I haven't really had the urge to read these books...should I?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
You will be hooked.
Hell, if you're motivated you can do the first three books in a day.
quote:
Noxhil2 wrote this stupid crap:
it's amusing when Harry turns angsty in the fifth book.
Nah that was just plain irritating. Hope she DOES gank his ass in book seven.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
And I didn't like Harry Potter then. I don't want to sound like a pretentious cunt but i've not had an interest in children's books since I was about 9.
So short pointless story aside what i'm trying to say is that No, Karnaj, you aren't the only one.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael wrote:
Nah that was just plain irritating. Hope she DOES gank his ass in book seven.
Teenangers being angsty? Sound the alarm! This cannot stand!
quote:
I bet you never expected leckzilla! to say:
In the UK they make school children aged about 12 (year 8. I think I was 12 anyway.) read a selection of books for the Carnagie medal or however the fuck it's spelt and then vote which one they prefer, and the year I got to do it was the year the very first Harry Potter book was shortlisted for it.And I didn't like Harry Potter then. I don't want to sound like a pretentious cunt but i've not had an interest in children's books since I was about 9.
So short pointless story aside what i'm trying to say is that No, Karnaj, you aren't the only one.
The first book is very much aimed at children. They progressively get more adult oriented.
quote:
Pvednes said:
Harry Potter books are fun for all ages of children.
quote:
Blindy said:
The first book is very much aimed at children. They progressively get more child oriented.
Fixed these for you.
Too bad I dropped off after about the fourth one, though. Lack of free time.
quote:
Mortious probably says this to all the girls:
Fixed these for you.
The first one is painfully child-oriented, and they ramped up in maturity for the second and especially the third.. then four and five were fucking godawful. I haven't touched the others.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about Pirotess:
I think Harry will die, but he'll knock up someone before he does, so that the cash cow can be milked again in a couple years. You know, after J.K. Rowling gets tired of literally swimming in cash.
She is so Scrooge McDuck.
quote:
Pvednes wrote this stupid crap:
I reckon Harry dies at the end.
That's the predominant theory, since a lot of people believe his scar is the 7th Horcrux.
I liked them, Karnaj. They're easy reads (I read 4 while I was in the hospital for that couple days last year after surgery so I could be fresh when I saw the movie), they have good characterization, the plots are rather creative and the world she's created is well-fleshed out and solid. You don't get as much of a feel for that last in the movies as you do the books, even though you see things literally fleshed out there. Just all the little nuances that she throws in that makes it clear she's really done some thinking on just how this should go or that.
Also, don't use the movies as a basis to read the books or not. The movies left some things out, although I can't say they were important. There is a lot of flavor stuff left out, some side stories and such, but the movies are a good Cliffs Notes version of the books. The spirit of things is still there.
I also wouldn't judge based on the first one. The tone of the books, as Harry and the rest have grown and started facing different problems in their lives, has definitely grown more serious from the first book when they were all 11 and had 11 year olds issues to this book when they'll all be 17 and the worst wizard in recent history is back on the scene killing people.
They may just not be for you, since they're not for everyone, but reading the first two won't take too much time out of your life and I think by 2 you'll know if you enjoy them or not. 2 is my personal favorite because I think the villain is very creative.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
Believe me, I didn't want to stay in the hospital on the stupid morphine drip they were supposed to take me off of
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
Ick.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
ACES! Another post by Bloodsage:
I read one of them, and it reminded me too strongly of Lovecraft's underlying racism to be an enjoyable read. Too much White Man's Burden going on, and too much emphasis on people's bloodlines making them special.Ick.
You might have gotten the wrong idea, as the unimportance of origin is a pretty big theme.
I've read the first 4, I have 5 and 6 that I've never read and she's up to like what... 9? It was all downhill after the second book.
quote:
Bloodsage stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
I read one of them, and it reminded me too strongly of Lovecraft's underlying racism to be an enjoyable read. Too much White Man's Burden going on, and too much emphasis on people's bloodlines making them special.Ick.
Yeah, you got the wrong idea. Hermione comes from two Muggle parents and Draco is constantly on her about her being a Mudblood, which is what they call those who aren't from pure wizarding families. Harry's mother is a Muggle as well, having come from the same family as Petunia and it was a surprise for their family when Lily turned out to be a witch.
Ron is a pureblood. His parents are both members of the Order of the Phoenix. Neville's as well. They're both two of the weaker wizards in the stories. But origin and bloodlines aren't what's important.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
...Wizards? I must be misunderstanding. The series is ABOUT wizards.
The series goes out of it's way to make people who care about origin of wizards the bad guys, and the people who don't care are the good guys. Likewise, I found the constant visits to Ron's family home, at worst, as being "this is a typical house full of magic users...albeit magic users who lost the magic birth control" and more likely it was supposed to be another look at some of the cool stuff wizards get away with in the privacy of their own homes.
As for Rowling and her "insistence" that she's the shiznit of the Fantasy writing scene...well...any popular fantasy author gets that sort of attitude. Anne Rice, Salvatore...all too often they start reading their own press.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
How.... Bloodsage.... uughhhhhh:
Like I said, I only read the one, and it was quite obviously Lovecraftian in its separation of humanity into the elites (wizads) and non-elites (muggles) based on genetics. Then throw in the wholeWhite Man'sWizard's Burden in protecting the lowly muggles from interference, or even knowledge. . .and what do you have? YMMV.
Okay I can see the argument...Sort of.
I wouldn't qualify wizards as being elite. They're given a more fantastic, wondrous sort of outlook in the series, but that's because the stories are being told from the perspective of Harry, who has spent most of his life at this point being raised in the sort of world we're all familiar with.
The flipside has been that the wizarding community is just as mystified with how muggles do things as muggles are with the idea of magic. They're so tied up in how magic works that they don't really understand how, say, a car functions. Or batteries. Rowling's never come out and said it in the books (at least the first four), exactly, but I gather that at some point in the past the magic and nonmagic communities diverged into two very separate directions. The wizarding community's Ministry of Magic still answers to the Prime Minister, though.
To be honest, I'd almost categorize wizards in Harry Potter as being a bit like Mutants in Marvel comics, without the rampant persecution. More like a sort of cover detante.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
Bloodsage, do you have the same problem with Star Treks first amendment or the people in the matrix movies?
quote:
Elvish Crack Piper had this to say about the Spice Girls:
Raised, by some of the worst examples of guardians as one can imagine in a kids book.Bloodsage, do you have the same problem with Star Treks first amendment or the people in the matrix movies?
First amendment? You mean Prime Directive?
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
yeah whoops
quote:
How.... Bloodsage.... uughhhhhh:
Like I said, I only read the one, and it was quite obviously Lovecraftian in its separation of humanity into the elites (wizads) and non-elites (muggles) based on genetics. Then throw in the wholeWhite Man'sWizard's Burden in protecting the lowly muggles from interference, or even knowledge. . .and what do you have? YMMV.
They're not protecting the Muggles from anything, though. They have to hide everything about their society from the Muggle community. It's been a while since I read the 5th, but toward the beginning of that one there's some explanation into just why things have to be that way.
Lyinar Ka`Bael, Piney Fresh Druidess - Luclin
`Doc fucked around with this message on 12-26-2006 at 11:24 PM.
quote:
`Doc had this to say about Optimus Prime:
I think their explanation had something to do with people who know about magic relying on it instead of coming up with solutions of their own (i.e. technology).
Nah I'd say its simple self-preservation. People know and the wizards become one way or another a hunted people. Witchhunt's , hate crimes, government and private experimentation/dissections...
