If you're talking about Jesus, then I have to disagree. In my opinion, he was just a really smart philosopher. He advocated non-violence and love, which is great, but by pretending he was perfect the whole point is kind of missed. I know that there was at least one time where he totally lost his shit and went crazy with a whip, so that's always something.
Of course, this is just what I think. And it also depends on your definition of "holy." I'm assuming that here, we're talking about holy to mean perfectly benign and whatnot, but others just define it as being associated with God. It's all pretty hazy.
Of course, this is just what I think. And it also depends on your definition of "holy." I'm assuming that here, we're talking about holy to mean perfectly benign and whatnot, but others just define it as being associated with God. It's all pretty hazy.
I'm pretty sure "Holy" is generally used to mean "Strongly associated with the Church and its values and/or studied works", though in the case of Christ in Biblical Mythology, perfection is generally assumed. Mary isn't considered to be as perfect as Jesus, for example, but she's considered "holy" in most contexts and works of art.
I'm pretty sure "Holy" is generally used to mean "Strongly associated with the Church and its values and/or studied works", though in the case of Christ in Biblical Mythology, perfection is generally assumed. Mary isn't considered to be as perfect as Jesus, for example, but she's considered "holy" in most contexts and works of art.
Yeah, I think there's some confusion. "Holier than thou", for example, definitely doesn't mean "more associated with the church than you". And also, there's a large difference between "the church" and "God".
I don't see how that works, considering that he actually claimed to be God on more than one occasion.
I'm not trying to start an argument, but I can't just sit here and not say that.
I personally doubt he ever said that - I think that was probably a narrative tool used by one of the Bible's writers or something to that effect. It seems to be pretty incongruent for him to advocate human rights and equality on one occasion, and then claim to be better than everyone else on another.
You probably know more about this than me, though - I'm not religious and I've only read parts of the Bible.
Let's talk about what House Ron would be Sorted into. Ravenclaw beckons strongly, but that seems too easy. Alternative suggestions?
I'm pretty sure Chyron would say "Slytherin". And only the Good Guy House and the Bad Guy House matter. This is shown by the fact that all the Good Guys get into Good Guy House and all the Bad Guys are from Bad Guy House and the other two are for background and supporting characters, regardless of character traits.
...
"You might belong in Gryffindor,
Where dwell the brave at heart,
Their daring, nerve and chivalry
Set Gryffindors apart;
You might belong in Hufflepuff,
Where they are just and loyal,
Those patient Hufflepuffs are true
And unafraid of toil;
Or yet in wise old Ravenclaw,
If you've a steady mind,
Where those of wit and learning,
Will always find their kind;
Or perhaps in Slytherin
You'll make your real friends,
Those cunning folk use any means
To achieve their ends."
---
"By Gryffindor, the bravest were
Prized far beyond the rest;
For Ravenclaw, the cleverest
Would always be the best;
For Hufflepuff, hard workers were
Most worthy of admission;
And power-hungry Slytherin
Loved those of great ambition."
---
"Said Slytherin, 'We'll teach just those
Whose ancestry is purest.'
Said Ravenclaw, 'We'll teach those whose
Intelligence is surest.'
Said Gryffindor, 'We'll teach all those
With brave deeds to their name,'
Said Hufflepuff, 'I'll teach the lot,
And treat them just the same.'"
The others are all about teaching to those they consider "the best", only Hufflepuff is concerned first and foremost with teaching everyone who wants to learn!
I'm pretty sure what passes as a pretty major plot point in Harry Potter was that you very much can choose your own house. Harry does it in the first book. And then in one of the later books, Harry is all "Maybe I should be in Evil House" and Dumblydoor is all "No you picked it that's something special here's a moral lesson about decisions."
I'm pretty sure what passes as a pretty major plot point in Harry Potter was that you very much can choose your own house. Harry does it in the first book. And then in one of the later books, Harry is all "Maybe I should be in Evil House" and Dumblydoor is all "No you picked it that's something special here's a moral lesson about decisions."
