View Full Version : Harry Potter: Gay? Or actually worth reading?
defcon
03-23-2008, 06:12 AM
So, I've been sort of itching for some pleasure reading lately, as I haven't wolfed any good fiction down since Gaiman's American Gods, and behold, I catch a little CNN snippet on how J.K. Rowling started the series right around the time she was mad depressed and contemplating suicide. Personally, I'm a fan of gritty realism in characters, and the blurring of lines between good and evil. I always thought the Potter books pandered to middle class suburban middle-schoolers, but that little news blurb really makes me want to reevaluate my anti-Potter prejudice. Also there have been a few of my peers whose opinions I respect that have recommended the series. However, I haven't read any fantasy novels in years. The last fantasy novel I read was like, the Silmarillion-- which I think sets the bar epically high (higher than LOTR imo). What do you think, SRK: Should I check them out, or has my gut-prejudice been right all along?
valaris
03-23-2008, 06:31 AM
Personally I tried reading them but didn't get passed the first few chapters. Then again I didn't like Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code because I didn't enjoy his writing style.
Ok so this post was completely useless to your overall decision making process.
Kyoujin
03-23-2008, 06:33 AM
Personally, I was in the same boat as you are; I worked in a book store and mpost of the employees swore by it. My girl asked my to give them a try, so I gave it a shot. I really enjoyed them. If you take them for what they are, then you can have alot of fun reading them.
It's interesting to watch the character mature as Rowling's writing style strts to develop more and more; from one book enthusiest to another, I would recommend them for a fun read.
CarreauOverkill
03-23-2008, 06:49 AM
Meh, creativity is hiding your sources and this woman never managed that. Maybe I've just read too much fantasy, gotten bored with the endless portmanteaux and ghetto latin. You're better off reading something else, the majority of Potter mania comes from outside the actual book. It's like how being a SW/Trekkie nerd, you spend more time with the paraphernalia and stuff built on and around the world. She doesn't bleed any grittiness into the books, Potter was the bullshit rainbow land of fairies and wonders that she escaped to from the real world.
Just watch the movies and fill your basic knowledge about the Potter movement from those. People who've hyped the books have just never read any fantasy before it.
Shotokan Symphony
03-23-2008, 06:52 AM
Erm, it's a hell of a lot more to the point than the Tolkien books are, and it's surprisingly easy to read. The ghetto Latin is annoying, but the books are worth reading in your idle time.
Hatred Edge
03-23-2008, 07:19 AM
The books are a godd read. The only drawback to these books is the fact that they are long. I have the lastest book and have not passed pg 24....
I bought the book in December:bluu: It's now March.
defcon
03-23-2008, 07:25 AM
I bought the book in December:bluu: It's now March.
lol shit man. i am like varying stages of completion with like probably over a dozen books at this point. like i've been halfway done with Guests of the Ayatollah for well over a year at this point, with no plans to finish anytime soon. some books just command your interest, and some... don't.
Infested Jester
03-23-2008, 07:26 AM
I say try them. They are very easy reading, I finished most of them at work within a week or less.
Akutabi Gamma
03-23-2008, 07:42 AM
TBH the first books were great but after 5...they kinda slumped to being focused more on 'LET'S BEAT VOLDEMORTE!' than exploring the Wizard World and such like in previous books.
BTW be warned that Harry goes emo in Book 5 :P
Kyoujin
03-23-2008, 07:58 AM
Defcon, have you read Anansi Boys? It should be the next thing you check out.
Shotokan Symphony
03-23-2008, 08:09 AM
TBH the first books were great but after 5...they kinda slumped to being focused more on 'LET'S BEAT VOLDEMORTE!' than exploring the Wizard World and such like in previous books.
BTW be warned that Harry goes emo in Book 5 :P
Yeah, book 5 was the lowest point in the series, even with brief Lupin awesomeness.
EndLeSS8
03-23-2008, 08:13 AM
I thought Harry Potter was weak, until I was on a plane ride and I watched Chamber of Secrets.
That was quite good.
After that, I watch the movies here and there when I have time.
I don't read them though.
Same for my coworker friend. He is too busy to read them, so his wife bought him the audio book.
Pfft, everybody knows that Dumbledore is the gay one. (http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-reveals-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more)
On a serious note though, the books are easy to read, and yes, the ghetto latin, and the uncreative names (Dolores Umbridge, Severus Snape [oshit, that's just a variation on my first name >.>]) did get to me a bit, but there is some good under there.
Bernard
03-23-2008, 08:47 AM
Personally I tried reading them but didn't get passed the first few chapters. Then again I didn't like Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code because I didn't enjoy his writing style.
