryffindor, and obviously the original trio of Gryffindor pals (Potter sr., Lupin, Black) weren't exactly pleasant or tolerant people in school, but they grew up.

First, I have to say that Rowling is really innovative, having created a beautifully constructed fantasy setting. Her books also have a strong structural unity. And finally I like that (in the last books that is) she uses shades of grey in these books. Yes, I know I complained earlier about protagonist centered morality but things are not quite so all the time. Mentioning some characters now that have either showed remarkable growth in character or at least passing shade of humanity.

Draco is a piece of work. He is definitely not a nice man but he's hardly a psychopath. In last two books he shows a humane side in him, a scared teenager, afraid of that the new Hitler could kill him and his parents if he doesn't obey him. While his attempts to murder Dumbledore are very bad things, you must remember the rule "Blood is thicker than water". Dumbledore, even if he was justified in doing so, was responsible for imprisoning his father in a place that is described as a horrific, human rights abusing place. Lucius of course hardly deserves great food and soft beds, but you can still at least see bit of Draco's point of view. And ultimately, Draco can't bring himself to directly murder him. I love that. In last book it also is hinted that he recognices Potter and his friends in Malfoy manor, but he seems reluctant to rat them out. It is also mentioned by Rowling that he probably tried to raise his son Scorpius as a better person, meaning that he learned something after all.

Draco is definitely a victim of circumstances, since his parents are the proud, opportunistic racist scumbags they are - and between the rock and the hard place themselves, with Voldemort's new rise to power, and Draco doesn't really have a choice until in the very end.
And yes, he actually did develop into an excellent seeker, and was a good flier.

About other Malfoys etc: I believe that several fans believed that Lucius's and Narcissas marriage was loveless but I think the final book pretty much proves that while they are not nice persons they really genuinely care about each other. Even one of the most evil characters in the series, Bellatrix Lestrange, seems to genuinely love Narcissa as a sister. Not so sure about her other, disowned sister Andromeda, though.

Racial purity and family sort of go together, so it's only natural that they get along very well with family members who share their ideas.

Then of course there is Snape. He bullies children, is emotionally abusive to them. That is one of the worst things teacher can do to a student. Yet he is also painfully humane. While I guessed from the start that Snape was in love with Lily (as I also guessed about 95 % of things that happened in the last book) I think it is still very craftfully done.

Well yes, he was stuck in a job he didn't especially like, and was constantly reminded of Lily and James when Harry was around, and the actions that lead to their death, and had rather heavy workload in addition to the teaching - no wonder he was a bit snappy.

Sorry for the long post and possible typos!

You are forgiven

Edit: One final thing I really like about the way Rowling handled Malfoys was the fact that all of them managed to avoid prison. That was probably not completely fair but that kind of thing really happens in real life and I hate it when in some books (cough, Dickens, cough) every single not so likable person gets some divine retribution. So I am glad that Rowling handled it this way.

Agreed. Again, it's one thing to kill and torture on a whim, and quite another when you are yourself killed unless you do as you are told.

Anyway, there are so many great characters in the books, and plots, subplots and sub-subplots that are rather finely managed, and written in wonderful language, that the books are a joy to (re)read

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Surely you can't mean that the points he awarded were unfair - or that Snape giving points to his students and taking from others at whim is less objectionable, and not further justification for those additional points (which, again, were more than deserved)? I doubt that Dumbledore's own house when he was a student there literally a hundred years earlier influenced his judgement there.

Slughorn did have his unpleasant features too - possibly a paedophile, who 'collects' the most promising students, and "you can only say 'no' to the Death Eaters so many times" was rather ambiguous too. Trouble is, the nice Slytherins may be there, but they aren't likely to be included in the stories, as being nice and being a 'double agent' aren't the same thing.

No, I didn't mean that: they were richly deserved and Snape's taking points from other students is certainly not justified. I guess the problem I have with this is that Dumbledore gave just barely enough points for Gryffindor to win, I think it was by a marginal of 10 points or so and it kind of feels like he's saying "ha ha, in your face!" I'm not so sure about Slughorn being possibly a paedophile and yes, I agree that his collecting of gifted students is a bit elitistic but I still think that he is a relatively nice person.

Always nice to talk about Harry Potter with you!

[listener]

Look Who's Back    (translated from the Hungarian)
not for those who offended by Sacha Baron Cohen and the like
Adolf returns as a TV host.

[Florestan]

Mario Vargas Llosa - Conversation in the Cathedral

Excellent on all accounts, just as each and every MVL's book I've read.

[mn dave]

I dipped a toe into Main Street by Sinclair Lewis last night.

[Karl Henning]

Well, I have plunged into a re-read of Madeleine L'Engle's "Time quintet."

A Wrinkle in Time is a favorite from childhood, so I could not hope to be dispassionate.

