# Reading > General Literature >  Harry Potter

## jessw

i know i have never liked harry potter till i started reading the philosiphers stone and now im hooked yeah ive always liked whitch craft but HP never actually tickled my fancy lol ok im bored

----------


## Spite

Are you kidding me with this, I read those books and found them dreafuly boring and hoplessly... "Fluffy."

----------


## jessw

well i do have alot on my mind so i guess thats why i started reading it tis the only book remotely interesting

----------


## EAP

Some of the best literature I have read. There is nothing wrong with 'fluff'. 

Glad the sixth book, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince will be out on 16th July, 2005.

----------


## SuicideKitten

i actually like the series too, and as it becomes darker i've become a bit more into it.
I know a lot of little kids are into it, but is that such a bad thing in spreading literature for something everyone can enjoy

----------


## EAP

Not at all, and it is this series' something-for-all natural and easygoing, freeflowing laidback style that annoys the hell out of some people who fancy themselves as literature critics.

----------


## Aimee

I love Harry Potter. I'm trying to cram in as much classical fiction before my G.C.S.Es, and sometimes there just so goddamn difficult to get through. So it's nice to have any easy ready that's actually got quite a good plot. 
I can't wait for the sixth one!

----------


## EAP

Aimee which classical works do you have to prepare for your GCSE's?

----------


## Jester

Well, I ain't obsessed with HP but find them entertaining and a great read when your stuck with in teh airport or on a bus for eight hours... same with the left behind series, don't believe any of it but hey their entertaining... and thats what counts... (I'll never make a good literature critic) 

soemtiems we all need fluff but i though the fifth one was not fluffy at all, it was so dark and i could not not not not not believe the ending.... I'm refusing to acdcept it and hoping that its not true and that itll be rectified in the sixth book

----------


## Aimee

> Aimee which classical works do you have to prepare for your GCSE's?


Well, my English teacher has given us a list and told us to read at least some of hem on there, and she's going to check our knowledge about the books to make sure We've read them. Apparently it will improve our English techniques if we read a lot of classic literature. 
Right now I'm in the middle of Wuthering Heights and next on my list Jane Eyre. Also I'm planning to read some by Dostoyevsky and Austen quite soon. 
If anyone has any 'classic' pieces of literature to recommend then I would welcome any suggestions.

----------


## EAP

Would your teacher consider 'Dracula' by Bram Stoker a classic? 

One classic which I have always found easier to plod through then most others is 'Vanity Fare' by William Makepeace Thackery. 

Then there are always American classics like Huck Finn, Scarlet Letter, Moby Dick etc.

----------


## jessw

ive read dracula for my english class when i was in highschool and have seen the movie a thousand times lol

----------


## arao

I've read a lot of classic works ,like wife and daughter,the works of Jane Austine,and the Bronte sisters,Dickens.But the most I think worthing reading is " Count XXXX"(I cannot remenber it exactly).The iron will the hero presented with an old professor is so explosive and if we have that one ,everything is possible.
P.S.-----I love HP two,it fantasy and wierd world and can fly just with one broom.can't wait to see the sixth one.

----------


## simon

HP is entertaining, though not realy as so inflamed myfans, but the fantastica world is fun and light and easy to read. But hes last couple did not stike my fancy, they seemed to be lacking the same vivdness and fun. I think the author may be tiring and the story getting drug through the mud so to speak with overkill publicity.

----------


## ihaveaheadache

It's a little bit better than Eragon but is dragging.

----------


## EAP

Bit better then Eragon?!?!

Comm'on. Eragon is to Harry Potter what Earth is to Universe.

----------


## welshwiccan

Hi I'm new and I must say that the Harry Potter series is truely entertaining, we all need to get away from reality on occasion, and that's what these book do

----------


## Bongitybongbong

I've read some of the Potter books and they were okay. Eragon on the other hand was much better in my opinion. If you're looking for some fantasy books though I think the series is called Narnia. They're good books, but they're light reading.

----------


## ihaveaheadache

The world of Harry Potter is easier to understand cause it explains things from a "real" human boy's point of view from the "real" world. Eragon, on the other hand, is a little bit hard to follow at the beginning, and it simplies several concepts (e.g. mind-reading). I find it hard to believe that Eragon just can do it.

----------


## Levenbreech Vor

Although Harry Potter is a nice, quick, entertaining read, I was wondering whether anybody on this forum shares my view that it is incredibly overrated.

Harry Potter is the bestselling book in history, better then great literary classics, suspenseful mystery novels, and in-depth sci-fi and fantasy worlds. WHY? J.K. Rowling's characters are poorly developed, the plots are full of annoying angst, the villains are cliché, and the writing style is childish.

I have often, on other message boards, expressed by views on Harry Potter and was shunned. I was hoping that on a forum full of well versed, literate people, I could find someone that would agree with me.

Whether or not you agree with me, tell me your views on Harry Potter.

----------


## Stanislaw

I agree, the series is seriously overhyped. It isnot that great, and towards the end of the series becomes whiney, irritating, plain frustrating and generally stupid.

Personally I think the books are escapist, masochistic, books for those who enjoy self-pity.

----------


## Pensive

HP series is great and specially its characters are very developed and engage me....
A very nice series. It was the first novel I read at late night because I did not want to leave it for a "tomorrow"
It made me love the books although its my not favourite boom right now but I do agree that its a very good novel, indeed.

----------


## byucougs

What you have to remember is that Harry Potter turned a generation that would rather sit in front of a TV for hours on end to play video games into a generation that has read 6 novels (some extemely long) and are waiting paitiently for the seventh. Harry turned a large part of the population that would otherwise never have read a book into avid readers. For that, we must salute him.
Maybe the plot isn't the best sometimes. Rowling's writing isn't the best out there, but it has done wonders for literacy.

----------


## ponynikki

I personally dislike the Harry Potter books- but I know so many adults and children who read these novels that would never normally pick up a magazine, let alone a 100 page book. I have to give the author support for this- Harry Potter or Charles Dickens- It's all about reading something, and perhaps Harry Potter will lead to reading more.

----------


## Levenbreech Vor

> Harry turned a large part of the population that would otherwise never have read a book into avid readers. For that, we must salute him.


Ahhh...

The typical argument in favor of Harry Potter: "Anything that make people read is good." 

But is reading Harry Potter really any better then watching TV?

Harry Potter books don't add anything to people. They don't have good vocabulary, they don't teach good writing, and they don't improve peoples intelligence.

I am all for reading and think it is incredibly sad that TV is taking books place, but it not like someone that reads Harry Potter is next going to read Great Expectations.

----------


## PeterL

The Harry Potter books are not great literature, but J. K. Rowling is a good writer, who created good round characters, plots that follow logical patterns (if you accept the premises), and used universal themes. They are aimed at an audience from about 9 to 18, and for literature aimed at that audience the Harry Potter books are great. I don't know what books have popular with that audience in the recent past, but most such things from past times were much shallower and the characters were not as well developed.

----------


## papayahed

> Ahhh...
> 
> The typical argument in favor of Harry Potter: "Anything that make people read is good." 
> 
> But is reading Harry Potter really any better then watching TV?
> 
> Harry Potter books don't add anything to people. They don't have good vocabulary, they don't teach good writing, and they don't improve peoples intelligence.
> 
> I am all for reading and think it is incredibly sad that TV is taking books place, but it not like someone that reads Harry Potter is next going to read Great Expectations.



I like to think of HP as a "gateway" book. HP made it cool to read, and perhaps someone who would have never picked up a book before will continue reading because of it..

When I was younger I spent the week at my cousins, they thought there was something wrong with me, that I actually wasn't feeling well because I wanted to stay in and read (it was a star wars book) instead of going to the neighbors house. Reading was not something cool kids did.

----------


## kren

Well i do not consider the books to be literature in its true essence, i'll give the writer some credit because she created a good formula, or she got really lucky. But still it's not that good at all, and very unoriginal. It is a children's book when you come down ,ll, and i guess thats why it has become immensly popular. since the larger number of readers are children. But sadly, i would prefer it if people read something more in the lines of Neil Gaiman, but then again thats not for children.
(look up his "Books of Magic" for a surprise) The Harry Potter series are good books, but that all they are; once the younger generation gets older i hope they'll realize that. But then again you never know.(oh and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092115/
for another surprise, scroll down to cast list)

----------


## Kiwi Shelf

You know, I have noticed that a lot of people read Harry Potter because their friends do. I think liking Harry Potter is more of "cool" thing than actually something that people enjoy. A lot of kids I know own the books because they got made fun of for not, but they don't actually read them. They just go see the movies. More adults seem to like Harry Potter than children, I think it just got blown way out of proportion. I refuse to get bought into it, I did read the first book, but I borrowed it. I just think that it has got too big for its breeches and there are a lot better things to read. A lot of the sales, too, could be because parents think that every child would love to read it because there friends child has it, so they buy them for them. That's what I think a lot of Harry Potter is, a popularity ploy.

----------


## Wendigo_49

> The typical argument in favor of Harry Potter: "Anything that make people read is good."


 yes (subjective opinion)




> But is reading Harry Potter really any better then watching TV?


 Depends on what your watching. I have never read _Harry Potter_ so I will not comment on it. I do however think TV can be beneficial. I liked to watch the Discovery, Learning, and History channel before they all got on the kick of every show has to involve an automobile of some type. I also loved Mr. Wizard and got up every school day at 6:30 am to watch it then go back to sleep before school started at 9:30 am.




> Harry Potter books don't add anything to people. They don't have good vocabulary, they don't teach good writing, and they don't improve peoples intelligence.


 I don't know about the first two since i've never read Ms. Rowling's books. I do however think that they can improve a kid's intelligence. I think that the first Harry Potter book was about the sorcerer's stone which is something like the philosopher's stone? If true read on if not just go to the next question. When I was around four or five my mom bought a 7 book encyclopedia set from a salesman with each book being a different color. In this set were 2 I especially liked, the purple which was the history of America and the green which was basically a science book from Archimedes and Pythagoras theorem to why your brain and senses are kind of like a computer and equipment (videocamera are your eyes, microphones are your ears). My favorite story in the green book was a story about alchemists an the hunt for the philosopher's stone. I made my mom read it to me every night and soon I was reading it to her. At eight after reading how chemistry is modern day alchemy I decide to get Asimov's _inside the atom_ out of the school library. That book and the green science book has spurred me to learn everything I can in any science related field. That is how books like the Harry Potter series could improve a kid's intelligence. 




> I am all for reading and think it is incredibly sad that TV is taking books place, but it not like someone that reads Harry Potter is next going to read Great Expectations.


 No they probably will not read Great Expectations next but maybe farther down the road they will not be intimidated by such a novel

----------


## Levenbreech Vor

> I like to think of HP as a "gateway" book. HP made it cool to read, and perhaps someone who would have never picked up a book before will continue reading because of it..
> 
> When I was younger I spent the week at my cousins, they thought there was something wrong with me, that I actually wasn't feeling well because I wanted to stay in and read (it was a star wars book) instead of going to the neighbors house. Reading was not something cool kids did.


I wish HP was a "gateway" book but it isn't. People are more likely to think "Cool a book about magic...I'll go watch the movie." then "I liked that book, I'll go to my local library and look for other books with similar topics."

Speaking as a kid, 15 years old in fact, I don't think it is considered cool to read and I definitely don't think that Harry Potter changed the statues of the well-read.


However I respect Harry Potter for what it is, a well done ploy to make money, not a well written novel.

----------


## faith

OK, so now I have to defend the Harry Potter books.

First: Here's an (my) emotional view of the books. (I wrote it in my review of the latest book soon after having finished it.)

"Well, well, well. The Harry Potters are lilke no other books. To me they are special and shouldn't be rated like other books, so I can't give any of them anything else than the top grade. Rowling just is an awsome writer, and the world of Harry Potter is a world of it's own, and still it feels very real. To me it's real in a way. The characters are so familiar, as well as the places. And this isn't because of the films, but because of all the time I've spent in the world of HP through reading. The Harry Potters are the kind of books of which it's hard to let go. Off course they are pageturners, but I can't even let go after having finnished the book. Mentally that is. I kept thinking of HP at least a whole day after having finnished it."

This is why I personally like Harry Potter. It is purely emotional, and no argument in any direction in the question about if Harry Potter is good literature or not. But the question is, can u develop such a relationship to just any books as I have developed to the Harry Potter books? Well, maybe u can, and maybe the meaning with litterature isn't to make people develop relationships to it. But the previous at least is an example of how somebody can feel about the books. 

In the same review I also wrote the following:

"What Harry Potter basically is about, is the battle between good and evil. Harry represents the ultimate good and Voldemort the ultimate evil. Harry is throughout good and Voldemort throughout evil. About this there is no doubt. None of the other characters are as strictly either good or evil as they. It's not like I would ever dream of not trusting Ron and Hermione, althou they aren't as heroic as Harry or as powerful. And after the Half-Blood Prince I'm quite sertain that Snape is the most evil character in the book next to Voldemort. But take for example the Malfoys. They are on the evil side, but in the H-BP it turns out that they and especialy Draco, are actually quite human. Draco Malfory isn't troughout evil. Actually he isn't really very evil at. He isn't able to kill. So basically in the HBP it turns out that good-evil thing isn't as simple as it seamed in ex the Philosophers Stone. Nothing is very simple in the Harry Potter world, just like it isn't in the real world."

The battle between good and evil is the main theme in the books. It's a basic theme, it's a traditional theme. Yes. But there's nothing wrong with that. It's a good theme, and I think that Rowling has managed to complicate it in the later books. 

My main argument for why the Harry Potter books are good (and good for people) is that they offer an healthy view on life. 

That's all for now (all thou there are other aspects too).

//Passinate HP fan and literature student (waithing to get attacked)

----------


## el01ks

> But is reading Harry Potter really any better then watching TV?
> 
> Harry Potter books don't add anything to people. They don't have good vocabulary, they don't teach good writing, and they don't improve peoples intelligence.
> 
> I am all for reading and think it is incredibly sad that TV is taking books place, but it not like someone that reads Harry Potter is next going to read Great Expectations.


I don't mean to be rude, but this comes across as being really quite intellectually snobbish! 
1) What's wrong with watching tv? Sure, it's not fantastic if you turn into a goggle eyed addict who never does anything else, but if you want to watch a couple of hours a day what's wrong with that? It's quite relaxing after a day at work (though if you are fifteen you probably don't have an office job yet!), it can be informative, as there are some great documentaries around at the moment - if you're not sure if you will be interested in something, it's easier to sit at home and watch a hour long programme on it then spend a while researching it and realise you're not interested! (bearing in mind you can go and do proper research afterwards if it does interest you). I don't agree that it is taking the place of reading, as not that long ago historically, it would only have been rich/privileged people who could actually read. Literacy rates are still not 100% either by the way, so good adaptations of novels are the only way for some people to see them! I agree that those members of our society who come home from school, watch cartoons, have their dinner in front of the telly and don't read anything after "the cat sat on the mat" are not ideal, and it makes me upset that there are people like that, but each to their own. Having done an english degree, it does depress me that there are people who will never read some of my favourite novels, but it's not really any of my business.

2) You think a novel has to have a good vocabulary, good grammar and make you more intelligent? What about interesting plots and characters, descriptive backgrounds and scenery? I don't think there are many classics that improved my iq, though they may improve the vocab - but look at the language in some 'classics' - do you really want to talk to someone who is using shakespearean slang?

3) As has been mentioned, Harry Potter is mainly a children's book. I've seen 6 year olds reading it! Don't really think any of them are ready for Great Expectations. 

There is no guarantee that kids will read other books because of HP, but maybe one in ten will go back and read something like the Narnia chronicles... And at any rate, at least it does get them past the dreaded 'cat sat on the mat' style of writing!

----------


## Pensive

> Ahhh...
> 
> The typical argument in favor of Harry Potter: "Anything that make people read is good." 
> 
> But is reading Harry Potter really any better then watching TV?
> 
> Harry Potter books don't add anything to people. They don't have good vocabulary, they don't teach good writing, and they don't improve peoples intelligence.
> 
> I am all for reading and think it is incredibly sad that TV is taking books place, but it not like someone that reads Harry Potter is next going to read Great Expectations.


As you says that Harry Potter books don't have good vocabulary and they don't teach good writing. To some extent I agree with you, ofcourse, Rowling's writing can't be compared to Charles Dickens, Austen and George Eliot. (no offense to HP lovers) but there is something in the world called "entertainment"
I found the series very entertaining and witty and her style is also not bad. We can't call it bad. The said that the question is why do teens/kids like it and prefer it rather than to watch TV... To me, it looks like, they found it quite entertaing and its world is beautiful. I myself, reads novels for entertainment. The main reason is entertainment and pleasure. In my opinion, her wit and imaginary world made the kids/teens love the book and they prefer the enjoyment with the book rather than the one with TV. There is a certain scale for the enjoyment...they must have found the book more entertaining than the tv. I will not say that watching telivision is a bad thing...
Books and TV are two totally different thing and I think both are quite entertaining and useful as well. My friend is a great TV lover and I love books, We both take pleasure with our hobbies and both of us learn new things. Like el, I will say that there is nothing wrong in watching tv - ofcourse, we should not do access of anything. We should do everything mdoerately not in excess even reading books in excess can done a great harm to us.

----------


## Nightshade

Right heres my 2 piece worth-
Escuse me people buut dont you think charles dickens rated as popular fiction in his time a novel in fact!! so quit being snobbish about new books
as for harry potter well its my opinion that the series is any les or more great then oh Alice in wonderland or the lion the witch ect books and yes its had way too much hype but I started reading because of Malory towers (enid blyton)and I now read about 6 books a week (granted a magority of those are so called junk reads) but still.

The books are not fantastic yes_ but_ everyone starts somwhere and if a child gets enough enjoyment out of a harry potter book they might come into a library and get somemore similar books.
For example ther is a shelf in one of the liibraries I have worked at once called Hotter than Potter and most things that go on that shelf leave quite quickly so yes I think harry potter is a great escapist book and yes it can be entertaining I havent reda the whole series because I gave up at 5 but will eventually read 6 when 7 comes out not because I love it but as someone working in libraries I should know what s in the book.
also I have a therory that shes gone kill off potter and I want to be proved right.
also it s not such a simple good vs bad story really I mean look at 5 black is killed and he was Good think its suprisingly more balanced and realistic then alot of critics will admit.
 :Biggrin:

----------


## Levenbreech Vor

Point taken.

Congrats to you el01ks, you are one of the few Harry Potter fans that have been able to offer me a concise opinion that is persuasive!

We may disagree but at least we can talk about HP openly.

I was wondering, what were some of your favorite books?

----------


## papayahed

> I wish HP was a "gateway" book but it isn't. People are more likely to think "Cool a book about magic...I'll go watch the movie."


Have you seen the sales numbers? People are buying the books.






> However I respect Harry Potter for what it is, a well done ploy to make money, not a well written novel.


well, duh! Why would she do it for free?


Don't get me wrong, I've never read the books and I'm not saying they're great books, but at the same time I'm not going to call them crap either. There's no denying that Rowlings did something right...

----------


## Nightshade

[QUOTE=papayahed]Have you seen the sales numbers? People are buying the books.

yes but to take the otherside of the argument for a bit...
libaries by tons of the things for eg my libary which is only really very smal has atleat 3 copies of every book!  :Eek2: 

Still I did enjoy the first 4 and probably would have enjoyed them all if I hadnt started with four then worked my way back to the begining by the time I got to harry in 5 I did like who he was becoming teenagers  :Rolleyes:  
 :Wink:

----------


## Levenbreech Vor

> well, duh! Why would she do it for free?


No need to be so rude, I was just expressing my views as I let you.

----------


## el01ks

> Congrats to you el01ks, you are one of the few Harry Potter fans that have been able to offer me a concise opinion that is persuasive!
> I was wondering, what were some of your favorite books?


Lol, I like you!

I'm not sure anymore if I have a favourite book, and favourite books is still difficult! There are some authors I like, but I don't like all of their work. I do like Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels. I'm currently eagerly awaiting The Knife of Dreams, which is the latest book in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series (I'm too cheap to buy it in hardback - plus I have the other ten in paperback, so it just wouldn't go with my collection ;>). Some of my most well-read books are period romances by Georgette Heyer. They're generally quite light, not trashy, well written and have happy endings - perfect for curling up on the sofa with a hot chocolate when I'm feeling a bit down. I also like Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen, I do like Persuasion and Mansfield Park as well, but am not so keen on Northanger Abbey or Emma, and prefer the former. I really like Scott's Ivanhoe, and want to read more by him. I've just finished Trudi Canavan's Black Magician trilogy, and enjoyed that, and I like some Dickens, particularly Nicholas Nickleby. Really need to start reading more different writers though, I have a bad habit of just sticking to the ones I'm comfortable with.
Hmm, probably more info than you were looking for, but nevermind!
Who do you like to read?

----------


## papayahed

> No need to be so rude, I was just expressing my views as I let you.



Sorry, didn't mean it to come of as rude.

----------


## Levenbreech Vor

To papayahed:

No problem, I just don't want any animosity on my thread.


To el01ks:

I haven't read many of the novels you listed, however, I loved Pride and Prejudice and Nicholas Nickleby. Have you read The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck (one of my favorite storys).

----------


## Logos

I haven't read any HP stuff and I won't, I've heard and read enough reviews to conclude it's mediocre stuff  :Smile: 

I don't like HP converts trying to tell me why I *should' read it either, that is the most annoying thing about it to me. But then I usually go against the grain on a lot of stuff.

----------


## Logos

> No need to be so rude, I was just expressing my views as I let you.


I didn't find papayhed rude. 

Interesting how this topic is bringing out some, erm, expressive posts by people  :Biggrin:

----------


## Logos

And uh, let's not get personal or take things personally, we're talking about a book, right?  :Smile:

----------


## el01ks

Logos - you go against the grain? But as you haven't read the books, you're just taking other peoples' viewpoints without any firm critical base for yourself. If you read the books and hated them that might be more 'against the grain' as the majority seem to like them! Just taking someone else's ideas on something and letting them form your own lacks originality, and to be honest, sense - how can you know if you like/dislike something if you never try it?
I'm not trying to convert anyone - I like the books, prefer them to the films, don't think either are great literature, and don't really care if people like them or not! But it's not rebellious or anything to let other people form your opinions.

(ps - not supposed to be personal!)

OOOPS! I'm very sorry I hit the wrong button I did not mean to `edit' your post.

----------


## Logos

el01ks, I didn't mention being a `rebel'. 

Actually at this point in my life I'm pretty aware of the fact that most pop culture bores me to tears, I came to that conclusion on my own  :Smile:  so this is no exception. 

If it's a #1 hit in movie in theatres, number one song or "Best-selling Book" most likely I have no interest in it.

----------


## Levenbreech Vor

> Logos - you go against the grain? But as you haven't read the books, you're just taking other peoples' viewpoints without any firm critical base for yourself. If you read the books and hated them that might be more 'against the grain' as the majority seem to like them! Just taking someone else's ideas on something and letting them form your own lacks originality, and to be honest, sense - how can you know if you like/dislike something if you never try it?


Yet again el01ks I agree with you! (Gosh we must be reading each-others minds) I am not a fan of Harry Potter but I have read all of them for two reasons.


1. Firstly, so no one can frame me as a hypocrite because there is nothing that upsets me more then a hypocrite.

2. Secondly, because there are entertaining. I will be the first to admit that it is fun to read Harry Potter. The reason I am against it is because it is so overrated.

----------


## el01ks

I didn't say you said that you were a rebel, but that was my interpretation of your use of against the grain!

I don't care if something is popular or not - you don't know if you like it till you try it. I wouldn't decide not to see/read/listen to something just because it was popular.

----------


## simon

I find the books to be adversely overrated, but they do nonetheless have the semblance of entertainment. They have also decreased in effort and enjoyment as the series has continued. Though there are more books coming, I think the author is tuckered out. And there are other series of fantasy and fiction that are not as poorly written, are more creative, and might have actaul impact on my life. That said when the next one comes out I shall still read it if anyone one I know has a copy. But I can wait a long time on that.

----------


## faith

It's all about your view on literature. 

I think the purpose of literatur is the following:

a) to make/help us understand other people and see things from their point of view (and maybe undertand ourseves too)
b) to be an escape from the real world (problems and stress etc)
c) entertainment

I think the Harry Potter books fullfill all of this.

----------


## MrAcademics8290

Harry Potter rules!! And you're correct that all does apply. Yuo have great taste.

----------


## Levenbreech Vor

> Harry Potter rules!! And you're correct that all does apply. Yuo have great taste.


These are the type of pro-Harry Potter responses I normally get. Incoherent statements that the author does not back up. I thought that on a forum full of bookworms and intelligent people I wouldn't find this, I was wrong.

----------


## Scheherazade

> These are the type of pro-Harry Potter responses I normally get. Incoherent statements that the author does not back up. I thought that on a forum full of bookworms and intelligent people I wouldn't find this, I was wrong.


Levenbreech Vor,

You have started this thread to see whether there are other people on the Forum who share your view that HP books are overrated. As you might have expected, some people do and some don't. If you are not willing to hear their opinions and respect them, maybe you should not have asked for their views in the first place.

Not so long ago, within this thread, you asked another member, who simply expressed her thoughts, not to be rude. Now, I will ask the same thing; please respect others' views and do not resort to name calling simply because their opinions differ from those of yours.


Going back to the subject... I have read all the HP books except for the last one, which I will read in future as well. They are aimed at a certain age group and, keeping that in mind, they are good. However, we hardly all agree on what a good book is. It is simply something we will have to agree to disagree that we have different tastes.

----------


## PeterL

> These are the type of pro-Harry Potter responses I normally get. Incoherent statements that the author does not back up. I thought that on a forum full of bookworms and intelligent people I wouldn't find this, I was wrong.


I am curious as to what you find wrong with the Harry Potter series. Do you disapprove with the themes, plots, characters, style, or something else? I have been accused of being a bookworm for decades, I am usually classified among intelligent people, and some people think that I am a fair writer. Although J. K. Rowling targetted an audience that I am no longer part of, I liked the Harry Potter books that I have read. I think that Rowling injected universal themes into an interesting setting that allowed her to create characters and situations that she couldn't work with in the England of the Muggles. Fantastic literature has been used since ancient times to emphasize themes that were easier to address outside of the ordinary reality. For books targetted at teens the style and vocabulary were quite sophisticated.

----------


## Levenbreech Vor

I now realize that my statement was uncalled for and I'm very sorry about it.

However, when discussing HP I like to have in depth conversations where I can be persuaded and I can persuade my "opponent". The statement "Harry Potter rules!!" is not supported and can not be debated beyond a simple I'm right your wrong argument.

Once again sorry,
Levenbreech Vor

----------


## Aurora Ariel

There is a high degree of subjectivity involved when assessing a book, but I think one can look at it from the point that it's good that people are reading at all.Even if you are not a huge fan of Harry Potter yourself, it is rather refreshing to hear that many little kids have started to read because Harry Potter introduced them into a whole new world of books.I think the comments about young children choosing to read, instead of watching another mind-dulling TV show or playing video-games all the time, is a positive step for literacy and may encourage these developing minds to read much more in the future.They may eventually decide to try and explore a whole wide range of genres which may increase their love of literature, which originated with the exposure via the Harry Potter series.An exciting and new horizon may lurk around the corner of the bookshop as they discover their own passion for stories and now wish to read extensively.Personally, I have only read the first one(ages ago), but will consider reading the others in the future.I have seen the first films though, but haven't found the time the read any of the others as I always seem to have so many on my read next list already.So from this perspective, I can't see any detrimental effect and problem with young people reading Harry Potter; even if the writing itself is not the most exceptional in the whole history of literature, it still provides an enthralling story for many and allows one to use and open the mind in a realm of imagination.

----------


## samercury

> I am all for reading and think it is incredibly sad that TV is taking books place, but it not like someone that reads Harry Potter is next going to read Great Expectations.


I disagree with that. Harry Potter was the first book in English that I read by myself and that I actually liked. The school that I was going to my first year here gave us this list for summer reading and frankly, I didn't like them (later I read them again and they weren't that bad)... Anyways, after I read Harry Potter, I got more interested in reading  :Biggrin: . I read the second and third volumes and afterwards, when I started school, I had this teacher who had a very large library at the back of her classroom.
First book after HP- Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen...been reading ever since

----------


## Pensive

> I disagree with that. Harry Potter was the first book in English that I read by myself and that I actually liked. The school that I was going to my first year here gave us this list for summer reading and frankly, I didn't like them (later I read them again and they weren't that bad)... Anyways, after I read Harry Potter, I got more interested in reading . I read the second and third volumes and afterwards, when I started school, I had this teacher who had a very large library at the back of her classroom.
> First book after HP- Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen...been reading ever since


Same happened to me, Chamber of Secrets was in my summer reading list. It was the first english book I read leaving fairy tales.  :Wink:  
I loved the series. It made me love the books.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Apotropaic

> ...shares my view that [Harry Potter] is incredibly overrated.
> 
> Harry Potter is the bestselling book in history, better then great literary classics, suspenseful mystery novels, and in-depth sci-fi and fantasy worlds. WHY? J.K. Rowling's characters are poorly developed, the plots are full of annoying angst, the villains are cliché, and the writing style is childish.
> 
> ....not like someone that reads Harry Potter is next going to read Great Expectations.


I find your obloquys against the HP series to be unfair and somewhat invalid. I see that you are comparing HP with "the great classics" you speak of. Yes, perhaps someone who reads HP would not read "Great Expectations". Why would they? The styles of writing of both books are greatly unalike. Great E. was written in the 1800s. The text has an old English quality which could prove difficult to read for the modren general reader. HP however, is, as you said, written in a childish manner, therefore attracting a larger audience, and therefore outselling those great classics. 

Don't get me wrong, Great Expectations is a wonderful classic. I just feel that most of us, sometimes, just wants to quit reading those books that require of us to think greatly and deeply before we may understand the story, and grab an easy-to-read book and be entertained. 

Do you feel HP is overrated because it is written in simple plain English language and not the lyrical prose you find in classics? Or is the story really that bad? Choose the former and you'd be unfair and quite discriminatory. Choose the latter and I'd be baffled, since I found HP fun and entertaining.

----------


## Kiwi Shelf

I guess I always thought the best selling novel of all time would not be about some kid that is magic... There are just better books out there, and I am not even talking classics because I go through periods of reading classics and I am not in one right now.

----------


## Levenbreech Vor

> I disagree with that. Harry Potter was the first book in English that I read by myself and that I actually liked. The school that I was going to my first year here gave us this list for summer reading and frankly, I didn't like them (later I read them again and they weren't that bad)... Anyways, after I read Harry Potter, I got more interested in reading . I read the second and third volumes and afterwards, when I started school, I had this teacher who had a very large library at the back of her classroom.
> First book after HP- Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen...been reading ever since


WOW!  :Eek2:  

I guess I have never heard a story like that. If Harry Potter really does get people reading then I might concede that its not so bad.

I wonder what the statistics are about Harry Potter and books read next.

----------


## imaditzyreader

I completly agree with the first post, however, I must say that I contradict myself. It is one of the easiest reads one will find out there, and one of the easiest to loose your self in. I read the last one between 2:30 one day and 10:00 the next. 
However, they offer no necesary thought at all to read and comprhend. In a world when very few kids read, let alone adults, it forced people to begin to look at books. In my high school if you ask any one if they have read harry potter, they will most likely say yes, but if you ask them if they are readers, they will all say no.
For this i am thankfull to it, for it has made some people in this Telivision controlled world turn them off and open a book.

----------


## Nocturnal

Harry Potter seriously annoys me. I actually bothered to try to read the first book, before the whole HP insanity kicked in but I couldn't get myself to actually enjoy it. Everyone was simply...contrived. At some point I felt I was reading a strangely silly version of The Magician's Nephew by C.S Lewis, so I put it back and re-read the classic Narnia story instead. To this day, I haven't regretted it.

----------


## Jack_Aubrey

I feel like Harry Potter is a sorry excuse for literature. The writing is poor,and the stories are pretty adolescent.

----------


## Darlin

After reading the latest installment of Harry Potter I've found I'm enjoying the books less and less. The series seemed to peak with the fourth book when it was fun and intriguing but now Harry's become a bit of a snark, irrelevant and moody although I must admit some teenagers do make the changes he has.

I think the thing I dislike most about the books, and I've enjoyed the first four mind you, is that they take so much from other good author's. Reading book six, the Half Blood Prince, I felt somewhat like Nocturnal except my reaction was less spontaneous as I did read the entire book. Afterwards I felt like calling the plagiarist police! Thats a little annoying and yet Im curious to see what the last book will be like and Ill probably snag that book up from a friend like the latest. No point in buying it.

----------


## Charissa

Harry Potter is not an educational book. it' s more for enterainment. As for me, I like it. I like adventure and fantasy book you know. I don't care if it's non-EDUCATIONAL.  :Argue:   :Rolleyes:

----------


## novellover

Hello guys
I think I joined in a bit late as most seem to have had their say in the matter. And I see that I am probably the only avid Harry Potter fan here. And I am an adult!!!
Before I state my views, I'd like to confess my lack of sophisticated knowledge of literature. I read books as a hobby- so my choice of books is probably not the most intellectual, but I love Harry Potter. And I find that besides the tight plot, the books do try to delve into deeper issues- growing up, dealing with the loss of loved ones etc. In fact, one of my best quotes from the books is the one when Dumbledore consoles Harry about the early loss of his parents and says, "Your parents are alive in you". I don't recall all of what he said, but in essence he talked about how the dead are alive in the minds of the ones who loved them the most. It might be just me, but I felt really touched by these lines. And the fact that JK tried to talk of such profound matters in books that are mostly targeted at kids was quite impressive to me. The loss of loved ones is probably the most heart-wrenching and difficult thing to live with even for the most mature adults and her take on it was quite profound and interesting. This is just one example, but there are numerous others in these books. I feel that the worth of a creation should be decided by how many lives it can touch and by that measure, Harry Potter is assuredly a modern classic. It has left an indellible mark on the publishing and reading world and who knows, it might even lead our new-young readers to classics like Shakespeare and Joyce!!

----------


## rachel

i too am very late at expressing myself. I admit that the sheer overwhelming consumerism of the hp books has prejudiced me somewhat against even picking up my first one to read. however having read some of your opinions i will do so because to judge a matter before hearing the evidence seems to be grossly unfair. and i hate that sort of thing. so even if it is with a lack of excitement i will get going and buy my first harry potter and see what all the talk is about.
i too love the good earth by pearl s. buck. in fact her writings made a huge impact upon my life and life choices. her thoughts and her worlds, her two worlds captivated me and forced me to evaluate my life and what i would do with the years allotted to me, to make a difference somehow in this world i roam about in.

----------


## cruciverbalist

I only started reading the Harry Potter books after the fourth one came out. I wasn't much interested in reading them before that because all the hype sort of put me off. But after reading the first, I did get intrigued enough to read the others and have been a fan since. (Although the 6th book wasn't quite up to par in my opinion and has taken the plot in another direction...but let's see how it turns out.)
I don't think it's true that readers of the series are all people who don't read books other than popular literature. I enjoyed the HP series and read other 'serious' works as well. My favourite writers include Joyce, Shakespeare, Faulkner, Virginia Woolf and many others. And there's plenty of evidence if you only read some of the fansite editorials that there are other Harry fans who have much deeper knowledge of literature. One editorial even detailed how Rowling used Proust's literary techniques in her work. Rowling's writing style has to be simplistic as her main audience comprises children. But she does draw from mythology and literature. Harry Potter may not be a literary classic or even the best fantasy fiction, but it is a compelling read in my opinion.

----------


## LightShade

Well, what a set of interesting opinions  :Smile: 

one comment, and then I'll write my personal view on hp books



> You think a novel has to have a good vocabulary, good grammar and make you more intelligent?


Yeeees, I definitely think a novel should have good vocabulary and good grammar. As for a novel making one more intelligent, well, that depends on the client's material, so to speak  :Biggrin:  generally, yes, that should be the case.

I have read the first five hp books. I may read the subsequent ones, because I am curious how the author will sort things out and if the characters will actually grow "up". But not because they are good literature. They're not.

I do believe they are good books for one to start reading in English. The language is pretty easy, the plot is not complicated, therefore I would rather recommend Harry Potter than my favourite Terry Pratchett to someone who doesn't have a very good command of English. However, I had the surprise of some of these people disliking Harry Potter and choosing to read other, more complicated books instead (yes, even TP). Apparently, they got bored.  :Tongue:  

After the first read, when I just followed the story as such, I re-read the books and ended up with an amazing list of what an author should NOT do  :Biggrin: 
I have kept that list as future reference for my own literary attempts. 

I know why it appeals so much to kids: the idea of a kid just like themselves, who suddenly finds out he's a wizard and goes to study at this awesome wizarding school is a perfect hook. I bet most kids imagine one day this will also happen to them and secretly wish they have been adopted  :Biggrin: 

The rest is just the effect of a huge marketing action. Hurray for whomever devised it.

----------


## el01ks

> Yeeees, I definitely think a novel should have good vocabulary and good grammar. As for a novel making one more intelligent, well, that depends on the client's material, so to speak  generally, yes, that should be the case.


I feel a bit like this has been taken out of context... I am not advocating poor English in literature, but I believe that an expert use of vocabulary is not essential for a book to be enjoyable. If the vocab is too advanced for potential readers, then it would put off a lot of them! Which is why a lot of people have trouble with getting into 'the classics' if the writing style and vocabulary is alien to them. 
I don't think I will ever agree that a book must be educational to have merit, it sounds a bit too much like the 18th/19th century belief that well-bred young women should only read 'improving' works, as anything of a less prudish tone might corrupt them! As I said before, what's wrong with just enjoying the plot?
If something is very badly written, it can take away the meaning of the text (as the editor for the reviews/features part of my universty's student website, I once spent an hour re-writing a review of Master and Commander because it was so poorly written - and I hadn't even seen the film!) and make it impossible to enjoy, but the Harry Potter books are readable.

----------


## LightShade

ah, "expert use of vocabulary". That would indeed make the book difficult to read. I agree with you on this one, sorry for the misunderstanding.