Yeah, Rowling will not go down as one of the great authors in history. She is like a cross between Steven King's bloated over description and a Sweet Pickles book. Not my thing.
zakky
03-23-2008, 08:48 AM
I honestly liked the books for the most part. They are not something you want to read if you desire even the least bit of stimulation thought. Reading those books is, at least in my opinion, the closest literary thing to watching television. I'd still give them a read, it'll probably take you two weeks at most to get through them all.
Satomiblood
03-23-2008, 08:53 AM
When did Pottermania actually start?
Vy Low
03-23-2008, 09:14 AM
Shortly after Pokemania...
Which reminds me... I need to pick up a DS.
Satomiblood
03-23-2008, 09:17 AM
Shortly after Pokemania...
Which reminds me... I need to pick up a DS.
2000-01 ish?
Anyway, while I don't care much for the books, I'm glad that a lot of the people that were too cool for that kind of stuff are finally embracing their geekish sides. True, there are a lot of posers out there that'll just have the book on their coffee table or shelf for show as opposed to actually reading the damn thing, but I have to admit it's kinda fun to see average people geeking out over that shit.
beatsofdevil
03-23-2008, 09:19 AM
The books are a godd read. The only drawback to these books is the fact that they are long. I have the lastest book and have not passed pg 24....
I bought the book in December:bluu: It's now March.don't listen to this dood, they are not long.
but they did demand my attention...
Monte
03-23-2008, 09:21 AM
Read a real book like Matilda. J.K. Rowling aint even fit to fill Roald Dahl's ink well.
Kyoujin
03-23-2008, 09:42 AM
2000-01 ish?
Anyway, while I don't care much for the books, I'm glad that a lot of the people that were too cool for that kind of stuff are finally embracing their geekish sides. True, there are a lot of posers out there that'll just have the book on their coffee table or shelf for show as opposed to actually reading the damn thing, but I have to admit it's kinda fun to see average people geeking out over that shit.
:rofl: When the books were first released in the UK, publishers created two sets of designs: one for children and one for adults. People commuting to wokr on the rail were too embarassed to read a children's book in public, even though they couldn't stop reading them.
Satomiblood
03-23-2008, 10:58 AM
don't listen to this dood, they are not long.
but they did demand my attention...
I thought the last one was around 700 pages. If so, how is that not long?
Although many people bitch about having to read The Grapes of Wrath for a class, which is 600+ pages. But it was a smooth read.
So I guess it depends on the writing style, and since it's aimed at children (young adult), I'd imagine it's pretty easy to knock out a chunk of it in one sitting.
:rofl: When the books were first released in the UK, publishers created two sets of designs: one for children and one for adults. People commuting to wokr on the rail were too embarassed to read a children's book in public, even though they couldn't stop reading them.
That's pretty funny. And here I thought people were starting to embrace geekdom to the fullest. Oh well.
DaDesiCanadian
03-23-2008, 11:02 AM
Harry Potter > Your Face.
True story.
Hatred Edge
03-23-2008, 11:08 AM
don't listen to this dood, they are not long.
but they did demand my attention...
I thought the last one was around 700 pages. If so, how is that not long?
Although many people bitch about having to read The Grapes of Wrath for a class, which is 600+ pages. But it was a smooth read.
Yeah the last book is 700+ pgs. The others vary between 500-700+ too. Some people may not want to read a book that long. I can since I'm used to reading long books(Stephen King).
A short book(to me) is about 200 pgs. 700 isn't short at all.
DaDesiCanadian
03-23-2008, 11:09 AM
It wasn't even really 700 pages. The text was large as fuck.
DaDesiCanadian
03-23-2008, 11:10 AM
Read a real book like Matilda. J.K. Rowling aint even fit to fill Roald Dahl's ink well.
J.K. Rowling can stand up to Dahl. And i've read every single one of Dahl's books, children and adult.
Hatred Edge
03-23-2008, 11:12 AM
I can use the last book like a mini XBOX melee weapon...
Satomiblood
03-23-2008, 11:21 AM
It wasn't even really 700 pages. The text was large as fuck.
And line spacing?
DaDesiCanadian
03-23-2008, 11:21 AM
And line spacing?
Not that bad. But still, I read it in a day... half of it at work.
...then I read it again next week.
Monte
03-23-2008, 11:25 AM
J.K. Rowling can stand up to Dahl. And i've read every single one of Dahl's books, children and adult.
that's just crazy talk. J.K. Rowling might be a fine writer but there's no way she has the range or imagination of Roald Dahl. He is the kind of creative genius and visionary that comes once every few generations. Do not get that twisted.
Shotokan Symphony
03-23-2008, 11:44 AM
She doesn't SURPASS him, by any means. She's definitely up there, though.
Hatred Edge
03-23-2008, 11:45 AM
I liked Matilda... pretty nice book. I read it quite a few times.
FOBio
03-23-2008, 11:56 AM
Don't know much about other books, but the Potter movies aren't that great compared to the books. And if the movies did well, then might as well give the books (at least the first one) a try.
orochizoolander
03-23-2008, 12:00 PM
The harry potter books are definitely worth reading if you're into fiction nuff said.
