Seventh Harry Potter Book Named 449
Croakyvoice writes "JK Rowling has today given fans of the Harry Potter books the name of Book 7 of the very popular series via a Christmas present on her site, to get to the name you need to follow a complicated procedure but thankfully the name of the book has been revealed as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows."
Christmas (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Christmas (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Christmas present (where to find it) (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I suppose this is amusing to younger readers, but the terrible stor
Re:Christmas (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hating Harry Potter (Score:5, Interesting)
Far be it from me to tell people what they should like or dislike. But it seems to me that many of the most strident critics of the Harry Potter books are those who insist on measuring them by inappropriate paradigms, in this case the canons of dramatic criticism. Literature as a whole needn't abide by rules that are instrumental to mimesis (represenation), important as they may be to the medium of drama.
In learning to critique, we oughtn't lose the art of listening.
I have engaged many people in debates over the merits (or lack thereof) of the Harry Potter books. More often than not they are not simply left cold, as Fred_A seems to be. They are positively offended and outraged by them. I think this ponits the way to some of the chief merits of the books, a point I'll return to in a second. But first I should point out that literary merit is an atomic thing that can be measured on a simple scale. There are many kinds of merit a story may have, such as richness of detail, beauty of language, cleverness in plotting, humor, psychological insight. The Potter books are remarkably rich in some dimensions, and simplistic in others.
When it comes to language, for example, Rowling is clever, but is no J.R.R. Tolkien. The great pleasure of rereadign Lord of the Rings for the 99th time is the sheer beauty of the writing. For example, look up the passage where Frodo takes a last walk around Bag End, before leaving it to his despised cousins the Sackville-Bagginses. It is a masterpiece of writing; evocative and far more poetic (as is often the case with Tolkien) than the book's attempts at verse.
It is also true that the Harry Potter books are by no means masterpieces of plotting, to put it mildly. Stories of this sort seldom are. I agree completely with Fred_A's condemnation of the books... but only if we are talking about the movies. Here the books mimetic weaknesses are on full display, and few if any of their diagetic (narrative) strengths.
The books' greatest strengths are humor and psychological insight. And its important to note that the latter is not necessarily displayed according to the methods of drama, which demand that such insights be shown by the action of plot events on the characters. Narrative arts have no such fundamental constraint. Which brings us to why Harry Potter is so roundly hated by the cultural canon crowd.
Real life is not dramatic. Unlike a play or movie, most acts are not prompted by motivation, but by habit. People in power, even good people, exercise their power for the most part mindlessly. Nobody knows this better than children, who have no power of their own and must live in accordance with rules set by others. Many of those rules are set for the childrens' benefit; some for the convenience of their betters; others are there just because they've always been there.
The importance of this truth to the Potter books hit me when I was reading one of the many passages in which Professor MacGonagle, a good and benevolent adult character, fails to listen and uses her authority in an unreasoning way. In various ways we are told that this character is admirable, intelligent and good; but these qualities are never shown in her actions towards Harry. In a drama this would be completely wrong. This apparent inconsistency had always bothered me, but then it struck me that this quite true to life. As a parent, I don't always take time to make the right decision, and often make the wrong decision because it is easier. On reflection, it seems right that all the adults Harry encounters regularly exercise their power unreasonably, even the ones who have his best interests at heart. It is equally necessary that Harry defy them, even though sometimes this turns out to be a terrible mistake.
In other words, the message of the Harry Potter books is subversive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I must admit up front that I've never read the HP books, only seen the movies. So on those grounds, I admittedly have a weak case to criticize. Nevertheless, I will. (I'm a huge Stephen King fan, yet 98% of his screenplays have been utter crap)
I find Rowling's character names to be absolutely Dickensian (Dumbledore, Slitherin, Malfoy, Voldemort), which alone makes me bristle. Mal- bad, mort- death, etc etc. Names that fairly clearly tell you if you should or should NOT like a character the first tim
Re: (Score:3)
Yup... you didn't read the books. That "wizard contest" of some sort where the "friends were put in mortal danger"? They were in no real danger at all. Ever. The book made that clear. The movie, less so.
My opinion is that the movies are more or less 'eye-candy' for those who read and enjoyed the books.
