Harry Potter

[RightersBlock]

I've read through this thread and some of Harry Potter sucks thread, and prefer to respond in a thread that doesn't have sucks in the subject line.

I came to Harry Potter after about 4 books had been published and so was aware it was really huge, but i was somewhat reluctant to join the party.

But i found the first book to be such an enjoyable read. There was a Dickensian quality to the writing and the characters, the wonderful names and dramatic tableus immediately made me feel at home and filled me with a sense of warmth. The 3 main kid characters are all likeable, they have good interpersonal dynamics, their friendship is convincing. It makes for great dynamics having 3 main characters and then on top of that there are tons of other really memorable characters. The scene setting is also good. So I have read all of the books for the simple reason that they enjoyable to read and they were quick to read. I am not surprised they were hugely successful and yeah they have inspired tons of people to read.

So I see them as a success and that they deserve their success. Also I've enjoyed the interview I've seen of Rowling and find her likeable, I'm also really pleased that she has gone on to write other novels and that they are nothing like Potter, although I haven't read them.

The Potter books create a world that I enjoy going to it's rich and pretty English.

There are things that the books are not. I think the magic in the books is pretty cosmetic, it doesn't have psychological depth, it doesn't contain symbols of subconscious, super-consciousness or transcendence. Rowling is not that kind of a writer, but the values of friendship, loyalty, perseverance and decency are all there & I suppose they form the great magic that Rowling celebrates.

I agree, especially about the sense of warmth you speak.

Personally I love the HP series!!

I'm one of the lucky ones who came upon it very early on before anyone else knew about it. My Nana bought me PS for my 9th birthday. I finished it a few days later and drove my mum mad begging for CoS until she relented and I finished it 2 days later and then spent a whole year (a hell of a long time for a 9 year old let me tell you) waiting for the next one. Since then I've had them all, apart from GoF and that's a story for another time, on release day and practically inhaled them all.

But I really am not a fan of the films. I dunno what it is but for some reason they kinda bore me a lot. I watch them when my insomnia is playing up and they usually send me off to sleep halfway through. Sorry guys!

Same here, the movies are nice for one watch, just to see how things have aged and translates but otherwise, meh. My favorite books happen to be my favorite movies (3 and 5). My least favorite book is also my least favorite movies (1 and 4).

I finally decided to stop resisting when book 5 came out. The first one I ever heard of was book 4, which I saw in a grocery store on its own special table. I just couldn't figure out why it had it's own table in the freezer isle and didn't know that people were going crazy over it. Then a year or so later the movie came out and I was like, "Huh? Harry Who?" But I knew that there was something special about the movie. So a few years later I finally bought book 3. Then read Book 5 after since my book store was lacking as I was in a small town and to scared to travel by train.

Anyway got carried away. I really love Harry Potter, and I feel like I was a part of something special.

I still haven't read Book 7 and watched any other HP movies, since I don't want my adventures to ever end. :[

 

[Boaz]

I, for one, would like to know how the rest of Brian’s “research“ went. What did @Brian G Turner think of books for, five, six and seven?

 

[BAYLOR]

I read the first book in the series, it didn't grab me.

 

[Boaz]

@BAYLOR in my opinion, the second book is by far the weakest of the seven followed by the first book. Since the introduction, setting, and tone did not grab you, then I understand you’re not proceeding. But by the seventh book, the tone has radically changed, and Harry’s focus is completely opposite of what it was in the first book. All of the themes are still there yet they are presented in a wholly different matter.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I, for one, would like to know how the rest of Brian’s “research“ went. What did @Brian G Turner think of books for, five, six and seven?

Never went there.

 

[Boaz]

@Brian G Turner Thank for the update.

 

[paranoid marvin]

@BAYLOR in my opinion, the second book is by far the weakest of the seven followed by the first book. Since the introduction, setting, and tone did not grab you, then I understand you’re not proceeding. But by the seventh book, the tone has radically changed, and Harry’s focus is completely opposite of what it was in the first book. All of the themes are still there yet they are presented in a wholly different matter.

