Mr Mist’s Blog

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows brings to a close the seven book Harry Potter series written by J K Rowling that has cumulatively sold over 325 million copies.

We were some of the happy few (or not so few, as the case may be), that (wisely?) chose to purchase our copies shortly after midnight on Saturday morning, and then I spent much of yesterday reading it from cover to cover. So how was it?

Well, pretty good actually. It doesn’t disappoint. I think there’s definitely bits in there for everyone, with a good mix of depth and lightness (though let’s be honest this book swings vastly in the favour of depth, for the light moments - much favoured by earlier books in the series - are few.)

Whether you could give this book to a young child and have them fully appreciate it, I am not certain. The wealth of information is much greater than in any of the previous books, and novice readers would struggle. Of course, if you’ve ploughed your way through the other six books, then you’re hardly a novice reader any more, I suppose.

I’ll not litter this short review with spoilers, but there are deaths in this episode, and the theme of people dying is, let’s say, consistent from start to finish. If you have been following the series, then I would come to this one prepared to see a character that you may have grown fond of not make it through. The punches that were pulled in earlier books are let fly in this one.

Rowling has definitely come on. Her ability to meld description and action, to set pace, and to rely confusion and mayhem has improved dramatically since book one. You can really feel the action and are swept along by the tide of events impressively well in Hallows. The sense of adventure is palpable, and the narrative constructs more mature even than book six. All in all the drive from start to finish is strong.

This book sits at just over 600 pages long, and you really get a sense that it is “all thriller and no filler”. There is not a wasted sentance to be found anywhere. Some expected this to be a longer book than the others, but, I think, it didn’t need to be, because the real estate was crammed to capacity.

It’s a good climax to the season. Go read it.

We are, once more, at Friday.

This week, the Friday marks the point at which -

• Lots of Schools break up.
• The final Harry Potter book is released (I wonder if these two things are related..?)
• Civilization IV- Beyond the sword is not released (despite it being in the shops..)

The weather has decided to mark the occasion by being wet.

I’ve been driving for a while now. My driving has improved since I started, naturally. I think the general driving standard around is probably pretty much the same as it ever was. So what does the Commons transport committee think?

Well, they think that….

• Learner Drivers should follow a set learning plan that covers a whole year
• We should have a complete alchohol ban for new drivers
• New drivers should be banned from carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 late at night

So, let’s ponder over that.

A year of learning. I feel somewhat unqualified to comment on this as I spent bloody ages learning, so don’t really see what difference it would have made being forced to do so, but it does beg the question of why? I mean, if someone is of test standard, then they will pass the test, if they are not, then they will fail the test. What will people be learning in the 6th, 7th and 12th month of their plans? Not to be funny about it, but at the end of my lessons, the instructor was hardly ever saying a word, because he didn’t need to. Are people to drive around in silence with their instructors in the car for 6 months in case they happen upon an eventuality that they haven’t seen yet? Do all the existing instructors have to undergo training to learn about these new learning plans? It all just seems a bit ill-thought-out.

Complete alchohol ban for new drivers. Hmm. Can’t really argue with that one. But why is it just new drivers? Why not across the board? What are we saying here? Is the message going to be that some alcohol suddenly becomes okay on day 366, or 367 after a leap year? This is just nonsense. Either ban it for everyone or leave the rules as they are. Personally, I’m all for banning it all over, then people wouldn’t have an excuse of not knowing how close they were to the limit in marginal cases.

No carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 late at night. This is possibly the most ridiculous of the proposals. Let’s think about the enforcement. Do the traffic police (of which there are few) spend their nights pulling over random vehicles to check the age of the occupants and the maturity of the drivers, or is there some criteria applied? Will this just be based on car-type discrimination, so you could get away with it in a Fiat Uno but you’ll get pulled in a Type R? How is "late at night" defined? How strict are we here? What if someone starts out on a long journey with their mates at 6pm, gets delayed, and is still driving at 11? Should they have to stop? Does the driver become incapable of driving any more once the witching hour appears?

I can see what the intention of this proposal is. I can see how it’s meant to be that it would reduce those groups of lads who just want to hoon about on the deserted streets in the night, but it’s rubbish. It treats everyone else as if they are that lowest common denominator, and says that they can’t drive.

Instead of creating laws that would be largely unenforceable, why not come up with something a bit more even, such as restricting engine capactiy - as we already see in bike riding. In theory at least there would be some level of enforcement possible there because of having to insure and register vehicles (admittedly some people don’t bother but that’s another issue.) You at least wouldn’t be depending on an already thin force of traffic police trying to enforce something impossible to see. (Just like mobile phone usage in cars, we can all see how well that is cracked down on….)

I’m thinking try again with the proposals. Maybe let some clever people think about them.

It seems that the BBC have chosen to suspend all their phone in and interactive quizes.  This is because more funny business has come to light - since the Blue Peter fiasco - concerning programmes such as Comic Relief and Children in Need.  Programmes where, I guess, you really don’t want people asking questions like “where’s the money gone?”.

That’s all for now really, nothing else to report on at this precise moment.

Yes, I am indeed quite tired.  We have just got back from having seen the latest Harry Potter film.  All in all, I think quite enjoyable.  Good effects and characterisation, especially with Luna.  Mostly well paced, though I did feel at the end as though some bits had been rushed through.  There’s a fair bit that has employed filmic licence with regards to differences to the novel. Would have liked more of Tonks.  All in all though ++ good and we have the last book out soon, too.

In other events, there are vague ramblings in the news over a suggestion from the chief medical officer that we should all donate organs by default after our death.  To which I agree, and, frankly, don’t see why this isn’t already the case and why there’s even a debate over it.  Just do it, then anyone who really cares that much can opt out.  Maybe the reason we have these sort of news stories is because so many of us are stupid.