I have the same exact meaning of evoke. It's not that funny.

You as an individual cannot invalidate what I respect and don't respect. i am the only person capable of that.

i am saying it wasn't a valid argument.

he fact that you think it'sclever must not be valid either.

I presented facts along with my arguments. oh well, if you don't wanna talk anymore, that's fine. I had fun sparring words with you.. lol. here and in other forums.. see you around i guess.

Hm, I think I did too, but whatever you say...

What about Voldemort? It means, in French, 'Robber of Death'. And Jo actually knows Portuguese and French, she doesn't have to use a dictionary...
Also, while Albus does mean white, his last name is Old English for "bumblebee." In colour symbolism, white often stands for purity, so the headmaster's name suggests honor and a hard-working nature ("busy as a bee").

Argus Filch: (Hogwart's watchman and cleaner, to refresh your memory) In Greek mythology, Argus the All-Seeing was a man with 100 eyes on his body, who gained a reputation as a great watchman. Filch is an informal word that means to secretly steal items of little value.


^These are not dictionary definitions. They are acquired knowledge built up over the years.

ooo. ^yeah. that was what i was trying to say. oh well....

A translation is pretty much the same as a definition

^yki, what are you referring to?

Mhm, what this guy says.

Chillingworth has a chilling worth.
Albus Dumbledore is a white Bumblebee.

Dimmesdale is dim dale (slang term meaning smart and witty. A good catch) It's irony which portrays his changes throughout the story.
Severus Snape is a severe snape.

I see a difference.

^uh, what difference?

It's quite clear
Chillingworth --> Chilling worth
Albus dumbledore --> White bee

You see no difference there? One requires you to have eyes and a brain. That is all, while the other requires you to either know a foerign language, or pick up a dictionary, if the idea even occures to you.

Dimmesdale --> Dim dale
Severus Snape ---> Severe snape

One requires you to have eyes and a brain.
The other requires you to look up the defenition of a word to make any sense of it.

Hawthorn actually WANTED you to see the allegory. There was an actual purpose for it.

Rowling appears to be hiding the meaning behind the names. What's the purpose of that? To show everyone how smart you are and how good you are at hiding things?
That's a tad bit arrogant, I think.

The purpose of symbolism and allegories is for the reader to actually apply it to the literature.
Not to show how good at symbolism and allegories you are.

I don't see how Rowling is not wanting us to see the allegory. we see it, right? check out my examples.

Did you pick it up right away, as you were reading it, or did you have to do some decoding, or you came across it on the internet, or did it take you a few reads to figure it out?

Symbolism is supposed to be right there in plain sight. You just need to see it and interpret it on your own. You shouldn't have to form online communities and pick it apart and combine your brains, nor should you have to do research, translate words, and look it up in the dictionary to find out what Albus Dumbledore means.

Dimmesdale
Chillingworth
You don't have to do much to figure out what this means, because he WANTED you to know what it means first time around. He wanted you to apply it to the yourself and find out what it means. I think it's safe to say that the majority of readers have done this. All you have to do it read the book to acquire all the necessary tools and resources to analyze it and find the meanings behind the names on your own.


Albus Dumbledore
Argus Filch
Reading the books will not give you all the tools to find the symbolism behind these names. You're have to look elsewhere, again, if the idea even occurs to you. Rowling doesn't even give you a reason to look up the definition behind the names. She doesn't give you any hints that suggest their names mean anything at all. In order to learn the meanings, you would have to be self inclined to go pick up a DIFFERENT book, or go searching online and look them up.

JK Rowling is arrogant because she put a lot of thought into giving her characters clever and original names? That makes sense.

Sometimes things don't need hints. Sometimes things don't have to be blindingly obvious. To me, Voldemort, Robber of Death, which is also an anagram of 'TOM MARVOLO RIDDLE' (or, 'I Am Lord Voldemort' is anyway) is much more creative and suitable than 'Chillingsworth' for a bad guy.
I honestly don't see your problem about the fact that you have to do some actual research to 'decode' the names in Harry Potter. I, for example, and many others, are interested enough and quite in awe of Jo's ability to put all these little tiny details and subplots, enough to actually make an effort to find these tiny details that Jo slipped in in the most obscure of places.


