Since 1997, you’ve been coming to BarnesandNoble.com to discuss everything from Stephen King to writing to Harry Potter. You’ve made our site more than a place to discover your next book: you’ve made it a community. But like all things internet, BN.com is growing and changing. We've said goodbye to our community message boards—but that doesn’t mean we won’t still be a place for adventurous readers to connect and discover.

Now, you can explore the most exciting new titles (and remember the classics) at the Barnes & Noble Book Blog. Check out conversations with authors like Jeff VanderMeer and Gary Shteyngart at the B&N Review, and browse write-ups of the best in literary fiction. Come to our Facebook page to weigh in on what it means to be a book nerd. Browse digital deals on the NOOK blog, tweet about books with us,or self-publish your latest novella with NOOK Press. And for those of you looking for support for your NOOK, the NOOK Support Forums will still be here.

We will continue to provide you with books that make you turn pages well past midnight, discover new worlds, and reunite with old friends. And we hope that you’ll continue to tell us how you’re doing, what you’re reading, and what books mean to you.

Reply
Inspired Wordsmith
Kreacherteacher
Posts: 1,234
Registered: ‎07-24-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.

I agree, zman. But it's interesting that many kids who are younger have read them. Do you think they shouldn't read them because of the questionably dark magical elements, deaths in the books, or other reasons?

zman1980 wrote:
I started reading them after HBP came out.  My bosses kids were reading them and he told me how good they were, and recommended them.  I had seen the movies and thought that they were good, but I still thought of the books as kids books.  Was hooked after the first chapter, and quickly learned that after POA they weren't kids books anymore.  I know I wouldn't let a kid younger then 10 read GOF, OTP, HBP, or DH on their own.



Inspired Bibliophile
Psychee
Posts: 7,307
Registered: ‎04-17-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.

I do't know zman's opinion about that, but in my case, I'd say that the deaths would keep me from recommending GoF and the others after to a child under 10. 
 
Come to think about it, I wouldn't be happy to see a 10 year old reading GoF, either.
 
Kids who are into fantasy are usually pretty sensitive and intuitive, aren't they?  At what age would you think it is "safe" for a child to read GoF? 
 
I know they are exposed to death death death on the TV, but reading is so much more "intimate", don't you think? I think the deaths would be felt more keenly...
Inspired Wordsmith
Kreacherteacher
Posts: 1,234
Registered: ‎07-24-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.

I dunno. For me, I am more sensitive to it on television, I think. The visuals really bother me probably because a director's vision tends to be more graphic than my own imagination. With any characters that die in books, I don't think of how they died specifically, I just think about them dying. But that's just the way I read. I don't really read for detail. In fact, when you guys are discussing some really interesting tidbits about the book, sometimes it throws me because I didn't see it.


Psychee wrote:
I do't know zman's opinion about that, but in my case, I'd say that the deaths would keep me from recommending GoF and the others after to a child under 10. 
 
Come to think about it, I wouldn't be happy to see a 10 year old reading GoF, either.
 
Kids who are into fantasy are usually pretty sensitive and intuitive, aren't they?  At what age would you think it is "safe" for a child to read GoF? 
 
I know they are exposed to death death death on the TV, but reading is so much more "intimate", don't you think? I think the deaths would be felt more keenly...



Frequent Contributor
zman1980
Posts: 85
Registered: ‎06-09-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.

It's the deaths and everything that is  the underlying themes in the books.  At that age I kids start to pick up on stuff more and realize that it's talking about racism, and you could almost substitue the Volds. views with that of the Nazi's.  I think that is one reason why adults are drawn to the books.  The books deal with very important subject matter and I think it's better for you to be able to read between the lines with the later books.  8-12 range is able to grasp that she is talking about something more in the books, but still not able to completly grasp it. 

Kreacherteacher wrote:
I agree, zman. But it's interesting that many kids who are younger have read them. Do you think they shouldn't read them because of the questionably dark magical elements, deaths in the books, or other reasons?

zman1980 wrote:
I started reading them after HBP came out.  My bosses kids were reading them and he told me how good they were, and recommended them.  I had seen the movies and thought that they were good, but I still thought of the books as kids books.  Was hooked after the first chapter, and quickly learned that after POA they weren't kids books anymore.  I know I wouldn't let a kid younger then 10 read GOF, OTP, HBP, or DH on their own.






