NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think of Harry Potter? I don't like the books, I think they are long and boring. Its like reading some dumb book completely based off of dungeons & dragons.

I also hate the main protagonist, a whiny little kid with coke-bottle glasses and unkept hair that probably has lice running in and out.

So, what do you think of Harry Potter? Please rate the franchise(books, movies, etc.) or the character.:)

eh. I can enjoy it if I let myself. Writing sucks...

Don't care.

Though I kinda wish there had been a hugely-successful series like that when I was a kid. I was looked at as an oddball for reading during recess. Aside from maybe the Little House on the Prairie series or the Hardy Boys, there wasn't really a set of books *everyone* had read.

Compared to alot of books that some people consider 'classics'? It's amazing.

I devour books of any sort, so I've read them all. My wife bought them and they were always laying around, so of course I had to pick them up. Entertaining enough to make me continue the series. I can definately see why kids get into them. Anything that will get a kid to turn off MTV for a bit gets a thumbs-up from me.

Give me Harry Potter over the dogshit Stephen King writes any day. Add to that terrible list the Wheel of Time, Sword of Truth, and a dozen other popular series.

Anything that will get a kid to turn off MTV for a bit gets a thumbs-up from me.
Agreed. *bows*

Give me Harry Potter over the dogshit Stephen King writes any day. Add to that terrible list the Wheel of Time, Sword of Truth, and a dozen other popular series.

I've never read any Stephen King ... though based on many of the movies I've seen based on his stories I've always been turned away from his stories.

I personally think that the Harry Potter books are well written and that they honestly deserve the attention they've received. Are they for everybody? No. But they really do appeal to a large cross-section of people -- which is something few books tend to do.

I've read them all and I don't understand the hype. There's nothing spectacular about them. The characters, the plot, even the writing style. It's pretty standard. It's not the worst crap in the universe (GOD MAKE MERCEDES LACKEY STOP WRITING! ARGH!) but there are a lot of other books out there that don't get half the recognition but are much more creatively written. I would personally attribute the success of it to good timing in the revitalized fantasy genre and marketing to children.

It certainly beats the hell out of Dan Brown.

It certainly beats the hell out of Dan Brown.

...and Michael Crichton (on a professional level, of course)

Well I never read the books, but I liked the movies so have watched them. From what I hear, as far as fantasy goes their are better choices, Tolkien, Feist just to name two.

I've read them all and I don't understand the hype. There's nothing spectacular about them. The characters, the plot, even the writing style. It's pretty standard. It's not the worst crap in the universe (GOD MAKE MERCEDES LACKEY STOP WRITING! ARGH!) but there are a lot of other books out there that don't get half the recognition but are much more creatively written. I would personally attribute the success of it to good timing in the revitalized fantasy genre and marketing to children.

It's no one's fault but your own that the only Lackey you've read is Valdemar (And probably only the Queen's Own at that). Her Modern Fantasy Series is actually excellent.

Never read any of the books nor seen any of the movies, so my opinion is "meh".

It's pretty cliched. The first few books were just standard adventures, while the later books just lifted chunks from Tolkien and tried to stay fresh by killing off characters.

It's not terrible, but by default, any children's fantasy books lack depth because they can't explore nearly as many themes and concepts as adult's books can.

EDIT: In fact, the early books also lift from Tolkien. Voldemort just SCREAMS Sauron. Quirrel is Theoden.

It's pretty cliched. The first few books were just standard adventures, while the later books just lifted chunks from Tolkien and tried to stay fresh by killing off characters.

It's not terrible, but by default, any children's fantasy books lack depth because they can't explore nearly as many themes and concepts as adult's books can.

EDIT: In fact, the early books also lift from Tolkien. Voldemort just SCREAMS Sauron. Quirrel is Theoden.

Are we reading the same books? Just because Rowling manages to package her commentary in more accessible prose does not mean that it is not present.

Are we reading the same books? Just because Rowling manages to package her commentary in more accessible prose does not mean that it is not present.

You can't explore adult themes like drug use, sexual relations, murder, suicide, etc. in children's books. Not properly, anyway.

You can't explore adult themes like drug use, sexual relations, murder, suicide, etc. in children's books. Not properly, anyway.

Murder? Uh... Yeah, she does. Drug use? Not directly, but through Winky, it is certainly discussed.

However, if you mean that, I can't see why it matters. She certainly does discuss a number of philosophical points.

Murder? Uh... Yeah, she does. Drug use? Not directly, but through Winky, it is certainly discussed.

She sweetens up murder, though. There's never any underlying philosophy; everyone just gets killed by the bad guy. The exception is Dumbledore, and even then, he WANTED to die.

