[Davies]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

On the contrary, I'd think someone who didn't like a tremendously popular book would go out of his way to make it known!

Me! Me! (waves hand in air)

I must admit, the only Rowling I've actually read were some extended excerpts that were printed in the paper when the very first book came out and the whole Harry Potter bandwagon was created. I've also seen the first three or four movies as they've been shown on Sky Movies.

I'm just not impressed at all with any of it, and that's apart from my instinctive recoiling from anything that's over-popular. The storylines are nothing but cliches, and Rowling isn't a very good writer.

I predict that, now it's all over, the hype will die away (especially after the last movie version has been made too), and in a couple of decades it will be practically forgotten about. It's not going to end up a classic of children's literature.

[bigjko]

What do you base that opinion on? Other's opinions? Maybe I've understood you incorrectly, but you seem to say you've never read the books?

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Davies

...the only Rowling I've actually read were some extended excerpts that were printed in the paper when the very first book came out and the whole Harry Potter bandwagon was created. I've also seen the first three or four movies as they've been shown on Sky Movies.

That's what she bases her opinion on. Now, whether that makes it a valid opinion is up to you.

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by Davies

The storylines are nothing but cliches, and Rowling isn't a very good writer.

Anyone who hasn't read the books, and can say ^ has absolutely no validity for me.

FGM

[Giligan]

However, ^ opinion may be that merely of a fan, and therefore biased.

I've never read the books, incidentally, but I do believe that even an excerpt is enough to conclude on its author's entire writing style, unless the writing is inconsistent.

[Squinky]

Well, her writing style is admittedly nothing to write home about, but the way in which she's crafted her story is more what appeals to me, personally. *shrugs*

On the other hand, Tolkien has an excellent writing style, but I just can't get through any of his work without falling asleep. This goes for the movies, too.

[Davies]

I was challenged to voice a dissenting opinion in this fan-thread, and I did. It's just my own personal opinion, and I'm not out to persuade anybody of anything. If you enjoy reading the Harry Potter books, great. I would never want to deprive anyone of deriving enjoyment from any book.

But for my part, I think I know enough about writing, and have read a large enough sample of Rowling's prose, to form a considered opinion of her writing style. Unless, as Giligan says, her writing is inconsistent or has changed considerably over the course of the series.

And although I haven't read the books, I know enough about the overall form of the stories to recognise them as a combination of:
* boarding-school adventure (school chums, classes, teachers, pranks, feasts, sports, rivalries)
* stock magical fantasy (wizards, spells, broomsticks, ghosts, dragons and other standard creatures)
* the despised orphan child growing up to discover he is the Chosen One
* the battle between pure Good and ultimate Evil, in which Good may be forced to make sacrifices but must ultimately triumph

These are all standard off-the-shelf ingredients, and the last three occur together all the time. As far as I can see, the only original idea was to combine them with the boarding-school formula.

If there's another major theme that I've missed, then I would be delighted to learn about it.

EDIT: I have just realised a fifth theme: the idea that there is a magical world intertwined with the mundane one. That is, that anyone you meet on the street might actually be a wizard involved in mighty magical affairs that you will never know. I tip my hat and give Rowling full credit for this one. I can understand its appeal, especially to the target age group, and I acknowledge that it is essentially original. Is this the part of the series that appeals to the readers here?

Originally Posted by Squinky

Well, her writing style is admittedly nothing to write home about, but the way in which she's crafted her story is more what appeals to me, personally.

I'd love to hear more. How are the stories crafted to make them appealing?

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Davies

I'd love to hear more. How are the stories crafted to make them appealing?

Hmm. I should mention that I first read the series because the books were lying around my house; I believe it was my brother who was reading them. I'm the kind of person who actually likes reading children's and young adult literature out of morbid curiosity, particularly since such books are usually very easy to get through. Maybe it's also because I myself have a passing interest in developing edutainment games sometime in my future.

Still, I believe this is the only series of children's literature I know of in which the books seem to mature with their audience, touching on deeper and darker themes with each installment, rather than staying at the same level and causing people to grow out of them. Heck, I've even grown out of many of the "adult" fantasy series I read as a teenager. The fact that HP still manages to captivate my interest after all these years is quite amazing, I daresay.