However, I found it upsetting that J.K.Rowling doesn't diversify her wordpool  :Tongue:  repetition is annoying and there are such things as synonyms out there... it's a shame not to use them, really  :Biggrin: 

As for the "educational" argument, I have the strong belief that books shape readers. Unknowingly, I might add. 
I may read a book just for the plot, but then again there's no telling what my mind will pick up from it and store somewhere safe until it's needed, if you get my meaning. 

ps - I cannot say Harry Potter is not educational - it's taught me some fair bits about writing with style  :Tongue:  (as I said in my previous post).

----------


## pcockey

I'm an English major. I don't watch TV simply because I spend too much time reading--not just what's assigned in class, but what I choose to read on my own as well. The vast majority of what I read on my own would be considered "good literature"--I just reread Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and I'm currently taking my time over a copy of The Marriage of Heaven and Hell with the original plates.

And, y'know, that's all well and good. But sometimes, just like with anything else, you need junk food. Harry Potter is quick and light and fun, and it fulfills that occasional junk food requirement. I have a close friend who is also an English major, and is just as passionate about literature as I am--maybe even more so, because he came from a home where his reading material was strictly monitored, and he's overwhelmed at what there is to read. A few weeks ago I loaned him a young adult book I'd borrowed from my sister. His response? "Wow. I love what I'm reading, but it makes a nice break to read a high school book again."

I don't look at this as an argument for Harry Potter; rather, it's an argument against taking literature so seriously. Yes, it's vitally important, but what's the point if you can't have some fun once in a while? That's what books are for, after all. I can appreciate the meter of Byron or the phrasing of Wilde perfectly well, but every now and then, the analyzing brain cells must go off and let the having-fun cells take over.

----------


## claudeng

There is so much better children's fantasy out there that I think it's kind of sad that HP gets so much of the attention, but in and of itself it's not bad. Just . . . not challenging. I don't mean challenging on a reading comprehension level, I think it's fine for that (and I imagine American kids of this generation will be way more literate in British terms than many others are!), I mean challenging in the sense of firing the imagination. For all its magic, most of what goes on in the magic world works just like the Muggle world with shortcuts. They're perfectly fine kids books and enjoyable - it just gets a bit spooky when you find adults considering it great literature. Here's a quote from Ursula Le Guin - I don't think she was talking about HP specifically, but I'm sure the craze is part of the movement she's talking about. (I'll admit to being a much bigger fan of hers than of J.K. Rowling's. I was reading Earthsea at the prime Potter ages)

SP

"Commodified fantasy takes no risks: it invents nothing, but imitates and trivialises. It proceeds by depriving the old stories of their intellectual and ethical complexity, turning their action to violence, their actors to dolls, and their truth-telling to sentimental platitude. Heroes brandish their swords, lasers, wands, as mechanically as combine harvesters, reaping profits. Profoundly disturbing moral choices are sanitized, made cute, made safe. The passionately conceived ideas of the great story-tellers are copied, stereotyped, reduced to toys, molded in bright-colored plastic, advertised, sold, broken, junked, replaceable, interchangeable."
- Ursula Le Guin, preface to Tales of Earthsea

----------


## PeterL

Tales of Earthsea came out decades before Harry appeared. It was quite good, but it is not as absorbing as the Harry Potter series.

----------


## samercury

Tales of Earthsea....I don't really like that sery by LeGuin- I like some of her other series though....

On HP:
-Now when I read the whole series back, I think that the books are getting less and less interesting as time goes on...I still think that the 1st book is good  :Biggrin: 
....I still want to know what happens in the end...

----------


## clandestine

Yeah, Harry Potter is fun the first time through, and maybe even the second, but after that...well. I enjoyed the first book the most simply because it was fresh: Hogwarts, Quidditch, etc. The books are not all the same, but neither are they fundamentally different from eachother. It's new and fun at first but the glamour wears off as the story goes on; however, I gotta hand it to the author for creating memorable characters.  :Smile:

----------


## starrwriter

Oh my God! More than two-thirds of the posters actually like Harry PottyTrainer. Am I among philistines here?
_*Pulls hair out by the roots*_

----------


## PeterL

> Oh my God! More than two-thirds of the posters actually like Harry PottyTrainer. Am I among philistines here?
> _*Pulls hair out by the roots*_


Are those independent observations, or do you have some problem with Rowling's writing?

----------


## starrwriter

> Are those independent observations, or do you have some problem with Rowling's writing?


Yes, I have a problem. I'm an adult with mature tastes in literature.

----------


## Logos

Amazon says HP books are written for the 9-12 years age range.

I wonder what the actual average age is for HP readers.

----------


## PeterL

> Yes, I have a problem. I'm an adult with mature tastes in literature.


Then why are you concerned about the quality of children's literature?

----------


## Levenbreech Vor

> Then why are you concerned about the quality of children's literature?


Because some day those children are going to be leading our governments and being influential citizens.

----------


## papayahed

> Because some day those children are going to be leading our governments and being influential citizens.


Do you think previous generations read higher quality books? I grew up on Judy Blume and the Sweet Valley High series - No Prize winners there......

----------


## starrwriter

> Then why are you concerned about the quality of children's literature?


Young people the same age as the millions (billions?) reading "Potter" could understand and gain important insights from a book like "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" while being entertained. See my point?

Also, Rowling's book won't teach any of them how to write well.

----------


## PeterL

> Young people the same age as the millions (billions?) reading "Potter" could understand and gain important insights from a book like "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" while being entertained. See my point?
> 
> Also, Rowling's book won't teach any of them how to write well.


Do you see less value in the insights in Harry Potter than in the insights in J.L. Seagull? 

While reading Harry Potter won't teach anyone how to write well, it exemplifies good character development, plot development, and how to insert theme into a story without appearing to do so. Rowling isn't a truly great writer, but is a very good writer. Her skill in the craft of writing is greater that that of any other writer of children's literature that I have encountered. Some mild changes in the plot and setting would make those very good adult literature.

----------


## PeterL

> Because some day those children are going to be leading our governments and being influential citizens.


Papayahed already made a great reply. Ask yourself whether you would rather have a future government leader or influential person who read Harry Potter or one who never read anything and played video games and watched TV.

Personally, I read Kenneth Roberts and C. S. Forester and a huge amount of history when I was in that age bracket.

----------


## rachel

Starr,
you are a phillistine? Funny I would have never thought by your picture that you were that old. Have you considered that your taste in what the youngsters should read is generational? What I mean by that is with each generation the older folk always, well a lot of the time say that the new generation's music, literature isn't as good as theirs was. Isn't it a matter of taste?

----------


## PeterL

> What I mean by that is with each generation the older folk always, well a lot of the time say that the new generation's music, literature isn't as good as theirs was.


People have been criticizing the younger generation for thousands of years. If the criticisms had merit, then the human race would have destroyed itself a long time ago.

----------


## rachel

Well said Peter. There is an emotional something that comes to each generation of youth that they claim for their very own against the winds of the older folk's claiming from their own generation. It is just how it is. But one doesn't make the other's preferences more or less.

----------


## MrBojangles

Yes well put peter.

----------


## PeterL

> Well said Peter. There is an emotional something that comes to each generation of youth that they claim for their very own against the winds of the older folk's claiming from their own generation. It is just how it is. But one doesn't make the other's preferences more or less.


The importance that some people seem to put into temporary styles of expression that constantly change is something that I just don't understand. Styles change with the seasons, but they have the same content.

----------


## ~Maude~

I have seen HP get my younger brother reading when nothing else would, my son is fond of them and it is fun to share a series with him. My whole family reads them now, my parents, brother, husband, son, cousins, it's fun for the kids to get together and talk about them and it's nice as adults to understand what they are enjoying so much.

While I don't think that they are great books I do like them and they are a path to good reading habits with the younger kids. It gets them excited about books, reading every night and into the book shop & library, I don't think thats a bad thing and it has allowed me to slip some of my old faves into his basket too. As stated before I don't think books that have got so many kids reading can be a bad thing and it hopefully leads kids into the joy and excitement of books, their taste will mature as they do.

----------


## Apotropaic

> Young people the same age as the millions (billions?) reading "Potter" could understand and gain important insights from a book like "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" while being entertained. See my point?


Livingston Seagull's insights and lessons might prove a bit too difficult to grasp fully by children that young. Harry Potter has simpler ones, and they are presented out more effectively, I believe. Livingston Seagull is more philosophical than a real story. I don't think it was meant for 8-year-olds. Harry Potter has an interesting plotline with delightful characters people can relate to with lessons and insights like friendship. What 8-year-old would be concerned about freeing his/her limitations to become master of his consciousness, as is presented in Livingston Seagull?

----------


## starrwriter

> Livingston Seagull's insights and lessons might prove a bit too difficult to grasp fully by children that young. Harry Potter has simpler ones, and they are presented out more effectively, I believe. Livingston Seagull is more philosophical than a real story. I don't think it was meant for 8-year-olds.


First of all, a previous post said the average age of a "Potter" reader was between 9 and 12, not 8.

I don't think the insights in "Seagull" are beyond the understanding of kids 9 to 12 years old. That's a good age to learn that limits are imposed by society until they become internalized and that most "individuals" behave like herd members. Any kid can understand Jonathan's desire to be free.

----------


## LightShade

> While reading Harry Potter won't teach anyone how to write well, it exemplifies good character development, plot development, and how to insert theme into a story without appearing to do so. Rowling isn't a truly great writer, but is a very good writer. Her skill in the craft of writing is greater that that of any other writer of children's literature that I have encountered.


*good character development?* her characters are archetypes, for crying out loud! that wouldn't be so bad, actually, but they even _behave_ like archetypes, they're giving me the impression I already know what they'll do and say. They don't have many dimensions, they're almost flat. 

*good plot development?* can you hear me laughing at that?  :Biggrin:  She's not good at developing plots, there are too many deus ex machina there, too many situations when handy things and people just, oh, _happen_  :Rolleyes:  to be there when they're needed. 

*Rowling isn't a truly great writer, but is a very good writer.*
She's not a bad writer, no. But not _very_ good, either. Just good.

*Her skill in the craft of writing is greater that that of any other writer of children's literature that I have encountered.*
 :Eek2:  

I see many people feel her latest books in the series are badly written compared to the first one, as the initial novelty was followed by nothing much in the ingeniosity department. Apart from that, I believe it may be also due to the fact that they were written under pressure and that took its toll on J.K.Rowling. She's only human and fame is a double-edged knife. Correct me if I'm wrong, please: has she written/published anything else before HP? She's practically a beginner in the literary field, raised to the status of VIP. And her skills aren't honed yet, they're still very much in the development stage. And there's the pressure I already mentioned. It's like pressuring a child or teenager to haul weights like a grown man - the strain on their not-yet-developed bodies would be too much and the results disappointing. No wonder she's still struggling. 

Yes, the idea is good. I'll give her that. Actually, they idea is great. 
It's the development that spoiled it. Please, just for the sake of it, imagine this idea would have been developed by your favourite writer (presumably, he/she is indeed a skillful author). Yes, a children's books writer, since I assume you're going to say "these are children's books after all, let's not be too judgmental". Oh, wait, you said she was the greatest, in your opinion; that pretty much make this exercise pointless  :Biggrin: 
Nevertheless... how do your think the characters and plot would have been developed by another writer?  :Smile:

----------


## Apotropaic

> First of all, a previous post said the average age of a "Potter" reader was between 9 and 12, not 8.
> 
> I don't think the insights in "Seagull" are beyond the understanding of kids 9 to 12 years old. That's a good age to learn that limits are imposed by society until they become internalized and that most "individuals" behave like herd members. Any kid can understand Jonathan's desire to be free.


O sorry, I missed the age limit by 1. 

Yes, maybe kids 9-12 may be old enough to grasp the insights, as they may already feel the things you said in school. But still, I don't think they will appreciate it as much as the lessons in HP. 

Livingston Seagull is too... direct, as opposed to the lessons hidden as undertones in HP. And really, Livingston Seagull's story is just about a bird wanting to fly, going to heaven, then learning to fly. I have to younger siblings, and I know that when they read that type of story, they will only see that story, not the philosophical insights. It won't have a lasting effect on their mind. Kids that age are concerned mainly about having fun, I think you'd agree with that. They don't care much for those things. Unless of course, they're brilliant. 

However, HP's lessons and insights are mixed and hidden in a captivating and interesting story. Well, I think you know where I'm going here.

----------


## Levenbreech Vor

> Kids that age are concerned mainly about having fun, I think you'd agree with that. They don't care much for those things. Unless of course, they're brilliant. 
> 
> However, HP's lessons and insights are mixed and hidden in a captivating and interesting story. Well, I think you know where I'm going here.


I'm disappointed that you think so little of youth that all 12 year olds think about is fun all day long. Secondly, tell me what HP's lessons and insights are.




> *good character development?* her characters are archetypes, for crying out loud! that wouldn't be so bad, actually, but they even _behave_ like archetypes, they're giving me the impression I already know what they'll do and say. They don't have many dimensions, they're almost flat. 
> 
> *good plot development?* can you hear me laughing at that?  She's not good at developing plots, there are too many deus ex machina there, too many situations when handy things and people just, oh, _happen_  to be there when they're needed. 
> 
> *Rowling isn't a truly great writer, but is a very good writer.*
> She's not a bad writer, no. But not _very_ good, either. Just good.
> 
> *Her skill in the craft of writing is greater that that of any other writer of children's literature that I have encountered.*
>  
> ...


*I am in entire agreement, couldn't have said it better myself!*

----------


## PeterL

> I see many people feel her latest books in the series are badly written compared to the first one, as the initial novelty was followed by nothing much in the ingeniosity department. Apart from that, I believe it may be also due to the fact that they were written under pressure and that took its toll on J.K.Rowling. She's only human and fame is a double-edged knife. Correct me if I'm wrong, please: has she written/published anything else before HP? She's practically a beginner in the literary field, raised to the status of VIP. And her skills aren't honed yet, they're still very much in the development stage. And there's the pressure I already mentioned. It's like pressuring a child or teenager to haul weights like a grown man - the strain on their not-yet-developed bodies would be too much and the results disappointing. No wonder she's still struggling. 
> 
> Yes, the idea is good. I'll give her that. Actually, they idea is great. 
> It's the development that spoiled it. Please, just for the sake of it, imagine this idea would have been developed by your favourite writer (presumably, he/she is indeed a skillful author). Yes, a children's books writer, since I assume you're going to say "these are children's books after all, let's not be too judgmental". Oh, wait, you said she was the greatest, in your opinion; that pretty much make this exercise pointless 
> Nevertheless... how do your think the characters and plot would have been developed by another writer?


I will agree that the quality of the series has been uneven, and that might be a result of Rowling's inexperience outside of those books. I wouldn't be surprised if she has run out of things to write about. It has been more than a year since I read any of her books, but "Chamber of Secrets" and the "Prisoner of Azkaban" and "The Philosopher's Stone" are good stories. I don't claim that they are great literature, but they are well crafted stories that were written to entertain, and they do entertain. 

The question of how the characters and plot would have been handled by another writer is an interesting exercise in alternate universes. How would Vladimir Nabokov have written The Chamber of Secrets? I'll think about that one. Changing that point of view character would have altered everything, but I think that Ginny as the POV character would have created a great story; although it would have been very juvenile anyway. How would Mark Twain have written it? Or Hemingway? Thinking about that is an interesting game. I wonder if anyone would want to write one of those stories from the POV of Snipe.

Let us be judgmental, but let us judge her in relation to her peers. The kinds of books that I classify HP with are the Hardy Boys and similar collections of stories for children. Within that section of the fiction universe Rowling is a bright star. If I compare her with Joyce, Nabokov, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, etc. she is at the bottom of the barrell. But if I compare her with writers of contemporary "Fantasy", medievalish stories she is also a star.

----------


## Chava

Hmm, I've read all the HP series, and frankly i don't seem to think they're improving. I enjoyed the world that was created in Harry Potter as a source of inspiration for my own imagination, but as I've been growing older, I'm now labouring through reading them aloud to my little brother, who loves them, but we both agree that Harry Potter is a terribly annoying teenager, and the constant confrontations and conflicts are more than a little exasperating at times. Still, i intend to read the last one as well... can't imagine having read them all and then not knowing how it ends. 

May I suggest a healthy alternative in Terry Pratchett? His discworld is a dazzeling source of inspiration itself, and the humour, plot and language are far more advanced. 
Or if you're into crazy Sci-fi, find Douglas Adams and fall in love with his abuse of any regular rule of writing. Sheer quality for you... The Hitch Hikers guide is such a blessing... Sigh...  :Smile:  Yeah, Potter is not great litterature, but so what, there's many others to read if you'd rather do that.

----------


## LightShade

Chava, Pratchett also wrote some children's books  :Smile: 

PeterL, pray fantasy fans out there don't read what you wrote about her being a star in the fantasy writing field  :Biggrin:

----------


## Apotropaic

> I'm disappointed that you think so little of youth that all 12 year olds think about is fun all day long. Secondly, tell me what HP's lessons and insights are.


I've spoken honestly about our youth today. Only a few kids are really into those things. Well, at least that's what I believe. That's just based on my observations. And the insights of HP are too obvious, you really want me to list them down? It's the usual stuff like friendship, courage, standing up for what you believe in and pure-heartedness (shame on you Levenbreech Vor!).

Anyway, you may be right that HP isn't as good as a whole lot of other books out there. But I'd just like to correct you on something. Based on your previous statements like:




> Harry Potter is the bestselling book in history, better then great literary classics, suspenseful mystery novels, and in-depth sci-fi and fantasy worlds....[Harry Potter] is incredibly overrated.
> 
> ...but it not like someone that reads Harry Potter is next going to read Great Expectations.
> 
> ...I definitely don't think that Harry Potter changed the statues of the well-read.


--it seems to me you're under the impression that HP is supposed to be some great piece of literature. HP is a book for young adults. I don't think even JK Rowling would expect HP to be on the same level as Shakespeare. It's not her fault that something clicked with her story with both young and old readers alike and her book ended up becoming a massive bestseller. You say that it's overrated. It is if you consider it a literature masterpiece. But HP is just a book for young adults, like the hundred others out there. It just happened to be more popular. 

Why do you think HP is so popular? It could be because it was able to touch an extremely large audience, both young and old, globally. Don't you think that would somewhat qualify it as a great book?

And besides, what is your description of a well-written story? Complex sentences? Big words? Figures of speech? Who made up that rule anyway? HP was able to accomplish something only a few books do. Don't you think there's something in the writing that perhaps _others_ thought was great?

Anyway, you are free to have your own opinions of the book, of course. But just remember what HP is really is. It's like your expecting so much out of it.

----------


## Apotropaic

> Let us be judgmental, but let us judge her in relation to her peers. The kinds of books that I classify HP with are the Hardy Boys and similar collections of stories for children. Within that section of the fiction universe Rowling is a bright star. If I compare her with Joyce, Nabokov, Hemingway, Fitzgerald, etc. she is at the bottom of the barrell. But if I compare her with writers of contemporary "Fantasy", medievalish stories she is also a star.


There! That's what I'm talking about! Judge her fairly, please!

----------


## jakobin

i think that, as others have said above me, HP is a book for young adults. it cannot be put up against Jane Austen, or Dickens, or any one of the great authors that have put pen to paper. do not judge it in their fields.

JK has done what so many others have not acheived, she has made reading 'cool' and enjoyable. it has drawn them from the TV. someone earlier said, "So? What is the difference, they are not learning anything from HP."

i have to disagree. 

reading puts vocabulary into young minds much more efficiently than TV. also, tv is bad for the eyes. reading a book is completely what nature intended our eyes to do, rather than stare a a series of flashing lights.

----------


## PeterL

> There! That's what I'm talking about! Judge her fairly, please!


Then you agree that she is a very good writer. OK

----------


## PeterL

> PeterL, pray fantasy fans out there don't read what you wrote about her being a star in the fantasy writing field


It wouldn't bother a bit if they read it. Those "fantasy" books are only literature by virtue of being words on paper. They are without plot or theme, mere;y massive collections of characterizations and events that go no where.

----------


## LightShade

PeterL, the fantasy genre is HUGE. There are great writings there, and even some of the bad ones that I have read had "plot" or "theme". I don't understand your position. 

Are you sure you didn't mean "fairy tales"?  :Biggrin:

----------


## PeterL

> PeterL, the fantasy genre is HUGE. There are great writings there, and even some of the bad ones that I have read had "plot" or "theme". I don't understand your position. 
> 
> Are you sure you didn't mean "fairy tales"?


I certainly didn't mean "fairy tales". I meant the multivolume medaevalish sword, sorcery, and romance things. There is also a huge amount of good 'fantasy' from Dunsany to Tolkein to de Camp and LeGuin. I contrast that George R.R. Martin, Tad and others. 
I just looked at a list of "fantasy" writers and found many authors listed who are very good writers, who know when a story has ended. An endless series of episodes do not make good literature.

----------


## Chava

> Chava, Pratchett also wrote some children's books


yes, i know that, but i find that his discworrld series has a wonderful ploy when it concerns being child friendly or utterly mature. It's lovely! has anyone read his "Soul Music"??

----------


## Apotropaic

> ...[Fantasy books] are without plot or theme, mere;y massive collections of characterizations and events that go no where.
> 
> ...There is also a huge amount of good 'fantasy' from Dunsany to Tolkein to de Camp and LeGuin. I contrast that George R.R. Martin, Tad and others.
> 
> I just looked at a list of "fantasy" writers and found many authors listed who are very good writers, who know when a story has ended. An endless series of episodes do not make good literature.


Umm... I don't understand what you're talking about. You keep jumping from anti-fantasy books to pro-fantasy, then back to anti. Are you critcizing the books and praising the authors??

----------


## LightShade

> yes, i know that, but i find that his discworrld series has a wonderful ploy when it concerns being child friendly or utterly mature. It's lovely! has anyone read his "Soul Music"??


I agree, the series can be read at many levels and every person will understand (or not) the various subtleties based on his/her previous experience. And even if you don't get most of them, the stories are still thoroughly enjoyable. 

I read all his Discworld books up to Night Watch and I am currently re-reading them for what would be the third or fourth time in some cases. And sometimes, as it happens when you re-read a book after some time, I see things and characters in a new light. I love that. 




> An endless series of episodes do not make good literature.


Definitely. One has to know when to stop, otherwise it becomes rather boring and possibly too thinly stretched. 

I see you have reconsidered your position as to the fantasy genre in general. I'm glad we finally agree on the subject.  :Smile:  

Now, not to be totally off-topic: has anybody read the latest HP book? how did you find it? (I am looking for opinions as to plot, character development and general writing style. Please have good arguments to back up your opinion  :Biggrin:  ).

ps - I haven't read it yet, I'm waiting for the paperback and I wish she'd stop writing such big books, they cost a lot  :Tongue:

----------


## Shea

Okay, here's my crack at this.

After reading 7 pages of this thread, I come to 2 interesting conclusions. First, it appears that all the English majors (including myself) are in support of the HP books. Second, I was shocked that no one has brought up the fact that much of the inspiration has come from Mythology and classic literary themes.

Like Logos, if something is wildly popular, I'm likely not to be interested either. Early on while persuing my degree, I established the fact that the closer I get to the 20th century, the less likely I am to enjoy a piece. But I've also found that if I can make comparisons to older classics, I tend to like them (hence my thorough enjoyment of Tolkein). Initially, I condemned the books for religious reasons but then decided that wasn't fair, as I hadn't read them yet. I began reading them after the fourth one came out and found that they were no more harmful than Lord of the Rings or Narnia. Then I began my degree. I was happy to discover numerous parallels between the HP series and classic works of lit, and this was only enhanced by mythology classes. 

THEN! At Cambridge this past summer, I took a class on Dickens and another on the Bronte sisters, both taught by the same professor. She expressed the same observations that I had on the HP books (at the time she was comparing the orphan state of Oliver Twist to Harry), and she said that the only reason that she hadn't read the new one was because her daughter hadn't finished it yet. She felt the same as myself that Rowling was quite brilliant for introducing these themes and ideas to children in such an entertaining way that they can more easily identify them later in life while they read more challenging works. I even experienced this for myself. I had never heard of a Basilisk until reading The Chamber of Secrets. For a while I thought she just made up the creature. Then I ran across it while reading for one of my classes. I read the footnote for curiosities sake, but really it wasn't necessary. I already thoroughly knew what a Basilisk was because of Rowling.

Lightshade, perhaps this is why the characters seem so archetypal to you. But even so, I don't think any of the HP characters are nearly as flat as the classic character of Oliver Twist.

About the writing, what I've said above I think must be taken into consideration. Also in agreement to what Apotropaic said about not comparing to Dickens because it's from a different time period I wanted to add: while taking those classes in England, I discovered that a good knowledge of the history of society at that time (Dickens' or Brontes') is necessary in order to fully understand the meaning behind the ideas presented in a novel or even the language. Children (and most adults) don't generally know what happened during Dickens lifetime. They obviously know our own societal issues better and so can adhere to the HP books better. I also believe that the series follows the Dickens and Bronte example of trying to identify and change problems in our society. This leads me to an interesting example.

I found it ironic that many of the people complaining about the books also complained about kids being glued to the TV. Look at Dudley! Rowling has recognized the very issue brought up here, and personified it in one of her more rotten characters that no normal child would want to emulate!

Anyway, as a soon-to-be English teacher, I'm quite glad the books have been so poplular as I'll be refering to them from time to time during my classes for the reasons stated above.

sorry it's so long.

----------


## LightShade

Shea, I read many, MANY fairy tales and mythological tales when I was a kid. So I approached the HP books with that knowledge already installed  :Smile:  but no, that's not the reason for my seeing the characters as archetypal - I wasn't referring to dragons and suchlike. I was referring to Harry & his buddies & his enemies. 




> I don't think any of the HP characters are nearly as flat as the classic character of Oliver Twist.


It's been some time since I read Oliver Twist. To make a fair judgment now, I'd have to read it again and I don't really feel like it. I wasn't saying classics didn't use archetypes - when I was at the University we studied flat characters in literary theory class using examples from classic English writers  :Biggrin:  And I remember an exam where I had to write an essay concerning D.H.Lawrence's use of archetypes  :Smile:  it was pretty obvious he did use such characters. (btw, I got mark 10 (an A, for US students)  :Biggrin:  )

In any case, you may start with an archetypal character, but you have to work towards giving it more dimensions than the archetypal flat one. I fail to see that in Harry.

----------


## Scheherazade

Maybe Harry Potter books are like Marmite: You either *love it* or *hate it* !

 :Tongue:

----------


## Stanislaw

> Maybe Harry Potter books are like Marmite: You either love it or hate it!


exactly on the dubloons! there is no real inbetween ground with ol HP (the books, not the barbecue suce, but I suppose you either love it or hate it too)

Personally I think that they aren't so hot, and they don't teach kids some great moral lesson but ohvell.

Personally I think children shouldn't read untill they really have a need to, when they are 12ish, and then they should only read Robinson crusoe! (joke)...(Rousseaue)... :Biggrin: 

I just think it's sad that the classics aren't given to kids and that they aren't encouraged to read higher level literature, like Lem, Sienkewicz, Assimov,Jordan, Clavel.

----------


## Shea

> I was referring to Harry & his buddies & his enemies.


So was I..

----------


## Logos

> exactly on the dubloons! there is no real inbetween ground with ol HP (the books, not the barbecue suce, but I suppose you either love it or hate it too)


BBQ sauce? you've never had marmite have you  :FRlol:  it's truely `unique'!

----------


## Logos

> Maybe Harry Potter books are like Marmite: You either *love it* or *hate it* !


 :FRlol: 

OMG  :Goof:

----------


## Shea

actually, I've never heard of it. What's it taste like?

----------


## Shea

My husband once made his own sauce for eggrolls (we were out of soysauce) Worcestershire, ketchup, yellow mustard, and raspberry jelly! He loved it, I hated it!

----------


## Chava

marmite...(shudders)

----------


## PeterL

> Umm... I don't understand what you're talking about. You keep jumping from anti-fantasy books to pro-fantasy, then back to anti. Are you critcizing the books and praising the authors??


Some people write well and some don't. A variety of "fantasy" has arisen in the last 20 years that is pointless, but there is a variety of "fantasy" that has its roots in ancient mythology that includes some truly great literature. I suspect that role-playing games have led to the split.

----------


## Chava

hmm, why role-playing?

----------


## PeterL

> hmm, why role-playing?


Role playing games can go on for a very long time, and they are more about the activity than about concluding the activity. Some of the books by role players have a structure that is similar to the games with a section at the beginning setting the scene and general activity, then the action begins and the characters go through a variety of situations. 
I am not saying that there is a one to one corespondence between the games and the books, but there appears to be a relationship.

----------


## LightShade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_character

I actually found Harry Potter and Lord Voldermort given as examples there  :Biggrin:  loool

----------


## Scheherazade

> Author JK Rowling has said two characters will die in the seventh and final Harry Potter book, but she has been careful not to reveal which ones. 
> She told the Richard and Judy show that she had long known how the series would end, because she had written the last chapter "in something like 1990". 
> 
> "One character got a reprieve, but I have to say two die that I didn't intend to die," she said. 
> 
> She refused to elaborate, as "I don't want the hate mail or anything else". 
> 
> Rowling said she could understand why authors might want to finish off their main characters in order to ensure they could never be resurrected. 
> 
> ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5119836.stm

----------


## WhimsySA

Are you kidding? I love Harry Potter, in fact the only reason I started reading in the first place was because of it! I was one of those I-hate-reading-it's-for-dorks kind of girls untill my friend convinced me to read the 3rd HP book! Now I read everything that I can! J. K Rowling rocks!

----------


## Pensive

Now, I wonder which two characters are going to die. Any guesses? I think that Ginny can be the one to die and the other can be Voldemort.

----------


## grace86

I do not think I have put my opinion in this thread yet, and it comes awfully late. I strongly enjoyed Harry Potter, and probably wouldn't have picked up Chronicles or LOTR if I had not read those first. Someone said in an earlier post that the series deals with a lot of growing up issues and death, they also mentioned that there were some really nice quotations. I think so as well. I am not sure if it was the first movie only or in the first book as well, where Dumbledore found Harry at the mirror and he told him "It does not do to dwell on dreams alone and forget to live." 

There is also a book out there (and a college class surprisingly) that deals with philosophy and Harry Potter. The book is called something along the lines of "Philosophy of Harry Potter: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts" I have not checked it out though.

For someone who said that the theme is extremely adolescent, well, yes, it is a child's book. But reading it for entertainment is no crime either. I think it expands the imagination and does have the capability to start something that will blossom into habitual reading habits. But then there are those who just follow the trends, it won't make readers of them all. But don't bash it please.

----------


## Ryduce

The first Harry Potter book came out when I was about 8 or 9,so it is neccessary for me to read them because they are essentially the reason why I read so much today.Granted they do not have the signifigance of Faulkner or Dostoevsky,but I will read everyone that Rowling puts out.I enjoy them very much!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Bysshe

Hmmm....Harry Potter. Let's see.

I was young enough to properly appreciate the books when they first came out, and loved them (although I don't think at any point I thought of them as "my favourite books"). I was a keen reader even before I discovered Harry Potter, so I can't say that they made me fall in love with reading, but I think it's good that they've managed to turn a whole generation into book-worms!

But as for me - by the time the last book came out, I had lost interest. I think they are good books for children, and I can see why they're so popular, even though I'm a little sick of the hype. But personally, I'm just not interested in them any more. I feel like I've outgrown them, and now it feels a little strange going back to them.

A series of books that both children and adults can appreciate, that I much prefer, is "His Dark Materials". I would choose Northern Lights over Harry Potter any day...

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Although Harry Potter is a nice, quick, entertaining read, I was wondering whether anybody on this forum shares my view that it is incredibly overrated.
> 
> Harry Potter is the bestselling book in history, better then great literary classics, suspenseful mystery novels, and in-depth sci-fi and fantasy worlds. WHY? J.K. Rowling's characters are poorly developed, the plots are full of annoying angst, the villains are cliché, and the writing style is childish.


this sooooo needed to be said!
hehe, i think all the arguments in favour of the HP books have alreay been given...
i tend to agree with the idea that any book that will make people read is good... if you keep in mind that it's written for little kids and lots of kids don't read any books at all, that's certainly an improvement... i mean even if it's not a particularly good book, that's better than reading none... what's important in this context isn't so much what the brats can learn in terms of ideas, style etc but their basic literacy... i.e. lots of them have trouble even stringin two letters together... so they need to practice this and they are more likely to practice it reading easy-to-read books that cater to their childish interests....

but yep. I'm extremely disappointed in the sequels... i would of thunk (there's literacy for you  :Smile:  ) that the style and characters would develop, especially as her original readers grew older, so they would have been able to grasp more complex ideas now etc... 
gotta rush, will rant some more later  :Smile:

----------


## Medea86

Why do adults read Harry Potter, and is this a form of infantile escapism?

----------


## PeterL

> Why do adults read Harry Potter, and is this a form of infantile escapism?


Because the Harry Potter books are fairly well written with good, although young characters, and the theme od good versus evil is ageless. Like all fiction there is an element of escapism.

----------


## higley

Need there be any reason other than entertainment?  :Smile:  They surely entertain me!

----------


## Pensive

> Why do adults read Harry Potter, and is this a form of infantile escapism?


Why do adults eat sweets?  :Tongue:

----------


## ClaesGefvenberg

> Why do adults read Harry Potter


In my case: My daughter likes the series, and kept talking about them so I read them too. 



> and is this a form of infantile escapism?


I don't know, really. I'm certainly childish enough  :Wink:  ...and also very curious. Besides, I am always short on reading matter, and tend to read just about anything within reach  :FRlol:  

/Claes

----------


## Niamh

I'm a big fan of childrens books. i find that sometimes a lot more thought is put in to them and therefore they can be more enjoyable.
As For Harry Potter... they are what i call ageless books. They are books written with children in mind but have contexts that an adult would understand where a child wouldn't.this means that as you get older you realise things in the books that you didnt notice before because you're now that little bit older and wiser. :Biggrin:  
Also the Harry Potter books come in both adult and children editions. The only difference is the cover so it is actually being sold to everybody no matter what age you are. They are not the only books that are sold this way. Philip Pulmans 'His dark materials' trilogy, and Trudi Canavans 'Black Magicians' triliogy were both also sold in adult and childrens editions. In the bookshops i supervise you would find them in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy section. :Smile:

----------


## Dorian Gray

The Harry Potter books are the only fantasy books I read. I prefer more serious stuff like Jane Austen, etc. But it's very entertaining and I love the world JK. Rowling has created. Some very colourful characters too. Especially Lucius Malfoy, Lupin and Snape. Sirius is also a favourite of mine. I've even roleplayed on a HP forum for a while. haha. I'm 20 though I hardly think of myself as an adult. I guess, in a way, Harry Potter makes me feel like a kid again.

----------


## Niamh

I worked the night that Half blood Prince was released and most of the people outside the shop waiting for midnight were adults, and they were all airport staff members. only a few were looking for it for their kids, the rest wanted it for themselves. I was the first person in work to hold a copy of it in my hands. got real excited. :Biggrin:

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Why do adults read Harry Potter, and is this a form of infantile escapism?


yes it is  :Smile:  but then, you could say that all reading is a kind of escapism because you escape to a different world. Whether that world is "serious" or "childish" doesn't make that much of a difference  :Smile: 

Most good childrens books are anything but "happy-clappy", so you can't escape from conflicts or evil by reading them any more than you escape by reading "serious" literature. Many of the problems are the same/ of the same kind but simplified a bit, only the setting is different.

What's your opinion Medea?

----------


## EAP

Adults read Harry Potter because they realize that the 'infantile escapism' it offers provides better bang for your buck than the unamusing intellectual masturbation inherent in certain other 'literary' works. 




> The Harry Potter books are the only fantasy books I read. I prefer more *serious stuff like Jane Austen*, etc.


LOL. Fairytale regency romances vs. coming-of-age fiction incoporating themes like terrorism, loss and puberty (and a fairly realistic and relevent portrayal to boot); perhaps I just take the seriousness of the word serious rather seriously.  :Crash:

----------


## Shalot

The books are well-written, the story is enjoyable and the world Rowling has created is just so neat (can't think of the word I want so I am going to have to settle for 'so neat') and I cannot wait until the last one comes out because I want to know who killed Dumbledore.

----------


## Orionsbelt

> Why do adults read Harry Potter, and is this a form of infantile escapism?



I would like you to know that I use a very mature form of escapism that I have been working on for decades and intend to continue as long as I am able. I can only say that I have always preferred desert over the main course. What can I say? Vegetables suck.  :FRlol:

----------


## toni

It is an addictive read and it is best when read after a really heavy book, for it is entertaining and light :Biggrin:

----------


## Laindessiel

J.K. Rowling created a world. A whole new world. A complete new world that you would've thought it absolutely existed since Muggles started living; since Muggles discovered fire (to which the wizarding folks maybe used their wands instead); since there were good and evil.

I'm not sure why anyone would incoherently swear against the book that it would cause such ruckus in their minds as if the Queen of England was sentenced to prison. Harry Potter is just an ordinary boy who wants to live. Plots, ideas, twists, death and _fluff_ - they all come to the book, _just like how every other book is._ Let's give Harry a chance. He needs us. Lord Voldemort never spared him, anyways.  :Tongue:

----------


## Wandering_Child

Oh, this is just saying if we like it? Where are the theory threads...? 

I'm an avid Harry Potter reader. But because of the gap between the movies and books I must admit that my interest has somewhat faded, but I still love Harry. And compared to Eragon...that author just stole the best bits and pieces of other stories and threw them together...Eragon=Aragorn, urgals=orcs and so on. I read them, and found myself cracking up at the end of Eldest. Oh, and when he was proclaiming his love to whats-her-bucket, the elf. But this is Harry Potter. I love him.

*toddles off to find theory-discussing threads*

----------


## DHarley

i have read Harry Potter and Eragon, Eldest and i think that Eragon was a better book and i dont think it copied lord of the rings it may have had similar enimies and his name sounds the same as aragon but it had alot of origionality such as the completely different style and concept of magic.

----------


## Mugwump101

Overall, it was the book that inspired a sudden burst of reading when I was younger. So, the books are wonderful~! You should continue reading them. How far are you into the series now?

----------


## EAP

I'd just like to modify a statement I made about two years ago.


Eragon is to Harry Potter what refuse is to _biryani_.

----------


## Shalot

> The books are well-written, the story is enjoyable and the world Rowling has created is just so neat (can't think of the word I want so I am going to have to settle for 'so neat') and I cannot wait until the last one comes out because I want to know who killed Dumbledore.


