Autor: Tradutores

O Trovão de Rowling

Traduzido: carolsalgueiro e Adriana Snape
Revisado: {patylda}
*OK Categorias e Conteúdo

Jensen, Jeff. “Rowling Thunder (parts 1 & 2),” Entertainment Weekly, August 4, 2000

As HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE takes the express track to bestsellerdom, J.K. ROWLING explains why writing it was such a challenge–though she’s far from running out of steam

PART ONE

On a normal day, the train is called the Queen of Scots. Today, it is called the Hogwarts Express, the train that transports Harry Potter to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and right now it is at a station in Perth, 90 minutes outside Edinburgh, Scotland. Cottony clouds of steam are billowing out of its engine, a quaint little spectacle for the hundreds of children waiting behind a makeshift gate numbered 9 1/2. It would all be very cute, except for the shrieking that accompanies all that hot air, a piercing and ever- intensifying whistle that is causing the entire crowd to cover their ears, everyone eyeballing that infernal engine, wondering if it’s ever going to stop.

And then it does.

And a door opens.

Inside, on this, her last stop in a steam-powered barnstorm of the U.K. in support of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, the fourth in her series of books about a most extraordinary young wizard, J.K. Rowling, 35, sits on the edge of a table, greeting a lucky bunch of kids, their faces stony and bloodless from nervous excitement. “Hello, contest winner,” says the mock monarch with the dirty-blond hair and blue jeans, her warm smirk packed with affection for these, her subjects. The attendants from Bloomsbury Publishing get one of them to pose for a picture with her. “Now,” Rowling says conspiratorially, signing his book, “pretend like you’re thrilled to see me.”

He doesn’t need to pretend. But it’s all she can do to pretend that none of this is as deliriously mind-boggling as it really is. As she says during a 60-minute chat en route from Edinburgh to Perth, “You could go crazy thinking about it too much.”

How did you feel about all the marketing hoopla around Goblet?

The marketing was literally “Don’t give out the book.” And it wasn’t even a marketing ploy. It came from me. This book was the culmination of 10 years’ work, and something very big in terms of my ongoing plot happens at the end, and it rounds off an era; the remaining three books are a different era in Harry’s life. Had that got out, there’s no way the book would have been as enjoyable to read.

You sat on the title for a long time, too.

The title thing was for a much more prosaic reason: I changed my mind twice on what it was. The working title had got out–Harry Potter and the Doomspell Tournament. Then I changed Doomspell to Triwizard Tournament. Then I was teetering between Goblet of Fire and Triwizard Tournament. In the end, I preferred Goblet of Fire because it’s got that kind of “cup of destiny” feel about it, which is the theme of the book.

Was this the hardest book you’ve had to write so far?

Easily.

Why?

The first three books, my plan never failed me. But I should have put that plot under a microscope. I wrote what I thought was half the book, and “Ack!” Huge gaping hole in the middle of the plot. I missed my deadline by two months. And the whole profile of the books got so much higher since the third book; there was an edge of external pressure.

And what exactly was that gaping hole all about?

I had to pull a character. There you go: “the phantom character of Harry Potter.” She was a Weasley cousin [related to Ron Weasley, Harry’s best friend]. She served the same function that Rita Skeeter [a sleazy investigative journalist] now serves. Rita was always going to be in the book, but I built her up, because I needed a kind of conduit for information outside the school. Originally, this girl fulfilled this purpose.

Does sleazy Rita reflect how you feel about the media?

No, but when I got to the point in the writing where I had to introduce Rita, I did hesitate, because I thought, People will think this is my response to what’s happened to me. But I had a lot more fun writing Rita then I think I would have done if it hadn’t happened to me. Rita will be back.

The size of this book–734 pages. Nearly twice as long as the longest book you’ve written.

What is she doing?

Exactly. Please explain.

I knew from the beginning it would be the biggest of the first four. You need a proper run-up to what happens at the end. It’s a complex plot, and you don’t rush a plot that complex, because everyone’s gonna get confused.

This book is quite the wide-screen epic, with the Quidditch World Cup, the arrival of rival schools, the Triwizard Tournament, the ending battle…

Everything is on a bigger scale.

Intentional?

Yes. It’s symbolic. Harry’s horizons are literally and metaphorically widening as he grows older. But also there are places in the world that I’ve been planning for so long and thinking about for so long that we haven’t yet explored, and it’s great fun. That will happen in book 5, too; we go into a whole new area, physically, an area you’ve never seen before, a magical world.

