Harry Potter

[shais_mom]

Its going to be so sad when the books are all done.
I'm not looking forward to that at all!

[Kirsten]

Its going to be so sad when the books are all done.
I'm not looking forward to that at all!

I know what you mean. For me, it was like that with the Lord of the Rings-movies. A part of me couldn't wait to finally see part 3, but I was also devastated when it was over. And I know it will also give me a sad feeling to read the last chapter of HP 7. At least there are still some more Harry Potter movies to look forward to...

Kirsten

[ChrisH]

Harry Potter's big con is the prose
Nicholas Lezard

A nine-year-old might feel quite pleased with the writing in the Harry Potter books. It's pretty embarrassing coming from an adult.

It is time to make a stand against Harry Potter. A futile stand, no death or glory involved: just popping my head over the trenches so it can be mowed off by the vast, unstoppable juggernaut of popular acclaim before I have begun to open my mouth.

Firstly: if you're going to buy her book, don't buy it for half price at a supermarket. As an example of a world gone mad, you couldn't do much better than this: a writer whose sales have actually fulfilled a publisher's wildest dreams is indirectly responsible for large-scale misery among independent bookstores. This is not JK Rowling's fault. It's a consequence of the deregulation of the book market.

Tesco, say, sells the new Potter for about the same price as two tins of beans, in the hope that the mug(gle)s who do so will be convinced that everything in the shop must be marvellous value. Meanwhile, Mrs Betty Cardigan who runs the Lovely Bookshop Round the Corner has to grit her teeth and lose money every time she sells a copy if she is to compete, without being able to sell toilet paper or sushi to make up the difference. If you must buy the book, go to Mrs Cardigan's and, even if it is at a discount, insist on paying full price.

But whether you should buy the book at all is another matter. For I have come, with some regret, to this conclusion: their style is toxic. And this is Rowling's fault. I know that I am anticipating what the style of the latest book will be in advance of actually seeing it, but really, I don't think I'm going out on a limb here. Of course, if she has turned into a first-class writer with her forthcoming Potter book, I will happily, no, joyously, eat my words.

But until then, we have to swallow hers. And for all that she is gifted enough in devising popular scenarios, the words on the page are flat. I think it was Verlaine who said that he could never write a novel because he would have to write, at some point, something like "the count walked into the drawing-room" - not a scruple that can have bothered JK Rowling, who is happy enough writing the most pedestrian descriptive prose.

Here, from page 324 of The Order of the Phoenix, to give you a typical example, are six consecutive descriptions of the way people speak. "...said Snape maliciously," "... said Harry furiously", " ... he said glumly", "... said Hermione severely", "... said Ron indignantly", " ... said Hermione loftily". Do I need to explain why that is such second-rate writing?

If I do, then that means you're one of the many adults who don't have a problem with the retreat into infantilism that your willing immersion in the Potter books represents. It doesn't make you a bad or silly person. But if you have the patience to read it without noticing how plodding it is, then you are self-evidently someone on whom the possibilities of the English language are largely lost.

This is the kind of prose that reasonably intelligent nine-year-olds consider pretty hot stuff, if they're producing it themselves; for a highly-educated woman like Rowling to knock out the same kind of material is, shall we say, somewhat disappointing.

Children exposed to this kind of writing aren't learning anything new about words, or being stretched in any way; as Harold Bloom said, they're not going to be inspired to go off and read the Alice books, or any other enduring classic.

People go hoopla because they're delighted that Rowling has got children reading books - big, fat books without pictures at that. Can't argue with that: and maybe they will learn something about sheer reading stamina in the process. But it's all too easy.

The popular writer whose style is most similar is, it suddenly occurs to me, Jeffrey Archer (all those dead adverbs). All that paper, all those trees felled, all those words ... surely Rowling could have chosen some better ones, or put them together in a more exciting way?

She has, in her grasp, the power to galvanise minds instead of reeling out cliché after cliché. Will The Deathly Hallows do this? I hope so. But I fear not.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/20..._is_the_p.html

[Killearn Kitties]

That's a bit of a snotty review there from The Guardian.

I just can't believe this. I got home tonight and found a note behind the door from the Killearn Co-op. They are opening at midnight on Friday for the launch of the new and final Harry Potter novel. Staff will be wearing costumes, customers can join in the fun. There will be a Harry Potter tunnel which kids can enter (at midnight??), with great effects inside. After exiting the tunnel, there will be samples of witches brew and wizards treats!