I was just re-reading some crap I posted and I came across this. It's funny because I said I wanted to know who killed Dumbledore but I don't think that's what I meant.... I think I meant that I wanted to know what the deal is with Snape and which side he is on.... :Blush:  

Oh well.

----------


## Bookworm Cris

Good comments, Niamh and Pensive!

I think that, even if the books are "intended" to a young audience, they contain elements deeper than the usual "child-book" has. They&#180;re very dark, dealing with death, good x evil, and its plot is very well built. 

To me, there&#180;s a lot of prejudice in some comments and reviews about HP. People who didn&#180;t read the books and say "it&#180;s childish thing", or "it&#180;s pure marketing", or things like that.

It may be the opposite of people who say Ulisses is good literature, even if they couldn&#180;t get to the end of it.

PS: I did, and I think it&#180;s very good. As good as HP, when it comes to the pleasure of reading and good craft.

----------


## lit_lover

That's exactly what it is. It's all about infantile escapism. Also, the books are written very well. They aren't really targeting children or adolescence.

----------


## SaGe

I'd imagine the most common reason would be curiosity.

----------


## wvickejr

I've read all of the Potter series published to date and have ordered Deathly Hallow or delivery this summer. I read them because I see so much of the young people I have been privileged to teach. The characters are very real. I discussed Book 5 at great length with my physical therapist who was really bothered by Harry's antagonistic attitude until I asked her how her 15 year old daughter acted when things didn't go the way she thought they should.

----------


## Bakiryu

why not? they're fun to read!

----------


## Bakiryu

if harry or ron dies i will cry!

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

For me, I got hooked when I was younger. They are great, easy stories that don't require much...its a fun book splurge!!! I think they are great. Sure not the greatest pieces of works, but great regardless. I wouldn't put them up against Shakespeare, Fitzgerald, Homer, Wilde, Voltaire and countless other writers but they are still decent books.

I think Lupin dies.

----------


## Bakiryu

Lupin! No! When Sirius died I cried for hours!

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

Just think about it.

Pettigrew=silver hand and grudge with Lupin

Lupin=werewolf, grudge with the Rat...

thats what I think. I love snape though, he is so cynical and dark...hilarious...(plus Alan Rickman, in the movies, is my favorite!)

----------


## hastalavictoria

harry potter is extremely overrated, but it is interesting.

----------


## Bakiryu

In the movie there was David Tenant *sights in love* 



I couldn't stop watching it because of him, even thought it sucked. I hope he comes back!

----------


## Brigitte

The first few pages of this thread upset me. *groansmumbleswantstoscreamurghhhh* Anyway, I can't wait for 7/21!! (: I'm going to a midnight party and everything. I always start reading the moment I get my hands on the book. ^_^

I'm not as into the movies as the books. I've never watched a HP movie more than once.

----------


## Brigitte

Why question literature? Why question who reads what? It's like asking, "Why do you read books at all?" I mean... geez. If someone wants to read, what's the problem?

Harry Potter books are extremely modern what with the language being every day common language. Everyone can understand that. Just because a lot of us read classics does not mean the world enjoys having to look up words every couple of sentences to "get it." As years go by language is less formal and much less like that of classic novels.

Escapism? Okay, maybe I'm getting a bit mad, but it doesn't matter why someone wants to read a fantasy book. So... all those adult people that love Star Wars... are they escaping, too? I mean, a lot of people like fantastical worlds (hello, The Matrix - big hit) and out of the ordinary.

Aiiiish. *takes a breath*

----------


## malwethien

I read Harry Potter because the story is interesting and it's fun to read. Though I have to agree that some of the ideas are not original or cliche, it is still a great ride. Asking why adults read Harry Potter is kinda like asking why some adults still like reading comic books (which I personally do)...

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> Why question literature? Why question who reads what? It's like asking, "Why do you read books at all?" I mean... geez. If someone wants to read, what's the problem?
> 
> Harry Potter books are extremely modern what with the language being every day common language. Everyone can understand that. Just because a lot of us read classics does not mean the world enjoys having to look up words every couple of sentences to "get it." As years go by language is less formal and much less like that of classic novels.
> 
> Escapism? Okay, maybe I'm getting a bit mad, but it doesn't matter why someone wants to read a fantasy book. So... all those adult people that love Star Wars... are they escaping, too? I mean, a lot of people like fantastical worlds (hello, The Matrix - big hit) and out of the ordinary.
> 
> Aiiiish. *takes a breath*



YES! haha...

everyone says they are overrated...I really don't like that word. Why people stop liking something because it is overrated escapes me. If you don't like them, then okay, I respect that...If you do like them, great, I respect that too!!

This guy in my Drawing and Design class said that he didn't like the following because they were overrated:

1) Van Gogh
2) mechanical pencils(this one cracks me up)
3) iPods
4) Red Hot Chili Peppers and some other bands.

How silly is that?!

----------


## JBI

Doesn't the word overrated contradict itself? How can something be overrated if the rating states its worth. Thereby, nothing can truely be overrated as whole, since the rating given by the general public expresses their views, thereby accurately displaying a "rating". 

On the note, I personally don't like Potter. I just loathe that little dweeb. Such a silly loser-esque character who is designed to portray the flaws in every male child, as if to call out and say to them "I'm a loser too, but I am saving the world, so can you." And "Hey look, though they may be losers as well, I have friends, and at least they are friends."

I guess this isn't my cup of tea, I think I will stick to Jane Austen. Jane Austen at least has a pretty use of vocabulary (I just imagine the story in my mind being read in an English accent, and I can't help but disappear in the beautiful pages).

----------


## Brigitte

> Doesn't the word overrated contradict itself? How can something be overrated if the rating states its worth. Thereby, nothing can truely be overrated as whole, since the rating given by the general public expresses their views, thereby accurately displaying a "rating". 
> 
> On the note, I personally don't like Potter. I just loathe that little dweeb. Such a silly loser-esque character who is designed to portray the flaws in every male child, as if to call out and say to them "I'm a loser too, but I am saving the world, so can you." And "Hey look, though they may be losers as well, I have friends, and at least they are friends."
> 
> I guess this isn't my cup of tea, I think I will stick to Jane Austen. Jane Austen at least has a pretty use of vocabulary (I just imagine the story in my mind being read in an English accent, and I can't help but disappear in the beautiful pages).


Ahahaha... he's not a loser. He's just a normal kid that found out he's famous. Geez.  :FRlol:  What makes you think he's a loser? Iono, maybe you define loser in a different way than you do...

And I didn't quite understand you definition of "overrrated"  :Blush:

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> The first few pages of this thread upset me. *groansmumbleswantstoscreamurghhhh* Anyway, I can't wait for 7/21!! (: I'm going to a midnight party and everything. I always start reading the moment I get my hands on the book. ^_^
> 
> I'm not as into the movies as the books. I've never watched a HP movie more than once.


The movies are good if you just look at them as a movie, not as the book. Once you've seperated them, they are much more enjoyable...maybe I'm just saying that because of Mr. Rickman??! :Smile:  

Anywho, I WILL BE IN MEXICO when the book comes out...grr...its cool, I'll have things to take my mind off of it.

----------


## Lag866

I havent read all the posts so I am sorry if I am repeating. I think when judging the HP books you should take into consideration a few things.First of all There is reading to improve intellect, vocabulary, be introduced to something you may not have been introduced to if you hadnt read about it, and entertainment. HP books are entertainment and therefore do not need to have deep intellectual ideas and words, they only need to be enjoyable. Secondly, when comparing the vocabulary of HP to older novels you need to take into consideration the language of that time, words today that are considered harder and unknown would not have necessarly been so back in say Austen, Woolf, Bronte, etc. time. And finally, there are many adult books written which sell many copies that are written dreadfully, but provide entertainment for many, yet I dont see anyone complaining about those, then again they arent as popular so maybe that's why.

----------


## JBI

He is a loser because he couldn't make it in the real world. In the real world he is a loser, but once he goes into his escape; his Hogwarts, he is something else. I only read the first one, and saw the movies for others (I have younger siblings) but here is what I managed to dig out.

The Slytherin kids represent the "cool kids" the bullies. They are your tipical I want to be like you kids who the losers both hate and idolize. Harry is a loser because he is disliked by them, though Rowling cheats by giving him more "super powers" to beat them. In the real world he is completely useless, he gets wooped by his cousin, and lives under the stairs. In the fake world he has power, and therefore is no longer a loser, but he still is a geek. I mean honestly, who would, if they had an invisibility cloak, go spying on their teachers.

----------


## applepie

I actually really enjoy the HP books. One, they grow with the audience. The difficulty and subject matter increases, at least it seems so to me, as the books prgress. Two, it is good verse evil. This theme has been a constant in some of my favorite books like the Lord of the Rings books. I like that everything comes with a price and good doesn't just triumph becase they are good and that is what should happen. As for Potter being a geek, well I don't think he bites the heads off of chickens so we are good on this score :Biggrin:  Actually I was quite the odd kid in school, not famous, but odd still and it is easy to idetify with this boy who has had been given more trials than someone his age should. Finally, the spying on teacher bit... what kid who could go anywhere without being seen wouldn't have done so. I would have given my left arm in school to drop in on my teachers without them knowing. 

Sure the Harry Potter series is an escape for the reader, but all good literature is. I don't know anyone who likes to read books with characters that they don't like and can't relate with. Some of what makes a book quality is its ability to touch the reader in some way, even if it is to only amuse, through the pull of the characters. The characters may not speak to everyone, but they speak to someone. You mentioned enjoying Austen, I'm not a fan of hers and I tend to find the books dull and not enjoyable at all but you obviously enjoy them. I love Ayn Rand and H.G. Wells, however. I'm sure it could be argued that none of these authors were great by someone, but to us they are great. Rowling has secured her place by being able to touch scores of people with her characters and the problems they face.

----------


## rob91

I think the books have a great deal of nostalgic value for adults who are able to read them and think upon school days as a bit more fun, fantastical and important than they really were.

----------


## Brigitte

> He is a loser because he couldn't make it in the real world. In the real world he is a loser, but once he goes into his escape; his Hogwarts, he is something else. I only read the first one, and saw the movies for others (I have younger siblings) but here is what I managed to dig out.
> 
> The Slytherin kids represent the "cool kids" the bullies. They are your tipical I want to be like you kids who the losers both hate and idolize. Harry is a loser because he is disliked by them, though Rowling cheats by giving him more "super powers" to beat them. In the real world he is completely useless, he gets wooped by his cousin, and lives under the stairs. In the fake world he has power, and therefore is no longer a loser, but he still is a geek. I mean honestly, who would, if they had an invisibility cloak, go spying on their teachers.


I won't argue with you, but the books are soooo much better than the movies. >_x And... it's not Harry's fault he's going through family difficulties. Personally, the Slytherins aren't cool.. they're bullies and they are never cool.

But I mean, not everyone will like HP... I just don't understand your justifications. Ah well. xD; And with an invisibility cloak, why not spy on teachers? Curiosity is what triggers it... not loser-ish-ness ahahaha.

----------


## Xtian

Pardon me for just barging in here but: JK ROWLING has had such a huge effect of kids around the world intersted in reading, that Harry Potter has been translated into almost every language in the world.

JK Rowling wrote these stories to entertain her daughter. She wrote them while sitting in coffee house because she couldn't afford to take the bus back home.

I love Harry Potter, in fact I have used him in teaching literature at the university I teach part time at. I believe that stories are so well written that they will become classics long after we are all dead.


This boy will be famous. There won't be a child in our world who doesn't know his name. 
Professor McGonagall:Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone

----------


## Aiculík

> Why do adults read Harry Potter, and is this a form of infantile escapism?


I read it because they _are_ for children, but not infantile. 
The story is original, author uses old cliches from old fairy-tales and twists them in new way, making it much more interesting and funny.
It is realistic - characters are believable and the whole magical world has its own logical rules - which is why even adults are willing to accept it.
It is funny - and the humour is in most cases inteligent.
The language is interesting - though the book is written in such a way to be easily understood by small children, it is clear the author thought about every word she used. Plus, I like how the autor created new words such as muggle or horcrux.

Harry Potter is a good book. And that it was originally written for kids - so what? Every good book can enrich you. It does not matter if it is book for children, or what genre it is.

----------


## Xtian

How true look at how many other authors have had such an impact: CS LEWIS< TOLKIEN > David Eddings> FranK Baum

There is just so much in Harry Potter that reaches adults themes are universal no matter what the genre.

Through literature we can learn so many things no matter what the topics.

I can teach you how to bewitch the mind and ensnare the senses. I can tell you how to bottle fame, brew glory, and even put a stopper in death. 
Servious Snape

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

Uhm well I'm a young adult and love the books. My mom is in her mid 40's and she loves the books, my brother is two years younger than me and he hates them...there was this guy that lived across the cul-de-sac in his late 50's and was OBSESSED with Harry Potter. Its not escapism if you enjoy something that was created for a younger audience.

----------


## grace86

I personally believe we never really "grow up." It might be escapism, but who cares? Most people read all kinds of literature, classics or otherwise, to escape their world. 

Kids have more creativity and imagination than probably just about every adult. The fact that an adult can return to something so fantastic and out of this world is normal, fun, and I guess a reach for remembering to feed your inner child once in a while.

I love the series. I don't personally understand them being overrated, since the demand is so high and the translations are so many. Fantasy, or children's fantasy, aren't genres that meet the tastes of everyone...I can understand that too.

Cliche ideas and a bit of a rerun on fairytale topics, well guys, remember it is a story for children! It isn't supposed to be hard.

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> I personally believe we never really "grow up." It might be escapism, but who cares? Most people read all kinds of literature, classics or otherwise, to escape their world. 
> 
> Kids have more creativity and imagination than probably just about every adult. The fact that an adult can return to something so fantastic and out of this world is normal, fun, and I guess a reach for remembering to feed your inner child once in a while.
> 
> I love the series. I don't personally understand them being overrated, since the demand is so high and the translations are so many. Fantasy, or children's fantasy, aren't genres that meet the tastes of everyone...I can understand that too.
> 
> Cliche ideas and a bit of a rerun on fairytale topics, well guys, remember it is a story for children! It isn't supposed to be hard.



BINGO!!! Who cares what people choose to read...it doesn't make them immature or whatever. Every person is different.

----------


## Xtian

Some people have to go out of their way to hate something merely because it is popular. In most cases I would say most things that are popular are drivel, Britney Spears, Techno, Hip_Hop, Stephen King, Disney, etc. However not all popular forms of art are drivel. Harry Potter is one of them. The impact of these works has been tremendous, even the movies are well made and entertaining. I am so looking forward to the new film opening next week.

I think Rowiling will go down in history as one of our times greatest storytellers. After all look at her income she is now one of the richest women in the world. Richer than Oprah.

Like so many before her she created a world that is accessible to everyone no matter what the age. Today she is one of the most read authors in the world.

----------


## Brigitte

> Uhm well I'm a young adult and love the books. My mom is in her mid 40's and she loves the books, my brother is two years younger than me and he hates them...there was this guy that lived across the cul-de-sac in his late 50's and was OBSESSED with Harry Potter. Its not escapism if you enjoy something that was created for a younger audience.


*hi-five* Who asked this question in the first place? *mumbles*

EDIT: Someone with 7 posts....  :Flare:

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> Some people have to go out of their way to hate something merely because it is popular. In most cases I would say most things that are popular are drivel, Britney Spears, Techno, Hip_Hop, Stephen King, Disney, etc. However not all popular forms of art are drivel. Harry Potter is one of them. The impact of these works has been tremendous, even the movies are well made and entertaining. I am so looking forward to the new film opening next week.
> 
> I think Rowiling will go down in history as one of our times greatest storytellers. After all look at her income she is now one of the richest women in the world. Richer than Oprah.
> 
> Like so many before her she created a world that is accessible to everyone no matter what the age. Today she is one of the most read authors in the world.


Exactly. Especially since these books have inspired new decent authors and have inspired more kids to read and to branch out to their creative sides. Even adults!!! Grr...every book is liked/loved/cherished by someone out there.

----------


## Xtian

Its funny how most people who have red HP are for his being banned. It amazes me how those who believe themselves intellectually gifted could feeel themselves so superior that they can make is guided judgements on something they no nothing about. Throughout history there has been many people who just because they believe something to be less than or challenaging to their own beliiefs for example: Adolf Hitler, Tipper Gore, Joseph McCarthy and many more here is an article I found on the supject

(PR Newswire, September 25, 2000) 

HARRY POTTER PUT ON BANNED BOOK LIST 
Top 10 Includes 'Huck Finn,' 'Mice and Men' & 'Catcher in the Rye' 
CHICAGO, Sept. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Some of America's finest literary efforts lead the 100 most frequently challenged books for Banned Books Week. And the Harry Potter series wasn't far behind.
The list is published by the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom as part of Banned Books Week (September 23-30), which annually celebrates the freedom to read.
Topping the list is Scary Stories (Series) by Alvin Schwartz, accused of "being too scary" and "unsuited to age group," followed by "Daddy's Roommate" by Michael Willhoite, accused of "promoting homosexuality as a normal lifestyle." The rest of the 10 most frequently challenged books of the decade, in order, were: "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" by Maya Angelou (3), "The Chocolate War" by Robert Cormier, "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain, "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck, "Forever" by Judy Blume, "Bridge to Terabithia" by Katherine Paterson, "Heather Has Two Mommies" by Leslea Newman, and "The Catcher in the Rye" by J.D. Salinger (10).
Other well-known books on the list include: "The Giver" by Lois Lowry (11), "It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie Harris (13), Goosebumps (Series) by R.L. Stine (15), "The Color Purple" by Alice Walker (17), "Sex" by Madonna (18), "A Wrinkle in Time" by Madeleine L'Engle (23), "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee (40), Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling (48), "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley (54) and "Bless Me, Ultima" by Rudolfo A. Anaya (78).
The top 100 list was compiled from 5,718 challenges to library materials reported to or recorded by the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom from 1990-1999. A "challenge" is defined as a formal, written complaint filed with a library or school about a book's content or appropriateness. Seventy-one percent of the challenges in the '90s decade were to materials in schools or school libraries; another 26 percent were to materials in public libraries. Nearly 60 percent of challenges were brought by parents, 16 percent by library patrons and 10 percent by administrators.
In 1995, the number of reported challenges reached a high of 762 challenges, but by 1999 had declined to 472.
This decline is likely due to an increased focus away from books to the Internet -- the newest medium in the library -- according to Judith Krug, the office's director. Despite this decline, Krug says, "Nobody should be complacent in thinking that books are safe from censorship attempts. Research shows that reported challenges represent only 20 to 25 percent of all challenges made. The fact that every challenge is an attempt to make ideas inaccessible to their intended audience is of even greater concern than the numbers."
The most often cited reason for requesting that a book be removed from the library or curriculum is that the book is "sexually explicit" (1,446 challenges). Other reasons for challenges included "offensive language" (1,262 challenges), "unsuited to age group" (1,167 challenges), "occult theme or promoting the occult or Satanism" (773 challenges), "violent" (630 challenges), homosexual theme or "promoting homosexuality" (497 challenges), "promoting a religious viewpoint" (397 challenges), "nudity" (297 challenges), "racism" (245 challenges), "sex education" (217 challenges) and "anti-family" (193 challenges).
The entire list of the top 100 challenged books of the last decade can be found at www.ala.org/bbooks/top100bannedbooks.html . The most challenged books of 1999 can be found at www.ala.org/bbooks/1999bannedbooks.html .
Observed since 1981, Banned Books Week is sponsored by the ALA, American Booksellers Association, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, Association of American Publishers, American Society of Journalists and Authors, and National Association of College Stores. It is also endorsed by the Library of Congress Center for the Book.
"Banned Books Week is about choice and respecting the rights of others to choose for themselves and their families what they wish to read," says Chris Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression. "Book banning and challenging has a domino effect. If we stand by quietly and let the first book come off the shelf, we run the risk they all will come tumbling down."
Judy Platt, director of the Association of American Publishers' Freedom to Read program, concurs. "Banned Books Week reminds Americans not to take our freedom to read for granted. It's one of the most precious freedoms we have in a democratic society."
This year's Banned Books Weeks theme is "Fish in the River of Knowledge." Libraries and bookstores across the country will provide displays around this theme and readings of banned or challenged books as part of the week-long celebration. Contact your library or bookstore for more information.

----------


## Ace

Ok, so, I was just thinking of something. I don't remember what it was, but it lead to this:

Harry Potter's story is a COMEDY.

Yes, that is right, the story is to end well.

How do I know, you may ask? I'll tell you.

Comedies used to be defined by a simple characteristic: A WEDDING at the end of the story.

Well, what just HAPPENS to be HAPPENING in the seventh book? Anyone? Please, just say it, anyone?

*BILL AND FLEUR'S WEDDING!*


This makes the Harry Potter series a comedy. That does not necessarily mean Harry will survive in any way (Look as Shakespeare's _Romeo and Juliet_, for instance: ends with a wedding, a comedy, Romeo and Juliet die) but it does mean that the story will end "well".

Honestly, THIS is Rowling's style. A subtle little clue as to how the story will wrap up without the details. She obviously loves literature, and what better way than to allude to how previous works were written?

I think that this idea could be big, but more importantly, I think it's right!

----------


## tudwell

_Romeo and Juliet_ is a tragedy. I don't think ending with a wedding automatically qualifies something as a comedy.

----------


## kandaurov

I don't follow the series anymore for some time now, but I do know this: she will opt neither for a tragedy nor for a comedy. The book must appeal to very different tastes, to greeks and trojans, so I'd bet that the ending won't have a clear-cut one. Some will die, and some will be happy, leaving you with a bitter-sweet aftertaste and a colossal 'after-read void'  :Smile:

----------


## Niamh

> I don't follow the series anymore for some time now, but I do know this: she will opt neither for a tragedy nor for a comedy. The book must appeal to very different tastes, to greeks and trojans, so I'd bet that the ending won't have a clear-cut one. Some will die, and some will be happy, leaving you with a bitter-sweet aftertaste and a colossal 'after-read void'


I agree!

----------


## Turk

I don't understand what kind of elders can read Harry Potter. It's simply children book, a fairy story.

----------


## Charles Darnay

> I don't understand what kind of elders can read Harry Potter. It's simply children book, a fairy story.



Fantasy may be geered towards children but I believe it can still be enjoyable to adults too. Maybe not Harry Potter, but not becasue it's fantasy, but it's become "teen soap opera" dressed in fantasy.

As for the original point: there is more to "a wedding" to clasify a comedy in the traditional sense. Speaking in the purly Greco-Roman sense: "A tragedy is when things start of well and then descend" whereas a comedy is reveresed. "things tstart off muddled, then ascend." Shakespeare took that concept and broadened it to create new definitions of comedy/tragedy, but nowadays, though theoretically everything can be either a comedy or tragedy (or tragicomedy: such as Waiting for Godot), the lines are very blurred.

I don't know if Harry Potter will end well or not, but it will end cliche. There are a few different cliches she could choose from: Harry and Voldermort both die - possible. Voldermort becomes good and they all live happily ever after - highly unlikely. Harry kills Voldermort and Ron marries Hermione - possible. And so forth.....

----------


## Whifflingpin

"I don't understand what kind of elders can read Harry Potter. It's simply children book, a fairy story."

My kind of elder can read Harry Potter, that's for sure.
Open minded, intelligent, with a sense of humour and a liking for a good tale well told.

A good children's book is a good book.

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> I don't understand what kind of elders can read Harry Potter. It's simply children book, a fairy story.


There is nothing wrong with adults/older people reading fairy tales/kids books...My taste in books ranges from kids books (Harry Potter, Narnia, Tithe, etc.) to the greatest classics!! I read the Iliad in the sixth grade, but what lead up to me getting into the classics were books by Brain Jacques and J.K. Rowling and C.S. Lewis!

And yeah, I'm pretty sure I didn't laugh in _Romeo and Juliet_. 

But she has already stated that two people are going to die...that doesn't mean only two people but still. I think its going to be an overall mix so as not to spoil it for everyone...even though I think Lupin dies... :Frown:

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> "I don't understand what kind of elders can read Harry Potter. It's simply children book, a fairy story."
> 
> My kind of elder can read Harry Potter, that's for sure.
> Open minded, intelligent, with a sense of humour and a liking for a good tale well told.
> 
> A good children's book is a good book.


Bravo. :Wink:   :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Turk

> Fantasy may be geered towards children but I believe it can still be enjoyable to adults too. Maybe not Harry Potter, but not becasue it's fantasy, but it's become "teen soap opera" dressed in fantasy.


I didn't talk for LOTR, i was talking for Harry Potter. 




> My kind of elder can read Harry Potter, that's for sure.
> Open minded, intelligent, with a sense of humour and a liking for a good tale well told.
> 
> A good children's book is a good book.


So reading Harry Potter at the age of 40 makes you intelligent, open minded and have sense of humor ha?  :Smile:  Ok. 

I can't understand why this much old people reads Harry Potter? I mean this is ridicilous.

----------


## Annamariah

> I can't understand why this much old people reads Harry Potter? I mean this is ridicilous.


I don't think it's ridiculous at all. Harry Potter books ARE good books, so why wouldn't people read them? Even my grandparents, whose house contains more books (mostly classics and other books that are considered "good literature") than a small public library, have read Harry Potter books and liked them very much.

----------


## manolia

I don't believe it is a comedy series..for me the Harry Potter books are a cocktail of stolen ideas from other much better and accomplished fantasy writers..but that's just me  :Biggrin:

----------


## Pensive

> I can't understand why this much old people reads Harry Potter? I mean this is ridicilous.


Because they enjoy it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Turk

I mean it's even clear what will happen at the end. Just like an American B series movie. Good guys will win, America will save the world and everything will be so good. If i want fun i prefer to read King. At least he's surely better than Rowling and stories he told are really capturing.

----------


## Charles Darnay

> I didn't talk for LOTR, i was talking for Harry Potter.


I never mentioned LOTR, I was speaking about fantasy in general.

----------


## applepie

> So reading Harry Potter at the age of 40 makes you intelligent, open minded and have sense of humor ha?  Ok. 
> 
> I can't understand why this much old people reads Harry Potter? I mean this is ridicilous.


The point isn't that reading Harry Potter makes you intelligent, it merely doesn't detract from your intelligence. Just because I've read all of the books and an eagerly awaiting the final book to see if the story ends the way I think it will doesn't take away from the fact that I'm about to graduate college with a 3.65 GPA, it also doesn't take away from the fact that I also enjoy many classics and watching movies with a deep meaning. It does mean that I am open to reading a variety of books and that I don't always take life too seriously. It is possible to find a book enjoyable and think that it is good because of the entertainment it offers.

----------


## Pensive

> I mean it's even clear what will happen at the end. Just like an American B series movie. Good guys will win, America will save the world and everything will be so good. If i want fun i prefer to read King. At least he's surely better than Rowling and stories he told are really capturing.


I don't see why adults can't be optimistic.  :Smile:  And by the way, American policies haven't got much to do with Harry Potter series and it's not only in American movies/books: good prevailing the evil. Many countries' literature has it even more.

----------


## Niamh

Turk have you even read one of the Harry Potter Books?

----------


## Turk

No. I watched movie. And that was really enough. In every single second something happens. Harry loses his magical stick, a second later Harry finds it, a second later evil witch appears and attack Harry, Harry find a magical door, Harry goes to magical door and escape from witch, Harry realizes magical escape was a trick of superstrong evil witch, Harry finds himself in a magical dungeon, a second later Harry meets two prisoners a forest fairy and a talking chair, Harry becomes friend with them and starts to try to find a way out... Blabla... Of course i made that story to give an example of Harry Potter style. If you fill some sentences between these incidents you can write a Harry Potter story too. Anyway you don't need any philosophy, cultural level or a message to give.

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> I mean it's even clear what will happen at the end. Just like an American B series movie. Good guys will win, America will save the world and everything will be so good. If i want fun i prefer to read King. At least he's surely better than Rowling and stories he told are really capturing.


They aren't even American...

Some books may not seem entertaining to others, but to plenty of generations, J.K. Rowling has instilled a love of books and reading in thousands of kids...even adults. Her books do not make anyone any less intelligent or even more. But I think reading in general is a very good thing. Why would anyone slam a book that has encouraged thousands of people that reading is good! Who cares what people read as long as they DO read.

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> No. I watched movie. And that was really enough. In every single second something happens. Harry loses his magical stick, a second later Harry finds it, a second later evil witch appears and attack Harry, Harry find a magical door, Harry goes to magical door and escape from witch, Harry realizes magical escape was a trick of superstrong evil witch, Harry finds himself in a magical dungeon, a second later Harry meets two prisoners a forest fairy and a talking chair, Harry becomes friend with them and starts to try to find a way out... Blabla... Of course i made that story to give an example of Harry Potter style. If you fill some sentences between these incidents you can write a Harry Potter story too. Anyway you don't need any philosophy, cultural level or a message to give.


The movies were ridiculous. Most of the time I find that the books are so much better than any movie. You have to try it before you dis it...thats what I always say.

----------


## smartgirl

i agree with u Mortis Anarchy I think that the movies were worse than the books. At first I dissed the harry potter books, but that's because i hadn't read them yet. I now have read all of the books (waiting for the last one), and i believe that Rowling is the best thing i've read.

----------


## Turk

> They aren't even American...
> 
> Some books may not seem entertaining to others, but to plenty of generations, J.K. Rowling has instilled a love of books and reading in thousands of kids...even adults. Her books do not make anyone any less intelligent or even more. But I think reading in general is a very good thing. Why would anyone slam a book that has encouraged thousands of people that reading is good! Who cares what people read as long as they DO read.


What aren't american?

Ok stop there, i didn't say reading is bad, or it is bad to read Harry Potter. It's good for kids whatever they read (except pornography :Biggrin: ) but my question was basically "why adults reads it?". And don't forget this is supposed to be a forum which members are interested in literature, and must have a better taste of literature more than people who just read pulp fiction.

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> What aren't american?
> 
> Ok stop there, i didn't say reading is bad, or it is bad to read Harry Potter. It's good for kids whatever they read (except pornography) but my question was basically "why adults reads it?". And don't forget this is supposed to be a forum which members are interested in literature, and must have a better taste of literature more than people who just read pulp fiction.


Harry Potter...no one is American in the movie/book etc.

Why does age have to matter when reading a book that makes people happy!? Maybe its just a good way to relax just by reading a book that is a bit of an easy read! I wasn't implying that you said reading was bad, all I mean't was that these stories have increased reading in young adults, kids and adults. And everyone's taste in books differs...I respect the fact that you don't like the books...and I'll ignore the fact that you haven't read them and yet still dis them.

----------


## smartgirl

"I mean it's even clear what will happen at the end. Just like an American B series movie. Good guys will win, America will save the world and everything will be so good. If i want fun i prefer to read King. At least he's surely better than Rowling and stories he told are really capturing."

u said that Rowlings series was american. He says that the aren't. they're british.

And I believe that adults read it, because it's refreshing. It brings fantasy to a whole new level.

----------


## Turk

> Harry Potter...no one is American in the movie/book etc.


I didn't say series are American, i know it's British. I said series are like American B serie movies.

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

I'm done arguing...too tired for that. :Yawnb:  

But my mind is set that Lupin dies...just thought I'd through that out there. :Wink:

----------


## smartgirl

Lupin dies, but then that means...............uh oh

----------


## Scheherazade

Turk hasn't read _One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest_ but knows all about it because he has watched the movie!

Turk hasn't read any _Harry Potter_ books but knows all about it because he has watched the movie(s)!

I think someone needs to spend more time reading and less time watching movies!  :Tongue:   :Biggrin: 


I still read Dr Seuss books with pleasure... And only last week read Dahl's _Fantastic Mr Fox_ and do not think that it is a waste of time to read children's books. On the contrary, I feel better for it (_at least_ I can express a justifiable opinion).

----------


## Turk

Oh an overaged child making comments based on changing someone's comments. I said as summar on Cuckoo's thread "i haven't read the book yet but will read soon, but in movie it was looking different than (Kilted's) opinion". And here, there's no reason for me to read Harry Potter, i passed my childhood long ago, prefer to read books for adults and i told what do i told some opinions above, if you have counter-arguments then bring it, otherwise don't change meanings of my posts.

----------


## kilted exile

Bah, people complain too much and there is far too much intellectual snobbery regarding books in general. People complain if people dont read, then if they do read complain about what they are reading. The vast majority of the worlds population do not read for intellectual stimulation. We read for enjoyment, it is a personal activity and other people's opinions regarding the merit of what we read is completely unimportant.

**dont worry I have not joined Tal is using "we" for myself, this is of course in the global sense**

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> Bah, people complain too much and there is far too much intellectual snobbery regarding books in general. People complain if people dont read, then if they do read complain about what they are reading. The vast majority of the worlds population do not read for intellectual stimulation. We read for enjoyment, it is a personal activity and other people's opinions regarding the merit of what we read is completely unimportant.
> 
> **dont worry I have not joined Tal is using "we" for myself, this is of course in the global sense**


Here here.

----------


## Turk

> Bah, people complain too much and there is far too much intellectual snobbery regarding books in general. People complain if people dont read, then if they do read complain about what they are reading. The vast majority of the worlds population do not read for intellectual stimulation. We read for enjoyment, it is a personal activity and other people's opinions regarding the merit of what we read is completely unimportant.
> 
> **dont worry I have not joined Tal is using "we" for myself, this is of course in the global sense**


 :Thumbs Up:  I respect people who honestly say why he reads a book. If just enjoy, it's ok, but thing i don't like is just because you read and like something that doesn't mean it's_ literature_. I respect author too, cuz i know she struggled a lot; but again, that doesn't mean she produces _art_.

About intellectual snobbery, yeah i expected someone to say this; but mine is not about snobbery and again i am telling Harry Potter may be a good book for children and make em like reading, i said i don't understand why adult people reads it like fanatics for me it's a children book at all, also i clearly say some of intellectual cult books (such as Ulysses) are not as good as some intellectual snobs exaggeration too. 

And last thing; i always say it's better to read nothing than reading a silly book. There was very good quote by Mark Twain but first i should find Stlukesguild's profile to see his sign. :Biggrin:  :FRlol:

----------


## Whifflingpin

Originally Posted by Turk 
"So reading Harry Potter at the age of 40 makes you intelligent, open minded and have sense of humor ha? Ok. "

Dear child, I was way past 40 when Harry Potter burst into the world, and I was already intelligent etc etc.
An open minded person does not reject books just because they may be aimed primarily at children. 
An intelligent person recognizes that an author writing for children may have the freedom to develop themes and ideas in ways different from, but no less valid than, the ways used by authors writing for adults.
An older person may read those books enjoyed by young people in order to come to a better understanding of young people.
An adult with a sense of humour might enjoy aspects of a book for children that would pass over the heads of those children.

You say you passed your childhood long ago - I pity you for that and I am glad that I still enjoy an element of childishness that, perhaps, stops me from taking my adult experience too seriously.

----------


## Ace

Okay, ummm.... Turk, you haven't read the books.

Do you just happen to KNOW how many literary/philosophical/mythological references can be found in this book? Do you know how much in this book a child/young teen WOULDN'T understand?

Have you read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland? That is a child's book, and now it can be considered political satire. 

As for the word comedy: I saw someone write that they didn't laugh during _Romeo and Juliet_. Not that type of comedy, comedy in the classical sense. You know, the good thought overcomes the evil regardless of the main characters survival.

----------


## Pensive

> No. I watched movie. And that was really enough. In every single second something happens. Harry loses his magical stick, a second later Harry finds it, a second later evil witch appears and attack Harry, Harry find a magical door, Harry goes to magical door and escape from witch, Harry realizes magical escape was a trick of superstrong evil witch, Harry finds himself in a magical dungeon, a second later Harry meets two prisoners a forest fairy and a talking chair, Harry becomes friend with them and starts to try to find a way out... Blabla... Of course i made that story to give an example of Harry Potter style. If you fill some sentences between these incidents you can write a Harry Potter story too. Anyway you don't need any philosophy, cultural level or a message to give.


Personally, my opinion about Harry Potter movies is that they are ten times worse than the series which is really really good. And anyway, one doesn't have to form his opinion about a book on on having watched its movie so firmly. You know there are even scenes which are cut from the movie.




> And last thing; i always say it's better to read nothing than reading a silly book. There was very good quote by Mark Twain but first i should find Stlukesguild's profile to see his sign.


Really, I would be okay for me if adults are there reading Enid Blyton's works. If they are reading the story-books which are not oh-so-philosophical. Wouldn't even say Harry Potter is oh-so-philosophical but it surely deals with many of the themes which I think are very important. The emotions shown in it are quite different from those in most of the fairy tales I have read.

It deals with death, how to cope with it. Friendship. And many other things, in a really good way. I would quote something from it, it's one of the best I have ever read. (And I read what they call adult books more than children books)




> It's our choices that show what we truly are rather than our abilities, Harry.


The humour in Harry Potter series is also light, and good. I don't think calling it _silly_ based on the opinion of its movie is wise...


__________________

----------


## Niamh

There is a lot in the books that arent in the movies. A LOT! the books are much better, but i dont think one should judge a book when one has not read it. Hardly any book made into a movie is true to the actual material it is adapted from.

----------


## Aiculík

> I don't understand what kind of elders can read Harry Potter. It's simply children book, a fairy story.





> I can't understand why this much old people reads Harry Potter? I mean this is ridicilous.





> I respect people who honestly say why he reads a book. If just enjoy, it's ok, but thing i don't like is just because you read and like something that doesn't mean it's_ literature_. I respect author too, cuz i know she struggled a lot; but again, that doesn't mean she produces _art_.
> 
> About intellectual snobbery, yeah i expected someone to say this; but mine is not about snobbery and again i am telling Harry Potter may be a good book for children and make em like reading, i said i don't understand why adult people reads it *like fanatics* for me it's a children book at all, also i clearly say some of intellectual cult books (such as Ulysses) are not as good as some intellectual snobs exaggeration too.


(bold added by me)




> Ok stop there, i didn't say reading is bad, or it is bad to read Harry Potter. It's good for kids whatever they read (except pornography) but my question was basically "why adults reads it?". And don't forget this is supposed to be a forum which members are interested in literature, and must have a better taste of literature more than people who just read pulp fiction.