Will we ever see Harry in America?

Unlikely. The battleground is Britain at the moment. I got asked the other day, “Given the huge success of your books in America, are you going to be introducing American characters?” And I thought, You’re an idiot. I am not about to throw away 10 years’ meticulous planning in the hope that I will buck up to a few more readers. American kids have no need to see a token American character. This is another instance of people grossly underestimating children.

One of Goblet’s biggest themes is bigotry. It’s always been in your books, with the Hitlerlike Lord Voldemort and his followers prejudiced against Muggles (nonmagical people). In book 4, Hermione tries to liberate the school’s worker elves, who’ve been indentured servants so long they lack desire for anything else. Why did you want to explore these themes?

Because bigotry is probably the thing I detest most. All forms of intolerance, the whole idea of “that which is different from me is necessary evil.” I really like to explore the idea that difference is equal and good. But there’s another idea that I like to explore, too. Oppressed groups are not, generally speaking, people who stand firmly together–no, sadly, they kind of subdivide among themselves and fight like hell. That’s human nature, so that’s what you see here. This world of wizards and witches, they’re already ostracized, and then within themselves, they’ve formed a loathsome pecking order.

You don’t think this a little heavy for kids?

These are things that a huge number of children at that age start to think about. It’s really fun to write about it, but in a very allegorical way.

Do the books reflect your own political sensibilities? In America, some might say you’re a bit left-wing.

It’s absolutely the reverse to the British press; I was told yesterday that I’m a Euroskeptic, which is a big buzzword in Britain. I actually woke up at 2 a.m. this morning, went into the kitchen to get some water, and thought, “I know why they said that–they haven’t finished the book.” Right at the end, Dumbledore says, “Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open.” That is my view. It is very inclusive, and yes, you are right: I am left-wing.

But are you baking your political beliefs into these books, or are we just reading stuff into them?

There is a certain amount of political stuff in there. But I also feel that every reader will bring his own agenda to the book. People who send their children to boarding schools seem to feel that I’m on their side. I’m not. Practicing wiccans think I’m also a witch. I’m not.

PART TWO

Once she was a struggling single mom, sneaking off to cafes to write after putting her daughter to bed. Now, with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, the fourth book in her seven-volume epic about the titular boy wizard, J.K. Rowling finds herself guardian of an international pop phenom and a mythic world that’s bucking to be called Tolkienesque. And yet the more things change–and they have, from the full-time assistant she recently hired to keep her organized, to the hagglings with Hollywood over the forthcoming deluge of merchandise and movies–the more things stay the same. She’s still sneaking off to corner cafes in Edinburgh, Scotland, seeking solitude to write. “It feels incredibly familiar, actually,” says Rowling, “as though I’m right back where I was before Harry Potter [and the Sorcerer’s Stone].”

You referred to the darkness in your books, and there’s been a lot of talk and even concern over that.

You have a choice when you’re going to introduce a very evil character. You can dress a guy up with loads of ammunition, put a black Stetson on him, and say, “Bad guy. Shoot him.” I’m writing about shades of evil. You have Voldemort, a raging psychopath, devoid of the normal human responses to other people’s suffering, and there are people like that in the world. But then you have Wormtail, who out of cowardice will stand in the shadow of the strongest person. What’s very important for me is when Dumbledore says that you have to choose between what is right and what is easy. This is the setup for the next three books. All of them are going to have to choose, because what is easy is often not right.

There’s a scene in Goblet where Cedric, who competes against Harry in the Triwizard Tournament, is killed by Voldemort, and at the end, Dumbledore must choose between informing the students of this evil, or keeping the knowledge from them. He chooses to tell them.

Dumbledore’s decision is 100 percent me. It would have been an insult to that boy’s memory not to tell the truth. But telling the truth has repercussions. People aren’t used to the truth, particularly from fixtures of authority. I hated killing Cedric, by the way, just hated it.

There’s some other horrific violence, too, like when Wormtail cuts up Harry’s arm to get the blood to bring Voldemort back to life. Very disturbing.

Yeah, that wasn’t good, I agree with you.

Have you ever thought “Maybe I should tone it down”?

