Deathly Hallows Part II

this one is silghtly more objectional than the previous one so lets hope i dont go off on too many tangents..... as promised, i will address things people have asked me about the book first.

*spoiler warning*

the shard of glass. i agree that JK didnt do a very good job of explaining this. i think it was a bit too coincidental that aberforth just happened to be carrying the shard with him when harry looked through it. im sure sirius wouldve but to aberforth it was just a mirror rite? maybe dumbledore figured out its power in HP 6 and told aberforth what he possessed and told him to constantly keep it in sight? i dont know. either way, i think it just wanted to reinforce dumbledore's statement early on in the series that help will come to those who ask it.

harry came back to life because voldemort resurrected himself using harry's blood which is the blood of lily evans, his mom. both men have the protection in their blood so their fates are tied to each other. the fact that harry gave himself up willing to death like his mother prevented him from dying, and it was this connection of blood with voldemort that drew him back to earth. was this a little too convenient? maybe, but i still loved the drama of it all. hagrid carrying harry's body out on to the grounds was a very powerful scene indeed.

I think that the final duel was done perfectly. Harry called him "Tom Riddle" and thus showed that he no longer feared Voldemort, that deep down he was still the little boy whose mother and father abandoned him. The fact that Harry offered Voldemort a chance to redeem himself (everyone knew he wouldn't take it, but it was the fact that Harry offered mercy that reinforced his character). I knew this whole time that Harry would never say "avada kedavra" even though he proved that he could finally use an unforgivable curse previously in the novel. I wouldn’t call it light-hearted, but it wasn’t very scary for the very fact that Harry no longer feared Voldemort or death itself. He was above that and was confident that he would triumph.

The plot was slow and drawn out because JK was showing the reader how the trio was feeling. They had little to go on and got angry about this. The middle of the book was quite long and rather boring, but this was just to illustrate their feelings at the time. Was this effective? Yes. Would I have preferred a bit more action rather than the scattered escapes from tight places? Yeah, but I think this way is acceptable.

True, the hallows was a side story to the big picture, but I think that JK fully meant it that way. She wanted to show us that Harry (even when possessing 2/3 hallows and the possibility of gaining the third from Hogwarts) never really considered pursuing his own power. He thought about it, but deep down he would never choose that so Rowling just wanted to use that to reinforce Harry's moral integrity and his loyalty to Dumbledore as opposed to Voldemort's obsession with using 1/3 of the hallows for his evil intentions.

heres my allegory of WWII and Hitler vs. Grindelwald that i emailed recently in case any of you guys are interested.

I distinctly remember JK giving an interview a few weeks after book 6, and she said that Grindelwald is pronounced "grin-duhl-vald" with an accent on the i suggesting a Teutonic or eastern European origin, and she said that the year 1945 was important on Dumbledore's chocolate frog card. The parallels between Hitler and Grindelwald are striking, but I am having some troubles with Dumbledore and the Allies, perhaps you could shed some light on this part. We have an innocent symbol, the Deathly Hallows Quest for Grindelwald who warped it into a symbol of evil, and then we have the swastika, a symbol of luck in eastern Asia that was warped into a symbol of death and hatred by Hitler. The only thing that I can think of Dumbledore symbolizing is England itself as opposed to a single person. The only time in history where I can think of England being explicitly allied with Germany is the Revolutionary War with Hessian mercenaries. I'm still thinking about the connection between early Dumbledore and early Grindelwald, and if I get any further brainwaves on that, I'll email you. However, I do see Grindelwald as a symbol of Hitler, but I think that it is important to note that Grindelwald wasn't killed by Dumbledore. I see direct parallels to history here, and it's best to have (real life in parantheses). Grindelwald (Hitler) was defeated in 1945, but he (Nazism and the beliefs of Hitler) wasn't completely destroyed. They lived on in a different form, a prison cell (scattered and isolated Neo-Nazi parties across the US and world). I see Voldemort symbolic of a Neo-Nazi who created a genocide of muggle-borns, wizards who could do magic, but didn't have the proper ancestry (German citizens who were Jewish) with a registry of muggle-borns (didn't Hitler have some kind of registry of all his citizens and their backgrounds? Not 100% sure on that one). Voldemort wanted to purge Britain of those unworthy to be magical (German citizens who weren't Christian) and then to conquer the world with a New World Order of pure-blooded wizards ruling over the muggles (similiar to Hitler's ultimate dream of a united Europe with no Jews and him in command). I'm sure that as we look deeper and I read this book again and again, more parallels will surface.