So, lets make this clear. Are you saying that:

books for children are on the same level as pulp fiction, meaning theyre not literature at all,it does not matter what children read (except porno) because all books for children are low quality anyway, not at all art or literatureadult people should therefore read only books, where there is philosophy and message, because only such books are literature.
Did I get it right?

Problem is, that:
both books for children and pulp literature _are_ literature, theyre just types of literature  different type as e.g. Ulysses, but still literature.
it does matter _very much_ what children read (do you have children? Because I cant imagine any parent saying its good for kids to read anything except porno). Books for children may be, and are, of very different quality. Even fairy tale can be art. 

Just look at your example of what happens in *Harry Potter*  you were unable to put together few sentences that would be meaningful, interesting and funny. If you think anyone can writhe Harry Potter, OK, why dont you try it  why dont you post to the writing section at least a short story which would be on HP motives, equally funny as original, but of course, much more artistic  for someone so great in literature it should be a piece of cake, right?  :Wink:  
how do you know, when you start to read the book, if it has philosophy and message? You can only find out philosophy and message _after_ you read the book, not _before_. How can you be sure theres no philosophy or message in _Harry Potter_ if you've never read it? True, it may be in a form appropriate for younger readers, but that does not mean theres not any at all.
I often read children literature and even pulp fiction and comics, and Im not ashamed for it. And I can't see why I should be. Just because someone else does not consider them appropriate for people interested in literature, or with good taste of literature? Sorry, but I simply dont care one bit about what other people think about my taste of literature. I have my own criteria for beauty and art and Im not obliged to apologize for it. Im not going to change my taste of literature just because some people have silly prejudice of what is literature and what is not. All I can do is feeling sorry for them. _Harry Potter_ isnt in my Top 10, but I still think it's worth reading. Of course, its not as intellectual as e.g. Ecos novels, but that was never Rowlings goal anyway and I don't expect it to be.

Maybe for you its enough to read only intellectual, highly artistic books with serious philosophy. But I am complex and complicated person, you know. I have many _different needs_  and _Harry Potter_ covers different needs as serious books, as _The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana_, _Of Love and Other Demons_, or _The Scaffold_... and somehow, I cant see what ridiculous with that. 

Oh, and one more thing... I like _Harry Potter_, Ive read all six books, but I dont think Im a fanatic. Quite contrary, Im _free_  free to read whatever I choose, to like it or to despise it. It may even happen that I wont like the seventh book. But Ill only know that after Ive read it.

----------


## Turk

> (bold added by me)
> So, lets make this clear. Are you saying that:
> 
> books for children are on the same level as pulp fiction, meaning theyre not literature at all,it does not matter what children read (except porno) because all books for children are low quality anyway, not at all art or literatureadult people should therefore read only books, where there is philosophy and message, because only such books are literature.


1. I never said first one.
2. I never said that one too because there's very good children books which are far better for developing child's character. 
3. I didn't say that one too, just few months ago i was reading some children's literature and especially Rene Guillot books were really good, showing an aspect of man in a dramaticaly well structured book. Not a story which is full of ridiculous events in every page of book, just written for sake of action. One thing i am saying is; you may read Harry Potter books too, but except Kilted none of you honestly said i'm reading it for fun; even some of them related Harry Potter with being intelligent and open minded. I've read pulp fiction books but i've never claimed them to be good just because i read.




> # both books for children and pulp literature are literature, theyre just types of literature  different type as e.g. Ulysses, but still literature.


From this point of view every written stuff should be considered literature. I had same problem about when i questioned "why Churchill got Nobel Prize?" too. Unfortunately Oxford University is proud of telling English is the richest language of the world (which is lie btw) but it doesn't have a word to signify "artistic literature", because of this you have to classify every written thing in same class. It's out of subject but really stupid; because of this sometimes i have to use words like "real literature" to tell something about Dostoevsky's works, because otherwise i would have to classify Dostoevsky and Rowling with same word. Which is unfair.




> Just look at your example of what happens in Harry Potter  you were unable to put together few sentences that would be meaningful, interesting and funny.


Of course it has to be fun and incidents in novel should be interesting and meaningful (well, in this point i should say can you tell me one single thing that couldn't be meaningful in a Harry Potter book? If a chair starts to talk and say "i am Frank Sinatra's reincarnation" you have to say it's meangful too, and sure a dancing and talking chair would be interesting, if everything is possible in that book how can one single thing might be ordinary and meaningles?), everything have to be meaningful and interestingin a way, in fact %99 of every written book have these specialities, but that doesn't make them equally good.




> If you think anyone can writhe Harry Potter, OK, why dont you try it  why dont you post to the writing section at least a short story which would be on HP motives, equally funny as original, but of course, much more artistic  for someone so great in literature it should be a piece of cake, right?


I write short stories, but my English is not good enough to translate them. Though they don't have HP motives, they can't be equally fun when they are different (a horror movie is fun a comedy movie is fun too, but they can't be equal), but surely more artistic. Though i would like to point, if i'd write a short story in English right now, after this discuss, you wouldn't like it just because i wrote no matter how good it is.




> how do you know, when you start to read the book, if it has philosophy and message? You can only find out philosophy and message after you read the book, not before. How can you be sure theres no philosophy or message in Harry Potter if you've never read it?


Do i have to read every single book in the world to know if they have a philosophy and message? When you read the snapshot of a book it's simply telling plot of book, and it's very easy for a good reader to find out if it worths reading. Though, i will let you informate me what was Harry Potter's message? Can you tell me deep philosophy behind HP, for example starting of series, first book. What was that about? What was it's message and philosophy?




> I often read children literature and even pulp fiction and comics, and Im not ashamed for it. And I can't see why I should be.


I sometimes read them too, nobody telling you to be ashamed too, but i am not exaggerating a book just because i read (btw many comics i've read were much better and interesting than HP such as Martin Mystere and other Italian comics).




> Just because someone else does not consider them appropriate for people interested in literature, or with good taste of literature? Sorry, but I simply dont care one bit about what other people think about my taste of literature.


Nobody said it's inappropriate for people, in fact i think it's really appropraite for you. Also no need to be sorry; but there's conflict in your argument; if you don't care about my thoughts then you shouldn't respond too. No offence, just to show it to you.




> Maybe for you its enough to read only intellectual, highly artistic books with serious philosophy. But I am complex and complicated person, you know. I have many different needs  and Harry Potter covers different needs as serious books, as The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana, Of Love and Other Demons, or The Scaffold... and somehow, I cant see what ridiculous with that.


Complex and complicated people needs much simple things than normal people. In fact people with many different needs are just shallow people in my opinion. Hz.Jesus didn't need anything but food and clothes, Hz.Muhammed is same too, same for Buddha too. My humble advice for you to watch TV's and magazines less, and protect your brain. Consuming more doesn't makes you better.




> Personally, my opinion about Harry Potter movies is that they are ten times worse than the series which is really really good. And anyway, one doesn't have to form his opinion about a book on on having watched its movie so firmly. You know there are even scenes which are cut from the movie.





> There is a lot in the books that arent in the movies. A LOT! the books are much better, but i dont think one should judge a book when one has not read it. Hardly any book made into a movie is true to the actual material it is adapted from.


When making movies, director cuts most unnecessary parts of books, for example in LOTR movie there wasn't Tom Bombadil because it was really unrelated to main flow of story, and the movie was as good as novel's itself and even probably better than novel, but it's because LOTR was a good novel. Movie adaptations are generally as good as novel's itself. Sometimes even better than novel. Even though HP movies was full of unnecessary scenes, if director would be a little harsh like me the movie would long around 10 mins.  :FRlol:  But then it wouldn't make money and commercial success too, of course. :Wink:

----------


## Aiculík

> 1. I never said first one.
> 2. I never said that one too because there's very good children books which are far better for developing child's character.


But that was almost exact quotation of what you said, with exact quotations right on the top of my message. Thats why I put those quotes there.  :Smile:  But OK, I misunderstood (guess I'm too simple - what can you expect from Harry Potter fan  :Smile:  ) thats why I asked. So could you explain what you _did_ mean? I mean, could you explain those qoutes I put in my first post?




> 3. I didn't say that one too, just few months ago i was reading some children's literature and especially Rene Guillot books were really good, showing an aspect of man in a dramaticaly well structured book. Not a story which is full of ridiculous events in every page of book, just written for sake of action. One thing i am saying is; you may read Harry Potter books too, but except Kilted none of you honestly said i'm reading it for fun; even some of them related Harry Potter with being intelligent and open minded. I've read pulp fiction books but i've never claimed them to be good just because i read.


But I sounded so. And anyway, I, for example, don't read Harry Potter just for fun. I read it, because I really like it: I like how the story is told, I like the language, humour... 
The reason why people related Harry Potter with being intellignent and open-minded was that the way you put it it sounded like only unitellinent, uneducated adult people with very bad taste for literature read Harry Potter. Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's what it sounded to me. 
And anyway, I relate Harry Potter with intelligence and open mind as well - both are needed to overcome prejudices and pride of one's "great taste". There are many people who say Harry Potter is rubbish without ever reading a page - because it's below them to read rubbish...
Why do you read books that you think arent good? 
Shallow as I am, at least Im no hypocrite. If, for some reason, I come to conclusion that certain book is not good, I dont read it. 




> From this point of view every written stuff should be considered literature. I had same problem about when i questioned "why Churchill got Nobel Prize?" too. Unfortunately Oxford University is proud of telling English is the richest language of the world (which is lie btw) but it doesn't have a word to signify "artistic literature", because of this you have to classify every written thing in same class. It's out of subject but really stupid; because of this sometimes i have to use words like "real literature" to tell something about Dostoevsky's works, because otherwise i would have to classify Dostoevsky and Rowling with same word. Which is unfair.


Yes, in broad meaning, every written stuff is literature... in past, even scientific works were considered literature, written in verse... So to say "artistic literature" is not enough, that is just narrower sense of literature - belles-lettres (literature regarded for its aesthetic value rather than its didactic or informative content). Which means Harry Potter is "artistic literature" as well.

But what is "real literature"? Please, tell me, is there some literary court that decided that Dostoevsky is real literature and Rowling is not? Or are there some objective criteria that could be used for every book in the world, and on which all people who are considered to be experts, to have good literary taste would agree? I don't think so.
No offence, but I really can't stand this snobbish nonsense about "real literature". We can say, that some books have higher quality than other books, but even those bad books are literature. And even those bad books can be admired by someone. I, for example, can't stand romantic stories for women - I read few and found out they are all the same, that they're not original, realistic, funny... in my opinion, they have very low quality. But that doesn't give me right to start telling my friends who love them that they should not read it because it's not literature. I can say, if they ask, that I think other books are much better, but I don't have right to bellitle them, to say they're fanatics, or that anyone above 10 shouldn't read it. 




> Of course it has to be fun and incidents in novel should be interesting and meaningful (well, in this point i should say can you tell me one single thing that couldn't be meaningful in a Harry Potter book? If a chair starts to talk and say "i am Frank Sinatra's reincarnation" you have to say it's meangful too, and sure a dancing and talking chair would be interesting, if everything is possible in that book how can one single thing might be ordinary and meaningles?), everything have to be meaningful and interestingin a way, in fact %99 of every written book have these specialities, but that doesn't make them equally good.


Meaningful means it adds something to the story. Which, of course, you know as you write short stories yourself. 




> I write short stories, but my English is not good enough to translate them. Though they don't have HP motives, they can't be equally fun when they are different (a horror movie is fun a comedy movie is fun too, but they can't be equal), but surely more artistic. Though i would like to point, if i'd write a short story in English right now, after this discuss, you wouldn't like it just because i wrote no matter how good it is.


I dare say Im mature enough not to behave like that. As I said, I like to decide whether I like book by myself, after I read it. I dont care whos the author, or what critics say. (BTW I dont think your English is that bad...)




> Do i have to read every single book in the world to know if they have a philosophy and message? When you read the snapshot of a book it's simply telling plot of book, and it's very easy for a good reader to find out if it worths reading. Though, i will let you informate me what was Harry Potter's message? Can you tell me deep philosophy behind HP, for example starting of series, first book. What was that about? What was it's message and philosophy?


No, you dont have to read every single book. I also wont read any other romantic story... well, not in the nearest future. But then, Ill never forget how I didnt want to read Lady Chaterleys Lover, because I was told by someone who was regarded specialist with good taste that its just another romantic story, boring and shallow. Until once I decided to give it a chance. And now its one of my favourite.
Book one was about how real love is more powerful than even the strongest evil, that people who really love you are with you even after their death... maybe its nothing new for you, but remember this is book for children. Philosophy and message must be on their level.




> I sometimes read them too, nobody telling you to be ashamed too, but i am not exaggerating a book just because i read (btw many comics i've read were much better and interesting than HP such as Martin Mystere and other Italian comics).


Well, at least something we can agree on. I love Italian comics, too.  :Smile: 
But tell me  why do you read Martin Mystere? Its not meant for adults, either. Do you know if you said loudly in Slovakia that you are adult and love comics, most people would think youre infantile freak? Normal adults read serious literature (where even romantic stories are considered serious literature, compared to the comics). See what I mean?




> Nobody said it's inappropriate for people, in fact i think it's really appropraite for you.


What, do you mean its appropriate for me because Im shallow?  :Wink: 
Well then why do you insist that adults shouldnt read Harry Potter? Reading Martin Mystere is appropriate for adults and Harry Potter is not? Why? Because you think Martin Mystere is good and Harry Potter is not? 




> Complex and complicated people needs much simple things than normal people. In fact people with many different needs are just shallow people in my opinion. Hz.Jesus didn't need anything but food and clothes, Hz.Muhammed is same too, same for Buddha too. My humble advice for you to watch TV's and magazines less, and protect your brain. Consuming more doesn't makes you better.


Well thank you very much for such nice compliments.  :Smile:  I can assure you that my brain is OK, thank you  well protected, as I almost never watch TV.  :Smile:  And by the way, I did not talk about _material_ needs... (and unfortunatelly, I'm just on my way to holiness, not quite as far as Lord Jesus is yet...)
So what makes me shallow? That I like Harry Potter? That I dont have prejudices? That I always try to make my own opinion on book  or anything else, as it goes  not caring what snobs have to say about it? Please enlighen me, O deep one.  :Smile:  
'Cause otherwise I might begin feel proud for being shallow, you know.

Phew... I think I've never written post this long...

----------


## Pensive

> No offence, but I really can't stand this snobbish nonsense about "real literature".


I second you. It's really annoying when you get to hear _Harry Potter series_ does not come in literature. I can't see why! 




> ]When making movies, director cuts most unnecessary parts of books, for example in LOTR movie there wasn't Tom Bombadil because it was really unrelated to main flow of story, and the movie was as good as novel's itself and even probably better than novel, but it's because LOTR was a good novel. Movie adaptations are generally as good as novel's itself. *Sometimes even better* than novel. Even though HP movies was full of unnecessary scenes, if director would be a little harsh like me the movie would long around 10 mins. But then it wouldn't make money and commercial success too, of course


If movies can be sometimes better than the novel, then why can't they be worse?  :Tongue: 

Sorry for being a little bit off-topic, but couldn't resist quoting this:




> Hz.Jesus didn't need anything but food and clothes, Hz.Muhammed is same too,


They did! According to the majority of the Muslims, Hazrat Muhammad needed to _complete his religion_!  :Biggrin:

----------


## NickAdams

> _Romeo and Juliet_ is a tragedy. I don't think ending with a wedding automatically qualifies something as a comedy.


Romeo and Juliet doesn't end with a wedding.

----------


## JuLe

Even my English teacher reads Harry Potter!

----------


## NickAdams

> Even my English teacher reads Harry Potter!


There's no accounting for taste. :Yawnb:  Cheap shot. Sorry.

I liked Harry Potter better when it was called Star Wars.

----------


## grace86

A book and author that has this much influence and that makes today's children so happy and excited to read cannot possibly be that overrated. Enlarge the pictures on the right and tell me that what Rowling is doing isn't a good thing!

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/midnig...eid=E000000496

Those kids are so darling! I really commend her for creating such a wonderful experience in reading for them.

----------


## kilted exile

Just clarifying a couple of things: I do not read Harry Potter, personally I dont enjoy them. I was referring in general to reading practices. People focus too much on lofty ideals of meaning and philosophical enjoyment and lose sight of enjoyment and letting people spend their leisure time doing what they like. People reading Harry Potter is not going to bring about the downfall of the world, there are more important subjects to get worked up about.

----------


## barbara0207

Cute!  :Biggrin:  
I think it's a true miracle how she got a whole generation interested in books again.

----------


## Xtian

It is not our business to invent stories ourselves but only to be clear as to the main outlines to be followed by the poets in making their stories and the limits beyond which they must not be allowed to go.
-Plato, The Republic, ca. 385 B.C.

I totally agree, it is a miracle what JK Rowling was able to accomplish in such a few short years. Only ignorant fools whould critize the books that would would so much good. Even the Christian Right ( I am sorry to readers who might fall into that category) want to ban the books. My mom teaches school at a Catholic school and one of the student's nanny wrote a letter to the school accusing my mom of promoting witchcraft and magick. The school told my mom that Harry Potter could not be taught or read by any class in the school. NOw, how stupid was that? 

The complaintant wasn't even a parent, she is a Jehova's Witness and was appalled that my mom would dare to read such an evil book. I was outraged. 

Most of my adult life has been spent fighting for social justice around the country and world, my favorite cause is the freedom of speech for all. By banning this book the school promoted students to buy the book in droves, The lesson being if you ban something it will be more popular:
Examples: 

Angelou, Maya. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

Auel, Jean. The Valley of Horses

Baldwin, James. Another Country

______. Tell Me How Long the Train's Been Gone 

Bradbury, Ray. The Martian Chronicles

Brown, Dee. Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee

Clark, Walter Van Tilburg. Ox-Bow Incident

Conrad, Joseph. The Nigger of the Narcissus

Fast, Howard. Citizen Tom Paine

Faulkner, William. As I Lay Dying

Frank, Anne. The Diary of a Young Girl

Garcia-Marquez, Gabriel. One Hundred Years of Solitude

Gardner, John. Grendel

Golding, William. Lord of the Flies

Hansberry, Lorraine. Raisin in the Sun

Hughes, Langston. The Best Short Stories by Negro Writers

Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World

Ibsen, Henrik. A Doll's House

Kesey, Ken. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Knowles, John. A Separate Peace

Lee, Harper. To Kill a Mockingbird

Loewen, James W., and Charles Sallis, eds.Mississippi: Conflict and Change

Malamud, Bernard. The Fixer

Malory, Sir Thomas. Le Morte D'Arthur

Manchester, William. Death of a President

Miller, Arthur. The Crucible. Death of a Salesman

Mitchell, Margaret. Gone with the Wind

Orwell, George. 1984

Rowling JK, Harry Potter series

Rushdie, Salman. The Satanic Verses

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism and Human Emotions

Steinbeck, John. The Grapes of Wrath

Suzuki, D. T. Zen Buddhism: Selected Writings 

Terkel, Studs. Working

Walker, Alice. The Color Purple

Wallace, Terry. Bloods: An Oral History of the Vietnam War by Black Veterans

Williams, Tennessee. The Glass Menagerie

Wright, Richard. Black Boy. Native Son

CLASSIC targets

Aristophanes. Lysistrata

Bacon, Sir Francis. The Advancement of Learning

The Bible: Martin Luther's Translation; Revised Standard Version; The Living Bible 

Chaucer, Geoffrey. Canterbury Tales

Eliot, George. Adam Bede

Franklin, Benjamin. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin

Hawthorne, Nathaniel. The Scarlet Letter

Homer. The Odyssey

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince

Moli&#232;re. Tartuffe

Shakespeare, William. Macbeth. The Merchant of Venice. Richard II. Romeo and Juliet

Swift, Jonathan. Gulliver's Travels

Voltaire, Fran&#231;ois M. Candide


FAVORITE TARGETS 

Salinger, J. D. The Catcher in the Rye

Steinbeck, John. Of Mice and Men

Twain, Mark [Samuel Clemens]. The Advenures of Huckleberry Finn

Vonnegut, Kurt. Slaughterhouse Five



YOUNG READERS' TARGETS

Baum, L. Frank. The Wizard of Oz

Blume, Judy. Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret

Carroll, Lewis. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

Cinderella

Dramer, Dan. Monsters

L'Engle, Madeleine. A Wrinkle in Time

Little Red Riding Hood

Rowling JK, Harry Potter

Rumpelstiltskin

Sendak, Maurice. In the Night Kitchen

The Three Billy Goats Gruff

JK is in very good company I think. Most of these books have become top sellers and most are taught in High Schools and universities.

----------


## Stieg

I haven't read any Harry Potter books but they have fallen under attack mainly by the Christian Right most notably.

Yet... yet, _Lord of the Rings_ and _The Hobbit_ is openly being discussed amongst Christian reading groups.

They should not raise issues where there are no issues, when a special interest group fingers a figure or piece of literature and falls under heavy fire that only popularizes the subject with greater sensationalism. 

Kudos to Rowling for thinking outside the box.

Just my two cents worth!

EDIT: For argumentive purposes, if God exists, I feel the last concern in the world is my choice of literary reads. Come on shed those Dark Age fears and stretch, take a deep breathe and enjoy a writer's imagination. These *irrational* reactions frighten me personally. Don't manufacture a *Devil* where there isn't one... that can have serious repercussions. God is love NOT FEAR remember. I've read the bible too.  :Wink: 

Nothing wrong with being a "bad-boy or bad-girl" lit reader and still follow religion folks. I'd adorn them (the books) with pride. Quotations for inference. This message probably belongs in another forum oh well.

----------


## grace86

I don't really think that the majority of people against the books are Christian Right. I am not sure it matters what religion you apply yourself to to be against it. Some people here who criticize it do so out of non-religious purposes.

As a Christian myself, I think the books are awesome to read myself and have recommended them to many other people Christian or not, child or adult.

I too have wondered myself on the Hobbit and LOTR, and C.S. Lewis. I've thought about the supposed qualifications are supposed to be regarding Christianity and fantasy. I've enjoyed those novels too.

What you read is read because you enjoy it. Otherwise you wouldn't read it.

*Stieg* I'm not trying to seem offended with your point, just adding to it.

This probably doesn't belong here on this thread, Logos edit it if you need to...I was just trying to clarify, not trying to be offensive.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Annamariah

"Don't judge a book by its cover" should be "*Don't judge a book by its movie*".  :Tongue:  

I've seen the two first Harry Potter movies, and I didn't like them. The books are great, though.

I don't think it's right to say that Harry Potter series are children's books. True, the first ones are, but as Harry grows, the reader is supposed to grow with them. The themes are coming more mature as Harry gets older. I wouldn't call Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince children's books, maybe books for young readers or something like that.

----------


## Stieg

Well, that is a matter of personal tastes that cause people to be critical of the HP books, not everyone loves them or even likes them.

But I was further elaborating on the absurdity of publically denouncing the books that mediahounds just loved exploiting. That's all

----------


## Gorilla King

Let's not generalize about Christians. I consider myself a fundamentalist Christian (in the true meaning of the word, such as Lewis and Tolkien were) and I certainly have no objections to the books. I'm very pleased to see people reading again.

----------


## formality hater

The books appeal to young and old alike but yet again, the tastes vary.

----------


## grace86

> But I was further elaborating on the absurdity of publically denouncing the books that mediahounds just loved exploiting. That's all


Yes I agree with you on that.  :Wink:

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

Not gonna lie, this thread is pretty intense!!

Firstly, I would like to say, that I have many needs when it comes to books/literature whatever, so I guess I must be shallow. I can't say I feel bad for enjoying different things...and I do like shopping for clothes and checking out guys, and dancing and laughing and coffee...whatever. Thats not the point. 

The point is if you like Harry Potter then good, I'm right there with you...if you don't then thats prerogative...but I have to agree, Don't judge a book by its cover, genre, MOVIE, etc. Especially if you haven't even tried...as for philosophy/intellecual bits...granted its not nearly as 'smart' as plenty of others, but if you research characters and other things in the book, there is plenty of stuff that is fascinating...a lot of it leads back to Gree/Roman myths.

They are fun books and I respect those that don't enjoy Harry Potter (but have a decent arguement other than the movie was terrible) just as much as those that do enjoy Harry Potter.

----------


## Video Drone

Harry Potter was the most gripping book I have ever read. It may not be passing messages or carrying philosophic thoughts in every sentence, but there is no other book for me that is so entertaining and lively. I also found the book pretty original. Perhaps I simply skipped a different fantasy series out there with similar ideas, I don't know. I wanted to extend the book all the time. Back when it was still book 4 the last book, I kept remembering that phrase "What will come will come, and we will have to meet it when it does". And it went darker since then. This book seems to have a "soul". Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that it is new and "in production", you can't just finish it all at once. Is there any other recent book of this sort around?

Speaking of comedy...? Oh, I really don't know where you are going there. Sirius dying in book number 5 was very, very sad, if you ask me. And wedding never symbolized happiness for me.

Movies - I didn't like any of them. They are too action-packed. They cut all the details out. When I like a book, I'm really attached to details.

----------


## applepie

> Movies - I didn't like any of them. They are too action-packed. They cut all the details out. When I like a book, I'm really attached to details.


I thought the movies were alright, but I prefer the books. You miss so much because they can't fit it in and still make the time cut. I'm looking foward to seeing the fifth movie to see if they can really capture the same feeling and affect as the book. They do passably well with the movies, but they have to cut something and they do pretty well with keeping the most important events. You miss out on all of the parts that really build the characters and your apathy for them. There is much more intensity in the books, and the characters seem more real to the reader.

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> I thought the movies were alright, but I prefer the books. You miss so much because they can't fit it in and still make the time cut. I'm looking foward to seeing the fifth movie to see if they can really capture the same feeling and affect as the book. They do passably well with the movies, but they have to cut something and they do pretty well with keeping the most important events. You miss out on all of the parts that really build the characters and your apathy for them. There is much more intensity in the books, and the characters seem more real to the reader.


Okay, the thing about the movies is: If you look at them as just movies, then they aren't bad. Sure they cut out a lot of stuff, but hey, what do you expect! The books of course are going to be so much better.

----------


## applepie

> Okay, the thing about the movies is: If you look at them as just movies, then they aren't bad. Sure they cut out a lot of stuff, but hey, what do you expect! The books of course are going to be so much better.


I do look at them as just movies. It is like I have two separate categories in my head for Harry Potter books and movies. My expectations for each are very different, and I don't really expect the movies to be up to my standards for the books. They also have rating constraints on the movies, I think they are trying to stay PG 13 and some of the stuff in the later books may make this quite difficult. I guess the difference for me is that I like to watch the movies a couple of times, but I own the books and love to read them time and again. They're enjoyable, but to different extents.

----------


## Video Drone

I like when movies after books are different from the book. When they try to follow the book, they fail and make it half-baked.

----------


## Woland

> There's no accounting for taste. Cheap shot. Sorry.
> 
> I liked Harry Potter better when it was called Star Wars.


Stories based on the Ur myth (the hero's journey) will always enchant kids and a lot of adults as well.

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> I don't really think that the majority of people against the books are Christian Right. I am not sure it matters what religion you apply yourself to to be against it. Some people here who criticize it do so out of non-religious purposes.
> 
> As a Christian myself, I think the books are awesome to read myself and have recommended them to many other people Christian or not, child or adult.
> 
> I too have wondered myself on the Hobbit and LOTR, and C.S. Lewis. I've thought about the supposed qualifications are supposed to be regarding Christianity and fantasy. I've enjoyed those novels too.
> 
> What you read is read because you enjoy it. Otherwise you wouldn't read it.
> 
> *Stieg* I'm not trying to seem offended with your point, just adding to it.
> ...


I agree...everyone has their own opinions, oh well. I think the books are very good (I'm Catholic)...every interesting and easy and fun. Who cares about age when you like the book!

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> I do look at them as just movies. It is like I have two separate categories in my head for Harry Potter books and movies. My expectations for each are very different, and I don't really expect the movies to be up to my standards for the books. They also have rating constraints on the movies, I think they are trying to stay PG 13 and some of the stuff in the later books may make this quite difficult. I guess the difference for me is that I like to watch the movies a couple of times, but I own the books and love to read them time and again. They're enjoyable, but to different extents.


Oh, I didn't mean any offense or anything...I was agreeing with you....I enjoy the movies!! Not ones I can see every day, but hey!

----------


## applepie

> Oh, I didn't mean any offense or anything...I was agreeing with you....I enjoy the movies!! Not ones I can see every day, but hey!


 :Smile:  :Smile:  :Smile:  No offense was taken. I hope I didn't give that impression. If there is one bad thing about online forums it is that you can't see the face of the person talking and so often things that I say don't come out as I mean them.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> No offense was taken. I hope I didn't give that impression. If there is one bad thing about online forums it is that you can't see the face of the person talking and so often things that I say don't come out as I mean them.


Haha, yeah totally agree. I'm always a tad worried that I might offend someone...don't want to do that!

----------


## Xtian

I would not paint all fundelmentalist Christians with the same brush, I was merely giving a example, this caused my mother a lot of trouble at school. The problem grew due to the objections of a Jehovah's Witness.

When the books first came out many groups here is an article I took from an anti-censorship website.

Back to School with the Religious Right 


Harry Potter 
During the last school year, right-wing groups sought to remove books from the Harry Potter series from schools across the nation by alleging that they are luring students into witchcraft and the occult. On a December 2001 700 Club, host Pat Robertson followed up an interview with an anti-Harry Potter activist by warning that God will forsake nations that tolerate witchcraft. Robertson advised his audience that the Bible said that, "there's certain things that he says that is going to cause the Lord, or the land, to vomit you out. At the head of the list is witchcraft.Now we're welcoming this and teaching our children. And what we're doing is asking for the wrath of God to come on this country.And if there's ever a time we need God's blessing it's now. We don't need to be bringing in heathen, pagan practices to the United States of America." 
(XTIAN NOTE: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WITCHCRAFT, in this form, There is Wicca but this is not the same thing. No where in the Harry Potter books is Wicca mentioned, so what is Robertson so worried about. Maybe we should be scared of SANTA CLAUS because is shift the letters around SANTA becomes SATAN. We should always be afraid of things we have no concept of, I mean really, I know many Wiccans and not one can fly on a broom or play quittich for that matter)

Several national religious right organizations, like Concerned Women for America, the Traditional Values Coalition, the American Family Association, and Focus on the Family, have warned their supporters against the dangers of the Harry Potter books. And across the country, parents and religious groups worked to try to get Harry Potter books removed from local schools. 

In York, Pennsylvania, a parent, along with a local pastor and elementary school teacher, urged the Eastern York School District to ban the Potter series from district schools. The parent, Deb DiEugenio, complained that the Potter books were "against my daughter's constitution, it's evil, it's witchcraft. I'm not paying taxes to teach my child witchcraft." Tony Leanza, who is a pastor at the New Wine Christian Center as well as a local elementary school teacher, attempted to argue that "Wicca is a religion" and thus the Potter books should be banned because they violate the separation of church and state. The school board eventually voted 7-2 to allow teachers to continue to use the Potter series, provided that students first received a parent's permission. 
(Where in the books are the tenets Wicca taught? Oh, right, "do harm to none." Isn't that the same as "treat others the way you be treated"? Is the bible teaching the same thing as Wicca.)

In July 2002, parents in Cromwell, Connecticut sought to have the Potter books, along with Newbery award-winning book The Witch of Blackbird Pond, removed from a local middle school because they supposedly expose children to spells and witchcraft and provide a negative portrayal of Christianity. Dr. J Michael Bates, a pastor in the Emmanuel Baptist Church, urged taxpayers to protest such books, even if they do not have children in the school system. "The public school needs to know that there are people out there who resent this stuff," Bates said. The objectors plan to petition the school board at an upcoming meeting. 

(I would love for just one person to show me where these books insult Christianity?)

These sorts of attacks on the Potter series were not isolated incidents. Right-wing groups in cities around the country attacked the series. In Florida, Kansas, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Maine and California, individuals and organizations attempted to keep Harry Potter out of the reach of children. 

Perhaps the most intense attack on the Potter books came from the Christ Community Church in Alamogordo, New Mexico, where an actual book burning was held on Dec. 30, 2001. Hundreds turned out to join Pastor Jack Brock's "holy bonfire," where they smashed CDs, videos and records with a baseball bat and burned magazines and books, including the Harry Potter books, which Brock called "a masterpiece of satanic deception." 




WHat a bunch of nonsense, I have a better term but I believe that would violate a language code. Just for the record however, I am not a Christian, I am not Wicca, I support the rights of everyone to practice what ever religion they choose, and even though the belief of any particular religion goes against much of what I beleive in, "Religion is the OPIUM of the Masses" I will fight for that right until the practice of any religion infringes on my right to believe in nothing.

Just a correction though, CS Lewis was a strict Catholic from Belfast and JRR Tolkien living in Great Britian was a non-believer until he converted to Catholicism because of the influence from his friend CS Lewis. The Christian mythology is easily seen in Chronicles of Narnia, Aslan sacrifices himself for the sake of a traitor. The Christian mythos can also be seen in Tolkien but it is hidden in allegory.

But back to the topic, I just saw a preview of new Potter movie, I loved it even though it is differant from the others, it is very dark but I am sure as last book is the darkest and Rowling did say she was killing off a major character, odds are on Harry himself to get killed. 

But other questions arise: When Padfoot stepped into the curtian did he die or go into a differant deminsion, after all he would have appeared as a ghost like Nearly Headless Nick, the victim of a violent death? What of Dumbledore is he really dead, could he not have the magical powers to survive, (Ben Kenobi transcended death) as did Myrtle, The Bloody Baron etc.? 

I can't wait the next few weeks until the last comes out. What will Rowlings write next? Or will she follow Anne Rice into vampyres, religion, werewolves etc.?

Trust me I loved the movie. The book should be great

----------


## Annamariah

> What of Dumbledore is he really dead, could he not have the magical powers to survive, (Ben Kenobi transcended death) as did Myrtle, The Bloody Baron etc.?


The whole ghost thing was explained in the end of the fifth book, when Harry asked Nearly-Headless Nick if Sirius would come back as a ghost. I certainly think that Dumbledore was not a man who would want to become a ghost like Myrtle and Bloody Baron.

(I do wish that Sirius comes somehow back from death and that Harry survives without getting killed, but I don't believe that either will happen  :Frown: )

----------


## Argyroneta

I started reading Potter when i had my wisdom teeth out. Now it is the last one of the series i may as well read it!

----------


## MaryEliFit

I heard that most adults are afraid to admit that they read the Harry Potter series. I don't know why its an awesome book that everyone can read.

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> I would not paint all fundelmentalist Christians with the same brush, I was merely giving a example, this caused my mother a lot of trouble at school. The problem grew due to the objections of a Jehovah's Witness.
> 
> When the books first came out many groups here is an article I took from an anti-censorship website.
> 
> Back to School with the Religious Right 
> 
> 
> Harry Potter 
> During the last school year, right-wing groups sought to remove books from the Harry Potter series from schools across the nation by alleging that they are luring students into witchcraft and the occult. On a December 2001 700 Club, host Pat Robertson followed up an interview with an anti-Harry Potter activist by warning that God will forsake nations that tolerate witchcraft. Robertson advised his audience that the Bible said that, "there's certain things that he says that is going to cause the Lord, or the land, to vomit you out. At the head of the list is witchcraft.Now we're welcoming this and teaching our children. And what we're doing is asking for the wrath of God to come on this country.And if there's ever a time we need God's blessing it's now. We don't need to be bringing in heathen, pagan practices to the United States of America." 
> ...


To tell you the truth...whenever I heard that Pope Benadict didn't like Harry Potter, my first thought was, "man you are missing out!"...

I have to agree...this next movie is going to be interesting...darker thats for sure!! We'll see how it goes though...

As for Black, I have a feeling that there is more to the 'veil' than just him 'dying' or whatever. Also, what if Dumbledore comes back as a ghost...thats what my friend thinks, me as well.

----------


## _Shannon_

> Just a correction though, CS Lewis was a strict Catholic from Belfast and JRR Tolkien living in Great Britian was a non-believer until he converted to Catholicism because of the influence from his friend CS Lewis. The Christian mythology is easily seen in Chronicles of Narnia, Aslan sacrifices himself for the sake of a traitor. The Christian mythos can also be seen in Tolkien but it is hidden in allegory.


Lewis was not Catholic. Tolkien was a life long Catholic. Lewis was influenced heavily by Tolkien and Chesterton.

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

Tolkien was Catholic...Lewis was atheist until his 30's then he converted to The Church of England...but even then he didn't really go to church or anything...just for communion. I just finished a biography. :Tongue:

----------


## _Shannon_

Lewis became Christian primarily in response to reading Chesterton's _The Everlasting Man_.

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> Lewis became Christian primarily in response to reading Chesterton's _The Everlasting Man_.


And because Tolkien's arguements...but yeah..have you read The Everlasting Man?

----------


## Video Drone

Christians... I'm a deist, but even then, when some Christian friend of mine comes in they always start preaching me about how I should go to church and all and we start the whole debate... I always thought Christianity was all about freedom of religion. And various "God Warriors" don't make it look any better.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the last book, but I am also suspicious of an unsatisfying ending... And it has nothing to do with Harry dying or staying alive, it's just that endings are a problem with complex storylines. -_-

----------


## _Shannon_

> And because Tolkien's arguements...but yeah..have you read The Everlasting Man?


Nope- _Orthodoxy_, but not _Everlasting Man_ LOL! And Fr. Brown and all the nonsense verse...and _Ballad of the White Horse_.

----------


## _Shannon_

> Christians... I'm a deist, but even then, when some Christian friend of mine comes in they always start preaching me about how I should go to church and all and we start the whole debate... I always thought Christianity was all about freedom of religion. And various "God Warriors" don't make it look any better.
> 
> Anyway, I'm looking forward to the last book, but I am also suspicious of an unsatisfying ending... And it has nothing to do with Harry dying or staying alive, it's just that endings are a problem with complex storylines. -_-


Sounds like you need new friends :Nod:

----------


## hedbanger

I read Cat In The Hat still.


What are you getting at? D<

----------


## JJLuke

The only reason I see adults reading harry potter is to support their children into reading the book. Other than that, I don not find that many adults interested in the book, it is after all very juvenile. Escapism... I do not think any adult would want to escape into high school drama set in a wizard world.

----------


## Stieg

> The only reason I see adults reading harry potter is to support their children into reading the book. Other than that, I don not find that many adults interested in the book, it is after all very juvenile. Escapism... I do not think any adult would want to escape into high school drama set in a wizard world.


