The new Harry Potter movie comes out in just two weeks, and I’m pretty sure I won’t bother seeing it in the theater. The movies have never captured the feel of the books (save for maybe the third movie). Nevertheless, I am a fan, and the videogame version of the sixth book in the series came out the other day. Having some extra bucks left over on my GameStop card, I decided to pick it up.

I liked the last game in the series, which let me roam all over Hogwarts. Had the game been in any other fictional universe, I probably would have been bored out of my mind. But it was Harry Potter, so I liked it. A little. Much can be said for the new game, which is not as good, in my opinion, as the last, but entertaining enough for the seven dollars I paid for it.

You’d think that the game would be able to explore parts of the book that the movie couldn’t, due to time constraints. And this did happen in earlier games in the series. But now the games are not videogames based on the book, but based on the movie. And I can already see some places where the movie jazzed up the book in ways that are … well, let’s just say they are very, very bad. Bad enough that I don’t want to see the movie now. It’s strange getting this preview of the movie’s failings in videogame form, but it’s not the first time it’s happened, and likely won’t be the last.

So the game is the book’s narrative twice removed. Butchered first by the movie, the game takes the butchering one step further. Not only do we get the crappy screenplay version of the plot, but we get it with lousy voice actors and with character models that look like a cross between robots and zombies. But I get to wander around Hogwarts again, which is really all I want.

I’m still fascinated by the crappy stories game players are forced to sit through. Even the so-called “good” videogame stories are complete crap. I think back to Mass Effect, lauded by many as having one of the best stories of 2007. Of course, anyone familiar with SF could see that massive portions of the story were lifted from the later seasons of Star Trek: Enterprise. ENTERPRISE! Of all shows to crib from, they pick the (arguably) worst of the Star Trek series, and some of the most contrived subplots. Ick. Or the stories for Halo 3, or Metal Gear Solid: Guns of the Patriots. The stories are attrocious, despite the fact that (unlike movies) they have up to 20 hours to play with in terms of storytelling, and unlike books have the power of great visuals.

Both benefits are completely squandered. It’s unfortunate that some of SF’s best storytellers couldn’t help write some decent game scripts. Or, as I’ve said before, decent film scripts. Sure, the genre is different, and has different demands, but I’d like to see someone give it a serious try. The best game stories are about as coherent and thought-provoking as Transformers 2 (my review of which was posted just the other day). That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but we should be demanding better.

The worst thing is that most gamers don’t even realize that these stories are complete crap. Let’s be honest here: Harry Potter’s sixth book is fantastic. It’s a great story, and has moments of amazing adventure and genuine emotion. And I’d love to see those things on the screen, but it just isn’t going to happen. If I enjoy the movie, it’s because I’m superimposing my love for the book onto the movie. If I love the game (or just like it), it’s because I’m doing the same. But it shouldn’t be that way, should it?

tags: Books, gaming, harry potter, movies, science fiction
No Squawks »

Gosh darn it, just when I had decided not to bother going to see the next Harry Potter movie (Half Blood Prince) they release a trailer for it which looks pretty damn good.

Here it is.

Yes, my hopes have been dashed in the past. But if this is as Voldemort-focused as the trailer makes it seem, it could be very good indeed.  And a note: the kid playing the young Voldemort is Ralph Fiennes’ nephew, which makes the whole thing even creepier.

tags: harry potter, movies
No Squawks »

Megan McArdle has some thoughts on women and sci-fi:

But I think it’s kind of hard to deny that there are a lot of women who do not like science fiction because it doesn’t fit into their conception of girly. Stating that you are a woman who likes science fiction, and lots of women like science fiction, is theatrical, but it’s beside the point; the demographic is overwhelmingly male.

That’s certainly true.  But while the demographic is certainly male, it’s difficult not to notice the rise of a certain sci-fi/fantasy sub-genre that directly appeals to women: the urban fantasy novel.

Ok, I mostly notice it because Amy reads a lot of them.  But having perused the sci-fi section at the bookstore a lot recently, those types of books seem to be increasingly popular.  Vampires, magic, etc., but all in an urban/contemporary setting instead of the sword and wizard fantasy that had been so popular for so long (and which seems on the decline, if for no other reason than it’s been done so well so many times).