Bear in mind that Killearn is a teeny place, and I can't help but feel that the staff will outnumber the customers!

[mrspunkysmom]

I agree. What's wrong with a simply written book? There is an academic snobbery that suggests that any book not written as if the author swallowed a dictionary isn't worth the mention.

The books were written as children's book and in a certain style. I'm reading "Who killed Albus Dumbledore" tonight, a collection of online writings at the various chat groups by some of JKR's biggest fans. John Granger, an english teacher, edits the book for clarity. His own article is well written and is intended for academic discussion, yet is readable. He likes her style. The books success are not so much about her style or writing skill, but about her ability to weave a tale with clues wihtout giving away the ending.

I suspect that student reading has increased thanks to JKR. Walk into a childrens book section and just look.

When I was in college, my piano instuctor was a snob. In her view, the only true instruments were voice, piano, organ, and the strings. All other instruments serve to compliment the aforementioned tools. Yikes, I changed majors.

As for buying from the book store. Some families can't afford it if it isn't cheap.

I can't wait until tomorrow night.

[Miss Z]

Harry Potter's big con is the prose
Nicholas Lezard

A nine-year-old might feel quite pleased with the writing in the Harry Potter books. It's pretty embarrassing coming from an adult.

It is time to make a stand against Harry Potter. A futile stand, no death or glory involved: just popping my head over the trenches so it can be mowed off by the vast, unstoppable juggernaut of popular acclaim before I have begun to open my mouth.

Firstly: if you're going to buy her book, don't buy it for half price at a supermarket. As an example of a world gone mad, you couldn't do much better than this: a writer whose sales have actually fulfilled a publisher's wildest dreams is indirectly responsible for large-scale misery among independent bookstores. This is not JK Rowling's fault. It's a consequence of the deregulation of the book market.

Tesco, say, sells the new Potter for about the same price as two tins of beans, in the hope that the mug(gle)s who do so will be convinced that everything in the shop must be marvellous value. Meanwhile, Mrs Betty Cardigan who runs the Lovely Bookshop Round the Corner has to grit her teeth and lose money every time she sells a copy if she is to compete, without being able to sell toilet paper or sushi to make up the difference. If you must buy the book, go to Mrs Cardigan's and, even if it is at a discount, insist on paying full price.

But whether you should buy the book at all is another matter. For I have come, with some regret, to this conclusion: their style is toxic. And this is Rowling's fault. I know that I am anticipating what the style of the latest book will be in advance of actually seeing it, but really, I don't think I'm going out on a limb here. Of course, if she has turned into a first-class writer with her forthcoming Potter book, I will happily, no, joyously, eat my words.

But until then, we have to swallow hers. And for all that she is gifted enough in devising popular scenarios, the words on the page are flat. I think it was Verlaine who said that he could never write a novel because he would have to write, at some point, something like "the count walked into the drawing-room" - not a scruple that can have bothered JK Rowling, who is happy enough writing the most pedestrian descriptive prose.

Here, from page 324 of The Order of the Phoenix, to give you a typical example, are six consecutive descriptions of the way people speak. "...said Snape maliciously," "... said Harry furiously", " ... he said glumly", "... said Hermione severely", "... said Ron indignantly", " ... said Hermione loftily". Do I need to explain why that is such second-rate writing?

If I do, then that means you're one of the many adults who don't have a problem with the retreat into infantilism that your willing immersion in the Potter books represents. It doesn't make you a bad or silly person. But if you have the patience to read it without noticing how plodding it is, then you are self-evidently someone on whom the possibilities of the English language are largely lost.

This is the kind of prose that reasonably intelligent nine-year-olds consider pretty hot stuff, if they're producing it themselves; for a highly-educated woman like Rowling to knock out the same kind of material is, shall we say, somewhat disappointing.

Children exposed to this kind of writing aren't learning anything new about words, or being stretched in any way; as Harold Bloom said, they're not going to be inspired to go off and read the Alice books, or any other enduring classic.

People go hoopla because they're delighted that Rowling has got children reading books - big, fat books without pictures at that. Can't argue with that: and maybe they will learn something about sheer reading stamina in the process. But it's all too easy.

The popular writer whose style is most similar is, it suddenly occurs to me, Jeffrey Archer (all those dead adverbs). All that paper, all those trees felled, all those words ... surely Rowling could have chosen some better ones, or put them together in a more exciting way?

