|
Post by Ubereil on Oct 23, 2007 16:24:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Galadriel on Oct 28, 2007 22:26:33 GMT
I read that too, about Dumbledore, but who cares in the end? He did a great Dumbledore so what does his sexual preference matter? Who did a great Dubmledore? Übereil ROFL
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 1, 2007 22:45:05 GMT
Rowling to release "The Tales of Beedle the Bard" which, as you may recall, is the collection of fairytales mentioned in Deathly Hallows. The proceeds go to charity, but I note: The volume, bound in brown morocco leather and mounted with silver and semiprecious stones, will be auctioned at Sotheby's on Dec. 13 with a starting price of $62,000. HAHAHA. She needs to be a much better writer for her writing to be worth that much. Of course, some poor stupid sucker will snap it up, but I bet the scans will be on the Internet via torrents within less than a day.
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Nov 9, 2007 23:30:02 GMT
I quite agree, actually. The fandom explosion is actually far bigger than book seven release--partially because a lot of fans found the book underwhelming, I'd guess--so she's hit the right buttons. Right. Well, I've been looking around the net and I'd like to know your sources for the fact that a lof of fans we're underwhelmed by the Deathly Hallows. I'd really like some examples as to why the fandom explosion is bigger and maybe some examples of the number of fans who were dissapointed. Because, for some reason I can't seem to find the lots of fans who didnt like the book. And please, let it not be that inferior than the number of people I can find who loved it
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 10, 2007 0:44:35 GMT
Uh. "A lot of fans" != "most fans" or "the majority of the fans." You do get the difference, yes? Sometimes semantics are damned important. I'd link you to a forum I frequent, but that place is viewable to members only. Due to virtue of being lightly moderated, the posters are a lot more free with their opinions and vitriol. One of the threads is here, if you want to register. Titled "It was horrible"; I shall reproduce a few choice quotes-- Next, check fandom_wank; nearly any wank related to HP will have people chiming in to say that they thought book seven sucked/was shite/was disappointing, though if you have delicate sensibilities, don't (because f_w is also unmoderated except very lightly). Nearly everyone I've talked to thought the epilogue was particularly atrocious. You can also try this thread, where the majority opinion goes along the line of "well, it's not great literature and is only pulp entertainment; I didn't expect much so I wasn't disappointed" (which is not exactly praise) and "I kept falling asleep/parts were cringeworthy/the epilogue sucks" and, of course, "It's a kids' series and will never be more than that." Hilariously, the most vehement fanboy in this thread (OMG IT IS NOT A CHILDREN'S BOOK whining) also happens to be one of the rare posters on Westeros who are utterly, dreadfully illiterate. Take that how you will. And here as well as here, from the same person, but you'll see plenty of people agreeing with her. Oh, and then here is a community dedicated to shredding DH in style--plot holes, silly prose, bad characterization and all. The same folk did a great job with Half-blood Prince.
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Nov 10, 2007 0:55:48 GMT
Right, these are examples but then let's see what the general opinion is on amazon. You might infer that these are not genereal fandom but this is more than 2800 reviews which is far more than you have provided. ReviewAnd semantics be damned. You said a lot of fans did not like the book and you still have to produce some statistics that back this up beyond your links. Let's see some cold hard numbers - it's in your court as you have continually stated a a lot of fans are displeased - so let's see those numbers, please.
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Nov 10, 2007 0:59:51 GMT
oh, and let's say a lot of fans is, say, 25%? Can we agree on that?
So, prove it.
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 10, 2007 1:02:51 GMT
So you want me to produce statistics when there are no real surveys or studies about reader opinions of DH and, therefore, no real statistics to speak of?
Okay.
Also, perhaps it's worth clarifying that--and I thought this would be obvious since, surely, I made no claims upon omniscience--I was speaking from experience: forums I frequent, and former HP fans with whom I communicate.
Indignant HP fans are hilarious, though. OH GOD THE BOOKS ARE NOT UNIVERSALLY ADORED. I SHALL NOW WAGE A CRUSADE UPON YOU UNBELIEVERS. Fapfapfap.
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Nov 10, 2007 1:12:25 GMT
So you want me to produce statistics when there are no real surveys or studies about reader opinions of DH and, therefore, no real statistics to speak of? YOU stated that a lot of fans did not like the book. YOU showed me some weak ass links when I produced 2800 people who liked the book. YOU decided NOT to prove your argument and instead arrogantly attack me instead. And yes, I know you WILL argue that this is semantics and I was not mentioned but I think everyone will see this for what it is. Indignant HP fans are hilarious, though. OH GOD THE BOOKS ARE NOT UNIVERSALLY ADORED. I SHALL NOW WAGE A CRUSADE UPON YOU UNBELIEVERS. Fapfapfap. You know, if you actually had cared to read what I wrote earlier in this thread instead of imagining your own opinions, you would have seen I supported you in critisising the book. But I guess you're either quickly forget or are truly so unintelligent you does not know how to interpret the written word - I'll let others decide.
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 10, 2007 1:19:57 GMT
D'aww, a personal attack. It took you, what, two-three posts to get to that point? It's really cute, though. I'm not sure where I "personally attacked" you, unless calling you an indignant HP fan--which is what you're acting like, you know (and "indignant" does not carry the same connotations as "unintelligent", unless the English you speak is not the one I'm used to)--constitutes an insult, in which case, oh well. You appear to have lost the moral high ground or whatever ground it was you were standing on by resorting to ad hominem. Hooray!
