My 2 least fave of his.
Far from the Madding Crowd is on my shortlist of all time faves. And The Mayor of Casterbridge has to have one of the best starting premises of all time. If you like Austen or Bronte, you should like them.
Tho not nice things happen in both, they are WAY “lighter” than the 2 you had the misfortune (IMO) to read first.
Love Austen, not a Bronte fan. But I’ll give more Hardy a try. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Henry James.
Not me.
I just can’t get depressed about the success of any books that can bridge the gap between voracious readers and people who normally won’t read for pleasure (like my sister). So what if it’s not great literature? They’re kids books! To me, the characters are reasonably engaging, the world is fascinating, and, most importantly, they’ve brought books back into the spotlight of popular culture. Before the Harry Potter series came out, it was rare that I saw “normal” (read: non-bookish) people discussing a book with the expectation that most people in the conversation were familiar with it. Nor did I see them rushing to the bookstore on release day to get a copy of a new book, as though it were an anticipated movie or a favorite developer’s new video game.
Even if the Harry Potter books aren’t what you would have people read, isn’t it great to see them reading something?
I think this is part of the disconnect. There are no “storytelling requirements” other than the reader wanting to read what the writer wrote.
I read the first Harry Potter book when it was first released in the US. I liked reading it and it left me wanting to read more of that story. That it makes it successful for me. It’s that simple.
Yeah, I realized I should have specified my preference for Charlotte (Jane Eyre). Wife lurves Wuthering Heights. Me, not so much.
Another thumbs-up for what thetruewheel said about the reason for the popularity of the books. I’ve read the first few and seen some of the movies; I don’t plan to continue with either. They’re not great writing, but Rowling made up an interesting world, and that drew in a lot of readers. She entertains people and the work isn’t as bad as the OP says, so what’s to be depressed about?
Tolkien also made up an interesting world and I don’t think his writing is particularly amazing either. He did avoid one pitfall Rowling fell into, which was making up a world that was fun and engaging at first and then became increasingly portentous, heavy and stifling.
That list of Best Fantasy Books sucks! (Sorry, I tried & rejected more polite options.) Why isn’t Tolkien #1? Why did whoever created the list include so many hacks? Points for including Greg Keyes; and there are a couple of others I’ll check out.
I read Harry Potter & The Philosopher’s Stone (Canadian edition–screw that “Sorcerer’s Stone”) but bogged down in #2. May take up the series later, since I understand it grows more complex. But I’m not the target audience–nor do I share a home with members of the target audience. (I also came to Narnia too late–although I enjoyed Lewis’s Space Trilogy in high school.)
Harry Potter seems like a pretty good series that was well-marketed. Its amazing success is fascinating; the people who love it really do love it. The Potter books are displayed in bookstores among a ton of other fantasies–encouraging kids to read more. (Not that* I* ever had to be encouraged to read.)
Harry Potter doesn’t depress me at all. Twilight does…
Simillarion?
To each his own. I hope you find a series that gives you as much enjoyment as Harry Potter does to me.
Regards,
Shodan
Harry Potter belongs firmly in the long British tradition of Boy’s Adventure novels.
Other examples would be, say, Swallows and Amazons, Narnia, most of Edward Eager’s works… and… most especially, Good Omens, in part.
That’s the reason Potter and Books of Magic are so similar. They’re incarnations of a fairly specific genre, about a boy, his companions, and wandering about in early teenhood.
I haven’t read it. So maybe he did that, too.
Well put. I think of this style as “orphan fantasy”. The story of a kid in terrible consequences overcoming adversity and, as an added bonus, finding out he is actually of some sort of noble birth. As I read the first couple of HP books I had a strong feeling that I had read the books before. This is a common theme - Tarzan and Cinderella both, for example. Yeah, Rowlings used a lot of well worn material to create HP - English boarding school, check - Poor abused orphan kid finding family, check - Big reveal that kid is not just ordinary, check.
But, Rowlings added an interesting twist to these old, well worn ideas. She created a ton of interesting characters (I say too many in fact) and populated a very rich world with them and she made all this accessible to people of all ages. Great literature - maybe not but then Harry Potter isn’t trying to take the OP’s James Joyce collection away either.
I find the success of the movies depressing, in a way (this also includes the success of the LOTR trilogy). I was hoping, after these two fantasy series made such a huge impression and drew in scads of profits, that we’d see some of the more hardcore classics successfully adapted into films. 6 years after ROTK, 8 years after the first HP film, and what do we have? 2 Narnia films of moderate creative and financial success (at best), with the 3rd film unlikely to see the light of day; 1 His Dark Materials film which pretty much tanked, with no followup; an excreble TV adaptation of Earthsea; and, stuck firmly in development hell, an Elric movie. At one point there were rumors of an Amber film or films, but nothing seems to have come of that. Conan looks like it will be made, and it might be better than the Arnie vehicles of the 80’s-no guarantees tho. As a whole it’s a rather unimpressive body of output, if you ask me.
More like Rowling pitched the first one to twenty publishers before Scholastic Book Services picked it up. If nothing else, you can admire her persistence.
