Pompous Asshole on Harry Potter

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-10 10:32pm

Shit for Brains wrote: So have you read it yet? Did you plonk yourself down in your armchair yesterday and feast yourself on Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix?

Maybe you queued up on Friday night to be among the first to get hold of one of the 10 million copies. In which case - unless you really were just buying it for your children - you should be ashamed of yourself.

I am assuming, given that this is The Telegraph and not The Beano, that I do not have to point out that the Harry Potter books are children's books. But given the number of seemingly intelligent, normal adults who display not the slightest embarrassment discussing the finer points of quidditch with other adults, or who are perfectly happy to sit on a train, in full view of the rest of the carriage, reading any of the four previous instalments, I am probably making an assumption too far.

The unsettling truth - unsettling for those of us who consider one of the characteristics of adulthood as being some kind of mental development from childhood - is that, although the Harry Potter books are written for children, marketed at children and enjoyed by children, many of the real Harry Potter fans are adults.

Bloomsbury, the publishers, says itself that adult readers are a core target, which is why it issues the books in special sober "adult" covers. A survey by the Book Marketing consultancy found that adults bought 64 per cent of all Harry Potter books sold last year. Many of those, of course, were for children to read. But many, clearly, were not. They were bought by adults for adults. That is adults who enjoy childish stories.

The number of adults reading Harry Potter for themselves should hardly be surprising, given the infantilisation of our culture. Ms Rowling's fellow children's author Philip Pullman won the Whitbread Book Prize last year for The Amber Spyglass - the first children's book to win. Pullman's books are now being adapted for the National Theatre - and not as children's entertainment.

Nothing new there. Last Christmas I took my nephew to see The Lion King. Having heard that it was booked up for months ahead, I assumed I would have to turn to the touts. Christmas matinees would surely be the busiest period of all for a Disney musical with talking animals.

Well, no. Matinees, it turns out, are the one possibility for getting tickets. It is only the evening performances that are sold out ahead. Overwhelmingly, the audience for The Lion King is unaccompanied adults.

I managed to avoid the first Lord of the Rings film. The critical reception to the second, however, was so overwhelmingly positive - variations on the theme of "a stunning cinematic achievement" - that curiosity, and the accusation that "you can't criticise it unless you've seen it", got the better of me.

After an hour of elves, monsters and hilarious ham acting - hardly surprising, given the drivel the actors had to work with - I walked out. It was a children's film shot for and marketed at adults.

And very shrewd, too, given the demand for such rubbish. It is not, after all, just books and films. Regression into childhood is the defining characteristic of modern culture. Computer games, pop music, loutishness and fast food are all part of the same phenomenon - behaving as a child but in the body of an adult.

I'd better go now. My Thunderbirds puppets need their batteries changing.

What a jackass. I've never read Potter, but adults can't enjoy good fantasy?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-07-10 10:37pm

Pfft jackass indeed.

Literally a person who believes he KNOWS high art and slams what he believes to be kiddy.

generator_g1 · Post by **generator_g1** » 2003-07-10 10:38pm

He's so full of shit...

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-07-10 10:40pm

I would love to see what is in his library or on his DVD / VHS shelves.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-07-10 10:42pm

...and yet JK Rowling is the richest woman in Britain, so I'm sure she doesn't care.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-07-10 10:47pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:...and yet JK Rowling is the richest woman in Britain, so I'm sure she doesn't care.

She's richer than the Queen of England now? You kidding?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-07-10 10:55pm

The person is not only a jackass but also a moron.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-07-10 10:57pm

This is just some loser flaming away at people far more successful than he is.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-10 11:08pm

After an hour of elves, monsters and hilarious ham acting - hardly surprising, given the drivel the actors had to work with - I walked out. It was a children's film shot for and marketed at adults.

This person has earned a gridfire.

generator_g1 · Post by **generator_g1** » 2003-07-10 11:25pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
After an hour of elves, monsters and hilarious ham acting - hardly surprising, given the drivel the actors had to work with - I walked out. It was a children's film shot for and marketed at adults.
This person has earned a gridfire.

How about inviting him here?....

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-10 11:34pm

generator_g1 wrote: How about inviting him here?....

But the person is a "legitimate critic". Why would s/he involve themselves with a bunch of "geeks who over-analyze their pop-culture drivel during every waking hour, since they all still live with their parents".

First use of quotations is me talking, second pair is what the person would think of us.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-07-10 11:36pm

HP may not be the best work ever made, LOTR may not be the best work ever made either, but that kind of pompus idiocy makes me want to scream.

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-07-11 12:36am

How dear he insult LORT and HP! Both are critically acclaimed and both haev Oscar winning moton picture adaptions under their respective belts. I guess he thinks that being the only person to not read them (even some fundies do) gives him the right to critize. He can choke on his shit.

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-07-11 12:42am

He sounds like a pompous, stuck-up Victorian nobleman.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-07-11 12:52am

What a retard.

I wonder what he considers to be "serious fiction"?

On a side note, this guy reminds me of my old Film teacher from HS, Dr. Cochiarrelli (aka Dr.Cock). He had a very similar attitude. My favorite quote will always be: "I wrote a book, you konw. Maybe, I should write another one someday."(said while staring thoughtfully at the ceiling)

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2003-07-11 04:38am

While I agree that Harry Potter is lame, I think adults are perfectly able to enjoy children's stories. Just look at all the anime fans! There's a kid inside every one of us.

(wears flame retardant clothes)

Post by **Edi** » 2003-07-11 04:59am

Egotistical, elitist shithead, that's what the author of that article is. I'd love to know what he considers good literature, it'll probably be something Stephen Fry commented on in an interview regarding the HP books, namely that he found HP far deeper than most adult bestsellers that amount to nothing more than people whining about their relationships ending or other such inane shit.

Edi

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-07-11 05:14am

Kitsune wrote:I would love to see what is in his library

Hmm..... H.P. Lovecraft?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-07-11 05:44am

Dalton wrote:He sounds like a pompous, stuck-up Victorian nobleman.

He probably would refer to sex as "The sexual act" too.

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2003-07-11 06:38am

And funnily enough, The Beano has better writers than The Telegraph. And you'd make more money selling off a complete collection of the comic too ;)

Darth Gojira · Post by **Darth Gojira** » 2003-07-11 07:33am

What a snobbish asshole. I wonder what HE considers good reading....

The Drunkard Kid · Post by **The Drunkard Kid** » 2003-07-11 01:06pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:...and yet JK Rowling is the richest woman in Britain, so I'm sure she doesn't care.
She's richer than the Queen of England now? You kidding?

From what I understand... yes, she is. I don't remember where I read it, but I have seen an article about Rowling which was published shortly after she managed to surpass Queen Elizabeth in monetary wealth.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-07-11 01:19pm

Sounds like that jackass is working under the assumption that kids books are dumbed down stories. In some cases that's right. But it's obvious that Ms. Rowling's books are well written; simple but not stupid.

Mr Jackass clearly doesn't understand that.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-07-11 02:00pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:...and yet JK Rowling is the richest woman in Britain, so I'm sure she doesn't care.
She's richer than the Queen of England now? You kidding?

Rowling is indeed the richest person in the UK.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-07-11 02:09pm

phongn wrote:Rowling is indeed the richest person in the UK.

Which makes Harry Potter such a success story since she started as a single mom who was broke and wrote on napkins in cafes. It kind of gives hope to us all.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Pompous Asshole on Harry Potter

Pompous Asshole on Harry Potter

Re: Pompous Asshole on Harry Potter