Young Writers Society

Seriously, isn't harry potter awesome? For a serious discussion, though, how do you guys think she did it? Made us fall in love with a character she taught us to hate for so long? (AKA Malfoy.) How does she bring Voldemort to life, and show us his life starting from his childhood? (Shows us that he's in essense the same person.)

god she's good. But I love Malfoy. And if anyone wants to seriously discuss Harry Potter, please...be my guest.

Yes, was very good, definatly the best written so far. I think she's gained a lot of experience since she released the first one, Half Blood Prince flows so much better than the other books, you can read it in one, it almost does not need chapters, it's so much easier to read than the others.

She's learnt alot about her characters as well, that even writers are allowed to love their evil characters. You could say Malfoy is an evil character right? So when she allowed herself to love him, we fell in love with him too, because suddenly he was a much more like-able fellow, even though he was doing a horrible thing. It's sorta hard to put into words, but i think you know what i mean. It's almost the same with Voldemort, did anyone notice how similar his childhood was to Harry's? Orphaned, sent to a place he hates, doing magic without meaning it? The similarity to Harry, and it almost makes you feel sorry for him, but then you remember what he's going to do, and you suddenly understand him slightly better.

Her writing has improved a lot in the last few books, and it's showing in the way people react to her characters and love and hate them at the same time.

i thought i posted this in debate. oh well. yeah. i love malfoy....i cried when he was crying in the bathroom.

You did, I moved it because it didn't really seem to belong there. Debate is for serious discussion, harry potter just doesn't fit.

I will say, however, that though she isn't saying it. Rowling has more money than the Queen. I will also say that as a writer, she isn't very good. She's getting better, but she doesn't have much (if any) other work out. She is only recently NOT a struggling author. She created a character that appeals to children, and somehow, the child that still lives in adults. But there are times when she has superfelous and unnecisary things. The rules for the game that they all play on the brooms... i forget the name. They got this ball that they have tho throw through a hoop, but if they find this little orb they win? it just seems a bit too much to me. there is plenty without the seeker, just because they're on brooms. The teachers all seem a little incompitant to me. every new story there's a new dark arts teacher, and they never seem able to solve the problem themselves. The big guy with the beard led those kids into the woods? they could have died in there. There are a few problems (most of this is from the first book, by the way. I'll admit she's getting better) with her writing, but the idea of this magic school and this famous kid is really appealing to children and to adults. cuz, c'mon, who doesn't wanna be able to turn their sister into a toad?

I just finished reading it about, oh, 20 minutes ago, and seriously enjoyed it. I never really felt that Rowling was a bad writer, just a simple one, who writes about topics that appeal to children and children-at-heart. I really enjoyed this last one though, very suspenseful and surprising, and over all very well done. I didn't expect the end to happen that way though.

I agree with Qi for reasons why I didn't like the 5th book much. technicly if you read the first chapter of the first book, its boring, really boring, and that's usually what you give your publisher to get the funding for publishing. and For the love of peet JK never write a book while your pregnant again! -- okay random moment over with.

I really enjoyed the 6th book. She is getting better. Much better.

I got two outta two on guess for this book. i guessed snape was the halfblood prince and that dumbledore was going to die. it made me sad that he did, I was hoping I was wrong. I really liked the end of the book. god she is bloody brillant. I didn't too much like the last book but this was a masterpiece. my favorite parts of the book was the second chapter 'spinners end' that was awesome chapter and when fleur starts yelling at everyone and then tonks start yelling at remus. I started laughing so hard. Tonks and Remus are my favorite characters so I was really, really excited that they got page time. w00t. someone needs to kill Greyback preferably bill or remus or tonks, now that would be ironic. or maybe even fleur. I really like how it ended with dumbledore's funeral. that was beautifully written with fawkes and all the creatures from the lake and the forest.

I have two big theories that sprung from this book --

1. I have this theory that R.A.B is Regulus Black, Sirius' brother. They don't actually say that he's dead yet. and well he did fail voldemort. Sirius was really vague about Regulus, he talked about him being a death eater and not coping well with it. And the locket that was found in Grimmauld is actually a horacrux (but that's just a minor theory) and that Regulas took it. There is no mention of Regulus having a middle name, but sirius and regulas do have an uncle alphard...it's all very interesting. Sirius did mention that Regulus was so low down on the totem pole chain of deatheaters that voldemort wouldn't actually kill him, himself.

2. that Snape entered with Dumbledore a second unbreakable vow. that the conversation that hagrid overheard between Dumbledore and Snape was Dumbledore making him promise that no matter what went down he had to keep his cover. something like that...

cheers

PS: charlie needs some page time god dammit he can't spend all his time in romania...with his...dragons...

oh and if anyone wants to talk favorite characters I'm free...

I just don't like the HP series at all, it's just... not my type.

Omg something I can aggree with SK on. Right on.