Re: (Score:3)
Disappointed, I guess, if that is your primary interest in reading the books. You might be better served by Larry Niven's Warlock books, which explore the mechanics of magic as a limited resource in detail.
Stories are contraptions that get their authors' points across. Characters are never realistic, even in "realistic" fiction; they a
You really need to read the books (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hating Harry Potter (Score:4, Insightful)
The importance of this truth to the Potter books hit me when I was reading one of the many passages in which Professor MacGonagle, a good and benevolent adult character, fails to listen and uses her authority in an unreasoning way
Holy crap that's gotten tiresome after 6 fucking books about "dumb adults".
In other words, the message of the Harry Potter books is subversive.
But not subtly so. Reading Rowling's subversive message is like stepping in front of a train.
There's another series of books out there called "A Series of Unfortunate Events" - which is also centered around the idea of stupid adults. Only the book is so obviously on the campy side, it's not as painful to watch as the lives of the protagonists get worse and worse on the failings of adults. It's funny, in a black way. The subversive genius of these books is the moral self-doubt the protagonists go through, as they question the morality of their own actions, as necessity for survival. Mister Snickett's prose is a lot more fun to read as well. Rowling had started out on the campy side in her first book, but quickly abandoned that, so now the whole series is situated uncomfortably somewhere inbetween campy and serious.
Rowling makes Harry exceptional only in ways that enable him to fight power, never in ways that allow him to wield it over others.
Two words. Septus Semprum. To me - this is the only interesting thread in the whole series; Will Harry learn the lesson Snape learned (though failed to teach, out of his inability to forgive)? - only it's the same lesson Anakin Skywalker learned.
Re:Christmas (Score:5, Interesting)
Dumbledore is indispensable character in the series. In most cases he is good "spiritus movens" behind the scenes (Voldemort is the evil one). It must turn out he either didn't really die or his death will not prevent his new appearances (she can always pull out some magic artifact or spell that modifies the effect of the killing spell, or that lets him remain present as ghost or something). However, this will pose difficulties in explaining why then Harry's parents are, well, dead without any buts.
Furthermore, it is clearly implied in last book, in the scene when it happens, that Snape killed him according to their (Dumbledore's and Snape's) previous mutual agreement and arrangement (i.e. if Dumbledore is struck by a non killing, forever tormenting spell, which in fact he was) out of mercy, not hatred (Snape is constantly put in position of suspect, only to slap Harry and readers later for being prejudicial, shame on us!). Therefore, Dumbledore, in one form or another, must show up to clear Snape from convictions for his own murder. If Rowling persist to keep Dumbledore dead, it is probably Snape who will take his place as head of anti-Voldemort coalition. However, this leaves Harry without last fatherly protecting figure, which OTOH may be a part of "large picture" central idea unrolled throughout the story: following Harry's stepwise growing up, from a child into an independent, self-sustaining adult (at which point this story starts losing its magic... not 'Wizardly' magic, which is only a decoration and prop for plots, but the magic of childhood) in a fantasy world.
Re:Christmas (Score:5, Funny)
Damn! Assless through eternity. Do they even let you into heaven like that? That was one mean bad guy that did that to them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Christmas (Score:5, Insightful)
I say Dumbledore asked Snape to take the vow because I believe they were friends, which makes Snape a tragic figure. He was always hated and misunderstood. Even the girl he had a crush on (Harry's mom) laughed when the other boys would torment Snape, and she even married his chief tormentor. Her protests to stop tormenting Snape were only half-hearted at best. Dumbledore was the ONLY friend Snape ever had, and Snape was forced to kill him. If Rowling makes him the hero in the last book, I will be VERY impressed. As much as I like the books, I only like them because she can spin a good yarn. If she was planning the Snape tragedy from the start, wow. If Snape became a death eater on his own, and who could blame him, while the whole world already hated him? If he chose to be a death eater, then I think Dumbledore ASKED him to take the vow. If Dumbledore asked him to become a death eater to spy on Voldemort, then the unbreakable vow is not needed, Dumbledore has reason to trust Snape, and Snape, in spite of being hated by everyone, and having reason to hate Harry himself, is even more of a heroic figure.
