Mirror of "erised"

>mirror of "erised"
>it's just desire spelt backwards
Truly amazing, Rowling, what a profound writer

it's quite clever, actually.

It's a mirror. What does mirrors do? They mirror things

Harry's mum looks a lot like ginny

It's clever in a way a kindergartener would find amusing

it's name should have been a palindrome that would have been smarter

no shit these are literally children's books
why are you guys so retarded

the Mirror of Fo Rorrim?

Even the word desire would be wrong. In Dutch it was called de spiegel van Neregeb. Not only does that sound much, MUCH better, but when translated back to English begeren it means coveting which carries a much more accurate meaning in this case.

this is an english book by an english writer

because the FUCKING NOVELS were MEANT for A YOUNG AUDIENCE you mongoloid

DULLEST

i was thinking more of a single word palindrome that means reflect or desire or something

Your point? Mirror of Gnitevoc. Tevoc. Sounds way better.

I agree. This sounds like raised but with an e. Horrible name.

They are supposed to be 30, why do they look so old?

Did you honestly expect more than a cursory thought was ever put towards naming anything? I mean just listen to the spell names. But then again what did you really expect when it was written by J.K. Rowling, creator of one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises? Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though r-right
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

>Harry looks in the mirror, only sees white people
Is he going to grow up to be the next hitler

yeah, I really expect more from my children's novels

Fitting a book for children.

bong genes

Fucking kek

everyone of the adults is like 10+ years older than they would be in the books based on appearance

Sirius was played by a guy in his 50's, same for Snape etc.

It gets awful in the last two movies, the makeup/cgi they used on rickman looked comical at points