I can. Child literature can be both brilliant and beautiful. My mother is in her 60s and she loves reading Harry Potter and other popular child lit. Child lit can be responsive to a reader's idea of novelty or tap a sentimental vein.

----------


## Pensive

> The only reason I see adults reading harry potter is to support their children into reading the book. Other than that, I don not find that many adults interested in the book, it is after all very juvenile. Escapism... I do not think any adult would want to escape into high school drama set in a wizard world.


My mother used to read Enid Blyton and of course not to make her children read it, but because she actually 'enjoyed' reading it 'herself'. Can't an adult read a book just for enjoyment sake?

----------


## Garnet01

I'm confused as to why any form of literature should be confined to any age range. When I was 10 I was critisised for reading Wuthering Heights because many people thought that I would be unable to capture the intensity and passion within its pages and yet it captivated me. My mother reads His Dark Materials trilogy by Phillip Pullman and she also reads the Chronicals of Narnia. This is not because my mum is having a moment of regression or escapism but because she appreciates fantastic writing styles and enjoys adventure. Does being an adult mean that we aren't allowed to have a Peter Pan moment and just relax into a fantasy land?  :Smile:  

Just a thought,

Garnet x

----------


## Allerick

where Harry Potter may have been intended for younger children, i think that the book explores many adult themes, it looks at life changing and affecting issues such as death of parents/friendships/loneliness/not fitting in. the book is written in a way that is easy for everyone of all ages to understand and interpret in their own way. surely this is a main feature of literature i itself??? to interpret a text how you want to make it relevant to our lives today, what ever situation we may be in?

----------


## Stieg

Adults enjoy child lit for many reasons, it is a different style, embellished and highly imaginative, usually fantasy-based, no less dramatic than adult lit and can have important morals.

Lewis Carroll
Richard Adams
E.B. White
J.M Barrie

are great examples of this.

----------


## Orionsbelt

:Biggrin:  For those of you who are into childish escapism, mind play, and just plain fun. I saw the movie version for "Order of the Phoenix" last night.  :Thumbs Up:  Great stuff from my point of view. Loved the way they expressed some of those ongoing themes that never seem to make it out of the book. Great prelude to the upcoming book release. :Banana:

----------


## Stieg

One other point I failed to mention, adults love to read a story with a child's or young adult's perspective or POV.

----------


## bigape2992

This question is beyond ignorance. Child escapism? It is imbeciles like you who make me lose faith in humanity. Have you ever even read the books, or have you just seen the movies? Read the books, and try to see the deep meanings behind them instead of the things that appeal to small children. Try going to www.mugglenet.com, and go to the editorial section. There you will learn to broaden your pathetic mind and learn about the immense literary value of the Harry Potter saga. True, the books are favorites amongst children, but there are thousands of serious fans of the books as well. We serious fans analyze the series to no end, noting all the symbolism, allusions, masterful character development, and God knows how much more. 

Did you know that many of the people who have contributed most to the fandom are _not_ children? In fact, the most respected include those that do MuggleCast (a small group of college students that do a podcast on literary Harry Potter analysis) and write editorials (many are intelligent high school students, literature majors in college, and occasionally even those worthy of PhD candidacy). 

Just go to www.mugglenet.com. I promise that the discussion pages and editorials will help you not only reach a real understanding of Harry Potter but also help you appreciate literature, mythology, history, even more.

Edit: I would like to apologize for the insults. It angers me when people treat Harry Potter as children's books. The truth is that if you actually analyze and understand the series, you would see the true literary value behind them.

----------


## Video Drone

We shall see what will become of Harry Potter in 10 years. While it is running, we can't judge it.

----------


## bigape2992

Of course we can judge the books! There are entire websites and books devoted to it, and people spend countless hours analyzing and judging every aspect of the the series! Please support your claim that we can't judge it "while it is running," because there are massive amounts of evidence to the contrary.

----------


## Video Drone

Well, I can spend hours analyzing and judging every aspect of my favorite movie... in fact, that have gotten quite out of hand... you see, the problem is, just because we like something, or just because we see something in a book or any other work of art does not mean that it is actually there. I have thoughts that many of the Harry Potter fans who are analyzing the book simply love it so much that they see beyond the book itself. The situation, in fact, is very common in fandoms.

Majority opinion does not make anything good or bad. But time often defines whether or not a work had fans loyal enough to remember it for 10, 20, 30 years. If a work was not of great value, it is probably going to be forgotten because those who were its fans were only loyal to it while it was running, while it was popular. If a work has greater value, it may develop a cult following. A work of greatest value will be remembered by a greater amount of people and even remembered in schools and such. Of course, it is all not so certain and straightforward, but it works.

The amount of "follower" a work has does not matter because there are followers who are true (devoted to the work, will remember it after it is no longer running), and not-so-true (those who proud themselves on being the fans of the work, who get angry when the work is bashed and cannot defend it, those who hardly understand the work themselves, just pretend to do it). I did not study the HP fandom, I could as well join it on the side because HP is still one of my favorite books, but I had experience with a fandom before, a fandom of a retired show, and it is miserable indeed. HP fans will be quite happy at the time since everybody loves Harry Potter, but the majority will read it and forget it, as it always happens.

Even if I will agree with what the people on muggle.net have found of HP, it does not mean that me and you and those people are "right". Rightness is a very stretchable concept. It will be well if Harry Potter fans would not become discouraged after Harry Potter is finished. The discouragement of fans after a TV show stops running is huge.

I simply believe that a work of art can only be tested by time.

Of course, this is just my opinion. I'm in the position where my favorite books and movies are not remembered by anyone and are quite negatively reviewed. I've been used to the concept that liking these works of art and studying them too deeply is just my own problem.

----------


## Hyacinth42

I just finished it... And, there were things I had been hoping for, predicted would happen, extreme suprizes, and a few let downs... And now I want to discuss/gripe about it.... I don't want to spoil it though, and so will wait (although impatiently) for other people who have finished before "discussing" what happened.

----------


## Logos

Ugh  :Tongue:  could you fix your signature line? break it up into separate lines, remove some of the hyphens, so that it doesn't force the right margin.

----------


## Bakiryu

> I just finished it... And, there were things I had been hoping for, predicted would happen, extreme suprizes, and a few let downs... And now I want to discuss/gripe about it.... I don't want to spoil it though, and so will wait (although impatiently) for other people who have finished before "discussing" what happened.


Please I need to know!!! i can't get the book until my da answers his phone! tell me: Does harry die? :Bawling:

----------


## Hyacinth42

I am torn between being mean because you asked and being nice because being mean is... mean. *sigh* While it would be funny to tell you yes (with total honesty), and then leave you hanging, I will opt to be nice... Yes he dies, but he comes back... It was rather lame, and annoying (a whole bunch of things I had thought would happen happened... and then she ruined it by bringing him back) but, it was still a good book...

----------


## Bakiryu

Yes! Thank you 

I'll have to wake up at 4 am and travel 300 miles to get my copy on Monday  :Bawling:  but I'd be SO worth it.

----------


## Lily Adams

I was at my friend's house earlier today, and she got her copy in the mail by the time I got there. Her little sister was curious and looked through the last few pages of the book, and her sister got confused and wanted to ask me a question since

1. I'm not a fan, but I used to be, so I could at least help with the plot a little. Even though I don't remember much because I don't care.
2. My friend didn't want ANY spoilers.
3. Spoilers obviously don't matter with me anymore.

so she dragged me into her room and showed me the end. This is my opinion:

I think the epilogue is...really bad. It reminds me of fanfiction. Bad fanfiction that makes baby Jesus emo. And me emo. Anyone else agree?

----------


## dramasnot6

Same here Lily! I hate how cliche the whole thing is (especially Harry and Ginny AND Hermione and Ron getting together, how predictable!  :Sick: ) . I was also a bit dissapointed at so few people dying in the novel, all the reviews made it sound like 10+.

----------


## Bii

Yes, there were elements that were predictable but perhaps you were all expecting too much - it is, after all, a children's book. I thought the ending was nice, and necessary. In the absence of closure in Bloomsbury's desperation to keep their heads above water I wouldn't be surprised if they'd have commissioned someone to write more books which would be damaging to the series. Imagine if more Narnia books were written without C.S Lewis being at the helm?

In terms of the numbers that die, I get it to at least 10, being a combination of major and minor characters. I'd list them, but I don't want to spoil for anyone that's still reading. I was getting close to the end of the book wondering if there would be anyone left.

----------


## applepie

I actually liked it a lot even with the predictability. It was your basic good vs evil, and I may have been much more sad if the good guys didn't live happily ever after, well at least for the most part. There were losses and gains, but as Bii pointed out, it is a children's series. What did you really expect to happen at the end?? It is a happy end and one that isn't likely to be written around by people wanting to extend the franchise and increase profits.

----------


## Bakiryu

I can't wait to read it! I'm going to take it to Cuba!

----------


## Niamh

> I was at my friend's house earlier today, and she got her copy in the mail by the time I got there. Her little sister was curious and looked through the last few pages of the book, and her sister got confused and wanted to ask me a question since
> 
> 1. I'm not a fan, but I used to be, so I could at least help with the plot a little. Even though I don't remember much because I don't care.
> 2. My friend didn't want ANY spoilers.
> 3. Spoilers obviously don't matter with me anymore.
> 
> so she dragged me into her room and showed me the end. This is my opinion:
> 
> I think the epilogue is...really bad. It reminds me of fanfiction. Bad fanfiction that makes baby Jesus emo. And me emo. Anyone else agree?


yes the bit at the end was very disapointing! But over all i really enjoyed the book! I bawled my eyes at the bit with the grave at rons bros house!(i hope this doesnt spoil anything as i havent mentioned what happened etc!)

----------


## Hyacinth42

I didn't cry but it was rather sad... I mean It just happened out of nowhere, I couldn't believe she killed that character off... Many of the other deaths just seemed random as well...

----------


## Video Drone

I feel like I have read the book already. I just can't stop myself from reading spoilers. Good thing I care more for the text rather than "how it ends".

----------


## Slrtwobee

I have to admit, I have had very very few gripes about any of the Harry Potter books/movies, etc.  :Thumbs Up:  I really really liked #7. EXCEPT FOR THE STINKY epilogue!!  :Rage:  I am trying to justify this. Maybe I was expecting too much, and after you have had 6 awesome hits, it would be kind of hard to continue to duplicate. However, I was glad to see that Harry didn't die at the end....but to get married and have kids with Ginny somewhat irked me...lol. To this moment, I have no clue why. I guessed Ron and Hermione....and was fine with that one. I just think that she should have stopped right before the...... "19 years later...." :Sick:

----------


## Hyacinth42

I think it was more to cement the theme/moral/lesson throughout the books about "choices" and whatnot... It was all about that part where he talked to his son in the end... Although it would have been funny if the last words have been "until now" instead...

----------


## Shalot

> I have to admit, I have had very very few gripes about any of the Harry Potter books/movies, etc.  I really really liked #7. EXCEPT FOR THE STINKY epilogue!!  I am trying to justify this. Maybe I was expecting too much, and after you have had 6 awesome hits, it would be kind of hard to continue to duplicate. However, I was glad to see that Harry didn't die at the end....but to get married and have kids with Ginny somewhat irked me...lol. To this moment, I have no clue why. I guessed Ron and Hermione....and was fine with that one. I just think that she should have stopped right before the...... "19 years later...."


Well, I guess she wanted us to know that Ron and Hermione did in fact get together.

----------


## Niamh

an that that was her way of showing that voldamort was truely gone, which i think was the purpose of the 19 years later bit, even if it was extremely cheesy. Also i think it was to show that he finally realised the truth of Snape and excepted that he was a brave man. Hence one of his sons being called Albus severus.
That really made me sobby in the book when he's seeing snapes memories...

----------


## symphony

too much for one who hasnt read the book yet :| ....
i shouldnt have come i shouldnt have come!! :bowling: i know i know!!
damn my ultra-curious mind!  :Bawling: 

erm..harry dies?! and then comes back??! argh okay dont tell me....no tell me what happens!...no dont....erm...i'd better go read the book first! 
damn!

----------


## dramasnot6

The way they present Harrys death and ressurection is kind of religious, like he is being sacrificed for the good of the world.

----------


## Video Drone

Yeah, then some people come over and say "Harry Potter is really a book on satanism!"

----------


## Niamh

did anyone else see the connections between Voldamort and his death eaters, and Hitler and the Nazis?

----------


## Video Drone

Well, if we suggest that the death mark is like the nazi symbol... and so on... but I think it's kind of far-fetched.

I prefer to avoid such connections, I only make such connections with things that I really like and it comes out bizzare anyway...

----------


## SleepyWitch

> did anyone else see the connections between Voldamort and his death eaters, and Hitler and the Nazis?


yep, lots of reviews over here  :Smile: 

i think they have a point, considering the Death Eaters racial ideology, their muggle-born registration thingy... Voldy's dad was a muggle and he's obsessed with pure blood, styling himself as the purest pure blood wizard of all... Hitler was an Austrian (an illegitimate son of a woman who was also married to her second cousin) who wanted to be the "purest" German of all times... his original last name was Schicklgruber...


i think it's interesting to draw these parallels... What would be so frightening and repulsive about Tommy Boy if there was no connection to 'real life'?
just because Voldy is a powerful wizard doesn't necessarily make him scary. it 's his aims and his means of reaching them that make him evil, not his powers as such.

----------


## SleepyWitch

.. by the way, I finished the book last night, and I was sooooooooooo proud of Snape...
of course, there were lots of theories (based on next to zero evidence) that he was in love with Lily..., so it was kind of predictable... but it was balm for my weary soul to read "The Prince's Tale" (ch. 33). he was a real hero, to protect the Potter brat for 17 years and spy on Voldy.

Snape
when I have a son I'll name him Severus (my b.f. doesn't like the idea at all)

----------


## Niamh

> .. by the way, I finished the book last night, and I was sooooooooooo proud of Snape...
> of course, there were lots of theories (based on next to zero evidence) that he was in love with Lily..., so it was kind of predictable... but it was balm for my weary soul to read "The Prince's Tale" (ch. 33). he was a real hero, to protect the Potter brat for 17 years and spy on Voldy.
> 
> Snape
> when I have a son I'll name him Severus (my b.f. doesn't like the idea at all)


I had a feeling about that for ages, the order of the Pheonix was definitely when i believed it most. Its amazing how you can feel his torment. Did everything in his power to believe that Harry was his dad through and through so that he didnt have to see lily in him incase he cared for Harry. Yet in the end it appears he did.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> I had a feeling about that for ages, the order of the Pheonix was definitely when i believed it most. *Its amazing how you can feel his torment.* Did everything in his power to believe that Harry was his dad through and through so that he didnt have to see lily in him incase he cared for Harry. Yet in the end it appears he did.


yep, exactly... probably it's only because my perception is warped anyway, but in my humble opinion, Snapes memories is the best-written passage in HP7, except for the chapter where Harry dies and meets DD.

hum, on the other hand, I often wonder whether I'd like Snape so much if it weren't for Alan Rickman in the films... I think if Snape was as geeky and greasy-haired in the films as he is described in the books, and if Rickman's voice wasn't so mesmerizing, I wouldn't find Snape half as fascinating

----------


## motherhubbard

I havent read anything past book 4. But I really want to know if that stinker that gives harry such a hard time at school (can't think of his name) meats with a bad end? Please, please tell

----------


## SleepyWitch

> I havent read anything past book 4. But I really want to know if that stinker that gives harry such a hard time at school (can't think of his name) meats with a bad end? Please, please tell


Draco Malfoy?
nope, he survives,.. Harry/Ron/Hermione even save his life two times

----------


## Niamh

> yep, exactly... probably it's only because my perception is warped anyway, but in my humble opinion, Snapes memories is the best-written passage in HP7, except for the chapter where Harry dies and meets DD.
> 
> hum, on the other hand, I often wonder whether I'd like Snape so much if it weren't for Alan Rickman in the films... I think if Snape was as geeky and greasy-haired in the films as he is described in the books, and if Rickman's voice wasn't so mesmerizing, I wouldn't find Snape half as fascinating


i'm with you on that one.....

Personally i think they should have gotten rid of malfoy, but crabbe i'll do.

----------


## motherhubbard

was malfoy at least humbled?

----------


## SleepyWitch

> was malfoy at least humbled?


somewhat.. but no way as much as he'd deserve

----------


## applepie

I was so happy to see Draco humbled. Plus, after seeing the way his family was being made to suffer by Voldermort I was glad he didn't die. The scene where Narcissa lies and declares Harry dead is one of my favorite. It puts a much more human face on the entire Malfoy family and you see that good or bad they are still people and have the same worries and connections of other families. I thought their concern for their son's safety was really touching, and it made me see them as loving parents as well as the bad guys.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> I was so happy to see Draco humbled. Plus, after seeing the way his family was being made to suffer by Voldermort I was glad he didn't die. The scene where Narcissa lies and declares Harry dead is one of my favorite. It puts a much more human face on the entire Malfoy family and you see that good or bad they are still people and have the same worries and connections of other families. I thought their concern for their son's safety was really touching, and it made me see them as loving parents as well as the bad guys.


yep, I liked that, too  :Smile: 

what do you guys think about JKR's style? 
i like reading the books because they are really gripping etc.. 
but on the other hand, there are lots of opportunities for reflection that she just doesn't make use of. i dunno about other readers, but her style kind a propells me along and forces me to read on and on without thinking.  :Frown:

----------


## vheissu

Just finished reading it! 

Out of all the characters that died, Hedwig's was the saddest for me. Ok, it's an owl but it was just too sudden and too soon in the book as well!

Overall impression...a lot better than expected. I didn't particularly like the 6th book, it went too fast and left too many questions. This one at least explained things and didn't rush (too much).

The epilogue could have been written differently, or maybe not written at all. I dunno, it's not just because it was verging on being cheesy but just...somehow unneccessary (sp?). The last chapter already hints at a happy future and all that.

About JKR's style: It does somehow make you read fast and not think. I even jumped 2-3 lines, then went back, didn't understand and eventually read it properly. Maybe it's just the anticipation of wanting to know more as quickly as possible  :Smile:

----------


## Orpheus

Did anyone else think that they spent too much time galavanting around in the woods and on the run? This part seemed to dominate a lot of the book and, in my opinion, could have been improved.

----------


## ben lurie

i just finished the book a few hours ago.....wow
im really feeling depressed though, and im not reallly sure why
i dont think its because of how the book was or how it was ended, but more the inescapable knowledge that i will never be reading a new Harry Potter book again. it just seems much to soon to be the end of such beloved characters

----------


## ben lurie

what was going on with the dying baby when he was talking to dumbledore? did i just miss an explanation for that or was it just supposed to be creepy?

----------


## ben lurie

it seemed to me that the mid section of the book was disproportionately large, them hiding, doing nothing and being grumpy. i understand the need for a lowpoint so the climax can be that much better, but there was an awful lot of harry being pissed off, grumpy angry at ron etc. which i also didnt like about the 5th book....i really wish it wasnt over...i just cant come to grips with the though that that is the end of the harry potter saga

----------


## applepie

> what was going on with the dying baby when he was talking to dumbledore? did i just miss an explanation for that or was it just supposed to be creepy?


I think it was basically the part of Voldermort dying within him. At least that is how I viewed it. That affirmation that it isn't really dead yet, but very weakened. Because of his sacrifice, only the horcrux part of Harry was harmed, I guess. I was a little confused while reading that part too.

----------


## ben lurie

i think the epilogue definitely left me sad an unsatisfied, but im not really sure why....i knew all along that harry was gonna hook up with ginny and the same would happen with ron and hermione and i really enjoyed that idea but...maybe there was a better way to have shown that? also, while hearing about the lil kids harry and ginny had was fun and all...it isnt nearly as entertaining or romantic as mabe harry just doing something with ginny when he was still 17 and the harry we all know....rowling could have hinted easily that they were gonna have kids etc. but without the 19 years later thign

----------


## ben lurie

that is an excellent explanation, interesting that it was a baby though? you would think that the horcrux part of harry would be nasty and evil, as it was not a very good part of harry. characterizing it as a baby makes it seem almost like a good part of voldemort, like him as a baby when he was still innocent and nice

----------


## applepie

> that is an excellent explanation, interesting that it was a baby though? you would think that the horcrux part of harry would be nasty and evil, as it was not a very good part of harry. characterizing it as a baby makes it seem almost like a good part of voldemort, like him as a baby when he was still innocent and nice


I think it had something to do with the fact that at first appearance Voldermort was a baby. Something to do with the whole coming back into a physical form thing. It isn't really likely to come back as an adult. He only achieved that as he gained in power.

----------


## ben lurie

its amazing how much better i feel just talking out the points...do you think rowling will continue to write? or now that shes a billionaire is she done? even if she does start writing again, im gonna have trouble falling in love with new, unknown characters

----------


## ben lurie

one problem that i had with harry as a character is that he just isnt bad *** enough. this is definitely a typical guy opinion, but seriously, it would have been more convincing if harry had a darker side, when he got pissed off and actually might kill something once and a while...harry seemed all to sensitive, particularly in the later books, it was more understandable in the earlier installments as he was younger, but you think a 17 year old kid might have a bit more fire in him.....however i do realize it is technically a childrens book...even with all my *****in and complaining i still love all the harry potter books more than any other series

----------


## applepie

I hope that she will continue to write. Even though they are more for children, her books are fast paced and suck you into the story. I love books that can do this for me, and I think it is great when I find myself reading at the same break-neck speed of the action in a book. I don't have issues with new characters, I just hope that they are as enjoyable as her last ones without being the same characters in a different story. This is a trap some of my favorite current authors seem to fall into, and then I lose all interest in the story.

----------


## ben lurie

i agree, i cant think of an exact example where the author recycles characters, but i know what you mean...it may be hard for her to write more as anything she writes will be scrutinized and compared to the harry potter series, which is undoubtedly a hard series to top

----------


## Orpheus

Well, you can't expect her to stop writing just because her work is going to be scrutinized and compared. Would you tell a musician to stop playing because he/she is getting old?

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Did anyone else think that they spent too much time galavanting around in the woods and on the run? This part seemed to dominate a lot of the book and, in my opinion, could have been improved.


yep, I think so, too... what was even worse was that Voldemort spent so much time galavanting around the world.. O.K. he was looking for the Elder Wand and he's daft because he doesn't understand about love etc, but he _is_ the most powerful evil wizard ever, so you'd think he'd get things done a bit more quickly.

about Grindelwald: was he mentioned in any of the other books? sorry, I'm really forgetful, especially when it comes to HP books, and I just don't remember...
here's a funny story: last week (before the book was out) a friend of mine told me she was going to a town called Grindelwald in Switzerland. I'd heard of this name before of course, but it sounded funny anyway and I said "Hahhaha, Grindelwald, that sounds like the name of an evil wizard!" and voilà, there he is  :Smile:

----------


## SleepyWitch

> one problem that i had with harry as a character is that he just isnt bad *** enough. this is definitely a typical guy opinion, but seriously, it would have been more convincing if harry had a darker side, when he got pissed off and actually might kill something once and a while...


yep, I think so too. that's one of the reasons I don't like the Potter brat too much.
he's set up as the good guy right from the start (what with being a poor poor orphan and all that, you've just got to pity him). there's no point where there's actually any real danger of him chosing evil over good... even though he does get grumpy (adolescence?) there's never any REAL danger of him going over to the dark side... well, there is his mental connection to Voldy, but once he's read Voldy's thoughts/feelings a couple of times and nothing much happens, it's clear that he will not turn into a second Lord Voldemort or something. 
Ok, Voldy managed to trap him in part 5, but trapping him (=transmitting false information) and influencing his character are two different things...

in other words, there never really is much choice for Harry, he's the good guy because he's set up as the good guy at the start and we all know the good guy will win.
edit: do you guys have any kid brothers/sister or nephews/nieces etc who read Harry Potter? I'd be really interested to know what little kids think about HP, or if they've got anything to say about it except "I like Harry Potter because it's a good read."
I work with 7-12 y/o kids but none of them reads Harry Potter  :Frown:

----------


## Walter

Can there be more Harry Potter? Of course! Arthur Conan Doyle tried to actually kill off Sherlock Holmes because he wanted to do other things in his life, but the fans demanded otherwise, so Sherlock Holmes came back with an ingenious explanation about how his presumed death had only been apparent.

----------


## Niamh

> I think it was basically the part of Voldermort dying within him. At least that is how I viewed it. That affirmation that it isn't really dead yet, but very weakened. Because of his sacrifice, only the horcrux part of Harry was harmed, I guess. I was a little confused while reading that part too.


i viewed it that way also.



> yep, I think so, too... what was even worse was that Voldemort spent so much time galavanting around the world.. O.K. he was looking for the Elder Wand and he's daft because he doesn't understand about love etc, but he _is_ the most powerful evil wizard ever, so you'd think he'd get things done a bit more quickly.
> 
> about Grindelwald: was he mentioned in any of the other books? sorry, I'm really forgetful, especially when it comes to HP books, and I just don't remember...
> here's a funny story: last week (before the book was out) a friend of mine told me she was going to a town called Grindelwald in Switzerland. I'd heard of this name before of course, but it sounded funny anyway and I said "Hahhaha, Grindelwald, that sounds like the name of an evil wizard!" and voilà, there he is


i think he's mentioned in most of the other books when people mention Dumbledores achievements. may even have been mentioned on the chocolate frog cards in book one.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> Can there be more Harry Potter? Of course! Arthur Conan Doyle tried to actually kill off Sherlock Holmes because he wanted to do other things in his life, but the fans demanded otherwise, so Sherlock Holmes came back with an ingenious explanation about how his presumed death had only been apparent.


yep, you're right... but Harry Potter isn't dead... 19 years later he's married to Ginny and has three little kids and leads and utterly mundane and boring life  :Smile: 
if anything nearly as exciting as his fight against Voldy was to happen to him, it would have to be either in between the end of book 7 and those "19 years later" or after those 19 years.

----------


## Walter

> i think he's mentioned in most of the other books when people mention Dumbledores achievements. may even have been mentioned on the chocolate frog cards in book one.


You have a good memory and you are right! Volume 1, page 120, from the frog card:



> Albus Dumbledore
> Currently headmaster of Hogwarts
> Considered by many the greatest wizard of all time. Dumbledore is particularly famous for his defeat of the dark wizard Grindelwald in 1945, for the discovery of the twelve uses of dragon blood, and his work on alchemy with his partner, Nicholas Flamel. Professor Dumbledore enjoys chamber music and ten-pin bowling.


I just read it.  :Biggrin:

----------


## SleepyWitch

ah  :Smile:  thanks Walter
that explains it, I never read part one and two

----------


## plainjane

> yep, you're right... but Harry Potter isn't dead... 19 years later he's married to Ginny and has three little kids and leads and utterly mundane and boring life 
> if anything nearly as exciting as his fight against Voldy was to happen to him, it would have to be either in between the end of book 7 and those "19 years later" or after those 19 years.



Flashbacks are a possibility, or maybe like Bobby in _Dallas_, it was all a dream..... :roll:

----------


## Walter

> yep, you're right... but Harry Potter isn't dead...


Yes, he isn't dead. All the easier for continuation. As if 'easy' were necessary for continuation anyway, which might be the point of the Holmes example.

----------


## Hyacinth42

Here is an article that says JKR will write another book, with backstory and epilogue:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/

And here is her saying it again, along with what Harry, Hermione, and Ron are doing:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/n...-rowling_N.htm

----------


## kratsayra

I'm late to the party cause I've just finished the book last night.  :Blush:  

I guess I'm just a sucker, but I really liked the epilogue. Even though it's just a story, happy endings of that sort are really reassuring with regards to my own life. So I just like to see them. I guess Harry and Ginny ending up together is a bit silly, but the characters that end up together throughout the books have never been a surprise really. And I'm not surprise that Rowling put it there, I was kinda expecting something like that . . . and of course Neville ends up as a Professor at Hogwarts. 

There was a lot of humor with Ron and Hermione finally getting together. When Ron comes back you really think Hermione is going to kiss him, and then she starts punching him. And then when they finally kiss towards the end, Harry's like, "um, guys . . . now's not the best time" (yes, I know that's not a real quote)

I love the chapter when Harry learns all about Snape's life. It's just too fascinating. 

And also when Harry asks Dumbledore if his conversation with him is real or in his head and Dumbledore says (and this is a quote): "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" That's probably my favorite line of the book, it really stuck out.

----------


## Logos

_Mod note: moved from General Chat._

----------


## Whifflingpin

Walter : "Can there be more Harry Potter? Of course! Arthur Conan Doyle tried to actually kill off Sherlock Holmes because he wanted to do other things in his life, but the fans demanded otherwise, so Sherlock Holmes came back with an ingenious explanation about how his presumed death had only been apparent. "

Sleepywitch: "yep, you're right... but Harry Potter isn't dead... 19 years later he's married to Ginny and has three little kids and leads and utterly mundane and boring life 
if anything nearly as exciting as his fight against Voldy was to happen to him, it would have to be either in between the end of book 7 and those "19 years later" or after those 19 years."

If JKR is intending to stick with children's literature, and continue in the Harry Potter world, then I'd guess the main characters would be the next generation. Clearly Albus Severus is a character in his own right already, even with so short an introduction.

----------


## kratsayra

> If JKR is intending to stick with children's literature, and continue in the Harry Potter world, then I'd guess the main characters would be the next generation. Clearly Albus Severus is a character in his own right already, even with so short an introduction.


You know what I just realized? Albus Severus' initials are ASP. Interesting, huh? Like a snake. I wonder if it's intentional. (unless Ginny and Harry do the hyphenated last name thing! haha)

----------


## Annamariah

> I love the chapter when Harry learns all about Snape's life. It's just too fascinating.


Ever since the chapter "Snape's Worst Memory" in Order of the Phoenix I've liked Snape and I just COULDN'T believe he was a bad guy even when he killed Dumbledore in the end of the Half-Blood Prince. I just refused to believe he was really with Voldemort... I think the whole Snape loved Lily -thing explains that Snape's Worst Memory chapter pretty well.

You know, when I first read it, I was wondering why it was Snape's WORST memory. I mean, surely James and Sirius had been teasing him in many other occasions, too. After Deathly Hollows I realised it was his worst memory because that was when his friendship with Lily ended  :Bawling:

----------


## Derringer

I was generally disappointed with the last book. I haven't liked Harry for a couple of books now - he's almost a mix between Pip from _Great Expectations_ and Holden Caulfield from _ The Catcher in the Rye_ .

Generally I would revise all of the novels -- to much re-telling of events by the characters, overtly judgemental of the characters , a muddled philosophy -- Dumbledore is the greatest wizard and his big thing is a 'greater good' --yuck! Too simple!

I noticed the Nazi thing too, and I was looking for some bits and pieces of satire or analogy. Dumbledore's writing could be reminiscint of the Nazi's misuse of the ubermensch. 

The exceptance of fate, sacrifice, an exclusive morality, live after death, family, and the soul tend to point towards something similar to Christianity (or possibly a similar religion). Although I guess all of those things tend to be excepted in pop culture anyways. I wouldn't call this book secular though.

----------


## Aiculík

I was a bit disappointed, too - there were several big mistakes that spoilt the fun for me, like... (*spoilers*! Don't read orange text if you haven't finished the book yet!)

(like Kreacher suddenly in Hogwarts, or the sword again in the Sorting hat, or disapparating underage students in Hog's Head...)

And I do hope that Rowling is very bad Seer and that Ron and Hermione won't name their children Hugo and Rose. I mean - _Hugo_? Oh come _on_. After six books full of strangest and funniest names, the poor boy is _Hugo_?

----------


## Annamariah

> I was a bit disappointed, too - there were several big mistakes that spoilt the fun for me, like... (*spoilers*! Don't read orange text if you haven't finished the book yet!)
> 
> (like Kreacher suddenly in Hogwarts, or the sword again in the Sorting hat, or disapparating underage students in Hog's Head...)


Well, Kreacher had been in Hogwarts before because of Harry's order, so why couldn't he have gone there again? I guess that the sword coming from the sorting hat is some kind of old and mysterious Gryffindor-thing, I mean the sword really wasn't in the hat when Harry found it in the first place in the Chamber of Secrets, it just somehow appeared into it. And the underage students... maybe they used side-along apparition or floo-network? Well, I'm not sure, but those would be my guesses  :Biggrin:

----------


## grace86

****Spoilers******


I finished the book yesterday afternoon. Truthfully, I loved all of it. Save for the fact that I was really hoping Dumbledore's eyes were in the shard of glass. But I understood why he couldn't come back.

Well, when the underage wizards were disapperating, the ministry had kind of fallen. Scrimgeour was dead, and Voldemort couldn't control it...he was busy with a war...so considering the students might or might not know how to apparate, no one was going to tell them they broke the law.

I really didn't see the Lily/Snape thing coming, but I am so glad he was a good guy.

The epilogue I liked too, a little mushy and cliche to some, but it is a child's book. Kind of nice to know what happens to them all.

About killing off Lupin and Tonks, I'd rather it been them than Mr. Weasley, as Rowling said she was going to do. Sad for little Teddy, buy apparently he turned out okay. I thought Rowling was going to have Harry raise him or something.

Overall, I really really enjoyed the book. I am sad it is over, but I liked how it ended.

----------


## malwethien

I just finished it and I am deeply disappointed! I felt that JK rushed into a half-baked explanation of how to kill Voldemort without killing Harry because she ran out of ideas. She was unable to explain clearly about the the blood "connection" between Harry, Voldemort and Lily and the weird phenomenon of Harry and VOlemort's wand...The story was a nice, neat package until that point where it just fell apart. It kinda had the same feeling if the series ended by Harry waking up, finding out that he had dreamt the whole thing and he was still 11 years old sleeping in the cupboard under the stairs. JK took the easy way out. I also think the epilogue was so corny!! It would have been better if they told the readers what happened to the other characters...no just Harry and Ginny and Ron and Hermione who the readers knew for sure would have a happy ending....

I don't know...I just felt that the ending was forced...just so it will finally end. It could have been better....

and by the way...where did Neville get the Gryffindor sword? The last person to have had it was Griphook in Gingotts....so how did Neville end up with it in Hogwarts???

----------


## androcles

BIGAPE2992, 
Why do you answer in such intemperate terms? eg "The question is beyond ignorance"... "Pathetic mind". 
Child escapism? Patently so. J.K. Rowling is writing CHILDRENS books and fantasy is certainly a form of ESCAPISM.

----------


## stephofthenight

i have 2 questions on this book
1. how did the sword of griffindor get back in hogwarts after the goblin ran off with it in the bank...
2. how did draco have anything to do with the elder wand
?

----------


## kratsayra

> i have 2 questions on this book
> 1. how did the sword of griffindor get back in hogwarts after the goblin ran off with it in the bank...
> 2. how did draco have anything to do with the elder wand
> ?


1. The thing about the sword is that it is supposed to come out of the hat for any worthy Gryffindor - no matter where it is or whatever. A bit much, perhaps, but it's just so cool to have Neville wield it. So who cares. Well, not me, anyway. 

2. This is more straightforward: Draco was the "real" owner of the elder wand because he is the one who disarmed Dumbledore and took it from him at the end of book 6. Even though Snape did the deed, it was actually Draco who first defeated Dumbledore for his wand. According to all the wand lore explained in book 7, if you beat an opponent, their wand belongs to you. So even though Draco didn't keep the elder wand, it still recognized him as its owner (master?) since he's the one who defeated Dumbledore for it.

----------


## stephofthenight

indeed u are right...i wasnt thinking about book 6 lol ...and the hat thing i didnt know about.

----------


## MaryLupin

I am 50, therefore, I suspect, I qualify as an adult. I read (and adore) the Harry Potter novels. I am extremely well read and rather well educated. My children are grown and I read the books for myself. Enough of that.

What I wanted to mention was the impact that early science fiction has had on our culture. There is a website dedicated to tracking inventions and concepts first mentioned in novels. There is a great deal of evidence here for the social impact of stories on our lives. 

Stories have a powerful emotional hold. As children what we read teaches us things about how to be human and leaves impressions that we may forget consciously but leaves us looking for certain things when we become adults. In a sense we try to recreate those things in our childhoods that left us feeling positive. Early science fiction read by our current-day scientists may well have shifted the way our society has gone with respect to our technology. I suspect HP may have a similar effect with respect to what the books really teach, which, of course, is not magic.

The question, then, becomes what does Harry teach us about how to be human? About what is valuable? About what to avoid? And what to seek? And what are the limitations we should impose on ourselves in the seeking? Answering those questions make of the books human literature. Children will answer the questions with their limitations showing in the answers. Adults will answer the questions with their own set of limitations. Maybe between the two sets we might get a couple of good answers, and even more importantly, we might come up with one really good question to ask of ourselves and the world.

----------


## PabloQ

I'm an adult way beyond my youthful years and I enjoyed this series of books very much. I started to read them out of curiosity and got hooked on the world Rowling created. I enjoyed watching Harry and his mates mature. Although targeted to juvenile audiences, the themes in these books, especially death, is quite mature.
As far as infantile escapism goes, I never much needed to escape as an infinite. I was quiet content with sleep, eat, poop, repeat. Who needs to escape a life like that.

----------


## PeterL

> As far as infantile escapism goes, I never much needed to escape as an infinite. I was quiet content with sleep, eat, poop, repeat. Who needs to escape a life like that.


It doesn't get any better.

----------


## Mortis Anarchy

> I was at my friend's house earlier today, and she got her copy in the mail by the time I got there. Her little sister was curious and looked through the last few pages of the book, and her sister got confused and wanted to ask me a question since
> 
> 1. I'm not a fan, but I used to be, so I could at least help with the plot a little. Even though I don't remember much because I don't care.
> 2. My friend didn't want ANY spoilers.
> 3. Spoilers obviously don't matter with me anymore.
> 
> so she dragged me into her room and showed me the end. This is my opinion:
> 
> I think the epilogue is...really bad. It reminds me of fanfiction. Bad fanfiction that makes baby Jesus emo. And me emo. Anyone else agree?


I totally agree. The epilogue was really bad. It seemed rushed and just came out of nowhere. She could have done a lot of things to make it better....it was rather disappointing.