From my perspective this was a fairly unique set of books, as (for me) the stories 'grow up' with the reader - and the protagonists -the language and themes becoming darker and more 'adult'. I didn't particularly enjoy the last few books, because they had lost the joy and innocence of the earlier stories; but I guess that was the point.

I read all the books, and I watched all the films, and I'm glad that I did. But I'm not sure that I'll ever do so again.

 

[HareBrain]

the stories 'grow up' with the reader - and the protagonists -the language and themes becoming darker and more 'adult'.

I wonder what happens though when (say) a ten-year-old now comes across the series and wants to read them all in succession, but finds the themes and tone rapidly ageing up. Do they give up after a few, or plough on and end up bored/disturbed?

 

[paranoid marvin]

I wonder what happens though when (say) a ten-year-old now comes across the series and wants to read them all in succession, but finds the themes and tone rapidly ageing up. Do they give up after a few, or plough on and end up bored/disturbed?

This is a good point, and one I was thinking of when typing my post. I suppose the most appropriate way to read the stories is of a similar age to HP in each of the books. But as you mention, a younger reader age 8 or 9 would probably race through the series, and I'm not sure that below the age of a teenager is the best age to be reading Half-Blood Prince or Deathly Hallows.

Having said that, I was probably 12 or 13 when I first read Lord of the Rings, which also isn't the best age to get the most out of the story, but I did still enjoy it, and it helped to ensure my fascination and enjoyment of fantasy throughout my life. Every time I read the story, I pick up new things and find that parts that didn't interest me, or didn't seem to relate to me, now do so as an older reader. And I think that this is one of the main reasons why it has, and always will, remain one of the greatest works of fiction of all time. I'm not sure the same will be true of Harry Potter and other series of novels that are popular today.

 

[HareBrain]

Having said that, I was probably 12 or 13 when I first read Lord of the Rings, which also isn't the best age to get the most out of the story

True, I was about the same age and some of the language baffled me (I remember Gandalf using "hitherto" and me thinking somehow it referred to a person). But though there are themes in LOTR that an adult could appreciate more fully, I don't think there's anything story-wise that might seem beyond a preteen kid in the same way that the angsting and romance in some of the later HPs are. But I could be wrong.

 

[farntfar]

I agree with the above comments, and think that it's far easier for an adult to read YA or even children's books with enjoyment than for a youngster to read books with more grown up or even adult themes.
I quite happily read all the Potter books, for example, despite my already advanced years when they began.
On the other hand, like Marvin, I read the Lord of the Rings for the first time on my 12th or 13th birthday I can't remember which, and in one sitting. I was given the book at about 10 o'clock in the morning and finished it at about 7am the next morning, with no sleep or indeed food in between. It astonishes me now that my mum allowed it.
What I didn't really understand I just went past. There was plenty there that I did understand and that kept my interest going.

I think that's the point really. If a book is well enough written, it will engage the reader, whether there is stuff that is incomprehensible (in the case of young readers of LOTR) or trivial (in the case of old readers of the early Potters) to keep the reader going past it.

Having read the LOTR many times since that, my experience has of course changed each time, with me understanding more or indeed being more critical of the societies presented with each reading.

Potter, on the other hand, which I have read more than once, was in no way incomprehensible to me at any reading. It was however, interesting to read some of the earlier books with foreknowledge of where it was going later.

As for the idea of reading the later books beyond your years, I'm not entirely sure. My youngest daughter read them at almost exactly the right age for each volume and has remained an almost fanatical fan of both the books and the films since.
My elder girl was always a bit too old for each one and therefore didn't take to them.
So I think if you're just a bit too old it probably doesn't work as well as being very much too old. The pride of older teenagers doesn't allow them to accept more "childish" things.

On the other hand I think that younger kids could probably read up to the Goblet of Fire with interest, if not complete understanding, but could have difficulty with some of the themes in the last 2 or 3 books.

 

[Pyan]

True, I was about the same age and some of the language baffled me (I remember Gandalf using "hitherto" and me thinking somehow it referred to a person). But though there are themes in LOTR that an adult could appreciate more fully, I don't think there's anything story-wise that might seem beyond a preteen kid in the same way that the angsting and romance in some of the later HPs are. But I could be wrong.

