Is it just me who hates Harry Potter?

[Mordomin]

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?

The wolf's (dog, actually) shyness was due to it being the title character "The Prisoner of Azkaban" and therefore the most sought-after fugitive in the witching world (and the muggles weren't crazy about him, either). That's bound to make one keep a low profile.

Oh yeah. The 'wolf' also had the Dementors looking for it. Another good reason to lay low, IMO.

 

[Rocket Sheep]

Yeah, yeah, but there's a bit of a difference between "GrrrrRRRRrrrr!" and "Psst... I need to tell you something", don't you think?

It was all a bit of a movie makers red herring... and it was a very ugly, very big dog.

Book three was a few years ago now, but I don't remember the same problem in the book.

 

[Nimea]

Mmh, the dog was very big in the book, too. I don't know about ugly.

But the point was that HP needed to be scared just like he was in the very same scene in the book . . . changing the approach would have been changing the whole plot and both in the book and in the movie it was fairly clear that the big dog had a bit of a mental problem due to certain stuff that happened and on the other hand he could not be sure what Harry was told so he did not want to approach him - he was there for other reasons in the first place and not to talk to Harry.

 

[Starson]

That's the problem with movies. They may be accurate, but they can hardly ever be complete. I agree w/ those who dislike the first two movies. For those who have seen and read, I think many may agree that the movies seemed childish (or dumbed-down) versions of the books. The were kinda cheesy. I really wanted to watch them anyway, because I wanted to see the books on a screen. BUT...the movies will never replace the books. I honestly believe that those who have seen but not read were to give them a try (during a dry spell at the book store), and with an open mind, they would agree that the books are much better than the movies (but, really..when aren't they) and would find them more enjoyable than they previously thought. I'm not suggesting that they would put them on the top of their "best ever" list or anything, but would nevertheless find out why so many people enjoy them.

 

[Chlestron]

I personally enjoyed the Harry Potter books if only because I actually think the universe IS fairly creative. The story itself is fairly simple and predictable, but it IS a children's story. What I really like is the interaction between the 'magical' world and the 'normal' world and I am very much amused by some of the quirks that the wizard group have (such as quills and parchment and candles for light).

 

[Sir Stephen]

Eurytus, I know you to be a fan of LOTR. As I am too, but would you like it to the same extent if you'd only watched the films? Probably not. Dont get me wrong, the Lord of the rings films are great, a better translation from book to film than the HP films, but still, some of the subtleties are lost. It's the same with HP, but to a greater extent.

Take Harry for instance, his character lacks the nervous aggression/ determination he has in the books. He is also very easy to sympathise with in the book, he certainly dosn't come across as "the archetypal boy born with a silver spoon in his mouth". For example wher'as screen Harry seems impassive to his fame, book Harry is by turns embarrased, intimidated and at times annoyed by it. He has a terrible time at home, thanks to his Rold Darlish relatives and thanks to his fame, remember, there's people who would rather kill Harry (Voldemorts previous supporters) than shake his hand. Its a shame you got this impression of Harry, and it just goes to show, you can't rely on a film to get the true translation.

I'd urge you to try the third film. As others have said, its much more accurate in terms of atmosphere and much better than the first two. Better yet, read the book.

On a side note I'd like to point out that Harry is a powerfull wizard (potentialy). We see that in later books (Hermione is more accomplished though). He is very capable when resisting the "dark arts". For example, the imperius curse (mind control), Harry is the only one in his class capable of fighting it. Despite this, its true Harry does nothing in terms of "acheivement" in his first year. Since hes 11/12 years old then, thats quite understandable. One of the things I like about these books is they have a realism (of sorts), a kid generaly can't take on an adult wizard.

 

[Godslayer]

i read them when they come out, sure but i really do hate the books. they are both beyond the point of being insanely elitist and always so damn obvious and the plot/happenings really dont make up for the abysmal writing...

i have to force myself to continue reading, and

Spoiler

when she killed Sirius

- theres pretty much the entire point for reading gone for me.

anyone else?

Nope, you're not alone!

IMO that was the only character that I actually liked, not to mention the whole thing was grossly hyped for a single paragraph!

 

[Heresy]

IMHO, I always find it funny when people point out kids are now reading more because of Rowling. Why? Just because her books sell a lot so that suddenly shows an increase in reading? Seems to me the kids ARE certainly reading HER books, but what else have they read? So, in the 2 year wait when she didn’t write anything... did kids suddenly stop reading?

But the thread was about hating Potter, right? I don’t necessarily hate him as I love the idea about him. I do, however, dislike the mediocre writing of Rowling’s and how she can lift ideas from other authors and get credit for it. My favourite line when someone accused Diana Wynne Jones of stealing HP ideas was her reply that said, "I'm glad JR enjoyed my writing as a child."

(If anything the movies only make a badly written book look good. ^^;

 

[Nunchuckz]

The Harry Potter books are written for children and the plot lines, charactors and writing style all reflect that.

Do I hate Harry Potter?

I read 1 chapter of the 1st book, put it down and that was it for me. I don't hate the books, but I certainly won't read them.

 

[ifaznu]

I agree with eurytus

I have read the first 3 books borrowed from my friend

Harry really never accomplishes anything.
NEver really does much through his own merit.

It is written for children.
So i can except that it is simple fun spoon fed story.

Ursula K leguin's earth sea trilogy is written like its for
young adults or older children yet it is rich.

THe simpsons are written so that it appeals to all ages.