lol im sure everyone will say jason, you're reading too much into things, JK never wanted to do this, and I say yes, i am taking it a bit further than JK did. however, she did say in a recent interview that she placed connections between hitler and grindelwald although this wasnt her main reason for writing about this. that previous paragraph was just something to think about.

ok now im done with questions people had (well at least some of them). what else do i want to talk about?

one of my big questions that wasnt answered in this book was WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED THE NIGHT JAMES AND LILY DIED? i mean, we see voldemort's recollections, but that doesnt teach us anything new. we knew all that already! what happened to voldy's body? did someone bury it? what happened to his wand and how did pettigrew get it so easily in GoF? voldemort doesnt have any recollections of someone being with him and talking to him, but someone mustve been there to retrieve those things....

maybe i'll do a part III when i get some more brainwaves/questions about the book. altho im glad that JK is writing an encyclopedia for all this stuff. that'll be pretty sweet when it comes out altho it'll take a long time for that lol.

Deathly Hallows: a Spectacular End to a Spectacular Series Part I

before i delve into book 7, i just wanted to say a hearty thank you to JK Rowling for creating such a series. does it rival the plays of shakespeare or the works of aristotle? no, of course not. does it rival f scott fitzgerald or hemmingway? no, of course not. HP is not meant to be a classic to be studied in english classes. its just a story about a boy who find out that hes a wizard with a destiny written for him before he was even born.

i first started reading HP in 4th grade, i think 1999, so ive been waiting 8 years for this moment and i gotta say that it was pretty sweet holding book 176 to be sold at andersons this morning. i sped home (somethin like 15 or 20 over the limit, i wasnt really payin attention) and started reading with an interruption due to work and then resumed it and finished it this afternoon at 12:40 or so.

i would say that book 7 is my very favorite of the series, and i have discussed it with a few people and have read some online opinions about the book. im not going to say that this volume is perfect, but my minor complaints aside, i think that the manner that rowling ended the series was fantastic and fit in very well with the big picture.

*spoilers begin here. you've been warned*

where to begin? book 7 is on a much different level than the other 6 books. harrys not at hogwarts getting in all kinds of tomfoolery and earning detentions, hes a renegade, a marked man with a price on his head. lord voldemort held a successful coup of the ministry of magic and is now in control of it. he has instated a genocide of muggle borns and hired bounty hunters to capture them. exciting stuff, even if very dangerous for harry.

the plot twists and turns quite a bit sometimes being very predictable and others being totally out of the blue and a bit of a stretch, but it all fit in. theres so many aspects of the plot i could talk about but i'll just stick to a few things to keep this short.

what i really liked about this book was its look into the life of albus dumbledore. the problem with seeing the world through the eyes of harry is that we look at the same characters the same way he does. snape = evil git. dumbledore = infallible master of everything. however, rowling shows us that dumbledore may not be the perfect man that harry thought he was. dumbledore was human, and was tempted by the dark arts. he once thought to conquer death by using the deathly hallows and to rule over the muggle population with grindelwald. this storyline helped to show the human aspect of dumbledore and to compare and contrast him to harry now which worked nicely.

Mmm harry summed it up. Hallows or horcruxes? He chose to remain loyal (another motif of the book) to Dumbledore and follow the paths of the horcruxes when he himself could have become master of death. I don't think that Dumbledore gave him the stone to start the hallows quest, I think that Dumbledore didn't want it to fall in the hands of someone unworthy and chose harry to deal with it. Disposing of it was the best thing to happen to it.


