*Lozzie*
Member
ohhhh its going to be awesome 
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
HARRY POTTER & THE HBP - what did you think? (SPOILERS!) (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter bubz :D
- Start date
turtleface
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2006
- Messages
- 932
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
slightly off topic, but why is the author Rowling always referred to as J.K. Rowling?
It just got on my nerves a bit especially when people call her that in common speech.
Ok maybe I'm weird and making a deal out of nothing...just wondering if anyone else thought it sounded odd when someone says "My favourite author is J.K. Rowling" for example
I mean, who would say "My favourite Prime Minister is J.W. Howard"?
It just got on my nerves a bit especially when people call her that in common speech.
Ok maybe I'm weird and making a deal out of nothing...just wondering if anyone else thought it sounded odd when someone says "My favourite author is J.K. Rowling" for example
I mean, who would say "My favourite Prime Minister is J.W. Howard"?
0Jade0
Member
Well Johnny is known as John Howard.
She is known as J.K Rowling. Not Joanne Rowling.
I think it sounds better anyway.
She is known as J.K Rowling. Not Joanne Rowling.
I think it sounds better anyway.
BlackDragon
Active Member
its just the way she published her name. its the way she wanted to be recognised. it is the way she is recognised, so it is quite fitting people call her that.
BlackDragon
Active Member
also, i think the true magnificance of this series will only be realised once this last book has been read. (well duh). but what i mean is, there is SO much packed into each book in so many many many complex and subtle ways. you don't pick up on it until it appears later, or in another book. and some you don't ever pick up on. so once the story of hp has been closed, the true genious will be in the fact that it was all there. every line and description which seemed normal will have lead to significance and all the books will be so interwoven it'll be freaky.
turtleface
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2006
- Messages
- 932
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
Maybe I'm obsessing over nothing but I dunno...the way its used just seems very awkward to me.
How about: "I can't believe B. J. Spears split up from K. E. Federline!!!"
lol
I'll stop now.
How about: "I can't believe B. J. Spears split up from K. E. Federline!!!"
lol
I'll stop now.
YOU'RE ALL F*CKING TARDS.
sorry But to put it simply her publishers thought that young boys (the original audience they were marketing it towards) might not want to read a novel published by a 'girl' so they used her initials instead of Joanne Rowling.
This is what K.A. Applegate did too because the animorph series was orginally aimed primarily for young teenage boys.
Stop being a sexist bitch turtleface. And if you can't tell that i'm being sarcastic with all my criticism levelled against you (and your accounting ways) then i give up.
Byez :wave:
sorry
But to put it simply her publishers thought that young boys (the original audience they were marketing it towards) might not want to read a novel published by a 'girl' so they used her initials instead of Joanne Rowling.This is what K.A. Applegate did too because the animorph series was orginally aimed primarily for young teenage boys.
Stop being a sexist bitch turtleface. And if you can't tell that i'm being sarcastic with all my criticism levelled against you (and your accounting ways) then i give up.
Byez :wave:
Captain Gh3y
Rhinorhondothackasaurus
wtf? Lots of authors are known by their first 2 initials and surname.
bubz :D
the last laugh
Turtleface, what about JRR Tolkien? No one really refers to him as "John Ronald Reuel Tolkien" do they? I don't see the problem with saying JK Rowling when that's what she's credited as in the books, and the reason for that was because she didn't think young boys would read her books if they knew they were written by a female.
edit: oops, didn't realise bobness already explained it!
edit: oops, didn't realise bobness already explained it!
*Lozzie*
Member
like the inital thing actually mattersshe writes awesome books thats the main thing
turtleface
Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2006
- Messages
- 932
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
I guess I'm not saying she should not be credited as "J.K. Rowling" on her books, that would be not out of the ordinary, similar to what is common practice like your JRR Tolkien example. I also don't think everyone should say "Harry Potter is written by Joanne Kathleen Rowling" (Thats just being anal)bubz :D said:Turtleface, what about JRR Tolkien? No one really refers to him as "John Ronald Reuel Tolkien" do they? I don't see the problem with saying JK Rowling when that's what she's credited as in the books, and the reason for that was because she didn't think young boys would read her books if they knew they were written by a female.
edit: oops, didn't realise bobness already explained it!
My gripe lies with how she is referred to by the press and by people in general in situations where calling her "J.K. Rowling" is both inappropriate and exhibits clumsiness in language.
Take for instance:
Something like this would be regarded as quite normal in my opinion:
"Harry Potter is a book by J.K. Rowling" or "J.K. Rowling is responsible for unleashing Harry Potter to the world"
but something like this is just...odd (in my opinion):
"Oh I wish J.K. would tell us what is going to happen in Harry Potter 5" or "Oh my god I love you J.K. so much" or "I vote for you J.K.Rowling for best author of the year!"
like...wtf.
Obviously not many people (well, nobody) shares my dislike of it, but oh well
--
Also Bobness, you accounting hater, I reject this:
The reason is you may be right as to the intention, but the execution was awful. If I recall correctly, the first version of Harry Potter in Australia featured a letter to (ok I'll conform to the status quo) J.K. Rowling, the letter was headed "Dear Joanne" or something like that. So yeah...any young boy who is idiotic enough to judge books based on the sex of the author would pick that up easily I would think.