The Potter books are fun. They're about as easy to read as books come. On the whole, the series is a bit uneven, but books 3 and 4 were surprisingly good. And even the weaker ones were readable. I thought book 5 really missed the mark and was by far the worst of the set, but plenty of people seem to love that one. Different strokes, I guess.
But yeah. They're young adult books, often with pretty good plot twists and a really fun setting. Don't read them with a super critical eye and you'll likely enjoy them. But if you go into them expecting literature of the highest caliber!, you'll likely be disappointed.
And yes, Dahl is awesome. So is Shel Silverstein. If you don't tear up reading "The Giving Tree", then you aren't human.
Oh ... and the Potter movies are fucking awful. Daniel Radcliffe couldn't act his way out of a shoe box. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
fallot
03-23-2008, 12:10 PM
The first book is great. Even if you don't read the others.
Pimp Willy
03-23-2008, 12:22 PM
You've got that backwards. Skip the first two... or just watch the movies instead. It isn't until book 3 it really makes the transition into something good.
DaDesiCanadian
03-23-2008, 12:30 PM
that's just crazy talk. J.K. Rowling might be a fine writer but there's no way she has the range or imagination of Roald Dahl. He is the kind of creative genius and visionary that comes once every few generations. Do not get that twisted.
Maybe not, but Potter > Matilda. BFG, The Witches > Potter though. :rofl:
Night
03-23-2008, 01:18 PM
I liked them. They were easy to read and easy to follow.
SRKev
03-23-2008, 01:58 PM
Harry Potter books are dope, I own all of them.
Rhio2k
03-23-2008, 02:23 PM
Bah. Clare Bell rips Rowling a new one.
defcon
03-23-2008, 07:59 PM
so the consensus seems to be that the potter books are campy, feel-good, lala land stories? no subtle themes or daring social dichotomies explored through an outward veneer of innocence?
so the consensus seems to be that the potter books are campy, feel-good, lala land stories? no subtle themes or daring social dichotomies explored through an outward veneer of innocence?
just read them, they're good
DaDesiCanadian
03-23-2008, 08:26 PM
so the consensus seems to be that the potter books are campy, feel-good, lala land stories? no subtle themes or daring social dichotomies explored through an outward veneer of innocence?
No, they're the standard British boarding-school fiction, as pioneered by Enid Blyton, except with witches and wizards, and is disturbingly dark for childrens fiction. Tons of themse are explored, as well as reflections on current social events. Did you even read the thread?
jae hoon
03-23-2008, 08:48 PM
Got to go with that shit is weaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak.
Debaser
03-23-2008, 09:22 PM
Got to go with that shit is weaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaak.
Lay off the sauce Jae.
P.S.: The books are good, especially if you don't like to read.
Calibur
03-23-2008, 09:49 PM
so the consensus seems to be that the potter books are campy, feel-good, lala land stories? no subtle themes or daring social dichotomies explored through an outward veneer of innocence?
That's the consensus you got?:confused:
The series is good.
Book one is for children but its a basic intro that can be read in a couple of hours.
Book two expands the children and the school.
Book three expands the world and its antagonists.
The end of book 4 is when kids start dying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqMiigy92qU
The rest are politicized in varying tones of subtlity. The best thing about the series is the fact that Rowling disguises her evolution as a writer by making the stories from a 10 year olds point of view and having the boy mature more in each book. That and the down to earth commentary on magical application and its contrast on things we think are very normal. Also the foreshadowing and subtle namedropping of events and items makes the book worthy of repeated reading once you get through them all.
It's not a literary masterpiece, but I dont think its trying to be. It's fun and fast. Watching the movies will cheapen the experience. Not because the movies are done badly, but because the most important elements in the book cant be done in a well made film.
Read them in order. If you aren't feeling them by book three, than drop them.
OrangeCat
03-23-2008, 10:09 PM
Here's my 2 cents on it:
The series in general has it's up and downs. What it primarily depends on is how much you invest emotionally and personally into the series. As Calibur said, if you're not feeling it up until after the 3rd book, then you might as well put the rest of the series down. I'd even go so far to say that read up until the 4th book because that's where IMHO it kind of falls apart.
Don't get me wrong, it's a pretty good series but there is also infinitely better shit out there that will entertain you far better in a general sense than Harry Potter. The major downfall of it all comes down two things:
The limited scope of magic in the series: There are some pretty cool things they do in the series but in the end a LOT of it is revisited and therefore feels like the whole thing is a rehash and just a small unimaginative world. While the school seems to be a place where it will prepare you for wizarding life 4 life; it just seems more like a fucking babysitting service than actually teaching you jack shit about the expansive uses of magic throughout the world. Ultimately what results in a want or expectation to see more creative forms of magic but instead it feels like watching shoto-clones perform DPs.
