Harry Potter sucks

[the_faery_queen]

the subverting the genre thing always snarked me off. to me that's a prime example of arogance there. if she is talking about the fantasy genre, rather than children's genre, then she is impling that she's doing something different to it, changing it, and she's not really.

also, if she won a hugo, and didn't know what it was, it wouldn't have taken her a few seconds to find out. and i thik it's a little rude of her NOT to bother to find out! even if she does win lots of awards, i don't think people should ever become complacant about that sort of thing. it seems a slap int eh face to others, who try hard and would love to have it. even athletes who win lots of things, still seem very proud of everything they've won, even little things. and i thik rowling, if she really did behave indifferently to it, must have known what it was, or she could have easily found out, so there isn't really an excuse for being indifferent.

[that old guy]

I haven't so much as opened one Harry Potter book, but I kind of find the attitude she's taking rather refreshing. I like Lewis and love Tolkien, but I don't expect everyone to share my view. So my attitude there is utter apathy, with a dash of wondering why should give anyone give a...errrm...care what Rowling thinks about them. You've got your opinion, she's got hers. It's all good.

And my opinion of awards is best summed up in Belbo's expression from Foucault's Pedulum: Ma gavte la nata. It meant something along the lines of "take the cork out [of your ass] and let the wind out." As in somebody with a cork up their you-know-what would became puffed up with a pretentiousness that would deflate upon the removal of said cork.

Pfffffhhhhhttttt.

So her attitude there is all to the good from where I'm sitting. And perhaps I'll think about reading her now.

[aarti]

I actually think the author of J.D's article, who thinks that fantasy the fantasy genre "tends to be deeply conservative--politically, culturally, psychologically. It looks backward to an idealized, romanticized, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves" is at least as much to blame as Rowling for stirring up ire!

After all, if the reporter suggested to Rowling that fantasy was all about Greensleeves, then one can't blame Rowling for wishing to subvert the genre. I think the reporter her(him?)self seemed to approach the interview with a very aggressive slant against fantasy.

Granted, this discussion is supposed to be about Rowling- but did that sentence not leap out at anyone else?!

[McMurphy]

It would appear the Rowlings is suffering the same poor attitude as the band Oasis.

As to whether or not her books "suck," I must admit that I don't feel that they do. Granted, I do think hype (note that I do not use the term "buzz" since it suggestions some merit) is largely self-fueling and the main stream fodder writer has no business taking stabs at legitimate fantasy authors. She does have a winning formula down well, and that shouldn't be understated. That does take skill.

[dustinzgirl]

Personally I can't stand Harry Potter story line. Its boring, irritating, and man I want to slap him silly.

But, my kids love the story, and it is a kids story. Just because us grown-ups (well, sorta grown ups) think its trite doesn't mean its not good for the kids of this generation. I mean, we had Conan, Star Wars and Evil Dead, all of which stole from a bjillion other myths and legends, so even those are not perfect original stories.

And, Harry Potter I think is more than just a kid with a wand. Its a kid trying to find his place in ta cruel world, and somehow I think that is an important thing for kids to read about.

[McMurphy]

Originally Posted by dustinzgirl

Personally I can't stand Harry Potter story line. Its boring, irritating, and man I want to slap him silly.

But, my kids love the story, and it is a kids story. Just because us grown-ups (well, sorta grown ups) think its trite doesn't mean its not good for the kids of this generation. I mean, we had Conan, Star Wars and Evil Dead, all of which stole from a bjillion other myths and legends, so even those are not perfect original stories.

And, Harry Potter I think is more than just a kid with a wand. Its a kid trying to find his place in ta cruel world, and somehow I think that is an important thing for kids to read about.

Good point. I mean, I grew up loving Masters of the Universe cartoons. Looking back at them now, I am amazed that my parents didn't find me as braindead.

[dustinzgirl]

Originally Posted by McMurphy

Good point. I mean, I grew up loving Masters of the Universe cartoons. Looking back at them now, I am amazed that my parents didn't find me as braindead.

OMG I love He-man and She-Ra

I HAVE THE POWER OF GRAYSKULL!

But looking back, I can see why my mom was always "do we have to watch those cartoons AGAIN?"

LOL.

[Thor_Doomhammer]

Originally Posted by the_faery_queen

thats my thoughts on it anyway. cos the people i know who LOVE potter and think it's the best, dont' read any other fantasy at all. i have some friends who do read other fantasy and who still love potter, but not usually for the, it's unique, it's twisty, reasons, but more because they think it's entertaining, or well written.

