Posts: 7598 |
weirdmom Posted Sun 26 Jul, 2009 4:13 AM |
I think J.K. Rowling's playfulness with language (the amusing and often insightful names she gives characters and spells) and also how intricate her plots are is very impressive. Things that wouldn't even qualify as plot points in one book are suddenly massively important 2 books later. To have thought and planned so well in advance to me shows a very nimble and intelligent mind.
Her books have big themes on love, friendship, honor, and loss, among other things. Whether they are technically children's books or not is immaterial to me. I like them and have reread them many times.
Dubz I have no problem with your negative opinion if you've read them (or at least one of them). Have you?
The way Dumbledore is portrayed on film is the biggest disappointment for me. In the books yes he is powerful blah blah blah but he is also extremely amusing and slightly crazy. And usually he is so calm and making jokes that when he does need to bust out his wand and kick some butt it's more powerful because his general Mad Hatterness makes you forget that he could have you face down in the dirt before you had even reached for your wand. |
|
|
Posts: 7598 |
weirdmom Posted Sun 26 Jul, 2009 4:28 AM |
| double post |
|
|
Posts: 1531 |
lilly Posted Sun 26 Jul, 2009 3:31 PM |
I Came in Through the Bathroom Window wrote:
It doesn't matter that this isn't exactly the finest piece of literature or if it's a fad.
Well, it IS the "finest piece of literature" when you really look at it!
I read several books ON the HP-series (for uni), written by literary critics, and they made me realist just HOW much Rowling has put into the books. She uses all kinds of literary devices, and we just don't realise it while reading the books because they're written in such a "fluent" contemporary style.
I love the books, and I think the movies 1-4 were ok.
But I pity people who haven't read the books, go to the movies, don't like them and then invest their time in moaning about the "horribleness of Harry Potter", whilst having no idea of the "actual story".
Oh and about Dumbledore in the films: Michael Gambon might be a great actor, but I was always wondering how someone can so completely and utterly MISS the point of a character. His Dumbledore is by no means the one from the books - I never knew Gambon hasn't read the books, but this explains a LOT. |
|
|
Posts: 8299 |
Scottish Dubliner Posted Sun 26 Jul, 2009 5:02 PM |
weirdmom wrote: I think J.K. Rowling's playfulness with language (the amusing and often insightful names she gives characters and spells) and also how intricate her plots are is very impressive. Things that wouldn't even qualify as plot points in one book are suddenly massively important 2 books later. To have thought and planned so well in advance to me shows a very nimble and intelligent mind.
Her books have big themes on love, friendship, honor, and loss, among other things. Whether they are technically children's books or not is immaterial to me. I like them and have reread them many times.
Dubz I have no problem with your negative opinion if you've read them (or at least one of them). Have you?
The way Dumbledore is portrayed on film is the biggest disappointment for me. In the books yes he is powerful blah blah blah but he is also extremely amusing and slightly crazy. And usually he is so calm and making jokes that when he does need to bust out his wand and kick some butt it's more powerful because his general Mad Hatterness makes you forget that he could have you face down in the dirt before you had even reached for your wand.
Insightful ?? anyone with a basic grasp of english or Latin could come up with this shite, Repairum Oculatun, fuck me she must have been up half the night thinking that one up.
Did it ever occur to you that things that weren't important two books ago, may actually be someone running out of ideas and then going back and expanding on an earlier "throaway comment" Now I could be wrong and perhaps it was deliberate but do you know for a fact it was ??
Yes I have read them, hence the comment about her characters being severely one dimensional and having no "substance" whatsoever. It's easier (though not exactly easy) to write for kids as they are an audience who are as a rule not looking for depth they just want excitement. Which I for one feel that society as a whole is suffering from, 20 years ago people would have sneered at other adults reading these "kids" books. Whether or not you enjoy them the fact remains they are kids books. However these days it's perfectly acceptable, It's just another beautiful example of the world dumbing down.
btw I really enjoy Roald Dahl books and have read them many times also Rudyard Kipling and Tolkien's Hobbit but, and as good as they are, I would never attempt to pass these books off as classical litarture!!
Dubz |
|
|
Posts: 7598 |
weirdmom Posted Sun 26 Jul, 2009 5:52 PM |
She has said in multiple interviews that she had the entire overarching story (for all 7 books) mapped out before she even wrote the first one. After the first one she wrote out fairly detailed outlines for 2-7 so yes it was very deliberate.
One small example is in book 1 when Olivander is talking about wands and he mentions that Harry's dad's wand was good for transfiguration. Then in the third book we find out that he could transform into an animal.
Dubz what exactly constitutes a classic book to you? |
|
|
Posts: 8299 |
Scottish Dubliner Posted Sun 26 Jul, 2009 6:10 PM |
I can't actually qualify it but for talking sake lets say...