About Harry: Harry IS the final horcrux (or at least the scar on his head is) which makes his hunting and destroying the other horcruxes kind of ironic. We found out in the last book that horcruxes could be living things, such as the snake that embodied Voldemort. When the snake curled around Harry and taunted Dumbledore, telling him that he now has the opportunity to destroy Voldemort forever, I wonder if Dumbledore finally realized that Harry was the horcrux? No one could figure out how Harry managed to survive the attack that killed his parents, the scar was linked to Voldemort (it always hurt when he was around) and it gave Harry powers similar to Voldemort. It was also the scar that the sorting hat wanted to put in Slytherin.
When Dumbledore revealed the prophesy to Harry, we find out that the prophesy could have meant either Potter or Longbottom would be the one to ultimately destroy Voldemort. Dumbledore and Potter did not know why Voldemort had chosen to "attempt to destroy" Harry, but Dumbledore claimed that that was Voldemort's mistake, and the botched attempt was the accident that created Harry and gave him the power to ultimately destroy Voldemort. WRONG! Voldemort's mistake was only in thinking that Harry was the chosen one, his placing of the horcrux was an insurance policy to attempt to cheat fate (and we know from Greek mythology how well that always turns out). Longbottom is the chosen one, he is still the Charlie Brown figure, the one that can't get things right, but who always gets up and tries again. He has been steadily growing in skill and confidence throughout the books, and he will be the one to destroy the final horcrux. The only question is, can the horcrux in the scar be destroyed without also killing Harry?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I seriously doubt Longbottom is the true chosen one. After all, Voldemort chose Harry. That isn't to say Neville won't be an important figure in the end. He has as muc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Harry and Voldemort are linked of course, and the reason Harry survived is answered by Dumbledore in book one. Whether Harry survives the series depends on things other than his being a Horcrux. Finally, Voldemort wants the Horcruxes to survive, there would be no point in putting a Horcrux in Harry if
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from that, past evidence has made it fairly clear that Dumbledore wouldn't be one to run away from death. - "To the well-ordered mind, death is merely the next great adventure" (paraphrased).
That doesn't mean he's gone. Remember the painting. That gives us the "Obi Wan" factor.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is - JK has said so. But not how.
Y
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't it be a hoot if JK turned out to be a Pratchett fan?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Question to CowboyNeal (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Question to CowboyNeal (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, you leave my girlfriend out it!
Damn... (Score:4, Funny)
Seriously, why do people keep on reading this stuff?
New Name (Score:3, Funny)
Re:New Name (Score:5, Informative)
If she doesn't stick to it, THEN you're more than welcome to pull out the "money-grubbing" accusations.
Re:Damn... (Score:5, Funny)
"I don't quite understand, Sir," said Harry.
Dumbledore took him by the shoulder. "Ah, Harry, that's what I like about you. Sometimes you're thick as a brick. Which allows us to keep the series going for so many books."
Hermione interrupted. "*I* understand, Sir."
"And I've been meaning to speak to you, Hermione. About those candles, broomsticks, and bowling pins the housekeepers report littering your bedchamber..."
---- sometimes, you just DON'T want to see the parts Rowling edited out of the draft manuscripts...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The sad thing is, you can probably find this story on a Harry Potter fanfic site.
Re:Damn... (Score:5, Funny)
"Harry", said Hermione, "Are you ready to... take this to the next level?"
"You bet", said Harry. "I'll put on my robe and wizard hat."
"What? That's not what I'm..."
"I cast Level 3 eroticism. You turn into a beautiful woman, instead of a flat dork."
"What did you call me?!?!"
"I wave my wand of undressing and you turn naked."
"You have no idea what to do, do you?"
"I look through the Pokedex for the best creature. Hermione, I choose you!"
"My god, you're somehow more pathetic than a muggle dork, you play pretend magic even though you're a real wizard?!"
"Okay, if that's the way you want to play, then I'll use this tome of unspeakable horrors I found in the library. The Necronomicon."
"What?! Harry, you're not supposed to-"
"ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! Ia! Ia!"
"My god, what is that thing!?!? It's all tentacle and-"
"I hope you enjoy this, Hermione, I saw this in a Japanese cartoon once..."
"*NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!* *mrrrrhhhh*"
Ah, well. One can dream, can't he? (References to bloodninja [adamchance.com] and Cthulu [yog-sothoth.com])
What's a Hallow? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's a Hallow? (Score:5, Informative)
1. A saint, a god of the heathens, or something belonging thereto (like a relic);
2. A loud shout or cry, to get dogs to chase, or to draw attention;
3. The parts of a hare given to hounds as a reward or encouragement after a chase. (I really hope it's this meaning that Rowling has in mind!)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Either way, or even if I'm off base on both counts, I'm definitely on tenterhooks...