----------


## Scheherazade

http://specials.uk.msn.com/MOVIES/Ho...elfsurvey.aspx

No chance for me:


> Un-magical: Your disdain for the supernatural arts and utter lack of magical qualities means you'll never be a Hogwarts student. You should probably go and join the army or something

----------


## holmesian

i have read it and liked it. just one question. if the Elder Wand is invincible, how did Dumbledore's wand defeat Grindelwald's Elder Wand?

----------


## PeterL

> http://specials.uk.msn.com/MOVIES/Ho...elfsurvey.aspx


Where can I get an application?




> Scholarship! - You are a prime candidate for Hogwarts School Of Witchcraft And Wizardry. Your nerdy demeanour and love of all things supernatural and weird should send you to the top of the class...

----------


## holmesian

> Potential candidate: Your interest in the magical arts is sufficient to stand you in good stead for a spot at Hogwarts. Keep working on those spells!


now my earlier question once again: *if the Elder Wand is invincible, how did Dumbledore's wand defeat Grindelwald's Elder Wand?*

----------


## ben lurie

> I'm late to the party cause I've just finished the book last night.  
> 
> I guess I'm just a sucker, but I really liked the epilogue. Even though it's just a story, happy endings of that sort are really reassuring with regards to my own life. So I just like to see them. I guess Harry and Ginny ending up together is a bit silly, but the characters that end up together throughout the books have never been a surprise really. And I'm not surprise that Rowling put it there, I was kinda expecting something like that . . . and of course Neville ends up as a Professor at Hogwarts. 
> 
> There was a lot of humor with Ron and Hermione finally getting together. When Ron comes back you really think Hermione is going to kiss him, and then she starts punching him. And then when they finally kiss towards the end, Harry's like, "um, guys . . . now's not the best time" (yes, I know that's not a real quote)
> 
> I love the chapter when Harry learns all about Snape's life. It's just too fascinating. 
> 
> And also when Harry asks Dumbledore if his conversation with him is real or in his head and Dumbledore says (and this is a quote): "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" That's probably my favorite line of the book, it really stuck out.



i also really enjoyed the part about snape's past life, how he really loved lily but could never express himself properly. and how at the end you find out he was actually a hero, probably just as important as harry himself, and how harry says that he is the "bravest man i ever knew". i also love the quote when dumbledore tells harry its in his head but real. any more comments about the dying baby?

----------


## ben lurie

wow just reading all these posts has brought on another wave of post-potter depression. if you dunno what that is... 
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...ter+depression
i do not think the epilogue was terrible, and i furthermore think that any ending would have been hated siimply because of what it is, the END OF THE HARRY POTTER BOOKS. i am truly glad it was not a dream, because that has got to be the stupidest ending ever, has anyone else had a dream with that kind of detail and spanning 8 years of your life???? i doubt it

----------


## kratsayra

> wow just reading all these posts has brought on another wave of post-potter depression. if you dunno what that is... 
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...ter+depression
> i do not think the epilogue was terrible, and i furthermore think that any ending would have been hated siimply because of what it is, the END OF THE HARRY POTTER BOOKS. i am truly glad it was not a dream, because that has got to be the stupidest ending ever, has anyone else had a dream with that kind of detail and spanning 8 years of your life???? i doubt it


Haha. "Dreams" like that do happen in Star Trek. There is an episode of The Next Generation where Captain Picard lives out an entire lifetime in a dream-state. He thinks he's lived 40+ years or something, but it's only been a few minutes. Only Star Trek though.  :Wink:

----------


## Lyn

I didn't much like the ending, though I get why she had the epiologue - to kill off the story. It gives it a real terminal quality, she can't write any more cos now we know where their lives 'ended up.'

----------


## StayGolden

> now my earlier question once again: *if the Elder Wand is invincible, how did Dumbledore's wand defeat Grindelwald's Elder Wand?*


Doesn't Rita Skeeter say in an interview about her book that there never was an epic battle between Dumbledore and Grindelwald? Grindelwald handed over his wand and went quietly? 

Anyway. I thought the entire book read like a badly written fanfic. It dragged on during the middle, it didn't answer questions left over from the other books, the deathly hallows played an incredibly small part in the book despite the title, and even for a children's book it was incredibly predictable. Don't get me started on the god-awful epilogue, either.

JKR said in an interview that after almost 17 years of writing the series she just wanted it to be over, and that's more than obvious when reading this book.

----------


## Taliesin

We will probably not read it again.
Or, if we will, then not in the following three years.
It was OK, but not much more.

----------


## Bakiryu

The book was ackward and a bit boring and SHE KILLED OFF ONE OF THE TWINS! she should be prosecuted!

----------


## Dublo7

Am I the only one that stopped reading this book half way through and desired never to look at it again?

It's exactly what happened to me with The Dark Tower. I got to the 7th book, read half way through, and could no longer continue.

I think there's something about the number 7  :Wink:

----------


## JediFonger

as with many things that i like (return of the jedi, return ofthe king, matrix revolution, etc.), i just love endings, especially if they are well done.

i think the epilogue is meant to say they all grew up and harry found peace through ron's family.

there's 1 detail that's slightly disturbing. was harry's kids snogging with ron's kids... cause harry+ron are now related by blood through ginny... ewww >).

anyways, it was pretty fantastic ending and i really dig it, especially the christ-like ending.

----------


## tudwell

> there's 1 detail that's slightly disturbing. was harry's kids snogging with ron's kids... cause harry+ron are now related by blood through ginny... ewww >).


That was Harry's _adopted_ son, Teddy (Teddy Lupin, the son of Remus and Tonks) snogging Victoire, Bill and Fleur's kid. Nothing disturbing about it.

----------


## Chem

anyways, it was pretty fantastic ending and i really dig it, especially the christ-like ending.[/QUOTE]

I just want to say that i loved the book and am already onto my second time reading it! But i dont get the "christ-like ending" reference??

----------


## Bakiryu

> Am I the only one that stopped reading this book half way through and desired never to look at it again?


Nope. This last book was so bad it made me cringe. Wish I could throw it out my window like i did with that accursed Great Expectations.

----------


## Dublo7

> Nope. This last book was so bad it made me cringe. Wish I could throw it out my window like i did with that accursed Great Expectations.


 :Thumbs Up:

----------


## JediFonger

judeo christian notion of jesus christ sacrificing himself in order to save the world. just like harry did.

specifically, the garden of Gethsemane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Gethsemane
parallels harry's acceptance of his own death to save the world, etc. as he was walking in the forrest towards Voldermort  :Smile:  




> anyways, it was pretty fantastic ending and i really dig it, especially the christ-like ending.


I just want to say that i loved the book and am already onto my second time reading it! But i dont get the "christ-like ending" reference??[/QUOTE]

----------


## Pensive

I liked it. Everything was quite fine, well, except the epilogue! _All was well_ annoyed me a bit. And I had not the slightest idea that my previous lit-net signature (and the first one, this one now is the second one) if someone remembers would be something I would come across again in HP series, and not once or twice, even more times!  :Tongue: 

This was it:

_Wit Beyond Measure Is Man's Greatest Treasure!_  :Smile:

----------


## JediFonger

i think the epilogue was put there to illustrate that the children have grown up into adults... just as the children who read HP will one day re-read HP to their kids and realize that the very last epilogue was written just for them! =P. it's a very nifty idea.

----------


## Lote-Tree

I have now read the final installment in the Harry Potter Series - The Deathly Hallows. The morally ambiguous character Severus Snape turned out to be a hero after all. Love - the Power of Unrequited Love - seems to redeem him.

What say you?

Is Severus Snape a Hero? 
Did his love redeem him?

----------


## TheFifthElement

I wouldn't say he was a hero, more like he was morally ambiguous. If he'd had the power to turn Lily's love away from James, and that power was evil, he'd have used it. 

I don't think love redeemed him either. Love made him bitter, and angry. Love was both the cause and the cure of his problems. 

Of course none of it was real, or was it?.....

----------


## Pensive

> Love - the Power of Unrequited Love - seems to redeem him.


Don't know about redeeming, but it did give his life a purpose - to save Harry and to work as Dumbledore's agent. Poor Snape, I felt pity on him as well. But don't know why can't bring myself to call him Severus yet! Yeah, can't bring myself to get on first name basis with Professor Snape! 

I told ya (in a thread I don't remember), love is not always about being on the receiving end.  :Smile:

----------


## Lioness_Heart

I'm not sure he's really a hero either. He has heroic moments, but that's mixed in with a lot of unpleasantness. 

And as for the love thing, I'm not so sure. Does that make him less of a hero, because he wasn't doing good for the sake of good - it seemed a bit like an attempt to bring Lily back almost, as if he could undo the past by helping Harry.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> I wouldn't say he was a hero, more like he was morally ambiguous. If he'd had the power to turn Lily's love away from James, and that power was evil, he'd have used it. 
> 
> I don't think love redeemed him either. Love made him bitter, and angry. Love was both the cause and the cure of his problems. 
> 
> Of course none of it was real, or was it?.....


But he been to the Dark Side and Choose Good because of LOVE? None of the other characters done that - even Dumbledore! Dumbledore was tempted that is all. 




> Don't know about redeeming, but it did give his life a purpose - to save Harry and to work as Dumbledore's agent. Poor Snape, I felt pity on him as well. But don't know why can't bring myself to call him Severus yet! Yeah, can't bring myself to get on first name basis with Professor Snape!


No. Not many would invite him to dinner in the evening. But the anger, the bitterness, the terrible sadness about him makes him a unique character - a character that strides both the dark and the good?




> I'm not sure he's really a hero either. He has heroic moments, but that's mixed in with a lot of unpleasantness.


He is more of an Anti Hero than hero - but there is something unique about him? 




> And as for the love thing, I'm not so sure. Does that make him less of a hero, because he wasn't doing good for the sake of good - it seemed a bit like an attempt to bring Lily back almost, as if he could undo the past by helping Harry.


No. But he choose good for LOVE - isn't that something?

----------


## Bakiryu

I think Lily should have chosen him instead of James I hates James!

----------


## Lote-Tree

> I think Lily should have chosen him instead of James I hates James!


But would he have learnt the true lesson of love if he did?

----------


## Bakiryu

Now but he would've been happy anyway. Love doesn't have a lesson.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Now but he would've been happy anyway. Love doesn't have a lesson.


It does. It teaches you about loss...and regrets...and pain...and sadness...and sorrow...and of fulfilment...of hope...of joy...of meaning...

----------


## Bakiryu

Those things can be learned over time. People shouldn't suffer for the sake of love.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Those things can be learned over time. People shouldn't suffer for the sake of love.


If it does not hurt - it ain't love...

----------


## TheFifthElement

> But he been to the Dark Side and Choose Good because of LOVE? None of the other characters done that - even Dumbledore! Dumbledore was tempted that is all.


Well, it could be said that he chose Good when he had nothing left to lose, because his love was gone. So he only became Good (ambiguously so) when he was a broken man, often as people choose the dark path in life when they feel they have nothing left. Was choosing the path of goodness an act of self-destruction for Snape?

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Well, it could be said that he chose Good when he had nothing left to lose,


He put his life in danger did he not?
He did not have to do this does he?




> So he only became Good (ambiguously so) when he was a broken man, often as people choose the dark path in life when they feel they have nothing left.


So why did he choose the good then for Lily?




> Was choosing the path of goodness an act of self-destruction for Snape?


No. Act of redemption?

----------


## TheFifthElement

> He put his life in danger did he not?
> He did not have to do this does he?


No, but when you've nothing left to live for then you can be reckless with your life.





> So why did he choose the good then for Lily?


Or because he couldn't remain with Voldemort when he threatened the only thing he'd ever loved. If he loved Lily so much, and her love could save him, why didn't he choose the path of good when she was alive, when he knew it was so important to her. Instead he let her die. He could have done more. 




> No. Act of redemption?


Or an act of revenge? Against the person who took away his love.

Of course ultimately it's because JKR said it is so. Oh the power of a writer, almost like playing God.




> If it does not hurt - it ain't love...


So true, so true.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> No, but when you've nothing left to live for then you can be reckless with your life.


Perhaps. But there is element of self-preservation even when you have nothing to live for. And he never tried to commit suicide. He wanted to live.




> If he loved Lily so much, and her love could save him, why didn't he choose the path of good when she was alive, when he knew it was so important to her.


Here he shows how human he is. So often we hurt those that we love the most - either through our actions or inactions or misunderstanding...




> Or an act of revenge? Against the person who took away his love.


But he never tried to kill Voldermort. He could have died trying.




> Of course ultimately it's because JKR said it is so. Oh the power of a writer, almost like playing God.


The redemption is this: His been to the dark side. And only love brought him back to the good side.

Snape embodies what most human tend to be - a mixture of good and bad. Some only act on the good - we call them Saint's and others tempted by the bad - we call them villains. But most straddle between the moral ambiguity between the two.

----------


## TheFifthElement

> Snape embodies what most human tend to be - a mixture of good and bad. Some only act on the good - we call them Saint's and others tempted by the bad - we call them villains. But most straddle between the moral ambiguity between the two.


True, JKR has captured this well as the books have gone on, and perhaps reflected what is the core problem for most teenagers, the discovery that adults don't have all the answers, and sometimes they aren't as wholely good as we'd been led to believe. Snape was darker than most of the characters, so it was more pronounced in his case, but all the main characters were straddling the void between 'good' and 'evil', including Harry.

I'm still not convinced that it was love that redeemed Snape, if he hadn't loved Lily his life may well have been much more simple (and perhaps boring  :Wink:  )

----------


## Annamariah

> Or because he couldn't remain with Voldemort when he threatened the only thing he'd ever loved. If he loved Lily so much, and her love could save him, why didn't he choose the path of good when she was alive, when he knew it was so important to her. Instead he let her die. He could have done more.


But Snape DID choose the path of good while Lily was still alive. He told Voldemort about the prophecy before he knew it would lead to Lily's death. As soon as he found out that Voldemort was going to attack the Potters, he told Dumbledore all about it in hope of saving Lily. It wasn't Snape's fault that the plan didn't work, it backfired because Peter Pettigrew betrayed Lily and James.

----------


## Pensive

> But Snape DID choose the path of good while Lily was still alive. He told Voldemort about the prophecy before he knew it would lead to Lily's death. As soon as he found out that Voldemort was going to attack the Potters, he told Dumbledore all about it in hope of saving Lily. It wasn't Snape's fault that the plan didn't work, it backfired because Peter Pettigrew betrayed Lily and James.


I whole-heartedly agree over here! I think he did all he could do and for the best interests of Lily.

----------


## Niamh

> But Snape DID choose the path of good while Lily was still alive. He told Voldemort about the prophecy before he knew it would lead to Lily's death. As soon as he found out that Voldemort was going to attack the Potters, he told Dumbledore all about it in hope of saving Lily. It wasn't Snape's fault that the plan didn't work, it backfired because Peter Pettigrew betrayed Lily and James.


Exactly!

----------


## Lote-Tree

> I'm still not convinced that it was love that redeemed Snape, if he hadn't loved Lily his life may well have been much more simple (and perhaps boring  )


What is redemption but to take responsiblity for your mistakes?
And Snape did that with his life?

----------


## TheFifthElement

> But Snape DID choose the path of good while Lily was still alive. He told Voldemort about the prophecy before he knew it would lead to Lily's death. As soon as he found out that Voldemort was going to attack the Potters, he told Dumbledore all about it in hope of saving Lily. It wasn't Snape's fault that the plan didn't work, it backfired because Peter Pettigrew betrayed Lily and James.


Did he choose the path of 'Good', or did he choose to place his love for Lily above his fear of Voldemort, and it _just so happened_ that the way to achieve that was to betray Voldemort, secretly? The path of good was expedient, rather than a conscious choice. Would he have stood by and allowed James and Harry to be killed, if Lily's safety was guaranteed, or in fact if Voldemort could have delivered Lily to him on a platter? How many other people did he not care about, didn't try to protect. 

His choice was selfish, not motivated by the desire to be 'good', or do the right thing.

----------


## Pensive

> His choice was selfish, not motivated by the desire to be 'good', or do the right thing.


Thinking the best for someone you love is a good thing. And if that is selfish, then most of our choices are selfish. Perhaps all are.

----------


## TheFifthElement

> Thinking the best for someone you love is a good thing. And if that is selfish, then most of our choices are selfish. Perhaps all are.


It's a perceptive point you make Pensieve, and I fall into my own paradox here because I truly do believe that everything we do, we do for selfish reasons. That being said my point was not so much that Snape was thinking the best for Lily, but rather that he was thinking about what was best for himself, and therein his actions were selfish.




> Thinking the best for someone you love is a good thing.


This point made me think. If someone does something out of love, does that always make it good?

----------


## Pensive

> It's a perceptive point you make Pensieve, and I fall into my own paradox here because I truly do believe that everything we do, we do for selfish reasons. That being said my point was not so much that Snape was thinking the best for Lily, but rather that he was thinking about what was best for himself, and therein his actions were selfish.


Yeah, the whole selfishness thing is quite complex itself. Don't we all think the best for ourselves? Even when we choose to sacrifice something belonging to us, don't we do it to soothe ourselves? Don't we make this choice for a happy conscience?  :Smile: 





> This point made me think. If someone does something out of love, does that always make it good?


Nope, it doesn't but sticking to your love (especially if this sticking wouldn't be a source of hurt generally) or thinking the best for your loved one I think is quite good. Snape did that. If this makes him selfish, then we all are selfish.  :Tongue:

----------


## Lote-Tree

> That being said my point was not so much that Snape was thinking the best for Lily, but rather that he was thinking about what was best for himself, and therein his actions were selfish.


How so? How is protecting Harry best for him?

----------


## TheFifthElement

> How so? How is protecting Harry best for him?


Who said anything about Harry?

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Who said anything about Harry?


You said Snape acted on selfish reason's but how is protecting Harry a Selfish reason?

----------


## TheFifthElement

> You said Snape acted on selfish reason's but how is protecting Harry a Selfish reason?


Snape acted on selfish reasons in turning from Voldemort to the 'path of good' because what prompted the move was the threat to Lily. Once on the path of good it would take some intervening act to turn him back to the dark side (oops, wrong reference!) which never occurred. Perhaps what held him there was his commitment to Dumbledore, considering he never showed any affection for Harry, merely despised him because of his resemblance to his Dad.

Why do you think Snape stayed on the path of good?

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Why do you think Snape stayed on the path of good?


Because he loved Lily and felt he was responsible for her death: Remorse.

----------


## Gadget Girl

OK, I'm a fan of the Harry Potter books since the first movie showed up *until* I read the epilogue of HP Deathly Hallows. I was really, really disappointed, wishing that I could change it or wishing it never happened. *sighs*

The whole world knows and maybe have read all the seven Harry Potter books -- some of them likes the ending and some of them don't. In every book that you read or in every movies that you watched, the ending really matters there. What's the use if -- for example, there are three books and the first two books are really cool, but the last one sucks pretty bad. That also goes in movies and in some other stuffs. It's like you are creating a building very slowly and then at the end, it brokes and all your hardships were wasted. POOF! Gone. Nothing left.

----------


## applepie

I thought the ending of number 7 was still alright. It gives the series closure, and it also lets you know that Voldermort is well and truly gone this time. I also like that it shows that everyone survived. Not just keeping their lives, but everyone pulled together the pieces of life even after everyone lost. They were able to come back from something terrible, but they didn't forget the people who lost their lives so they could live. I thought it was touching, and it was a nice way to end the series even if it was a little cliche.

----------


## Gadget Girl

Potter fans, I have something to tell you! Dumbledore is gay! Do you believe that? He was in love with his enemy Grindelwald when he was young. Here is part of the article from:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/book....ap/index.html






> NEW YORK - With author J.K. Rowling's revelation that master wizard Albus Dumbledore is gay, some passages about the Hogwarts headmaster and rival wizard Gellert Grindelwald have taken on a new and clearer meaning. 
> 
> The British author stunned her fans at Carnegie Hall on Friday night when she answered one young reader's question about Dumbledore by saying that he was gay and had been in love with Grindelwald, whom he had defeated years ago in a bitter fight.
> 
> '"You cannot imagine how his ideas caught me, Harry, inflamed me,'" Dumbledore says in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," the seventh and final book in Rowling's record-breaking fantasy series.
> 
> The news brought gasps, then applause at Carnegie Hall, the last stop on Rowling's brief U.S. tour, and set off thousands of e-mails on Potter fan Web sites around the world. Some were dismayed, others indifferent, but most were supportive.


I can't believe it... do you?

----------


## RoCKiTcZa

Definitely enough! Still quite reasonable, though. I would've inferred that from the content of the books, yet I never did notice.

----------


## StayGolden

Officially "outting" Dumbledore was unnecessary. It added nothing to the series, other than to be politically correct and add a gay character to the roster. 

There was plenty of inference in the last book for people to make that connection if they wished.

----------


## Gadget Girl

I just wonder why J.K. Rowling said this _after_ the seventh book? I mean, why did she destroyed the character of Dumbledore, the Headmaster of Hogwarts and the only man Voldemort feared, and made him gay without even adding some important parts to the story? You're right that it added nothing to the story and I don't know the reason behind it.

----------


## mihaela

that is so repulsive, it hurts. the thing that made dumbledore so inspiring was exactly the fact that he always seemed above the average day-to-day controversies and hassles. i can't imagine what she was thinking if she said such a thing; saying he's gay isn't going to make his character more complex, it's just going to objectify it. until 5 minutes ago i held that character in high esteem, now all i can think about is his "maddening, impossible love and antagonistic desires that marred his life". great. oh, the cultural diversity of it all.

----------


## Gadget Girl

*sighs* Why did JKR made Dumbledore gay?? It's just so... impossible to think, y'know. I never thought that he is when I was reading the whole Potter series until she told us.

----------


## mihaela

you know what? i don't care what she's gonna say now, she can say dumbledore's gay, harry is transsexual and ron's mother is actually a lesbian, with the pretext they're all "such wonderful people", i won't care and not really listen too much to it.
at least she didn't ruin the books

----------


## Gadget Girl

Well, yeah, I guess...

----------


## Big Al

Who the hell cares? All the books are completely average.

----------


## vheissu

I can't say that I understand it either. Not that he's gay, I had kind of thought about it while reading the last 2 books, but _why_ actually say it now. 

But then, if the HP series is targeted to the younger audience, can you imagine what would have happened if she had mentioned it in one of the books? It's bad enough that some people think that it's a book on witchcraft and should be banned, which is completely silly.

And if she was specifically asked about it and had already formed a complete idea on Dumbledore's character then it's her right, as the author, to say so.
I can't believe she made it up on the spot. 

And no, it doesn't change the books at all for me. It just adds more information on one of the characters which isn't really necessary to know but does no harm to the overall series.

----------


## Dori

(Yes! 100th voter!)

I believe the whole series is overrated. And to think she's got rich off of it.

----------


## cleo

I totally agree with Faith. I am in my mid 40's and I truly enjoyed the harry Potter books. It seems to me the people that didn't like the books are snobbish.

----------


## StayGolden

> I just wonder why J.K. Rowling said this _after_ the seventh book? I mean, why did she destroyed the character of Dumbledore, the Headmaster of Hogwarts and the only man Voldemort feared, and made him gay without even adding some important parts to the story? You're right that it added nothing to the story and I don't know the reason behind it.


I don't think she "destroyed" Dumbledore's character, and his being gay doesn't change my opinion of the series in the least. I simply think it's unnecessary to know his sexual preference, and feel the JKR only did it to prove to "fandom" that she was capable of having a gay character in her books. *shrugs*

But, that's just my opinion.

----------


## applepie

Outing Dumbledore was entirely not needed. In some ways I think it takes away from being able to read things into the actions within books. I was never struck by the realization that he was gay, but if others were, great. They were on the money and I didn't see it. I don't really care one way or another, I just don't see why it was necessary to make a statement about it. Other authors don't normally go around making statements about the characters in their books, and I feel a little robbed that Rowling has. I like to form my own "images" in my head about the characters in the books I read, and to have someone tell me what a character is and isn't is bothersome. It leaves little to my own imagination, and that isn't any fun for me. It makes me wonder if she is trying to keep the books in the public light by revealing things like this just to increase sales. What other surprises about the characters will she reveal in the future????

----------


## packersfan

To me, J.K.Rowling didn't ruin the character of Dumbledore or the Harry Potter series in general... She ruined her reputation, to me. Who cares about Dumbledore's sexuality? I mean, the way she developed characterization was great and everything, but after the book, who cares? To me, if Dumbledore was gay or not, he is still the same character. So there was absolutly no need for this.

----------


## Gadget Girl

> To me, J.K.Rowling didn't ruin the character of Dumbledore or the Harry Potter series in general... She ruined her reputation, to me. Who cares about Dumbledore's sexuality? I mean, the way she developed characterization was great and everything, but after the book, who cares? To me, if Dumbledore was gay or not, he is still the same character. So there was absolutly no need for this.


Yes, I think JK destroyed her reputation instead of Dumbledore. I admit that changing Dumbledore's sexuality adds _nothing_ to the books and I'm glad about that. She can do whatever she wants 'cuz she's the author, but I don't get it why she has to say this whole thing.

You said there's no need for this, but we're still discussing it!  :FRlol:  Unless after my post, no one will post back.  :Biggrin:

----------


## grittylit

outing dumbledore, in my opinion, was just to keep the spotlight on her. for the last 10 years there has been this strain and need for her to reveal info about the next book - she doesnt hold that power anymore. 

i never suspected dumbledore to be gay, i suppose the thing with him and flamel may make sense, i think they were written about just as good friends though. why make the person that has the most power in the book (ulitimately after harry) gay? what does this acheive to the author? there is nothing explored about this with any other aspect of the book.. so it just seems something that was said to get a rise out of the media....

just my 2c

----------


## Gadget Girl

Gritty, you are also right. When I was reading the last book, I thought to myself, 'if this is the seventh and final book of the HP series, then why it has so many missing, unexplained parts that would support the previous ones?' I was finishing the book that time, 'I guess there will be an eighth book for JKR to explain everything', but when I checked an HP site, they said she will make an HP encyclopedia to explain the whole lot of questioning. I guess she's doing this so that the HP mania wouldn't end.

----------


## Pensive

Interesting news, but such news lose much charm when not included in the novel. It would have been better if she had mentioned it in the novel (there was so much else about Dumbledore there!). Actually, from nowhere while reading Deathly Hallows, I got this idea. I wonder if she just made it up.

It appears like Rowling wanted to create some drama and excite HP fans out there. (Has the increasing rate in the stock of pointless HP fanfictions got any less?)

----------


## cactus

Hi all,

When all the hype about HP flooded my social network, I bought the first book to see what it was all about. I read the first 10 pages and the put the book down. You can understand that after being fully engrossed in Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series I could not find any interest in HP.

As a child/teenager I had enjoyed many fantasy books (eg The Scatterling) and frankly in comparison I did not find HP topping those books (although they are not as well known)... Perhaps my extensive reading of fantasy books for young adults those many year ago have killed my openness to HP or perhaps I am passed the stage of teenage fantasy books....

Cactus

----------


## grittylit

id say read past the first 10 pages. actually stick with it past the first half of the first book.... i hated it when i first flicked through it, back in 1999, but i ran out of things to do on a 22hr flight and it became my last resort, and im so glad it was - ive been hooked ever since and have been one of the embarassing few to buy the next issue the first day it was out and reading the whole book within 24hs (if i had nothing on)... the first half of the first book was and still is a bit of a disapointment... but you will regret it if you dont get to the third or fourth books - imho they go downhill from here also - but are still interesting as you want to find out what is behind the prophecy and find out why harry is 'invincible'...

----------


## novelsryou

Mommy, people say Dumbledore is gay. What's gay?

----------


## Petrarch's Love

I personally have always thought that the Dumbledore character is loosely based on someone she knew--probably a teacher, professor or similar mentor (though obviously its a modified and idealized portrait). Perhaps the person she based him on is gay? Just speculation of course, but my sense is that, in any case, this wasn't some sort of spur of the moment attention getting device. I think this is something she's thought of as being a part of the character for a long time. I don't think it's at all unusual for authors to have all sorts of details about characters in their mind that aren't necessarily written into the story, especially when you've been writing a character for as long as Rowling has.

----------


## Gadget Girl

It could affect the child readers, but JKR is focusing on teenagers and adults as her books slowly reaching the end -- it's getting darker and darker in each book. But now that the series had ended (finally), I think JKR wouldn't let go easily. She wanted more people and the fans since the beginning to love the books as they loved it before, so she is finding some way to bring the enthusiasm of the fans to her books again. Some people who had read the ending - or should I say the epilogue - were disappointed. So she has to find a way to bring her fans to still cherish Harry Potter.

I just can't accept that she has to say Dumbledore is gay. It's pointless.

----------


## Nasser

She cant destroy dumbledore's character.
She'z already made him too great to be tarnished.
I would not fall for it even if Jk turned into Rita Skeeter and wrote Harry potter and dumbledore's darkest secrets,( say book 8 or something).

----------


## Etienne

I voted no, but simply as they are much too much overrated. I read the few first ones some years ago and enjoyed them, but I can't say it was great nor it was bad, but there's so much good literature, that alright is not enough.

----------


## Nasser

Yeees

----------


## grittylit

> I personally have always thought that the Dumbledore character is loosely based on someone she knew--probably a teacher, professor or similar mentor (though obviously its a modified and idealized portrait). Perhaps the person she based him on is gay? Just speculation of course, but my sense is that, in any case, this wasn't some sort of spur of the moment attention getting device. I think this is something she's thought of as being a part of the character for a long time. I don't think it's at all unusual for authors to have all sorts of details about characters in their mind that aren't necessarily written into the story, especially when you've been writing a character for as long as Rowling has.


yes this is a really good idea

----------


## Lezlie

I think the Harry Potter series is a best seller for a reason. It speaks on the battle between good and evil, losing loved ones, prejudice, battles against authority, and many other things. I do not understand why everyone is giving it so much flak on this site just because it is so popular. I do agree that alot of things that are considered "mainstream" are grossly overrated, but I do not think that this applies to the Harry Potter series. I do think it was unnessecary for the author to say Dumbledore was gay though.

----------


## Noisms

The things that people often cite about Harry Potter as its qualities have been done better so many times before, which doesn't make it terrible, but certainly detracts from its status. Dealing with loss? Battles between good and evil? Consequences of actions? They're all tropes of fantasy literature that stretch back to the Epic of Gilgamesh. 

Meanwhile, the plotting is incredibly weak - full of holes and _Deus ex Machina_ that would put The Hardy Boys to shame. 

None of those things makes it _bad_ literature, of course. It's written for kids, and plenty of kids' books are full of cliches and daft plot devices. But it baffles me that adults should get anything from it other than a comforting sense of nostalgia for their own youth.

----------


## DigitalLove

I didn't know even one person who was reading Harry Potter until the book started being hyped non-stop on the news. It's fascinating to see how easily people can be manipulated.

----------


## Gonturan

I'm a Harry Potter obsessee and I could go on forever about the books' good qualities, but I do have to agree with you on the sense that they are, in fact, overrated. Its just that the Potter books are so easily discussed. Rowling likes to put little clues and hidden meanings in her narrative, and I'm such an obsessive Potter fan because I like to try to find those clues. Also, you have to admit that Rowling's world is quite creative and she manages to make it seem believable no matter how fantastical the magic gets. 

On the topic of Dumbledore being gay, I do not believe that it was a superfluous character trait; from the intimate way that I know Rowling knows her characters after all this time and the matter-of-fact way that she revealed the information, I think that it was just another characteristic of Albus that she did not feel was neccassary to include in the books. Remember, JKR only revealed that he was homosexual after being asked by a reader if he had ever loved anyone, and in order to answer that question she sort of had to, right?

----------


## Gadget Girl

What's the point? She can always say "no, Dumbledore is Dumbledore and he was in love with McGonagall when they first met". It would be fascinating!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Pensive

> What's the point? She can always say "no, Dumbledore is Dumbledore and he was in love with McGonagall when they first met". It would be fascinating!


Well, that might have seemed very obvious. Dumbledore being gay seems like an information most of us (it seems to me) were not probably expecting and authors love to give a thrill you know.

----------


## Gadget Girl

I know that, Pensive. It's just that Dumbledore and McGonagall being together is a good pairing. Look at Ron and Hermione for example -- it was VERY obvious! I'm a Harry and Hermione shipper because the both of them can be a good couple than Ron and Hermione. I thought that Rowling was just using Ron so that people won't think that Hermione will end up with Harry. I really, really thought that they would be together because it was _not expected_.

----------


## Niamh

Dumbledore and McGonagall?
Now you are just getting too wierd.....

----------


## Gadget Girl

It's better than Dumbledore and Grindelwald.

----------


## andypants1792

i am a 15 year old reader of all the HP books, and i am saddened by the fact that there wont be any more. 
also, you said that they dont supply increase IQ blah blah blah. 
that doesnt matter. the thing is, these books are written NOT so that literature people like you can disect them and point out that they dont have good grammar blah blah blah, but they are written for entertainment. it makes me angry with people like you, especially adults, who have never read the books, and are talking about how they are bad and shouldnt have made as much money as they did. 
Rowling is an excellent writer and there is nothing i wouldnt give for another harry potter book. the reason kids/teens like them so much is because they take kids away from their current setting and throw them into a different world, if only for a moment. when you read these books it almost feels like you are there. and THAT is why these books make so much money.

----------


## barbara0207

Welcome to the forum, andy!

Just look at the poll above and you will see that a vast majority likes the HP books - and they're not all teenagers. These books can even charm adults, "throw them in a different world", as you say. I get the impression that most of the critics that find fault with HP are LOTR fans (or some other fantasy books). 

And as for the 7th volume being the last - who knows? Event Conan Doyle had to write another Sherlock Holmes story although he had even gone so far as to kill him!

----------


## Niamh

> It's better than Dumbledore and Grindelwald.


Actually i thought that they were a nice couple. (oddly enough! Amazing how that came to be true! Its discreetly hinted at in the book.)

----------


## alexsears

> Although Harry Potter is a nice, quick, entertaining read, I was wondering whether anybody on this forum shares my view that it is incredibly overrated.
> 
> Harry Potter is the bestselling book in history, better then great literary classics, suspenseful mystery novels, and in-depth sci-fi and fantasy worlds. WHY? J.K. Rowling's characters are poorly developed, the plots are full of annoying angst, the villains are cliché, and the writing style is childish.
> 
> I have often, on other message boards, expressed by views on Harry Potter and was shunned. I was hoping that on a forum full of well versed, literate people, I could find someone that would agree with me.
> 
> Whether or not you agree with me, tell me your views on Harry Potter.


 you know wy harry potter best..............well people don't want to boring people's peoms going bla bla bla people want exiting edventures and coll magic now isn't that better than bla bla bla boring bla bla zzzzzzz the maker probly bored himself to sleep writing poems i woul rather jump off a cliff than listen to bla bla bla boring boring bla bla bla.

----------


## yummymummy

I'm sorry to disagree with those who hate HP because it's commercial but in my job in a primary school I see children glued to these books, children that would normally be playing computer games or watching tv, I do think there is to much detail in JKRs writing she doesn't leave much to the imagination but she has got a great many children reading again..

----------


## thelastmelon

> I'm sorry to disagree with those who hate HP because it's commercial but in my job in a primary school I see children glued to these books, children that would normally be playing computer games or watching tv, I do think there is to much detail in JKRs writing she doesn't leave much to the imagination but she has got a great many children reading again..


It's true that she doesn't leave much for the imagination, but I am not sure that is needed though. Because of how she describes everything (people, areas, events) you can feel like you're already there, and you don't need to imagine, when you already feel the place.

Just a theory.  :Smile:

----------


## Niamh

> It's true that she doesn't leave much for the imagination, but I am not sure that is needed though. Because of how she describes everything (people, areas, events) you can feel like you're already there, and you don't need to imagine, when you already feel the place.
> 
> Just a theory.


I completely agree with you. It makes it more real in the mind of the reader.

----------


## alexsears

> Actually i thought that they were a nice couple. (oddly enough! Amazing how that came to be true! Its discreetly hinted at in the book.)


 actuall i like the pair hari and dumbledor yay i can see it now dumbledor keeping secretes telling hagrid than harid slowly telling harry through the whole thing perfect hey basicly harid gets secretes and telles em to harry and harry tells his freins and dumbledor does not know.

----------


## Gadget Girl

> i am a 15 year old reader of all the HP books, and i am saddened by the fact that there wont be any more.


Don't be. The Harry Potter mania is still there! Rowling will publish HP encyclopedia to support the things that she didn't mention in all seven books like the background of Dean Thomas, the kid at the train station (7th book), McGonagall, etc.

----------


## Oniw17

In third grade I kind of liked the first book. Not enough to read the others though.

----------


## Lily Adams

> Don't be. The Harry Potter mania is still there!


Whoah, that's for sure. It won't go away. No worries. That's the benefit of liking very popular things.

Anyways, I read up to the fourth book enjoyably over a span of...a year or two, when I was nine or ten, but I became intensely bored when my mom wanted me to read the fifth one to her. I find that it's the same plot over and over again and that irritated me.

So no, I dont like it, but I do enjoy seeing millions of rabid fans in line to get their books or to get into a Harry Potter party or get their books signed by Rowling herself.

----------


## sreeja

I agree with you .I also very much interested in reading Harry potter.

----------


## zionforsale

Let see: I owe all seven Harry Porter books. I read them all, every single one of them. I also enjoyed them all very much. If I ever had kids, I would surely encourage them to read HP. Why? Literature starts somewhere. When I was a kid, my parents coursed me to read fairy tales, then Le Petit Prince, then Sans Famille, then Little Women, then Gone With the Winds, then Anna Karenina, then Shakespeare, etc; basically I was lucky to have parents who were very concerned about my knowledge of literature. It is ok to enjoy HP, for kids to enjoy HP. But it is NOT a classic, in my personal opinion.

I think a classic needs to be thought provoking. It needs to be a representation of the art of language. It needs to ask questions and makes us think about humanity and the universe. The battle of evil and good is a fact, not questions like "What is man?" "What is the relationship between human beings and deity?" "Is our nature evil or innocent?" etc. All the while a classic also needs to have a compelling story. One example is tragedies. When you read tragedies, you know that people are going to die. It is predictable, but still you want to read on. That is a good tragedy! You read it for more than just a good story. You read it to learn about bigger things, to discover bigger questions, and to find bigger answers. 

