Which really says more about you than her, don’t it? :dubious:
Oh, come on now. She’s not Dan Brown!
I do in fact have teenagers at home. And no, that doesn’t help. It’s just plain old bad writing that comes across as inauthentic and contrived. It also seems to happen with mediocre authors of series. They start out with a clever idea, the pursuit of which sustains them for a few books. By about the fourth book or so, they start to rely more on bickering and poorly developed emotional drama amongst the characters they’ve developed. I often wonder if it’s because they feel frustrated themselves with the characters, who are really just “bags of bones” waiting to be animated by a good writer.
I think this is particularly true of Rowling because her characters, especially the main protagonist, don’t do much of anything in particular. Stuff happens to them, often pushed by an unseen hand, rather than by their own agency. For most of the first books, it’s an all-knowing Dumbledore who pulls the strings, but as the books advance, it turns out that Dumbledore isn’t that all-knowing after all. I think that’s why many people find the wandering in the woods section to be tough sledding. We’re used to the characters being mindless and useless. We’re not used to there being no external string pullers for such a long period of time. Fortunately, that doe shows up…
Yeah, what **Hentor **said.
I used to do comedy routines based on the teen trials of various nieces and nephews. I remember being a moping teenager myself and if I had a time turner, I’d go back and give myself a kick up the arse at various times.
I like JKRs books, but I find them more interesting for their use of thematic devices (christian allegory, quests etc) than their in depth character studies.
Despite saying the behaviour of Harry began to really annoy me in book three, that’s my absolute favourite because I think it’s one of the best uses of time travel I’ve read in a very long time.
Finally got to see it last night - I loved it! Really don’t understand all the griping, I thought it was very well done for what is - let’s not forget - bascially just a fairy tale.
Mr Rosity, who reluctantly (not being a fan of the series) accompanied me, had a slightly different reaction:
“I sat two and a half hours for a dead special effect and a man finding a stick?!”
Ooh, forgot to mention my favourite moments:
- Ron. Still love him and his humor (“Oh yeah - antlers”), and I thought his abandoning of Harry and Hermione (which I’d found wildly out-of-character in the book) very well handled. I think he’s the best actor of the three (don’t get the fuss about Emma Watson, she ridiculous wooden). Hasn’t he bulked out a lot though?
- The moment between the twins after George loses an ear. Thought Fred’s compassion and concern for his twin was beautifully done).
- How awesome Neville has got. “Oi, losers. He’s not here”. Bravo!
Actually, the most obvious thing for Harry to do would be to fly on a broomstick since he is such an excellent flyer and Mad-Eye would have been the best choice for him to be with because Mad-Eye is the most experienced Auror. 
Severus Snape does.
That’s right, reduce a rational discussion to cheap misogynistic voyeurism!
I laughed.
Seriously though, I thought this was her best acting effort. She and Daniel Radcliffe both improved well beyond my expectations in this movie.
No, it was a lynx. Hermione’s patronus is an otter.
Have I read these books too much??!
I should have read further before replying, sorry.
I took a different view of Dumbledore toward the end of the series. Not only did he pull the strings early on he was able to stear the children after his death with only a few clues (and Severes). It was Dumbledor’s superior intellect that allowed him to guess the path the future would take. It reminded me of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation trilogy where a group attempts to stear history.
Are you a vegetarian/vegan?
Don’t take offense to this but,
Hermione is not Harry’s daughter, nor is Harry the Dursley’s son. Up until DH, they are creul and evil to Harry. They don’t care about him like that and so I don’t see why Harry would erase thier memories to protect them. They are in the most danger because Harry lived with them for 16 years and death eaters would probably come looking there for Harry, although I doubt they would expect him to be there. They might think it would hurt Harry to see them hurt but they dont know it wont.
Why would Hermione erase Harry’s mind of Cedric and Sirius or even Dumbledore? As much as it hurts Harry there are also good memories there and it is a reminder of why he is fighting against Voldemort. Plus it is not her place, as I said before Hermione is not his daughter.
Which brings me to why Hermione would erase her parent’s memory without thier consent. Being her parents, they would never ever agree to erasing thier memories of her. She is thier only daughter and I don’t know about you but when I have children, I would be prepared to suffer imense pain and even death to protect her in any way I can. As a daughter now, I would never want that for my parents. Would you ? And if all it took was for me to perform an Obliviate charm until things got better if they got better, to protect them from the harm and pain they would feel or suffer I would. So excuse me if I dont get a signed consent form for thier permission to take myself out of thier lives. Being muggles, they have no defense against wizards whatsoever. The scene where Hermione is tortured by Bellatrix Lestange is perfect in this case. Hermione is brilliant and knows what dark wizards could do, preserving her parents free will is probably exactly what she had in mind. Why make them worry or upset.
The order only protected the Dursley’s because in truth Harry is pretty much they’re priority. Hermione is not, unfortunately. I’m sure they wouldve protected them as well, if Hermione asked. But she probably didn’t want them to again be scared or worried.
Sorry for the rant, but you need to open your mind a bit I think. It’s good to have opinions but she definitely does not think less of her own parents than Harry does with the Dursleys.
Hermione was in a different situation than the other two. She did not have a support group to protect her parents and they would have assuredly been tortured to death in an effort to get to her. In the wizarding world, she represented the guardian power within her family for only she could protect them.
when the book came out not many people were concerned with hermione’s charm on her parents. is it a bigger deal because we see it and what it does in the movie? instead of just a line or two in a biggish book?
Have not read through all the comments, but just want to say the wife and I saw it a couple of weeks ago and think it’s the best Potter film yet. Seems to be the most mature. We’ve both read the entire series.
Hermione was always portrayed as the brains of the group. It was the logical thing to do and the movie put image to words in a powerful way.
Ten Internets to Arnold Winkelried. 
I think you’ve made an excellent point about the difference between ‘show’ and ‘tell’, which as a writer JKR should know. The movie is much more powerful because we see it happening.
But also, in the book it’s explained that she’s ‘modified’ her parents memories so they think their names are different, they’ve always wanted to live in Australia and they don’t have a daughter.
Which isn’t anything like the total destruction of memory and personality which caused the upset.