Furthermore, it's not so much the originality of ideas that interests me in this case (yes, I hate good vs. evil stories, too), but their execution. As I said earlier, I love many of the secondary characters, and how the apparent heroes have tragic flaws and the apparent villains have redeeming qualities. Also, the books are just plain fun, and although I understand how lowbrow that can be for some, there are times I just like to kick back and be taken on a madcap adventure, just to take a break from all that moral philosophy and feminist literature I keep reading.

Finally, the very fact that these books interest such a wide demographic of people fascinates me in and of itself. Mainstream popularity isn't a goal I particularly strive for in my own work; however, I certainly admire those who can pull it off, especially if they can suck me in during the process, blatantly non-conformist as I am.

But then, bear in mind that I am often said to be lacking in taste, so whatever "captivates my interest" may not be what captivates everyone else's. Take my opinions as you will.

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by Davies

I was challenged to voice a dissenting opinion in this fan-thread, and I did. It's just my own personal opinion, and I'm not out to persuade anybody of anything. If you enjoy reading the Harry Potter books, great. I would never want to deprive anyone of deriving enjoyment from any book.

But for my part, I think I know enough about writing, and have read a large enough sample of Rowling's prose, to form a considered opinion of her writing style. Unless, as Giligan says, her writing is inconsistent or has changed considerably over the course of the series.

And although I haven't read the books, I know enough about the overall form of the stories to recognise them as a combination of:
* boarding-school adventure (school chums, classes, teachers, pranks, feasts, sports, rivalries)
* stock magical fantasy (wizards, spells, broomsticks, ghosts, dragons and other standard creatures)
* the despised orphan child growing up to discover he is the Chosen One
* the battle between pure Good and ultimate Evil, in which Good may be forced to make sacrifices but must ultimately triumph

These are all standard off-the-shelf ingredients, and the last three occur together all the time. As far as I can see, the only original idea was to combine them with the boarding-school formula.

Aren't most books more or less formulaic, even many good books? And I don't mean books that are so called "high literature". Besides, above those layers there's a whole sublayer of original stuff: Diagon Alley, Severus Snape, Dementors, Patronuses, Death Eaters, and so on. In a same fashion you could say Lord of the Rings consists of... well, many of the things you mentioned above, and a few more cliches.

I would leave Harry Potter films out of the "are Harry Potter books good"-discussion, because they are, well, films, - a derivative and quite independent work.

[MoriartyL]

To me, the most appealing thing about the series is how it shows all this wacky magical coolness from an ordinary-Joe perspective. Sure, it's got lots of clichés and reheated concepts, but it grounds them all in this soap-opera-ish world which you can relate to. So when I read the books, I find myself sucked into this whole world, as though I were going to school with them. Maybe I'm not describing this clearly enough.

Personally, when I read a Harry Potter book I'm constantly imagining myself playing Harry in an adventure-game sort of way. He gets a clue to some puzzle, so as they offer their theories I think of mine, and wait for it to be used in the puzzle. There are all sorts of cool inventory items (the map, the cloak, all the learned spells we've read of), which need to be used at the right places.

Many other fantasy books have tread on almost the exact same ground, but what Harry Potter does is it lays out all the rules and areas and concepts really clearly. So the reader is playing along with the whole thing in his head, because he can. We don't love the books because of the character of Harry, because he's just a guy. Just a guy fortunate enough to find out about this magical world. But it didn't have to be him. It could be anyone. It could be you, or me. He's just the avatar.

So what we all love about the books (if I may speak for everyone for a moment) isn't the plot, which indeed has been done better many times, or the characters, who aren't all that brilliant. No, what we love about the books is that Hogwarts experience. We all wish we could go there, because it's so simple to get so powerful and have so many adventures as it's set up here! But we can't, so we read about Harry and watch his little Peter-Parker-ish soap opera and watch his triumphs and defeats and his resourcefulness and his mistakes and know that that could be us, if only we knew how to get there.

Have I explained that well enough now?




Oh, and incidentally: The movies left out this crucial element. You don't get the sense of what it must be like to live at Hogwarts. So they're really nothing more than mediocre fantasy movies. I think it would work better as either a series of adventure games (though there's no adventure game writer I'd trust to not screw that up) or a TV show. I so hope they make a Hogwarts TV show (with new characters) after the movies finish. See, the problem with a movie is there's not enough time. You're so focused on getting all the plot in there, and getting all the characters in there, and getting all the themes in there, that there's no time to get the experience in there. A TV show would have enough time, though.