I’ll go so far as to say that there is a significant market for sci-fi to women, although women’s tastes tend to be different from that of men.  Hard SF will still appeal mostly to men, for whatever reason.  But there’s also a wide market for SF that appeals to everyone, not just urban fantasy novels only a few steps away from romance novels (I don’t necessarily mean that as an insult).  As the sub-genre has expanded, the quality has gone up.  I’ve even read and enjoyed a few of those novels, even though I’m very well aware that I’m not the target audience.

I would also go so far as to say that one reason for expanded interest by women in SF and fantasy has to do with a single person: JK Rowling.  Not only was the Harry Potter series appealing to adults, it also opened the eyes of many women to the value of the genre.  So they finished Harry Potter and went looking for other stories with at least some mythological depth and perhaps more adult themes.  And the market has responded.  It made SF and fantasy more accessible, I think.  Dulled some of the genre’s harsher edges.

This probably sounds condescending to some women, like they weren’t interested in this sort of thing before.  Of course they were.  They just didn’t know where to find it.  Most SF and fantasy writers are men writing for, primarily, men.  The dam has broken, and now we’re seeing a new influx of women writers into SF, some new sub-genres, and a new awareness in old genres that women are reading, too.  It’s all good.

Oh, and by the way, Megan asks for suggestions for “starter SF” novels for women, and the commenters seem to be providing a very decent list.  I’d make some suggestions, but I honestly don’t know what would specifically appeal to women, as I’m not one.  But for someone looking to start out on “real” SF, and not the SF/fantasy stuff, I’d suggest something like John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War, or (despite Megan’s ban on William Gibson), Pattern Recognition.

tags: culture, harry potter, science fiction
3 Squawks »

A long time coming, really, although inevitable now that the final book is out, JK Rowling finally decided to open up about the Christian imagery in Harry Potter. It can be found here. I’m not going to quote it, because I’m going to gloat.

Neener, neener, neener. I told you so! I was right about this, and I’m proud of it. I mean, it’s not like she’s hidden the Christian imagery in the books. Since Chamber of Secrets it’s been blatantly obvious. I mean, did anyone actually read the chapter when Harry descends into the Chamber of Secrets? Jeez, how thick can you be?

Still, it’s nice that she come out and says it. I know the last book ticked off a lot of people with the symbolism. One of my more inspired predictions about the book was Harry’s breaking of Voldemort’s power by dying for his friends. I’ll admit, I thought it was a long shot when I said it, but it just felt right. And when Neville reveals that the body bind curse no longer effects him, and he takes out the sword of Gryffindor… I can’t tell you how vindicated I felt. There’s enough symbolism in those pages from Harry’s return to the forrest to Voldemort’s death to write a few books about.

Anyway, it’s a shame this had to happen on the MTV website, and not with a more experienced religion reporter who might have dug a little bit deeper. Still, it’s cool, and it opens the doors a bit for others to dig. If only I could do an interview with her…. oh well, someone else will do it eventually.

tags: harry potter, religion
No Squawks »

Phillip Pullman’s His Dark Materials series of children’s books, if you didn’t already know, is being made into a movie series–with the series’ first book The Golden Compass [Northern Lights in the UK] set for a release very soon. If you didn’t already know, the premise of Pullman’s series is essentially anti-religious. Pullman is a prominent atheist and virulent anti-Catholic.

Some atheists are ticked off because the anti-religious parts of the book are apparently being tamed so that the movie actually performs well in the UK and the US:

‘It was clear right from the start that the makers of this film intended to take out the anti-religious elements of Pullman’s book,’ said Terry Sanderson, president of the [National Secular Society]. ‘In doing that they are taking the heart out of it, losing the point of it, castrating it. It seems that religion has now completely conquered America’s cultural life and it is much the poorer for it. What a shame that we have to endure such censorship here too.’

That’s funny–”religion has now completely conquered America’s cultural life.” Ha. No, in reality, the marketers simply realized that people won’t go to movies that insult them. And Pullman’s brand of atheism is the insulting kind. There was a similar opposite reaction when it was learned that C.S. Lewis’ Narnia books were being made into movies–fear that the Christian allegory would be lost in order to appeal to a broader audience.

It’s hardly censorship. It’s not like the book hasn’t been published and purchased by millions of people. Heck, I even own a copy. Since when is publishing a book and having a movie made about it censorship? How is it censorship to be quoted in the Guardian about the topic? Talk about defining censorship down. On top of all this, Pullman himself says the movie is in keeping with the story he wrote, and doesn’t seem to have a problem with it.

