It wasn't his grandmother, but yes, one of his relatives hung him out a window; when they dropped him, he bounced.Komiyan wrote: I'd like it to be Neville, but wasn't he from a fully wizarding family? I'm sure I remember something like that, and about his gran trying to shake the magic out of him cause it HAD to be there...
I suppose that tells us it's a new character, as she wouldn't have to describe a returning character like that.starline wrote:Other Info: On August 16th, the door on JKR's site opened giving us the following excerpt of book 6, which describes the Half-Blood Prince:
(He) looked rather like an old lion. There were streaks of grey in his mane of tawny hair and his bushy eyebrows; he had keen yellowish eyes behind a pair of wire-rimmed spectacles and a certain rangy, loping grace even though he walked with a slight limp.
From http://www.mugglenet.com/books/futurebo ... acts.shtml
ANARCHY! ANARCHY! ANARCHY! No stupid! August 16th this year!ManyWorlds wrote:That came out on August 16? That long ago? O.o
Yah, they have, and he is. I don't remember when exactly they mention it, but they talk comparatively about how Hermione is muggle-born and a super-witch-o-matic, while Neville is pureblood wizard and has troubles with even the simplest spells. I believe they've also said something along the lines that the Longbottom family is one of the last truly pureblood families left, even.[geoduck] wrote:I'm not sure if the books have ever established if Neville is 'pureblood' or not..
That was me. I suspect the movie will be better than the book though, as it will get rid of all of the unnecessary historical background, and dumb, unrealistic, forced conversation from the book. All the book was for me was a vehicle for Brown to talk about the Grail theory- the characters came off as merely pawns rather than humans.Jim North wrote:[geoduck] wrote:I'm not sure if the books have ever established if Neville is 'pureblood' or not..
Someone mentioned the Da Vinci Code earlier in the thread (don't remember who). Though I only read the first few chapters of the book, I have to agree . . . it was mind-numbing. I can't believe they're making a movie out of that nonsense.
Hwah! you thought THAT was mad?? Try "Angels and Demons!" The pope is an evil mastermind!Jen_Babcock wrote:That was me. I suspect the movie will be better than the book though, as it will get rid of all of the unnecessary historical background, and dumb, unrealistic, forced conversation from the book. All the book was for me was a vehicle for Brown to talk about the Grail theory- the characters came off as merely pawns rather than humans.Jim North wrote:[geoduck] wrote:I'm not sure if the books have ever established if Neville is 'pureblood' or not..
Someone mentioned the Da Vinci Code earlier in the thread (don't remember who). Though I only read the first few chapters of the book, I have to agree . . . it was mind-numbing. I can't believe they're making a movie out of that nonsense.
Don't get me wrong- the theory is interesting, but I don't like what Brown has to say about The Last Supper, along w/ many other things (Disney trying to pass down this Grail history via The Little Mermaid? wtf?)
Anyway, didn't mean to derail the topic- back to Harry Potter.
I don't totally hate formula writing. One of the authors I read is Terry Brooks, and his Shanara novels are defenately formula. You know that the Ohmsford boy is going to be the hero, something Very Bad is going to happen and that the cute, etherial girl is going to die/vansih/become lost while the solid, mortal, seriously screwed up woman is going to marry the hero and give birth to the next trilogy's hero. He's just CREATIVE with his formula. And (drumroll please) he reuses plot elements in unexpected ways. He revives the Druid order through a very odd plot twist (poor Walker Boh) he sticks a character into the forboding and makes a character go on a long quest to try to find it. The quests usually go into formerly uncharted terratory, but he always has a lot in familiar terratory as well, and there is usually at least one character from the last book/series in the new book/series to give you a reason to READ the new book/series. You revisit the old places and the old faces at least once, and if you were smart enough to like a major plot element, you're gaurenteed to see it (mine being the Elcrys, the magic tree introduced in Elfstones of Shanara)Leko wrote:
Personally I think the key to reading Rowling's books without hating them is to realize that yeah, she's going to get stuck in a formula, but yeah, it's going to be fun anyway. She does always use a lot of minor elements that are pretty fascinating. The details and fringe elements she puts into her exposition are often quite well thought out.
I just guess having a series that GOT me and then lost me is a nice hot button for me.
</a> The Pope isn't the evil mastermind of the Church. That position belongs to the head of the Church's Section XIII, the Iscariot organization. Geez, does no one know ANYTHING?Mr.Bob wrote:Hwah! you thought THAT was mad?? Try "Angels and Demons!" The pope is an evil mastermind!Jen_Babcock wrote: I don't like what Brown has to say about The Last Supper.
No, that's pretty much the books too.Col wrote:Never read any of the books, but saw the movies. My observation of it all? He's rather spoiled. Don't get me wrong, the whole thing with his parents being dead sucks and all, but dang, that kid gets all the cool toys and all the special treatment. Just seems really elitist. Sort of like she's saying, "Not everyone gets attention, only specific people, and it will never stop." Sure, it makes sense since he's the title character, but come on! I'm sure there's other interesting wizards in the world besides him. But like I said, I've only watched the movies.
