Is it just me who hates Harry Potter?

[GhostShell]

Yeah, i understand, i assumed you were just deflecting at other authors. I do youth work in my spare time and am kinda sick of young people who have only ever read HP declaring its supremacy over all else. I guess i jumped to conclusions when i shouldn't have. So: i apologise.

I agree with you about naked empire and feist, though i still think jordan is doing well (and confusingly so at times). But i see your point.

'Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night, when i wake up i'm getting a cat scan.' - From the comedy of Tim Allen

Chris.

 

[Celebriän]

I think the way i'm writing is making me come off as some sort of troll. I like her work and think that the books are good fun, her style can bother me at times and so can the obvious use of mythic ideas things like Professor Lupin - the names kind of a dead give away to the plot of the prisoner of askaban.

What bothers me about the author is that fact that things aren't subtly used in her books, some are dead obvious and the fact that there are so many authors out there working really hard to come up with ideas but when she needs a angle she borrows obviously, if she did it subtly i wouldn't mind so much.

Hey ghostshell,

well, harry potter was originally written for children - as the first one won a smarties gold award for 9-11 year olds (its on my book - i'm not so cool as to look that up) im assuming thats the age it was originally aimed at.
Some children have never read, so the likelihood of them knowing of most of the mythical references is very small and even those who spent theire entire young lives ( i include myself in this) reading are more likely to have read newer authors than to know of ancient mythology etc.

In addition, subtlety..... once again its for children, how many children get subtlety? ( i know this sounds stereotypical....)

Hope it doesn't sound like im bashing anything of your opinions ( just discussing )

But i digress. Do i hate hp? no. do i love it? yes- i love loads of books so nothing special there. is it my favourite book? depends - not usually

but would i class it as fantasy? in a way no. I'd say a huge part of it is the reality of growing up,which although present in fantasy i'm not sure i'd call it the main plot. Perhaps i'm a bit of a pure fantasist and becuase hp is set in this world i don't think of it as fantasy *shrug* too tired to think

Cel

 

[Sir Yorkshire]

I agree with Celebriän, the series was aimed for kids. It seems to have grown up a bit now but still keeps some of those childish techniques.

 

[Bond]

There seems to be a tendency in this thread to talk down Harry Potter. Things along the lines of "it's only a children's book aimed at kids", "it's not supposed to be a classic", "she copied her story", "she doesn't deserve all the money she's making from it", or perhaps embarassed sounding apologias like "well at least she got kids reading again".

Let me be contrary and say all the above is hogwash. She deserves every cent she makes because her books are simply better than a whole lot of stuff out there period. Her writing is exceptional not ordinary. They are worthy of being considered classics. You think not? Then why haven't other authors sold as many books as Rowling? You'd think considering the amount of success she has enjoyed that better writers if there were any would simply have improved on what she has created and made a comparable killing. But I don't see anyone doing that to any significant degree. So what is going on? Are better authors simply not willing to compromise their artistic integrity so as to supposedly make their stuff more saleable? Sounds like a bunch of empty excuses to me.

 

[Tempo]

There seems to be a tendency in this thread to talk down Harry Potter. Things along the lines of "it's only a children's book aimed at kids", "it's not supposed to be a classic", "she copied her story", "she doesn't deserve all the money she's making from it", or perhaps embarassed sounding apologias like "well at least she got kids reading again".

Let me be contrary and say all the above is hogwash. She deserves every cent she makes because her books are simply better than a whole lot of stuff out there period. Her writing is exceptional not ordinary. They are worthy of being considered classics. You think not? Then why haven't other authors sold as many books as Rowling? You'd think considering the amount of success she has enjoyed that better writers if there were any would simply have improved on what she has created and made a comparable killing. But I don't see anyone doing that to any significant degree. So what is going on? Are better authors simply not willing to compromise their artistic integrity so as to supposedly make their stuff more saleable? Sounds like a bunch of empty excuses to me.

Ah come on now Bond, you know better than to raise the old argument of sales equaling supposed quality. If any opinion is hogwash it is that.

 

[Bond]

Ah come on now Bond, you know better than to raise the old argument of sales equaling supposed quality. If any opinion is hogwash it is that.

Some people like to take solace in the thought that sales do not automatically equal quality, but let's face it it is one of the most important tests out there for quality and to not recognize it as such is self-delusion. If you are looking for a more objective standard you won't find one. Few tests are as rigorous and demanding. One can argue peer recognition or test of time as better yardsticks but they are as flawed as tests for quality as sales numbers are. So are you really going to take the side that sales aren't in any way a test for quality? That should be interesting.