Anyway, this IS Hp vs. Twilight, so I must slip in: The name 'Fluffy' (for a vicious three-headed dog) beats 'Beautiful Swan' (for the popular girl all guys seem to drool over) anyday.

Mhm, what I said before.

well, cassie, if you are kind of well read there's a good chance you will see the allegory.

You think the little kids reading hp will see them? kids are her main demographic

The right amount of subtlety is a key for a well written work of literature. to encourage the readers to think. to analyze. to question.

Why focus on the kids, YKI? anyways, the adult readers will. that's for them to know, I think.

i told you why. kids are the main demographic.
theres a difference between subtulty and cryptic

You know, a large amount of adults read her stuff too.

I think the allegories are for the adults to figure out.

i said kids are the main demograpgic, not the only demographic.

Okay...

If reading the books will not help you figure out the meaning of the names, the neaming of the names contribute nothing to the books. It makes no difference at all to know what they mean. It's just some random factoid only a few people care about. It has nothing to do with the story, how good the story is, the entertainment value of the story, anything.
It does not contribute to the story,

didn't i just said it adds to their characters?

that it saves time and effort and avoids having the narrative get clogged up w/ unnecessary descriptions, spares the reader from having to be reminded every now and then how this character is so benevolent, how this one is so menacing and how that one is so beautiful? not to mention it is creativity on the part of the author to be able to sketch a character w/o deliberately stating each aspect of the character's appearance.

It also creates Irony. (see comment about James' name) and foreshadowing (see Amos Diggory's name meaning).

really, reading quality literature isn't always about sitting down and just reading the book w/o digging down into it's deeper layers. if it is indeed, quality literature, there's bound to have hidden meanings, deeper connotations, deliberately placed by the author for those who cared enough to figure them out. Being entertained by a book isn't a measure of how good that book is.

Yes, you said something about that, but that does not mean it is true.
What adds to the character is their actions and the interpretations of motives behind these actions. Not what the dictionary says they mean.

In order to find out about the characters, readers would have to look up their names in a dictionary instead of, you know, reading the book? Really? I don't like her writing style much, but I know she's talented enough to describe her characters in her books. I hope J.K. rowling is not that stupid.

Irony... I don't see it. (I saw your comment)

reading quality literature isn't always about sitting down and just reading the book w/o digging down into it's deeper layers. if it is indeed, quality literature, there's bound to have hidden meanings, deeper connotations, deliberately placed by the author for those who cared enough to figure them out.

... That's exactly what I'm saying. You should be aboe to find symbolism behind a characters name by digging into a book, looking for the hidden meanings (in the book), deeper connotations (in the book), deliberately placed by the author (of the book you are reading, not the author of your dictionary)

Yes, you said something about that, but that does not mean it is true.
What adds to the character is their actions and the interpretations of motives behind these actions. Not what the dictionary says they mean.

of course their actions and motives are important too.
well, their names also ADDS to their character. if you are able to pull off a name w/c corresponds or go against the traits of the characters, you are able to put more character to them than by saying how their black eyes seem to be 'evil', or how he 'gripped her wrists protectively' or something of the sort.

In order to find out about the characters, readers would have to look up their names in a dictionary instead of, you know, reading the book? Really? I don't like her writing style much, but I know she's talented enough to describe her characters in her books. I hope J.K. rowling is not that stupid.

y'know you are deliberately misunderstanding me. I never said she didn't describe her characters. i said she doesn't continually remind the reader every now and then how this character/creature is so huge, gigantic, mammoth sized, so vast, so powerfully built, and so on and so forth. (those are all descriptions of werewolves by Meyer all throughout new moon. wha-? have we ever heard Hagrid being described thus? and yet we all know he's gigantic. His name sounds gigantic already. Rubeus Hagrid. and even JK's descriptions aren't deliberate and obvious. she gives hints here and there like saying how Harry merely reaches up to his elbow and how his hand were the size of a dustbin. not like the shoved-in-your-face descriptions by Meyer.