Yeah, but that's only because the hat couldn't decide between the two, since Harry had characteristic from both (being brave, but also a pure blood with disregard for rules ("Those cunning folk use any means/To achieve their ends."))
I think you can influence it to some extent but with so many people the hat just chooses right away. And people who don't know the houses get sorted anyways, yet they can't have a preference...
Either way, I'm old enough to have completed Howgwarts twice, so... Not an issue (nevermind the fact that it's doesn't ex... er, I've said nothing!)
The hat decides so quickly because it knows that the vast majority of the students won't be important to the plot anyway. The hat looks for the plot-important people and sorts them into Good House and Evil House depending on whether or not they like to drown puppies or stop bad guys.
On a more serious note, my guess is that the decision isn't really hard for most. They fit into the categories quite snugly. Or maybe they'd made up their minds about what House they were going to be in, and the hat doesn't want to argue. You know, unless they're Good Guys of course, in which case Hermione who seems more Ravenclaw, gets into Good House because she's plot-important and we can't have inter-house mingling in the main cast.
Or Neville who seems more Hufflepuff. But really, although I can see the "good guys vs bad guys" thing, I feel we're introduced to bad guys from Gryffindor relatively early
(Pettigrew and, from my point of view although most people seem to disagree, Harry's dad and Sirius)
and although they take a bit longer, good guys from Slytherin
(I'm thinking mostly Sirius's brother)
I'm talking here about people who don't just appear at the very end, for the end message to be "but all houses are okay" in the epilogue, but characters who for some appear as an important character (revealed as who they really are) from book 3.
I think the book series does try too hard to drive its point across though (being brave is good, disregarding rules is bad unless you're Harry Potter!)
Speaking of which, if disregarding rules and pure blood are the main Slytherin things, how come the Weasley twins aren't there?
I think I would have enjoyed a spread-across-houses main cast better. After all, they still share classes and everything so the story could have still worked.
And it does look like there are the good house, the bad house and the two others that were put there as filler for 90% or so of the series (with some exceptions, but there is a French expression that says "the exception confirms the rule").
but there is a French expression that says "the exception confirms the rule").
It's not at all uncommon to say in english that something is "the exception that proves the rule". Both come from the Latin "Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non excepti."
Thanks! Expressions are one of the hardest things. You never know if there is a similar one, or if when you say something people will look at you with wide eyes.
And then if people want you to explain them... Oooh boy. Fortunately some do make sense.
I always love learning colloquial phrases, though. They're extremely useful, and they generally are fun linguistic tricks with some great origins when you look them up.
If we can choose our own house, I choose Hufflepuff, because
The others are all about teaching to those they consider "the best", only Hufflepuff is concerned first and foremost with teaching everyone who wants to learn!
Admit it, you'd join Hufflepuff because Robert Pattinson is in Hufflepuff (as Cedic Diggory.)
And not all the "good guys" were in Gryffindor. Luna wasn't, and she turned out to be quite a very adept and resourceful witch, if a bit eccentric. Hermione did say, after she was asked why she wasn't in Ravenclaw, that the hat did consider putting her there but decided Gryffindor in the end. She didn't say why it chose Gryffindor; she could have asked it to. Also, there's no evidence that the majority of the Order of the Phoenix was in Gryffindor.
The reason why more "good guy" students are in Gryffindor than other houses is because Harry is in Gryffindor. He lives with them. He goes to class with them, and the story is told mostly from his perspective, so of course his greatest allies would be his closest friends would be people in his own house.
Besides, the sorting hat doesn't immediately choose houses for supporting characters. Neville sat with it on his head for quite a long time before it chose.
Sounds to me, Rather Dashing, like you only watched the movies.
Admit it, you'd join Hufflepuff because Robert Pattinson is in Hufflepuff (as Cedic Diggory.)
Er, actually, no. I haven't seen all the movies and those I've seen I did only once. And it sounds like someone playing a Hogwarts student would have to be too young for my tastes.
