Is it just me who hates Harry Potter?

[Starson]

I look at Kater (a moderator) telling me not to "deconstuct other people's posts" in one posting, then I look down at fluffy bunny (another moderator) doing exactly what I was told not to do.

And how in the H*** is doing that "not on topic"?!?!?

 

[Monty Mike]

I took an instant dislike to the HP stuff.
It's hard to explain other than a kind of a gut instinct repulsion.

There's something about the series that makes me feel I've seen it all before and that the Harry Potter franchise was insidiously designed in a board room of executives, the likes of who brought us the Spice Girls, New Kids on the Block (and every other boy/girl-band since),Power Rangers, and other types of deliberately mass-marketed, specific-audience-targeted rubbish.

Does that make any sense?

I feel it has no soul and is a construct of a corporate, money-making machine.

I'd never thought of a proper reason why I dislike Harry Potter, but I just do. I think Khan's post shows my thoughts as well. Rowling, IMO, is taking advantage of the fact that kids haven't yet read much fantasy (if that's what HP's classed as) and using it to write a novel, that is excessively advertised all over, so that although it's not necessarily as good as many previous works of fantasy, it is more readable because of the hype around it and constant attention it receives. Kids want to read what everyone else is reading. If the same process was done with old books and they were released now (instead of 30 years ago), advertised everywhere you turn, given lots of press attention, made into films nearly immediately, then I think they would do just as well (if not better). Don't forget that a lot of kids started reading HP after seeing the films.
The one thing I will say in praise of Rowling is that she is a smart woman, and realised that there are few good fantasy stories out there for young teens, as apart form Narnia, most tend to be slightly too complex.

What I've said may well be foolish, but then I haven't strong views on the books and mainly wrote what I did for Starson, who was being a bit unfairly treated IMO. I think that the moderators are a bit strict as to how far a discussion can go on. There's nothing wrong with a little arguement from time to time, and it's not like any swearing was involved. If we all had to stand by and not say what we truly think, then we wouldn't get very far in terms of this kind of thread.

Well, that's my input, so have fun, and remember not to take life too seriously

 

[Starson]

monty_mike:
That's what I wanted to see!!! Reasons!! And I have to say that I can agree with you in the sense that the media hype is overbearing. An argument can be made that the hype has pushed many adults away from this series. The marketing is also a little ridiculous.

But this is one reason why I try not to listen to the media, in terms of how great something is, due to the overwhelming fact that the media blows its product way out of proportion. Very rarely does a book or a movie live up to its hype. Consequently, I come to places like this to get opinions, as varied as they are.

And on an intellectual level, I can sympathize with those who think HP is juvenile and unoriginal. But I still find it very entertaining, and as long I find it entertaining, the media frenzy will just be an irritating background noise to me.

 

[Monty Mike]

As long as you enjoy it, that's what matters

 

[cher]

I agree with Phoric. Harry Potter needs to be considered contextually. I get the sense that many people are judging these books as if they were written for you and me, and they weren't.......unless, of course, you're 10. Ask yourself this: did you like Charlotte's Web? Did you like Are You There God, It's Me Margaret? If you haven't read them, then insert a standard fourth grade book that you read as a kid. Honestly, fond memories aside, would you read Charlotte's Web tomorrow? Probably not. I know I would be bored out of my mind.

Alternatively, I enjoyed the Harry Potter books. Were they as good as Tolkien, Martin, or Hobb? Of course not. Is the dialogue a bit annoying at times? Yes. Are the coversations of adolescents a bit annoying at times? Yes. Are adolescents particularly witty and wise? No. These books aren't supposed to be complex. They're for kids.

I used to tutor elementary-aged children, and I am grateful for JK Rowling. She has single-handedly caused children to push the boundaries into reading on a whole new level. I don't have empirical proof of this, but I've seen it on a case-by-case basis again and again.

The fact that a children's author has managed to draw a rather large segment of the adult population in (and have a whole subsection devoted to her on an adult sff website) further attests to her abilities.

 

[Rocket Sheep]

What I've said may well be foolish, but then I haven't strong views on the books and mainly wrote what I did for Starson, who was being a bit unfairly treated IMO. I think that the moderators are a bit strict as to how far a discussion can go on. There's nothing wrong with a little arguement from time to time, and it's not like any swearing was involved. If we all had to stand by and not say what we truly think, then we wouldn't get very far in terms of this kind of thread.

IMO, people who resort to juvenile name-calling (via name change suggestions) and write that anyone who says something they disagree with is "moronic", won't get far anywhere.

It is possible to carry on a discussion and maybe even an argument without insulting other posters.

I think there is actually an abuse thread in the funzone if it is abuse you're after tho.

 

[Monty Mike]

I'm not out for an arguement, Rocket, and if you know anything about me it's that I like small short posts, sometimes I'm even accused of doing ones so small that they're nearly pointless (though I am trying hard to improve)

But seriously, I don't mean to question your jobs as moderators (if that's the impression you got), and I don't mean to abuse anyone (if that's also the impression you got). I'm not likely to post in this thread again, but if you wish to talk about anything further please PM me.

