HA!

To relate this to music, you all should listen to "Chamber of Secrets" when reading!

Marian!!! Hehehe Hope you are readin'

---A very hyper Brian

Sorry Cam

I'm sure there is one out there with your name on it..

--Brian

NP: Time of the Dreamwatch

quote:

---

Originally posted by Camillu:
Ah well. At least this way I'll read it after my exams....

---

We'll see when mine arrives from Amazon. It shipped on Friday, so I expect to have it on Monday or Tuesday...wouldn't mind if they take a little longer though, because I have two exams on Friday, so I hope I won't open the book before those.

Try Manhattan sometime, it's all but paved with books...

quote:

---

Originally posted by perfpitch:
Camillu, the problem is not that you live on an island, but that you live on the wrong island.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Camillu:
Every blinkin' bookseller on the island was sold-out by 10:30 am.

---

I walked into a supermarket in Croydon yesterday afternoon (about 4pm) and bought a copy there and then.

And I've no intention of reading it - it's for someone else. (Seriously. I haven't read any of the other four books.) I'll wait for the film, if there is one, though since the book's more than 750 pages it's either going to be a long movie, or extremely fast-paced, or drastically edited....

NP: QUIGLEY DOWN UNDER (Basil Poledouris)

quote:

---

though since the book's more than 750 pages it's either going to be a long movie

---

I'm betting on long. And add "dull" to that. Why break with the first two?

Lemme guess -- the villain in the latest is Voldemort, excuse me, Tom Riddle, excuse me, Voldemort!

Ryan

I always thought it wouldn't appeal to "vanilla taste" book fans...

There will come a point, I think, where "better" will have reached its inevitable uppermost limit (who knows; it may have already), but longer, as we bloody well know, can, quite obviously go on forever...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Camillu:
Hey Ryan, looks like you don't like the series.

I always thought it wouldn't appeal to "vanilla taste" book fans...

---

HARRY POTTER is the definition of vanilla. Comprised completely of stock fantasy cliches, little to no personal voice, no real magic. Just grade-school peer pressure that evolved into PR-induced excitement for adults who should know better.

I better stop, though. J.K. Rowling might sue me for $100 million dollars. Apparently that's her magic litigious number.

quote:

---

Originally posted by perfpitch:
While the second HARRY POTTER film was marginally better than the first, it was also nine minutes longer (152/161 mins).

---

I'd argue with this ... I thought the first film was very good, very entertaining. The second had some good stuff in it, but I wasn't very impressed with it at all.

quote:

---

...Just grade-school peer pressure that evolved into PR-induced excitement for adults who should know better.

---

Anyone who knows me (not many, I guess) knows I'm no great champion of the books themselves, but the Harold Bloom-esque attitute that people take in regards to a book with the uncanny popularity of the Potter series smacks of the worst kind of snobbery. Should you prefer the prose of Tom Wolfe or John Milton or anyone of your personal pick of literary giants, by all means, have at. But turning your nose at a popular phenomenon does not make you a cut above the rest. Your personal opinion of the books has been cast, but it is kinder not to make such judgements of those who seek a little entertainment in the literature for a change. With all the diatribes of "nothing good at the box office these days", to have to face the same criticism when turning to books--just where is one to turn for a little healthy escapism without the finger of the "enlightened" wagging in their face.

I can only hope that the series' change in direction, with the talented Alfonso Cuaron taking over, will yield the qualities 'Harry Potter' desperately needs.

Since you don't know me part from what I display on the boards I really feel you have no right to say something like "I have strained tolerance for those who are slavering fanatics of the book…only a few degrees short of our own dual-named Kyp" So I get excited about something…big deal. Like I said if you have a problem with me, take it up with ME.

While you said you were kidding it wasn’t a really nice thing to say, so until you take the time to get to know me I do believe you have no ground as to judge me.

I’m sure more than a few people here see me as some raving lunatic, and you can think what you want, but the last time I checked it was ok for someone to share their enthusiasm for something they enjoy.

Unless the rules have changed, I’ll keep on praising what I have come to enjoy and not just in books either. This goes from everything from apples to video (and film) editing systems.

--Brian

And I've got better things to do than pick fights with you--and over what? My argument here was more with the right to enjoy the book for the book's sake, rather than be condemned to ignorance for it.

That's usually my stance on most matters, since around here, the standing arguement on most matters seems to be that you're not only NOT allowed to enjoy something, you're an IDIOT for LIKING IT in the first place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rkeaveney:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>[b]though since the book's more than 750 pages it's either going to be a long movie<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm betting on long. And add "dull" to that. Why break with the first two?

Lemme guess -- the villain in the latest is Voldemort, excuse me, Tom Riddle, excuse me, Voldemort!

Ryan [/b]

---

Certainly not dull, and you would be both right and wrong, about the villian. Voldemort will be the villian through the end, but the main villian is a nasty woman.

Interestingly dull is something each of us define differently. I find sci-fi novels dull and generally badly written. Yet they are Art compared to self help books. Current Affairs are tabloids on steroid, as are business books. Children's books today tend to pull in the most talented writers. And then there is the often overpraised "classic" many which are total rubbish. Please find what you like and read, by all means read.

That being said, I am not above admitting that while I found the first movie incoherent and ultimately boring due to being overstuffed, I surprising enjoyed Chamber of Secrets.

On the book front, I can also admit that that Rowling does have some creative bones in her body (even if they are nothing more than making up oddball names for things.) Sure her ideas are cliched...but I would ask you to find a modern fantasy story that is not.

I guess my biggest complaint is how these phenomena become so outrageous. The writing in these books (even while aimed at kids) is lackluster and pedestrian at best. It is shame, as there are far better children fantasy stories out there that do not get as much attention. In the end though, at least kids are reading.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
In the end though, at least kids are reading.