It’s difficult to take some of these atheists seriously. They’re not being censored at all. And it’s not a crime for the producers of the movie to hope that it can actually make some money.

As for His Dark Materials, I haven’t read it. I’m sure it is entertaining. But one wonders if the series’ anti-religious message is part of the reason why it hasn’t done well in the US. Compare it to the success of Harry Potter, steeped in Christian imagery from beginning to end (particularly the end). Yes, I know, many fundamentalists here in the US don’t like Harry Potter. But they should.

Increasingly, people cry censorship when they’re reminded that not everyone agrees with them. They don’t like to be confronted with the reality that not everyone thinks like them. To be perfectly honest, I’d prefer if Pullman’s anti-religious elements were as prominent in the movie as in the book. He’s got a right to express his opinion, after all. Let people judge his ideas on their merits. It would be censorship, perhaps, if the government prevented the release of his book or the movie. But it will play everywhere, just as the book is sold everywhere.

I wonder what George Orwell would think of the fact that the tools he gave the fascist government of 1984 (I’m thinking Newspeak) are being picked up and used by the political left, with which he identified? Anyway, go see Pullman’s movie, and read his books. Judge them for yourselves. These complaints about censorship smack of protesting too much.

tags: Books, harry potter, media, movies, whatever
No Squawks »

JK Rowling has answered even more fan questions about Harry Potter. Nothing mind-blowing, of course, and no really new insights,but nearly all of it is interesting. Most of it just confirmed my reasons for thinking what I already did. I particularly liked her answer to the following:

Katie B: Why was kings cross the place harry went to when he died
J.K. Rowling: For many reasons. The name works rather well, and it has been established in the books as the gateway between two worlds, and Harry would associate it with moving on between two worlds (don’t forget that it is Harry’s image we see, not necessarily
J.K. Rowling: what is really there.

I’m surprised more hasn’t been made of this little tidbit….

Anyway, we find out who killed Tonks and Lupin, a little bit more (but not nearly enough) about the future of some characters, and some outright spelled-out details about the horcruxes (again, not enough) including which murders produced which horcruxes. I would have asked her the precise means by which horcruxes are made, but somehow I suspect she might not want to answer that question. Lots of little details which, in my opinion, could have been included in the book without much trouble. Oh well, we’re getting them now. Hopefully more will be coming.

tags: harry potter
No Squawks »

Stephen King takes a look at Harry Potter, now that the hurly-burly’s done, over at Entertainment Weekly’s website. And, for the most part, his take on Rowling is pretty much my own. He does offer what has been the consistent complaint about Deathly Hallows, though:

Are the books perfect? Indeed not. Some sections are too long. In Deathly Hallows, for instance, there’s an awful lot of wandering around and camping in that tent; it starts to feel like Ms. Rowling running out the clock on the school year to fit the format of the previous six books.

To which I simply repeat my own observation that yes, she was running the clock down. Harry had to be at his parent’s grave on Christmas Eve. But even I’ll admit I wish she had handled the time differently.

King is profuse in his praise for Rowling:

This [that the books grew as they went along] wouldn’t have mattered so much if she’d been a lousy writer, but she wasn’t — she was and is an incredibly gifted novelist. While some of the blogs and the mainstream media have mentioned that Rowling’s ambition kept pace with the skyrocketing popularity of her books, they have largely overlooked the fact that her talent also grew. Talent is never static, it’s always growing or dying, and the short form on Rowling is this: She was far better than R.L. Stine (an adequate but flavorless writer) when she started, but by the time she penned the final line of Deathly Hallows (”All was well.”), she had become one of the finer stylists in her native country — not as good as Ian McEwan or Ruth Rendell (at least not yet), but easily the peer of Beryl Bainbridge or Martin Amis.

Rowling has been criticized for her less-than-stellar prose. It seems that most who say this have only read the first few books. And her prose in the first two is, well, juvenile–as one might expect. But Rowling’s talent certainly did grow with the books. And I agree with King that by the end of the series, her talent was well polished. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that unlike the early books (where prose was thin, despite rather meaty plots and symbols), by the end her prose matched the depth of her symbolism quite well.