Now, I cant call the final battle phenomenal, but I'll call it great. At first, I didn't think that fred shouldve died, but now that im thinking about it more, who else could've? Bill? Nah he got bit by the werewolf, that was his moment. Charlie? We hardly know him. Percy? Not after his turn around! Hes a good guy again! Ron? Absolutely not merely because hes a member of the trio, and how could JK murder one of them? Ginny? Hell no, shes gotta survive to make some babies for harry! Molly? It wouldn't have struck the same chord as fred's did. Arthur? Most likely of the candidates, but would it have struck the same chord with the reader? No. fred was a funny guy and a real comedian, well-liked by everybody. War and death care not for well-liked or well-known people, it strikes when it strikes so I can see that JK wanted to kill a beloved character without going too far (ron or ginny).

Battle for Hogwarts? Im glad the battle was set here because it drew everything together, and besides, whats a HP book without Hogwarts?!?!? I don't know where Fenrir's mighty werewolf army was and why there wasn't more giants there. However, I was amazed by neville's leadership skills and bravery. I mean, the kid went from sloppy to heroic in 7 years, kind of the kid u felt sorry for to the kid you admire. The moment where pansy insisted to hand potter over and the 3 other houses stood around him was a very stirring moment along with the very ending of wizard, house elf, and centaur all in harmony together, just as Dumbledore wanted.


I wasn't surprised one bit that snape was working for the order, and I wasn't surprised that he loved lily either. Frankly, I was expecting a bit more of a shocker ending, something completely out of the blue but it was rather predictable. I mean, JK is the master of red herrings and false trails and yet many crucial details of the plot were successfully predicted by many fans including myself. For example, the RAB = regulus, makes complete sense and fits in well with the story, but I admit, I was a tad disappointed that this was predicted by almost every serious HP fan.

This book also had a lot of turnarounds and redemption in it, that of scrimgeour (well, maybe not a complete 180, but he did die rather than tell voldy where harry was stationed), kreacher (more of JK's messages about treating the inferiors of society), and of course draco malfoy! The malfoys were sitting in the great hall at the very end and I don't recall reading anything about lucius fighting (draco had cissy's wand and he didn't fight at all, in fact a death eater mistook him for one of the enemy) so im glad that he chose the right side. But of course, the epilogue had the tension between malfoy's kids and harry's kids, but that could be expected. Come on! Whats life at Hogwarts if there are no rivals!

Lupin AND tonks dying? I don't think JK shouldve killed both of em. Lupin had to die, he was part of the marauders and the old world order, but tonks was young and had a child! I think Jk did this just to continue the legacy of orphans in the novel starting with voldemort, hagrid, harry, etc. and introducing little teddy as an orphan. I was disappointed that we never saw fawkes again. As I read the part about Hedwig being killed, I thought that this was JK's way of destroying harry's bird so he could have a different one. Alas! Fawkes didn't resurface and didn't become harry's pet so I wonder what happened to her (or him, I forgot which one). Also, we never learned if harry ever became an auror. Im sure that he did, but it was never mentioned explicitly so we'll never know.

*spoilers end here*

I apologize for the disjointedness and lack of flow in this blog. I just read the book and am rather excited to be talking about it. I promise further installments in this building on this one. Any thoughts you had on the book are greatly appreciated, leave em in the comments section, any questions or issues you leave, I promise that I will address in the future.

All in all, harry potter and the deathly hallows deserves 5 stars out of 5 stars for being an excellent read. Bravo jk! Bravo!

Vatican, what were you thinking???

in my daily perusal of the news, i stumbled across an article that the Vatican released a statement, signed by Benedict XVI, entitled "The Ten Commandments of the Road." i was intrigued by this and after reading it was practically laughing out loud. here they are,

The "Ten Commandments" for drivers, as listed in the document, are:

I. You shall not kill.

II. The road shall be for you a means of communion between people and not of mortal harm.

III. Courtesy, uprightness and prudence will help you deal with unforeseen events.

IV. Be charitable and help your neighbor in need, especially victims of accidents.

V. Cars shall not be for you an expression of power and domination and an occasion of sin.

VI. Charitably convince the young and not so young not to drive when they are not in a fitting condition to do so.

VII. Support the families of accident victims.

VIII. Bring guilty motorists and their victims together, at the appropriate time, so that they can undergo the liberating experience of forgiveness.