It bothers me greatly that in a recent poll, HP stood at the most re-reading book in UK. I think the difficult classics are the ones that should be re-read many times, not HP. I think I might read it again someday in one of those moments where I'm the mood for something entertaining and light, but I have no desire to re-read it now. I also think the amount of money that J.R got from HP is appalling. But that is beside the point!

----------


## Joreads

I also own all of the Harry Potter books andIo love them. Not all books that you read need to be considered great literature by others. Sometimes it is wonderful to read a book that takes you out of your life and into another world, and that is my aim with reading and what ever does that for you is a great book and for me great literature.

----------


## yewon

How did you find this final Harry Potter?

Personally I thought it was okay, but my friends thought it was too normal, which means- wasn't enough to their expectations, even boring. 

What do you guys think? About the flot and the reverse, all of the characters?

----------


## Latin

I absolutely agree with your friends....(to normal..)
After all these troubles and "death", Harry at last became the happy family person. Usual "the american dream" has come true..Has not amazed...
If you wish to read really interesting stories about Harry Potter and all characters see http://www.fanfiction.net/book/Harry_Potter/
and enjoy... :Cool:

----------


## Joreads

I have to agree the last HP book did not live up to all the hype but i wonder if any book could have. I still love the series though and would recommend to anyone. For me Order of the phoenix was the best book.

----------


## Gadget Girl

No, Half-Blood Prince was the best one.

----------


## Dark_Twinkle

I like Harry Potter, the first four were brilliant because there was a lot of mystery created, and we slowly get to know more about Harry's past and family background. 

The fifth, sixth and seventh are now all to reveal the mystery and slowly join the pieces of the puzzle.

The good thing about HP is that JK Rowling has made it feel so real - she has names for everything in the magical world which makes it more believable

----------


## I AM JINX

I have been reading Harry Potter for a very long time, I loved buying the books when they were really cheap because no-one was really in to them when they first came out. 
I waited years for the last one, but was very disapointed, as I would have liked there to be a little more content in the book, as it was rather slim compared to number five. The end of the book came as no suprise really, however I found it hard to supress a laugh when I read that Harry had had children.  :Smile:  
I actually cried when Dumbledore died, however I was very happy that he was remembered through out the rest of the book. Snap did not suprise me either, I knew he had not converted, I see that one coming, but the end, him and Lilly! OMG! ^.^ I never would have thought it, never!
Well over all every book make me read all night long, and in the early morning, I really could not put them down, some parts disapointed me, but it is like that with every book really, there are parts you like and parts you do not. Harry Potter was amazing, and will always be in my heart.

----------


## eyemaker

Somehow I find it dragging and nice!!!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Shea

> I think a classic needs to be thought provoking. It needs to be a representation of the art of language. It needs to ask questions and makes us think about humanity and the universe. The battle of evil and good is a fact, not questions like "What is man?" "What is the relationship between human beings and deity?" "Is our nature evil or innocent?" etc. All the while a classic also needs to have a compelling story. One example is tragedies. When you read tragedies, you know that people are going to die. It is predictable, but still you want to read on. That is a good tragedy! You read it for more than just a good story. You read it to learn about bigger things, to discover bigger questions, and to find bigger answers.


I really don't understand why so many people were disappointed with the seventh book. I found it excellent and lived up to your description here Zion. When I got to the end of the HBP, I thought Rowling was really turning Voldemort into her version of Hitler. I really wanted to see that come out in the DH. To my delight, that's exactly what happened. I saw the Holocaust in the final book. 

Maybe it's because of my experience teaching at a high school where racism and biggotry was an issue that I had to deal with in the classroom almost every day. But I loved the fact that she was able to address the evils of biggotry in such a compelling and inoffensive way. Granted, any good author could have done the same, but her popularity make it that much better!

----------


## sun & sky

I saw Harry Potter as movies , unles the last one , and I liked it !


but I didn`t read any book ,, I`ll this summer ,, as soon as I finish my exams .. Oh My God ..!

----------


## Lioness_Heart

I loved the seventh book so much: it's definately my favourite. I thought I'd not like it so much because I just love the world of Hogwarts - I've been an HP fan since I was 8, so it's kind of a second home to me!

But I agree, I was really impressed with the way that Ms Rowling dealt with way bigger themes in the seventh - she created a terrifying world. And because children (and adults, though it would probably have more of an impact on children because they would know less about the horrors of humanity) are so engaged in the HP world, they'll take the messages on board so much more effectively. 

I like the way that she's taken our world and shown us what it's like , using magic to exaggerate some of the things that we can't see clearly in our own muggle world.

----------


## LadyW

> No, Half-Blood Prince was the best one.


Agreed, had me hooked to the end that book.
I love the books - _hate_ the films.

----------


## RingoLass

I have been reading the books since I was in 3rd grade and have loads of times since. I am basically as HP maniac. Alan Rickman adds a nice touch to the films but other than that they are just a big joke. All just silly entertainment! And that's okay!

----------


## DapperDrake

I voted yes, though I've only read the first 3 books. For what they are (children's books) they're excellent, they tick every box and I'm all in favour of anything than encourages children to read... and as an adult if you want a bit of mindless entertainment they tick that box too.

----------


## Hank Stamper

> I voted yes, though I've only read the first 3 books. For what they are (children's books) they're excellent, they tick every box and I'm all in favour of anything than encourages children to read... and as an adult if you want a bit of mindless entertainment they tick that box too.


I agree, I haven't read the last two books (too much else to read - might as well wait for the movies!) but it seems so few children read these days at least this has got them interested and excited about reading... I grew up on Roald Dahl and although children obviously can still read him now, it was different looking forward to his latest book coming out (I remember being very excited about The BFG!)... Harry Potter has clearly had a similar effect...

----------


## kevinthediltz

I honestly dont like the harry potter books. Ive read all 7 but its one of those storys where you get to the end and think "what the hell was the point of that?" I just dont think there is anything of value to get from the books. There is no deep meaning, no symbols, and no real value to be gained from it, other than the oh so unused "good conqures evil in the end." it is mediocer (or however you spell it) writing at best. Although it is entertaining. But on the same note, so are shiny objects and things that make noise.

----------


## Hank Stamper

> I honestly dont like the harry potter books. Ive read all 7 but its one of those storys where you get to the end and think "what the hell was the point of that?" I just dont think there is anything of value to get from the books. There is no deep meaning, no symbols, and no real value to be gained from it, other than the oh so unused "good conqures evil in the end." it is mediocer (or however you spell it) writing at best. Although it is entertaining. But on the same note, so are shiny objects and things that make noise.


It's interesting that you don't like them but you still managed to read all seven! I'm not sure if you should be looking for deep meaning or symbolism in childrens books, but the value is what we have said - that it gets younger children excited about reading




> Yes, I have a problem. I'm an adult with mature tastes in literature.


Just reading some of the earlier replies. Hilarious how people (adults) seem to be offended by Harry Potter and J.K Rowling. It is a childrens book. You would hardly expect a 10-year-old to be reading Tolstoy. There are some seriously haughty attitudes on here! Literary snobbery does make me chuckle. Right, back to Chaucer.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## pgwodehousefan

I am 15, started reading harry potter at 7 and Istill love the books. I think you can have ''mature tastes in literature'' and still enjoy the books. I mean I love Wodehouse, Kafka, Balzac, Saki and O Henry but that does not mean I dont thumb my nose at HP. They have tons of entertainment and 'masala' with the occasional profound moment.

----------


## Remarkable

Harry Potter is like an endless fountain of fantasy.Since I read book one,I always loved them,I grew up with them and I've been anxious for them.And the last three books are definitely very adolescentesque...

----------


## kasie

My grandson (now 21 and reading Physics and Maths at Imperial College, London) put me on to Harry Potter at the ripe old age of eleven, after he had read the first book and couldn't wait for the second to come out. I thought I'd read it to see what all the fuss was about and have read all of them. Yes, they are children's books, so I suppose there is still a bit of child in me. I love a cracking good story - the stories move on apace, the characters are believable and even as an adult, I can learn something about courage, perseverance, the support of friends, sharing strengths, facing fear, self-reliance, humour, the uses of learning and application, dealing with loss and sorrow. The books aren't deep - they're not meant to be, they're aimed at young readers. I'm sorry for the readers who can no longer take pleasure in a good tale well told, no matter what their age - the loss is theirs.

----------


## bounty

> I agree, I haven't read the last two books (too much else to read - might as well wait for the movies!) but it seems so few children read these days at least this has got them interested and excited about reading... I grew up on Roald Dahl and although children obviously can still read him now, it was different looking forward to his latest book coming out (I remember being very excited about The BFG!)... Harry Potter has clearly had a similar effect...



i flew through the last two books---soooooo many unanswered questions, mysteries and tensions to be solved...

----------


## curlyqlink

I used to think that the HP books were fine, innocuous at worst. A bit odd that so many adults were reading these children's books, but hey, what's the harm of a good potboiler?

Reading Harold Bloom's comments on HP made me think again. He kinda has a point. There's room for doubt that the these books are going to make kids future Tolstoy readers. More likely they'll graduate to read Stephen King. Is reading such a good thing in itself, that it really doesn't matter what one reads? Bloom also makes the point that Rowling is not a good writer. She's not particularly imaginative-- and here Bloom excels at rooting out the source material that she mines in assembling Harry Potter's world. He also faults her style as flat and repetitive.

There is a discouraging trend in the whole HP franchise. The lemming-like frantic stampede at the local superstore, the marketing hype, the me-too trendiness. I like to think of the world of books as being about independent thinking and a variety of different voices. The movie business is all about blockbusters... look at the result. Do we really want the publishing world to follow suit?

Given that the Harry Potter books are neither particularly original nor terribly well-written, what is to account for their phenomenal success other than marketing hitched to herd mentality?

----------


## Hank Stamper

> I like to think of the world of books as being about independent thinking


which is why you base your views of Harry Potter on what Harold Bloom says. Great independent thinking that.  :Wink:  

The reason Harry Potter has been so successful is because they appeal to children - Rowling's writing might not be up there with Austen or any of the Dead White Male's Literary Canon, but she is writing for CHILDREN not literary critics. If people wrote solely to impress literary critics then there would be nothing but tedious and pretentious guff on the shelves

Will these children end up reading Tolstoy? Maybe not. But that doesn't mean they won't read anything else of 'value'. Taste is subjective anyway. So what if they start reading Stephen King? It won't stop you enjoying Tolstoy will it?  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## JBI

The reason Potter has been so successful has nothing to do with children. Children don't buy books, because children don't have money. Parents by books, meaning parents read reviews, meaning word of mouth affects the parents choice to buy the books. In other words, Harry Potter is advertised, therefore it becomes cool, therefore parents buy it for their kids, who, after reading the first novel, and having no real reading experience beyond a picture-book/mass-produced mediocre paperback level, seek the next volume in the series, meanwhile enjoying a high-budgeted film adding to more advertisement. I don't know any 8 year olds with 50 bucks and the permission to line up at 12:00 down the block from a bookstore on a Saturday night.

If one had never heard of Shakespeare, how do you think a seeing of West-Side Story would go? If no one knows what good is, how can they know what bad is (I'm tossing in a little Tao Te Ching for good measure here). The absence of experience always ends with the requirement of guidance, I.E. a teacher must teach a student who doesn't know. Thereby the market is acting as the teacher, and the reader is the student. If no one is refuting the market, then he it is taken as law. If the market tells the ignorant this is a great find, what do the readers know?

All I know is, every review you see in the paper for any book passed book 1 is a load of rubbish. All the bad reviews stopped after the 3rd book at best, it being idiotic to keep going if you didn't like the first. That being said, it is no surprise that you get almost all positive reviews for the second volume onward, and those reviews tell nothing but that the reviewer likes the book. It creates another advertisement bias.

On that subject, what other book has had that much exposure? Toys, action figures, video games, coloring books, wide translations, posters, movies, news coverage, a feature on every news paper, and every news station for a week prior to release, what other book? none that I can think of. But, unlike Viagra, the ultimate best-seller product, the book exhausts its usefulness quickly. 

I am not talking good or bad here, I am simply pointing out that opinions are biased beyond a doubt, since they are coming from ignorant people. The amount a book sells tells nothing about its quality, it being a fact that MacDonalds sells more burgers than any real restaurant. 

The problem, I think, Bloom, amongst other critics has with the books, is the insistence fans of the book have at placing it as a beacon of culture, causing a fabled increase in child readership. I have seen statistics showing that reading rates amongst kids have actually gone down, as projected, since the publication of the first Potter book, and therefore feel confident in saying that Potter leads kids only to read Potter.


Now to the critical criticism:

If for instance, one feels confident in saying that Potter is one of the top 1000 books ever written in any genre, in any language, then the Potter books can be deemed excellent. I have my doubts about such claims, of course. If one can say it is in the top 5000 books ever written, then perhaps one can argue it is a good book. Anything more than that seems to indicate that reading this book is causing one to miss out on reading a better book, since there are only so many hours in ones lifetime where they can read.

I would like to argue that None of the Potter books (or all of them if you accept them as one massive book) fit in the top 5000 written in the history of literature. I feel confident to say, that when one reads Potter, they are missing out on reading a better book (the size of the children's canon is quite large, and, has to be cut even further by readers in order to fill in the time while the age is still in focus). More importantly however, more than half of Potter's readers, according to statistics I have seen, are not children, and most of the original readers are already in their late teens. We therefore can compare this book to the long-list canon of books (Bloom's list has around 2000 works, but that is only the west, and limited by language. The full canon is much longer, when one factors in all of the Eastern tradition). Does the book hold up?

The answer is of course, to me at least, no. It is perhaps an enjoyable read, but is it more important than lets say Alice in Wonderland? should we judge it on itself or on what came before? There are 7 books, spanning around 4000 pages give or take (I am mentally calculating here) meaning in the time it takes a reader to read this, they could have read about 40 books of poetry, or 10 other important novels, or even all the major works of any major author. To read Potter, in my mind, is to not read something else. I, a self confessed bibliophile, find it difficult to decide which books get read, and which don't for myself, for fear of wasting an hour or two of my reading time. This is, lets say at 50 pages an hour, 80 or so hours of reading of other works disappearing, so no, I am not a fan of the Potter, I am a fan of Faulkner. I am a fan of Lewis Carrol, of Edward Lear, of Rudyard Kipling, but I am not a fan of mediocrity, which this clearly, according to me, is.

----------


## kevinthediltz

> The reason Potter has been so successful has nothing to do with children. Children don't buy books, because children don't have money. Parents by books, meaning parents read reviews, meaning word of mouth affects the parents choice to buy the books. In other words, Harry Potter is advertised, therefore it becomes cool, therefore parents buy it for their kids, who, after reading the first novel, and having no real reading experience beyond a picture-book/mass-produced mediocre paperback level, seek the next volume in the series, meanwhile enjoying a high-budgeted film adding to more advertisement. I don't know any 8 year olds with 50 bucks and the permission to line up at 12:00 down the block from a bookstore on a Saturday night.


all i can say is hell yes.

----------


## Hank Stamper

> The reason Potter has been so successful has nothing to do with children. Children don't buy books, because children don't have money. Parents by books, meaning parents read reviews, meaning word of mouth affects the parents choice to buy the books. In other words, Harry Potter is advertised, therefore it becomes cool, therefore parents buy it for their kids, who, after reading the first novel, and having no real reading experience beyond a picture-book/mass-produced mediocre paperback level, seek the next volume in the series, meanwhile enjoying a high-budgeted film adding to more advertisement. I don't know any 8 year olds with 50 bucks and the permission to line up at 12:00 down the block from a bookstore on a Saturday night.


Right so parents are forcing their children to read Harry Potter? 

I'm not denying Harry Potter has been shrewdly marketed, but the series is successful precisely because the book appeals to children. If it didn't appeal to children - i.e. they didn't enjoy reading Harry Potter - then it wouldn't be successful.

----------


## kasie

> The reason Potter has been so successful has nothing to do with children. Children don't buy books, because children don't have money. Parents by books, meaning parents read reviews, meaning word of mouth affects the parents choice to buy the books. In other words, Harry Potter is advertised, therefore it becomes cool, therefore parents buy it for their kids, who, after reading the first novel, and having no real reading experience beyond a picture-book/mass-produced mediocre paperback level, seek the next volume in the series, meanwhile enjoying a high-budgeted film adding to more advertisement. I don't know any 8 year olds with 50 bucks and the permission to line up at 12:00 down the block from a bookstore on a Saturday night.


While I take your point about 8 year olds not having $50 (did the books really cost that much? I bought mine in hardback for £8.50, about $17), I think you may not be altogether correct. The early HP phenomenum spread in the UK through word of mouth - it was the children themselves who passed on the message. Rowling's original target audience were the children who were of an age with Harry himself, the eleven, twelve year olds and these children do have pocket money, or at least many of them do, and some of them are already in the book buying mode. I don't think my grandson was alone in using his pocket money on books - he asked his mother if it was possible to order a book; she replied that it was and on learning that he wanted to order book two of the HP series, suggested that he waited until it came out in paperback when it would be cheaper. No, was his reply, he wanted to read it as soon as possible and didn't want to wait; he then went on to point out that his mother had always said he could spend his pocket money on whatever he wanted and she could hardly object to his wanting a book. (That boy will go far!)

I agree that the later hype was fuelled by the publicists but the first few books were sold as books - the films didn't start to appear until later. Also don't underestimate the pest power of children who want to be part of a trend. I would have been a bit doubtful about putting the books in front of younger children, especially the later books which are very dark. Interestingly, the Philip Pullman books were also a word of mouth success among children themselves but never caught on in the same way partly I suspect because they are much darker and more difficult to read and the readership stayed with older children - even the film has not created a similar surge of interest in the books. I would never have recommended them to younger children, especially the last title, _The Amber Spyglass_, which I would have found deeply disturbing as a child.

As for the Lit Crit reaction to the books, I can't help remembering Dorothy Parker's assessment of _The House At Pooh Corner_ - she produced a response that she hoped would show how sophisticated she was -'Tonstant Weader threw up' - and was ridiculed from all sides, as people pointed out the books were written for children not New York literati.

With regard to children catching the reading habit young, I can only say as a former teacher of children to the age of eleven, the younger they start finding pleasure in books, the more likely they are to carry on reading. I knew I had 'caught' them when I heard them laugh at something they were reading for themselves. As for whether they go on to read anything of quality, I suspect that depends entirely on the teaching they receive subsequently on how to judge books, or any other experience for that matter.




> ........no, I am not a fan of the Potter, I am a fan of Faulkner. I am a fan of Lewis Carrol, of Edward Lear, of Rudyard Kipling, but I am not a fan of mediocrity, which this clearly, according to me, is.


Hhmm - so are we to deduce from this that you have not read HP, JBI?


That you are criticising books you have not actually read?

----------


## Hank Stamper

> I am not talking good or bad here, I am simply pointing out that opinions are biased beyond a doubt, since they are coming from ignorant people.


who are you calling ignorant? you have an opinion, which you have kindly spouted here, and you are biased beyond a doubt AGAINST Harry Potter, so does that make you ignorant too?

I agree that Harry Potter is never going to be in any literary canon (nor should it) and I agree that for an adult, to read Harry Potter is to not read something else... however, the criticism of Harry Potter by literary critics is the same - to borrow your analogy - as a restaurant critic going into McDonalds and complaining because the cheeseburgers are not made from foie gras and caviar. *They are massively missing the point.*

----------


## JBI

> Right so parents are forcing their children to read Harry Potter? 
> 
> I'm not denying Harry Potter has been shrewdly marketed, but the series is successful precisely because the book appeals to children. If it didn't appeal to children - i.e. they didn't enjoy reading Harry Potter - then it wouldn't be successful.


Do kids not enjoy happy meals? You are throwing out a sophism that implies children have developed acute tastes to the point that they can distinguish between good and bad literature. Either way, the bulk of Potter readers are no longer children. The people who read the first book at publication are now 10 years older. So lets say they were 8, they are now 18.

----------


## Hank Stamper

> I have seen statistics showing that reading rates amongst kids have actually gone down, as projected, since the publication of the first Potter book, and therefore feel confident in saying that Potter leads kids only to read Potter.


just out of interest where did you see these statistics? and who compiled these statistics / where was the survey taken? America? UK? Global?

----------


## JBI

> who are you calling ignorant? you have an opinion, which you have kindly spouted here, and you are biased beyond a doubt AGAINST Harry Potter, so does that make you ignorant too?
> 
> I agree that Harry Potter is never going to be in any literary canon (nor should it) and I agree that for an adult, to read Harry Potter is to not read something else... however, the criticism of Harry Potter by literary critics is the same - to borrow your analogy - as a restaurant critic going into McDonalds and complaining because the cheeseburgers are not made from foie gras and caviar. *They are massively missing the point.*


What's the point? We are supposed to enjoy mediocrity because it is mediocre? The Potter books cost more than any other books at release (I know some of them set the record for most expensive hard-back children's book). Don't you think they should be getting something worth it? Why should people be subject to mediocrity.

If you have not read the greatest books, how do you know what the greatest books are? What judge can rule with out precedents of something that has been done time and time again? You are saying that people who know nothing about literature are not ignorant. I am calling you a) too optimistic, and b) ignorant. Would Manet's Olympia be the same without the Titian Venus of Urbino as its precedent? Can it be viewed the same way without those? Or without knowing what it represented in the development of painting?

You are implying that, essentially, there is no good and bad judge of art. I am implying that you are implying that you are a philistine. Of course there are good and bad critics. Of course there are developed tastes. Of course a person taking his first sip of wine cannot judge the vintage.




> just out of interest where did you see these statistics? and who compiled these statistics / where was the survey taken? America? UK? Global?


The one I saw was from an article in the New York times. I could try and dig for it if you would like.

edit, it took 5 seconds, I unfortunately got the source wrong, it was from the San Fransisco Chronicle, Read it here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGN7R0Q1N1.DTL

Note, the article enjoys a lot of bias, it featuring a different subject than this thread, and does not bring into question the quality of these works. All quotes referring as much can be taken to mean absolutely nothing, since I don't think a spokesperson from Scholastic has any right to comment on the books.

Also, stick this one in there using, I think, the same study. http://www.boston.com/ae/books/artic...s_only_so_far/

In other words, Harry Potter has lead to 325milion odd books being read, and perhaps a couple more, but nothing seriously important to the development of literacy and readership. This is also assuming that people who read Potter would not have read other books, another logical slip made by the Potter-Loving press. Who is to say that the readers who still read of the bunch would not have done so if they had not read Potter?

----------


## Hank Stamper

> Do kids not enjoy happy meals? You are throwing out a sophism that implies children have developed acute tastes to the point that they can distinguish between good and bad literature. Either way, the bulk of Potter readers are no longer children. The people who read the first book at publication are now 10 years older. So lets say they were 8, they are now 18.


you like your maccy dees dont you!  :Wink:  

I don't think children are capable of distinguishing between good and bad literature in the sense that you are implying, however they are capable of telling a good story from a bad story, and Harry Potter is clearly a good story, well written for children.

The fact that the 'original' readers of Potter are now 18 does not make a difference. Harry Potter is still a children's book, 10 year olds are still reading it. Some of those 'original' readers will have remained loyal to the series but with any luck they will be reading more challenging novels as well

----------


## JBI

Is it a children's book? Perhaps the first 3, but as I hear, they get "darker" as they go, and feature more "complex" relationships and themes. I find that the true indicator of periodpieceness, the fact that the book evolves with its original readers, meaning consecutive readers do not enjoy the same growth feeling. As it has been seen, from my above posts, They are not reading more challenging books, they are simply not reading. You imply that they go on to better stuff, or different stuff as you will put it, but the data gathered by researchers smacks you with a false in your face.

A nice little tid-bit here. I have seen a few of the movies, and I find it rather "bloody brilliant" to use her cliché, that you can literally here the male characters' voices drop an octave in between the films.

----------


## Hank Stamper

> What's the point? We are supposed to enjoy mediocrity because it is mediocre? The Potter books cost more than any other books at release (I know some of them set the record for most expensive hard-back children's book). Don't you think they should be getting something worth it? Why should people be subject to mediocrity.
> 
> If you have not read the greatest books, how do you know what the greatest books are? What judge can rule with out precedents of something that has been done time and time again? You are saying that people who know nothing about literature are not ignorant. I am calling you a) too optimistic, and b) ignorant. Would Manet's Olympia be the same without the Titian Venus of Urbino as its precedent? Can it be viewed the same way without those? Or without knowing what it represented in the development of painting?
> 
> You are implying that, essentially, there is no good and bad judge of art. I am implying that you are implying that you are a philistine. Of course there are good and bad critics. Of course there are developed tastes. Of course a person taking his first sip of wine cannot judge the vintage.


The point is THEY ARE CHILDREN'S BOOKS! 

This is all I am implying - to judge Harry Potter as anything other than a children's book is completely irrelevant

But you are right I do believe that there is no good and bad judge of art. It is all subjective. I am a philistine  :Biggrin:  

ps thanks for the link  :Smile:

----------


## JBI

Are they Children's Books? Who says? You? The readers who are mostly teens+? The author who said that she made the books mature as they went, or the publishers, who sell them as any other book? They were even released with special adult covers, if you cared to look, implying that they are NOT targeted only for children.

----------


## Hank Stamper

> Are they Children's Books? Who says? You? The readers who are mostly teens+? The author who said that she made the books mature as they went, or the publishers, who sell them as any other book? They were even released with special adult covers, if you cared to look, implying that they are NOT targeted only for children.


Yes. They are children's books. They have had (to Rowling and the publisher's surprise) cross-over appeal, hence the special adult covers (that is marketing for you - they will never miss an opportunity to cash in) - but they are not written for adults. The books inevitably mature as Harry matures but they are still written for children. But if it makes you feel better, or rather if it makes your argument seem more valid, then you can keep telling yourself otherwise.

----------


## JBI

> Yes. They are children's books. They have had (to Rowling and the publisher's surprise) cross-over appeal, hence the special adult covers (that is marketing for you - they will never miss an opportunity to cash in) - but they are not written for adults. The books inevitably mature as Harry matures but they are still written for children. But if it makes you feel better, or rather if it makes your argument seem more valid, then you can keep telling yourself otherwise.


Right back at you. You self-distructed your argument in your last sentence. Rather than offer proof of anything, you have essentially said, yes they have matured with their readers (who if they were 8 are now 18, no longer children and now teenagers) and b)"But if it makes you feel better, or rather if it makes your argument seem more valid, then you can keep telling yourself otherwise." right back at you son. You have given no proof beyond your word, whereas you acknowledge my statements as being true, and also acknowledge that these books are being marketed at older audiences. Are they still Children's literature, or is it you who are telling yourself a falseness to buff up your already declining argument. You essentially have said nothing beyond "I think children like these books." Why not try to read a little, and perhaps back your argument up, instead of throwing out silly sophisms for the sake of sounding smart (yummy intentional alliteration, just for emphasis.

I think it rather ignorant of you to deny that the books are no longer kids books, when, as I hear, the death toll in the last book is quite high, where main characters drop like flies. How many other books feature not only enemies that kill good guys, but also good guys who kill greyish baddies? I've also been told that the term ""b*i*tch" is also used in the last volume. I trust that is within the children's literature bracket.

When half a book is donated to coming of age relationship conflict, and detailing about snogging in the bathroom and whatnot, I cannot see how you can argue for these being children's books.

----------


## Joreads

If people think HP is a great series of books them good on them I say, I will declare my interest I love the books. Books that are termed literature are not for everyone and you should not be made to feel that you are less than for liking any sort of books. I am not sure how many people have read the series but surely we can not all be wrong. And for the record I love a great literary read also

----------


## Scheherazade

*W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments. 

Posts resorting to inflammatory remarks will be deleted without any further notice.*

----------


## Hank Stamper

> Why not try to read a little, and perhaps back your argument up, instead of throwing out silly sophisms for the sake of sounding smart


You have read all seven Harry Potter novels then? Or are you just basing your argument on what other people have said?

I will concede I have not read the last two books and I will concede they have cross-over appeal, but I refuse to accept they are not primarily children's books. The fact that Harry matures is a condition of the series and therefore the content will change to reflect this - however, what you are implying is, that the readership of Harry Potter depends on the age of Harry Potter in each book. Whether the latest two books are teen novels - maybe. But they are not adult books (I'll have to borrow your trick and base this on what other people have told me) and therefore my argument (or 'silly sophism') still stands, to judge them as anything other than children's books is an exercise in irrelevance. 

There are so many terrible books out there (see Martin Amis, Melvin Burgess, etc), which I would rather spend my time arguing about! Good debate though JBI  :Smile:

----------


## jikan myshkin

harry potter is not just a children's series, it's a damn good children's series! the last book in my opion was a huge anticlimax with many predicatabilites along the way but then again i was reading it as a 21 year old so it is unfair for my to slander a book that is aimed at those of a younger age bracket. the adult covers are only for those who feel ashamed to sit on the train reading a childrens book, i'd be more ashamed to be reading the daily mail or just sat there feeling bored!

----------


## JBI

I've read a couple of them, The first 2, about half of the third, half of the fourth, most of the 5th, and about 1/3 from each the last two volumes. I tend to skip pages that progress only plot, and not character. Of course, I was not reading with my usual pencil, but I feel I have grasped enough to make fair comments. And no, I did not read the books for enjoyment, or even because I really wanted to; The first two were read to my grade 6 class, out loud, by my teacher to the whole class, right about the time when the second book was published (yes, I know, 10 year olds if you can believe it, though I appreciate my teacher's enthusiasm for literature). The rest was read over the past couple of years, simply for the sake of conversation. I substituted the skipped pages with plot summaries, available in depth on-line.

My personal impression from the works, was that they weren't too bad compared to whats out there (with mediocre literature everywhere, they are better than most) however I will not say they are worthy of their status. I'll try to bring a few more viewpoints into the argument;

Marxist: The book features many complex Marxist components, many unintentional, but nonetheless brought in through the subconscious actions, or accidental actions of the author. The first is the struggle between rich and poor. I find it somewhat despicable how she handles the relationship between the Weasley family, and the Malfoy family. The Weasley family is always surrounded by symbols of lower-classness. For instance, at the beginning of every book, where Ron is announced, as if ceremonially, Rowling feels it is necessary to reinstate that they are poor. Another example of this is the red hair which is always described by them, perhaps alluding to a racial divide, being that many people of Celtic origin have read hair. The Weasley's are, I would argue, a representation of the middle class, siding with the "filthy" lower class. This is seen with their "leftist" politics towards the so called muggles (I would argue, representing the lower class) and their exile from aristocratic circles (I.E the Slytherin bunch). Malfoy's family is portrayed as being extremely aristocratic, enjoying all the luxuries of being wealthy. By default, all the rich people seem to be piled into that house, creating a marxist divide amongst the wizards. But wait, where are all the low class unmagical people placed? Oh, in the dump, for sure, it being clear that their deaths are insignificant in the book. The muggle family, the Dursleys are the worst sort of people. Everywhere they are portrayed as stupid, useless, and often cruel, to the point where the wizard must use magic to keep them in line. There are of course those that get away, the Mud-bloods (an essential synonym for parvenus) who are rejected from the magic world, for being mud-bloods, and must make do with being poor people in Hogwarts, with no friends. Even Hermione, the smartest in her year, is forced to be ridiculed, not for being poor mind you, but rather for being too smart, too over-achieving, too bright. It is as if they old money people (this even includes Harry and Ron by the way) for seeking to achieve more than them.

Now of course, there are more examples, but that is just a basic idea of how one can unwind these books, and find the most trivial situations in a society that is not only snotty and self-righteous, but also racist, featuring only (with the exception of 2 mud-blood black people) all white Christians.

That isn't all of it of course, but I must leave that for now, there are other angles.

Religious. It can be determined that Harry Potter is in many ways a religious allegory. The ending is the most definite clue, it being a direct biblical allusion. But why should a reader, who, not being a Christian, like many people aren't, be taught Christian morality at such a despicable level. Why should I get a biblical lesson, when all I want is to read a book? Why should one suffer another C.S. Lewis (nice use of biblical language there)? The answer is, these books are written for the simple, to act the same way Lewis's work does. To opiate the population. This again ties back in with the Marxist angle. If one is to be a true Harry fan, as is deemed "cool" by many, one must, therefore, be a believer in this sort of allegory, a sort of quasi bible by someone who doesn't understand a 10th part of the book. It is insufferable, it is cruel almost, and it is preaching a value system that should not be taught in this manner.

Part 2, Gender Studies.

The book features, in many ways, a conflict between boys and girls. It is clear, without even drawing many comparisons, that Mrs. Rowling's work is not what we may call Feminist literature. The work features women submitting to men everywhere. The ideal woman, Mrs. Weasley, is a stay at home mom, who is nervy, and frets over the most trivial things. She breaks down constantly. The fourth novel features a scene of direct anti-feminist, the ball, which forces the female characters to await the gratuitously accepted invitation from their male friends, in order to have the privilege to attend a ball, where they will be gocked at by their peers for being the most attractive, or ridiculed for not being attractive. The whole society of the wizards employs a pre-second-wave-feminism mentality, involving women, who are smarter than their peers mind you, giving over on the side lines, facilitating but gaining no credit, achieving, but being ridiculed for it, and basically being forced to become a Mrs. Weasley. The ugliness of a female character is always pointed out thoroughly. The ugliness of a male character is always made sympathetic, especially in the case of one Neville Longbottom (who by name is supposed to be laughed at) who is deemed a tragic hero by many definitions contrasted with Hermione, who until the ball-room scene in the fourth novel, is always surrounded with ugliness imagery with regard to her appearance (there are others, I use her out of necessity of memory). It is without a doubt clear, with characters like Professor McGonagall (sp?) who are imbued with the characteristics of Margret Thatcher, and characters like Fleur Delacour (sp?) who are failures though very pretty, that Mrs. Rowling's perception of females is not only way out of wack, but at times even offensive. It would appear that she is a product of a mentality driven by the class system in Britain, combined with personal experience as a single mother, and experience as a proletariat, and that these feelings create a sympathetic Mrs. Weasley as the alfa-female, an unjust bias in the scheme of social impact. These views are not only out-dated, but also harmful. They set the world in a time bubble back to around 1950 or so, where it was the womans "job" to have dinner waiting on the table, and a clean house for her husband to walk into. Why should females be subject from such a young age, as you, my critics argue, to such conditioning. Would it not be better to teach a child about achievement, about feminism, about the fact that there are more options than to dress up nicely and perhaps be asked to the ball? After all, we don't need any Ginny Weasleys walking around waiting for whatever will take them, despite the fact that they, as Rowling points out, have the potential to be even greater than their male counterparts. It is clear to me at least that the arch female-villain is one Bellatrix Lestrange, a basic sado-masochistic slave to one Lord Voldemort, who, like every female in the book, simply rides along in the shadows of men.

Another angle I would like to stab at is the femininity of male characters. To me at least, Harry, seems to be a girl trapped in a male body. It is obviously clear that Rowling doesn't know much about being an adolescent boy, her never having experienced such things, but unlike other authors (such as the Emily Bronte) she is unable to interpret or pretend. Her character is imbued with female stereotypical emotions, and experiences none of the male emotions associated with growing up. His romantic exploits are those of Rowling herself, transferred over to a melodramatic male character, who unlike other boys in that situation, acts the way a stereotypical female character would. I would love to see a psychoanalytical critic's take on this book, especially surrounding male characters.

Now, there are far more arguments, and a lot more points I can add. I am just going through my memory bank and digging up chapters in my head of the book, and trying to apply them. Had I re-read, or not skipped many parts of the series, I am sure I could name more. But the point remains, that these books, from these angles, all seem quite hurtful. I am not the only person who has thought of these things, so I know it isn't the fancy of my mind nitpicking, but rather valid observations picked through the phrases and chapters I remember.

----------


## PeterL

JBI, That was a great example of the deficiencies of Marxist literary analysis; although your admitted lack of familiarity also came into play. 

I wonder though, you mentioned in your mention of the religious reading that you thought that the values should not be presented not be presented in that manner? Why? 

The gender analysis has the most potential, and I think that is what Rowling was thinking about most of the time. After reading whichever one Ginny was held prisoner in that she and Harry would end up together. 

I think that the easiest way to regard the series is as a modern set of myths. I see a great deal of parallel between Potter and any of the ancient innitiation myths. Compare it with _The Odessey_ for one.

----------


## JBI

No, it is not the same. It is allegory, not anything else. It is the bible on ice, an uninnocent take on history, and a rather simplistic approach to the world. It says, to me at least, either you fight with Jesus, or you are against Jesus. There is too much literature already that features Jesus as a protagonist, this is just a popular example. These, I would argue, are not a modern set of myths, but a retelling of a dated set of myths.

----------


## PeterL

> No, it is not the same. It is allegory, not anything else. It is the bible on ice, an uninnocent take on history, and a rather simplistic approach to the world. It says, to me at least, either you fight with Jesus, or you are against Jesus. There is too much literature already that features Jesus as a protagonist, this is just a popular example. These, I would argue, are not a modern set of myths, but a retelling of a dated set of myths.



I agree that it is a retelling, but it is far from modern, and it is not Christian, not that it is anti-Christian. It is a sort of turn-about on the way that the Christian missionaries converted Iceland; they said that Ragnarok had happened, but it wasn't exactly as the myth said. Rowling is saying, in effect, that the ancient faiths are still there, but we just don't notice them most of the time.

I think that the Christians who preach that Harry is anti-Christian are almost right.

----------


## JBI

They say it is because of a line from Exodus;

Exodus 22, King James Version

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

That is the reason why. Of course, that is a mistranslation, but what can you do. There is enough commentary on the meaning of מכשפה to render this interpretation of the text idiotic by most Jewish commentators. Many commentators actually dispute the true meaning of the word. The definition given by Christians for the term "witch" is actually derived from other pagan traditions. The meaning in the Tanakh stems from more of a witch-doctor tradition or a false medium. In short, someone who professes that they have powers from other places than the one god. The allegorical characters in Harry Potter hardly fit this category. The prophet Isaiah is believed to have had even more power than that. Elijah is believed to have have flown in a chariot to heaven, I see that as no less grand than flying in one to a school. The Witch definition that seems to be formed from the Jewish tradition is often also linked to a follower of Lilith, the first wife of Adam who went against god and the angels. Either way, Harry Potter has nothing to do with this.

It is a very Christian text in many ways. The ending is the most obvious, but also the nature of the conflict. All of these good verses bad novels seem to be rooted in Christianity, since according to most traditions, they don't exist in that form. 