The stories that became the Silmarillion were written first. Tolkien’s world started out portentous, heavy, and stifling. The light-hearted kids stories came later.
I’m not a fan of HP, nor am I a fan of fantasy (which is one reason why I didn’t “get” HP). But I did read the first book and I found the writing to be pretty tough on my eyes. It doesn’t bother me that the writing is “beneath” me because, after all, they’re children’s books.
I do find it weird that so many adults are into it, since the writing is so bad.
BUT…
I read The DaVinci Code, and I enjoyed it. Yes the writing was bad but it was a good story. It never occurred to me that any of it was factual so I didn’t get caught up in all that mess. I also read Angels and Demons and it was fun.
So, what I really don’t get is why Dan Brown’s stuff is so loathed here (on the SDMB) and HP stuff is so revered. Both have crap stories, both are tremendously popular, yet not liking Brown’s stuff is the norm and not liking HP is odd.
I didn’t read past this post, but I am replying to the general tone of the thread, not meaning to single Lynn out here.
Well said, and I agree.
Again, I agree–but I don’t recall Harry using magic beyond his abilities in Book One (or any of the books). 
But keep in mind the grandaddy of all fantasy, Tolkien, also used a deus ex machina, aka the Eagles. They show up in every one of his Hobbit focused books to save the day. I have never been able to get past page 17 of The Silmarillon, so I dunno 'bout that one…
I agree, but will say that IMO, Rowling is an average writer. She repeats herself and summarizes plots too much, she loves adverbs and she has never learned to fully show instead of tell. BUT–IMO, what she lacked was an editor with balls. Much of what she wrote could have been cut, changed or tweaked to the betterment of the books. That said, her tale is a sturdy one. She has a good ear for dialogue and comedy.
Here we part ways drastically. Charlie of Chocolate Factory fame’s home life was also waaaay over the top, as are most of Roald Dahl’s character’s families or relations. The-kid-mistreated-and-misunderstood-at-home basis is a common one.
I completely agree that Rowling needed to show Petunia as more conflicted instead of as a cartoon character to make the tension and substory more authentic, but must argue that the tradition is quite venerable.
Rowling does give us this, finally, in book 7 wherein Harry finally learns control after Dobby’s death Too little, too late, perhaps, but it is there.
Absolutely.
But much of what is said here is opinion. I don’t find HP to be Great Literature, but I do find them to be fun reads. Do I reread them? No. I reread them just prior to a film coming out. But I’m 47, not 12. IMO, Rowling has Meyers beat hands down in terms of talent–that’s not saying much, but I can understand the popularity of HP more so than the popularity of the Twilight series.
Has anyone here ever read all of the Dorothy and Oz series? Trust me, they’re not Great Literature either, but the one book and the movie captured the public’s imagination and has become a classic. Frank Baum was no Lewis Carroll (but then Carroll’s work so unique and, let’s be honest, odd, that it really is in a class by itself). Rowling is no Nesbitt, to be sure, but she is perhaps a modern version of Nesbitt.
As much as I dislike having to admit it, most people today do not enjoy stately paragraphs or literary allusions wending their way through their books. Rowling (again MO) took a Victorian tradition (of which Tolkien may have been the last gasp) of spinning a tale and modernized it. You may not like the end result, but she has proven that people are still hungry for stories, but want them in form they can easily relate to.
Confession time: I read the EarthSea series a ways back, to see what all the fuss was about. I can only say that perhaps I read them at the wrong time in my life. If I had read them as a teen, I would probably have loved them. As it was, I found the characters wooden, the plot slow and the writing pompous.
I use LeGuin as an example of how writing can be perceived depending on the reader. LeGuin is a better writer than Rowling, no question (her sci-fi being better than EarthSea, IMO) but it left me cold.
I am also of the opinion that HP hit the world at a precise time and that its amazing popularity is partially explained by this: without the internet and its instantaneous connections, I have to wonder if the HP phenomenon would exist. I think it would still be popular, but even I, an advocate for Harry et al, don’t understand its accolades. I’m glad to be along for the ride, though.
I agree on the Deus Ex Machina front – plot-wise, the Harry Pottery books leave a lot to be desired.
On the world-building front, however, they are quite wonderful. It’s exciting and engaging to imagine that there just might be a world like that hidden within our world. And for kids who don’t feel like they quite fit in in their own world, the idea that they might actually belong in this other, more magical world, where instead of being an undersized victim of bullies and circumstances, they are an incredibly powerful celebrity, well, what’s not to love about that?
It’s terrible writing. There’s a threat, then a fix, then a threat, then a fix. Not connected.
Oh look, it’s a dragon. The bird says take that mirror to defeat him. It does. Ok, next monster…
It’s all disconnected threats, like levels on an early Donkey Kong game.
I find this thread very interesting, because I started reading Harry Potter at a time when I was suffering from debilitating social anxiety. I couldn’t sleep, I felt anxious all the time. It seemed the only time I got some respite was when I was reading these books. Now don’t get me wrong, other books could have accomplished the same thing. But for me they were engrossing and very readable, without being pretentious, that it allowed me to easily ignore my symptoms for a few hours at a pop.