I’ve never read any of the Potter books, and have no real plans to. From what I hear, I ain’t missing out on much.
On the other hand, Terry Pratchett could write a menu for an all-night take-out Klatchan diner, and I’d plunk down good money for that… 
Ick. Poor choice of comparison, I don’t find Michael Crichton’s books to be very good at all.
I like the way she combines the fantasy and school adventure genres. And I happen to like the fiddley world building bits and don’t mind that the characters and plot are broadly drawn. I’m assuming that’s part of the ‘school adventure’ genre.
But, yeah, if you’re looking for more than stock characters, you’re going to be disapponted. They’re creatively used stock characters, but they’re stock characters.
I also like the way she names things.
Umm, how about perpetuating ignorance?
Kid 1> Remember that 3-headed dog?
Kid 2> The one of guards the gates of Hades?
Kid 1> No, no. There’s only one 3 headed dog. The one from Harry Potter.
Kid 2> Oh.
It doesn’t matter if she’s upfront in interviews, people who read her books don’t necessarily read/watch her interviews.
She could just have easily come up with a three-headed llama, and I wouldn’t have been pissed off.
I’m a huge fan of Harry Potter. I’m a sucker for stories set in boarding schools. Can’t get enough.
I can’t stand, however, Tolkien or Pratchett.
How is a person who’s never heard of any kind of monstrous three-headed dog at all less ignorant than one who has heard of it but mistakenly assumed it was a recently literary invention?
So this is a real conversation you’ve overheard, and Kid 2 walked away genuinely convinced that “There’s only one 3 headed dog. The one from Harry Potter”?
If someone reads the first Harry Potter book but manages to avoid Rowling’s interviews, all other modern fantasy that references mythical beasts, and every other possible source of information on mythology, it’s their own damn fault if they mistakenly assume she made up all those creatures herself. I hardly see how the blame for that falls at Rowling’s feet. On the other hand, if they are well-informed enough to realize that she didn’t personally invent unicorns, dragons, and centaurs (and I think most children are), it shouldn’t send them into denial to hear that she didn’t invent monstrous three-headed dogs either.
Having a three-headed llama acting as a guardian doesn’t make any sense, nor does making the only way to slip past it be to lull it with music first. It doesn’t make any sense about a dog either…unless you’re familiar with the mythical Cerberus. The only reason to include the Fluffy character is because he’s a well-known mythical beast. From the literary greats to the cheap hacks, there are precious few fantasy writers who haven’t done this sort of thing. You could argue that Rowling isn’t as good at it as some other authors, but if it’s wrong in principle then most of the fantasy genre is on equally shakey moral ground.
Hm… thinking… I do like China Mieville. He’s pretty much it though. I’m definitely not as much into fantasy as I am science fiction, and the fantasy I do like tends to be borderline stuff that’s kind of SFish or steampunkish, instead of traditional fantasy. And I’m not really a fan of dry British wit, which is why I think I don’t like Pratchett.
Well, HP is not the most shining example of “dry British wit”. I think I’ve said before, the reason I’m underwhelmed with Rowling is that she hasn’t really created a world; not the way Tolkien or C.S. Lewis or Frank Herbert did. She seems to be making her point with a sledgehammer that Harry and his pals are just like you and your friends! except that they have wands and stuff. And the Ministry of Magic is a lot like British government!! Everything’s just like modern-day England, except the names are funny. Which would be great if it were satire, I suppose, but fantasy is supposed to be escapism, and how can it be if it’s not at a far remove from the real world?
I like Harry Potter. I’ve read them all thus far, and will continue reading them until the end. I do not, however, think there’s anything overly great about them, and I don’t understand why they are so universally adored. By the end of the third book, I was starting to get tired of the whole “kids encounter a problem; decide not to tell Dumbledore for no reason whatsoever; try to solve problem themselves and fail; Dumbledore saves the day at the last minute and Harry’s bravery seals the deal” formula, and I was glad to see Rowling begin to deviate from it in the fourth and fifth books. I have high hopes for the story’s conclusion. So yeah, I like it all right, but it’s certainly not for everyone, and I don’t quite get what all the hype is about.
I might try and read them at one point, but only after i’ve exhausted every other book option going. Just doesn’t seem like something i’d be bothered about. I watched the first 40 minutes of the first film, and walked off. I fail to see how kids could be enchanted by it, the acting was crap and the effects poor.
Having said that, I designed an entire range of watches and clocks under license for the third film, so staring at Harry Potters face 8 hours a day for 5-6 weeks didn’t exactly endear me either. Going to a meeting with Warner Bros and getting called a ‘muggle’ was fun too. I asked the UK director of licensing what the fuck he was talking about, and the look of shock on their faces when I said i’d not even seen the films at that point never mind read the books was a winner. And JK Rowling has complete control over everything, approval wise.
