She would have to have more character than "unreasonable bitchy soon-to-be ex girlfriend" in order to find out.
Print Media Hot Takes
- Thread starter TheMysteriousGX
- Start date
There's a certain strain of thought in writing that I don't think is new exactly, but certainly became manifest within the last decade that basically goes like:
-Character X is (insert character flaw here)
-Author Y wrote Character X
-Ergo, Author Y is (character flaw).
As fun as it would be to debate that, I think S.M. Sterling said it best when he said (paraphrased):
"There is a term for a person who cannot distinguish between the views of the author and the views of the character."
"An idiot."
I really don't think Cho was unreasonable though.
IMO, Cho was done dirty in book 5...sort of. Thing is, Harry's kind of a jerk through book 5, and while I get why he's a jerk, I don't think Cho's really in the wrong in the story.
Its taint by association. Cho stuck by her friend Marietta even after Marietta shopped the DA to professor Umbridge. Which from the point of view of the protagonists is as good as betraying them herself. Other than that she’s just a hurt and grieving teenager.
Yeah, if that train of thought were true then Stephen King, George R.R. Martin and Steven Erickson (to name a few) would be absolute, hideous monsters.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or refuting me, but to be clear, yes, Marietta did snitch, and I think Cho's done dirty by the protagonists by it. Harry's frustrations, even with Cho, are understandable, but in an objective sense, I don't think Cho should be blamed, even after defending Marietta. I don't even that Hermione's hex for Marietta is proportional for the crime.
As for that, yeah, Cho's hurt and grieving, but I think they're emotions that are understandable, even if Harry's a git about them. And the weird thing is that the HarryxCho thing sort of just peters out. Dunno if you're much of a shipper, but I'd sooner ship Harry & Cho then Hary & Ginny.
I should've been more clear: Cho was fine, and in the hands of a better writer would've been a great character.
But that's not how the narrative goes down.
But that's not how the narrative goes down.
I’m agreeing, broadly. And brother if I were any bigger into shipping I’d need a Trusted Trader license from Customs xD. But yes, Harry/Ginny was garbage on hairy legs.I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or refuting me, but to be clear, yes, Marietta did snitch, and I think Cho's done dirty by the protagonists by it. Harry's frustrations, even with Cho, are understandable, but in an objective sense, I don't think Cho should be blamed, even after defending Marietta. I don't even that Hermione's hex for Marietta is proportional for the crime.
As for that, yeah, Cho's hurt and grieving, but I think they're emotions that are understandable, even if Harry's a git about them. And the weird thing is that the HarryxCho thing sort of just peters out. Dunno if you're much of a shipper, but I'd sooner ship Harry & Cho then Hary & Ginny.
I highly doubt this as much of a hot take now, but this was my opinion back during the early 2010s. The Hunger Games is just a weak sauce Battle Royale. Other than having a female protagonist, there is really not much special about it. And even something as "unique" as that stopped being special just a few years afterwards.
HP Lovecraft is a horrible and terrible writer. Whatever good ideas he did have, countless authors, film or TV directors & shows, artists, and many others have put his concepts to better or good use. And a majority of them did it without being racist assholes.
HP Lovecraft is a horrible and terrible writer. Whatever good ideas he did have, countless authors, film or TV directors & shows, artists, and many others have put his concepts to better or good use. And a majority of them did it without being racist assholes.
Last edited:
Might as well share my view on the Hunger Games. Though I should mention that I was a lot older than the intended audience (and presumably of the wrong gender).
In the first novel I wasn't all that interested for the first half, since that was mostly world building and I wanted to get to the games themselves. The other half, where the games actually was underway, I liked fine.
The second novel was the precise opposite. The first half where they explored how the world was affected of the events of the last novel was interesting and since by this point I was invested it now felt stronger. Once the actual games started, not only did the protagonist cooperate with so many other characters I had a hard time to keep track of them and the arena itself had some mechanism I did not understand, and as the ending revealed the protagonist had been left purposefully in the dark about some things so I didn't get a good grasp of things.
The third novel was... miserable. As in, it made me sad, which given the subject matter is appropriate, but it left me in a bad mood.
In the first novel I wasn't all that interested for the first half, since that was mostly world building and I wanted to get to the games themselves. The other half, where the games actually was underway, I liked fine.
The second novel was the precise opposite. The first half where they explored how the world was affected of the events of the last novel was interesting and since by this point I was invested it now felt stronger. Once the actual games started, not only did the protagonist cooperate with so many other characters I had a hard time to keep track of them and the arena itself had some mechanism I did not understand, and as the ending revealed the protagonist had been left purposefully in the dark about some things so I didn't get a good grasp of things.
The third novel was... miserable. As in, it made me sad, which given the subject matter is appropriate, but it left me in a bad mood.
Last edited:
I was well above the target audience as well. I was already about 21 or 22 when the novel first came out. What's worse is that it's just another young adult dystopian novel. Those are pretty much a dime a dozen throughout the 2010s and some of the 2020s now. So the series is even less special now.
Last edited:
Somewhat disagree, the concept wasn't that impressive, but the dystopia was well done, IMHO. Lots of YA (and even not YA) novels totally get the dystopia wrong because the author has grasped that repressive dictatorships are bad, but their political insight ends at that. Not saying The Hunger Games were brilliant, but effort was put into that aspect of it.
It goes full YA in some other areas, like having archers with fancy bows shoot down attack aircraft.