Re:What's a Hallow? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps a good translation of the title might be
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, you're right. I think my brain was addled by trying to reduce my risk of dying [slashdot.org].
Re:What's a Hallow? (Score:4, Informative)
They are 'Hallowed' magical objects into which "He Who Must Not Be Named" has poured a portion of his soul, to keep himself functionally immortal. The last one we saw did a real number on Dumbledore's hand, so yes, these things will convey serious hit points.
Harry's gonna have to destroy them all before he goes head-to-head with
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The place was named after Godrick Griffindore, one of the founders of the school.
Hallows? (Score:5, Funny)
Orginal title (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Orginal title (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You heard it wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Long as the kids enjoy it and you teach them about franchises and marketing when they first get hooked by this sort of thing, I'm not so sure it's that bad. Let them buy into all the commercial BS and you'll have a mindless drone albeit a literate one if they go for the book.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually: "Harry Potter: the plot is shallow".
I know you're just being funny, but the LAST thing you can accuse the HP plot of is being shallow. That world is HUGE and very complex. I think that's one of the reasons that adult readers can get dragged into it as much as the kids. Supposedly JKR has boxes and boxes full of notes about how various things work. She's said she might publish an encyclopdia of the world based on her notes (for charity, like the other two charity books).
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And Guid^H^H^H^H Voldemort shot first.
Harry Potter And The Slow News Day? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe this is on the Beeb and Slashdot's front pages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Harry Potter And The Slow News Day? (Score:5, Funny)
disclaimer : i'm neither british nor american.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not you like her work, J.K. Rowling is the most financially successful author in the history of the written word. And, no, that is not hyperbole: that is a mathematical fact. According to Forbes magazine, she is the first person in the history of the world to become a billionaire by writing books. Whatever her place in the history of writing as an artform, she has a major place in the history of writing as an industry--equal to Samuel Johnson, the first person to earn
A better book (Score:3, Funny)
Darned and drat (Score:4, Funny)
Harry Potter and... (Score:5, Funny)
of "An Inconvenient Truth" and some moon sapphires...
[spoiler] (Score:2)
Regardless: Harry Potter and the what the fuck? I think every other book had a title that made sense to the uninitiated, but "Deathly Hallo
Four Hallows of Arthurian legend (Score:5, Interesting)
The Four Hallows are:
The Cup or Chalice
The Baton or Wand
The Sword or Dagger
The Coin, Disc or Pentacle
I think we were right all along in connecting the horcruxes to the four elements. These hallows are associated with the elements, and match up quite nicely to the remaining horcruxes:
Cup (HH)
Baton or Wand (RR)
Sword or Dagger (GG)
Pentacle (SS locket)
Just my two knuts!"
Read here: http://www.leakylounge.com/index.php?showtopic=36
Georgie? Did you have something to do with this? (Score:2)
I think Mrs. Rowling has been getting title ideas from Mr. Lucas and/or other young children.
www.jkrowling.com (Score:5, Interesting)
In the mirror, you'll see a hallway. Click on the farthest doorknob and look for the Christmas tree. Then click on the center of the door next to the mirror and a wreath appears. Then click on the top of the mirror and you'll see a garland.
Look for a cobweb next to the door. Click on it, and it will disappear. Now, look at the chimes in the window. Click on the second chime to the right, and hold it down. The chime will turn into the key, which opens the door. Click on the wrapped gift behind the door, then click on it again and figure out the title yourself by playing a game of hangman.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Shutting down (Score:3, Funny)
HP and the (ADJECTIVE | NOUN ADJECTIVAL) NOUN 7 (Score:5, Funny)
Best /. post ever (Score:5, Funny)
The outrage was tremendous because, before you even realized you were reading a spoiler, you'd finished and comprehended it. Sweetest troll ever.
* No one knows who dies in the last book, if someone does. At the time, Rowling explicitly said she hadn't decided who. It wasn't a real spoiler, and isn't now. Don't freak out.