Personally I agree with this. As far as fantasy goes, Harry Potter is definitely not the best there is. But as far as books in general go, I think Harry Potter is definitely a must read. If this series is so popular that the final installment can reach the online best-seller lists 5 months before it even is released, there must be something to the series. So while I do concede that Harry Potter is definitely not a book for someone looking for straight fantasy, the title "Harry Potter Sucks" may be a little extreme.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Thor_Doomhammer

[...]while I do concede that Harry Potter is definitely not a book for someone looking for straight fantasy, the title "Harry Potter Sucks" may be a little extreme.

Well, that was the original title of the thread, done by a person who was spamming. Before the mods had a chance to remove it, enough answers had been posted that it was decided to keep the thread around... even with the childish title.

[YoYo]

It may be childish but I still like the title that's just because I've been longing to hear (or see) someone not worshipping HP. Look, the series is neither so intriguing, nor well written in my opinion. I can't get why people like it so much... and not only kids, which is quite embarrassing

[Lith]

I think it's amazing that any book, let alone a "children's" book, is so popular that someone had the bright idea to spoil it for everyone by hanging the ending off a freeway. I mean, geez! Who would normally care so much?

I get the distinct feeling that the writer of the Time article knows little of the fantasy genre, and probably got a little creative with their conversation with Rowling, anyway. Suggesting that Lewis would be a Death-Eater is just wrong on so many levels.

I've never heard that she snubbed the Hugos- if anyone can find any solid information, I'll take a look, but until then I'll reserve all judgement. Though I would find it hard to believe the organizers of the Hugo wouldn't send out announcements to all their nominees.

The only thing I've heard Rowling say is that she didn't know she was writing a children's book; that is, she didn't write specifically for children. Other writers have said the same- their books just get thrown into the children's category afterwards. Like Brian Jacques. In fact I think you almost have to write for adults to write well for children.

Her books can hardly be said to be subverting anything, in spite of her rather subversive sense of humor. Plot-wise and world-wise they are nothing new. But they are still a good read.

All in all, I take her interactions with the press with a few grains of salt. She's gotten way more attention than she ever planned or probably wanted, and it's very difficult not to get a bit snarky when people are prying at your personal life all day long, and when you have to deal with uninformed reporters and answer the same questions over and over again.

[Black roses]

Originally Posted by dustinzgirl

Personally I can't stand Harry Potter story line. Its boring, irritating, and man I want to slap him silly.

But, my kids love the story, and it is a kids story. Just because us grown-ups (well, sorta grown ups) think its trite doesn't mean its not good for the kids of this generation. I mean, we had Conan, Star Wars and Evil Dead, all of which stole from a bjillion other myths and legends, so even those are not perfect original stories.

And, Harry Potter I think is more than just a kid with a wand. Its a kid trying to find his place in ta cruel world, and somehow I think that is an important thing for kids to read about.

Well, and I am a kid. I'm in junior high. And I hate Harry Potter. I think that Harry Dresden, or Ralph from lord of the flies, are both much more important. I can find twenty books about a kid trying to find his place ina cruel world. But there's only one Jane Eyre, or A Clockwork Orange.

[BookStop]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

(or Rowling -- though I couldn't resist responding to that comment that Thadlerian mentioned, and the fact that they're naming scientific discoveries after her seems a bit ... off... ).

we complain about scinece being o the decline, but what if naming something after her gets it more publicity and gets kids nterested, where they might'nt have cared otherwise. I think it's a brilliant marketing move on thier part, and if it works...kudos.

[j. d. worthington]

BookStop... I'd take issue with that on several levels. One: Rowling is undoubtedly a phenomenon, but a passing one. Within 20 years, her name is likely to be at best a footnote in literary history; two: because she has absolutely no connection to science, the above point will tend to have people who are learning about these things scratching their heads and asking "who the hell is this Rowling person, and why was she chosen when there are so many more deserving recipients for this honor who were or are connected to the sciences?"; three: it is buying into this cult of the personality regardless of merit, encouraging it in one area that should be minimizing such sensationalism in favor of genuine merit -- we're not talking a breakfast cereal here, we're talking about a celestial body.... dammit, that's putting her right up there with Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto ... and there is absolutely no way she deserves that kind of recognition! And four: the basic premise that this will interest kids in the sciences more is highly unlikely. It will be at best a piece of trivia for J. K. Rowling fans and quizzes, but will have absolutely no impact on the encouragement of science education, because there is no real connection. It is yet another mistaken attempt at grasping at popularity contest sort of reasoning, and history shows time and again that that is completely worthless in encouraging interest in science. It's ephemeral; whereas naming of these things should be weighed carefully, based on merit and placement in the history of science itself, not celebrities.

I've nothing against giving the woman her due, but this is as ridiculous as naming a supercollider (or a library) after George W. Bush!

[Joel007]

Don't all american presidents have their own library?