Of course the Harry Potter series will likely pass those tests as well so I don't know if quality is an issue even on that kind of basis.

 

[whitesilkbreeze]

If you are looking for a more objective standard you won't find one. Few tests are as rigorous and demanding.

Personally, I don't think that the test of sales is an objective one. True, sales are an indication of how popular a book is, and they do imply something about the quality sometimes, but I would not go so far as to argue that it is the most objective test around.

Now I know very little of the publishing industry, but a part of me tells me that marketing is a key part in getting sales up. If a publisher decides to bank on you and market you, you may get lucky and have sales go up. After all, if J.K. Rowling was so exceptional, she should have got rich as soon as a the first book popped out. (Although I read somewhere that most of her money doesn't come from the royalties; it comes from the consumer goods and movies, and so on.)

Besides, I know many people buy books because they are on some foreign bestseller list (mind you, I'm in Asia, so anything out of here is foreign), and then not read them, or buy a book because it's "literary" or it's won a prize and it makes them look intelligent. There are also many books that are of fine quality but don't get the attention they deserve.

If we really use sales as a measure of quality, why isn't Shakespeare topping the weekly bestseller lists then?

True, the test of time and peer recommendations are flawed as well. Depending on how similar your tastes are with your friends, you may enjoy their recommendations. The test of time seems to allow particularly exceptional books that have caused some stir in contemporary times to last, but not the pretty good books that didn't get enough attention in their time.

There's nothing wrong with children's books if they are written well. If they are good, they will entertain you to some degree no matter what age you are. I thought the first few HP books were better written than the later ones, really.

 

[GhostShell]

I have to mirror some of WSB's comments, you can't judge quality by sales, you're a registered user since 2001, surely you've seen the cliche sections on fantasy writing or taken a look at some of the comments in the writing forum or other author forums.

Even in this one its been mentioned about the decline of other writers work who are still making a mint off of sales.

I agree that Rowling has a good writing style, but it has been well noted that all industries prefer to go with the tried and tested work to bring in sales, why do you think hollywood sequels exist; most are nothing in comparison to their predessesors, but the idea worked before and should work again. So they put it forward because it has a good guarantee for sales. In the writing world this means that new writers who take up different ways of working might not even get published let alone sell well, so even if their work is of good quality they might not make it.

Rowling did corner a section of the market that had not been properly used or considered - that is selling involving fantasy-type series with a much younger audience in mind, and because she decided to make it also accessable for older ages (e.g. adult type covers) she is covering more markets than other fantasy writers who mostly target JUST adult audiences.

So of course her sales are going to be better, if you, bond, set up shop in one town and sold a brand of watch, yet i sold the same brand of watch in three different towns, i should and most likely will get better sales. That doesn't make my watch's quality any better or worse than yours, it just means i was selling to a larger group of people and in a large group of people my average sales would be higher than in a smaller group. (wow, don't i sound math).

This is not any kind of a run down and i would not like it to come across as such.

Anyone can test this example by asking a large group of people and then a small group of people what sort of crisps or ice-cream they prefer.

All i'm saying is that you can't judge quality by sales, i'll buy Barclay's work quicker than i'll buy Martin's, simply because the writing style is more easily accessable for me to read, but i still think they're both brilliant writers and do own a copy of each book they've ever sold, that doesn't prove which one's better though.

Sales can only tell you: that somethings sells well.

 

[Tempo]

"Some people like to take solace in the thought that sales do not automatically equal quality"
Are you saying then, as the counterpoint to that line, that sales equals quality. Crossroads of Twillight anybody?

"test of time as better yardsticks but they are as flawed as tests for quality as sales numbers are"
Surely a book adjudged to have stood the test of time would be a far better bet than any bestseller, even if it isnt a perfect barometer either? I know which I would choose.

"They are worthy of being considered classics. You think not? Then why haven't other authors sold as many books as Rowling?"
HP are classics because they have sold more than others?

"So are you really going to take the side that sales aren't in any way a test for quality? That should be interesting. "
Who said sales wasnt in any way a test for quality? I said that sales does not neccessarily/automatically equal quality. Thats subtly different.
(btw, if you roll your eyes enough, can you see out of the back of your head? That would be handy).