Distinguished Correspondent
Mollywobbles
Posts: 2,931
Registered: ‎06-15-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.

I think I'm with you on this one Kreacherteacher, the visual representation is much harder for me to take than the printed word.  I guess we have personal filters when reading which enable us to handle the gory stuff more easily.  I remember reading the Wizard of Oz when I was youngster, and I loved the story, but when I saw the movie years later, the Wicked Witch of the West scared the heck out of me.

Kreacherteacher wrote:
I dunno. For me, I am more sensitive to it on television, I think. The visuals really bother me probably because a director's vision tends to be more graphic than my own imagination. With any characters that die in books, I don't think of how they died specifically, I just think about them dying. But that's just the way I read. I don't really read for detail. In fact, when you guys are discussing some really interesting tidbits about the book, sometimes it throws me because I didn't see it.


Psychee wrote:
I do't know zman's opinion about that, but in my case, I'd say that the deaths would keep me from recommending GoF and the others after to a child under 10. 
 
Come to think about it, I wouldn't be happy to see a 10 year old reading GoF, either.
 
Kids who are into fantasy are usually pretty sensitive and intuitive, aren't they?  At what age would you think it is "safe" for a child to read GoF? 
 
I know they are exposed to death death death on the TV, but reading is so much more "intimate", don't you think? I think the deaths would be felt more keenly...





Inspired Bibliophile
Psychee
Posts: 7,307
Registered: ‎04-17-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.

I agree that the gore element of death is worse in visual media;  but I was thinking that in books one comes to care more deeply about the characters who are killed.  The movie version of Cedric was more two-dimensional than the book version, and I certainly felt Harry's anguish over it more in the book than in the movie.
Distinguished Correspondent
Mollywobbles
Posts: 2,931
Registered: ‎06-15-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.

Oh, I absolutely agree!  In the books you do get to know the characters, and therefore feel more pain at their deaths.  The other posters were wondering if the later books were suitable reading material for the target age group, and while I don't know whether younger readers would find the material disturbing, I believe the way the gory scenes are portrayed on film is much more disturbing than reading it on the printed page.  At least for me. I guess since the films can't deal with all the substance in the books, they settle for portraying the bloody scenes to the hilt.
 
Off topic, very briefly (please forgive me Connie) I won't watch the film, Gone with the Wind, because I miss all my beloved characters who played such a large part in the book, and barely got passing mention in the film-characters like Ellen, the Tarleton twins, the Calverts and on and on.  End of departure.
 
I'm not sure younger readers internalize the incidents the way older readers do.  Perhaps to younger readers, it is just a good yarn, not full of symbolism and deeper meanings-maybe we older readers just do that to ourselves.

Psychee wrote:
I agree that the gore element of death is worse in visual media;  but I was thinking that in books one comes to care more deeply about the characters who are killed.  The movie version of Cedric was more two-dimensional than the book version, and I certainly felt Harry's anguish over it more in the book than in the movie.



Inspired Bibliophile
Psychee
Posts: 7,307
Registered: ‎04-17-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.

I think the amount of gore in films is a decision of the director and might have something to do with what kind of family-friendly rating they want the film to have.  So far, the Harry Potter films have been pretty bloodless -- people just keel over and die.  They did a great job of staging the decapitation of Buckbeak as well -- you didn't see a thing, but you cringed at what you heard. 
 
On your off-topic topic, I can't imagine how long Gone With The Wind would have been if they had included more than what they did -- it was a VERY long film with an intermission break  -- three and a half hours, I think, and at the time I first saw it (late 60's I think - in a theatre re-release)  it was one of the most gory films I had ever seen.  But films have gotten much MUCH worse than that since then.
Inspired Wordsmith
Kreacherteacher
Posts: 1,234
Registered: ‎07-24-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.

I agree with you as well that you develop more of a bond in books. Whenever I hear of a movie coming out based on a book, I rush to the library or bookstore because I know I will enjoy it more than a movie. I know an author will do a character more justice in a book rather than a director. However, there is an exception here: Fred. I did not feel Fred's death in the book was on par with what his character deserved, in my humble opinion. I felt it was devoid of the emotion needed. However, Dobby's was remarkably beautiful, if I may say. Time and care were given to his story, but I was really bummed with Fred as I felt he merited a little more. Granted, many characters died that didn't get due process, if you will (Tonks, Lupin, etc.), but I was left needing more with Fred.
Frequent Contributor
zman1980
Posts: 85
Registered: ‎06-09-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.