It's not as fucking complete as you were lead to believe: The idea that JKR had planned out all what leads up to the final game in the final book is only partially true. In fact I'd say that she'd pretty much hit 50% of what most reasonable fans expected (no stupid shit like time travel to the PAAASSST). There are things that I felt were addressed marvelously, yet other things totally ignored to instead have just drama. In the end she does know her world and her attention to some subtle details are great...but it seriously was not as completely planned out as she made it out to be. I imagine by the time book 4 came out, she was like...Oh shit...what do I do now? A few c-plots and d-plots later she's painted herself into a corner with Strider and Doom coming to get her.
However if you read Neil Gaiman's stuff and know his writing well then a beautiful surprise is a short story in the final book is written very much in the style that Gaiman usually writes, moral story and all.
OC
fP_tHuG
03-23-2008, 11:51 PM
screw wut every1 says, you gotta try and read for yourself. Don't make someone's opinion of the book your own . I skipped 1&2 and read 3 and i got hooked. The movie doesn't give the book justice, i think they are planning to make the 6th book 2 movies but that's just a rumor :D
Infested Jester
03-23-2008, 11:53 PM
The last movie will be 2 parts.
OrangeCat
03-23-2008, 11:56 PM
screw wut every1 says, you gotta try and read for yourself. Don't make someone's opinion of the book your own . I skipped 1&2 and read 3 and i got hooked. The movie doesn't give the book justice, i think they are planning to make the 6th book 2 movies but that's just a rumor :D
Only the 3rd movie has done the series any sort of justice in the remotest sense. I'm still fucking PISSED that Cuaron isn't back for the final film. I'd even settle for Del Toro even though I dislike his characterization but making the final film into 2 parts is pretty much the epitome of laziness.
OC
DaDesiCanadian
03-23-2008, 11:57 PM
You seem to forget OC, that the book in the end, is aimed towards children/young adults. Hard as it is to believe, the magic wasn't the driving force behind the novels. It was a character driven novel, and everyone read it more for "what would happen to the respective characters" than "let's see what new magic they come up with".
OrangeCat
03-24-2008, 12:17 AM
You seem to forget OC, that the book in the end, is aimed towards children/young adults. Hard as it is to believe, the magic wasn't the driving force behind the novels. It was a character driven novel, and everyone read it more for "what would happen to the respective characters" than "let's see what new magic they come up with".
I do realize that.
I love how JKR managed to make the series about a battle of different life philosophies and beliefs rather than just a matter of skill. That's why by the end of HBP everyone is pretty much "Oh fucking shit. Harry's going to have to POWERLEVEL if he's going to defeat Voldemort if the journey doesn't kill him first"
However that aside, I still stand how it kind of falls apart because the first half of the series it always felt fresh. Her ability to introduce some sort of new magic in a new and imaginative light was always original at least to the extent of children's imaginations are. To me her ability to write her characters was equal to her ability to write about the world as well. Somewhere after book 4 it just sort of split.
Either the characters didn't interest me quite as much anymore or at least for me the magic just dried up but I think it's more the idea that there was this beginning of a divide of the magic and the characters that sort of ruined the tone of the novels. Suddenly it became just magic and just character as opposed to a proper cohesion. Perhaps that was intentional perhaps it was the failure of adhering to such a stupid "Everything happens in a school year" timeline for each and every installment.
OC
I say give up harry potter and pick up harry dresden. you'll feel better about it in the morning.
Luciano Leone
03-24-2008, 12:21 AM
Hey! Snape kills Dumbledore!
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, YOU BITCH!!
DaDesiCanadian
03-24-2008, 12:22 AM
I do realize that.
I love how JKR managed to make the series about a battle of different life philosophies and beliefs rather than just a matter of skill. That's why by the end of HBP everyone is pretty much "Oh fucking shit. Harry's going to have to POWERLEVEL if he's going to defeat Voldemort if the journey doesn't kill him first"
However that aside, I still stand how it kind of falls apart because the first half of the series it always felt fresh. Her ability to introduce some sort of new magic in a new and imaginative light was always original at least to the extent of children's imaginations are. To me her ability to write her characters was equal to her ability to write about the world as well. Somewhere after book 4 it just sort of split.
Either the characters didn't interest me quite as much anymore or at least for me the magic just dried up but I think it's more the idea that there was this beginning of a divide of the magic and the characters that sort of ruined the tone of the novels. Suddenly it became just magic and just character as opposed to a proper cohesion. Perhaps that was intentional perhaps it was the failure of adhering to such a stupid "Everything happens in a school year" timeline for each and every installment.
OC
I see what you're saying, but I don't agree with your opinion.
Yes, there was a definite MAJOR shift at the end of the 4th book, and the style completely changed. However, I liked both ...I can't believe i'm saying this..... pre-crisis and post-crisis Harry. The first four books introduced all the major characters, gave us a lighthearted look at Harry's life...and then blew it all up with the character who died at the end of 4. Even then, the 5th and 6th book managed some light heartedness, until 7, which was just end-of-the-world dark.
I seem to have drifted off the point, but yeah, I see where you're coming from, but i'd suggest sticking to at least the 5th book of the series.
Calibur
03-24-2008, 12:37 AM
Only the 3rd movie has done the series any sort of justice in the remotest sense. I'm still fucking PISSED that Cuaron isn't back for the final film. I'd even settle for Del Toro even though I dislike his characterization but making the final film into 2 parts is pretty much the epitome of laziness.
OC
I hated the third movie, it tried to hard to simplify something that needed fleshing out. It should have been 20 minutes longer so the movie wasnt rushed. The 2nd movie was much longer, but the book was shorter and had less going on. What does that tell you.
I think the fifth and the fourth movie were as good as Harry Potter movies could possibly be.
OrangeCat
03-24-2008, 12:42 AM
I see what you're saying, but I don't agree with your opinion.
Yes, there was a definite MAJOR shift at the end of the 4th book, and the style completely changed. However, I liked both ...I can't believe i'm saying this..... pre-crisis and post-crisis Harry. The first four books introduced all the major characters, gave us a lighthearted look at Harry's life...and then blew it all up with the character who died at the end of 4. Even then, the 5th and 6th book managed some light heartedness, until 7, which was just end-of-the-world dark.
I seem to have drifted off the point, but yeah, I see where you're coming from, but i'd suggest sticking to at least the 5th book of the series.
Yeah I think it is generally viewed as Pre-GoF and Post-GoF, more specifically Pre-GoF leading up to the graveyard scene and Post GoF starting right then and there. The interesting thing is that I am in the camp of which I dislike book 5 the most. However it's isn't until Book 6 that came out that I felt it supported Book 5 more than vice versa. While Book 5 goes into unfamiliar territory, even compared with what was hinted at happened the "first" time around with the war I felt that Book 6 basically made the reader thing "Oh...so THIS is how it's going to be now eh? No more pre-crisis Harry crap anymore."
I like book 6 for that and that alone because it just defines the latter half of the series far better than it's prequel by sort of being the tag team partner and saying "Yeah I got your back."
OC
OrangeCat
03-24-2008, 12:47 AM
I hated the third movie, it tried to hard to simplify something that needed fleshing out. It should have been 20 minutes longer so the movie wasnt rushed. The 2nd movie was much longer, but the book was shorter and had less going on. What does that tell you.
I think the fifth and the fourth movie were as good as Harry Potter movies could possibly be.
Every that needed fleshing out was already fleshed out. In fact it actually pre-empted some ideas in the series even before those ideas came out. For the 2nd movie, it tells me that Columbus doesn't know how to adapt...merely make a fanfilm.
4th film = 32 short films about GoF by David Newall edited together in a janky fashion. Had some great scenes and set-pieces but also had the worst sense of flow in the entire series.
5th film = Worst editing period. It has a lot of great things about it but it also has a lot of shitty things about that balance it out to be average and a one hit wonder.
The 3rd film is a perfect a HP film could be adaption wise and movie wise.
OC
Calibur
03-24-2008, 12:58 AM
Every that needed fleshing out was already fleshed out. In fact it actually pre-empted some ideas in the series even before those ideas came out. For the 2nd movie, it tells me that Columbus doesn't know how to adapt...merely make a fanfilm.
4th film = 32 short films about GoF by David Newall edited together in a janky fashion. Had some great scenes and set-pieces but also had the worst sense of flow in the entire series.
5th film = Worst editing period. It has a lot of great things about it but it also has a lot of shitty things about that balance it out to be average and a one hit wonder.
The 3rd film is a perfect a HP film could be adaption wise and movie wise.
OC
Your definition of the 4th film is, unfortunately, the only way a Harry Potter book can be done. The 5th film had a good screenplay where they changed somethings to help the movie flow and I like the fact that they fleshed out the action scenes since they were dealing with a visual medium (btw, a friend of mine is doing the special effects for the new HP movie as we speak)
The third film left me empty. Part of what took HP to the next level was book 3 and the new relationships that were created. The characterization was great and they answered all the questions you had since the series started. If you tied up one small loose end you could have ended the series there. It was an important book and the pacing of the movie was so bad that its importance is lost. The only thing I think they got right was the presence of the dementors.
OrangeCat
03-24-2008, 01:05 AM
Your definition of the 4th film is, unfortunately, the only way a Harry Potter book can be done.
Actually that is one way that a Harry Potter book can be done. The most preferrable and sucessful way was how the 3rd film was done.
The 5th film had a good screenplay where they changed somethings to help the movie flow and I like the fact that they fleshed out the action scenes since they were dealing with a visual medium (btw, a friend of mine is doing the special effects for the new HP movie as we speak)
The 3rd film also changed some things to help the movie flow, even better than the 5th film IMHO.
The third film left me empty. Part of what took HP to the next level was book 3 and the new relationships that were created. The characterization was great and they answered all the questions you had since the series started. If you tied up one small loose end you could have ended the series there. It was an important book and the pacing of the movie was so bad that its importance is lost. The only thing I think they got right was the presence of the dementors.
It's a shame that you left feeling empty when it fullfilled so many other people. However that's what differing opinions are for. It's nice that we can talk that way because I've read some threads that got particularly retarded on the subject that it felt like fucking pre-schoolers fighting with the equivalent thought process.
OC
jae hoon
03-24-2008, 01:06 AM
Lay off the sauce Jae.
P.S.: The books are good, especially if you don't like to read.
Not my fault shit is weaksauce. Harry Potter is up there with Dr Phil self help books, infact you might need the self help after reading HP.
DaDesiCanadian
03-24-2008, 01:39 AM
Yeah I think it is generally viewed as Pre-GoF and Post-GoF, more specifically Pre-GoF leading up to the graveyard scene and Post GoF starting right then and there. The interesting thing is that I am in the camp of which I dislike book 5 the most. However it's isn't until Book 6 that came out that I felt it supported Book 5 more than vice versa. While Book 5 goes into unfamiliar territory, even compared with what was hinted at happened the "first" time around with the war I felt that Book 6 basically made the reader thing "Oh...so THIS is how it's going to be now eh? No more pre-crisis Harry crap anymore."
I like book 6 for that and that alone because it just defines the latter half of the series far better than it's prequel by sort of being the tag team partner and saying "Yeah I got your back."
OC
I completely agree about the 5th book. OoTP was possibly the least memorable out of the whole series. I forgot everything that happened in it a week after reading it. Half Blood Prince was awesome. It finished off the tonal shift. From the beginning, you knew Snape wasn't fucking around, and something huge was going down. 7 was completely awesome though, possibly the best in the series.
The 4th film was done well IMO but I was dissapointed in the way that they cut out the quidditch world cup scene. I mean it was ment to show a contrast on how crum was IRL as oppossed to the sports world. When he played the game he was full of grace and power yet IRL he walked like a duck and seemed almost caveman like.
The 3rd film was a great movie in itself but the best part of it IMHO was the marketing for the film. me and my friends went around downtown stealing posters of gary oldman with the headlines "have you seen this wizard?" just a great marketing campaign.
Bullet Tooth
03-24-2008, 02:18 AM
Read it.
Jedi W.
03-24-2008, 07:29 AM
Yeah, it's worth reading. The story starts to fall apart after book 4 for me. The series as a whole is overrated. I kind of view the whole thing as the American version of Naruto. It's really popular, it's being marketed into the ground, it has some really cool ideas and characters, but the plot and execution is meh.
It's still a fun ride, and you can get the books cheap at places like Half Price or *gasp* your local library.
For my money, the His Dark Materials trilogy was infinitely better.
--jedi\/\/.
Serpent
03-24-2008, 07:38 AM
It's okay, started off better than it ended though. You can get away with just watching the movies, and more than likely the final 2 movies will be better than their book counterparts were. The movies tend to cut out the worthless filler, and 7 was mostly filler. The 5th movie is considerably better than the 5th book was, which had Harry Potter as an emo yellow fever sufferer, and Ron as some sort of Krang wannabe. I guess those are the fantasies women have and how they feel men should act.
JKR is a mediocre writer and storyteller. That's good enough. Most fiction books are a waste of time nowadays. I'm a huge Dostoevsky fan but I've read a lot of other fiction too, just anything released nowadays is usually worthless. Dan Brown was total crap, I'm glad that fad has run its course. If you compare JKR and Brown, JKR comes out significantly ahead.
angryliberal
03-24-2008, 07:49 AM
here's my take on the series, i was one of the biggest anti-potter people around. i could NOT understand why anyone over the age of 12 would read that shit. that was until i actually took the time to read the books. i was in a situation where reading the first harry potter book was about the only form of entertainment around, so i read it. it took like a day with breaks. very easy read. the second book didn't do too much to sell me either, but i continued on because my brother told me it really gets good with book 3. he was right. if you can get through the first two, book three makes it worth it. they are seriously easy reads, but very enjoyable at the same time. i say give the first three books a chance, if after book three, you have no interest, give up then. just don't judge the series by the first two books.
as far as the movies go potter 3 > all the others combined. after reading book 4, the fourth movie is soooo fucking horrible. they put in shit that didn't really exist and cut out shit that is important.
AgantK7
03-24-2008, 09:06 AM
So, I've been sort of itching for some pleasure reading lately, as I haven't wolfed any good fiction down since Gaiman's American Gods, and behold, I catch a little CNN snippet on how J.K. Rowling started the series right around the time she was mad depressed and contemplating suicide. Personally, I'm a fan of gritty realism in characters, and the blurring of lines between good and evil. I always thought the Potter books pandered to middle class suburban middle-schoolers, but that little news blurb really makes me want to reevaluate my anti-Potter prejudice. Also there have been a few of my peers whose opinions I respect that have recommended the series. However, I haven't read any fantasy novels in years. The last fantasy novel I read was like, the Silmarillion-- which I think sets the bar epically high (higher than LOTR imo). What do you think, SRK: Should I check them out, or has my gut-prejudice been right all along?
What is this American Gods that you speak of?
-K7
American Gods is a book by Neil Gaiman, and it's excellent. Don't skip it.
I'm glad to see some others noticed book 5 was garbage. I know what Rowling was shooting for, with everyone becoming teenagers and whatnot, but I felt she completely missed the mark. It came out of left field, was far too exaggerated, and I didn't buy it. And in trying to make her characters more "real", she made them less so by doing a hack job of it. And my fucking goodness did that book need a firmer editor. I got the impression that the series was such a success at that point that everyone was afraid to tell her what was up. Because both the writing and the pacing were sloppy. Book 6 came back around for me though, and 7 was flawed but good.
As for the films, only the third one was worth seeing. And even with that one, a solid director couldn't get much of a performance out of Radcliffe, because the kid is fucking awful. The first two were terrible (whoever thought Chris Columbus was the director of choice should be hung ... I mean, I love the first Home Alone as much as anyone else my age, but come on). The fourth was such a fucking mess that I didn't finish it. I think I was drunk when I watched the fifth movie. All I remember was laughing at how Voldemort looked, and some special effects, and secretly hoping Radcliffe would die, even though it wasn't in the book.
OrangeCat
03-24-2008, 01:03 PM
I think I was drunk when I watched the fifth movie. All I remember was laughing at how Voldemort looked
You mean this fucking scene?
OC
Hahaha. Yes. I was giggling like an idiot the entire time he was on screen.
DaDesiCanadian
03-24-2008, 01:32 PM
Yeah, voldy was nothing like I imagined him. So horrible..
angryliberal
03-24-2008, 01:50 PM
this is pretty common knowledge, but terry gilliam was jo's first choice for director of the films and he wanted to direct them, but the studios wanted a director they could control, thus colombus was tapped...luckily only for the two kiddie books...
Jizzz_frame
03-24-2008, 02:10 PM
the books are good. the series ended dumb though. the first 4 were really good. the last three were really bad. i dislike it from my own personal opinions and beliefs.
my college english professor friend thinks the crap of the latter books is due to jk rowling going from having an attentive editor who editted the hell out of the first few books into something good, into a lazy editor who let jk rowlings true lack of abilities show.
this is pretty common knowledge, but terry gilliam was jo's first choice for director of the films and he wanted to direct them, but the studios wanted a director they could control, thus colombus was tapped...luckily only for the two kiddie books...
I likely would have loved the Gilliam version. If Baron Munchausen is anything to go by.
Pimp Willy
03-24-2008, 06:24 PM
I can never forgive the third film. It did have a TON of sweet stuff going for it, being that it was paced nicely and was one of the better books in the series, but the fact that they left off any explanation of WHO THE MARAUDERS WERE was a sore spot for me. I felt that was very important information that anybody who was only to watch the movies would never know.
I think the 5th was a good example of how a HP film should go. Or possibly the third with more attention to important backstory and not just an example of "Lets make this movie as SHORT as possible." And also, a little less Y Tu Mama Tambien moments.
OrangeCat
03-25-2008, 12:36 AM
I can never forgive the third film. It did have a TON of sweet stuff going for it, being that it was paced nicely and was one of the better books in the series, but the fact that they left off any explanation of WHO THE MARAUDERS WERE was a sore spot for me. I felt that was very important information that anybody who was only to watch the movies would never know.
First of all the explanation was there, it was just reinterpreted it's all there, you're just not looking hard enough. Second of all the explanation of the Marauders past and how they became friends didn't have any bearing on the final outcome. So really the audience isn't really missing any important information; what they are missing is about 10-15 minutes of exposition.
OC
DaDesiCanadian
03-25-2008, 12:46 AM
But the point is, people who haven't read the books won't be looking. How do you look for something you didn't know existed in the first place? Yes, the signs were there, but unless you read the books, you'd have no idea about the real identities of Moony, padfoot and prongs.
OrangeCat
03-25-2008, 12:50 AM
But the point is, people who haven't read the books won't be looking. How do you look for something you didn't know existed in the first place?
