Randomramblings

I'd love debating about opinions on various persons, events, happenings etc.
I'll start rereading them, it seems :)

You do that! :)

Well, since you asked...

... I'd most enjoy analysis of certain characters and their choices, motives and desires... You can start with Minerva McGonnagall and Draco Malfoy, the two that I find most interesting. But no guessing about #7, please - that would be blasphemy. ;-)

Haha, Simon. :) Your topic for Nadezhda reminds me of essays we had to write in school. I never particularly enjoyed writing these kind of things. We'll see what Nadezhda says. :)

I would prefer to hear something more on that phenomena of HP books pulling kids away from computers and teve.

Simon - analysis with regard to what? All I can think of would be analysis of a character so far with regard to what role (s)he will (in my opinion) play in the final book. Or just analysis per se as in "Draco's mother obviously doted on her only child"? What choices and desires do you have in mind with regard to McGonnagall; with Draco I see your point, but not with Minerva. But predicting is such fun - even if you don't get anything right. :)

Tina - I liked to write essays (Slovenian was simply my best subject), but Simon would have to be more specific with the title, if he's serious about that topic. And I'd want him to post his thoughts on the matter (on his blog) as well!

Bo - there's not much more to say than the sheer fact - reading is cool again and kids prefer books to TV (at least on the day of the release of a new HP book). And just the sales of HP books speak volumes - in the case of HP people buy books and they read them more than they do with other books.

Belgothiel - I will probably write a bit on why I like her, but you can start reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jk_rowling and here: http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/biography.cfm .

Oh my... I've bitten off more than I can chew...

Minerva McGonnagall is simply my favourite character, that's why I mentioned her. "10 reasons why McGonnagall should've been Headmistress of Hogwarts even while Dumbledore was alive." "McGonnagall's treatment of Harry Potter is a failure." Whatever you wish... ;-)(I hope you don't feel as if I was ordering a product here - I'm just suggesting...)

Unfortunately, I am not good at such essays, so I will refrain from even trying to fulfill your wish, Nadezhda. I haven't enjoyed literature classes much in high school already, but now four years of law faculty have drained all the remaining writing skills from me, so...

I won't really write an essay on McGonnagall, but I'll provide a few thoughts (and on Draco as well). If you were ordering a product you'd have to pay, so no - I don't feel bad about the way you made your suggestions. :)

Oh, so that's what they do to people at law faculty... I was beginning to wonder...

So, I read The philosopher's stone and have remembered two more translations that make no sense.
Trevor the toad = krastaca Hillary

But the most senseless - Draco = Dreko (I mean, sure parents would name their son Dragon, but Dreko??? and we're talking about Malfoys here, who strive for power and to be something better than others, they definitely wouldn't risk a name that can trigger certain associations, if you know what I mean).

I think the problematic part of it is that the translator (who is in my opinion way overrated) wanted to look cool in children's eyes by naming the evil Draco something as yucky as "Dreko". Also many translators probably didn't know at the time that the story will develop (=more books will follow) and that it might not always be a story for children.

At least we can pride ourselves on not being the only country; - I hear that the first book is called "Harry Potter at the wizarding school" in French and the Spanish translator converted Trevor into a turtle.

Well, here's a little update from my part. Thanks to you I started rereading the whole series. Now I'm at book 3, page 162. I reconfirmed my feelings of disgust for Harry and why-the-f*ck-do-people-respect-him-so-much for Dumbledore, but otherwise I'm enjoying myself. ;-)
This week I also intend to buy the books #5 and #6 to complete my collection so far. I buy English language editions; I tried to read the first book in Slovenian once (borrowed the book from a friend) but I was indeed appalled by the translations, including Dreko, but mostly the stupid attempts of anglicising the spelling of Slovenian versions of the names - Merjascoveena, come on! McHudurra?!? Why can't it simply be 'Merjaščevo' and 'prof. Hudurnikova', because the concept of adapting names wasn't that bad.
Anyway, I'd better go back to the books. Not HP, international private law and EU law... Unfortunately.

Oh, I'm very glad you're rereading the series! :) What bothers you so much with Harry and D.?

It is but natural to buy the English editions. They are cheaper and I find them more enjoyable than any translation. I think the translator wanted to stike the "cool" chord with the kids by puting an English spin on all names. It would be interesting to compare Kenda's and Gradišnik's style of translating. I read very good translations by both, but am somehow appaled by what the first did with Harry. Surely no translation sounds as well as the original, but there are approximations - and by my standards, Kenda could have done better.

And I hope you're having as much of a blast as one can from reading EU laws.

I forgot about Merjascoveena and McHudurra.... brrrrrrr. I'd better stay away from those.

I now finished the 4th book.
And I remembered, in the 6th book, in the end - it didn't bother me that HE died (altohuhg it shocked me quite a bit) - but I just cannot understand why it was THAT person to kill him.
I just don't get it. I was sooo disappointed. I mean, HE said he trusts him completely, he trusts him with his life - and then that?
I still can't understand it.
Maybe rereading will help me. I just have to get my hands on 5 and 6.

btw - how is yor bump?

Do not read this reply if you haven't yet read book 6.

Ummm. For fear of saying something that will turn out to be a complete nonsense by the time the last book is published, I will try to explain what JKR said in response to Salman Rushdie's estimation of THAT person. Rushdie said that until book 6 the killer was a part of the good gang and though reluctantly, we accepted him as a good guy; and even D. always vouched for him. But in the 6th book he did this dreadful thing and because we want him to be a good guy still, we have begun theories on how the dead person might not be dead at all. And that the death was a ruse to put V. of the killer's guard, so that when H. has to face V. in the end, he will have more allies than he or V. expect him to have and it will help H. to prevail over V. (JKR confirmed that this theory is essentially correct.)

I think the death might be a ruse cooked up by the killer and his victim, although the killer will now have to break all bonds to the good guys and in their eyes he will be the prime target. Maybe saying that he trusted HIM with his life was meant literally, not metaphorically; he trusted HIM to do the right thing after his death.

I'm going to write a post on book 7 soon and hope to explain this more fully there.

Remember that HE was suffering terribly, so his saying "Please" may well have been a request for the mercy of death. The one who obliged him may have had an expression of SELF-hatred on his face, doing what was necessary though he hated himself for doing it. Remember also that death in this story universe is not so clear-cut. Hogwarts is full of ghosts, in and out of paintings -- for example, the paintings of past headmasters in the headmaster's office. That mysterious curtain in the Ministry basement may not lead to simple annihilation. So I'm not yet sure that the killer was really a villain. He may still turn out to have been loyal -- painfully so.

Note also the recently announced title of book 7: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows.

I suspect we haven't seen the last of HIM.

Raven - first of all, many thanks for bringing up the title of book 7! I haven't had time for computer these last three days and almost missed such big and splendid news. Again, many thanks!

One of the reasons for being quite sure that D is dead and won't reappear as a ghost is that he wasn't afraid of death. He said so himself and you might remember that Nearly headless Nick said you have to fear death in order to stay bound to Earth in the form of a ghost.

The only problem I have with my theory (that D planned to die) is that he is the only one who's powerful enough and who knows the right things - things which might be cruical in fighting V.

I don't think we've seen the last of S, either. Stay tuned for more posts on Harry. :)