I found A Wind in the Door better this second time.

At present, in the middle of A Swiftly Tilting Planet.

[Florestan]

Actually, living as I do, split between three households (ours, my parents' and my in-laws') I read three books simultaneously. The other two are:


Gregor von Rezzori - The Snows Of Yesteryear


Miguel de Unamuno - Intimate Diary

Needless to say, I enjoy them immensely.

In fact, my reading philosophy is not to read the books I enjoy, but to enjoy the books I read.  The only exception so far has been Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code --- the only book I've ever regretted buying in 30 years of bookworming. 

[Karl Henning]

Well, the provocation was exceptional

[Florestan]

Well, the provocation was exceptional

Bah, it was just humbug!  Three historical inaccuracies every other page... it made Alexandre Dumas look like the most scrupulous historian evere known... 

[HIPster]

Well, I have plunged into a re-read of Madeleine L'Engle's "Time quintet."

A Wrinkle in Time is a favorite from childhood, so I could not hope to be dispassionate.

I found A Wind in the Door better this second time.

At present, in the middle of A Swiftly Tilting Planet.

Nice!

I've been thinking of doing a re-read myself, Karl.  I recently thumbed through a copy of the somewhat recently released graphic novel adaptation - are familiar with it?  Looks interesting as a nice supplemental read:
[asin]0374386153[/asin]

[mn dave]

Well, I have plunged into a re-read of Madeleine L'Engle's "Time quintet."

A Wrinkle in Time is a favorite from childhood, so I could not hope to be dispassionate.

I found A Wind in the Door better this second time.

At present, in the middle of A Swiftly Tilting Planet.

I think I bought one of those on your recommendation. Still wedged in the TBR pile.

[Karl Henning]

I think I bought one of those on your recommendation. Still wedged in the TBR pile.

Mrs Who, with her penchant for quotation (and often in languages other than English) appealed to me in my nerdly youth

[Karl Henning]

David Rowley found it to be an "obvious copy of Bob Dylan", as where Lennon refers to the listener as a "friend", Dylan does the same on "Blowin' in the Wind".

Well, of course:  how could a songwriter address the listener as my friend unless he's copying Bob Dylan!

Pinheads on parade . . . .

[Ken B]

Mrs Who, with her penchant for quotation (and often in languages other than English) appealed to me in my nerdly youth

What appealed to you in your non-nerdy youth?

[Karl Henning]

At this remove, I wonder if it had been all nerdly, all the time . . . .

[Artem]

Mario Vargas Llosa - Conversation in the Cathedral

Excellent on all accounts, just as each and every MVL's book I've read.

That's the only LLosa's book that I've read. Do you recommend anything else by him?

[stingo]

Finished Saints Alive. Continuing Saturday and Shift.

[Wakefield]

I bought the paper edition of Diary of a Bad Year; but after that, I changed my mind and decided to read the Kindle version of Elizabeth Costello (Spanish translation).

[asin]B0062X5H66[/asin]

I love this sort of novel of ideas: the dissection of a life and its history.

[Wakefield]

Mario Vargas Llosa - Conversation in the Cathedral

Excellent on all accounts, just as each and every MVL's book I've read.

I agree: he is one of the greatest novelists alive.

That said, I am not that enthusiast in regards his (quite prolific) work as essayist. He is a great writer, but not a great thinker.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Lots of rereading novels going on with me. Now it's time for David Copperfield. Last time I read it I noticed that the second half of the book is far less enjoyable than the first half. Coincidentally it gets worse right after my favorite character, Steerforth, has exited the story. Even the drowning of Steerforth in one chapter of the second half, "Tempest" felt far less dramatic than I remembered (well, actually, the drowning itself is dramatic but everything else in the chapter is far less impressive than I remembered after I first read it). Steery just isn't as much interesting character as a dead man as he is as a live one (from obvious reasons). I also find Agnes, the second wife of David, as much less interesting character than his first wife, Dora.

The second half of the book has it's merits too. This book doesn't have a single one pure evil character: even the most villainous ones have some humanizing factor. I never really understood the accuzation that Dickens makes his heroes pure good and his villains pure evil. He has several not-so-likable "heros" such as Pip, Gradgrind and Eugene Wrayburn and while he has some pure evil villains, it's not any unusually large amount of them that are pure evil. However I agree that he makes many young female characters unrealistically good and pure. The book is also remarkably funny. I never fail to laugh at micawber's "Heep of infamy" or "You know what I want?" "A strait-waistcoat."

If I would now list my favorite Dickens novels, it would be somewhat different from previous one. For ex. the old curiosity shop has proven itself much more enjoyable than Nickleby and while I still love David Copperfield, I somewhat dislike most of the second half.

I am also reading Victor Hugo's The history of a crime. It is a very impressive (if prejudiced) account of Napoleon III:'s coup d'etat from author's point of view.