Well, now that I know he has starred in non-stupid movies, his presence in a new movie probably won't make me think "oh no, this movie must be bad if he's in it".
I know it's not the actors' fault but... It's easy to make this kind of associations, you know?
Also... That must mean he's British! Is Twilight a British movie?
And not all the "good guys" were in Gryffindor. Luna wasn't, and she turned out to be quite a very adept and resourceful witch, if a bit eccentric.
Cedric and Luna are the two exceptions to the rule. Cedric is from another house because they need someone from another house, and because he is an "outsider" against which Harry must compete. Luna is a different House because...I don't know, she's a weirdo and that doesn't click well with the daring magical heroics of the heroes. Or she was a throwaway character that Rowling ended up coming back to(seems more likely to me).
Hermione did say, after she was asked why she wasn't in Ravenclaw, that the hat did consider putting her there but decided Gryffindor in the end. She didn't say why it chose Gryffindor; she could have asked it to. Also, there's no evidence that the majority of the Order of the Phoenix was in Gryffindor.
Right. The hat considered putting her there but inter-house mingling sucks and the other two houses are for filler characters.
The reason why more "good guy" students are in Gryffindor than other houses is because Harry is in Gryffindor. He lives with them. He goes to class with them, and the story is told mostly from his perspective, so of course his greatest allies would be his closest friends would be people in his own house.
Right. The reason that there are more "Good Guys" in Gryffindor is because it's narratively convenient, and screw the explanations and rules set down for the world if they get in the way. Even if they were stated all of five minutes prior. Luckily, the song is only SLIGHTLY less vague than a horoscope reading, so they have wiggle-room to excuse anything that's convenient.
Besides, the sorting hat doesn't immediately choose houses for supporting characters. Neville sat with it on his head for quite a long time before it chose.
That's because they were totally doing something with him, but then not doing something with him. You know, that whole "Hey Neville could have been Harry but CHOICES MATTER" and whatnot.
Sounds to me, Rather Dashing, like you only watched the movies.
I stopped watching the movies after the 4th adatptation. I was dragged to the theater for each one after the first. As in, you know: Everyone wanted to go, HEY, why don't you want to go, come on, this is totally a big thing, hey, hey, hey, this movie is totally going to be really cool.
No, I say. No it's not. But I went anyway. But after Goblet of Fire, I'm done.
The musical score is really good, though.
So yeah. I've read the books. I don't think they're bad. They're well written enough, in that the prose is comfortable and not particularly difficult. The story is simple even with its foreshadowing that goes nowhere and the odd plot hole. It's what you'd expect from a children's novel. It's NOT what you'd come to expect from the most successful novel franchise in the world.
The series isn't painful to read, it's just...nothing special.
Isn't he the guy from Twilight? I never realised that!
lol. suuure... feign ignorance.
I'm not buying it.
Yes, he plays Edward Cullen in the Twilight movies.
Don't get me started on that. The books were MUCH better. Though, I still thought the books were boring until the last 2/3 of Book 4 (starting from when the story switches to Jake's POV.) The first movie's colors were too washed out, and Edward (that is, Robert Pattinson) wasn't buff or handsome at all (but rather scrawny) in the 2nd movie when his character in the book was always supposed to be chiseled like Jake (though not as muscular.)
However, IO can say with certainty that the 5th and 6th movies are by far the best. Goblet of Fire IMO is the weakest movie.
Nonononononono.
This always happens. I'll be all "OK I'm done", and then someone will be all "No you finished RIGHT BEFORE THE GOOD PART". And I'll be all "OH FINE" and go and see this next piece, and then I'll think it sucks. And then someone, potentially even THE SAME PERSON, will be all "No, wait, NOW you stopped before the good part".
At some point, I have to draw the line at how much stuff that I think is boring garbage that I am going to wade through before I get to a "good part" that I don't really even care to see.
I didn't say you have to like it. You're not required to watch them. I'm just saying that the same guy directed 5 and 6, and is also directing 7 and 8.
