Harry Potter books- do they suck ass?

[Vympel]

I hear two things. On one side, people say they're good, and on the other side, I've heard people say the author is nothing but a monkey with a type-writer who pilfers ideas.

What's your opinion, oh board?

[BlackWarMewtwo]

Most of the second camp hasn't read a single book in the series.

For children's books, they are pretty good.

[Sea Skimmer]

Fucking yes, its sucks shit like a septic tank. I threw down the first one half way through and have never touched/viewed a single thing potter book or movie since. The hyperactive anti logic crazy that surrounds the whole series rivals that of Star Trek, only with ten times the fans.

[GSV Use Psychology]

They're pretty good. The first and second book were quite childish, but this has lessened in the later parts IMO. I was quite amused to find an anus joke in the fourth one

[Edi]

No, they don't suck. For starters, when you look at it, all authors purloin already used ideas to a certain extent, and authors of fantasy books are no exception. Look at any single fantasy writer's work and you'll most likely see a lot of ripoffs from Greek mythology, elements of Celtic stuff and from other sources as well. Some simply copy-paste things and change a few names around, and I despise that sort of laziness. Others take a source of inspiration and even if they blatantly plagiarize it, they add elements of their own, reshape the material, mix it with something else and use it as a background to set their own original story in.

Take a look at two trilogies:
#1 R.A. Salvatore's Demon Dactyl trilogy (The Demon Awakens, Demon Spirit, Demon apostle)
#2 Michael Scott Rohan's Winter of the World trilogy (Anvil of Ice, The Forge in the Forest, Hammer of the Sun)

#1 is nothing but pure, unadulterated, plagiarized shit, with one single original idea in it, using gems as sourcces and focuses of magic. But all in all it is lame, lame, lame, lame and lame, with the setting, society, power structures and everything else lifted straight out of the Middle Ages, and only the name of the Catholic Church changed. I had to force myself to read it through, and it was extremely painful.

#2 takes some elements of Celtic mythology, and rips off Kalevala (the Finnish national epic) wholesale six ways from Sunday, even keeping the names as they are (spelling change from Tapio to Tapiau and Tuone to Taoune or Tuonetar to Taounehtar hardly qualifies as full change). I'm a Finn, and I sould be outraged at such theft, right? Wrong. I could hardly put the books down. The plot is completely original and has almost nothing to do with Kalevala's, and what has been borrowed has been modified heavily, and blended seamlessly to Celtic myths to produce something very original, refreshing and gripping, and the author deserves a huge load of compliments.

In my opinion Rowling has done much the same thing as M.S. Rohan, except she didn't go for anything as obscure as The Kalevala, but has instead taken well known myths and historical stuff (Greek mythology, medieval superstitions and images for the most part) and blended those with British history both old and recent. The elements in the backdrop of her story can be recognized as being cookie-cuttered from several different sources (the backdrop of all fantasy is, more or less), but the pieces have been fitted together to form a cohesive whole, not just a collection of mismatched bits. I thought the story was good, certainly far better than many I've read from more experienced authors. There aren't many authors whose work I'd bother reading four or five times, if you want any indication of how entertaining I find the HP books.

Many people complain about how the plot isn't good enough, or that it's so predictable or some other thing, but usually the miss the point that it's a children's book, for fuck's sake! So of course it can't have plot twists taht make the whole thing look like a Gordion's knot, that's not the point. Besides that, there are very subtle undercurrents in the plot, most of which become apparent only after you've read the following books (e.g. there's stuff in The Philosopher's Stone that takes on a whole new significance after you've read the three other books, and same goes for all of them), or on a second reading. You don't see stuff like that happen too often, and that's why I have a great respect for Rowling's writing talent.

Of course, it might be that the HP books are not your cup of tea, but the only way you will know is by taking up the first one and reading it, and maybe the second one too for good measure so you can get a wider sample than just the shortest book. Not everyone likes the same things, and I know people who don't care for the HP books but who will praise Redwall at great length. I couldn't get past chapter two of the first book, lost interest, vs. finishing the first HP book in three and a half hours.

Imo, quite a lot of the criticism against Rowling is born of jealousy, ignorance and in many cases religious intolerance.

Take a look and make your own decision, is my advice.

Edi

[Darth Fanboy]

I fucking hate them, but they're childrens books. It doesn't matter if I hate them becaue i'm not in the group of people out there buying them.

But I gotta ami,t it's way beeter than what pokemon was doing to the country.

[Shadow WarChief]

Let me put it like this. I read the first 3 books when I was 12-13 years old. They seemed ok and the third one was fairly dark so I liked it more than the others.

Now after waiting 3 1/2 years I've read the 4th book and by God it was pretty good.

Something you must understand is that the book's are maturing with the characters. As the kids get more mature, they're getting exposed to more mature things and hence, the books mature and the important thing to remember is that THE TARGET AUDIENCE HAS MATURED. As such the books are becoming more mature By the time the kids are 14, We have fairly grisly descriptions of torture, instant death spells, and a fucking genocidal maniac on the loose with his own cult which could best be described as "what if the KKK of the 1920's was given modern weaponry?"


They're getting increasingly darker and I think that they have great potential.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I have only seen the first film which was okay (more a LotR fan) but I hear the books are good and I may yet read one one day. Discworld is more my area.

[Morat]

They're good children's books, but I wouldn't want to read one.

