Wanderson Barros Barros من عند Kilkodungalur, Tamil Nadu 604403، الهند
When I was reading the last chapter, The Moose (my six year old little girl) had climbed up in my lap. She asked me why there was a "latch" on the book. I flipped it over, and there was a match on the front cover. I asked what a latch did, and she explained how you use latches to start the BBQ or light candles. We talked for a minute, and I explained that they are actually called Matches. She said, "Dad. That's dumb. They don't match ANYTHING." And you know? She's right. Anyway- I liked the book. It wasn't as fascinating as Blink. I bet though if I'd read this first I would have liked it more. As an interesting aside, Gladwell pretty much commoditized the concept of 'coolhunting.' http://www.gladwell.com/1997/1997_03_... William Gibson wrote a dang interesting novel (one of the rare ones without buttloads of drug abuse and fornication) about this sort of viral marketing, and we've recently seen some interesting ripple effects from that in Boston... I'm a huge fan of the Everett Rogers Theory of Diffusion Marketing, and have used these principles several times with devastating effects. It was interesting to me to see Gladwell discuss them, yet not credit Rogers with any props.
In some ways, Goblet of Fire is the best HP book to this point in the series. While we miss the obligatory Hogwarts Quiddich matches, the combination of the World Cup at the beginning of the tale, and the Tri-Wizard Tournament more than make up for it. More importantly, the story continues to darken and the tension ramps up, as Harry & Co. deal with conspiracies, death threats, and the looming return of Lord Voldemort. On the other hand, the book has more than a few problems. We get a big influx of characters from the outside (Fudge, Bagman, the elder Diggory, Crouch) that are difficult to get a read on or keep straight (not helped by some consolidation and mixing of roles in the movie remake). Further adding to the cast, the arrivals from the other schools in the Tournament are sketched out more lightly than even in the film. Plus, we get another House Elf (and Hermione's fixation to free them all) to deal with. But the greatest weakness in the book is with its protagonist. Harry here, more than in the past, is a passive character, driving nothing in the tale. Everywhere we go, everything that happens, he's is without agency, dragged along and reacting and being helped to overcome obstacles. When given a chance to do something (preparing for tournament events, dealing with nascent romance), he takes a passive, negligent role. Even in the climactic final conflict, he depends on the folly of some and the help of others to make it through. Goblet of Fire is great for learning about the rest of the Wizarding World that will play a role in the final three books, but it's not very good at making Harry Potter look like the hero. ------ Original review 17 May 2005 I’ll be the first to admit that the disjointedness of my reading through it over a couple of years probably didn’t help, but, again, each of Rowlings’ books comes out more and more as works requiring (and lacking) a strong editorial hand — if for no other reason than I cannot imagine the movie picking up on more than a quarter of the narratives contained therein, and thus being the weaker for it. I mean, when you need pretty much a full final chapter (or two) of the bad guys spilling the beans as to What’s Really Been Going On, you probably have a problem with your story (unless you’re writing an Agatha Christie novel). And I say that as someone who tends to overconvolute as well. I give it a B-.