Also somewhat disagree. IMHO Lovecraft was a good writer, that's why he didn't really have to come up with good ideas or develop them. He could make things scary when they really shouldn't have been. Which is why most Lovecraft imitators fail, IMHO, they just stick aliens or tentacles or whatnot in, which Lovecraft used but were not really why his stories were successful (after he died at least). Also why movie adaptations tend to fail, because if you can make things scary why bother with Lovecraft's plots?
I didn't say they didn't put effort into it, that it's just that nothing stands out much anymore. Most of it's old hat; Seinfeld is unfunny and all that jazz.
We've already had the discussion on the old version of the forum. Not doing this again. Lovecraft is a crappy writer to me and that's the end of it. I don't know about all the imitators in literary form, but the ones in other media tend to do better than he ever could. People of different races, gender, and religion. Whatever keeps him rolling and panicking in his grave. I can admit is that the dude can set up atmosphere, but otherwise both of his themes are just plain racist or seeing those of different color, and those from different countries as subhuman or worse. Remember: One of the stories was written and published, because he had a biatch fit over the fact that he was partially Welsh on his mom's side! I show no respect for someone who was also with the Klan and white supremacists. I know how we're supposed to separate from artists and personal things, and all that bull crap, but I have my own set of limits like anyone else. Even if I take all that out, I've seen done much better from other creators.
Last edited:
I definitely liked the first novel the best. The second was largely a repeat of the first, except the characters were behaving more annoyingly. And the third focused mostly on the revolutionary plot, which I don't feel was very strong or made much sense.
I read those tweets and I feel dumber already. I'm gonna go do something to clear them from my brain, like chugging lighter fluid.
Is much of anything about Cho Chang really implied in the books?
That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have happened. Very little of Cho is shown in the books.
She plays Quidditch
Harry thinks she’s hot.
She dates Cedric.
She’s depressed Cedric was murdered.
She and Harry have a short and disastrous relationship.
From what I recall that’s about all we know about her from the books. She’s slightly more than a blank slate, much like most of the supporting snd background characters.
It could well be that Dumbledore once had a threesome with a horse and a goblin but that wasn't stated in the books either
.The simplest and most obvious explanation is that Rowling just didn't know how certain naming conventions worked.
I really disagree there - that's really underselling the books' characters, and I'd like to make a number of points as to why.
First, this isn't an argument I've made, and I forget where I read it, but Rowling's character cast is excellent from a writing standpoint, or rather, a memorability standpoint. There's a reason why, even when we don't know that much about a character, we still remember them in the books, and a lot of it's down to the naming conventions. Again, the people who wrote the article (which I can't recall, so I'm afraid you'll have to take my word for it), pointed out the use of language for the characters. There's a reason why even if there's not much to say about a character per se, their names are easy to remember. We have "Cho Chang" and "Colin Creevy" or "Luna Lovegood" for example (alliteration), or Cornelius Fudge or Neville Longbottom (esoteric surnames), or thematic forenames (e.g. how every member of the Black Family is named after a constellation - Sirius, Andromeda, etc.)
Second, I'd hardly call Cho a blank slate. I mean, here's a tertiary character, who appears in at least four books, and that she gets that amount of characterization at all is still quite impressive.
Third, and this is arguably the crux of the argument, I really, REALLY disagree about the characters being blank slates, and I'd like to use a few points.
First, the Weasley family. That's seven children (you can pair Fred and George, so more like 6.5), plus Arthur, plus Molly. Every one of them with the exception of Charlie has a defined personality, and even Charlie has a defined backstory. That's nine characters in one family by itself that's fleshed out over an entire series. There's more characterization in the Weasley family alone than entire casts in similar series.
Second, I'd argue that the fact that we can remember so many names off the top of our heads is testament to the depth of the characters, but name any character from the series, and chances are you'll have at least a mini-biography behind them. Heck, go to the wiki if you don't believe me.
Third, and this is more of a personal point than anything else, having read stuff like The Magisterium and Keeper of the Lost Cities recently, both of which rely on the magic school trope, it's astounding how facile they are compared to Harry Potter, and no, that isn't nostalgia talking. Obviously, a key difference here is that I read HP at the intended age, but even then, being as objective as possible, Magisterium is just banal in its characters and worldbuilding, and Keeper is absolutely wretched (so far). It's part of why I agree with the notion that people should watch/read bad films/books to get an understanding as to what makes fiction work, but when you compare and contrast how HP handles its characters and how other series, well, don't, then I think it's easier to appreciate them all the more. I mean, for instance, I can name pretty much every Hogwarts teacher, as well as a fair no. of Magisterium teachers, but the difference is that in Magisterium, I cannot, for the life of me, name a single character trait for the masters (bar one possible exception), whereas practically every Hogwarts teacher by themselves has a distinct personality. I mean, we get six Defence Against the Dark Arts teachers alone through the series (five if you exclude Snape), and all of them are memorable in their own ways. There's more memorable teachers for a single subject in HP than the entire teacher rosters of the afforementioned contemporaries.
Fourth, and another personal point, writing is hard. Really hard. I know, I mean, I've been doing it for ages and done courses for it, and it's freaking hard (to do well). On the subject of characters, not only do you need to get a character, and flesh out their backstory (which is hard enough), but then you've got to convey that backstory over the course of a story/stories without overwhelming the reader, and I still don't think I'm there yet (probably never will be), since the last two stories I wrote/am writing had to rely on flashbacks to get some of that backstory across. So considering just how many named characters there are in HP, and how many of them get backstory at all, it's astounding just how impressive it's pulled off.
Anyway, that's just my take. Part of the reason why is indeed, coming off Magisterium/Keeper, arguably the best thing about reading such books is that it helps me appreciate the difference between good writing and bad writing all the more.