»Harry Potter compared to other literature«
|
|||
 I have read the first Harry Potter book and came away totally unimpressed. Having said that i have grown up with C.S Lewis and Tolkien. As my question states, do you think they are the great works they are proclaimed to be or just hype? i would say as childrens books they are good quality but not subtle works of genius as is regularly stated over here. I know everyone has their opinion on a work but i just cant understand the sweeping momentum these books have gained. Give me The Hobbit anyday  posted by Crossfade |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgEntertainment & SportsEntertainment & Art (Assorted topics)Harry Potter compared to other literature |
|
|||
 I love Tolkien's work; I have read LOTR every year since the first time I read it (I admit, that was only 5 years ago) and since then, I've also read the HOME, the Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and more...! I read the Hobbit when I was a lad, probably only 9 or 10 years old. At the time, I couldn't get through LOTR - too much for me, I expect. When I read it again, I was rereading it for the 'prologue' effect before reading LOTR for the first time. I was about 24 then, and I had a harder time reading through The Hobbit than I did LOTR, which I flew through! The Harry Potter books, I think, have such universal appeal because they are easy to read for all ages. They have something for everyone. I ask again, did you see the films? That's what convinced me that the books were worth reading. I think most people would agree that each of the books is better than the one before. So far, the same can be said of the movies, I think... If you only read the first one, I think there's a lot you must not have seen of the 'subtle genius' (if you will) of the subsequent volumes. For example, there is a brilliant bit of writing in the third book, which is something that is very difficult to pull off (I won't get into more detail, in case you decide to read it, or watch the upcoming film, so you're not spoiled)! I read the Narnia books again recently; I really didn't enjoy them (except The Last Battle) nearly as much, as an adult, as I do Harry Potter. *shrugs* 
[ Added: 31 May 2004, 22:23 ] There is obviously some difference between the versions published here in the US, and your versions in the UK... I haven't read the UK versions of any of the first four. I got book five in both versions, and the differences in that book are fewer, I understand, than they have been in the others. ...Consider: Scholastic evidently thought that 'Philosopher's Stone' wouldn't sell, so they changed it to 'Sorcerer's Stone.' Loads of Brit slang and indigenous British phrases have been 'translated' in US versions. Again, having not read the UK versions of the first four, I have no idea how 'accurate' those translations are! I think a lot of the American appeal comes from the fact that we love you Brits, for whatever reason:  The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Monty Python, dozens of television shows and movies we have 'Amerkinized'... even though we were once under British rule, and fought a brutal and bloody fight to get out of it... Americans forget stuff like that, you know... Like the fact that we gave Osama bin Laden the training he uses to lead his terrorists... Or the inspiration we gave the French to have their own revolution, and the subsequent aid they have given us in war after war, and yet, when they disagree with us in Iraq, we start calling French fries 'Freedom fries' in protest (never mind the fact that French fries ['chips,' that is] are really Belgian). Americans are easily persuaded to like, or dislike, whatever we are told.
That being said, American KIDS these days are pretty savvy... I think the writing of Jo Rowling is good; I think that kids think that it is good... If it wasn't, the kids wouldn't be so keen. So, yeah, I think it's good stuff. The hype is well-deserved.
posted by annaerullo |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 well...he's okay...but draco malfoy is MUCH better  . a cold-blooded hottie...what a oxymoron and a perfect combo. pureblood and proud of it!
haha ...ok, about the BOOKS: first four are good...I especially like the third one, because it ends more differently than the others do. but the fifth one seems like it is very random, like j.k. rowling just put stuff in there to make the book longer. i like the detention part though...pretty darn creative  . posted by nocturnal_anonymous |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
here's what i said in a previous post (about the fifth book): Quote: but the fifth one seems like it is very random, like j.k. rowling just put stuff in there to make the book longer. I like the detention part though...pretty darn creative . as for the cast of the movie, I think Dan Radcliffe is not a very good actor, but Rupert Grint is okay. Emma Watson and Tom Felton are definitely pretty good . Dang, did you see how tall Rupert grew this year? I think he must have grown at least a foot, hitting his growth spurt... 
posted by nocturnal_anonymous |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Hrmmm, it's not nearly as nicely written as Lord of the Rings and I say Lord of the Rings because alot of people wouldn't know anymore fantasy books then Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings ( nothing to care about really, 99% of fantasy books are fairly crap.) I strongly recommend the 'A Wizard of Earthsea' books. They're fantastic. I do add the HP series is above average compared to the countless piece of shit fantasy books out there (not many good ones, but the good ones are fantastic.) Sadly I'm being dragged along to see the new HP movie... women can be unscrupulous  posted by hungarian kid |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 I think HP and the Lord of the Rings are just different. Different times, different people. Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece. Well written, good story, nice characters, very elaborate, a whole new world. And besides one of the first of its type. Who wrote fantasy before? And it inspired people - and after it ever other fantasy book was compared to Lord of the Rings, which sure looked better because you have too many good things put together in it. So I would say HP looks very well compared to it. It will be something close to LotR I think as far as its influence is concerned. Lord of the R is good but for certain people - for some it may seem a bit too old fashioned. HP is something new what most children would understand. LoR is more or less before human history, and HP is happening here and now, just watch out... Of course it's much more simple then LoR, you don't have to remember all the different people and how come the Ring ended up in the river. The simplicity may be bad, but not in the case of HP. As to other fantasy books... yeah, too little good ones. I once liked Anne McCafrey ♣, with all the dragons and stuff, but I have no idea how I would have liked it now, a few years later. And somehow I am sure that even a few years later I will still enjoy Harry Potter. posted by mymla |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Look, if you are 5 years old I'm sure Harry Potter is fantastic. But if you look at the childrens books I read as a child, Dahl and C.S. Lewis write much better than J.K. Rowling does. They use fancy imagery and description which Rowling simply does not bother with. I expect books to be interesting and the Rowling books are just boring to anyone with a reasonable reading level. Quite frankly I'd rather read Charlie And The Chocolate Factory again anyday! posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote: Dahl and C.S. Lewis write much better than J.K. Rowling does. They use fancy imagery and description which Rowling simply does not bother with. Yes sure, I agree. On the other hand, in Lewis's world for me as a kid there was no place. It was a world created by him, strange, facsinating, wonderful, but you are a stranger to it. Rowling doesn't bother too much with descriptions, true, but the world in her book is familiar at least - everyone can find a place for himself. Maybe I am wrong but an average kid would chose a HP book, or? Quote: I expect books to be interesting and the Rowling books are just boring to anyone with a reasonable reading level I wonder what is considered a reasonable reading level here. I suppose if you grew up with Lewis Rowling might seem a little too simplistic. Maybe for me part of the charm is the English language. I have no idea how an Englishman reads them, but if English is a second language, they are really fun to read. posted by mymla |
|||
|
|||
 Register Log in |
The time now is 24 May 2012, 22:28 php B.B. |