No. I know that sounds kind of brutal but no, I haven’t. The bottom line is, I have to write the story I want to write. I never wrote them with a focus group of 8-year-olds in mind. I have to continue telling the story the way I want to tell it. I don’t at all relish the idea of children in tears, and I absolutely don’t deny it’s frightening. But it’s supposed to be frightening! And if you don’t show how scary that is, you cannot show how incredibly brave Harry is. He’s really brave, and he does, I think, one of his bravest things in this book: He can’t save Cedric, but he wants to save Cedric’s parents additional pain. He wants to bring back the body and treat it with respect.

Saving Cedric’s body reminded me of the Hector-Patroclus-Achilles triangle in the Iliad.

That’s where it came from. That really, really, really moved me when I read that when I was 19. The idea of the desecration of a body, a very ancient idea…I was thinking of that when Harry saved Cedric’s body.

And then you go and emotionally decimate your readers with that scene where Harry’s murdered parents are drawn out of Voldemort’s wand. I was in tears.

Me too. It was the first time I cried writing a Harry Potter book. I got pretty upset.

As your fan base is growing larger, and maybe even younger, do you feel any sense of social responsibility, any sense of responsibilities to their sensibilities?

I cannot write to please other people. I can’t. When I finish book 7, I want to be able to look in the mirror and think, I did it the way I meant to do it. If I lose readers in the process, I’m not going to throw a party about it. But I would feel far worse if I knew that I had allowed myself to write something different. Yet, I do have parents coming up to me and saying “He’s 6 and he loved your book!” And I’ve always kind of been, “Well, that’s great, but I know what’s coming, and I think 6 is a tiny bit too young.” I’ve always felt that. With my daughter and Goblet of Fire, I’m reading it to her. Her reading age is pretty advanced, but I said, “I’m gonna read that one to you. It’s scary, and I want to be there with you, and then we can talk about it.” That would be my feeling if parents feel that.

What does your daughter [Jessica, 7] think of Harry Potter?

I always said I’d never read her the books until she was 7, and I think even 7 is pushing it. But I broke the rules. I actually read to her when she was 6. She started school, see, and kids were asking her about Quidditch and things. She didn’t have an idea what they were all about, and I just thought, “I’m excluding her from this huge part of my life, and it’s making her an outsider.” So I read them to her, and she became completely Harry Potter-obsessed!

Does Jessica have the inside scoop on what’s going to happen?

No no no no no! And kids at her school will sidle up to me and say, “Does Jessica know what happens in book 4? Does Jessica know the title of book 4?” And I keep saying, “No! There is no point kidnapping her, taking her around back of the bike shed, and torturing her for information.”

You are transitioning from overnight success story to caretaker to a mythic world, one that’s about to get translated into movies and merchandise. How do you feel about that?

It is worrying. I am nervous. Because I’m fighting tooth and nail- -and people have to believe me on that, because it is the truth–I am fighting to maintain the purity of the world. That’s what I’m involved with at the moment, trying to make sure that when things go out with the name Harry Potter on them, they really are Harry Potter things, not some pale imitation.

Do you have kind of control over what Warner Bros. does with Harry Potter?

Can I prevent it in terms of what’s in my contract? No. But they have been very gracious in allowing me input, and I have been asked a lot of questions I never expect to be asked.

What’s it been like, dealing with Hollywood?

The person I was most nervous about meeting by far was Steve Kloves, who’s writing the screenplay. I was really ready to hate [him]. This was the man who was gonna butcher my baby. The first time I met him, he said, “You know who my favorite character is?” And I thought, “You’re gonna say Ron.” It’s real easy to love Ron–but so obvious. But he said “Hermione.” I just kind of melted.

Are there any plans to come to the U.S.?

I am likely to be over there later this year. I love going to the States.

What do you like about the States?

Well, what don’t I like about it? I really, really, really fell in love with New York. The first signing I did over there, the first boy to reach me in the queue put out his hand and went “YOU ROCK!” I thought that was great, but I heard myself respond and I sounded so intensely British, something like “That’s very nice of you to say so, thank you so much.” Then there was this woman in L.A., a middle-aged sort of Palm Beach-type woman, she said, “I AM SO GLAD YOU’RE RICH!” I’m telling you, you’d never hear that in Britain. Here, it’s “Well done.”

consulte Mais informação

Mídia: Harry Potter e a Horrível Hackette*; qual entrevistador inspirou o venenoso personagem do último bestseller de J.K. Rowling? Severin Carrell especula prováveis suspeitos

Carrell, Severin. “Mídia: Harry Potter e a Horrível Hackette*; qual entrevistador inspirou o venenoso personagem do último bestseller de J.K. Rowling? Severin Carrell especula prováveis suspeitos.” The Independent...

consulte Mais informação

Os Favoritos de J.K. Rowling são escolhidos para o filme Harry Potter

Tradução: Bruno Radcliffe
Revisão: Adriana Snape** Adriana Snape

Davies, Hugh. “Author’s favourites are chosen for Potter film,” The Daily Telegraph, 14 August 2000

J K ROWLING confirmed yesterday that Warner Brothers had cast Dame Maggie Smith and Robbie Coltrane of Cracker fame as stars of the film Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.

