I have a good friend who always waits until after the mainstream craziness of something wears off before she reads it. For example, with Harry Potter, she didn't read the first book until after the 7th movie came out. She's reading Hunger Games currently, but waited until the 3rd book had come out to get past all the people talking about it. She has her own reasons for doing this, though. For her, personally, she can read the book with a more objective and open mind when it's not being talked about all the time, and she can form her own opinions and interpretations about it without being influenced as much by the surrounding media and friends' conversations. While I've never been that way, I can totally understand her line of reasoning. If someone isn't into mainstream-ness for reasons like that, I get it. I just get really annoyed when people get a superiority complex about it -- like if everyone else likes it, then they can't, because they're too good to share interests with the lowly proletariat.
Mallory that's the best way to explain why I didn't read the Harry Potter books. I also didn't watch Buffy when it was popular but waited till after it was over so as to avoid the hype. Plus I like watching or reading an entire work at once. Being able to read all seven Harry Potter books in a row was a wonderful experience.
My mum bought me Harry Potter when it first came out and I was pretty much hooked on it from the start. I thoroughly enjoyed them all.
I've read the Harry Potter books so many times I - almost - know them by heart. (same goes for the Twilight Saga, sadly but true)
I LOVE all the HP books and own all the movies. I think JKR deserves every billion she has from that series, I think they are all fantastic.
Now that I've finished reading the entire series, I can confidently say i agree with this, wholeheartedly!
Harry Potter Series, though I really liked the first 3 books, the time books when bulky, I found a unnecessary explanation of story. I liked Twilight too, but it was too slow pased for my liking. I didn't grow up by Harry Potter, but my sister did. She was very crazy about Harry Potter and I found it very amusing to rebuke her "Harry Potter and the dung" and so... Sorry If I went off topic. Yours, D.
I was a little skeptical towards the Harry Potter books at first because they seemed so over-hyped, but after reading the first one, I had to admit it was really good. I think Rowling's plots are a bit contrived, and her prose is only average, but her fictional world and characters make up for it.
I concur. Even though the plot is clever, at times it does feel forced. I did, however, find the books very entertaning up to now ( I finished Goblet of Fire a couple of days ago.).
For me Harry Potter is a classic fairy tale. Witches, wizards, morals that work through the ages and each of the main characters takes it in turns to be tied up and scream I think they deserve their place. I also didn't mind the first Twilight it is light and not hard to read. Barbara Cartland is one of the best selling authors ever and it is in a similar vein.
I am also a Harry Potter lover and not a Twilight-basher. I don't like that people try to compare them. I think HP is WAY better but that is just my opinion I guess. Twilight is good. The hysteria surrounded it annoys me though considering I have to wait a week to see the movies when the come out because screaming when Edward or Jacob come on screen is not my idea of a good time. (yes this happened to me when i went and saw Twlight) soooo pissed. I also like Hunger Games, hopefully the fans will control themselves, and Hollywood didn't destroy it.
I just realized there is a big plot hole in the series concerning a certain element near the end of the third book.
I still stubbornly refuse to even look at a Harry Potter-book, and I never will read them. to me they have two major flaws: 1. it's fantasy and 2. it's about a kid. which to me makes it a silly read for a grown up. Even as kid I found fantasy too silly and I'm sure not going to start reading it now. Seeing grown ups with HP books makes me want to LOL.
Not sure how is any different to reading Beowulf, about Greek Mythology or Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, Macbeth or Marlowe's Dr Faustus (sorry if I have the title slightly mixed up), but I don't have an issue reading junior fiction - the Gruffalo, Spy Dog, Cows in Action and Dinosaur Cove are just wonderful and right now I am rereading a lot of Enid Blyton, realising how much her style has influenced my own, my dialogue and descriptions are very similar.
I'm far too young for Harry Potter to have been a significant aspect of my childhood, but I did not regret the moment when I finally got around to reading the books. I do not think they are of extraordinary writing quality and I do not think Rowling is the best author out there, but I also think these aren't required elements for an enjoyable series. There was excellent worldbuilding and I find the entire reason I liked the books was the enchanting world of Hogwarts and the schoolish shenanigans that went on within its walls--to the point where I had to stop reading the seventh due to boredom! It's just not my kind of book, and not my kind of wizardry(I prefer Diane Duane, if you'd like to compare styles of magic.) I do think the books are overhyped in terms of literary quality, but it deserves every bit of attention in other ways. This is a bad habit of mine, and I'll tell you why I do it: I don't want to be associated with the rest of the fanbase. People have their reasons for liking things, and I have mine; only no one'll care to ask, and I'm paranoid of being grouped together with people of a different thought process. It is a bit silly, I'll admit, only it's fairly common.
I find it interesting that you can point out flaws in a book that you haven't read. Furthermore, I was not aware that it was possible for a whole genre to be a flaw. Clearly you don' like fantasy, but different people have different tastes and it's important to respect them. It is not uncommon for adults to read the Harry Potter series, as even Stephen King has praised the books. What I do find silly, however, is a well-read person using "LOL" as a verb.
I'm not afraid to admit it, but I never read the books when I was young, due to the fact of being too young to read them. I watched the movies first when I was a little kid and that's what drew me into the world. It takes a higher imagination to believe a book than a movie and I guess that's what poisoned my mind before I actually opened up to see how an image can sometimes not be as good as an imagination. If someone gives you a picture of a girl and a strawberry, there's much more possibilities than just a girl picking a strawberry to think about.
Those are not flaws. Those are preferences that you do not share. I am glad that you appear to realize this on some level, however. I'm not sure why that would strike you as funny. Have you never picked up a book or toy from your childhood out of nostalgia? Did it occur to you they may be revisiting it for sentimental reasons, or reading it the first time to see what they may be missing out on?
I agree with LTC. I believe you are pointing out your own dislike for it, not giving your opinion. I also shiver at the thought that you believe that adults with HP books in hand are funny. Fantasy is not a thing for only a child to enjoy, it carries us through life and provides escape into lands away from harsh reality.
Each to there own of course but I object to the implication that fantasy is for kids. It's absolutely not true.
Is a phenomerone. All those 10 year olds that read the books are now adults with rights. So dull. I understand, I had same attachment to Roger Hargreaves, the Mr. Men, Arthur Lowe. Bagpuss really...ok, you guys had Sesame Store. All those buck-toothed speccy kids with their weading, spoon fed by stepford mothers in floral dresses, they come back to me in nightmares. Well we're married and they run round the house, but is ok. Nobody spares a thought for the victims of this saccharine drip.
The first book came out when I was 10, but I avoided the hype until I was about 17 and decided to give it a chance. I'm glad I did, because I think it's one of the best books of the past decade or so. And the great thing about Rowling's writing is that it only gets better as the series continues. There is an epilogue at the end of the last book that I believe was one of the first things she wrote in the series, and it's not nearly as well-written as the last 3/4 books. It really shows how much she improved her writing as time went on.
Harry Potter and the Philosophers stone is simply magical. An introduction to a minutely detailed, rich magical world.
The Harry Potter series holds a pretty significant place in my literary world. I watched Sorcerer's Stone about two years ago and was intrigued by the world Rowling created. I read the book shortly after and became enchanted by how imaginitive the world was. It was this that sparked(heh) the idea for my novel and threw me into writing, because I want to inspire people, give them that same spark, like the series did for me. I even buy and donate SS and Eragon (another influential book for me) to charity during Christmas time for the same reason.