I always thought she should be done for fraud though - she wrote the first one while on the dole, and technically, thats working, violating terms and conditions of being on benefit. She should give all her millions back to the government.
Nice idea, but she wasn’t being paid to write at that stage, so as long as she was “actively seeking employment” at the same time she’s probably ok.
I don’t get the hype either, and I saw it all build up whilst I was working in a bookshop. The plots and characters are derivative in the extreme and the Enid Blyton view of England is dreadful.
Still, hopefully it’s got kids reading (I think the jury’s still out on this). It’s just a shame that the great gods of hype didn’t pick something a bit more worthwhile.
I simply don’t enjoy them, & I never troubled to analyze it.
Try Robert Asprin’s “Myth Adventures” series, instead. If you like puns.
I enjoyed reading the books that have been published so far and I intend to read the rest. They aren’t “Great Literature” but they’re nice enjoyable reads.
I saw the first couple movies and was catatonic with boredom. I tried to read the first book and threw it aside in disgust after just a few pages. The tone was just too…chirpy.
But while we’re here, I dislike the whole concept of Harry Potter as hero. He reminds me too much of Richard Rahl from the loathesome Sword of Truth series. In particular, there seems to be a habit on the part of the authors of writing themselves into a corner and then solving the dilemma by having Harry/Richard pull a new, previously unknown power out of his wizardly ass. Harry and Richard are both “heroes” by way of being born special, nothing more. It’s like the old Superman/Batman debate. It’s easy to be Superman when you’re born that way…
I hope this doesn’t sound like I’m sneering at the unwashed masses (remember, I like the books!), but I think one of the reasons they’re so universally adored is because there’s nothing overly great about them. It’s not things that are “overly great” that become this popular. I mean, Titanic wasn’t the best movie ever made, was it? I didn’t like Titanic much myself and in some ways it’s arguably pretty bad, but it also does some things quite well and contains a lot of appealing ingredients. Same with Harry Potter.
I liked the first Harry Potter book. I like it again when it was repackaged as “The Chamber of Secrets.” I still liked it when they rereleased it as “The Prisoner of Azkaban.” I like it a bit less when they presented the uncut version of the same book as “The Goblet of Fire,” and less still when they re-released that version as “Order of the Phoenix.”
I mean, I liked it once, but it’s the same damn thing over and over.
Philsopher’s Stone bored me. (And I’m a bookworm that can read technical manuals for the sheer heck of it.)
I think something about the narrative, or the dialogue, that put me off. They didn’t act or talk like real people, and Rowling’s constant need to explain everything gave the book a very patronizing tone. (Yes, I understand that the book was not written for my reading level, but still.)
Chamber of Secrets did a much better job, but it was still somewhat lacking. I haven’t gotten around to flipping through any of the other titles yet, though I might the next time I visit a bookstore.
I’ve read the first three and I won’t be reading the rest. (Spoilers warning to the four people left out there who intend to start reading the series) The characters are so dull. After three full novels I now know that Ron likes junk food, but I know little else about him. The Dursleys don’t even rise to the level of two-dimensional characters. Do we need to revisit them in every book so they can do the same things over and over? Malfoy is utterly without redeeming qualities. Hermine is always a do gooder. Boring.
Rowling’s language is stiff and her adjectives are flat-footed. How many times has Snape “spat” his words? Characters names are always giveaways as to their identities. Didn’t know Lupin was a wolf? You forgot to read his name.
The third book in particular, cured me of any need to read HP any further. The ending was interminable and it relied upon time travel. This renders everything that happens in any of the books moot because some wizard (even a third year student) could travel back in time and alter the events.
Oh my, I find myself agreeing with Wendell Wagner, who, in an earlier post pointed out that there is no reason for the last two books to be so long. The only reason I can think of is that she is such a money machine for her publisher. Also they probably can’t get up the gumption to tell her that her stuff needs to be edited. (I think these comments work for Stephen King also)
About the books themselves: I don’t like them much either. In fact the only one I read straight through was the first. My favorite part was the Dursleys and how mean they were to Harry. Some good British comedy there. But when I picked up Book 2, it just seemed so repetitious, so boring. And as I’ve glanced at the others they also seem repetitious and boring. So there.
But everyone has a right to their own opinion on matters of taste. I don’t understand the mega hype tho.
I have a friend who heard about how great Harry Potter was, so she borrowed the first book from a friend. She read a few pages and then gave it back because she didn’t like it. When I asked her why, she said it was too much like kid’s book.
I had to explain to her that it is indeed a kid’s book, while trying not to laugh at her too hard. 