That's exactly what I'm saying. You should be aboe to find symbolism behind a characters name by digging into a book, looking for the hidden meanings (in the book), deeper connotations (in the book), deliberately placed by the author (of the book you are reading, not the author of your dictionary)

sometimes these hidden meanings have references to things outside the book. If you didn't get it, well tough luck. if you were wise enough to know it or else diligent enough to look it up in order to have better understanding of the story, then good for you. isn't it that modern releases of classic literature always include footnotes and other explanations at the back, made by the publisher or the editor or whoever does those things? aren't they usually from other sources, books, encyclopedia, dictionaries? it means not all that the author was trying to say would be instantly recognized by every reader, it could be allusions to myths, foreign phrases, etc. and the diligent reader knows that in order to understand and be "in-on-the-joke" he needs to read up.

This is so redundant. I already said all this.

We know Hagrid was large becuase he was said to be a half giant. It was described that he barely fit through the doorway. It was said that his head was near the ceiling of the cabin/shead thing they were staying in when Hargid went to get Harry.
It has nothing to do with his name.
"His name is Hagrid, he must be a half giant" Did anyone think like that? Does Hagrid even mean half-giant? I don't know. I'd have to look it up in a dictionary. Why would I even bother, though. What inclines me to look up Hagrid in the dictionary?
What makes me know Hagrid was large was the narrorators description, not his name.

Real writers of classic literature (Not J.K. Rowling) use historical or biblical references, not dictionarial references.
If there's a footnote that tells you what a word means, it's becuase it's a vocabulary word that may not be included in every dictionary. They don't put footnotes by every character's name to give you the definitions.
The purpose of footnotes is for the reader does not have to go pull out their history books, encyclopedia, or bible to get the general idea of what is currently going on.


One more time, not knowing the meaning behind Dumbledore doesn't take anything away from the story. Knowing the defenition doesn't add anything either. It's just something to know. It makes absolutely no difference in understanding the story being read.

This is so redundant. I already said all this.

We know Hagrid was large becuase he was said to be a half giant. It was described that he barely fit through the doorway. It was said that his head was near the ceiling of the cabin/shead thing they were staying in when Hargid went to get Harry.
It has nothing to do with his name.
"His name is Hagrid, he must be a half giant" Did anyone think like that? Does Hagrid even mean half-giant? I don't know. I'd have to look it up in a dictionary. Why would I even bother, though. What inclines me to look up Hagrid in the dictionary?
What makes me know Hagrid was large was the narrorators description, not his name.

Real writers of classic literature (Not J.K. Rowling) use historical or biblical references, not dictionarial references.
If there's a footnote that tells you what a word means, it's becuase it's a vocabulary word that may not be included in every dictionary. They don't put footnotes by every character's name to give you the definitions.
The purpose of footnotes is for the reader does not have to go pull out their history books, encyclopedia, or bible to get the general idea of what is currently going on.


One more time, not knowing the meaning behind Dumbledore doesn't take anything away from the story. Knowing the defenition doesn't add anything either. It's just something to know. It makes absolutely no difference in understanding the story being read.

This is so redundant. I already said all this.

We know Hagrid was large becuase he was said to be a half giant. It was described that he barely fit through the doorway. It was said that his head was near the ceiling of the cabin/shead thing they were staying in when Hargid went to get Harry.
It has nothing to do with his name.
"His name is Hagrid, he must be a half giant" Did anyone think like that? Does Hagrid even mean half-giant? I don't know. I'd have to look it up in a dictionary. Why would I even bother, though. What inclines me to look up Hagrid in the dictionary?
What makes me know Hagrid was large was the narrorators description, not his name.

Real writers of classic literature (Not J.K. Rowling) use historical or biblical references, not dictionarial references.
If there's a footnote that tells you what a word means, it's becuase it's a vocabulary word that may not be included in every dictionary. They don't put footnotes by every character's name to give you the definitions.
The purpose of footnotes is for the reader does not have to go pull out their history books, encyclopedia, or bible to get the general idea of what is currently going on.