I’ll also say that the final book met expectations. I can’t imagine anyone being disappointed with the scope of the final book, or its elegant wrapping up of plot points. I may be disappointed that some items weren’t given the length of treatment I desired, but I’m not unhappy with what is actually there.

No, the books aren’t perfect. But then, I never expected them to be. They have their loose plot points, and continuity errors. And yet, over the seven book series there have been far fewer errors than one might have expected. And the book has produced the opposite of what I expected–at first I thought there would be a lot to say. To discuss. To ruminate on. But there isn’t. I don’t actually have much to say about it other than that it was damn good. She answered the questions. She gave us what she always planned to. And I’m satisfied with that.

tags: harry potter
No Squawks »

I was going to post about my predictions, but I figured I’d point out a few things that many people seem not to notice about the latest Harry Potter book. And some of this comes from some people I know who still seem to think that the books are evil, and should be avoided by Christians. Now, I explain this in the full knowledge that nothing I say will deter such people from their opinions, but I’m going to do it anyway.

A few years back, an interviewer had the instinct to ask J.K. Rowling about her religious beliefs, which she declined to answer because, she said, that would give away the ending to the book. Now, at the time many people realized that this was about as good a confirmation of her intentions as we were ever going to get. It was widely known that Rowling is a Christian and believes in God. Beyond that we know very little.

Now that the final book is out, any doubt about the intention of the books has evaporated. Of course the books are Christian. They’re not clear allegory like the Chronicles of Narnia, but much more like Tolkien’s Middle Earth. The religion is implicit, not explicit, for most of the series.

But it does become explicit in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. To be precise, it becomes explicit on page 328–of the U.S. edition of course. The epitaph on the gravestone of Harry’s parents says, simply:

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

You can imagine my reaction when I read this. I literally yelled “Yes!” loud enough that Amy (reading upstairs to avoid just this sort of situation) chastised me for being too loud. Why was I so excited? Because at that point I was convinced that I was right about the ending of the story, and right about the direction of the books.

The epitaph is a direct quote from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, chapter 15, verse 26 (King James version). There is no small accident in Harry being at his parent’s grave on Christmas Eve, on the edge of the celebration of the birth of Christ, reading on the marker this final bold statement of faith in the life to come. Rowling has long used Christian holy days as the markers for significant events (Halloween, or All Saints; Christmas; Easter). Yes, they usually mark the end of terms for the students, which tend to be when things happen in the story. But they rarely have the depth of significance that this meeting in Godric’s Hollow has.

The tombstone is there to prepare us for what is to come–Harry’s death, resurrection, and final breaking of Voldemort’s power. In the line of Tolkien before her, Rowling’s Harry is no perfect allegory of Christ, but an imperfect type. Harry has already gone through other symbolic deaths and resurrections: down in the Chamber of Secrets, poisoned and saved by the Phoenix, for instance. But in this final book, Harry actually goes to his death.

There is more to say, of course, but not here. I wish this were enough for some of the religious critics of Harry Potter. It won’t be.

tags: culture, harry potter, religion
No Squawks »

Ok, I was wrong about a lot of things. But let’s go back to the beginning, and review my predictions.

My first predictions were in regards to Snape. Most of those predictions were correct. I did miss on a few details–first, I predicted that Voldemort was at least somewhat suspicious of Snape, and did not fully trust him. I was wrong there. Voldemort was unaware of Snape’s true loyalties until Harry revealed the truth to him at the very end. I think this is important, because it is one more mistake we see Voldemort make. We see him make a number of mistakes at the end, but I think it’s obvious the most significant was his trust in Snape. Of course, he doesn’t really trust Snape, but he does trust in his own abilities to sniff out lies. Voldemort trusted no one–but his real mistake was overconfidence in his own abilities.

I predicted two possibilities for Snape–that he would either die to give Harry the opportunity to kill Voldemort or would kill Voldemort himself. Later, I concluded that Snape would probably die at the hand of Voldemort. My last prediction turned out right. Snape did not really die to give Harry the opportunity to kill Voldemort. But in dying Snape gave Harry the information he needed to finish Voldemort off for good. The ending was…complicated. And that shouldn’t be much of a surprise to us.

I was correct, of course, about the lightning struck tower, and the agreement between Dumbledore and Snape concerning Dumbledore’s death.

