Replies

But I still don’t buy the claim that JKR wrote this book FIRST and the others later. I’ll give her the EPILOGUE as the early write, of course, but that’s the extent of it. That said, she did a wonderful job in the series.

I read Sorcerer's Stone yesterday, after I had read Deathly Hallows and Half Blood Prince last week.

The last 2 books in the series compared to the first book is like comparing Filet Mignon to hamburger steak. Not that the first book is necessarily bad, but it's certainly a children's book with a very simple story and writing style. The first book has 309 pages, the last book has 759.

I don't think JK Rowling ever expected the series to become such a cultural phenomenon. I think she originally intended to write a series of simple children's books in the model of the first book. The first book is like the Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew with magic. I think that was her original intent. As the series got more popular, she made the story vastly more complex, giving us an epic series instead of a string of magical kiddie mysteries.

The first book is like the Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew with magic. I think that was her original intent. As the series got more popular, she made the story vastly more complex, giving us an epic series instead of a string of magical kiddie mysteries.

One comparison would be "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings". The Hobbit is much more of a fairy tale. The Lord of the Rings was an epic.

What I find interesting is that the books grew in sophistication as her original readership grew in age. I don't know if she intended it that way, or if it was just a coincidence as she grew in writing ability, but it meant that the original readership could be challenged by each book as it came out.

Unfortunately I think that may make it difficult for new readers to get into the series. Young readers will find the later books too challenging, while older readers will find the early books too simplistic.