Last edited:
bubz :D
the last laugh
Hmmm. If I was actually face to face with her, of course I wouldn't refer to her as JK she prefers people to call her Jo. But if I'm talking about the books to a friend or something, I think it actually sounds weird to say "Oh I wish Joanne would tell us what is going to happen in Harry Potter 7"... since you're used to JK Rowling (or even JKR online )
she prefers people to call her Jo. But if I'm talking about the books to a friend or something, I think it actually sounds weird to say "Oh I wish Joanne would tell us what is going to happen in Harry Potter 7"... since you're used to JK Rowling (or even JKR online )wooo!*Lozzie* said:
J
jhakka
Guest
As fun as it is to get people riled up, I won't accept any form of trolling in here. As this case was incredibly mild, there's not need to delete anything, but keep in mind that it's not funny and won't be accepted in the future.
Serius
Beyond Godlike
petunia cant be a squib, she was born into a muggle family.
I beleive the glint in dumbledores eye was about harrys blood. Voldy resurected with harrys blood, so the same stuff runs in his veins. As long as harry is with a blood relative up until his 17th birthday he cant be killed...surprise surprise, voldy is now a blood 'relative' so he cant kill him.
Who likes the changeling theory? I think it is likely harry is some sort of horcrux hence his connection to voldy.
7/7/07 would be a sweet release date, but a marketing nightmare... not a large enough gap since the movie has been released. She is still happily writing and has given no indication she is close to finishing, best bet is anout halfway through tho impossible to tell.
I am betting on a christmas release, but i still hope its a 777.
two more things: dumbledore is dead for good, jk said he isnt going to pull a gandalf.
It is very likely a H-R ship will develop. Its been hinted at basically all series, although i had been non-commital all the way through, i was sort of hoping for a H-H, but i guess Ginnny is good too[sort of makes the series come full circle with the 1st book being when ginny was into him, then he saves her life in CoS] So totally not pissed off and itts definetely a more fitting ending.
I beleive the glint in dumbledores eye was about harrys blood. Voldy resurected with harrys blood, so the same stuff runs in his veins. As long as harry is with a blood relative up until his 17th birthday he cant be killed...surprise surprise, voldy is now a blood 'relative' so he cant kill him.
Who likes the changeling theory? I think it is likely harry is some sort of horcrux hence his connection to voldy.
7/7/07 would be a sweet release date, but a marketing nightmare... not a large enough gap since the movie has been released. She is still happily writing and has given no indication she is close to finishing, best bet is anout halfway through tho impossible to tell.
I am betting on a christmas release, but i still hope its a 777.
two more things: dumbledore is dead for good, jk said he isnt going to pull a gandalf.
It is very likely a H-R ship will develop. Its been hinted at basically all series, although i had been non-commital all the way through, i was sort of hoping for a H-H, but i guess Ginnny is good too[sort of makes the series come full circle with the 1st book being when ginny was into him, then he saves her life in CoS] So totally not pissed off and itts definetely a more fitting ending.
Last edited:
Rinni
Member
I'm so happy about the H-G ship. I've been waiting for them to get together since CoS
BlackDragon
Active Member
yeah i agree with that.
but has anyone observed the flaw in the plot of this book? if harry and voldemort must die at each others hands, as dumbledore observed in the prophecy, then harry can only die because of voldemort and or kill him himself. therefore, harry cannot be killed by anyone else. hence, he cannot be killed when voldemort is not around. so why did dumbledore protect him by paralysing him before snape killed him? and why haven't they realised that he is technically invincible to anyone but voldemort and hence has immense and supreme power?
though, in post script, harry may not die at the hands of anyone else but he may be sent to a fate worse than death, or captured and taken to voldemort, or be put under the imperious curse. etc.
but has anyone observed the flaw in the plot of this book? if harry and voldemort must die at each others hands, as dumbledore observed in the prophecy, then harry can only die because of voldemort and or kill him himself. therefore, harry cannot be killed by anyone else. hence, he cannot be killed when voldemort is not around. so why did dumbledore protect him by paralysing him before snape killed him? and why haven't they realised that he is technically invincible to anyone but voldemort and hence has immense and supreme power?
though, in post script, harry may not die at the hands of anyone else but he may be sent to a fate worse than death, or captured and taken to voldemort, or be put under the imperious curse. etc.
Last edited:
Captain Gh3y
Rhinorhondothackasaurus
Harry/Ron or Harry/Harry?Serius said:
BlackDragon
Active Member
oh also, i just finished reading the HBP again. and fuck the end is sad - at dumbledores funeral.
though, i definitely think snape is good. he could not blow his cover by fighting against the death eaters. and if he didn't kill dumbledore he would die himself due to the unbreakable vow. hence, i think he knows something very important or has something very important to do that requires him to still be in voldemorts good books EVEN IF dumbledore is dead. i.e. (And i think dumbledore knew this) there is something we do not know yet that is even more than dumbledores life. yet, its still friggen sad.
i wonder how it will end? happy ending or tragic? i'd have to say happy. i don't think the readers of harry potter, myself included, would be satisfied with a tragic ending really. or, i can't think of a tragic ending that would satisfy me. though it'll probably end up being a mix and VERY intruiging.
though, i definitely think snape is good. he could not blow his cover by fighting against the death eaters. and if he didn't kill dumbledore he would die himself due to the unbreakable vow. hence, i think he knows something very important or has something very important to do that requires him to still be in voldemorts good books EVEN IF dumbledore is dead. i.e. (And i think dumbledore knew this) there is something we do not know yet that is even more than dumbledores life. yet, its still friggen sad.
i wonder how it will end? happy ending or tragic? i'd have to say happy. i don't think the readers of harry potter, myself included, would be satisfied with a tragic ending really. or, i can't think of a tragic ending that would satisfy me. though it'll probably end up being a mix and VERY intruiging.
BlackDragon
Active Member
lol. a gay harry? or a narcissistic harry? :rofl:.Captain Gh3y said:
no. i don't think so. that would just be yuck.