 

[Rocket Sheep]

But seriously, I don't mean to question your jobs as moderators

Then perhaps you could try harder to stop it from just blurting out there, eh? And let these good people get back to telling us what they find irritating about Harry Potter or how they suspend disbelief for fine and valid reasons that others may not have considered.

 

[Eventine]

On the subject of ignoring the books because of the hype (ie Kater):
I did the same thing for ages. I ignored them just because they were hyped so much. Then, about 3 months ago, I bought the first one, figuring I was well past an impulse purchase based on hype and could weight it up on its own merits.

To be honest, if you're looking for YA fiction I think there's better authors out there. Try Pullman or Nix as starters - they're a lot more original and have, in my opinion, better prose. So I've only read the first book. I'll potentially read the second and decide if I'll continue from there, but it's not something I'll run out and grab.

 

[Sir Stephen]

In response to Monty_Mike and kahnovitch I have to point out that Harry Potter became popular through word-of-mouth. Not through huge marketing campaigns, media coverage, merchandise or films (they came much later).

initialy JKR's book was turned down by several publishers. They didn't feel it would have mass market appeal. When it was finaly published, it started life with no more "hype" than any other childrens book at the time, with meagre shelf space. It was more of an underground thing, with children reading the book and then urging their friends and parents to do likewise. Before the films were released, Harry Potter was already the most popular, current childrens book. Just like LOTR was the most popular fantasy novel before its films were released (ignoring that animated version that no one watched). JK Rowling made it on merit.

As a side note (obviousely) I'm a fan of the books. They are the most addictive things I've ever read (I finnished the 4th book in two days). To people who hate Potter because of all the annoying media hype I'd say keep an open mind, why not try the books?

I find it amusing now, when I think about how I put off reading these books, myself. My younger brother told me how good they were and I took one look at the front cover's childish art and bright colours and laughed, "No way I'm reading that!" (this was way befor the media coverage kicked off). I eventualy conceded to the combined pressure's of my younger brother and mother and grudgingly read the thing - and have never looked back. I suppose you should never judge a book by its cover... or for that matter, its media hype!

 

[Rocket Sheep]

Didn't they address that problem by bringing out adult covers?

 

[Sir Stephen]

Didn't they address that problem by bringing out adult covers?

yes, once they realised the books appealed to adults too, they released adult covers. It was believed that an adult without a kid to buy for, maybe a little embarrased at buying a book for themselves with bright colours splashed all over.

 

[Eurytus]

I don't hate Harry Potter and I do think that the fact it is turning a lot of children onto reading is a good thing however.......

I certainly don't like Harry Potter. I haven't read the books but I have seen the first two films and my dislike is based on those. In particular the first film since I found the second so boring that I could not sustain interest in it.

Firstly what was good about it, well I kinda liked the sub-Dickensian atmosphere though I would frankly prefer the originals.

What irritated me most was the fact that it is a story that extolls the gaining of power/fame by simply an accident of birth.
In the story Harry is not a particularly good wizard, the girl is better, nor is he particularly bright, again the girl is better. The girl is likewise at least as brave as him and his ginger haired friend is likewise.

As a wizard Potter is totally ordinary and yet everybody (well everybody good) totally reveres him. I found it nauseating.

His only real achievement in the school (in that first film) is the place in the broomstick team. Quidditch? He wins that place solely on the basis of one professor's opinion gleaned in a split second by viewing him out of the window. But even then he must be given an advantage. So he just chances to get the best and fastest broom given to him. Yet again the charmed life comes good.

When it comes to the Troll Harry is moderately brave but it is Ron who ultimately stops him.

The end sequence it is the girl who outwits the plant. Potter manages to get the key, fair enough. But it is Ron (who has previously acted like a borderline idiot) who is suddenly a chess master. So Harry gets through to the final confrontation. Does he actually do anything here? No.
The bad guy is killed by his "mother's love".
A deux ea machina ending to be proud off.

Once again Harry wins having done absolutely nothing.

And then to top it all you had the horrible ending. Wherein the top professor tells the bad house that they have won. And then AFTER that starts awarding a load of arbitrary points which results in, yep you guessed it, Potter's house winning.

Any headmaster that treated pupils like that would be an extremely dodgy one in my opinion. That sort of playing on emotions is immoral in the extreme.

So there you go. That's why I don't like Potter. As far as I have seen it is the archetypal boy born with a silver spoon in his mouth story.
I prefer to see real achievement.

 

[Rocket Sheep]

It does fit very neatly into the fantasy quest wheel. Child born with special sign (scar), shadowy history (parents dead), is given things to help him achieve his quest (cape, broom), must save whole village from evil... etc.

 

[Nimea]

SirStephen, thanks for pointing out the 'real story'. It was like that in Germany too - we almost sent the first volume back since it had spent a year untouched in our bookstore, two weeks later word-of-mouth had suddenly worked its wonder.

A cover for adults was also done in Germany, but it was no success at all.