Chances are if you hate 5, you'll hate following ones, but I liked 5 and 6 much better than the others, especially 4.
still... if you didn't much like the books, I don't see how you would like the movies anyway.
Luna is a different House because...I don't know, she's a weirdo and that doesn't click well with the daring magical heroics of the heroes. Or she was a throwaway character that Rowling ended up coming back to(seems more likely to me).
No, that's because they only meet her in book 5 and there needed to be a reason why, so putting her in another house explained it.
Also, I watched up till movie 5 and I thought the 5th movie sucked. So don't go see it just for that.
And I totally didn't know it was him. I saw the fourth movie once or twice and it was before he was in Twilight so of course I didn't recognise him from that. And I've only heard him referred to as "Edward" so I didn't recognise the actor's name either.
Rather Dashing: I found one!
"To fall in the apples". Okay, now you guess what it means.
EDIT: Disclaimer: I love the Harry Potter books. I don't see why that should prevent me from seeing what I consider to be weaknesses in them.
I'd rather not, even if they are relatively good. Because the film isn't going to IMPROVE on the mediocre book series, and I'm kind of done with that stuff now. I read the disappointing final book, I read the fanfiction epilogue. I'm pretty sure I have done enough to have an informed opinion on whether or not I want to see a film adaptation.
A quick Google search says "To faint/lose consciousness", and that its etymology is somewhat unclear at best.
I honestly would not have guessed that. That is one cryptic phrase.
Yep, and yet it's just common knowledge to everyone who speaks French. That's the power of expressions: you say something without realising people won't get it. When you learn a language at first you have that tendency to just translate expressions and confuse everyone.
Fortunately French and English expressions are often close to begin with so that's not too bad.
What is your favorite book series then, out of curiosity?
Oh, book series? Wow. Hm.
For books in a series, I can't really pick one. But I'm quite fond of the Ender books, Discworld, Hitchhiker's Guide, Incarnations of Immortality(ended badly), the Neuromancer books, A Song of Ice and Fire, I have a pretty big love of Garrett P.I. ....
But if I had to pick a favorite out of all series of stories, my favorite would be Sherlock Holmes.
My reading habits generally have me going through one-shot novels though, rather than continuous series.
I'm really tired. I'm probably going to think of the best series I've ever read in my life in the morning and be all "CRAP".
Comments
(no, I don't mean me.)
If you're talking about Jesus, then I have to disagree. In my opinion, he was just a really smart philosopher. He advocated non-violence and love, which is great, but by pretending he was perfect the whole point is kind of missed. I know that there was at least one time where he totally lost his shit and went crazy with a whip, so that's always something.
Of course, this is just what I think. And it also depends on your definition of "holy." I'm assuming that here, we're talking about holy to mean perfectly benign and whatnot, but others just define it as being associated with God. It's all pretty hazy.
Yeah, I think there's some confusion. "Holier than thou", for example, definitely doesn't mean "more associated with the church than you". And also, there's a large difference between "the church" and "God".
I don't see how that works, considering that he actually claimed to be God on more than one occasion.
I'm not trying to start an argument, but I can't just sit here and not say that.
I personally doubt he ever said that - I think that was probably a narrative tool used by one of the Bible's writers or something to that effect. It seems to be pretty incongruent for him to advocate human rights and equality on one occasion, and then claim to be better than everyone else on another.
You probably know more about this than me, though - I'm not religious and I've only read parts of the Bible.
^ What she said.
Let's talk about what House Ron would be Sorted into. Ravenclaw beckons strongly, but that seems too easy. Alternative suggestions?
Puffinsocks!
(I haven't read Harry Potter in a while)
...
"You might belong in Gryffindor,
Where dwell the brave at heart,
Their daring, nerve and chivalry
Set Gryffindors apart;
You might belong in Hufflepuff,
Where they are just and loyal,
Those patient Hufflepuffs are true
And unafraid of toil;
Or yet in wise old Ravenclaw,
If you've a steady mind,
Where those of wit and learning,
Will always find their kind;
Or perhaps in Slytherin
You'll make your real friends,
Those cunning folk use any means
To achieve their ends."