The Grapes of Wrath
To Kill a Mockingbird (btw. thanks to Libby2)
Cider with Rosie
Books that tug at your emotions, books you have to put down because you can empathize, books that make you cry.
Unfortunately something that the Happy Rotter series will never do.
Dubz |
|
|
Posts: 7598 |
weirdmom Posted Sun 26 Jul, 2009 6:17 PM |
Scottish Dubliner wrote: I can't actually qualify it but for talking sake lets say...
The Grapes of Wrath
To Kill a Mockingbird (btw. thanks to Libby2)
Cider with Rosie
Books that tug at your emotions, books you have to put down because you can empathize, books that make you cry.
Unfortunately something that the Happy Rotter series will never do.
Dubz
It won't do it for YOU but that doesn't mean it doesn't do it for someone else.
I think your definition is good but it's clearly a matter of what appeals to each person. |
|
|
Posts: 8299 |
Scottish Dubliner Posted Sun 26 Jul, 2009 7:13 PM |
Guess so...
I'll have to live in a world where Happy Rotter is considered literature, Big Brother is considered quality Tv and Atomic Kitten are considered to be good music.
Dubz |
|
|
Posts: 239 |
Steph_canuck Posted Mon 27 Jul, 2009 1:45 AM |
I like the series entirely, I find the movies entertaining, and I get you want to voice your opinion, so go for it. But I just wanted to say I like Harry Potter.
-And some might say Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit was a bit of a fad. I mean, I read those books because my dad loved them when he read them in the '70s, so who's to say the next gen wont do the same thing with Harry?? |
|
|
Posts: 8299 |
Scottish Dubliner Posted Mon 27 Jul, 2009 8:51 AM |
Steph_canuck wrote: I like the series entirely, I find the movies entertaining, and I get you want to voice your opinion, so go for it. But I just wanted to say I like Harry Potter.
-And some might say Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit was a bit of a fad. I mean, I read those books because my dad loved them when he read them in the '70s, so who's to say the next gen wont do the same thing with Harry??
I agree and disagree, who is to say they won't be reading Jk Rowling in a few years time. The Lord of the Rings thing was picked up by the 60's generation but it was more than that. Tolkien, a professor of English at Oxford was dismayed at England's lack of mythology and attempted to create one, hence all the borrowing from Celtic and Norse mythology you see within the books, I'd also recommend the Silmarillion which reads more like a "bible" he was also fascinated by languages and writing. He then also tried creating new ones, Elfish, Runes, etc. The Lost Tales and various other books contain the drafts and writings of Stories that went off in one direction and ended up becoming something totally different. He was being deeply serious and not just trying to create a fantasy world but as you have alluded to it did indeed become a huge "fad"
Dubz |
|
|
Posts: 7404 |
Turtleneck Posted Mon 27 Jul, 2009 3:26 PM |
Scottish Dubliner wrote:
Also don't you fucking dare give up on that thought of writing a children's book, just because some ol' crabbit Scots bastard is giving out about the Happy Rotter doesn't mean it's a dream. Go for it!! maybe someday we'll be watching your movies. ( I for one actually hope so !!!)
Dubz
Thank you for your encouragement. I do hope that someday you will have the opportunity to rake me over the coals for the two-dimensionality of my literary characters. ;o)
(Although characters tend to be shallow in books for the 4-7 year-old set!) |
|
|
Posts: 1531 |
lilly Posted Wed 29 Jul, 2009 9:06 AM |
btw, did you know ENID BLYTON was named the "UK's Best Loved Author" in 2008? (Not the "best loved British writer")
According to the poll, the ranking is:
1. Enid Blyton
2. Roald Dahl
3. J.K. Rowling
4. Jane Austen
5. William Shakespeare
6. Charles Dickens
7. J.R.R. Tolkien
8. Agatha Christie
9. Stephen King
10. Beatrix Potter
11. C.S. Lewis
12. Catherine Cookson
13. Martina Cole
14. Bill Bryson
15. Charlotte Bronte
16. Jacqueline Wilson
17. Oscar Wilde
18. Maeve Binchy
19. Dan Brown
20. Emily Bronte
(it goes on until #50. Number 39 is DR. SEUSS. Thomas Hardy comes as #42, and Geoffrey Chaucer just made it on the list as #50)
I'm not a big fan of polls and surveys, but liking children's books seems to be in fashion ;)... I haven't found a similar list for Germany, but I did find a "best loved books" list, made by a major German (public) TV channel. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is Number 1, followed by the BIBLE, Follet's "Pillars of the Earth", Patrick Süskind's "The Perfume", Saint-Exupéry's "Little Prince", and Mann's "Buddenbrooks". Of course, Harry Potter was in the Top 10. |
|
|
Posts: 3572 |
Rammsfer Posted Wed 29 Jul, 2009 3:47 PM |
Can you believe it? I saw it again!
Once was enough... |
|
|