Eurytus, fair enough. It's just a bit sad - and I don't want to convince anyone here to try out HP if they don't want to. I rather mean it's sad that the movie gives such a picture (it's interesting to hear from someone who only saw the movies without ever reading the books).
The thing is, some things you criticise are not really like that because they are explained in the course of all the books. Btw. the Dickensian orphan sometimes seems to be a favourite start for UK children's fiction authors. In the books it is made more clear that Hermione might be the most clever witch etc. but HP is more powerful - okay, maybe because of the incident with V. But the fact he was saved by his mother's love is a very important part of the plot.
And one thing I really like about the books is that HP always needs his two friends to succeed - then again you could interpret that as a cliched lesson about friendship...

Anyway, don't want to go into details. That's not the thread for it. But had to comment.

What I really don't understand is monty's argument about JKR taking advantage with writing fantasy. What's that? If someone writes fantasy for kids and it is successful, than it's just a plot to deceive children? And fantasy was always an important part of children's and YA fiction. I also wonder: do children really want to read what everyone else reads? Adults, yes. But never got that feeling from children.

Ah, well.

 

[Eurytus]

Eurytus, fair enough. It's just a bit sad - and I don't want to convince anyone here to try out HP if they don't want to. I rather mean it's sad that the movie gives such a picture (it's interesting to hear from someone who only saw the movies without ever reading the books).
The thing is, some things you criticise are not really like that because they are explained in the course of all the books. Btw. the Dickensian orphan sometimes seems to be a favourite start for UK children's fiction authors. In the books it is made more clear that Hermione might be the most clever witch etc. but HP is more powerful - okay, maybe because of the incident with V. But the fact he was saved by his mother's love is a very important part of the plot.

As I understand it the films (especially the first two) are excessively accurate to the books. Far more so than the Lord of the Rings films. Mainly because Rowling wants creative veto over them and has insisted that little (if anything) is cut out.

To my mind this actually illustrates the wisdom of Jackson's approach as, by being totally faithful, the Potter films (again first two only I have seen) have become bloated unwieldy messes.

As for Potter being more powerful as shown by his confrontation with V?
As far as I could see he actually did nothing to V at all. It was all done by his mother's love.
And in the second film ok it is him who kills the basilisk thing but with a sword. Again no magic required.

He almost seems never to use any.

 

[Nimea]

As I understand it the films (especially the first two) are excessively accurate to the books. Far more so than the Lord of the Rings films. Mainly because Rowling wants creative veto over them and has insisted that little (if anything) is cut out.

Correct, but also not totally right IMO since there are still things left out and there are a lot of connection between the books. And that gets a bit lost in this kind of translation from book to movie.

To my mind this actually illustrates the wisdom of Jackson's approach as, by being totally faithful, the Potter films (again first two only I have seen) have become bloated unwieldy messes.

I obviously agree to some extend here. Btw. the third movie is far better than the first two, which were just entertaining but nothing more IMO. The third one impressed me not only with the filming, there were some more liberties taken in re-arranging the plot to work for the movie.

As for Potter being more powerful as shown by his confrontation with V?

Hä?
Sorry, maybe I expressed myself wrongly. In later books - or during the whole course of books - it is shown how powerful he is. Why he is so powerful (and I mean not the knowledge of spells etc, just the raw power) isn't so clear - it might be because of what happened between V and him in that fateful night of their first meeting ...

As far as I could see he actually did nothing to V at all. It was all done by his mother's love.
And in the second film ok it is him who kills the basilisk thing but with a sword. Again no magic required.

He almost seems never to use any.

He uses quite some magic, esp. in later books. And as I tried to mention without going into too much detail, the 'mother's love' is an important aspect of the whole plot.
To criticise him not using so much magic to win etc. is interesting - since some criticise the HP books for telling kids that if you can do magic you are better, you will win easily by using it etc.

And again: I am interpreting the books not the movies so for example the thing with the sword had a meaning that I liked and felt to be 'deep' but was not explained well in the movie - surely due to it being simply translated into pictures . . .

So, in the end I guess, to judge the whole HP story only by the movies isn't . . . well, isn't working overall, no matter how much JKR influences the movies. *shrugs*

But well, this is the thread for those who want to express their dislike of HP . . .

 

[Rob B]

Correct, but also not totally right IMO since there are still things left out and there are a lot of connection between the books. And that gets a bit lost in this kind of translation from book to movie.

There is more exposition.

I obviously agree to some extend here. Btw. the third movie is far better than the first two, which were just entertaining but nothing more IMO. The third one impressed me not only with the filming, there were some more liberties taken in re-arranging the plot to work for the movie.

The 3rd film had something the first two lacked Atmosphere and mood.

 

[Rocket Sheep]

Was it the third film where the atmosphere was provided by Harry being stalked by a wolf that actually was only a bit shy about introducing himself as his father's friend? Didn't you feel cheated?

Or do I have the wrong film?

 

[Nimea]

Or do I have the wrong film?

Maybe the wrong book, too?

It's a dog. And why would you feel cheated?

And I agree with Fitz, more atmosphere and mood - even the new actor for Dumbledor had part in that because he was IMO much more like the Dumbledor from the books.