Rowling is saying nothing about ancient myths. She is pushing Christianity, which has very dated. She, a firm follower of Lewis, is to some degree even pushing Lewis. Her works are too firmly rooted in her personal beliefs to be read as anything than a justification on her way of life verses another.

----------


## Hank Stamper

You have clearly given Harry Potter a lot more critical thought than me! I'm not going to argue that any of your analysis is wrong, I'm merely saying it is irrelevant. I agree with you that Harry Potter is - compared to the Great Works of Literature - completely insignificant BUT it is a children's book and therefore (in my opinion) should only be judged as such

Your critical analysis was an interesting read though  :Smile:

----------


## Drkshadow03

Uhm, except Harry Potter isn't an allegory by any stretch of the imagination. I think the books have more in common with Tolkien than they do with Lewis. 

Symbolic allusions to the Bible or to be more blunt scenes practically stolen right out of the Bible do NOT necessarily an allegory make. There are so many other ways to read Harry Potter than from a "religious perspective."

----------


## JBI

> Uhm, except Harry Potter isn't an allegory by any stretch of the imagination. I think the books have more in common with Tolkien than they do with Lewis. 
> 
> Symbolic allusions to the Bible or to be more blunt scenes practically stolen right out of the Bible do NOT necessarily an allegory make. There are so many other ways to read Harry Potter than from a "religious perspective."


Such as what? She herself has stated it is a very religious book, and even as far as to spoil the ending after the publication of the 5th book by revealing it as a religious work. Now you are contradicting the author.

And on the note of let it go because it is a children's book, children's literature has as established a canon as non-children's literature. I can't see giving Potter to a kid as better than giving Kipling, or giving Roald Dahl, or giving Burnett, or even Shel Silverstein, or Dr. Seuss, or any of the children's greats.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Such as what? She herself has stated it is a very religious book, and even as far as to spoil the ending after the publication of the 5th book by revealing it as a religious work. Now you are contradicting the author.


First, there is nothing wrong with contradicting the author. 

That's why there is a long history of literary theory that has challenged the author's authority as final interpretation or even important for interpretation at all, the two seminal essays in this area being William Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley's intentional fallacy and Roland Barthes' The Death of the Author, but there are many others besides who have dealt with this issue on different theoritical grounds.

I agree with the problems that these theorists raise as far author intentionality, but also disagree that the author should be entirely excluded from the picture. 

Basically my position is that the author should be a guide-post, not chains and fetters. However, the real point being there is nothing actually wrong with contradicting or disagreeing with an author; they may not be aware of elements within their story for a number of reasons. 

Second, I don't disagree that Harry Potter can be read in a religious light and has spiritual/religious elements. So I am not sure I am actually disagreeing with anything Rowling ever said. If you can find where Rowling explicitly states that she meant her novels to be a Christian allegory than by all means share it with us. 

Allusions to the Bible do not automatically equal allegory. Certainly the scene in the last book where Potter dies and comes back to life is allegorical and Christ-like, but that doesn't make the entire set of novels a Christian allegory. Potter is more than just a stand-in for Jesus. Not to mention the other characters aren't personifications of some political message or religious symbolism either.

They are "real" characters that are more than just symbolic mouth-pieces. Harry goes through a variety of teenager type transitions as major parts of the story that have nothing to do with Christian allegory; he has real concerns about his life, about his fame, about his friendship, about his love life, about his past that often have nothing to do directly with him saving the world or preaching or doing something Jesus-like.

Allegory is the wrong genre.

----------


## JBI

Perhaps it is only part allegory, as you say, though the World War allegorical elements are present again. I personally think the book is world war 2, with a Christ like savior coming to liberate the people. The series being spun around a certain prophesy of the "chosen one" seems to push it more towards religious allegory as well, but that is not all, to dig around other sources;

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/culture/thinking/561a/

To quote, 



> John Granger, author of The Hidden Key to Harry Potter, believes Rowling has been misunderstood and misrepresented. He describes first book, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone as “a tale of the soul’s purification, illumination, and perfection in Christ (written in the medieval language of spiritual alchemy).”





> “That the blood of the unicorn will curse those who drink it unworthily, and that it has life-giving power, echoes St Paul’s discourse on the unworthy reception of Communion, which is the blood of Christ.”






> At the centre of the morality play was an allegorical spiritual journey undertaken by ‘Everyman’. John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress is written in this style.
> 
> John Granger sees the climax of Book II, where Harry descends to the chamber of secrets to rescue Ginny Weasley as “the clearest Christian allegory of salvation history since Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. ... Using only traditional symbols, from the ‘Ancient of Days’ figure as God the Father to the satanic serpent and Christ-like phoenix (‘the Resurrection Bird’), the drama takes us from the fall to eternal life without a hitch.”
> 
> Granger provides a compelling argument for seeing the divine in the ‘demonic’ Harry Potter books. Describing the scene in detail, he explains what happens in terms of allegory. The following is Granger’s key to unlocking the climactic scene.
> 
> • Harry is ‘Every Man’
> • Ginny is ‘Innocence, Purity’
> • Riddle/Voldemort is ‘Satan, the Deceiver’
> ...


I am unable to find the article I read about her talking after the release of the 5th book, but I'll dig around later (I had read it upon its publication, so it is a little difficult to find).

----------


## Drkshadow03

> The series being spun around a certain prophesy of the "chosen one" seems to push it more towards religious allegory as well, but that is not all, to dig around other sources;


Most fantasies use the "chosen one" of prophesy trope to save them from the Dark evil Lord. Certainly this is inspired by Christian ideas (really it is the influence of Tolkien), but that doesn't mean these stories are necessarily allegorical. 

John Granger sounds like he has some interesting points, but I still think it is a mistake to read Potter as a Christian allegory. For me allegory has specific connotations as a literary type, one that utilizes symbolic personification, that pretty much has a one-to-one metaphoric correlation. The characters shouldn't feel like people with their own human concerns, but rather should be "types." Nor should it require us to read a John Granger to figure out a story is allegory; it should pretty much be that obvious the moment we read the book.

I think Granger is partially right as far as the symols go because there is no denying that Rowling turns to Christian symbols throughout her story, but there are many works of literature with allusions to Christian themes, symbols, and motifs that are NOT allegories. 

This is what separates Tolkien from Lewis. Tolkien wanted to write a Christian story, a fantasy mythology for England with a Christian theological perspective, but unlike Lewis he didn't want to write allegory. He talks about how his story is applicable. Gandalf and Aragorn are certainly Christ-like at certain points embodying Christian morals of bravery, faith in providence in the face of despair, sacrifice for the good of others, etc., but that doesn't mean any of them are literally supposed to be read as a stand-in for Christ. Not to mention making it applicable allows for the story to be read in many non-Christian ways: neo-fascists in Italy for example have a fascist reading for the story, there are elements libertarians like about the story (particularly the hobbit community), there is an environmental theme, etc.

I see the Potter novels following more in the footsteps of Tolkien. The themes are applicable, not allegorical. 

Another critic who has some thoughts:

"In fact, although there is loaded language and imagery attached to Harry within the narrative just as there is to Voldemort, *the links between character and symbolism are always relatively distant and tenuous--a device which both discourages simple allegorical reading, and allows Harry to remain a character rather than a symbolic figure* and thus function as a point of reader identification, allowing readers to engage fully with the narrative" (emphasis mine; from Wizard and Wainscots: generic structures and genre themes in the Harry Potter series)

P.S. I also would point out that I don't mean to be antagonistic as I know I tend to disagree with you a lot. I apologize in advance if my tone comes off that way. I argue mostly in the spirit of worthwhile intellectual discussion.

----------


## PeterL

The idea of a "chosen one" predates Christianity and is common to most ancient mythologies. Gilgamesh was a chosen one, and the idea existed in other cultures from Sohrab and Rustam to Aeneas. I see Harry Potter as being more closely related to non-Christian mythology than to Christian mythology.

----------


## JBI

> The idea of a "chosen one" predates Christianity and is common to most ancient mythologies. Gilgamesh was a chosen one, and the idea existed in other cultures from Sohrab and Rustam to Aeneas. I see Harry Potter as being more closely related to non-Christian mythology than to Christian mythology.


I don't know, the whole ending of the book seems quite Christian, and less Gilgameshian to me. I also have my doubts that Rowling has read many of the works you have mentioned, much less read anything beyond a basic level.

Of course this cannot be as allegorical, as lets say Bunyan's work, but there is no doubt that many portions of the story are designed to be allegories. Loads of stuff in the books act as filler, of course, and for that reason it cannot fall into the genre of allegory, however it is fair to say that the major plot arc is allegorical in nature. 

There is also the political allegory, with the simple equation of sticking Dumbledore as Churchill, Fudge as Chamberlain, and Voldemort as Hitler. Such representations are admitted by the author to some degree, and would fit in with the author's mindset. Of course, Dumbledore is all good, so the Dresden bombings didn't quite make the novels, but the rest is there in one form or another.

It appears that this work can represent a biased English history as well as a religious study to some degree or another. I find also the tempting by Voldemort of Harry in the first few books to be similar to the temptation of Christ, to say the least. 

I personally think the books resemble Lewis' Narnia far more than Tolkien's world. The plot too feels far more Lewisian than Tolkinian, but I guess we are all entitled to our opinions, however wrong and childish.

Either way this is rather irrelevant, the true question is whether or not the Christian morality being pushed in this book is a virtue or a fungus, and whether or not these works, given their themes, style, content, and politics a) should be read, and b) if so then by who.


And on another note, I am not deliberately attacking who I disagree with, I just like to argue with an ice pick tone (a trait developed in childhood). I mean nothing against the individual, I only wish to discredit some arguments. I am sure you are all lovely people.

----------


## PeterL

The same themes and tropes have appeared in literature from every age and every part of the Earth; that is way Harry Potter and similar stories have been successful, and that is why religions have used that same kinds of stories. You may be more familiar with such stories from Christianity, but people from other places see parallels to their culture heroes.




> I am sure you are all lovely people


That is an unwarranted assumption.

----------


## Scheherazade

> I am sure you are all lovely people.
> 
> 
> That is an unwarranted assumption.


Yeah, JBI! Please stop spreading unfounded rumours about us!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I don't know, the whole ending of the book seems quite Christian, and less Gilgameshian to me. I also have my doubts that Rowling has read many of the works you have mentioned, much less read anything beyond a basic level.


Rowling has a background in Classics I believe. The Persia Epic that PeterL alludes to might be far-fetched, but I don't think inspiration from Gilgamesh, Beowulf, and Aeneid is far-fetched considering her background. 




> Of course this cannot be as allegorical, as lets say Bunyan's work, but there is no doubt that many portions of the story are designed to be allegories. Loads of stuff in the books act as filler, of course, and for that reason it cannot fall into the genre of allegory, however it is fair to say that the major plot arc is allegorical in nature.





> There is also the political allegory, with the simple equation of sticking Dumbledore as Churchill, Fudge as Chamberlain, and Voldemort as Hitler. Such representations are admitted by the author to some degree, and would fit in with the author's mindset. Of course, Dumbledore is all good, so the Dresden bombings didn't quite make the novels, but the rest is there in one form or another.


Rowling overturns that reading when Dumbledore absolutely refuses to become Prime Minister multiple times. Not to mention Rufus Scrimgeour who replaces Fudge as Minister of Magic has a lot of Churchill qualities to him. However, I do agree that Fudge equals Chamberlain or better to say is similar to Chamberlain. Voldemort and his government certainly is fascist and has similarity to the Nazis, but I think we are supposed to read them as Neo-fascists. 

Mostly because of the time period of the story: Grindelwald, the famous dark Wizard with very similar views to Voldemart whose story is important in the final book, was defeated in 1945, when the Nazis were defeated. 

The dates and the fact that we have a dark wizard before Voldemort during the Fascist period overturns the allegorical political reading and disrupts the one-for-one symbolic correlation needed for allegory. Voldemort comes later as a kind of Neo-Fascist defeated not once, but twice (which has overtones of Napoleon). It seems that Rowling is mixing and matching history as she chooses to construct her story. 

All of this feeds into one of the major themes of Harry Potter: history is linked together. The events of the past affect the events of the present, while the events of the present shed light on the events of the past. The Wizarding world history reflects human world history.

Dumbledore is certainly NOT depicted as all good; this becomes more apparent in the last two novels when a darker more remorseful and secretive side of Dumbledore is revealed.




> It appears that this work can represent a biased English history as well as a religious study to some degree or another. I find also the tempting by Voldemort of Harry in the first few books to be similar to the temptation of Christ, to say the least.


Similarity does not equal allegory, though. I think one of the most important parallels in the entire novel is Voldemort and Harry's backgrounds as orphans. They have very similar background histories, but they both end up as very different people. The narrative, however, repeats again and again that Harry could've gone the way of Tom Riddle. Vice-versa it hints that Voldemart could've gone the direction Harry went.




> Either way this is rather irrelevant, the true question is whether or not the Christian morality being pushed in this book is a virtue or a fungus, and whether or not these works, given their themes, style, content, and politics a) should be read, and b) if so then by who.


The stories in a general sense are anti-Racist, anti-Fascist, Pro-Open Society Democracy, Pro-Friendship, Pro-Love, Pro-Het Marriage. They might be said to be Pro-Faith (in a general way), but this always seems to be subordinate to Friendship or Love (faith in your friends, faith in the power of love). 

The Christian morality isn't any stronger in these books than more typical Greek virtues. The Christian elements are more in how they are incorporated into the symbolism rather than the explicit themes themselves.

----------


## JBI

A bunch of Potterites assembled this list, using quotes from the author; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_P..._and_mythology
Gilgamesh is not on it, the only thing pre-bible is The Iliad, at its influence is only supposed on one or two scenes, and in a very basic and trivial manner.

You really don't study Gilgamesh with classics. That is more of a specialized thing than lets say, reading the Iliad, and very few people actually can read it in the original.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> A bunch of Potterites assembled this list, using quotes from the author; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_P..._and_mythology
> Gilgamesh is not on it, the only thing pre-bible is The Iliad, at its influence is only supposed on one or two scenes, and in a very basic and trivial manner.
> 
> You really don't study Gilgamesh with classics. That is more of a specialized thing than lets say, reading the Iliad, and very few people actually can read it in the original.


Psssh, are you trying to say that everyone doesn't know how to read Akkadian and Sumerian?

Anyway, that's probably true enough. Thanks for the Wiki link by the way. That's really very useful.

----------


## jikan myshkin

> They say it is because of a line from Exodus;
> 
> Exodus 22, King James Version
> 
> Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
> 
> n a justification on her way of life verses another.


"...and harry potter and all his wizzarding friends went straight to hell for praticing witchcraft!"
"yay!"

(from the simpsons)

----------


## PeterL

OK, I think that taken as a whole we have demonstrated that Potter is an open work.

----------


## JBI

> "...and harry potter and all his wizzarding friends went straight to hell for praticing witchcraft!"
> "yay!"
> 
> (from the simpsons)


It isn't Witchcraft, it is more Wicca. The term witch didn't exist in the same way back in the desert. It is a fault of translators that they fail to include Jewish scholarship in any way, and simply guess the meanings of some words, relative to our own. Jewish scholarship disputes the meaning of some uncommon words that don't even exist in spoken Hebrew anymore. about 2/3 to 3/4 of every page in most additions of student Tanakhim are dedicated to commentary, mostly Rashi, but others as well. Judaic theology and commentary is much older, and much more developed than even the best of Christian commentary, simply because Christian commentary is directed at mis-translated versions, rather than the original, and also excludes the Oral Torah, the Mishna, and the Talmudic books, in addition to a whole collection of Midrashim that have developed over the years. Anything a Christian says about the book can generally be taken to be a misquote, or only applicable on the translation used.

Either way, a woman flying on a broom would seem completely absurd to any Jewish commentator as the direct meaning of the term. Some translations even put it as sorceress, whereas its true definition is still subject to debate amongst scholars reading it in the original.

----------


## jikan myshkin

> It isn't Witchcraft, it is more Wicca. The term witch didn't exist in the same way back in the desert. It is a fault of translators that they fail to include Jewish scholarship in any way, and simply guess the meanings of some words, relative to our own. Jewish scholarship disputes the meaning of some uncommon words that don't even exist in spoken Hebrew anymore. about 2/3 to 3/4 of every page in most additions of student Tanakhim are dedicated to commentary, mostly Rashi, but others as well. Judaic theology and commentary is much older, and much more developed than even the best of Christian commentary, simply because Christian commentary is directed at mis-translated versions, rather than the original, and also excludes the Oral Torah, the Mishna, and the Talmudic books, in addition to a whole collection of Midrashim that have developed over the years. Anything a Christian says about the book can generally be taken to be a misquote, or only applicable on the translation used.
> 
> Either way, a woman flying on a broom would seem completely absurd to any Jewish commentator as the direct meaning of the term. Some translations even put it as sorceress, whereas its true definition is still subject to debate amongst scholars reading it in the original.


haha how long does it take you to watch one episode of the simpsons? that's if you even do!

----------


## Scheherazade

JK Rowling has written a short prequel to her popular Harry Potter books. 

But the 800-word tale will not be published - instead it will go under the hammer at a charity auction in London next month. 

She is one of 13 authors - including Nick Hornby and Doris Lessing - asked to write storycards by Waterstone's for their What's Your Story? auction. 

Rowling's story finishes with the handwritten words: "From the prequel I am not working on - but that was fun!" 

All 13 cards will be sold without a reserve price. The other authors include Margaret Atwood, Lauren Child, Sebastian Faulks, Tom Stoppard and Irvine Welsh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7425041.stm

----------


## JBI

Honestly, the whole idea of such events is silly to me. Stories should be for the public, not the high paying elite. I don't care what charity it goes to, if she merely wrote more, she would make even more millions. Let her cut a piece of her pie, and hand it to the charity, rather than selling a story to some obnoxiously rich person. She already did something similar with a set of self-illuminated story books.

Note, my disapproval is transfered to the other authors as well.

----------


## Joreads

I have to agree with JBI on this one. Everyone should have the chance to read what has been written by all of these authors. It is a shame that even something like reading is in this case being reduced to something that only the rich can afford. Maybe the buyer will allow it to be published - maybe that is just a vain hope on my part.

----------


## Trystan

No, I don't like Harry Potter. Not just because it has little literary value (and it does have very little value), but because I just don't like any of the characters, or any of the themes, which are really too simplistic (good vs evil = good wins, and we'll do it all over again next year). It's also so, so . . . pretentious, in that annoyingly upper-class British way.

----------


## Smoogles

You can't do this, it's all matter of opinions.

----------


## clumsy angelle

I like Harry Potter so much... It's what got me into reading...

----------


## wilbur lim

Thumbs down of Harry Potter! I feel that it is monotonous to read it.There's not enough vocabulary,which it is written in a simplified one.It is solely suitable for 11 years old and below.

----------


## tedgemon

i'd say HP was really written for 11-teens, which i am not.

----------


## kasie

I feel like writing this in Capital Letters, but I will curb my frustration and merely re-iterate: the Harry Potter books were written for young readers and should be enjoyed as such. They were not written to be Literature, they were not written to provide material for Lit Crit, they were written for the entertainment of young readers. The fact they have been enjoyed by thousands and thousands of young (and young-at-heart) readers gladdens my heart - if they encourage those same readers to go on and try reading more books, it delights me even more. If they made JKR a multi-millionaire, good for her and her publisher for spotting a gap in the market and filling it. (I only wish I had sent my apprentice-wizard story to a publisher before she did, it's not a bad story, totally different from HP, but now it's unpublishable!) If you didn't enjoy it, that's a pity and maybe your loss but I'm sure you'll find something you will like; if you did enjoy it, good - now move on to the next book, there are lots out there and now you've discovered the joy of reading, you have so many treats in store, go and get on with them.

End of rant.  :Smile:

----------


## Dinglingzi

my level has not yet achieved that imaginary world.....
maybe i should like it~~...

----------


## JBI

Nah, that people go on after Potter to read better books has, by means of data (ironically biased in her favor), been discredited. I think I posted the link here before.

The point though is, good Children's literature should be enjoyable by people of all ages, without any loss. Carrol does this, Christina Rossetti does this, the point is, it is doable and has been done.

Potter offers something else, a more maturing progression of books, which, as critics have pointed out, seems to mature with the readers. This means, 20 years down the road, a hypothetical child will not be able to have the same affect as the original readers, as the books will be put down as if in one span, instead of divided over many years. He will in fact, be under-mature, or over-mature for the books, simply by having them all available at once.

That being said, the question remains whether those are good children's literature, or have matured out of children's literature, or simply aren't literature, but as Harold Bloom put it (to his great horror, as he still claims to get angry mail on account of it) slush. 

The choice is up to the person of course, but lets be honest, if it cannot be studied, if it cannot recreate its affects, if it cannot be anything but enjoyed by kids (which I think I have pointed out, cannot really enjoy them as kids) than I think we may need to listen to Bloom, or perhaps acknowledge that, though these perhaps can be entertaining, they are neither good nor bad. Fashion magazines can be loads of fun, but how much attention should we give them? This perhaps may be a little better than that, but I think, like all books, the decline will occur (it already has started) and the books will flicker into oblivion. The problem with Rowling is that she had too few critics while writing her books, and failed to gain any critical feedback to improve her writing. This is OK of course, if you are Emily Dickinson, but not if you make grammar mistakes and drop clichés constantly. If perhaps she got some feedback, instead of countless praise, she could have fixed her problems by book 7. As it is, I think they got worse, as the haste to make the money, and the hype of the books gave Rowling too much confidence.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> The choice is up to the person of course, but lets be honest, if it cannot be studied, if it cannot recreate its affects, if it cannot be anything but enjoyed by kids (which I think I have pointed out, cannot really enjoy them as kids) than I think we may need to listen to Bloom, or perhaps acknowledge that, though these perhaps can be entertaining, they are neither good nor bad.


::sighs:: Here we go again with the overgeneralizations. 

English 440: Harry Potter's Library: J. K. Rowling, Texts, and Contexts

A Popular Culture Class Syllabus

Harry Potter has been added to the Syllabus of A-Levels in the UK

ENG 470/ENG 504 (Grad): Symbols and Archetypes in Children's Literature

Harry Potter and Philosophy

ENG 305: Literature for Children

ENG 349: Fantasy

That is 7 syllabi from different universities, with the exception of the A-Level one, teaching Harry Potter at a college level in various different contexts and disciplines. Believe me I could have found a lot more. Granted these aren't top-tier Ivy league colleges, but still . . .

A quick search in MLA database reveals there have been at least 57 peer-reviewed essays, 9 scholarly books, and 4 dissertations written about Harry Potter to date all with genuine Ph. D.s, imagine that, and keep in mind MLA doesn't index everything. So I'm sure there are quite a few other essays in anthologies or journals that it missed. In all fairness a few of the dissertations seem more interested in the Harry Potter phenomena, but the majority of the essays are good old genuine look deep at the structures of the text and write about the meaning literary criticism. 

My point here isn't Harry Potter = good, or HP = literature with a capital "L." I don't really care about that; I'm not even sure I disagree with you on that point in fact. However, time will decide that one no matter what you or I or Harold Bloom opine. I only wanted to point out that you just claimed above HP cannot be studied; well, apparently someone is studying it and writing about it. So that's fundamentally untrue.

Also, I read the Harry Potter series and enjoyed it in my 20s. I also happen to enjoy more "traditional" literature. Why I even have a Masters degree in English, imagine that! Most of the people I've talked to who I know have read and enjoyed Harry Potter were also in 20s. Ergo, your other thesis about some set readership age is pretty bogus too.

----------


## curlyqlink

> the Harry Potter books were written for young readers and should be enjoyed as such.


This is a deliciously double-edged statement. I'll devilishly take it to mean that the Harry Potters are children's books, which should be read only by children!




> 7 syllabi from different universities, with the exception of the A-Level one, teaching Harry Potter at a college level


College students are not children, hence they should not be reading Harry Potter. And certainly not in class. I just take this as further evidence of the sad decline of standards in higher education. I'm sure many universities also offer their clients (er, students) the chance to "study" comic books (er, graphic novels) for college credit.

Rowling's books seem to have started a trend that is currently being mined by the Stephanie Myers vampire franchise. That is, big fat children's books that adults are not ashamed to read, though perhaps they ought to be.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> College students are not children, hence they should not be reading Harry Potter. And certainly not in class. I just take this as further evidence of the sad decline of standards in higher education. I'm sure many universities also offer their clients (er, students) the chance to "study" comic books (er, graphic novels) for college credit.
> 
> Rowling's books seem to have started a trend that is currently being mined by the Stephanie Myers vampire franchise. That is, big fat children's books that adults are not ashamed to read, though perhaps they ought to be.


Oh believe me, I have extremely mixed feelings about what passes for English Lit education these days. 

I do disagree with you on graphic novels. Some graphic novels are really good and of a very high quality. "Watchmen" comes to mind to name just one. It's not like they are sitting there and reading Superman or Spiderman after all.

Basically my position on this falls somewhere in the middle. I hate the fact that one doesn't generally get to read a lot of classics by the time your finished with a 4 year undergrad program, and an MA, works that I definitely should have read. On the other hand, I do think it may be valuable and worthwhile studying Children's Literature or fantasy or graphic novels or some other specialized topic, that literary studies should not be limited solely to more traditional works. Part of this is the fact that I think a lot of works that are non-canonical are actually pretty good, original, and do have something to offer the reader. I am actually more concerned with how much time is spent on theory than I am on whether we are reading Chaucer or graphic novels. 

One could convincingly argue that many professors are turning to writing about Harry Potter, secondary novels by major Canonical authors, and other genre/pop culture works because it's difficult to find something new to say about the classics which have been written about to death. Some of it is money to fill up classrooms certainly; Harry Potter is no doubt popular. However, I do think a genuine interest exists among certain scholars, particularly those interested in fantasy and Children's lit as their subject area(s) of expertise.

----------


## Jozanny

> Rowling's books seem to have started a trend that is currently being mined by the Stephanie Myers vampire franchise. That is, big fat children's books that adults are not ashamed to read, though perhaps they ought to be.


I've never opened a Potter book in my life, but I think this is unfair to Rowling and her achievement. Like me, she was on the dole, but unlike me, she did something, and that something is not so bad. Harry is a young boy who faces daunting obstacles, including the tragedy of losing mother and father, and his journey is that of the hero who grows into actually becoming one. I've read enough about the books to know that Rowling does have thematic intent, and something to say--I'm not going to trash that either through envy or elitism--and I may read the series one day.

Children's literature beloved of adults is nothing new. I still have a place in my heart for Charlotte's Web.

I think what Rowling's detractors are actually reacting to, is the modern distaste for corporate franchise, and that is a separate issue from artistic merit.

----------


## JBI

Who is saying that is studying Harry Potter the same way one would study Shakespeare. I go to university, you can get degrees in anything. I know a professor with a degree in Star Trek who teaches, that's not the point. the fact remains, that the question we ask ourselves when studying Harry Potter is always too look at the culture significance, and not at the text itself. With Shakespeare we look into the text, with Potter we look into the sales.

----------


## stlukesguild

JBI... good to see you back... and still is rare form... trashing Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings in virtually one fell swoop. At least I won't be the sole elitist snob here any more. :FRlol:

----------


## Etienne

I wish people read Aristotle as much as Harry Potter  :Biggrin:

----------


## Jozanny

> Who is saying that is studying Harry Potter the same way one would study Shakespeare. I go to university, you can get degrees in anything. I know a professor with a degree in Star Trek who teaches, that's not the point. the fact remains, that the question we ask ourselves when studying Harry Potter is always too look at the culture significance, and not at the text itself. With Shakespeare we look into the text, with Potter we look into the sales.


I don't think anyone, not Drk or myself, certainly, is saying Potter is comparative to Shakespeare. Universities don't grow in a vacuum JBI. They want money too, and Potter is, for better or worse, a mega enterprise beyond its author, who must be worth a few billion or more. One looks at cultural and textual issues both.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Who is saying that is studying Harry Potter the same way one would study Shakespeare. I go to university, you can get degrees in anything. I know a professor with a degree in Star Trek who teaches, that's not the point. the fact remains, that the question we ask ourselves when studying Harry Potter is always too look at the culture significance, and not at the text itself. With Shakespeare we look into the text, with Potter we look into the sales.


Uhm, except you're still wrong. A lot of the scholarship on Potter does in fact look at the text; you know, literary criticism just like you would do with Shakespeare's text, looking at the structures, the characters, the symbols, with no mention of Potter's cultural popularity at all. It is, however, true, that there are also plenty of studies that look at its popularity from a cultural studies perspective, perhaps even most of it when you add up the dissertations and the books. However, at least 27 of the 57 peer-reviewed articles are genuine literary criticism. At least 10 of those were in another language so I couldn't tell one way or another, and the rest were about his popularity and sales and audience response. 

So when you write "when studying Harry Potter is *always too [sic] look* at the culture significance, and not at the text itself" (emphasis mine) you're factually wrong and still making overgeneralizations. 

Like I said I have mixed feelings about the place of other literatures in relation to the more traditional canon. I think there is room to study both and there are reasons to study both. I am NOT saying Rowling is better than Shakespeare or even the equivalent of.

On the other hand, having read a little bit of the textual scholarship on Potter I do think there are some interesting things going on in Potter that are worth noting and documenting and thinking about.

----------


## Jozanny

> On the other hand, having read a little bit of the textual scholarship on Potter I do think there are some interesting things going on in Potter that are worth noting and documenting and thinking about.


I am pleased you and I finally seem to agree about something. :Wink:  I actually admire Rowling a great deal, and keep asking myself "if she could do it, why can't I?"

Although I haven't examined that answer too closely. She did get very lucky to have her work promoted just so to catch fire.

----------


## Ovid Reader

I cannot put in words how much I despise Harry Potter as a work of literature and plain reading material but I also have an irrational hate of Shakespeare and Dickens so I am probably not the greatest judge of a good book or author.

----------


## Jozanny

> I cannot put in words how much I despise Harry Potter as a work of literature and plain reading material but I also have an irrational hate of Shakespeare and Dickens so I am probably not the greatest judge of a good book or author.


Is this an intrinsic dislike of reading for entertainment? I ask out of curiosity, since I enjoy more authors than others, just as anyone, but "irrational hate" is fairly strong language, something I would reserve for only the most vile polemics--but then again I do not read much that is in the vein of the Klu Klux Klan.

----------


## Hayley Zero

I have liked the Harry Potter books very much when I was young, but now I'm seventeen and don't really care about them anymore. I didn't even read the last book, actually. 
Now I only cherish the memory of how I once read Harry Potter all night long, dressed up like Hermione Granger and made my Hogwarts housework using a feather and ink. It's part of my childhood - like many other books.

----------


## Jueno

> I have liked the Harry Potter books very much when I was young, but now I'm seventeen and don't really care about them anymore. I didn't even read the last book, actually. 
> Now I only cherish the memory of how I once read Harry Potter all night long, dressed up like Hermione Granger and made my Hogwarts housework using a feather and ink. It's part of my childhood - like many other books.


Ha  :FRlol:  Very well put.

----------


## curlyqlink

> I think what Rowling's detractors are actually reacting to, is the modern distaste for corporate franchise, and that is a separate issue from artistic merit.


It seems to me this is precisely the issue: artistic merit _is_ being confused with commercial success. Harry Potter sold by the ton; therefore, it is part of our culture, and therefore it is significant. That kind of reasoning should set off alarm bells.

Lots of kids liked reading Rowling's series of books. That's great, I'm all in favor of kids having a good time. I have nothing against a writer making lots of money writing potboilers, either. Problem is when all this gets inflated into claims of literary merit, or sociological claims that Potter is ushering in a generation of readers. I wonder: why this need for _justification_?

The Potter books are (were) popular. Why? Who knows. Hannah Montana is wildly popular too... is it because whatshername is a great singer? Is the franchise expected to usher in a generation of musicians? No, the phenomenon is treated for what it is: a commercial entertainment venture that hit paydirt. Nothin' wrong with that. It's time we saw the Potter phenomenon in the same light. And removed it from the college curriculum.

Call me a snob, but there is a difference between art and commerce.

----------


## JBI

> I cannot put in words how much I despise Harry Potter as a work of literature and plain reading material but I also have an irrational hate of Shakespeare and Dickens so I am probably not the greatest judge of a good book or author.


Try Leopardi, he seems up your alley.

O natura, o natura,
perché non rendi poi
quel che prometti allor? perché di tanto
inganni i figli tuoi?

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I am pleased you and I finally seem to agree about something. I actually admire Rowling a great deal, and keep asking myself "if she could do it, why can't I?"
> 
> Although I haven't examined that answer too closely. She did get very lucky to have her work promoted just so to catch fire.


I wish you luck with that. Personally I would never turn to writing fantasy, sci-fi, horror, or children's lit in order to make my millions. Most writers are mid-list: they make $30,000 - $50,000 per a book at best. I write it because I can't seem to write realist fiction; the fantastical elements allow me to say what I want to say the way realism wouldn't.

Despite the fact that people seem to delude themselves that genre fiction is where all the money and sales happen to be. Maybe Romance, but other than that "mainstream" fiction sells a lot better. Of course there is always the Stephen Kings and J. K. Rowling success stories. 

You should do a Harry Potter satire! I bet you that would make a lot of money if pulled off right.

----------


## kasie

> This is a deliciously double-edged statement. I'll devilishly take it to mean that the Harry Potters are children's books, which should be read only by children!......
> 
> Rowling's books seem to have started a trend .... big fat children's books that adults are not ashamed to read, though perhaps they ought to be.


No, I did not intend an unspoken 'should only be read by children.'  :Biggrin:  I did mean that whoever reads it should not treat it as anything other than a book for children. You live, I presume, in a free country and can read whatever you like - do so, and let other people do so. If you wish to indulge in elitism, do so; but please do not deride people who do not feel the need to prove their good taste and maturity by trashing books that were not meant to be raised up on the pinnacle of Literature. I used to feel the need to guide (young) readers towards what I considered to be 'good' books - the debate was about Enid Blyton in those days - but with hindsight I realise that readers, like water, find their own level. By all means, show people the great and the good but the choice ultimately is theirs and should be respected. I've been reading and enjoying children's books all my life ( the excuse used to be professional necessity!) but I know they are children's books and I think I can recognise a good product when I see one, good of its kind, not puffed up to be something it was never intended to be. 

Regarding going on to read other books, I can offer only anecdotal evidence: I did find that children who read a book that they perceive to be a challenge (long, difficult to understand, something that ultimately inspires them) then have the confidence to go on and read another book, then another, and think better of themselves for their achievement. There are many authors that young (and I stress _young_) readers enjoy that make me grit my teeth (back to Enid Blyton again!) but I hope if I were in a position to guide those readers today I'd be able to smile at their enthusiasm, commend them for their achievement and be ready with suggestions for their next foray into the library. No, they are not necessarily going to make a bee-line for Dickens or Shakespeare, but I hope they would be sufficiently encouraged to try another book and come to regard reading as one of the pleasures in their life.

With reference to studying HP at University level - I have to admit that makes me smile: the word 'bandwagon' comes to mind! But - presumably some of the students who take those courses are going to go on and become teachers of the children of an age to enjoy HP. I studied children's books as part of my training for teaching - yes, Alice was there, as was Beatrix Potter, Grahame, Tolkein, Lewis and the other classics - but there were also new writers on the list because children's literature was, and still is, a body of work growing at a phenomenal rate.We were taught to apply the methods of criticism we were applying in English Main studies - for some this was a new and surprising study because not all the people on the course were English Main students - English is a subject taught by all teachers in UK primary schools, not necessarily English specialists - but with the rider that these were books for children and that should be our prime consideration, not the stringent and inappropriate application of Literary Criteria.

----------


## Manuel Cruz

Harry Potter were the first books I read, what drove me into the world of reading. By the time I was 6 my mother used to read me one or two chapters of Harry Potter before I went to bed. She read me all the Filosopher Stone and I wanted all the other stories so bad that I learnt how to read as fast as possible so I would be able to read the other books by myself. I still remember shouting out loud because I managed to read a whole page by myself and then, with some effort I would be able to go on without having to rely on my mother.

----------


## TheChilly

Harry Potter goes from solid to "EPIC WIN" by the time you get to "Order of the Phoenix".

I'm torn by whether "Order" or "Deathly Hallows" was more epic for me... My vote's on "Deathly Hallows", just because of the intense cinematic flair Rowling put into that stunning conclusion...

"Order of the Phoenix" still had Professor Umbridge taking the cake as the Best Villain in the franchise.

----------


## Valaquen

> Call me a snob, but there is a difference between art and commerce.


The mistake is in thinking that both are mutually exclusive, (and there is such a thing as _bad_ art.)

----------


## Big Dante

> i know i have never liked harry potter till i started reading the philosiphers stone and now im hooked yeah ive always liked whitch craft but HP never actually tickled my fancy lol ok im bored


So you hated the series until you read the first book?  :Ack2:

----------


## prendrelemick

> Harry Potter were the first books I read, what drove me into the world of reading. By the time I was 6 my mother used to read me one or two chapters of Harry Potter before I went to bed. She read me all the Filosopher Stone and I wanted all the other stories so bad that I learnt how to read as fast as possible so I would be able to read the other books by myself. I still remember shouting out loud because I managed to read a whole page by myself and then, with some effort I would be able to go on without having to rely on my mother.



That's fantastic. It's a story you hear again and again - kids wanting to read Harry Potter. It's easy to forget how good that first book was. It was not a case of a cynical publisher's heavy promotion manipulating children's taste, it was a slow burner that grew from the bottom up.

I remember when it beat the heavily promoted Tracy Beaker in the Blue Peter best book competition. Not an award of great international standing, but voted on by kids, it was a suprise winner - I think most grown ups had never heard of it.

----------


## paulanderson114

They give light to another world, If that offends you then oh well. A lot of people get offended by the thought of God You are not going to get anywhere by posting hateful things on the internet about something you don't understand. They show a fantisy world about good triumphing over evil. They let kids dream and be free for a moment. Growing up I didn't have the best child hood, but my dreams always made me feel better.

----------


## Can

> Are you kidding me with this, I read those books and found them dreafuly boring and hoplessly... "Fluffy."


I dont think so maybe it is about your mentality. Everyone can't imagine this beautiful world. :Out:  :Banghead:

----------