Now, I'd completely understand if you demanded statistics with such... enthusiasm if I were to make a considerably more inflammatory generalization like "homosexual men are more likely to be psychotic" or "God hates gays!". I'm very, very sorry I cannot take "a lot of fans don't like ____" as seriously as you do. I shall at once repent, and conduct a global study about Harry Potter fans!
Actually, in that post where you said you supported my criticism of the books, you said only that you supported that I should be able to express my opinions--and that you disagreed with many of the points I raised.
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Nov 10, 2007 1:25:41 GMT
D'aww, a personal attack. It took you, what, two-three posts to get to that point? It's really cute, though. I'm not sure where I "personally attacked" you, unless calling you an indignant HP fan--which is what you're acting like, you know (and "indignant" does not carry the same connotations as "unintelligent", unless the English you speak is not the one I'm used to)--constitutes an insult, in which case, oh well. You appear to have lost the moral high ground or whatever ground it was you were standing on by resorting to ad hominem. Hooray! Actually, in that post where you said you supported my criticism of the books, you said only that you supported that I should be able to express my opinions--and that you disagreed with many of the points I raised. I am not acting like an indignant potter fan - I am acting like someone who would like you to prove your point - which you absolutely cannot. And I do recognise you hide behind semantics as I stated earlier but the snide was pretty clear so no need to hide behind it. And yes, I did support you in critisising the book since the right to do so was not supported in the beginning of this thread. Again, semantics, I did not agree with your crisicism but I supported you in critising the book as I felt it was both needed and a valuable addition to the thread.
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 10, 2007 1:31:48 GMT
Hide behind what? The Internet is a text-based medium--well, this forum is, at any rate. Saying that I'm "hiding behind semantics" would be like saying a medieval crusader's "hiding" behind his armor or a woman "hiding" her boobies and vagina under her clothes. Semantics are what makes online communication go 'round. Especially when you choose to make a debate out of it.
Here's a difference between your view and mine: I consider what I said a throwaway comment. You consider it a deathly serious, listen guys, this is serious serious business, goddamn it LISTEN "argument" that must be pursued with all zest and energy. So I can't prove the point--so what? Neither, ahaha, can you. Amazon? You'll be surprised how few people take the time to review a book they've bought, especially if they're displeased with it. Data, monsieur, is not the plural of "anecdote."
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Nov 10, 2007 1:40:00 GMT
Hide behind what? The Internet is a text-based medium--well, this forum is, at any rate. Saying that I'm "hiding behind semantics" would be like saying a medieval crusader's "hiding" behind his armor or a woman "hiding" her boobies and vagina under her clothes. Semantics are what makes online communication go 'round. Especially when you choose to make a debate out of it. Here's a difference between your view and mine: I consider what I said a throwaway comment. You consider it a deathly serious, listen guys, this is serious serious business, goddamn it LISTEN "argument" that must be pursued with all zest and energy. So I can't prove the point--so what? Neither, ahaha, can you. Amazon? You'll be surprised how few people take the time to review a book they've bought, especially if they're displeased with it. Data, monsieur, is not the plural of "anecdote." Well, luckily I was not the one making the initial comment so I do not have to actually prove my point when people ask me to. And, even though Amazon might not be reliabe, I'd still consider those reviews in sheer number, more of an indicator than your sources. Oh, and I do not consider it a deathly serious issue. I would just like to see you prove your point, really. In an argument I find nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 10, 2007 1:52:19 GMT
Oh, and I do not consider it a deathly serious issue. Is Denial just a river in Egypt? People who don't take HP with deathly seriousness are not likely to pursue the matter with the screechy vehemence you've displayed. You seem to think it matters to me a great deal whether or not I "prove" my, uh, argument. I happen not to consider it even an argument, and since statistical data for this don't exist, it's not worth trying to conjure up some. But if you feel you've won or something, hey, I'm not going to burst your bubble.
|
|
|
Post by peterh on Nov 10, 2007 1:56:33 GMT
Oh, and I do not consider it a deathly serious issue. Is Denial just a river in Egypt? People who don't take HP with deathly seriousness are not likely to pursue the matter with the screechy vehemence you've displayed. You seem to think it matters to me a great deal whether or not I "prove" my, uh, argument. I happen not to consider it even an argument, and since statistical data for this don't exist, it's not worth trying to conjure up some. But if you feel you've won or something, hey, I'm not going to burst your bubble. So, in future arguments people now know you might not be able to back up your arguments? might be good to remember that in the future
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 10, 2007 2:20:36 GMT
Yes, dear, whatever you say. *pats*
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Nov 10, 2007 2:24:27 GMT
This is why people don't like you Winterfox...
As for myself, I thought it was rather an anti-climax as well, but *shrug*
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 10, 2007 2:26:40 GMT
This is why people don't like you Winterfox... The opinions of complete strangers on the Internet regarding my person matter to me greatly. Also, due to your use of "people" as a generalization, I demand that you provide statistics. Cold, hard numbers. Statistics, damn it! PROVE YOUR ARGUMENT.
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Nov 10, 2007 2:46:59 GMT
i c wat u did thar
|
|
|
Post by Winterfox on Nov 10, 2007 2:52:07 GMT
What?! You can't back up your argument with numbers? Solid numbers? Real statistics? You're a bad debater! Your online words are no longer to be taken seriously by anyone! Hah! Feel ashamed. Feel debased. Cry into your pillow at night.
It's just that tragic, I tell you.
|
|