IX. On the road, protect the more vulnerable party.

X. Feel responsible toward others.

Vatican, Vatican, Vatican, its these things that you're doing that are alienating Catholics from the Catholic faith, turning people away from Christianity, and giving atheists something good to laugh it. i saw somewhere that you created this in response to some WHO sstat that 1.2 million people are killed on the road, worldwide, annually. (i think thats the number but dont quote me.) and ya'no what, im sorry. im sorry that people die. i wish that we could all hold hands and sing kum-by-yah. but guess what, cars are eseential to the modern day world and they are not going away anytime soon, consequently, there will be millions more accidents and deaths due to these big pieces of metal.

but i digress. let me dissect a few of these commandments. I. "you shall not kill"? umm, last time i checked that was one of the 10 commandments so why do we need it again here? second, WHY THE HELL WOULD I KILL SOMEONE ON THE ROAD?!?!!? then i would go to jail, lose my drving priviliges and thats the last thing any motorist would want. V. sounds like catholicism is adopting a few principles of puritanism. not to buy glitzy and glamorous cars? Catholic churches are anything but plain. most have stained glass windows, and a lot of them have real gold and silver on the altars. im not saying this to criticize, i just think that saying this out loud will make people laugh and say "the church doesnt want me to buy a ferrari? hah!" and thus make a mockery out of the church.

IX is probably my favorite one. protect the vulnerable one. uh huh. vulnerable meaning the little old lady who drives 20 in a 40 zone, slams on the brakes at every turn in the road and has slower reflexes than a block of wood? how am i supposed to "protect" her? drive beside her, matching her speed so no one can go around her? HAH! i actually think that these people pose a greater threat on the road than a 17 year old kid goin 10 over the limit (*cough*) because at least i can keep up with the flow of traffic and have excellent reflexes in case some idiot tries to cut me off. Vatican, how am i supposed to protect someone who i feel shouldn't be driving and poses a threat to motorists everywhere?

X. responsible? mmm ok. so that accident was my fault? its not my fault that the cop is picking on me cuz im a kid, i should accept any ticket that he gives me? that man is swerving in and out of the lanes, but i think that im responsbile for it because im going 55 in a 40 zone and he wants to go 65. gotcha. resonsible is such an ambiguous word and i dont like it one bit when it applies to the roadway.

*sigh*, Vatican, Benedict, i know that all of you had good intentions, but this execution was..... well..... bad. its not going to accomplish anything and now you guys look pretty..... silly.... in the eyes of the world for releasing such a thing. why do you spend time thinking up useless commandments when you could be following the plan i set forth in a previous blog and make ammends with the Eastern Orthodox church?

oh guys, im not done yet. wait, no ones reading this, why did i just say that? hmm whatever.

a week or two later im reading some more news and i find another statement issued by the Vatican that really made me quite angry. in summary, Benedict said that Catholicism is the one true faith and that all other Christian denominations are wrong.

Benedict, John Paul II, worked hard to build bridges between all faiths, and you are tearing them down. personally, would i rather be any other religion? no. i think that a religion founded by Peter the Apostle is better than a religion founded by Joseph Smith or that dude that started scientology.... i cant remember his name. but i also think that Christ is Christ. as long as you believe in him, it's basically the same thing. faith speaks louder than actions and actions speak louder than words. faith above all else is what matters, not whether or not you have the same church heirarchy or whether or not you hold mass in a hallowed church or a movie theater or a school gymnasium.

this statement is just creating dissension and ill feelings among the sects of Christianity, and it never should have been released. but hey, what do i know? im just a 17 year old kid and you're the Pope.