Rowling said: “They were the two I wanted most of all – and I am quite happy about that.” Dame Maggie, who was rumoured to be having second thoughts about the multi-million dollar project after her West End success in The Lady in the Van, is to play Prof McGonagall, second in command of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Coltrane is to play the friendly giant Hagrid, the groundkeeper at Hogwarts.

The world’s best-selling author made the long-awaited announcement when she opened a book festival in Edinburgh, where as a penniless single mother she wrote the first Potter book in a cafe. Rowling side-stepped questions about the identity of the actor to play Harry, who it appears has been chosen after a nationwide hunt, but a contract has still to be finalised.

The director, Christopher Columbus, has been pressing for New Jersey-born Liam Aiken, 10, half-British on his mother’s side, and star of I Dreamed of Africa. Columbus has liked Liam since he filmed him in Stepmom, playing Susan Sarandon’s son. However, Rowling, who has always said she wanted an all-English Harry, warned her audience that it would be unwise to believe that the actor would be American.

The film is to be made in the autumn at Gloucester Cathedral and Leavesden Studios in Hertforshire for release in November next year. It is also expected to feature Richard Harris as Dumbledore, Potter’s headmaster and protector against the hero’s arch nemesis Lord Voldemort, a role not yet cast. Alan Rickman has been approached to play the dark and mysterious Professor Snape.

Rowling hinted that her next book – number five – would be published about the same time as the premiere of the film. There were sighs from the audience at having to wait so long. Despite her multi-millionaire status and world-wide fame, she spoke of still being unsure of her literary ability.

She said that she was “always fiddling with, always re-writing” her old Potter novels, “thinking to myself what did I say a thing like that for?”. She said: “I can’t let well enough alone.” She said that in her latest book, she had so many doubts that she wrote 13 versions of chapter nine.

Rowling said: “I actually thought I’d never get past the chapter at one point. A couple of times I threw down my pen and said, no, it’s too difficult, I can’t do it. I did do it in the end, but it was a real nightmare.” Rowling said it was “very easy” to shrug off her fame while actually writing.

consulte Mais informação

Loucos por Harry: O quarto livro da fantástica série

Tradução: Salas Wulfric
Revisão: {patylda}
*OK Categorias e Conteúdo

King, Stephen. “Wild About Harry: The fourth novel in J. K. Rowling’s fantastically successful series about a young wizard,” New York Times Book Review, July 23, 2000

I read the first novel in the Harry Potter series, ”Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone,” in April 1999 and was only moderately impressed. But in April 1999 I was pretty much all right. Two months later I was involved in a serious road accident that necessitated a long and painful period of recuperation. During the early part of this period I read Potters 2 and 3 (”Chamber of Secrets,” ”Prisoner of Azkaban”) and found myself a lot more than moderately wowed. In the miserably hot summer of ’99, the Harry Potters (and the superb detective novels of Dennis Lehane) became a kind of lifeline for me. During July and August I found myself getting through my unpleasant days by aiming my expectations at evening, when I would drag my hardware-encumbered leg into the kitchen, eat fresh fruit and ice cream and read about Harry Potter’s adventures at Hogwarts, a school for young wizards (motto: ”Never tickle a sleeping dragon”).

For that reason, I awaited this summer’s installment in J. K. Rowling’s magical saga with almost as much interest as any Potter-besotted kid. I had enjoyed the first three, but had read the latter two while taking enough painkillers to levitate a horse. This summer, that’s not the case.

I’m relieved to report that Potter 4 — ”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” — is every bit as good as Potters 1 through 3. It’s longer, though. ”Goblet” is as long as ”Chamber” and ”Prisoner” combined. Is it more textured than the first three? More thought-provoking? Sorry, no. Are such things necessary in a fantasy-adventure aimed primarily at children and published in the lush green heart of summer vacation? Of course not. What kids on summer vacation want — and probably deserve — is simple, uncomplicated fun. ”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” brings the fun, and not just in stingy little buckets. At 734 pages, ”Goblet” brings it by the lorry load.