One more time, not knowing the meaning behind Dumbledore doesn't take anything away from the story. Knowing the defenition doesn't add anything either. It's just something to know. It makes absolutely no difference in understanding the story being read.

really, there's no need for all the repeated posts. i understand them just fine. I don't re-post even if i also feel redundant.

but wouldn't it be ineffective if Hagrid was named Karl or John or Alex? Hagrid SOUNDS mammoth-like.

Real writers of classic literature (Not J.K. Rowling) use historical or biblical references, not dictionarial references.

JK DO use historical AND biblical refernces. (Amos, Hermione, Neville are biblical/historical names. and there are others too.)

I'm saying that when you read a book, you will have to eventually read other sources in order to really have in-depth understanding of what you just read.

footnotes aren't always about what a word means. it may also explain a certain allusion that the writer may have deliberately added that may seem confusing to the readers and stuffs like that. Of course they don't put footnotes by every character's name(though i have read some works which footnoted some characters' names)

if its a question of names, I'd go with JK. Names with deeper meanings that mostly goes with the characters' attitude is an ingenious way of writing. Sure, that is my opinion, but wouldn't you prefer researched material (SIRIUS, HERMIONE, ETC.) than random picked ones (Bella *uck* Edward *bleagh* and *whimper* RENESMEE)? What the fuck's up with Meyer coming up with names such as those? Surely, she could've thought of a better one. Or maybe not-- cause she's stupid enough to write the whole series of TWIFUCK. I mean TWISHIT. or was it twiPUTTHATTHINGBACKWHEREITAMEFROM?




~Call me a bully or what, i couldn't care less. >:D I REALLY would want to see twiVAMPS fight with creatures from THE MIST.~


p.s. hey MEROPE29, guess who I am! xD

oh yeah, a reason why HP is better than TWILIGHT..
hmm. First of all, because Harry Potter was written to entertain, to put ideas into an amusing story and not to impress like what Twilight is clearly up to. Second, literary pieces that are written by a good and intelligent mind is better than those which are written because of emotion. "It came to me in a dream" my ass. No SANE person dreams of one book and talks to characters in her head about what would happen next. It's either she's aiming for publicity or she's stoned and drugged when she wrote twilight. Third, you'll see wit in JK's works. She wrote SEVEN books. and in one of her books Tom Riddle stated "Isn't seven the most powerful magical number?" THERE. WIT. So as to Twilight-- where's wit in two friggin' EMO's moping with each other?


I'll slaughter every vampire I see. Except if they burn in sunlight--- cause I know they're not twiVAMPS. fuck sparkling. MEYER murdered the cool aspect of vampires. ONLY FAGS WOULD WANT TO SPARKLE, and NO VAMP IS A FAG!! what a life.

PUTTHETHINGBACKWHEREITCAMEFROMORSOHELPME--­SOH­ELP­ME,­SOH­ELP­ME. LOL.

"Don't think I did that intentionally just to dis you"
Quote from eminem
My computer messes up and just does that.

but wouldn't it be ineffective if Hagrid was named Karl or John or Alex? Hagrid SOUNDS mammoth-like.
Maybe to you. Not to me. It just sounds like a name. Karl would be fine with me. Hagrid sounds more harry than large to my ears.

footnotes aren't always about what a word means. it may also explain a certain allusion that the writer may have deliberately added that may seem confusing to the readers and stuffs like that. Of course they don't put footnotes by every character's name(though i have read some works which footnoted some characters' names)

Grr, that's what I siad...
Remember? The purpose of footnotes is for the reader does not have to go pull out their history books, encyclopedia, or bible to get the general idea of what is currently going on.
I mentioned history books, encyclopedias, and bibles. History books, encyclopedias, and bibles do not give you definitions.

If you have to look up the defenition of a character's name to fully understand the character, rowling should have included footnotes or a hands guide in the back of the book. You know, so you don't have to go somewhere else to find out. Isn't that the point you were trying to make by mentioning footnotes?

"Second, literary pieces that are written by a good and intelligent mind is better than those which are written because of emotion."