Harry Potter 5 - a critique

well, being one of those crazed nerds that got to the theater at 9:30pm yesterday and waited 2.5 hours for the movie at midnite, i should probably say what i thought of the movie. im looking forward to the pictures, sarah lol. spoilers ahead and all tha blah blah blah.

to start out with, it is very clear that this movie has a new director and a different screenwriter than the other movies. the movie was basically a montage of different scenes from the book, all spliced together, often with a few words (yes a few) by the characters to tie them together. while i would not be 100% satisfied with the movie unless it was 8 hours long and copied everything from the book, i must say that this was a very effective technique to fit an 875 (sumthin like that?) page book into a little over 2 hour movie.

obviously there was massive cuts with massive deletions of scenes and shortenings of scenes, but the film did get all of the important points of the book down albeit some were reduced to half a minute like snape's worst memory. i would say that this movie struck a balance between appealing to the crazed fans of the book and your casual moviegoer who has heard so much about HP and yet hasnt bothered to read the books.

the plot was greatly simplified and revolved around harry's emotional battle within himself. at one point he talks to sirius thinking that hes turning evil, and many times during the movie he insists on being alone, apart from everyone else. i really liked the very end where voldemort urged harry to use the cruciatus curse on bellatrix (even if it never happened in the book) and harry was unable to do it. and of course the whole "voldemort has never felt love or friendship. i feel sorry for you." this was a good way to simplify the message of the book, and this was a good way to illustrate what dumbledore was saying to harry about the power he has that voldemort knows not.

but im jumping ahead of myself. the ending as a whole disappointed me. they allotted over 20 mins of the film to the big climax, and i was expecting big things, but it went by so fast that the audience had no time to mentally catch up to what was going on. i didnt like that the death eaters never fought back in the hall of prophecies and how the kids were able to stun them and run away very easily. it was a good decision to capture all of harry's friends in the room with the veil, and sirius punching out malfoy was pretty sweet. much more dramatic than tonks (i think?) stunning him in the book.

the fight scene was good. you really had no idea what was going on, who was fighting who and such because harry really didnt know this so you got a sense of the characters. however, sirius' death was a great let-down to me. i mean, bellatrix popping out of nowhere and killing him with avada kedavara was horrible. he was supposed to go down like a man in the duel, not get shot by some random sniper. i can see the sudden, unexpected aspect to it, but it would have been better if bellatrix had been dueling him, hit him with some unknown curse, and he fell into the veil. in the movie, it didnt matter whether or not he hit the veil because he was already dead.

the next few mins had a lot of potential. the camera could've done a pan of the destruction in the scene with all of the injuries suffered by the people in it. instead, it focused on lupin and harry in silence and then harry running off and immediately catching up to bellatrix. the movie shoudlve allotted one extra minute to make this more dramatic. his godfather is dead! give the audience a minute to let that sink in instead of having harry rush off after bellatrix. after all, in the book he must run for several minutes before catching up to her. i already discussed the bellatrix-harry-voldy thing above.

voldemort's possession of harry? i think that was well handled, and i loved the look on voldy's face when he locked eyes with the minister of magic. fudge - "hes back?!?!?" haha. i would've liked a much longer heart to heart talk between harry and dumbledore, but again, i know its a movie with limited time so i think that what they did was adequate.

lets talk characters. kingsley shacklebolt was awesome. reminiscent of samuel l. jackson, and one of his few lines "you may disagree with him, but you gotta admit, dumbledore's got style." excellent! tonks was pretty sweet, but i think that the best one out of all of them was luna lovegood. her blank expression and calm tone captured the character perfectly. i was very impressed by that actress. the trio? obviously harry had the most lines, and dan is definitely improving his acting skills as the movies progress. at this rate, i may be able to give him 5/5 stars for acting ability in HP 7. the movie needed more hermione and ron, but again, time restraints prevented it.

grawp. oh boy. that scene was, well, wtf? giving hermione (he didnt call her hermy once!!!!! come on!!!) the bell on the bike? having a.... crush..... on her? *shakes head in disbelief* the DA meetings were done very well and took up a good deal of time in the movie. these showed how harry progressed and matured throughout the book, and the montage effect did this well. altho the movie never really explained why harry and cho broke up. did marietta even appear in the movie? if she did i missed that part.

in conclusion. yes a conclusion at last. i would say that this movie was well made, and i think that it did an excellent job of taking the longest book in the series and cramming it into a 2 hour 19 minute movie. the montage, scrap book approach was a great idea and was effective. i will give this movie 4/5 stars and i am looking forward to seeing it again.