The most remarkable thing about this book is that Rowling’s punning, one-eyebrow-cocked sense of humor goes the distance. At 700-plus pages, one should eventually tire of Blast-Ended Skrewts, Swedish Short-Snout dragons and devices like the Quick-Quotes Quill (a kind of magical tape recorder employed by the satisfyingly repugnant Daily Prophet reporter Rita Skeeter), but one never does. At the least this reader did not. Perhaps that’s because Rowling doesn’t dwell for long on such amusing inventions as the Quill, which floats in midair and bursts out with florid bits of tabloid prose at odd moments. She gives the reader a quick wink and a giggle before hustling him or her along again, all the while telling her tale at top speed. We go with this willingly enough, smiling bemusedly and waiting for the next nudge, wink and raised eyebrow.

The Associated Press
# Featured Author: J. K. Rowling
Puns and giggles aside, the story happens to be a good one. We may be a little tired of discovering Harry at home with his horrible aunt and uncle (plus his even more horrible cousin, Dudley, whose favorite PlayStation game is Mega-Mutilation Part 3), but once Harry has attended the obligatory Quidditch match and returned to Hogwarts, the tale picks up speed.

In a Newsweek interview with Malcolm Jones, Rowling admitted to reading Tolkien rather late in the game, but it’s hard to believe she hasn’t read her Agatha Christie and Dorothy L. Sayers. Although they bear the trappings of fantasy, and the mingling of the real world and the world of wizards and flying broomsticks is delightful, the Harry Potter books are, at heart, satisfyingly shrewd mystery tales. Potter 3 (”Azkaban”) dealt with Harry’s parents (like all good boy heroes, Harry’s an orphan) and cleared up the multiple mysteries of their deaths in a way that would likely have pleased Ross Macdonald, that longtime creator of hidden pasts and convoluted family trees.

Now, returning to Hogwarts after attending the Quidditch World Cup, Harry and his friends are excited to learn that the Triwizard Tournament is to be reintroduced after a hiatus of 100 years or so (too many of the young contestants wound up dead, it seems). Aspiring wizards from two other schools (Beauxbatons and the amusingly fascistic Durmstrang Academy, location unknown) have been invited to spend the year at Hogwarts and compete in the contest, which is composed of three beautifully imagined tasks. These can only be performed well by contestants who can solve the riddles that bear on them; both children and students of Greek mythology will enjoy this aspect of Rowling’s tale.

Like the Sorting Hat, one of Rowling’s early ingenious bits of invention, the Goblet of Fire is essentially a choosing device. It’s supposed to spit out three flaming bits of parchment bearing the names of the three contestants in the tournament, one entrant from each school. In a vivid and marvelously tense scene, the Goblet of Fire spits out four parchment fragments instead of three. The fourth, of course, bears the name of Our Hero. Although Harry is supposedly too young to compete in such a dangerous series of tilts, the Goblet has spoken, and of course Harry must step into the arena. If you think young readers won’t lap this up, you never had one in your house (or were one yourself). Adults are apt to be more interested in just how Harry’s name got into the Goblet in the first place. This is a mystery Rowling works out with snap and verve. And, unlike the denouements I remember from the Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys mysteries of my youth, where the culprit usually turned out to be some vile tramp of the lower classes, the solution to the Goblet mystery, like the answers to the Triwizard riddles, struck me as fair enough.

A long the way, Rowling gives us Harry’s first date (not with the alluring fifth-level dream girl Cho Chang, unfortunately), at least one thought-provoking subplot (involving house-elves who rather enjoy their status as kitchen slaves) and an extremely large dose of adolescent humor (one mildly off-color joke, punning on the word Uranus, will likely go over the heads of most grade-school readers and amuse the brighter junior high school set). There’s also a moderately tiresome amount of adolescent squabbling. Adults can safely speed through these bits; it’s a teenage thing.