She has, in her grasp, the power to galvanise minds instead of reeling out cliché after cliché. Will The Deathly Hallows do this? I hope so. But I fear not.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/20..._is_the_p.html

I do have to say I agree in a way. I love JKR's idea, but her literary techniques are nothing compared to that of the classic authors such as C.S Lewis, and even modern ones such as Philip Pullman. His 'Dark Materials' triology is so much more gripping and deep than all the HP books put together, and yet he still wrote them for a young audience. I will still read 'The Deathly Hallows' and will enjoy the plot, but NOT the way it is written.

Maybe I should become a book critic rather than a vet.

[shais_mom]

But seeings that the woman got her start writing ideas down in a coffee shop on napkins (so I've heard) I think she should be right down tickled!

[DrKym]

But seeings that the woman got her start writing ideas down in a coffee shop on napkins (so I've heard) I think she should be right down tickled!

According to all I have found she did begin with that.as a bedtime story no less....havent read the whole thread, but I think she deserves everything!

[Babyboonie]

I do have to say I agree in a way. I love JKR's idea, but her literary techniques are nothing compared to that of the classic authors such as C.S Lewis, and even modern ones such as Philip Pullman. His 'Dark Materials' triology is so much more gripping and deep than all the HP books put together, and yet he still wrote them for a young audience. I will still read 'The Deathly Hallows' and will enjoy the plot, but NOT the way it is written.

Maybe I should become a book critic rather than a vet.

I too agree in some ways. I have read all the books and have seen all the films..and have enjoyed them. However, the style of writing is simple and yes the words are somewhat flat on the page.....but for an easy, not have to think too much read, they are great entertainment.

For those that haven't read the books but have seen the films and weren't impressed...you really should try the books. Due to thickness of the more recent books a lot of the detail was missed out in the films - which especially bugged me in the newly released film (Order of the Phoenix). I felt too many little, but quite important, parts were missed out grrrrr.

[Pembroke_Corgi]

I do have to say I agree in a way. I love JKR's idea, but her literary techniques are nothing compared to that of the classic authors such as C.S Lewis, and even modern ones such as Philip Pullman. His 'Dark Materials' triology is so much more gripping and deep than all the HP books put together, and yet he still wrote them for a young audience. I will still read 'The Deathly Hallows' and will enjoy the plot, but NOT the way it is written.

Maybe I should become a book critic rather than a vet.

I agree, Philip Pullman's "Dark Materials" is vastly superior to the HP series (and I really enjoyed the HP series!). I have to disagree that Lewis is more gripping than Rowling though. I never read the Chronicles of Narnia as a child (I could never get into them), and when I had to read them for a Children's Lit class in college I found them to be rather dull (just my opinion!) and I think Lewis actually underestimated the abilities of children, as most of the work seems to be a bit dumbed-down. However, I was able to read Harry Potter as an adult and I was still very interested (though the first few books are a bit simple).

[Karen]

If you find Harry Potter a bit too, well, "good" a character, try Artemis Fowl! (by Eoin Cowfer) Quicker and more wicked!

[Suki Wingy]

I have to agree on Rowling's writing style, but the universe she vreated is amazing. That's why I also read a whole lot of fanfiction.

[lady_zana]

If you find Harry Potter a bit too, well, "good" a character, try Artemis Fowl! (by Eoin Cowfer) Quicker and more wicked!

I LOVE Artemis Fowl! - especially the first ones! I like Harry Potter as well but I have a *thing* for the bad boys! Whenever anyone tells me they enjoy HP, I tell them to read Artemis Fowl - it's Harry Potter if Malfoy was the star!

[Trisst]

I agree, Philip Pullman's "Dark Materials" is vastly superior to the HP series (and I really enjoyed the HP series!). I have to disagree that Lewis is more gripping than Rowling though. I never read the Chronicles of Narnia as a child (I could never get into them), and when I had to read them for a Children's Lit class in college I found them to be rather dull (just my opinion!) and I think Lewis actually underestimated the abilities of children, as most of the work seems to be a bit dumbed-down. However, I was able to read Harry Potter as an adult and I was still very interested (though the first few books are a bit simple).

I love both! HP and The dark Materials! I have and have read all the hp books and ive just finished the first of the dark materials series. And i agree. Lyras world beats Harry potters by far.