[Grief]

stone monkey, on 08 February 2016 - 09:12 PM, said:

it's so obvious

I agree, I just don't consider it a strength.

For me, Pale Fire is an almost perfect example of how an interesting premise can be spoilt by its execution.

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

Macros, on 07 February 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Why is tye weasleys stuff all crap?? We're shown many times how easy it is to make stuff as good as new, molly and arthur as good magicians, their stuff falling apart is nonsensical

Because it's a really over-laboured comparison between them and the Malfoys - poor = good, rich = bad. Which makes less sense when you have Harry sitting on a small fortune.

I read the HP books at roughly the same age as the characters throughout, so I have a big soft spot for them despite the issues.

This post has been edited by TheRetiredBridgeburner: 11 February 2016 - 07:13 AM

[Maark Abbott]

Macros, on 08 February 2016 - 10:49 PM, said:

ABRA KEDABRA

Stuff like this is why I've always avoided reading those books. I can handle tropes, I can handle clichés, but when you combine the two into Captain PlanTrope, I can't take it.

[Cause]

Nevyn, on 08 February 2016 - 09:17 PM, said:

Macros, on 07 February 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Was bored at work last week and reread the harry potter books.
Not entirely sure why.

2 things that continued to bug me.

When there's a man hunt on for someone, why not just send them and owl, and track the owl, they seem to be able to find people anywhere.
Why is tye weasleys stuff all crap?? We're shown many times how easy it is to make stuff as good as new, molly and arthur as good magicians, their stuff falling apart is nonsensical

The entire harry potter series is just one long continuity error. Its rather remarkable that you could read it, be bugged by these two things, and not hundreds of other little things.

Harry Potter is ultimately a children's or Young Adult book. Does not mean older people cant enjoy it but it does mean it uses cheap ploys to gain our sympathy for the Hero characters. Harry Potter is not essentially an abused child as I was originally going to write. He is flat out abused. Seriously dumbledore? You never found five minutes to check in on Harry? Maybe pay them some Gold to be nicer people? That he is good and noble of heart despite this is his charm! Similarly the Weasleys despite being dirt poor are all generous and noble. Character traits that shine the brighter for their poverty. Similarly the fact they are pure blood Wizzards makes the fact that they denounce such racism all the more beautiful. Half blood harry not caring that Hermione is a muggle born witch is less impressive. A lot of the plot, relationhsips and heroes in HP don't really survive an in depth analysis. Hagrid is well meaning but in truth he is a bad teacher but more worryingly is that he is actually a dangerous one. Despite this we are meant to root for him.

[stone monkey]

Grief, on 09 February 2016 - 12:10 AM, said:

stone monkey, on 08 February 2016 - 09:12 PM, said:

it's so obvious

I agree, I just don't consider it a strength.

For me, Pale Fire is an almost perfect example of how an interesting premise can be spoilt by its execution.

I think we have a destination/journey dichotomy going on here.

With Nabokov imo it's not really about whether the character is lying, that's trivially obvious, and not all that important in and of itself. It's about decoding the nature of the lies and how they illuminate the teller's personality. Kinbote in Pale Fire is telling some whoppers, and we see through those his complete (possibly deliberate, maybe delusional) misunderstanding of Shade, his hubris about his real influence on (next to nothing) and his true friendship with (practically non-existant and stalker-like) the poet, and his self aggrandisement (and possibly delusion) about his place in world. The fact that you know he's lying from the outset shows you what's true. The question that arises is: does Kinbote believe what he's saying? We know it's false, but does he?

There is fun to be had with an unreliable narrator where the game is to spot them lying, but I'd argue that Nabokov is not even going there. His unreliable narrators, especially Humbert in Lolita, are seeking to make you, the reader, complicit with them. Nabokov is playing a metafictional game where the reader is in on the trick, he shows you his cards (Kinbote is a nutter, Humbert is a monster), and then dares you not to be taken in by their eloquence; it's pure performance. Nabokov knows the reader is seeing through his unreliable narrators to the real story he's telling, and better imo he also knows the reader knows he knows.

It reminds me, in a strange way, of Georges Perec's La Disparition (or The Exeter Text: Jewels, Secrets,Sex); where the reader understands what needs to be said, but the fun is to be had watching the narrative skirt giddily around it because of the strict formalist limitation placed by the author on the text itself.

But I guess we can always agree to disagree.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 10 February 2016 - 11:47 PM

[worry]

Cogent analysis embedded in thoughtful, amiable discourse?! Only on the Internet, folks!