Lol, Its so funny watching people argue about age. Honestly its only a number that some person decided to make up one day. But anyways, I prefer Harry potter over twilight. And I agree with Gigi, If it wasn't for harry potter I wouldn't be writing as much as I do. Harry Potter Is most of my childhood.
Perhaps this is why I just don't 'get' the Harry Potter fandom. My childhood was Robert Burns and Stephen King, and being told I'll never amount to anything.
It's how long you've lived in relation to the earth's revolutions around the sun. That's got a crapload of cosmic significance. You can't just make up "age". Hell, even without numbers, age still exists. You can still get older physically. So, no, it's not just a number; it's a hell of a lot more important than that.
Of course it's on purpose! A lot of the names in Harry Potter are jokes. * Hogwarts ("Pig's Warts") - I don't think Rowling chose that name for the school because of how heroic it sounds. * Huffenpuff ("Huff and puff") - British slang for working diligently - a fitting name for the house where the kind and meek students are put. * McGonagall - also known as "the worst poet in Scots history" in real life and so on. The magic candy that comes to life, the jelly beans that occasionally taste like puke, the books that try to bite the students, the plants that scream when you uproot them, the ridiculously convoluted game of Quidditch - of course they're not meant to be taken seriously! They're light-hearted fun - humorous, imaginative and exciting for kids. Good grief, if you take it all seriously, Harry Potter must seem like the most ridiculous book in history!
Man alive, Lemex. You had a grim old time of it eh? I mean, King and Burns, Jesus what torture. (I'm certain those doubters will be eating their words, if they haven't already.) Further (and not further) to this discussion: I quite like what I know about Harry Potter and about what it's done for kids' reading and all that but I do kinda wish JK Rowling was a bit easier to warm to..as a person, you know?
When I lived in St. Louis I worked with a guy who owned a brewery. Every year on Robert Burns' birthday, they'd have a celebration, and he'd put on a kilt and jump up on the bar and read Burns to the assembled crowd while everyone drank. Fun times But yes, back to the thread!
Well then... I.... I.... okay. I wish this could be renamed because, it is really all about Harry Potter now. And about the how it has inspired people question, here is the answer. When someone is so enchanted by something they try to copy it, not badly just human nature. And thus people are looking to read and/or make the next "Harry Potter", so we read and write for it.
The earlier books maybe, but from book 4 onwards (a case could even be made for book 3 onwards.) it's quite a dark series.
That is part of the reason why it has a charm, the books progress as Harry ages. Book 7 is not much of a children's book.
That's what I love about the series. If you read it from the very start, you feel as if it is growing up with you as when you get older you do find out that not everything in life is happy-dandy and rainbow-fairydust. (can't believe I just said that)
I didn't know the dust of the fairy people was desirable. This I think is the reason Harry Potter did so well.
Thanks guys *blush* That’s one of the things I enjoy about the novels, the way Rowling mixes the light-heartedness of magic and children enjoying school, with the seriousness of the things which are going on around them. The earlier books may be much more casual and “ridiculous” because, as children, Harry Ron and Hermione would not have had a very good awareness of the seriousness of the threat of Voldemort. The tone of the novels matures as the characters do, so that by the final novel I would think twice about classing it as a children’s book, and it covers some very serious topics.
It's hard to fathom this. I tend to name my characters as if they are real children...like I am worried they're going to get beat up and swirlied at school if I choose the wrong name. I guess Rowling's success is a lesson to lighten up. About Twilight: I finally read the first two chapters. I thought it was engaging. The voice is strong...and the setting really came alive. I don't think she is a bad writer at all. I don't know if it will continue to be interesting, but I liked the beginning. However, my childhood is X-Men comic books. So, I have the attention span of an 11 year old. My idea of good writing is small, colored boxes containing blurbs of thought and narration...and voice bubbles. --And images of anatomically exaggerated, practically nude, men and women in poses that are supposed to reflect serious martial arts, but were obviously partially inspired by pornography. I judge the "goodness" of literature by whether or not it can keep my attention.
She's not a bad writer. She's not a great one, either. I'd say she's a OK writer, and obviously a very good story teller (the two are not the same).