Can anyone wonder at the fabulous sales success of these books? The Harry Potter series is a supernatural version of ”Tom Brown’s Schooldays,” updated and given a hip this-is-how-kids-really-are shine. And Harry is the kid most children feel themselves to be, adrift in a world of unimaginative and often unpleasant adults — Muggles, Rowling calls them — who neither understand them nor care to. Harry is, in fact, a male Cinderella, waiting for someone to invite him to the ball. In Potter 1, his invitation comes first by owl (in the magic world of J. K. Rowling, owls deliver the mail) and then by Sorting Hat; in the current volume it comes from the Goblet of Fire, smoldering and shedding glamorous sparks. How nice to be invited to the ball! Even for a relatively old codger like me, it’s still nice to be invited to the ball.

It would be depressing to announce that the best-selling book in the history of the world, a position this book will probably hold only until Potter 5 comes along, is a stinker. ”Goblet of Fire” is far from that. Before Harry appeared on the scene, escape-hungry kids had to make do with R. L. Stine, the uninspired but wildly successful journeyman who inspired the ”Goosebumps” phenomenon. Rowling’s books are better natured, better plotted and better written. They bulge with the sort of playful details of which only British fantasists seem capable: there’s the Whomping Willow, which will smash hell out of your car (and you) if you get too close to it, snack foods like Cauldron Cakes and Licorice Wands and the satisfyingly evil Lord Voldemort (so evil, in fact, that most of Rowling’s characters will only call him ”You-know-who”). The Dursleys, Harry’s unpleasant guardians, explain the boy’s long absences by telling their friends that Harry attends St. Brutus’s Secure Center for Incurably Criminal Boys. And the book opens with the murder (offstage, don’t worry) of a witch named Bertha Jorkins. Rowling doesn’t exactly come out and say it’s what the unfortunate Bertha deserves for taking her vacation in Albania, but she certainly implies it.

Is there more going on here than fun? Again, not much. In a good deal of British fantasy fiction, the amusing inventions are balanced by themes of increasing darkness — Tolkien’s ”Rings” trilogy, for instance, in which the fascism of Mordor begins as a distant bad smell on the breeze and develops into a pervasive atmosphere of dread, or C. S. Lewis’s Narnia books, in which the writer’s religious concerns invest what begin as harmless make-believe adventures with a significance that becomes, in the end, almost unbearable (and to this reader, rather tiresome). Taken to its extreme, the id of British fantasy produces a Richard Adams, where the unfortunate talking dogs Snitter and Rowf suffer almost unspeakable hardships and the bear-god Shardik comes to stand for all the promises religion ever made and then broke; where every sunlit field of scampering rabbits conceals its shining wire of death.

In Rowling’s work, such shadows can be perceived, but they are thin shadows, quickly dispelled. Harry’s adventures remain for the most part upbeat and sunny, despite the occasional cold pockets of gruel; more Lewis Carroll than George Orwell. The British fantasy they may actually be closest to is J. M. Barrie’s ”Peter Pan.” Like any school, where the clientele is perpetually young and even the teachers begin to assume the immature psychological characteristics of their pupils, Hogwarts is a kind of Never-Never Land. Yet Harry and his friends show some reassuring signs of growing up eventually. In the current volume there is some discreet necking, and at least a few sorrows and disappointments that need coping with.

The fantasy writer’s job is to conduct the willing reader from mundanity to magic. This is a feat of which only a superior imagination is capable, and Rowling possesses such equipment. She has said repeatedly that the Potter novels are not consciously aimed at any particular audience or age. The reader may reasonably question that assertion after reading the first book in the series, but by the time he or she has reached ”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire,” it becomes increasingly clear that the lady means what she says. Nor can there be any question that her stated refusal to dumb down the language of the books (the current one is presented with such British terms as petrol, pub and cuppa unchanged) has lent the stories an attraction to adults that most children’s novels simply don’t have.

Not all the news is good. Harry Potter will soon be appearing at a multiplex near you. The initial project is being helmed by Chris Columbus, a filmmaker of no demonstrable ingenuity; one doubts if the director of ”The Goonies,” one of the loudest, dumbest and most shriekingly annoying children’s movies ever made, is up to bringing Rowling’s scatty wit and vibrant imagination to the screen. (I hope, on behalf of the millions of children who love Harry, Hermione and Ron Weasley, that Columbus will prove me wrong.) Fantasy, even that as sturdy and uncomplicated as this Young Wizard’s Progress, is difficult to bring to film, where the wonders are all too often apt to shrink and become banal. Perhaps Harry Potter’s place is in the imaginations of his readers. And if these millions of readers are awakened to the wonders and rewards of fantasy at 11 or 12 . . . well, when they get to age 16 or so, there’s this guy named King.

consulte Mais informação