The worst part about the transition from the HP books to movies is the absense of Dobby.  You know when they make DH they will have to have Dobby's death in it, which won't mean near as much to someone who has just seen the movies.  For me this was one of the sadest parts of the book, I was brought to tears over it, and I don't do that.  Also Dobby was one of my least favorite characters.  It will be interesting to see how they do it in the movie, with it being maybe the most pivitol point in the book.

Mollywobbles wrote:
Oh, I absolutely agree!  In the books you do get to know the characters, and therefore feel more pain at their deaths.  The other posters were wondering if the later books were suitable reading material for the target age group, and while I don't know whether younger readers would find the material disturbing, I believe the way the gory scenes are portrayed on film is much more disturbing than reading it on the printed page.  At least for me. I guess since the films can't deal with all the substance in the books, they settle for portraying the bloody scenes to the hilt.
 
Off topic, very briefly (please forgive me Connie) I won't watch the film, Gone with the Wind, because I miss all my beloved characters who played such a large part in the book, and barely got passing mention in the film-characters like Ellen, the Tarleton twins, the Calverts and on and on.  End of departure.
 
I'm not sure younger readers internalize the incidents the way older readers do.  Perhaps to younger readers, it is just a good yarn, not full of symbolism and deeper meanings-maybe we older readers just do that to ourselves.

Psychee wrote:
I agree that the gore element of death is worse in visual media;  but I was thinking that in books one comes to care more deeply about the characters who are killed.  The movie version of Cedric was more two-dimensional than the book version, and I certainly felt Harry's anguish over it more in the book than in the movie.






Inspired Bibliophile
Psychee
Posts: 7,307
Registered: ‎04-17-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.

They re-write things so much in the movies that I'm not all that certain that Dobby or his death will be part of DH.  Mind you, I don't know how they could get around it, but somehow they have managed to exclude him from all but the second movie and gave Neville all his roles.
 
On the other hand, they included Kreacher in the fifth movie for the purpose of having the character for the last movie, and maybe once they commit to one puppet, two of them is no big deal?
 


zman1980 wrote:
The worst part about the transition from the HP books to movies is the absense of Dobby.  You know when they make DH they will have to have Dobby's death in it, which won't mean near as much to someone who has just seen the movies.  For me this was one of the sadest parts of the book, I was brought to tears over it, and I don't do that.  Also Dobby was one of my least favorite characters.  It will be interesting to see how they do it in the movie, with it being maybe the most pivitol point in the book.
 
Distinguished Correspondent
Mollywobbles
Posts: 2,931
Registered: ‎06-15-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.

The AK is a wonderful way to kill someone without making a lot of mess, just a flash of green light, and boom, down they go.  Very economical from a filmmaking perspective too, no fancy weapons, just a wand. 
 
On the off topic topic, I did watch GWTW once when it came on TV, but hated it for the reason I mentioned.  Yes, it was a very long film, but to me Selznik spent way too much time on things like the burning of Atlanta, and missed all the nuances of the characters, and omitted many of my favourite characters altogether. I realize that the film would have been twice as long had they included all the little scenes I love, but it ruined the film for me. 
 
That's the same kind of reaction I have to some of the changes and omissions in the Potter books, and I haven't read them nearly as often as I have read GWTW.  For example, in GOF, I missed the fact that we met Narcissa at the Quidditch World Cup, but in the film, no Narcissa.  Similarly, no Winkie and the whole story about Master Barty.  Yet apparently Narcissa is going to show up in HBP (I guess we'll meet her at Spinner's End), so why not include her briefly in GOF-saved money I guess.

Psychee wrote:
I think the amount of gore in films is a decision of the director and might have something to do with what kind of family-friendly rating they want the film to have.  So far, the Harry Potter films have been pretty bloodless -- people just keel over and die.  They did a great job of staging the decapitation of Buckbeak as well -- you didn't see a thing, but you cringed at what you heard. 
 
