Jack in the office...

[pip]

Which is odd, since you were studying mathematics at the time!

Did mine on trains . Really makes me sound like a proper nerd.

Got a first though

[DaveC]

Which is odd, since you were studying mathematics at the time!

Knew something didn't add up there!

[Bouncy Castle]

Doh.

[Jan Van Quirm]

As always the books are better than the films so you ought enjoy them I think

The Prime Minister (definitely Tony Blair) is in it for about 5 pages so imagine any recent male PM you like, but Major was way before the book and any timeline was even written

The writing's pretty good, particuarly the dialogue and the magical names and places and spell-associated objects, but it's the characterisation that made me want to scream as it tends to be heaven or hell - luckily in the films the casting was absolutely spot on in most cases, so that carried it pretty well if you were reading the books after the films (which I was up until The Prisoner of Askaban). If it's book first then seeing the film will help a lot with reading the later characters, but overall because its focussing on Harry most of the time it's rather like Frodo in LotR and after about Bk 3 you want to shake him and scream FFS lighten up a bit you self-obsessed anal little nerd! Ditto Ron - Hermione kind of improves 'cos you want to scream that at her within about a chapter of her being introduced, but she mellows and is quite likeable in a Rincewind sort of way after a while - for being the voice of reason mostly

What I dislike about JKR is that she's definitely standing on the shoulders of giants and there's very little in the fantasy line that's new - she's great at giving things a new spin on in terms of updating and making things a little 'edgier' - the later books are definitely darker and not really for little kids as a rule I'd say. Hogwarts is terrific fun but after a while I got the distinct feeling I was reading about a magical Mallory Towers or St. Clares (Enid Blyton boarding school books to the young and/or uninitiated ). They're definitely fun to read and not too bad on the re-reading front (I've still got to get the last 2 books though and I'm not into that except for Terry for some reason these days) but to some extent she's over-rated I think because the books lack depth and were definitely written for children and kind of growing up with them in some respects. In that she does deserve the success she's had in making a whole generation want to read fiction, let alone fantasy. But she's no Terry at the end of the day, really because she's got far too much appeal and popularity so the books are essentially too 'easy' for people who want to be swept up by more than the admittedly amusing smoke and mirrors.

[Penfold]

Which is odd, since you were studying mathematics at the time!

Did mine on trains . Really makes me sound like a proper nerd.

Got a first though

Well done but didn't it make your handwriting a bit shakey tho?

[pip]

As always the books are better than the films so you ought enjoy them I think

The Prime Minister (definitely Tony Blair) is in it for about 5 pages so imagine any recent male PM you like, but Major was way before the book and any timeline was even written

Definitely Major as the PM time as the year is 1996 based on Harrys age etc. rememeber the books are set a few years before there publishing dates. Harry was born in 1980 . Sorry for the geek moment .

[pip]

Which is odd, since you were studying mathematics at the time!

Did mine on trains . Really makes me sound like a proper nerd.

Got a first though

Well done but didn't it make your handwriting a bit shakey tho?

Especially considering how old our trains are.

[Jan Van Quirm]

As always the books are better than the films so you ought enjoy them I think

The Prime Minister (definitely Tony Blair) is in it for about 5 pages so imagine any recent male PM you like, but Major was way before the book and any timeline was even written

Definitely Major as the PM time as the year is 1996 based on Harrys age etc. rememeber the books are set a few years before there publishing dates. Harry was born in 1980 . Sorry for the geek moment .

Major was still PM in 1996 - Bloody hell!!!!!

Well there you go - but Labour got into government in May 1997 so it was Blair when they were making film... The PM character (such as it is) is nothing like JM, so I'd say that's a publisher's edit requirement for reprints as all JM had going for him was his Spitting Image puppet - anyway it's fiction so you have to use your imagination

[pip]

As always the books are better than the films so you ought enjoy them I think

The Prime Minister (definitely Tony Blair) is in it for about 5 pages so imagine any recent male PM you like, but Major was way before the book and any timeline was even written

Definitely Major as the PM time as the year is 1996 based on Harrys age etc. rememeber the books are set a few years before there publishing dates. Harry was born in 1980 . Sorry for the geek moment .

Major was still PM in 1996 - Bloody hell!!!!!

Well there you go - but Labour got into government in May 1997 so it was Blair when they were making film... The PM character (such as it is) is nothing like JM, so I'd say that's a publisher's edit requirement for reprints as all JM had going for him was his Spitting Image puppet - anyway it's fiction so you have to use your imagination

One of JK Rowlings biggest weaknesses was keeping track of timelines so its quite propable she had tony in mind to be honest but i just wanted to nerd out a little. Did love the ol grey man in spitting image all right.

[Jan Van Quirm]

Nerd outs are good for the soul Did you know I'm a bit of a fan of J.R.R. Tolkien?

[poohcarrot]

I must admit that I thought all the characters in the films were quite true to how I imagined them to be, apart from the dementors, and I thought Peter O'Toole was a better Dumbledor.

[DaveC]

As always the books are better than the films so you ought enjoy them I think

The Prime Minister (definitely Tony Blair) is in it for about 5 pages so imagine any recent male PM you like, but Major was way before the book and any timeline was even written

Definitely Major as the PM time as the year is 1996 based on Harrys age etc. rememeber the books are set a few years before there publishing dates. Harry was born in 1980 . Sorry for the geek moment .

Major was still PM in 1996 - Bloody hell!!!!!

Well there you go - but Labour got into government in May 1997 so it was Blair when they were making film... The PM character (such as it is) is nothing like JM, so I'd say that's a publisher's edit requirement for reprints as all JM had going for him was his Spitting Image puppet - anyway it's fiction so you have to use your imagination

One of JK Rowlings biggest weaknesses was keeping track of timelines so its quite propable she had tony in mind to be honest but i just wanted to nerd out a little. Did love the ol grey man in spitting image all right.

I remember someone mentioning Playstation in either Philosopher's or Chamber and its meant to be set way before then in the book!

[DaveC]

I must admit that I thought all the characters in the films were quite true to how I imagined them to be, apart from the dementors, and I thought Peter O'Toole was a better Dumbledor.

That would have been interesting - I reckon Gambon is way better than Harris but I always feel bad saying he should've been cast originally

[poohcarrot]

Harris/O'Toole whatever.

[Jan Van Quirm]

O'Toole's too gaunt - although Dumbles was supposed to be very tall.

Michael Gambon was better and more avuncular as Harry got closer to him. Richard Harris certainly looked the part. but sadly I think he was far too vague and slooooooow or too mawkish like his Caesar in Gladiator