I couldnt be bothered arguing that Ice is cold today. The Fantasy genre is chock full of top quality "Potter surpassing" works that never reach the bestsellers lists. Many of the Authors that often do reach the bestsellers lists are commonly adjudged to be flawed in many, many ways.
Sales does not indicate quality, it indicates popularity.
Caio.

 

[Bond]

So people here really want to show off how politically correct they are, even if it means denying the obvious, fine.

If we really use sales as a measure of quality, why isn't Shakespeare topping the weekly bestseller lists then?

One could argue whether Shakespeare even deserves the reputation that is accorded him and then try to concoct some formula as to how that translates to his importance. But that really misses the point. Answering the question why this 16th(?) century playwright is being sold at all, however, should give more pertinent information.

Sales can only tell you: that somethings sells well.

Not really. It also tells you people are willing to put their money where their mouth is---or in some cases they're willing to put their money somewhere despite what their mouth says.

HP are classics because they have sold more than others?

Actually yes. Because they have sold so many, and by extension have been read by so many, anyone who wishes to argue in favor of the classic status of HP can make the argument far better than many other contemporary contenders that these books influenced an entire generation of readers. Moreover, if one is looking for cultural icons that are representative of this generation HP can without much fuss be put forth as a candidate.

Sales does not indicate quality, it indicates popularity.

Ah, but then the question is what does popularity indicate?

 

[kahnovitch]

Ah, but then the question is what does popularity indicate?

Two words; Crazy Frog.

I rest my case.

 

[Janos]

Two words; Crazy Frog.

I rest my case.

Two small words, and yet so much meaning

 

[GhostShell]

What does that mean anyway?

Also Bond, its clear that you only want to think your way and not take time to think about other opinions, that's fine, its your perogitive.

Its also clear that you really like HP, also fine.

Finally, its clear that because you refuse to agree or take on board the possibility of whatever anyone else is saying that its not worth it talking to you about it.

Normal people go: "I don't agree, i can see what you're saying but i just really don't agree." - that sort of thing is fair enough. But we're saying that you can't judge quality by sales, bestsellers and writing quality are not the same thing, you can't honestly tell me you've liked every book that's ever been called a bestseller, that'd be crazy talk.

We can't argue with your right to really, really like HP (notice that this thread is about HP not rowling), its your right to like whatever you want.
But you also can't argue against our points either, and that's clear by the fact that you refuse to take are arguements as a whole and are simply nit-picking about one or two sentences:

"HP are classics because they have sold more than others?- Actually yes. Because they have sold so many, and by extension have been read by so many..." -
- its clear by this point that you don't wanna give ground at all. AND as i said earlier HP is targeting a wider audience than other fantasies, so there for it has a much larger range of potential buyers and can sell "so much", that doesn't affect how she writes it or how well or not well that the book itself is written.

People enjoy HP, that's great. I don't like Maeve Binchy, that doesn't mean her writing is bad or good, just that i don't like her stories, the same goes for HP people read it because they like the stories, if the stories sucked, well written or not she'd fall in sales, good quality of writing or not and she'd fall in sales. So does that mean that because she fell in sales that she is not of good quality writing, no, it means her stories were not enjoyable. Sales really have nothing to do with quality. To say otherwise is just nonsense.

FINAL EXAMPLE, i was involved in the shooting of a commercial for a particular phone company (not going to mention which), the adverts were of good quality as far as the video, sound and editing were involved - the campaign didn't get the response that was wanted and the product failed, the quality of our video had nothing to do with that - what we put out had nothing to do with that, it was what we were representing that was no good, and as i said if a story is no good, it doesn't matter how good the writing style representing it is, it will not sell.

(*rapid breathing to calm down heart*)

Please for goodness sake just agree-to-disagree, that way you don't have to conceed or agree to anything, we can believe our point and you can believe your point. Then let us leave of this stupid topic that is just going to go on and on and on... and get back to normal book related conversation.

 

[kahnovitch]

What does that mean anyway?

Here's a hint

 

[Dawnstorm]

Rowling did corner a section of the market that had not been properly used or considered - that is selling involving fantasy-type series with a much younger audience in mind, and because she decided to make it also accessable for older ages (e.g. adult type covers) she is covering more markets than other fantasy writers who mostly target JUST adult audiences.