[Mr Bean]

They get better as they go on and I'm just just saying that because I recived a full-set from my much better off Aunt who handled the shipping of the Book to the US (That was a good day for the family)

[Sothis]

I like the books. The films were ok, but the books add much more detail, and interwoven plots. There's also a decent amount of consistency within the books.

[Ghost Rider]

They're a nice read.

I mean they have some decent issues hidden underneath the children's title but nothing that makes you ponder about life the universe and everything, just basically a nice subway read because it's fun.

[BenRG]

Well... I voted no in the end. It summed up my feelings better.

The're okay, I guess. I've read books 1 and 3 and about 1/3 of book 2. I generally liked them, but I am not a shouting, gleeful fan. IMHO, they aren't the massive phenomenon that some people try to make out. However, they are competent pieces of work, and certainly better than the average Star Trek licenced novel from the bad ol' days of TNG season 1.

[Enforcer Talen]

their pretty good. I first thot of them as typical middle schooler lives with some magic customing, but I read them, and they have some cute ideas. I havent read em more then 3 times, not worth that much, lol, but they are interesting. as the series progresses, the villany I prefer is arriving.

God help me, I love a stylish villian. hehehe

[Lord Pounder]

I'm gonna say Yes. These books are a stepping stone for kids who might be interesting in Sci-Fi/fantasy books. Not all kids can just pick up an Alan Dean Foster book.

I also voted yes because they seem to annoy rabid fundies who claim that the writter is a witch and should burn when in fact she is herself a moderate christian, and a single mother who wrote about Harry to amuse her children.

[DPDarkPrimus]

They're like Twinkies. Quick and sweet, but leaves you feeling a bit empty still.

[Necro99]

Alto i love the kids+white magic mix, it dosent hold a handle to
Teens + Death Magick for Adepts

[Master of Ossus]

I think that they are quite creative and well written. They do borrow heavily from mythology, but I actually think that increases their artistic merit. In my professional opinion, Harry Potter is the only series of popular fiction being written today that has any chance of being a significant literary feat, as seen by the people fifty years from now.

[Crown]

If you are looking for in-depth reading you will have to wait a while, as the author has always maintained that she wants kids to 'grow up' with the books. Basically 1 & 2 are cute kids story, 3 starts getting serious, 4 first death of a character, 5 (unconfirmed) more death and mayhem. These books have an all up, 7 year story arc, it starts when Harry is 11, and it will end at Harry being 18.

Personally I like them, they were very enjoyable.

[neoolong]

I think that they are quite creative and well written. They do borrow heavily from mythology, but I actually think that increases their artistic merit. In my professional opinion, Harry Potter is the only series of popular fiction being written today that has any chance of being a significant literary feat, as seen by the people fifty years from now.

Do you think they'll be LOTR significant?


I haven't read them yet.

[Gil Hamilton]

I like the Harry Potter books. They are internally consistant and the world is suprisingly detailed. Also, for childrens books, they have some gritty stuff in them. For instance, Azkaban (and all that it implies with the dementors) is truly nasty and Voldemort and his Death Eaters are some fucked up shits. And you can just tell that things are going from bad to worse. I mean, it's not classic literature (especially not the first one, which was pretty unpolished writing wise), but they are fun stories. They are a tad predictable, because it seems to be a staple of Rowlings to have what ever person they implicate in the story as the villain be actually innocent with a suprise person be the real villain working for Voldemort. Though it should be noted that it's not necessarily a suprise, usually process of elimination works to determine who is the real villain, aside from the third book which really caught me off guard (Scabbers?!). Also, if you are the Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, you might as well be a StarTrek redshirt, because you won't be teaching there for very long.

The key to enjoying them really is to not take them too seriously. Like with The Goblet of Fire, parts of the book is absolutely hilarious if you read it from the mindset of a high school freshman, which prompted me to rename the book in my mind "Harry Potter and the Hormones a-Poppin'". Also when I read the second book I seriously thought that Ginny had walked in on Percy wanking off (which fit the facts better than him having a girlfriend) until they established his relationship with Penelope.

[Peregrin Toker]

I have read the first 3, and I've got to say that they're are decent fantasy books, although they're not on level with Tolkien or Pratchett.

I'm pretty much sure that there are far worse fantasy books!! (Some D&D novels come to mind)

[Stormbringer]

Do you think they'll be LOTR significant?

Probably not. More likely they'll end up like the Narnia or Redwall series. Good reads, solid story, and entertaining enough but without a lot of the deep signifigance of Lord of the Rings

I haven't read them yet.

They aren't bad but they're not something you have to rush out and read.

[2000AD]

The first two books are OK but boring in places. IMO the third and fourth are better. Darker, a little more exciting, they ass rape the first two but are still average. I suggest watching the movies for the first two (quicker) and then reading the 3rd and 4th.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I've never read them, but from what I have read about them, they sound overly simplistic and dumbed down. And all the weird naming crap sounds extremely silly.

I didn't read books like that when I was a kid. Silly books were moronic to me (the closest I got was Roald Dahl, but he was pure talent), and made me feel intilectually insulted. Kids can be pretty smart, so don't have them read dumb books.

Utsanomiko saw about 30 minutes of the first film, and he called it a cut-and-paste job of other stuff without making sure that any of it fit together. And I've heard that the effects were inconsistant.