"Harry Potter and the Mountain of Royalties" (Score:4, Informative)
As the series is sometimes referred to by less successful working writers.
But at least Rowling writes her own books. Tom Clancy seems to have given up writing in favor of licensing his name. Latest "Splinter Cell" book: [amazon.com] "Tom Clancy" in big letters at top of front cover. "Written by David Michaels" in small type in grey letters on black background at bottom.
Who will die? (Score:3, Funny)
Who will die this time? My guess: Dudley eats himself to death and owls hunt Uncle Vernon into the sea...
SPOILER ALERT (Score:3, Funny)
Snape kills Dumbledore!
Oh wait...
Harry hits puberty (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The Title (Score:5, Funny)
Are you implying that because an English writer will dominate the Best Seller list for a while?
Or perhaps you are concerned about millions of kids who have discovered books can be entertaining thanks to Rowlings books?
Or maybe you're just point out how stupid you are in that you didn't realize one of the biggest selling modern writers is neither American nor are her novels set in America, or that literature and popular books are completely independant?
Re:The Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Title (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Title (Score:5, Funny)
They're also, by the way, great books for brushing up on a foreign language
Yes. That's why I buy the British editions and not those translated into my native American. I had no idea that they called sorcerers "philosophers" in the UK!
Re:The Title (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think anyone's saying that, especially not to kids. It's the hordes of adults who go on about it being some quantum leap in the evolution of literature, who are somewhat bemusing (or annoying, depending on your perspective).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The protagonist then goes and defeats a much more able antagonist (whose biggest fault is bigotry, by the way) with nothing more than - love of his mother protecting him.
My biggest issue with such a story - that too tailored for young children - is that the protagonist is not anywhere close to the perfect role model
Re:The Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me of that quote from Spacebattles:
"Evil will always win... because good is STUPID!"
It just annoys the hell out of me that the bigots always lose because they're bigoted. Sure they're bigots, but I really don't care. The fact that Harry's incompetent bugs the hell out of me a lot more.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And pertaining to your arguement, I totally agree that he (Harry Potter) gets through things out of sheer dumb luck, but the fact that he is average gives him a greater appeal to the average kids who can relate to him rather than the typical child prodigy hero who can zap enemies with a cunning flick of his wrist and get out of trouble in the wink of an eye. That wouldn't even work with the
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What gets me is that he's essentially a jock, but we have trouble recognizing it because he hasn't yet adopted jockish bravado nor gotten a pair of magic contact lenses. Think about it. He's:
Seriously, a trip to Aberzombie and Fitchicus and a six pack of Cooricon's Light is all he needs to become a typical beer-swilling young jock.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Title (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at Bilbo, Frodo (as you pointed out), or, actually, most contemporary (low- or high-brow) fantasy, you're going to find bumbling characters who make mistakes and only pull through because of Deus Ex Machina, luck of the draw, or some moral accomplishment.
I think it's the fact that we all recognize our own faults and inner issues, and can see them portrayed in these characters, that makes us, as readers, identify with the heroes of these stories.
We fuck up. We make mistakes. Sometimes, we're jerks to our friends, we don't put enough time into our relationships, and we make the wrong moral decisions.
Superman doesn't have those problems.
Harry Potter has those problems.
Remember the success of Spider-Man? From the Wikipedia article: The Spider-Man series broke ground by featuring a hero who himself was an adolescent, to whose "self-obsessions with rejection, inadequacy, and loneliness" young readers could relate.
Re:The Title (Score:5, Interesting)
What he does have is loyalty, fairness, kindness, generosity, and courage. In every situation, that's what carries him through. In standard fantasy parlance, he'd be a Paladin. The books are about the power of love vs. the power of hatred (ironic that Christians try to ban these books--they just don't get much of anything, do they?) His mother's protection is just a metaphor for that--but his mother's protection, and Dumbledore's, is gone now. In the final book he will have to grow up and face Voldemort alone. He's going to have to work like a trojan to be able to pull it off. But Rowling has set it up so that he's going to be tested most in the very qualities that have carried him so far. All is not what it seems. If Harry behaves like a jerk in the final book, he will lose a great deal, even if he wins the final battle.
Re:The Title (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, most Christians DO get this. It's just the few idiot ones that don't. Christianity is like any other social group on the planet. It's made up of humans, some of which are morons. Unfortunately, Christian morons seem to get more press than those of other stripes.
