7/09/2007

Potter Ending

So the Times got a bunch of writers to put together their end of Harry Potter. Most of them are OK. But I thought this one was particularly funny. If you want to read the others you have to find them. I would include them but sometimes the links want a password, and I dont have one. I should also say that even if you arent into this Potter craze, at least the first one is worth reading.

OK so after I posted and checked the link to make sure it worked, it also asks for a password, so keep trying. Sometimes its required and sometimes not.

8 comments:

Nell said...

Just to make it clear, I fall into the camp of 'Harry Potter must NOT die.' I am prepared to fight anybody who says otherwise.

arfanser said...

I think he should die, but only if Voldemort is defeated. When Voldemort went away the first time it required the death of both his parents. If he is defeated this time it should require at least as large of a sacrifice. Anything else would be too cheap.

Nell said...

Nooo! It wouldn't be cheap! Luke beats Darth, Frodo beats Sauron, Aeneas founds Rome, Ender destroys the Buggers, Hawkeye and Hotlips go home, The Three Amigos defeat El Guapo, Bugs Bunny outwits Marvin the Martian and saves the world, Fry destroys the Brains with the aid of Scooter Puff Senior (the Death Bringer), Harry gets Sally, Inigo Montoya kills Count Tyrone Rugen, Dewey Defeats Truman, the Autobots destroy the Decepticons, and goshdarnit Harry Potter kills Voldemort!!!! The good guy has to win!!!! Tragedy sucks!

arfanser said...

all true examples. But I think most of those are cop outs. Here is a perfect example in my opinion. In the count of monte cristo, the movie, the count gets the love of his life who was always loyal to him, the son he always dreamed of, buys the chateau d'if and learns that the father was right. In the book, he takes his revenge, the girl was not always loyal to him, i think he buys chateau d'if and tears it down, the boy is forced to give up his life of luxury and live on his own etc. The book is a billion times a better story. Harry lives and we all feel good, and in 20 years we look back and say hey, those were pretty good, remember all the hype, much like the book The Firm. If Harry dies we moan and groan, but these books have potential to be greater than a fad that we will always love and are children will think are stupid.

Nell said...

Children will be horrified if Harry dies! Is J.K. Rawlings out to teach them all about death? Star Wars is a better example. Good triumphs over evil and all the Ewoks dance. Would it be any more memorable or enduring if Luke died? I don't think so. And what about Lord of the Rings? Also a fantastic and enduring story and all the good guys are alive at the end. A happy ending doesn't dilute anything. Besides there's more money in it for Rawlings to keep him alive. Kill him and you turn him into a tragic martyr that no one can touch. Keep him alive and he will keep making money for generations.

permathreeseat said...

No he has to die. I don't want him to, but it wouldn't work if he lives. Since the way he's going to beat Voldy is based on the fact that he can love and killing someone destroys part of the soul, he wouldn't still be Harry after him kills Voldemort. So they have to both die.

arfanser said...

The problem with those two examples is that Star Wars is not about Luke. Its about Anakin/Darth Vader, who does have to die in the end. Lord of the Rings, the evil of the ring destroys so much of frodo that he can no longer live in that world. Two great examples of how touching that much evil cannot leave you happy and alive.

Nell said...

Okay okay, so you're going to rain on my parade, I get it. But I have faith. And because 80% or so of fans believe the way you do tells me that it's exactly what she is not going to do.

You guys need to be a little more the glass is half full kind of people. This is kind of depressing.