Umm, I think those are called text books. Fiction writers always ue emotion when writing.
Stephenie Meyer did not dream up the entire book. She had a dream which gave her the idea. It's called inspiration. You can find inspiration anywhere.

......

do you have something to say?

Oh please!!!When you say that Twilight is better than HP we have got to critisize your opinion...there is nohing compare to Harry Potter!!!Nothing!!!not even your books..as you claim themm...
As for what you said that Hp is not for young kids I read them in the age of 8 and i understood the mvery well!!!So what;s your point?

Hello!!!There is a HP theme Park in Florida!!!You don't expect smth like that for twilight right??...I will never happen because twilight can even touch Harry Potter!!!

What are you talking about?

xD Calm down on the 1/! key, dude.

Hi, i joined pretty late sorry . this is about the naming thing merope and cassie started . I wanted to add this about Remus and Hagrid Rubeus, possibly from the Latin rubinus, "red." Also possibly from Hagrid Rubes, "Giant of the Jewels," who was a kind giant in ancient Greek mythology (Hagrid was a nice, generous man) framed for murder by Zeus, chief of the gods (as Hagrid and Aragog were framed for the death of a Hogwarts student). Zeus banished him from Mount Olympus, home of the gods, but allowed him to take care of the animals (similarly, Headmaster Dippet expelled him from Hogwarts, but Dumbledore convinced him to keep Hagrid on as head gamekeeper). And # The name "Remus" comes from the brothers Romulus and Remus, the legendary brothers who fought to the death over the control of Rome, having been raised by wolves. Because of this, some fans speculated that Remus had a brother, but "Romulus" is merely the code name used by Lupin for Potterwatch. Remus's intense rivalry with Romulus indicates Lupin's ongoing struggle with his other side, the werewolf.
# "Lupin" is derived from "lupus(a)", Latin for "wolf". Lupin thus means "wolf-like" in Latin, and is also the name of a flower. Canis Lupus is the scientific name for wolf. To be described as "lupine" means to "resemble a wolf." Oh, and reading hp made me take interest in Greek mytholgy. Just saying by the way. Good day.

Hi there. Have you reached 1000 reasons? (not pages)

I will never give up the opinion that Harry Potter is better than Twilight...

But yes, it's hard to back it up. :P

This is so over rated. First of all, Harry Potter HAS A LOT of love..I MEAN A LOT. Your reasons are stupid and wouldn't ever be true. Now. Try thinkin of being a potterhead instead of a fairy princess.

No thank you. I tried that a few years ago.

It's not my thing either

Harry Potter is better than twilight,
many reasons why so i'll get into them now, the problem with twilight is the bad grammer in the book, i've heard lots of bad things about the book so i'm not even going to bother wasting my money on shit that wont amuse me, to be able to get everyone's attention, you need a good story, a good plot, a good EDITOR, and good characters that have feelings. i'm no writer, but i know thats what every writer needs. i saw the first movie of twilight, and it was bad, very bad. i fell asleep halfway through, i couldn't stand it because it was utterly boring, it was about an 100 or older year old guy, stalking a girl who madly fell in love with him out of the blue. this is not what life is about, relationships aren't everything and thats pretty much all twilight teaches, where as harry potter teaches friendship, courage, bravery, dedication, and the good thing about it is it isn't too romantic otherwise it would bore me. it has lots of action, emotion especially! when i first saw the first harry potter movie, i couldn't take my eyes off it and i had to see the second one, even better! but i have to admit it got extremely crappier after the third film, david yates screwed it up entirely, but that doesn't mean i now dislike it, i prefer the books more than the movies because it has everything in them. but my first favorite two are the first two of HP, they had so much action and they were exciting at the same time, they were discovering everything new in the world, getting to know one another and accepting each other. thats what life is about, not some guy stalking you and trying to gain your trust in some creepy way, not only that twilight is sexist, and the cousins, THE COUSINS.. why are they.. together? and the way meyers talks about edward.. its like shes actually bella, she only cares about what she wants, not what the readers want. she wants this perfect lifestyle with the most "perfect" boyfriend ever, its all stephanie meyer, bella IS stephanie meyer, and thats not a good look!