Ever noticed how the Harry Potter-concept itself covers various ages? There were seven parts, wich makes sense if you look at the education schedule. That means a reader who starts with the story at age 11 (and with book 1) will be 18 when the series finishes, assuming there's a book a year (which would have been the plan, I assume; I also think that this plan might have rushed the latter books, resulting in some uneven prose; I'm inclined to think book 3 is the best so far).

Once the series is finished, people will be able to pick up the entire series in one go. That poses interesting problems: Say you're a mom. When will you give the books to your kids? Will you let them read all the books at age 11? At age 14, mightn't they find the early books too childish? Interesting questions, I think. (Personally, I'd let them read them all, whenever they want to; what they don't understand, they'll come to understand, and the books will grow with them.)

***

Me, I quite enjoy the books. I don't mind people borrowing ideas from other sources; if you weave a carpet, do you have to make the threads yourself?

 

[GhostShell]

Ahhhhh. That crazy frog! Sense is made - that is to say i understand now.

 

[Sir Yorkshire]

Yeah! I blasted that damn frog 36 metres! Uh... carry on...

 

[GhostShell]

i keep getting 35 and a half with the frog.

I stopped reading after the third book but i still watch the films and after the latest i started number 4, i really do think is the most interesting story and it seems much more the way things used to be made for young audiences: that is "if we (the adult creators) will enjoy it, kids will enjoy it too" it also seems to take more of everyone's characters into consideration - i mean you've got more than just harry's, you've got hermine's feelings for harry in danger, her feelings for ron - period, ron and harry's friendship in turmoil, an interest between neville and ginny, snape's old involment with voldemort (which is cool) and the best defence against the dark arts teacher that i've noticed so far.

I think it would be interesting if the books were spaced out a bit for kids reading eg. every 6 months or so they can read a new one, that way they do grow as the characters do and its something comfortable to come back to, but its not the only thing we should introduce them to, my 12 year old brother was introduced to Rowling, Eddings and Salvatore around the same time. So that he's got a range and can read when he feeling the urge for a particular read.

 

[sarandan0n]

I got 80 HAHAHAhahaha....

Anyway surely all that matters is that if you like a book. I mean that's what makes a real classic.

 

[laulnewek34]

well

Well, so everybody here says that HP is a good book. Well, I thought so too, I read the fist book and flipped few pages and found nothing interesting. But 3 years later, I found it quite amusing despite its incredibly absurd logics and everything Anyways, I kept reading it and skipped a book and went on. And I became a HP Mania and even bought that expensive hard-covered book (HP 5) But when the 6th came out, I couldn't bare it. The illogical schemes and stupidity in the novel just sickened me bad. I like the story and all the fancy characters, but I really hate all this magic stuff. I mean, I like Shannara, and Eragon novels but this Harry Potter is pure work of shi@#. I know that HP is a SF, still, it's crappy. With illogic craps like wands. Oh h.e.l.l yeah, The stupid wand thing!!! what can a little stick do??? I mean if you're a magician, can't you just make a wand outa the air??? I mean if anything, like making a rat into a goblet as it was shown in the HP 2 movie, is possible, isn't making a wand conceivable??? And that broom stick, that crap looks like really uncomfortable piece of work. If you're a grown man, you don't want to sit on a stick in the mid air; your balls gotta hurt alot. And the flying car, if there's flying car that means the car is actually made out of metals and all those mechanic technologies that originally belong to Muggles. And JKR says Magicians don't use technologies. And the last thing: if there's a flying car, why didn't JKR thought of a good sport like flying car racing instead of that crappy sport called Quidditch??? Oh this isn't it!! You know Chirstopher Paolini??? He wrote a fabulous book called Eragon and Eldest, and he writes all this queer things but he also explains them. One of the elf who trained Eragon, the main character, tells how magic worked. He said that magic didn't work just by vibrating the air around you,(I’m talking about something like “Avada Kadavra” - Really Dumb) it works by provoking and affecting the magic inside you to activate it. but JKR wrote none of that, the only thing that is similar to Christopher Paolini's concept is that when she wrote a brief information about how to use magic without speaking. And which had a lame explanation. And anyone who went far enough to read this last comment, tell me, why'd anyone be afraid to speak a bad guy's name and be terrified by it??? Do you get scared when you speak McBeth's name??? You get terrified when you speak Osama Binladen's name?????? Don't we just casually say the word "Luciper" out loud???? This whole "He-who-must-not-be-named" crap and "you-know-who" is very very very absurd. If JKR’ll ever write another magic-concerning novel she oughta make some sense out of it.
‘