---
"By Gryffindor, the bravest were
Prized far beyond the rest;
For Ravenclaw, the cleverest
Would always be the best;
For Hufflepuff, hard workers were
Most worthy of admission;
And power-hungry Slytherin
Loved those of great ambition."
---
"Said Slytherin, 'We'll teach just those
Whose ancestry is purest.'
Said Ravenclaw, 'We'll teach those whose
Intelligence is surest.'
Said Gryffindor, 'We'll teach all those
With brave deeds to their name,'
Said Hufflepuff, 'I'll teach the lot,
And treat them just the same.'"
The others are all about teaching to those they consider "the best", only Hufflepuff is concerned first and foremost with teaching everyone who wants to learn!
Yeah, but that's only because the hat couldn't decide between the two, since Harry had characteristic from both (being brave, but also a pure blood with disregard for rules ("Those cunning folk use any means/To achieve their ends."))
I think you can influence it to some extent but with so many people the hat just chooses right away. And people who don't know the houses get sorted anyways, yet they can't have a preference...
Either way, I'm old enough to have completed Howgwarts twice, so... Not an issue (nevermind the fact that it's doesn't ex... er, I've said nothing!)
On a more serious note, my guess is that the decision isn't really hard for most. They fit into the categories quite snugly. Or maybe they'd made up their minds about what House they were going to be in, and the hat doesn't want to argue. You know, unless they're Good Guys of course, in which case Hermione who seems more Ravenclaw, gets into Good House because she's plot-important and we can't have inter-house mingling in the main cast.
I think the book series does try too hard to drive its point across though (being brave is good, disregarding rules is bad unless you're Harry Potter!)
Speaking of which, if disregarding rules and pure blood are the main Slytherin things, how come the Weasley twins aren't there?
I think I would have enjoyed a spread-across-houses main cast better. After all, they still share classes and everything so the story could have still worked.
And it does look like there are the good house, the bad house and the two others that were put there as filler for 90% or so of the series (with some exceptions, but there is a French expression that says "the exception confirms the rule").
And then if people want you to explain them... Oooh boy. Fortunately some do make sense.
Admit it, you'd join Hufflepuff because Robert Pattinson is in Hufflepuff (as Cedic Diggory.)
And not all the "good guys" were in Gryffindor. Luna wasn't, and she turned out to be quite a very adept and resourceful witch, if a bit eccentric. Hermione did say, after she was asked why she wasn't in Ravenclaw, that the hat did consider putting her there but decided Gryffindor in the end. She didn't say why it chose Gryffindor; she could have asked it to. Also, there's no evidence that the majority of the Order of the Phoenix was in Gryffindor.
The reason why more "good guy" students are in Gryffindor than other houses is because Harry is in Gryffindor. He lives with them. He goes to class with them, and the story is told mostly from his perspective, so of course his greatest allies would be his closest friends would be people in his own house.
Besides, the sorting hat doesn't immediately choose houses for supporting characters. Neville sat with it on his head for quite a long time before it chose.
Sounds to me, Rather Dashing, like you only watched the movies.
EDIT:
Er, actually, no. I haven't seen all the movies and those I've seen I did only once. And it sounds like someone playing a Hogwarts student would have to be too young for my tastes.
(Also, I forgot he was in Hufflepuff
Isn't he the guy from Twilight? I never realised that!
Yep, that's him.
At least his many millions will offer some small comfort as he softly cries himself to sleep.
I know it's not the actors' fault but... It's easy to make this kind of associations, you know?
Also... That must mean he's British! Is Twilight a British movie?
Right. The hat considered putting her there but inter-house mingling sucks and the other two houses are for filler characters.