1. I have this theory that R.A.B is Regulus Black, Sirius' brother. They don't actually say that he's dead yet. and well he did fail voldemort. Sirius was really vague about Regulus, he talked about him being a death eater and not coping well with it. And the locket that was found in Grimmauld is actually a horacrux (but that's just a minor theory) and that Regulas took it. There is no mention of Regulus having a middle name, but sirius and regulas do have an uncle alphard...it's all very interesting. Sirius did mention that Regulus was so low down on the totem pole chain of deatheaters that voldemort wouldn't actually kill him, himself.

2. that Snape entered with Dumbledore a second unbreakable vow. that the conversation that hagrid overheard between Dumbledore and Snape was Dumbledore making him promise that no matter what went down he had to keep his cover. something like that...

Yep, got them too. But I can elaborate on no 2.

OK, so, when Sanpe gave away the Prophecy to Voldemort and was really really sorry (for some reason, still working that one out. My mum reacons he was in love with Lilly ...) and went back to Dumbledore, Dumbledore made him make an Unbreakable Vow to protect Harry as punishment. Also, this would mean Dumbledore would trust Snape. And it gives Snape a better reason to save Harry in the first book, and come snooping after Harry in book three. "James saved his life" Yeah, right. Snape HATES James, and he thought the "saving his life" thing was all a big set up to hurt him anyway. Are you telling me he's going to go all gonourable and return the favour? Anyway ...
Now, when he made the Unbreakable Vow to protect Malfoy too, Snape told Dumbledore. So Dumbledore knows all about this, and probably at one point tells Snape that if it should come to it, he has to kill him rather than break the vows, sparking the argument (or possibly, he got sick of protecting Harry and wants out of the vow).
When Dumbledore is on the rooftop, he imobilises Harry instead of using his one second to curse Malfoy so they can both escape harm. This, with this theory anyway, is so that if Snape should burst out onto the scene, he can't see Harry, and Harry can't make himself visable. Snape won't have any moments of "Which vow to keep, which to break?". Also, before Dumbledore is killed, he says "Severus ..." not "Help me Severus." not anything like that. It suggests, to me, that he is reminding Snape of something in a way that seems innocent to everybody else. Is he pleading for his life? Or telling Snape to kill him?

That's the theory in my household. I didn't contribute all that much to it, too lazy, most of it is my mum's and brother's. It's got holes. Dumbledore still doesn't have a reason to wish death apon himself and so forth. It's a work in progress.

And just to save face, I'm no Harry Potter nut. I like the books well enough, the 6th one was especially good, and I read them, but it ends there. I don't go around buying truck loads of merchandise or dressing up.

Well, first off I'd like to start by saying that I absolutely LOVE Harry Potter, both for appeal to the population at large, and for its content. J.K. Rowling constructed a world that we've never explored and convinced us of its existance. The word magic applies to many areas of the book at once. First, the characters are magical, with their bonds and relationships, unique personalities and overall realism. The book is magical, with brooms and dragons, wands and wizards. The writing is magical, making the reader see what Rowling intends. In a way, I think Rowling should be an inspiration to all of us. I mean, before Harry Potter, did you ever hear about her? No. Before eager children cracked open her books, did you know she existed? No. In a few days, weeks, months, years, or decades, that could be each one of us and we should use her, a poor British mother writing on napkins in cafes because she couldn't afford paper, as an example. She never gave up on the quest to make her name known in literature, and she will live on in the books even after she's gone. Her books are famous throughout the world, and even in hundreds of years, children from ages 1 to infinity (lol) will be talking about the Boy Who Lived.

Having said that, which was entirely unexpected as I was just going to name my favorite character, it is indeed Sirius. Since the 3rd book, he's been my favorite, and I cried when he died. And I hope she brings him back, although we know that won't happen. *curses* Grrr...he was awesome though!

Actually, whenever asked if Sirius is really dead, Rowling never gives a straight answer. So hey, he might come back.

There are many things that might happen, that we feel we want to happen, but may or may not happen. She's tricky like that.

I have been told that JKR has said that he wont come back in any of the books by most of my friends. But I disagree and I think he will come back. He's my favourite character besides Malfoy.

My favorite male character is Harry, followed in a tie with Ron and Dumbledore
My favorite female character is actually Ginny, not that showoff Hermione who pouts whenever someone does better that her. Imagine my glee when they both got together! (oh, god I feel like such a nerd-well I am). And, call me a hopeless romantic, but I hope in the next one they get back together. Or is that just me?

I've always liked Harr Potter, actually it was just recently that I stopped totally loving it, but the Half Blood Prince I think was the best one yet and that it is definatly one of my favorite books, one of the main reasons is she let Dumbeldore make a mistake (Trusting Snape) which I think is good because he is one of old wise 'almighty' charecters, and to have someone like that make a mistake gives a story alot more depth.