I realize that there are many here on Slashdot that, for one reason or another, have thier hate on for Christians. I'm not going to address that bigotry right now. But for those that don't hate Christians, but really do think they all want to ban Harry Potter, I recommend going here and reading:
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/12/21/laur
Not all Christians want to ban Harry Potter. Most don't, and those that do are a small moronic minority.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Title (Score:5, Interesting)
While not a fan of Harry Potter (is derivative of other children's books and treats magic the way Star Treck handles science), they have gotten my daughter away from basic picture books and started her reading actual novels. I can't complain about that. Now if only, her reading skills were a little more advanced so that I didn't have to jump in and help her figure out new words ever two minutes. What's wrong with our schools? Don't they teach reading in Kindergarten?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's why we grew Christopher Paolini [Eragon] in vat in a secret laboratory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Spoiler (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite your troll, you've almost got it right. The final chapter of the final book will actually be entitled "The Boy Who Lived," just like the first chapter of the first book.
Note how clever that turn of phrase is: you can look at the table of contents and see that chapter title, but you won't know until you read the book whether it means 1) the boy who used to live, or 2) the boy who fought Voldemort (again) and lived.
Re:realmuggles.com (Score:4, Informative)
Celebrity author syndrome (Score:5, Informative)
A couple of years ago, I did a little work around the periphery of the publishing industry. At no point was I even close to anybody who was close to anybody who was involved with any of the Harry Potter books. However, a few of the things that were common knowledge then seem particularly relevant now.
What J.K. Rowling is increasingly suffering from is Celebrity Author Syndrome. This, simply put, is a state in which no editor has both the guts and the backing from above to stand up to the author in question and insist upon necessary changes. In some cases, this goes hand in hand with the author being a self-important prick, but that's absolutely *not* an essential pre-requisite (and I have absolutely *no* idea what JKR is like to work with).
Let me explain...
The vast majority of manuscripts that are submitted to publishers by first-time authors are seriously long. They contain repetition of scenes, subplots that are never developed, page after page of background exposition on characters and vast amounts of unnecessary description and digression. Reading the average freshly-submitted manuscript is a pretty depressing alternative; by the time you've waded through all the padding, you can hardly remember anything about the plot and the characters. Now, of course, most manuscripts submitted to publishers go straight in the bin. Occasionally, however, one will be considered interesting enough to pick up. What happens in this case (with some variation across the industry, but the model remains more or less the same) is that some money might change hands and the publisher might indicate to the author that they could conceivably be convinced to publish the book, provided the author work with a designated editor to strip the work down to something fit for public consumption.
This process is often pretty gruelling for the first-time author. They've suddenly got an editor, who they likely see as a pen-pushing bureaucrat and spawn of the devil, demanding that they cut out whole chunks of words that the author has sweated blood over. Emotionally, this is surprisingly difficult. However, most first-time authors who have made it this far have a strong incentive to comply with changes demanded by their editor and will comply. After all, the editor's say-so can kill the book. The publisher looses relatively little from killing the project, while for the author, this could mean months or years of work going to waste. Ultimately, it is very rare that a book is not improved beyond recognition by this process.
However, this dynamic changes massively with a celebrity author (as in, a celebrity who is famous for writing, not a celebrity who has decided to write a book). The publisher suddenly has a lot more to loose if the relationship goes sour. Whatever contractual obligations the author might be under, they know that they'll always have a market for their words elsewhere in the future. If the author is a prick, they can therefore change editors at will and refuse to make changes as they see fit.
However, even if the author is the nicest, most compliant person in the world, the editor is still going to be under a lot of stress. They know, and the people who pay them know, that this author has been lucrative in the past. The editor knows that his future job security almost certainly depends to a large degree on him managing this author right. There is therefore an enormous temptation to just sit back and assume that the author knows best (even though the wisest authors might realise themselves that this isn't the case).
We saw the results of this with the 5th and 6th Harry Potter books (and to a lesser extent, the 4th). The 5th book in particular had a stupidly high number of redundant scenes, most of which could have been excised at will. The bizarre, only-half-realised political commentary surrounding Dolores Umbridge ended up eating a significant chunk of the book without adding anything significant to it. The character could (and in an earlier book, would) have been ha