---

Amen.

So far she finds it a little dull, but then she's going to be 16 next month and everything is dull to her.

I've tried to read Harry Potter and I personally find the books to be boring, in fact I found the movies to have much more energy than the novels. I can fully understand those who do not hide their enthusiasm for Potter though. I can remember back in the 70's early 80's the excitement my friends and I had for Star Wars. We even made our own costumes to play in.

I'm glad that kids are reading though. My daughter always has her nose in a book and my son is getting that way. I'd much rather have them reading than sitting in front of the Playstation all day.

[Message edited by Mark Olivarez on 06-23-2003]

Philipp

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crono/Kyp:
Mark what's wrong with having their heads in a Playstation? Video games (especially First Person Shooters) build good hand/eye coordination

--Brian

---

They make me sick...literally. I get motion sick from them and find them boring after awhile.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>
...Just grade-school peer pressure that evolved into PR-induced excitement for adults who should know better.<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone who knows me (not many, I guess) knows I'm no great champion of the books themselves, but the Harold Bloom-esque attitute that people take in regards to a book with the uncanny popularity of the Potter series smacks of the worst kind of snobbery. Should you prefer the prose of Tom Wolfe or John Milton or anyone of your personal pick of literary giants, by all means, have at. But turning your nose at a popular phenomenon does not make you a cut above the rest. Your personal opinion of the books has been cast, but it is kinder not to make such judgements of those who seek a little entertainment in the literature for a change. With all the diatribes of "nothing good at the box office these days", to have to face the same criticism when turning to books--just where is one to turn for a little healthy escapism without the finger of the "enlightened" wagging in their face.

Sorry. I work at a bookstore, and I've had my fill of both sides of the arguement--more than anyone here could dish out. I have strained tolerance for those who are slavering fanatics of the book--only a few degrees short of our own dual-named Kyp--(Kidding, sort of. Your actions are your undoing, and you walk proudly with the bullseye for such jabs.) Likewise for those who claim moral/religious superiority over a harmless storyline that a woman concieved and construed from themes that have been constantly, (and sucessfully) revisited on countless occasions again and again in the history of story-telling, whether by Shakespeare, Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, George Lucas, or whomever.

---

Here Here Lance!

I work in a library and it's nice to see kids reading something with more substance than those stupid "Goosebumps" books or "Baby-sitter's Club."

If reading Harry Potter gets kids off Pokemon, I'm all for it. It was sad the amount of money wasted on lame Pokemon books by libraries to meet demand by kids a couple of years back.

I think Harry Potter will stand the test of time and we'll have people reading the books for years to come.

I'm currenly about 285 pages into the latest book, and while I'm not particularly thrilled with it so far, it still is fairly entertaining.

Ya know, I'm really tired of people slagging on things that people enjoy without having any legitimate criticism. That along with posts that do nothing to contribute to a thread have become really annoying as of late. If someone asks a question, isn't it easier to actually have something legitimate to say, rather than waste bandwith, with a lame response. (i.e. my inquiry about "2 Fast 2 Furious")

I have read all the books and I just read the latest last night. I don’t consider myself a fan of the series, I am at loss to understand all the “Potter” hate. Frankly, I didn’t like it as much as the others in the series. I felt that it took far too long to get going with much of the action occurring in the last 200 hundred pages or so and that Harry acted out of character for much of the book. It seemed to me that large amount of this book was mostly setup for the last two in the series. It’s not the greatest fantasy I’ve read, but it certainly not the worst. For all it’s “clichés” it is far and away better than 90 percent of most books being published in general, let alone in the fantasy field.

While I can clearly see the influences of her sources, she has reassembled them into her vision and offers them in a way that is quite enjoyable, assuming you haven’t strangled your inner child with pomposity and sneering elitism.

But even if you can’t enjoy them, you aren’t who she is writing them for. I would submit that as children’s books, they far exceed a great number of their competitors as reading matter and the fact that adults can enjoy them is just a bonus.

The criticism that it is “…Comprised completely of stock fantasy cliches, little to no personal voice, no real magic.” is valid as far as a personal opinion goes, but fails as a valid criticism of the work. It also seems to ignore that fact that it like almost every piece of fantasy written since the late 18th century, Harry Potter draws from the same universal myths. As an example, consider her use of the unicorn. It is very similar in form the classic unicorn but has obvious differences. First the aspect of virginal requirement to even approach the animal introduced into the Age of Courtly Romance during the high Middle Ages is missing, further the more bestial aspects portrayed by the Roman Zoologists Philny the Elder are also missing (Historians believe that his description was inspired by the rhino). Basically, she kept the aspects that she liked (the physical beauty of the animal and it basic goodness and purity) and discarded all those that she didn’t, just like any good author should.

I would compare the matter to people who circle around the minutae of Star Wars, reducing it to whether Boba Fett could take on Chewbacca, or Star Trek being about who Seven of Nine should sleep with next...or heatedly debating the matter of whether "Matrix" is better than "Star Wars". You'd think there was some Lucasian/Wachowskian Jihad at practice. Being "fans" is just that--fanatical. There's no reason why any or all can't be appreciated, and in this day and age, aren't there better arguements?

I know of Tolkien fans who dismiss Potter as "childish, witchy-poo" material, but I really have to wonder why they couldn't enjoy it for fantasy's sake, knowing that the construction of myths is essentially the same, if to a somewhat lesser degree.

Let's face it, no one is going to write books like Tolkien again (though, I hear Robert Jordan is coming close), but then again--no one should write books like Tolkien again. How many spoken variations of Beowulf were in existance before we finally ended up with the work we know today? We retell the same stories, but everyone tells them their own way.