52 books in 52 weeks, 2007

Title: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire [amazon]
Author: J.K. Rowling
Publisher: Thorndike Press; 1 edition (November 2, 2000)
Pages: 936
Book Number: 26

What’s this 52 Books in 52 Weeks thing about?

And finally, I’m done with the fourth book in the Potter series! As I mentioned previously, my vigor for the series was dampened a bit when I tripped over a nasty spoiler at amazon.com. Alas, such things happen, and I’m still going to finish the whole lot of them. As usual, I’m going to remark that if you’ve not read this book, you really should stop reading this entry, because it will, most definitely, contain spoilers. Having set forth that warning, onward, with unsorted thoughts about the book:

• The ending of the book really threw me for a loop. I didn’t see it coming at all. I was quite bummed to find that Mad-Eye Moody was the hidden Death Eater at Hogwarts - and then pleasantly surprised to find that was only sort of true. Kind of. Not really. Moody has definitely moved up into one of the top spots on my favorite character list.
• This bit is directed specifically at Cas: I saw in this book, perhaps only a little, of what you were talking about, in regards to Dumbledore having a side other than the happy old man. For example, when he was speaking to Cornelius Fudge in the hospital ward about the return of Voldemort. I definitely see what you were talking about in regards to Richard Harris vs. Michael Gambon. I’m not sure how well Harris would have been for the “other” side of Dumbledore. I still like his portrayal of the happy Dumbledore more, however.
• Aha! So Lucius Malfoy really was a Death Eater, and it wasn’t just speculation on Ron’s part. All the more reason for Harry to beat the crap out of Draco, I say. (Not that Harry needs much more reason…)
• I’d like a Pensieve, please.
• If I’m not mistaken, other than Harry’s parents, Cedric Diggory was the first named character in the series to die, right? I get the feeling that character deaths become much more regular in books five, six, and seven. Not looking forward to it - I hope Hermione doesn’t die.
• The book was long. Really long. Admittedly, I was reading the large print version (the library didn’t have any regular print copies in), but it looks like the regular print paperback weighs in at 752 pages. However, while it was long, I honestly can’t think of anything I’d want to see taken out. All of it served a purpose. At least up to book 4, Rowling hasn’t fallen into the Stephen King trap: writing excrutiatingly long books just because he knows folks will buy it.
• Snape continues to intrigue me. Despite his general sliminess and nastiness, I can’t help but like the guy in a strange way. His character gained a lot of complexity in book 4, and I’m interested in seeing where it goes in the last 3 books. I never know whether he’s to be trusted or not, and perhaps that’s exactly what Rowling was going for. As an aside, Alan Rickman has done a wonderful job in bringing Snape to life in the movies.
• I am still a bit confused as to how I fell into this Harry Potter obsession. I recall a time, not too far in the past, yet hazy all the same, in which I despised the very idea of reading the Potter books. Why, they were beneath me! Childrens’ books. Hmph. I can’t, however, continue with that line of thought anymore right now; I’ve got to get back to the Order of the Phoenix.

Title: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban [amazon]
Author: J.K. Rowling
Publisher: Scholastic; First American Edition edition (September 8, 1999)
Pages: 435
Book Number: 24

What’s this 52 Books in 52 Weeks thing about?

Three down, four to go!

Like my post on the Chamber of Secrets, with this one, I’m not going to go too much into the plot bits; everyone who reads my blog knows about the books, I think. Instead, here are a few random thoughts I had about the book. One major spoiler below:

• I was let down with what “the prisoner of Azkaban” ended up meaning. I was hoping that Harry, Ron, and Hermione would end up inside Azkaban, getting someone out. That turned out to be quite far from what was actually being referred to in the title.
• I want a Time-Turner. Period. My birthday is coming up, you know… Wow. Think of how many more books I could read if I could roll back time!
• I ended up also being let down about Hagrid’s course on magical creatures. I thought it’d be an interesting diversion, to “sit in” on his classes, but they ended up amounting to nothing. Thanks, Malfoy!
• The ending was great. I would have liked it even more if Harry could have stayed with Sirius, as Sirius offered, but just him being set free and the truth being revealed was good.
• Hmm. Dementors = floating Ringwraiths?