[Ninja Dodo]

It's been a while since I read book 5 and 6 and there was something that confused me about the ending. When Harry says that the mastery of the elder wand had passed to Draco Malfoy though he "never laid a hand on it" what is he referring to? I can't remember.

Otherwise loved it.

[Squinky]

It was referring to when Draco expelliarmused Dumbledore right before he was supposed to kill him (but instead, Snape did it for him). The expelliarmus in and of itself meant that Draco had won the duel; therefore, he had mastery of the Elder Wand.

[Ninja Dodo]

Aaah... Thank you much. I've got the urge to go back and read the old books again now, but maybe I'll just go see the new movie.

I was leaning towards not doing so, because their visual interpretation of Umbridge struck me as very different from the book and I didn't care too much for Gambon's new Dumbledore... too much shouting, lacking the serene playfulness and gravitas of Richard Harris. The whole of film four just felt like a hurried collage of scenes from the book rather than a coherent story.

... but perhaps I will give this new one a chance.

[Spiwak]

I finished it last Tuesday. Read the Brit edition (yes!). I liked it a lot, and actually found the "aimless" exploring well-done despite all those "and time passed" moments. Meandering enough for us to really feel like we might be meandering with them, but still covered with enough action points that it didn't bore.

Anyways, I am with the boat of people that agree that the epilogue was lacking. Add an epilogue, fine, but at least say something that wasn't already obvious. The only meaningful part of it was the explanation of Albus's name. Things we should have learned include: what the kids are up to now (Neville being the only one covered....a professor!), what happened to the wizarding world or how much the events we've just read affected it (I mean really, how much of Hogwarts was destroyed, anyway?). I liked that it focused on their kids and them as parents as that seemed to be the big dichotomy in the books other than good vs. evil, but it was just so narrow and not terribly well-written.

I was tearing up after Harry experienced Snape's pensieve. Got the feeling that Harry never had control to begin with, that his entire destiny was determined long before he was even born and that it was basically punishing him. I was thinking Rowling might be saying something about power and how nobody has any, but then Harry was given the choice to come back to life and I guess redeemed that notion. In favor for a ridiculously obvious Christ figure, but I'll let that pass. Just goes to show how silly those reactionary Christian groups were a few years back.

In any case, it's some of the best fluff I've ever read.

[MoriartyL]

My mother just finished the book and was confused about something. I don't remember the answer, so I'm hoping someone here might. How did Neville get the Gryffindor's sword to kill Nagini, when the sword was in the possession of goblins?

[ATMachine]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

My mother just finished the book and was confused about something. I don't remember the answer, so I'm hoping someone here might. How did Neville get the Gryffindor's sword to kill Nagini, when the sword was in the possession of goblins?

The Sorting Hat (which was once the property of Godric Gryffindor himself) summoned the sword to aid Neville, a true Gryffindor. Remember how Voldemort put the hat on Neville's head just before Neville killed Nagini?

The same thing happened in Book 2, when Harry was in the Chamber of Secrets. He had the hat and needed a weapon to kill the basilisk, and the sword materialized inside the hat.

[MoriartyL]

Yes, but how did the Sorting Hat steal the sword from goblins?

[Starflux]

Through magic.

[Steve Ince]

Although I enjoyed reading the book for completeness' sake, I think it's by far the weakest of the series and a poor one to end on. The whole "Snape is really a good guy" was telegraphed so far back I thought she'd have given us a decent twist on it.

I also think the plotting was weak, which is why she relied on way too many instances of luck and coincidence to move the story forward. The whole business with Malfoy and the wand smacked of deus ex machina.

Although I felt that some of the deaths were a bit gratuitous, it was only the death of Tonks that actually got to me in any way.

Strangely, I rather liked the epilogue. Though it was clear from early in the series that Ron and Hermione were going to end up together.

[Trumgottist]

I liked it quite a bit. I also noticed that - unlike the previous books - I couldn't read it for too long. After a chapter or two, I had to put the book down. It got too intense for me. I can't say if it's because I have changed or if it's due to her being a better writer, but I'm guessing it's both.

I won't attempt to say much more about it, but will instead point to what my favourite reviewer had to say about it. He says it better than I could have, and I agree.