On your off-topic topic, I can't imagine how long Gone With The Wind would have been if they had included more than what they did -- it was a VERY long film with an intermission break  -- three and a half hours, I think, and at the time I first saw it (late 60's I think - in a theatre re-release)  it was one of the most gory films I had ever seen.  But films have gotten much MUCH worse than that since then.



Inspired Wordsmith
Kreacherteacher
Posts: 1,234
Registered: ‎07-24-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.

I am really bothered by this as well, the more I think about it. They cut out all the house-elf character scenes because that would have made the movie too long, yet they are making two movies out of DH. Who do they think they are fooling? But the other part of it that bugs me is that Rowling (sorry Psychee) knew it was a big part of her story, yet she doesn't convince them that they need to include this in the movies more. I am a bit hot under the collar now.

Mollywobbles wrote:
The AK is a wonderful way to kill someone without making a lot of mess, just a flash of green light, and boom, down they go.  Very economical from a filmmaking perspective too, no fancy weapons, just a wand. 
 
On the off topic topic, I did watch GWTW once when it came on TV, but hated it for the reason I mentioned.  Yes, it was a very long film, but to me Selznik spent way too much time on things like the burning of Atlanta, and missed all the nuances of the characters, and omitted many of my favourite characters altogether. I realize that the film would have been twice as long had they included all the little scenes I love, but it ruined the film for me. 
 
That's the same kind of reaction I have to some of the changes and omissions in the Potter books, and I haven't read them nearly as often as I have read GWTW.  For example, in GOF, I missed the fact that we met Narcissa at the Quidditch World Cup, but in the film, no Narcissa.  Similarly, no Winkie and the whole story about Master Barty.  Yet apparently Narcissa is going to show up in HBP (I guess we'll meet her at Spinner's End), so why not include her briefly in GOF-saved money I guess.

Psychee wrote:
I think the amount of gore in films is a decision of the director and might have something to do with what kind of family-friendly rating they want the film to have.  So far, the Harry Potter films have been pretty bloodless -- people just keel over and die.  They did a great job of staging the decapitation of Buckbeak as well -- you didn't see a thing, but you cringed at what you heard. 
 
On your off-topic topic, I can't imagine how long Gone With The Wind would have been if they had included more than what they did -- it was a VERY long film with an intermission break  -- three and a half hours, I think, and at the time I first saw it (late 60's I think - in a theatre re-release)  it was one of the most gory films I had ever seen.  But films have gotten much MUCH worse than that since then.






Frequent Contributor
hihi
Posts: 573
Registered: ‎06-12-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.

[ Edited ]


Psychee wrote:
They re-write things so much in the movies that I'm not all that certain that Dobby or his death will be part of DH.  Mind you, I don't know how they could get around it, but somehow they have managed to exclude him from all but the second movie and gave Neville all his roles.
 
On the other hand, they included Kreacher in the fifth movie for the purpose of having the character for the last movie, and maybe once they commit to one puppet, two of them is no big deal?
 


zman1980 wrote:
The worst part about the transition from the HP books to movies is the absense of Dobby.  You know when they make DH they will have to have Dobby's death in it, which won't mean near as much to someone who has just seen the movies.  For me this was one of the sadest parts of the book, I was brought to tears over it, and I don't do that.  Also Dobby was one of my least favorite characters.  It will be interesting to see how they do it in the movie, with it being maybe the most pivitol point in the book.
 



  I hate to admit it Psychee, but I feel that you may be right about Dobby. I was so disappointed that they had gotten rid of Dobby in the fourht movie, and I just hope that they don't leave him out any more. But there might be one thing if they leave Dobby out of the last movie- he won't die, or eitehr people won't have to sit through such a sad scene! To me, that was the part that really made me depressed, and I don't know if I could handle it on the big screen.


Message Edited by hihi on 07-15-2008 01:19 PM

Message Edited by hihi on 07-15-2008 01:20 PM
Distinguished Correspondent
Mollywobbles
Posts: 2,931
Registered: ‎06-15-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.

There was no story with Winkie, Dobby lost his part in GOF, and I don't remember any mention about Hermione and S.P.E.W.  It will be interesting to see how they deal with the pensieve memories that Harry and Dumbledore relive-will Hokey show up (if they even do the pensieve memories at all), probably not.  They could get away with Dumbledore and Harry just having little fireside chats where Dumbledore simply tells Harry about all these clues to the horcruxes. 
 