I have no problem with it as a children's book. As a children's book, it is of reasonable quality. However if we judge it by the quality of adult books it fails miserably: the characters are two dimensional and stereotypical, the plot is cliche ridden and it offers no real depth.

I have no problem with it as a children's book. As a children's book, it is of reasonable quality. However if we judge it by the quality of adult books it fails miserably: the characters are two dimensional and stereotypical, the plot is cliche ridden and it offers no real depth.

Exactly.

She sweetens up murder, though. There's never any underlying philosophy; everyone just gets killed by the bad guy. The exception is Dumbledore, and even then, he WANTED to die.

You are entirely wrong. In short, the Potter books include discussions of:

1) The nature of Good and Evil and Moral Relativism
2) The nature of death
3) Political parellels
4) The nature of Moral Agency

And a whole shitload of others that I can't be arsed to think up.

Well, if you've got kids queueing up at book shop doors for hours on end until midnight waiting for your book, you've got to be doing something right.

You are entirely wrong. In short, the Potter books include discussions of:

1) The nature of Good and Evil and Moral Relativism

Oh, they do not. Everyone is good and evil simple for the point of being good and evil. Villains have no motivation other than "world domination".

2) The nature of death

What nature of death? Characters just die.

I can't discuss the other two. I also don't know what "moral agency" means.

I don't know the Potter books intimately, but I do know enough to know that they're pretty basic literature.

They're CHILDREN'S books. I don't see why people LOOK for deeper meaning in them.

Well, if you've got kids queueing up at book shop doors for hours on end until midnight waiting for your book, you've got to be doing something right.

It's LotR for kids. I could probably write something similar, except that I'd probably go too in depth with themes and concepts. And it probably wouldn't be very well written either.

It's LotR for kids. I could probably write something similar, except that I'd probably go too in depth with themes and concepts. And it probably wouldn't be very well written either.

Not really, I don't think LoTR or Simarillion can be compared to some of the fantasy garbage around these days.

Oh, they do not. Everyone is good and evil simple for the point of being good and evil. Villains have no motivation other than "world domination".

Bullcrap. In the second book, Voldemort adresses Moral Relativism in the Chamber. In the fourth and fifth books we get a look at what causes evil through Voldemort's background. We have the discussion of whether evil is inate through Albus Dumbledore in the (I think) second book. We have a discussion of good in the "easy versus right" dichotomy in 4? 5? One of them. Yes, they are children's books, but the discussions still occur.


What nature of death? Characters just die.

No, not really. It's heavily discussed, especially in 5 and 6.

I don't know the Potter books intimately, but I do know enough to know that they're pretty basic literature.

They're CHILDREN'S books. I don't see why people LOOK for deeper meaning in them.

Not much looking needed there. It's pretty transparent, if you can actually read for details.

Bullcrap. In the second book, Voldemort adresses Moral Relativism in the Chamber. In the fourth and fifth books we get a look at what causes evil through Voldemort's background. We have the discussion of whether evil is inate through Albus Dumbledore in the (I think) second book. We have a discussion of good in the "easy versus right" dichotomy in 4? 5? One of them. Yes, they are children's books, but the discussions still occur.

Easy vs right is not an intimate discussion. And Voldemort is not a particularly deep villain.

Then again, I don't think I've ever seen a deep villain. 'Cept stuff from Shakespeare.

Gah. *is irked*

I like the Harry Potter books a lot and I'm not in the habit of reading bad books.

With the exposure and number of sold copies the Potter books have, there are bound to be many people who've read it and don't like it. However, way too often the criticism lavished on the books seems much less fueled by the urge to tell the world "But... but... these books suck and let me tell you why!" than by the urge to simply be contrarian because so many other people like them and what so many people like has to suck by default, so the true rebel individualist would NEVAR admit to reading such tripe.

It's not Kafka, no, but it's an exceptionally well-told story. And I'd be interested to know if the ones crying "It's badly written, one-dimensional tripe!" actually keep their own private reading on Kafka-level throughout and if so, why they even bother to get upset about a children's book bestseller on the internet instead of just rolling their eyes at the unwashed masses and returning to their reading.

The books are ok, lots of good ideas and interesting background, but saddly a few inconsistencies and farfetched things that spoils it a bit. But still above average quality, IMHO.

The character is all nice, he's what I like in heroes: someone that I can have sympathy for, who does some great things, but who also has weakness, flaws and not the best in everything... I'm not too fond of perfect super-heroes.

Movies are ok too, but saddly much less rich than the books, they should have done 3 hours movies for each book, at least, because it's really "downsized" version of the books, and that sucks. But with the ~2 hours constraint, it's not as bad as it could have been.