Title: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets [amazon]
Author: J.K. Rowling
Publisher: Scholastic Paperbacks (October 22, 2002)
Pages: 433
Book Number: 22

What’s this 52 Books in 52 Weeks thing about?

And then, I had read two of them. With that, my addiction was sealed. Sigh.

I thought book two of the series was better than the first. It seemed to me that with book two, Rowling, while still writing with kids as her target audience, made things a bit darker. From what I’ve heard, this is a continuing trend throughout the series.

I don’t think I need to write much about the plot per se, because I get the impression that everyone who reads my blog has already read it. And, for that matter, I’m not crazy about spoilers, so I try to not spoil things for others (and when I do spoil things, I put a hefty warning at the top of the post). Having said that, here are some random things that I thought about the second Harry Potter book, in bullet point form. Before proceeding, keep in mind that reading the list could be considered spoilerish, so go forth with caution:

• Professor Lockhart - ugh. Rowling did a wonderful job in making this character obnoxious. I shared with my friend Ethereal that I thought Harry and Ron should have gone further with him; they should’ve killed the irritating chap. He was merely annoying when he was always bragging about his books, himself, etc.; my frustration with him, however, shot through the roof when he openly admitted to Harry and Ron that he’d stolen the tales from his books from other people.
• My love for Hermione grows with each book I read. I don’t mean that in a sick way (I’m not lusting after the actress, although that does seem to be a common occurrence with male Potter fans). I just really, really like her character. She reminds me a bit of a younger, female version of… well, me. Always has her nose stuck in a book, and likes it that way. I think we’d get along splendidly.
• I’d like a house-elf for Christmas, please.
• My loathing of the Malfoys grows with each book. I do hope that at some point in the series, Harry has a good old fashioned fist fight with Draco, and wins outstandingly. I think my utter dislike for Draco is amplified by the fact that I’ve seen some of the Potter movies, and the kid who plays him does a great job. Little jerk (Draco, not the actor).
• This brings me to my final bullet point, something which came up when I was talking to Ethereal: now that I’ve read two of the books, I think that Rowling is wonderful at creating real characters, characters you can really like and hope for (or characters you wish would fall off a nasty cliff, or perhaps get eaten by a dragon). I said in my review of the first book that a lot of the characters are stereotypes, and I stand by that judgment, but, that doesn’t change the fact that the characters are well written, with their own flairs, types of dialogue, etc. Even if the main plot of the series didn’t interest me (and it does), at this point, I’d probably read through the whole series just to see what happens to all of the characters.

One last note, which isn’t about the Chamber of Secrets, but is instead about the Prisoner of Azkaban. (Warning - mild spoiler alert if you’ve not read book 3!):

I’m ecstatic for Hagrid, the big oaf. When I learned that he had been made a teacher at Hogwarts, I very nearly jumped off of the couch (my preferred reading habitat) and cheered. Then I read that he was all teary about it, and wanted to give him a hug. Following, I’d probably be sent off to the hospital wing to be treated for a few broken bones, but oh well.

I can’t believe how completely I’ve fallen into these books…

Title: Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone [amazon]
Author: J.K. Rowling
Publisher: Scholastic; 1st American Ed edition (September 1998)
Pages: 309
Book Number: 21

What’s this 52 Books in 52 Weeks thing about?

Note: The widely loved Cas (well, I love her to bits) brought it to my attention that in the United Kingdom, the book was apparently called Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, not the Sorceror’s Stone. I read up a bit on this here, and learned that many words were translated from the original English to American English. For this, I may very well hunt down a copy of the original version and read it instead. Really, are we Americans that stupid? And now, on with my little review:

This was not the first time I read this book. I don’t recall exactly when I read it the first time - perhaps a couple of years ago? When I read it the first time, I was reading it to try and figure out what the big deal about Harry Potter was. On that first reading, I didn’t really find what I was looking for. It seemed like an okay book, but I certainly didn’t love it. I think, however, that my first reading was marred by something, namely, me. I think I went to Harry Potter expecting it - perhaps even wanting it - to not hold up to the hype, to fall on its face. I believe that mindset drastically altered my perception of the book. (Well, duh!) With the recent release of the final book of the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, I decided I’d give the books another try with a more open mind. Instead of reading them to figure out the hype, I’d read them for - here’s a concept! - enjoyment.