That's one thing about LotR - there isn't a lot of angst, and even less romance.

 

[paranoid marvin]

True, I was about the same age and some of the language baffled me (I remember Gandalf using "hitherto" and me thinking somehow it referred to a person). But though there are themes in LOTR that an adult could appreciate more fully, I don't think there's anything story-wise that might seem beyond a preteen kid in the same way that the angsting and romance in some of the later HPs are. But I could be wrong.

I think that as an adult I could appreciate the beauty of the language more, the descriptiveness of the countryside and understand more the loss of innocence and of things that were that will never be again. The parts were Aragorn reminisces and the bit were Frodo and Sam come across the defiled statue at the crossroads, crowned with flowers are wonderful; but as a child these parts passed me by as I was more interested in the more action-intensive bits.

But I agree that an pre-teens reader of HP with probably struggle to find much relevance with the teenage angst that dominates the later books.

 

[paranoid marvin]

That's one thing about LotR - there isn't a lot of angst, and even less romance.

I think that (to some extent) Game of Thrones is pretty much LotR with the angst and romance added in. I think I prefer it without.

 

[farntfar]

the bit were Frodo and Sam come across the defiled statue at the crossroads, crowned with flowers are wonderful

Curiously, even at 13 I found this quite moving, and a promise that evil would never entirely triumph. I agree though that some of Aragorn's reveries and Gimli's reaction at Mirrormere seemed far too highbrow for me at that age. But we seem to have changed the focus away from Potter.

 

[Boaz]

I am not an expert in child development, but I do remember a few things from Fowler, Erickson, et al.... and that a person's brain is not fully developed until around age twelve. Then a person can fully reason even though the material and experience is beyond them. I know I missed so much from my first reading of The Lord of the Rings when I was thirteen... but it was all within my ability to try to comprehend it.

Anyway, my mother was an english literature professor and my father was a university president, so it was expected that my siblings and I would cherish liberal arts educational values and read like there was no tomorrow. We all did. I have pushed my nieces and nephews to read. As far as Harry Potter is concerned, I'd heard only some criticisms from a few Christian fundamentalists... but I knew that my niece would soon want to read the books and see the movies... so I read HP.

I was blown away at how good it was. I was astounded by the virtues put forth by the story. I was thrilled to find the Christian themes repeated through the books. But I diverge...

When my nine year old niece said she'd seen the Philosopher's Stone film, I gave her the first book. I read aloud to her to get her and her younger brother going. I read them the first two books with voices for all the characters. When I'd forget what Draco, Pansy, Goyle, and all the Slytherins sounded like... they'd remind me. Dobby voice was a Delhi accent with a high quavering voice and to this day they quote, "Dobby is used to death threats, sir. He gets them five times a day at home."

Anyway, my niece read the first four books and wanted to read Order of the Phoenix, but I thought that the tone was too dark for a ten year old. I made a rule that she should be within three years of Harry's age to read a book. I really wanted her to reach that magic age of twelve to continue the series. I thought she'd better understand and relate. BUT, she went ahead and saw the movies with her friends.

I (and she) missed opportunities. Ultimately, she never read the last two books and feels no desire to do so at age twenty-two. I thought I was helping her, but I deprived her the chance to find the mystery and wonder of the story in print.

 

[farntfar]

I (and she) missed opportunities. Ultimately, she never read the last two books and feels no desire to do so at age twenty-two. I thought I was helping her, but I deprived her the chance to find the mystery and wonder of the story in print.

You and I were clearly much older than 22 when we read them so the opportunity continues to exist for her.

 

[Boaz]

@farntfar The glass is always half full for you, isn't it?

 

[farntfar]

Well I try.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I wonder, would HP have been anywhere near as good without Severus Snape? He's by far the most interesting person in the whole series in my opinion; definitely the one with the most layers to his character.

And Alan Rickman played him absolutely superbly in the movies. The scene when Dolores Umbridge questions him about his unsuccessful application for 'defence against the dark arts' is comedy genius. I can't help laughing every time I hear him say "obviously" with his lips barely moving.