231 Years Later

well happy birthday america. its been 231 long years since we became a nation under God and i must say that these 231 years have been filled with some of the greatest accomplishments of mankind. these have all been years full of struggle, division, and anger.

so i was watching the fireworks yesterday. everyone around me was excited and awestruck to see them so close, but they didnt faze me at all. in fact, i was rather angry that i was sitting outside when i could be inside watching lil bush (more on that show later on). why should i feel good because of brightly colored lights in the sky?


jason stop it! the meaning of independence day is to celebrate the grand US of A, the mightiest country in the world, the greatest civilization ever to come to power in the history of the world, to celebrate the rise of novus ordo seclorum, a new world order. i wish i could do that but i think that if george washington, thomas jefferson, alexander hamilton, etc could rise from the grave and gaze upon america today, they'd be pretty sick. probably would vomit all over the place and then put the revolver to the ole noggin and u get the rest.

now dont get me wrong, im as patriotic as the next guy, in fact probably moreso. after all, i am very active in politics considering im 17 years old and i am out there trying to make a difference. however, i feel that america has strayed from many of her original purposes. lets look at the problems in america today in no particular order.

abortion (40 million+ deaths of babies since roe v wade)

affirmative action (discriminating against a person because of the color of their skin)

separation of church and state (while personally i may favor the church on this one, i also feel that it is also important for the government to operate free of any one particular church and yet it continues to do so to this day in the form of prayer in a public school and gay rights)

illegal immigration (we cant even control our borders anymore)

national security/patriot act (everyone is living in fear of the terrorists which is exactly what they want. the patriot act has taken away many freedoms in exchange for "security." while i may agree with the patriot act in principle, i feel that it was poorly executed and needs revision.)

Iraq (i favored the invasion when i was convinced that there was a nuclear arsenal in iraq. i have since withdrawn that support. thats right. i do not support the war anymore. i am joining the ranks of republicans who wish to wash their hands of bush and his damn war that is driving this nation to hell.)

Loss of international credibility (the world hates us and fears us. not what star diplomat benjamin franklin or john adams intended for us.)

Disilliusionment with government and loss of respect for the office of the presidency (just watch Lil Bush if u dont think this is a problem. yeah, i know its bush and its stupid humor but if u really think about it, the show is about THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and whether or not u voted for or supported him, he is still the head of this nation and if his own country is making a mockery out of him in the form of this show and millions of other places, how the hell do we expect for the US to get crediiblity overseas? honestly people. i watch the show. i laugh my ass off, but theres a little voice in the back of my head reminding me that its wrong.)

the list goes on and on, i just picked a few topics off the top of my head that i know would cause the founding fathers to squirm even if a little bit. i dont present these to you to demoralize you or cause you to spit on the ground and say this country sucks and then pack your bags and move to france, im telling u this to show how much work there is to be done and how much cooperation in america is needed in order to accomplish this. if we work together we can solve our differences, but we need to throw politics out the window.

remember washington's farwell address? advised us never to form political parties because the factions in the government would soon destroy us? it happened once in our history, and the civil war almost succeeded in obliterating the greatest civilization to ever set food on earth, and lets not do it again. nowadays america is as partisan as ever, and i wish that there could be no political parties and such.

hoovel once accused me of being a defeatist. i however am a realist. will political parties go away anytime soon? hell no. they wont unless theres a nuclear holocaust on america that destroys all of its politicians. so lets be realistic, i am. im trying to correct these problems in a manner that has a shot at working, playing the political game. have i started letters to our senators, durbin and obama? yes. will they accomplish anything? probably not, but at least i can say that i tried to solve these problems and restore america to its former glory.

i ask now for everyone to look forward to the future, work to correct the problems of america, and restore the last words of the pledge of allegiance to what they used to mean, "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

"these are the times that try men's souls" - Thomas Paine