So, how’d this second reading go? Great. I enjoyed the book a a lot. If I were to sum it up in a few words, those words would probably be “a fun little book.” Sure, the book isn’t written amazingly well. The characters are not hugely unique (and indeed, quite a few are very stereotypical). But when you get past that, if you skip criticizing it like I did previously - all in all, the book is a blast to read.

I came to really like a lot of the characters. I felt sorry for Harry, having to live with the intolerable Dursleys, and I simply loved Hagrid. If he were real, I’d invite him to come live with me. Albus Dumbledore could come visit, too, as long as he promised to do a bit of magic. (Speaking of Albus - Gandalf, anyone?)

Continuing with the fun and likeable mindset: Hogwarts. There are now two fantasy places that I’d love to live in for a while: Bag End and Hogwarts. Bag End could be the place I hang out to relax and read; Hogwarts could be the place I go when I want to get lost in an old, magical, spooky castle.

I suppose it’s a testament to how much I enjoyed this book, to say that I’m already reading the second one, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, alongside another sequel I’m reading, The Pale Horseman. If my enjoyment of the second one is on par with the first Potter book, I’ll probably end up reading the whole series. Ah - the power of having an open mind.

If there were any more books coming out (and I’m still not entirely convinced that there won’t be, but I’ve not read the last), I wouldn’t be going to the release parties, nor dressing up as a wizard. I’m not that into it. However, I can understand now what people see in the books. They’re not masterpieces by any means, but they’re a genuine blast to read.

Three notes:

1. Yes, I enjoyed the first book - a lot. Yes, I think I was a bit too hard on poor Harry and Co. on my first reading of the book. But - no, the books are not on par with Lord of the Rings. So there.

2. Look at this amazon.com search for “sorceror’s stone” in books. See anything peculiar? Why is the Urdu edition of it in the #1 spot? I have nothing against Urdu (or any other language), but my gut feeling is that the vast majority of folks searching on amazon.com for Potter books are looking for them in English. Strange.

This last note is really, really important…

3. PLEASE DO NOT POST SPOILERS IN THE COMMENTS. I have NOT read past book one (well, besides a little bit of book 2), and I don’t want anything spoiled. I don’t know who dies and who doesn’t, I don’t know who the half blood prince is, etc. etc. Please - no spoilers. Thanks.

Title: The Last Kingdom [amazon]
Author: Bernard Cornwell
Publisher: HarperCollins; Repack edition (January 3, 2006)
Pages: 368
Book Number: 20

This is the second book of Cornwell’s I read, the first being Sharpe’s Tiger. I enjoyed Sharpe’s Tiger, but I absolutely loved this book.

The book is the tale of Uhtred, a Northumbrian who finds himself in the midst of the Danish invasion of England in the late 9th century. After Danes kill his older brother, they capture Uhtred, who ends up being taken under the wing of one Dane in particular, Ragnar. He is raised as a Dane, helping them conquer his own country. As he grows older, the tension between being a Dane and being an Englishman grows, and he flips back and forth between the sides. Throughout the book, Uhtred’s relationship with the king of Wessex, Alfred, grows.

I enjoyed this book on a couple of different levels. First - it’s just a good story. The characters are believable and likeable (or unlikeable!), which made me give a damn as to what was going on. I found Uhtred’s troubles in choosing sides to be fascinating - should he fight with those he “likes”, the Danes, who raised him, or should he fight for his own land?

The other level that I enjoyed the book on was the historical level. It’s clear that Cornwell has done his homework. The Danes didn’t have horns on their helmets; furthermore, they were called Danes or Northmen, rather than Vikings. He actually remarked on this in the back of the book. Why are they referred to as Danes or Northmen? Because that’s what the people of England thought of them as (or pagans); they didn’t think of them as Vikings.

I learned a bit about warfare in that area during the 9th century, namely that often, armies would fight in shield walls. For whatever reason (perhaps my old memories of Braveheart), I thought that battles during that time period were just a bunch of fellows running at each other, hacking away, with little to no organization at all. Granted, battles are inherently chaotic, but still, I didn’t know that the Anglo-Saxons / Danes fought in shield wall formation.

I’m looking forward to the next one in the series, The Pale Horseman, which I checked out from the library earlier today. I’ll be starting it as soon as I finish up Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone.