Harry Potter sucks

[Marvolo]

I actually think the author of J.D's article, who thinks that fantasy the fantasy genre "tends to be deeply conservative--politically, culturally, psychologically. It looks backward to an idealized, romanticized, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves" is at least as much to blame as Rowling for stirring up ire!

After all, if the reporter suggested to Rowling that fantasy was all about Greensleeves, then one can't blame Rowling for wishing to subvert the genre. I think the reporter her(him?)self seemed to approach the interview with a very aggressive slant against fantasy.

Granted, this discussion is supposed to be about Rowling- but did that sentence not leap out at anyone else?!

Most fantasy is like that, wouldn't you agree. Go to your books-a-million and peruse the fantasy shelves. It sucks, hard. Most books are exactly like that "reporter" is describing, just hacks spitting out books about "fuedal" lands with some revision of elves or perhaps hobbits. For every true, unconventional, good author you folks name, there is an entire row of fakes, frauds, and retards.

Seriously, good fantasy will draft you into a world unknown and make you fall in love with characters who feel as real as your own hand. But most of it...awful.

Sad, but so true.

 

[Marvolo]

Hey, we're all entitled to our opinions...just like you clearly really enjoy the Harry Potter books, I don't and I have my own reasons for doing so. It's not because I'm trying "not to be normal". I concede that Harry potter is exceptionally popular and appeals to a lot of people. And yes, it is original. But it does not mean, just because it is widely received, that it has to appeal to every single person.

You say that the books are great because you obviously enjoy them. I, too, enjoyed the books for a while...but then, Harry started to annoy me. The plots started to annoy me. I've stated my reason for not liking the books so much anymore elsewhere in the Harry Potter forum, so I won't bore people by repeating them again.

But please, accept that people have their own tastes and opinions. I wouldn't try to dissuade you from your obvious enjoyment of the books, so please don't try to explain my dislike of the books as having bad taste or not recognising quality because that is not the reason. I would probably feel quite irrated if some badmouthed my favourite authors or books, but then it has to be accepted that people will always have differing tastes and opinions.

Simply not liking the books, as you do Hoopy, is one thing. It is the insistent bashing just for the sake that they are the popular item is another. Someone saying "I just didn't like them," is different than the folks who say they dislike it because "It isn't written well," or the very popular "It isn't fantasy because I don't like it," or "I don't like J. K. Rowling because I believe False Internet Rumor A or B."

Not liking a book is one thing, but I feel they are attacked by people who want to be viewed as "superior." They think that because they dislike the popular item people will view them as intelligent.

As for why I listed "It isn't written well," as an absurd reason... they are written well. Books like the Harry Potter books and Stephen King's Cell or The Dark Tower V, VI, and VII are written masterfully. Most authors would kill to have the ability to draw people in like JKR and SK have. I just don't see the validity of that argument. I pick up books from the bookstore to read that are poorly written, despite the critical praise. Most times those books are plotted well, but the author fails to use pull me in because they insist on poor sentence structure or ambigiuos chapters that are aimed at keeping me in the dark about EVERYTHING instead of plainly describing the action and allowing me to learn as much as the character learns.

I'm tired of ranting. I'm just going to stop mid-rant. *Laugh* I'd be less frustrated if someone told me they hated my face. Don't mess with my Potter. He's my bro.

 

[HoopyFrood]

Ah! A Stephen King fan! Now there is something that I will definitely agree with you about. He's a legend

 

[Pyan]

Woo! Why not say what you think, Marvolo, and stop beating around the bush?

I think much of the 'I hate Harry Potter' comes from people trying desperately not to be normal.

I don't follow this - do you mean that people say they don't like the books out of a desire just to show they're not one of the common herd? I personally don't like them because they're badly underwritten and full of plotholes. Nothing to do with any desire to take a contrary point of view

The books are loved far and wide. I, for one, love them also.

Absolutely your right - and I will defend your right to enjoy them down to the wire. However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

But usually when people say things like 'I saw the plot twists coming because I read more sophisticated fantasy,' it just irks the crap out of me. I can't stand most fantasy because it is so poor. Most fantasy is so cliche that it makes me feel stupid just perusing through it.

A lot of people like fantasy - but given there are different qualities of it, and different types of reader, would you deny them the right to read it just because you don't like it? And the plot twists are heavily telegraphed - a more mature writer would hide them better. She's only written seven books, and that makes her still a rookie in the genre - a fortunate, rich rookie, granted but a rookie nonetheless.

99% of fantasy books are average, at best.

I can't reconcile this with your previous statement - either 99% are average, or most is "so poor". Which do you mean?

When someone comes along that is very good at their craft, and wide received, naysayers always come up with thin reasons for not liking them. It just bothers me.

Why? You enjoy the books - others don't. If everyone liked the same sort of book, it would get extremely boring, and new writers would find it impossible to be original.

Go read some more tripe, since apparently you've been trained to like it.

This tips over from discussion to insult. Make your points, by all means, but please don't insult my intelligence, or my taste built up from over 35 years of reading SF/F.

(I realize this is an offensive rant. But hating Harry Potter? HOW DARE YOU!)

Marvolo

You will find that a reasoned, well-thought-out post on any subject here will get you far more respect that a rant, Marvolo. Most of your audience have read a lot of SF/F, and are not ignorant. Make your points by all means, but if you make them reasonably, you will get into discussion - and that's what most of us are here for!

(Edit) - this took a while to write, and you've posted in the meantime, answering one or two of the points - but I still think most of it relevant - and especially the last paragraph.

 

[j d worthington]

I have to agree. Marvolo -- you love the books. Good for you. I'm glad you enjoy them. But they are far from being in the best fantasy books written. I do tend to agree that the vast majority of modern fantasy is tripe. There are some brilliant exceptions out there, but a good deal of what is available is stereotypical and full of tiresome tropes and mediocre -- at best -- writing. However, this is true of a vast amount of modern writing -- period.

As for the insulting tone -- that would best be left elsewhere. Sorry, friend, but I've long since learned good writing from bad; I've been an omnivorous reader of sff for 43 years now... and have been reading the literary classics for that long, as well (I was introduced to Poe and Asimov at about the same time). So finding that J. K. Rowling falls somewhat short as a writer is by no means an indication of lack of taste; rather, it is evidence of wider and deeper experience, and a sharp critical eye. This is not to put down Rowling or her supporters, but merely to recognize that there are vast amounts of books that are enormously better written -- but then, that's true with darned near any popular writer you care to name, from any period. She is a popular writer, and has helped get many younger people into reading, who have later expanded far beyond her books into others, and neither of those is to be treated lightly. But she is far from being the best living writer, or even the best living fantasy writer, as a wider, less tradition-bound experience of fantasy (let alone literature in general) will show.

 

[ghyle]

I agree, J. D., there are so many much better writers of fantasy. This is not to say that that J. K. Rowling must by definition be rubbish, because there are degrees of writing, and there is always a place for those near the top of the field.

It is like arguing that we must only like those who are major writers, and that, if we like a writer's works, that writer must be a major writer. There is a place for lesser poets, as there is for any lesser writer.

For the record, I enjoy Harry Potter, but I am not going to claim masterpiece status. Give us ten years from now, and we shall see a clearer indication of whether the books are worth it (taking the ten-year rule as my benchmark).

 

[Commonmind]

You will find that a reasoned, well-thought-out post on any subject here will get you far more respect that a rant, Marvolo. Most of your audience have read a lot of SF/F, and are not ignorant. Make your points by all means, but if you make them reasonably, you will get into discussion - and that's what most of us are here for!

As many times as I've tried to say this very same thing I've never been able to say it so simply and so to-the-point. Thank you Pyan.

 

[Pyan]

Bows: blushes

I think it's the title of this thread - it seems to inflame passions on both sides. If it had been called "Is Harry Potter really as good as they say?", I don't think there would have been half the inflammatory language.

 

[Erin99]

I personally don't like them because they're badly underwritten and full of plotholes. Nothing to do with any desire to take a contrary point of view

Just curious Pyan -- what plotholes did you notice? I think the main one I see is the (I think this is the correct term for it) "idiot syndrome", where the book/s would be shorter if the main characters just asked someone about whatever it is they need to find out. An example of this, I think anyway, is when Harry still has no clue about what job his parents used to do for a living; I mean, wouldn't it be easier if he'd asked Lupin? But rather than that, Harry has to keep quiet and keep us waiting till book seven to find out.

Well, that's just one of many plots that could be answered and not left dangling if JK made Harry a little more investigative and nosy (he seems nosy enough in regards to everything else).

But, however, I'm still a fan of the series and will faithfully be buying my copy of number seven in July (even though it took me the first five books to get into the series!).

 

[Rane Longfox]

As for why I listed "It isn't written well," as an absurd reason... they are written well. Books like the Harry Potter books and Stephen King's Cell or The Dark Tower V, VI, and VII are written masterfully. Most authors would kill to have the ability to draw people in like JKR and SK have. I just don't see the validity of that argument.

Evidently not... Rowling's writing has improved considerably as the series has progressed, but in the first two books the atmosphere she was trying to create wasn't there. It's hard to explain, but you had to be told, rather than feeling it. Mostly because, I suspect, at that point she was still trying to write kid's books, whereas now she's got a wider audience, her writing has had to improve. In the later books it has, she is now an excellent writer.


Now, masterfully... that's a whole different kettle of fish. Very few authors can claim that.
Vonnegut was masterful. Heinlein was. Lovecraft was. Vandermeer is. Gaiman can be when he makes the effort. King showed... flashes. Rowling is not masterful. Sorry.

 

[Marvolo]

Evidently not... Rowling's writing has improved considerably as the series has progressed, but in the first two books the atmosphere she was trying to create wasn't there. It's hard to explain, but you had to be told, rather than feeling it. Mostly because, I suspect, at that point she was still trying to write kid's books, whereas now she's got a wider audience, her writing has had to improve. In the later books it has, she is now an excellent writer.


Now, masterfully... that's a whole different kettle of fish. Very few authors can claim that.
Vonnegut was masterful. Heinlein was. Lovecraft was. Vandermeer is. Gaiman can be when he makes the effort. King showed... flashes. Rowling is not masterful. Sorry.

I think people should reorganize their idea of masterful then. Isn't the point of story telling to get the story across? People buy and read books that they can understand and enjoy. Book sales are our ruler to judge how many people read and understood the book, because most sales are generated through good reviews, press, and recommendations. So, if a list of people who are "masterful" is also a list of people who sold drastically less copies than King and Rowling... shouldn't the perception of what is masterful writing be rethought?

 

[Pyan]

Enid Blyton, Agatha Christie and Danielle Steel, to name three, have sold more books than JKR - does that makes them masterful writers? Contrariwise, Clifford the Big Red Dog has sold more copies than To Kill a Mockingbird - are you saying that, according to your definition, Clifford is a more "masterful" book?

 

[Marvolo]

Enid Blyton, Agatha Christie and Danielle Steel, to name three, have sold more books than JKR - does that makes them masterful writers? Contrariwise, Clifford the Big Red Dog has sold more copies than To Kill a Mockingbird - are you saying that, according to your definition, Clifford is a more "masterful" book?

Don't knock Clifford.

Besides, the main point of writing is to tell and story so that people can read and understand it. Many people want to read Danielle Steel. She is masterful, no doubt, otherwise why would people continue to buy it? I have never read a Danielle Steel novel, but the sheer volume of people who religiously buy her books tells us something, doesn't it?

I think the vast majority of this criticism results from literary snobbery. Writer A is a much more profound author but has sold drastically less copies than Writer B because of the difficulty of Writer A's work. Obviously, to me, Writer A needs to learn to write clearly and form his ideas in a simple and easily understood way so that more people can get the message Writer A is trying to convey.

C'mon, this isn't Rocket Science. And don't knock Clifford.

 

[Lenny]

Johnathon Strange and Mr. Norrell is a masterpiece. Yet it is written in early 19th Century English prose, and so is a tough slog.

If Susanna Clarke had written:

Mr. Norrel walked over to his bookcase, and took down a book. He took it to his table, lit a candle, and sat down to read. Ten miles away, in the Cathedral, the statues began to talk.
... instead of how she did write it, then it would be a complete waste, and would have sold few and far between.

In my opinion the Harry Potter books are good. The have engaging plots, and twists, and are not books you want to put down. Yet writing wise, Susanna Clarke beats JK hands down. Hers is by far the better book, but is written in a much harder to read style.

 

[Pyan]

I have never read a Danielle Steel novel, but the sheer volume of people who religiously buy her books tells us something, doesn't it?

Millions of people buy Big Macs, as well............

 

[HoopyFrood]

Besides, the main point of writing is to tell and story so that people can read and understand it.

Not always, no. I can read and understand a lot of books, but that doesn't mean they will instantly attract me, or make them a masterly piece of work. I consider authors to have great ability in their craft when they can manipulate words and use language in new and engaging ways. Or create a plot that is interesting and arresting throughout. J.K's writing isn't terrible, but she doesn't have a way with words like some other authors. The plot of Harry Potter is different, but not completely original...you still have the battle between good and evil, a prophecy, a teenage protagonist who has great responsibility heaped onto his shoulders. I need an author to do more than just write a story that I can understand in order for me to enjoy it and consider it great.

 

[Marvolo]

Rightly so, but there is another underlying point.

Many of the authors people rave about as being "masterful" are not so because people on a wide scale don't understand the intended meanings of the novel so clearly. Why do literature classes debate over symbolism and metaphors in classic novels? Because they are written in ambigious ways. My whole point in this diatribe is that best selling authors like J. K. Rowling, Stephen King, Danielle Steel, and the creator of Clifford the Big Red Dog, write their stories in clear ways so that huge amounts of people can read and understand and get the story the author intended.

This, to me, is what deigns a masterful author. We all get the story that King and Rowling intended. Not everyone will get the story that Vonnegut intended. The authors that many would consider masterful don't quite get their stories across in such certain terms. People debate over the intended meanings and classes are held discussing the finer points of these books. That is all well and good. But masterful to me is writing a story I can read between dealing with my two children, after working all day long, and after pondering over what my next writing attempt will be. By my definition, King and Rowling are masterful.

That isn't necessarily all of ya'lls definition, but hey, thats why I rule. C'mon, ya'll know I rule.

Also, to the Big Mac comment: Aye, millions buy them. But that is food and this was a discussion on which authors we consider masterful. How Big Macs equate into this is only for Pyan to understand.

 

[Lenny]

Don't forget to add the films into the whole shabang, too. They've definitely added a large number onto the already huge population of readers.

 

[Marvolo]

Also, as to the "insulting" tone of the earlier posts, let us all remember that the title to this thread is "Harry Potter sucks"

It sort of sets the mood aye?

 

[Lenny]

Ah! But let us also remember that it was made by a spamming author who seems to make a living out of insulting every other author he can, and writing books about cyborg-dragons, I think it was.