One thing I have noticed about the Harry Potter stuff. People who are tuned into and follow politics don’t read or watch the garbage. What could this mean?
I have reread the books, all at least once... I don’t remember and may have reread them more than that. I have also listened to the audio versions of all the books and I recommend that fans do that. It’s a completely different experience to listen to the books than to read them. I have started to selectively buy audio books (they are expensive) and especially used books. I bought this hard back last book at a used book store for $18. I’m now lurking in that same bookstore waiting for the audio versions of all the books. I belong to an audio lending club (like Netflix only audio books and that’s how I got them).
I never watch a movie when it first comes out and I never read a book less than 2 years old.
That way all the hype can die down and I can make a well educated decision as to where best to spend my time.
For the record, HP has not made it on to my long list of books to enjoy.
I never watch a movie when it first comes out and I never read a book less than 2 years old.
That way all the hype can die down and I can make a well educated decision as to where best to spend my time.
For the record, HP has not made it on to my long list of books to enjoy.
I disagree. Although the plotting is good, and gets better as the series progresses, the real strength is the characters and setting.
That's why I've read some of the books three times, and occasionally pick one up from the library on a whim. It's fun to spend a little time (especially treadmill time!) with these people in this place.
And just so we can put this all in perspective...
There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD.
Deut 18:10&11
Apparently, two of Mr. Reynolds’ discoveries were ellipses and quotation marks.
I see this argument all the time, written by ADULTS as though they were critiquing a book written for them. It's a KIDS book!! It is written for tweens and teens, and won't be written in the same way as a typical book for older adults. That's not to say that adults can't enjoy them, but the books shouldn't be judged on how they're written if the person doing the judging is using an incorrect measure by which to do it.
As for the contention that the jargon is too contemporary, and will be 'dated', aren't folks still reading Thomas Hardy and Jane Austen with their stilted language? That's pretty dated, but it doesn't take away from the fact that they wrote some pretty good stories that have held up over time. It remains to be seen if the Harry Potter series will endure, but I think it will, because the struggle between good and evil is timeless.
But I reread the full article and have to disagree with the premise that there are weak female characters.
Neither Harry or Ron are more than middling wizards (although Harry keeps his cool in a fight rather well) and both are basically CARRIED academically and militarily by Hermione who is a singularly gifted witch. Also a very strong character who let Ron HAVE IT, rather than crying in his arms when he came back. I laughed so hard when Ron whispered to Harry that at least she didn’t set a flock of golden birds upon him like last time when they heard her mutter from her bunk “I haven’t ruled it out!”.
She was smarter than them, more gifted, and Ron was rightly frightened of what she could do.
No doubt Harry is the titular character, but if not for the prophecy, and Voldemort marking him as his equal, Harry would have been nothing more than a gifted Seeker. Harry’s predominance was plot driven not character driven, while Hermione’s character really shone throughout the book, even when the plot relegated her to the back row.
JMO.