Because the director is showing the audience it. Whether the audience decides to further pursue the ideas presented to them is more up to the audience than the director to just narrate it to them. There were a lot of crackpot theories in the HP fandom that were created from just "signs" so I don't why that very same motivation couldn't be also applied to the film.
OC
DaDesiCanadian
03-25-2008, 12:54 AM
That's really not relevant. This is not a "crackpot theory". Rowling explicitly states their identities in the book, and it's important; it helps further the bond Harry had with his father. He's simply following in his father's footsteps. It's like always, even in death his father is guiding him. Having Prongs be some random person doesn't quite have the same emotional impact, does it?
OrangeCat
03-25-2008, 01:06 AM
That's really not relevant. This is not a "crackpot theory". Rowling explicitly states their identities in the book, and it's important; it helps further the bond Harry had with his father. He's simply following in his father's footsteps. It's like always, even in death his father is guiding him. Having Prongs be some random person doesn't quite have the same emotional impact, does it?
Hardly. Aside from his doubt of his father's reputation of being a good man in book 5, what I found from the relationship between Harry and his father is that he looks like him, acts like him with an Oedipus complex and that's basically it. His relationship with his father isn't important in the details as so much as his ability to love and the understanding of his family's sacrifice which is hardly related to the Marauders backstory. Instead it's something that's going to be revisited in later installments and ultimately it's going to be about Harry's own choices, in no way motivated how explicitly explained how his father and friends became magical furries.
Any other themes related to the outcome of that backstory was already shown in both acting, emotion and other plot-points. Basically said Marauders Explanation = fanfic fodder.
OC
Daidoji Kage
03-25-2008, 12:21 PM
I like her story but I think she's a poor writer.
DaDesiCanadian
03-25-2008, 12:59 PM
Hardly. Aside from his doubt of his father's reputation of being a good man in book 5, what I found from the relationship between Harry and his father is that he looks like him, acts like him with an Oedipus complex and that's basically it. His relationship with his father isn't important in the details as so much as his ability to love and the understanding of his family's sacrifice which is hardly related to the Marauders backstory. Instead it's something that's going to be revisited in later installments and ultimately it's going to be about Harry's own choices, in no way motivated how explicitly explained how his father and friends became magical furries.
Any other themes related to the outcome of that backstory was already shown in both acting, emotion and other plot-points. Basically said Marauders Explanation = fanfic fodder.
OC
I completely disagree. Half of Harry's character is his coming to terms with his "dark side" and flaws. His father is one of the key figures in his character development process, as it's his father who shows him that not everybody is perfect, and you don't have to be a flawless person in order to be great/good. We know how much Prongs sacrificed, as well as what he did to help Lupin; the Marauders provides the other side to the balance. At heart James was a goof off, and was as willing to break the rules for mischief as he was to help a friend.
Also, LOL Harry Potter online argument.
:bluu:
OrangeCat
03-25-2008, 01:34 PM
I completely disagree. Half of Harry's character is his coming to terms with his "dark side" and flaws. His father is one of the key figures in his character development process, as it's his father who shows him that not everybody is perfect, and you don't have to be a flawless person in order to be great/good. We know how much Prongs sacrificed, as well as what he did to help Lupin; the Marauders provides the other side to the balance. At heart James was a goof off, and was as willing to break the rules for mischief as he was to help a friend.
While I agree with your comments, it still doesn't relate to whether the Marauders explanation was needed in the PoA film. Like I said before it was reinterpretted differently through other means of explanation. Case in point, Lupin talking to Harry on the bridge in the film which shows that he did know his parents and expressed his admiration of Lily's character as well with James which shows how James does break the rules, just like Harry. The final comment is how he likens Harry to his parents and how he's like them more than will ever know; which IMHO build a better idea of Harry being similar as James than some furry magic cosplay childhood moment.
Other case is after the boggart lesson he praises Harry and openly compares him to his father which in the novel he was very distant/beat around the mullberry bush about his relationship with his father. This makes Lupin feel like a closer friend to James than some cryptic little acquaintice that went to school with him at the same time.
Addressing the point of Harry dealing with his dark-side; total fumble. I like the idea of how JKR managed to not do the obvious in the last book; however Harry hardly ever dealt with his darkside. His flaws maybe, but his dark-side was only touched upon in OoTP which was swept under the rug conveniently (lol i'm famous Potter, should I be uber-star?). Really the only dark-side he had to deal with was coming to grips of other people's own shortcomings and dark-sides especially Dumbledore's. Which seems that Dumbledore, being far more a father figure than James, had taught Harry more about being the imperfect good person than anyone else.
I don't deny the idea that Harry is influenced by his father as far as key figures go, he's pretty low tier on the influence scale.
Also, LOL Harry Potter online argument.
:bluu:
LOL. I think the easiest way to end this arguement is for you to explain specifically what does the Marauders background explanation contributes to the storyline.
OC
vBulletin® v3.8.0 Beta 2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.