I do think they will bring Dobby back for DH, however.  As Psychee said, they probably have the Dobby puppet, so why not use it in the finale. Maybe they will decide not to kill Dobby off, you never can tell.  It could very well be that Dobby shows up again in the DH movie, rescues the gang from the Malfoy manor, and survives to join the charge of the house elves.  I think, however, if Dobby shows up in HBP, along with Kreacher, they will kill Dobby off.  The pathos would be just too hard to resist.
 
Remember the scene in HBP where Kreacher and Dobby are tussling, and then Harry sets them the task of following Draco?  I think if that scene makes it into HBP, Dobby's role will be a little amplified, and he will perform pretty much according to the book in DH.
 
I guess it must be pretty difficult for Rowling to exert complete control over the people doing the screenplays.   She knows the house elves are an important part of the book, but to the filmakers, it's probably something that can be cut in the interests of saving time and money.
 
I think HBP will give us major clues as to how DH is going to go.  When is HBP due out?  I didn't read the still photo link-sorry, bubbles (my computer) just can't handle long downloads, did it mention release date?

Kreacherteacher wrote:
I am really bothered by this as well, the more I think about it. They cut out all the house-elf character scenes because that would have made the movie too long, yet they are making two movies out of DH. Who do they think they are fooling? But the other part of it that bugs me is that Rowling (sorry Psychee) knew it was a big part of her story, yet she doesn't convince them that they need to include this in the movies more. I am a bit hot under the collar now.

 
Frequent Contributor
hihi
Posts: 573
Registered: ‎06-12-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.



Mollywobbles wrote:
There was no story with Winkie, Dobby lost his part in GOF, and I don't remember any mention about Hermione and S.P.E.W.  It will be interesting to see how they deal with the pensieve memories that Harry and Dumbledore relive-will Hokey show up (if they even do the pensieve memories at all), probably not.  They could get away with Dumbledore and Harry just having little fireside chats where Dumbledore simply tells Harry about all these clues to the horcruxes. 
 
I do think they will bring Dobby back for DH, however.  As Psychee said, they probably have the Dobby puppet, so why not use it in the finale. Maybe they will decide not to kill Dobby off, you never can tell.  It could very well be that Dobby shows up again in the DH movie, rescues the gang from the Malfoy manor, and survives to join the charge of the house elves.  I think, however, if Dobby shows up in HBP, along with Kreacher, they will kill Dobby off.  The pathos would be just too hard to resist.
 
Remember the scene in HBP where Kreacher and Dobby are tussling, and then Harry sets them the task of following Draco?  I think if that scene makes it into HBP, Dobby's role will be a little amplified, and he will perform pretty much according to the book in DH.
 
I guess it must be pretty difficult for Rowling to exert complete control over the people doing the screenplays.   She knows the house elves are an important part of the book, but to the filmakers, it's probably something that can be cut in the interests of saving time and money.
 
I think HBP will give us major clues as to how DH is going to go.  When is HBP due out?  I didn't read the still photo link-sorry, bubbles (my computer) just can't handle long downloads, did it mention release date?

Kreacherteacher wrote:
I am really bothered by this as well, the more I think about it. They cut out all the house-elf character scenes because that would have made the movie too long, yet they are making two movies out of DH. Who do they think they are fooling? But the other part of it that bugs me is that Rowling (sorry Psychee) knew it was a big part of her story, yet she doesn't convince them that they need to include this in the movies more. I am a bit hot under the collar now.

 



 I think (I haven't checked in a while) that it comes out around November 21.
Distinguished Correspondent
Mollywobbles
Posts: 2,931
Registered: ‎06-15-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.


Thanks hihi, by the time the DVD comes out, it will give me something to look forward to when the snow starts to pile up around here.

 I think (I haven't checked in a while) that it comes out around November 21.



Contributor
LostLittleBirds
Posts: 9
Registered: ‎07-20-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Tell me why.

I had always been a big fan of the films, but had never read the books. It was only when the fifth movie came out that I finally decided to start reading them (I know... it took me a very long time).

 

Yes, I believe all of the books in the series were already out (which meant no waiting to get my hands on the next book for me!).

 

I did like it from the very beginning, but I didn't LOVE it until around the fourth or fifth books, when things started getting REALLY interesting. Hah.