Right. The reason that there are more "Good Guys" in Gryffindor is because it's narratively convenient, and screw the explanations and rules set down for the world if they get in the way. Even if they were stated all of five minutes prior. Luckily, the song is only SLIGHTLY less vague than a horoscope reading, so they have wiggle-room to excuse anything that's convenient.
That's because they were totally doing something with him, but then not doing something with him. You know, that whole "Hey Neville could have been Harry but CHOICES MATTER" and whatnot.
I stopped watching the movies after the 4th adatptation. I was dragged to the theater for each one after the first. As in, you know: Everyone wanted to go, HEY, why don't you want to go, come on, this is totally a big thing, hey, hey, hey, this movie is totally going to be really cool.
No, I say. No it's not. But I went anyway. But after Goblet of Fire, I'm done.
The musical score is really good, though.
So yeah. I've read the books. I don't think they're bad. They're well written enough, in that the prose is comfortable and not particularly difficult. The story is simple even with its foreshadowing that goes nowhere and the odd plot hole. It's what you'd expect from a children's novel. It's NOT what you'd come to expect from the most successful novel franchise in the world.
The series isn't painful to read, it's just...nothing special.
I'm not buying it.
Yes, he plays Edward Cullen in the Twilight movies.
Don't get me started on that. The books were MUCH better. Though, I still thought the books were boring until the last 2/3 of Book 4 (starting from when the story switches to Jake's POV.) The first movie's colors were too washed out, and Edward (that is, Robert Pattinson) wasn't buff or handsome at all (but rather scrawny) in the 2nd movie when his character in the book was always supposed to be chiseled like Jake (though not as muscular.)
Hmm. To each their own, I guess.
However, I can say with certainty that the 5th and 6th movies are by far the best. Goblet of Fire IMO is the weakest movie.
This always happens. I'll be all "OK I'm done", and then someone will be all "No you finished RIGHT BEFORE THE GOOD PART". And I'll be all "OH FINE" and go and see this next piece, and then I'll think it sucks. And then someone, potentially even THE SAME PERSON, will be all "No, wait, NOW you stopped before the good part".
At some point, I have to draw the line at how much stuff that I think is boring garbage that I am going to wade through before I get to a "good part" that I don't really even care to see.
Chances are if you hate 5, you'll hate following ones, but I liked 5 and 6 much better than the others, especially 4.
still... if you didn't much like the books, I don't see how you would like the movies anyway.
No, that's because they only meet her in book 5 and there needed to be a reason why, so putting her in another house explained it.
Also, I watched up till movie 5 and I thought the 5th movie sucked. So don't go see it just for that.
And I totally didn't know it was him. I saw the fourth movie once or twice and it was before he was in Twilight so of course I didn't recognise him from that. And I've only heard him referred to as "Edward" so I didn't recognise the actor's name either.
Rather Dashing: I found one!
"To fall in the apples". Okay, now you guess what it means.
EDIT: Disclaimer: I love the Harry Potter books. I don't see why that should prevent me from seeing what I consider to be weaknesses in them.
A quick Google search says "To faint/lose consciousness", and that its etymology is somewhat unclear at best.
I honestly would not have guessed that. That is one cryptic phrase.
What is your favorite book series then, out of curiosity?
Yep, and yet it's just common knowledge to everyone who speaks French. That's the power of expressions: you say something without realising people won't get it. When you learn a language at first you have that tendency to just translate expressions and confuse everyone.
Fortunately French and English expressions are often close to begin with so that's not too bad.
For books in a series, I can't really pick one. But I'm quite fond of the Ender books, Discworld, Hitchhiker's Guide, Incarnations of Immortality(ended badly), the Neuromancer books, A Song of Ice and Fire, I have a pretty big love of Garrett P.I. ....
But if I had to pick a favorite out of all series of stories, my favorite would be Sherlock Holmes.
My reading habits generally have me going through one-shot novels though, rather than continuous series.
I'm really tired. I'm probably going to think of the best series I've ever read in my life in the morning and be all "CRAP".