I like the premise of HP
just wish it had more to it

 

[franjacobs]

i haven't read them. i wont' read them for a few good reasons!:
1. i dont' really like reading about children
2. i dont' really like fantasy that is set in worlds that co-exist alongside ours (except alice in wonderland)
3. i didn't like the hype and i am kinda petty and that puts me off!
4. i didnt like the film! saw the first one, thought it was boring and cliche and just didn't want to read the books after that.
5. i dont' really like her! ok i dont' know her, but she's said some daft things that sort of put me off

so i don't really like them, no. not based on reading them, but based on those thigns! which probably aren't the best reason to dislike something but there you are!

and its nice to know some people do dislike them. i got REALLY yelled at elsewhere for saying i had no interest in reading them.

 

[cheese]

Harry Potter will hold a soft spot in me though I have read way better fantasy authors. It was the first book that actually got me into reading and I remember staying up all night just to read the books. They are average books but I still enjoy reading them. Personally I dont like J.K Rowling too much and didn't really like the latest Harry Potter book the Half Blood Prince. It seemed to small and so many parts were missing. I loved the first 4 in the series. Not on my top 20 favourite fantasy series though.

 

[Xiki]

You're not alone. Harry Potter the most over-estimated book ever. If one wants to read fantasy there's GRR Martin, Steven Erikson, Robert Jordan, David Gemmell and of course Tolkien.

Harry Potter is good for a 10 year old child who wants to begin reading fantasy. Rowling copied her ideas from many sources especially Greek Mythology.

Magic is not those long words, wands and other stuff. The story is a simple one. For a true fantastic story read:

The Lord of the Rings
A Song of Ice and Fire
The Malazan Book of the Fallen
The Wheel of Time
The Rigante Series

also: Robin Hobb, Terry Brooks and David Eddings

 

[Janos]

Magic is not those long words, wands and other stuff. The story is a simple one. For a true fantastic story read:

Out of curiosity, why is Harry Potter not a "true fantastic story"?

It's my understanding that a Fantasy is a story wherein fantasic things happen; ie: Things that can't happen in the real world. And - correct me if I'm wrong here - but the last time I checked, kids weren't flying around on brooms fighting the undead spirit of the person that died killing their parents. All in all, that seems rather fantastic to me

 

[Janos]

Oops, Internet hiccuped....

 

[Boll Weevil]

I view it very simply. More children are reading, they are reading fantasy, a significant proportion will go on to read more adult fantasy. Generally more reading by children is good for society in the long run, increasing comprehension and appreciation of complexity. More reading of one of my favourite genres means better sales for the authors and potentially a growth in output.

A more interesting analysis of JKR's work would be what made it "tip" into the phenomenon it now is?

And for kids books, they're pretty darn good.

 

[Randy M.]

I like Harry Potter. I also like the books about him.

1) The first two HP books are children's books. If you do not like reading books written for children, it is unlikely you will like these books. The first two movies hue so close to the books that they are somewhat stiff and formulaic. (I will say, the farther I get from reading those first two books, the better the first two movies look.)

2) Beginning with book 3, the series begins to darken. There is evil loose in the world and it hates Harry. (The movies based on this book and the 4th are less tied to the books -- as the books become longer, the script writers and filmmakers are forced to pare away anything that isn't absolutely essential to their film. Much of the charm of the books, for those of us who feel the charm, resides in those details. The 3rd movie succeeded in spite of the paring; the 4th movie does too, though just barely -- if ever a movie calls for an expanded edition, it's the 4th HP movie.) The tone and events become more complex and the Rowling seems to respect that her initial audience is aging along with her protagonists. In short, what started as YA fiction has been gaining in depth; it's still YA, but aimed at an older group of YA readers.

3) Rowling writes in a breezy, jaunty manner. She is not afraid to say the silly thing or indulge in prank-ish and juvenile humor. But stay alert: As she indulges, she often drops hints of what is to come. Could her prose be edited, tightened, made more concise and direct? Yes. But such editing would need to be very careful for fear of bruising or losing the airiness that makes it such fun reading.

4) I have a tentative theory that I'm more than willing to let someone bash just 'cuz I'm curious about it: If you like the TV series, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," you may well like the HP books.

• While HP deals with somewhat younger children at first, there is some overlap in how the problems and perspectives of the kids are shown.
• Both stories center around an especially gifted individual facing almost insurmountable odds who cannot hope to survive, much less succeed, without help from friends and allies, but who must also sometimes find ways around the rules and regulations adults place on them.
• Both stories deal with issues of friendship, loyalty, and trust.
• Both stories deal with issues of loss and betrayal.
• Both stories display an essential respect for learning and education. Buffy would have died early on without the knowledge and research skills of Giles and Willow; Dumbledore and Hermione have similar positions for Harry.

There ya go. That's as much defense of HP as he probably needs, if the books really need even that much.

Randy M.

 

[Xiki]

What I mean is that imo magic is not how it's described in HP. That's the children's idea of magic, the "Enid Blyton's" idea of magic, with all respect to the wonderful author.
Magic is something inside the wielder, it's not just having a wand or not, or saying the right words or not. It's more than that. Sorcery is not 7 years of studying; it is the power inherited, or else studied over a whole lifetime, and still not being perfectly understood.
What happens in HP does not happen in real life. It's just a bite of what happens in, ok, more fantastic stories, where by the way, the world and it's histories and invented.

 

[Sapphire Rose]

i agree with everyone
i dont hate harry potter, but then again i dont love it. i will read the 7th book when it comes out but i wouldnt die if i dont get a hold of it soon. to my its a book i can read and enjoy, i can then set it aside and read other books.
what i dont like is how some people practically worship the books and think there arent better books out there, the way they blind themselves.. i just hate that attitude for anything

 

[Bond]

what i dont like is how some people practically worship the books and think there arent better books out there, the way they blind themselves.. i just hate that attitude for anything

There aren't any books out there better than the Harry Potter series!