You are entirely wrong. In short, the Potter books include discussions of:

1) The nature of Good and Evil and Moral Relativism
2) The nature of death
3) Political parellels
4) The nature of Moral Agency

And a whole shitload of others that I can't be arsed to think up.

There is also a very interesting covering of the "means justify the end" problem, with the actions of the Ministry compared to the ones of the Order. I think those books enlight quite well how easy it is, when you are on the "good side" but in a very hard situation, to become nearly as bad as the ones you oppose. The discussions about the usage of Dementors by the Ministry and the Kiss are also interesting, in this regard.

The character is all nice, he's what I like in heroes: someone that I can have sympathy for, who does some great things, but who also has weakness, flaws and not the best in everything... I'm not too fond of perfect super-heroes.

Good, then you'll like my characters. They're idiots.

Also, as far as the character Harry Potter goes, damn. He's just one big cliche.

The books are ok, lots of good ideas and interesting background, but saddly a few inconsistencies and farfetched things that spoils it a bit. But still above average quality, IMHO.

The character is all nice, he's what I like in heroes: someone that I can have sympathy for, who does some great things, but who also has weakness, flaws and not the best in everything... I'm not too fond of perfect super-heroes.
I agree. I'm re-reading the books right now so the inconsistencies and farfetched things are more noticeable because you notice much more how she sets up things because you already know where she's going. It's obvious that there are a lot of things she only thought of while writing the books, so for example things that are supposed to always have been an integral part of Hogwarts are only introduced in, say, the 4th book because she realized she needed them as a plot point and quickly makes up a sometimes not wholly convincing story around them.

But seeing how there is simply no way she could have planned out every detail of all the books before starting in on writing the first one, I can forgive that.

And I have to say that there are much, much shorter books that are far, far worse in terms of inconsistencies.

No, not really. It's heavily discussed, especially in 5 and 6.

Like...what, "omg Cedric's dead now!"?

Good, then you'll like my characters. They're idiots.

I would definitely not class Harry in "idiots" category. For a teenager, he's much more reasonable and smart than the average - and very resilient to all what happens to him. Not perfect, but no teenager (and even no adult !) would be able to face all what he faced without making mistakes and sometimes acting stupidly.

But seeing how there is simply no way she could have planned out every detail of all the books before starting in on writing the first one

Actually, she totally could have. but y'know, whatever. Continue.

But seeing how there is simply no way she could have planned out every detail of all the books before starting in on writing the first one, I can forgive that.

IMO, you should always work out the greater plot before the little details.

I would definitely not class Harry in "idiots" category. For a teenager, he's much more reasonable and smart than the average - and very resilient to all what happens to him. Not perfect, but no teenager (and even no adult !) would be able to face all what he faced without making mistakes and sometimes acting stupidly.

Harry Potter's not an idiot. MY characters are. They're about the most ordinary, ragged group of "heroes" you'll ever see. I deliberately go out to make flaws, then put characters on top of them.

But seeing how there is simply no way she could have planned out every detail of all the books before starting in on writing the first one, I can forgive that.

Yeah, I understand that (quite well as a DM myself who is forced to do such things in my RPG campaigns), and I forgive that easily.

But there are still farfetched things that I can hardly explain: for example, why did they put so much clues about getting past the obstacles to read the Stone in tome 1 ? Take the potion obstacle, why put hints ? Those allowed to go through should know which potion to take... putting some hints just make the stealing easier.

Same for the tome 4, if all what the false Moody wanted is to make Harry touch a fake portkey, he could have done that much more easily by seeing him in private (for example during the night in which he took the Marauder's map, or just arranging to see him in private, quite easy once Harry trusts him), or even in Hogsmeade, so they avoid doing it under the nose of Dumbledore... but maybe I'm missing something there ;)

Harry Potter's not an idiot. MY characters are. They're about the most ordinary, ragged group of "heroes" you'll ever see. I deliberately go out to make flaws, then put characters on top of them.

Oh ... well, I didn't say I like idiots ;) I like unperfect heroes, but who are still heroes ;)

But there are still farfetched things that I can hardly explain: for example, why did they put so much clues about getting past the obstacles to read the Stone in tome 1 ? Take the potion obstacle, why put hints ? Those allowed to go through should know which potion to take... putting some hints just make the stealing easier.

It's the trap equivalent of the Stormtrooper Marksmanship School. That's something I try to avoid as well.

Oh ... well, I didn't say I like idiots ;) I like unperfect heroes, but who are still heroes ;)

They're not REALLY idiots, but they're pretty bad. It's hard to make characters that are convincingly flawed, yet don't fit the "unsuspecting, mild mannered hero" or "brooding antihero" stereotypes.