My second post was about magical competence, and that we’d see Hermione do some spectacular magic. But we don’t, really. She does some very astute magic, but she’s not creative in the way of Dumbledore. She’s very much a Minerva McGonagall. Ron acts courageously, but does so without relying on magic. And Harry actually does very little magic at all in the final book–although he seems competent enough.

My third post was on Horcruxes, and was mostly wrong (although I did change my mind later about all this). My newer predictions were spot on. One of the big disappointments of Deathly Hallows was that we actually learn absolutely nothing about how a horcrux is made. I understand now why Rowling didn’t tell us–it would have made the Harry-is-a-Horcrux theory far more likely. As it was, the theory was only held by a minority of people. And since we don’t know that Harry is a horcrux until the very end, she couldn’t really tell us more until then, and then the book is ending and there are other things to do. I hope at some point she tells us the exact process. Somehow I doubt it, though.

My fourth post was on Dumbledore and Ginny. Most predicted that Dumbledore would speak to Harry from the portrait. Instead, we have Harry and Dumbledore talking in some sort of foyer to heaven. Of course, it is far more obvious now that Rowling was talking about the afterlife, and so it makes more sense to do things in that way. But going into the book, I doubt anyone would have taken such a prediction seriously. In the context of the full series, though, Rowling has always talked around that issue. And it was because she was holding it for the end. We’re given hints about life beyond death, from Nick, from Dumbledore, etc., and so we shouldn’t be surprised. I thought she handled it beautifully.

I was wrong about Ginny becoming a new master to Fawkes. Fawkes is, of course, absent in the final book. I suspected that Ginny would play a far bigger role in the final book than she did. And I was a little disappointed by that. Ginny is a favorite character, and she should have done more. Granted, she was quite busy at Hogwarts during the year–but we don’t see her do any of those things. I’d love to have actually seen Ginny, et al., actually try to steal Gryffindor’s sword. But no, we’re out of the loop on that. Too bad.

In post five, I predicted that the sword would play a role, and I was right. And I asked some questions about the sword that were important, and others which weren’t. The book actually leaves some mystery about the sword. For instance, we last see it in the hands of Griphook, and then suddenly Neville pulls it out of the Sorting Hat at the end. What gives? Obviously I can think of some excuses for this which are consistent with what we know about the hat and sword, but we’re never actually told about this particular bit of magic.

I talked about the sword as a symbol of sovereignty, of chosen-ness or worthiness. I found it quite brilliant that Harry, Ron and Neville are all, at some point, chosen as true Gryffindors. First, because both Harry and Neville are potential subjects of the prophesy. But in terms of Ron, this really means something. He wasn’t destined to destroy Voldemort. He chose his path, and that means that pulling the sword out of the water (yet another Arthurian reference) has special meaning. It also emphasizes the equality of Gryffindor as opposed to the blood of Slytherin. Gryffindor chooses its heroes based on merit, not nepotism.

But that’s it for now. I’ll have more to say later.

tags: harry potter
No Squawks »

For those of us somewhat discontented with the final chapter of Deathly Hallows, Rowling gives us some more answers, including our trio’s professions, in an interview. As I expected, she gives a reasonable answer for not having a longer epilogue–that it just wasn’t a good bit of writing. I can definitely imagine that. Of course, fans appreciate that she is willing, after the fact, to fill in the blanks.

But I still have some more questions that need answering…

UPDATE: Oh, and she’s promised to write an encyclopedia as well. I’d pre-order it now if I could! And we learn who got the reprieve…I was wrong about that! And we learn Rowling’s favorite passage:

But nothing in the entire process of the series was more difficult than writing the scene when Harry, accompanied by his lost loved ones — including his parents, James and Lily, and his godfather, Sirius — walks into the forest with the intent of sacrificing his life in the name of defeating Voldemort, Rowling said, adding it is her favorite passage in all seven books.

One of my favorites as well, and a scene which made Lupin’s death bearable for me. There are certain iconic scenes in the books (Chamber of Secrets, Harry defending Sirius against Dementors, the graveyard, Fred and George’s departure from Hogwarts…) that really stand out, and Harry’s trip back into the forest was one of them. Deathly Hallows had a few such moments, actually….

UPDATE 2: And here we find out the two she intended to let live: which, I’m happy to say, I was correct about.

tags: harry potter
No Squawks »