Well, as I said, I haven’t read the second book so I can’t say how well the movie matched the book, but I think that his reputation did come across at least somewhat. Remember, for example the book signing scene where Lockhart is in the bookstore getting mobbed because everyone wants a copy of his book.
[quote=“ydejin”]
Well, as I said, I haven’t read the second book so I can’t say how well the movie matched the book, but I think that his reputation did come across at least somewhat. Remember, for example the book signing scene where Lockhart is in the bookstore getting mobbed because everyone wants a copy of his book.[/quote]
Yeah, but you barely get a sense of what he is famous for. There are occasional snide remarks from Snape, but it pales compared to the vivid self-promoter in the book.
I’m not complaining about the portrayal - there’s a lot going on in the book and something had to go to make it manageable (I can’t imagine how they’ll ever get Goblet of Fire in under 3 hours…). But considering that the dearth of Defense of Black Arts teachers is one of the running jokes, I’d like to have seen more of the fop.
Troy
My wife made me pre-order the latest book at our local bookshop. She is an absolute Harry Potter fanatic.
Yes I have seen the films and they are mildly amusing. But I haven’t read any of the books.
The movies are entertaining and I can see why kids like them.
I’ve only read the first book and that was more than enough for me. I don’t think I can find a single original element anywhere. The book was highly readable, but that’s like saying water is highly drinkable. Not a lot of flavor on the way down.
Lets just say that JK Rowling did not create the series out of artistic drive, so in that sense she is definitely a hack. But hacks are far more marketable than artists I do believe. After all, just look at the average reader.
I largely agree. The Potter ouevre irritates me because it’s applauded for its wonderful imagination and invention, and yet I struggle to find specific examples of either. I may be biased as I’ve been a fan of Terry Pratchett forever, but it seems to me that there’s more cleverness, wit, originality, soul and delight in any Discworld book you care to name than in all the Potter tales put together. And while I wouldn’t suggest Rowling had cribbed anything from Pratchett, I found some of the similarities irksome.
Maybe I’m just bitter because I think if there was any justice some of Pratchett’s books would have, by now, been given the lavish and faithful movie treatment that Rowling’s have enjoyed. But that aside, I sat through both Potter movies and spent the second half of each basically just waiting for the thing to end. It’s no doubt stable fodder for kids, but how adults are supposed to be entertained by this stuff, I have no idea.
Unless you’ve talked to Rowling personally, I don’t see how you can know that. Back at college (in the sci-fi club), I read a bunch of manuscripts people had written that were absolute junk, but the authors really poured their hearts into. I’m not saying that Rowling did, too, but I don’t see how you can say she didn’t.
Not to defend Rowling as the great writer of the century, but I just don’t see any similarity between her and Pratchett. If anything, the books owe a lot to British boarding school books (they remind me most of Enid Blyton) and I think that’s where the originality is–mixing those stories with magic. Actually, I’m surprised they do so well in the States, which doesn’t have so many of those books or schools.
In any case, the whole originality thing is a two-edged sword–Norman Spinrad had a column dissing Terry Pratchett along the same lines that you’re dissing Rowling. So did Harlan Ellison, now that I’m thinking about it.
Gav
…And yet necessary to sustain life.
I bought and read all the books in the summer the first movie came out. They are not high literature but that is not the intended market. They are children’s books and they do an admirable job of getting kids to want to read. I don’t see any reason to attack Rowling over this. I found them fun to read and will be looking forward to Order of Phoenix as well.
And I agree Rickman is Snape. There is no other actor I can picture in that role.
I’m going to a midnight party at the Denver Tattered Cover with my sons age 10 and 6. My wife is planning to skip it - she’s not much of a night owl.
They’re having lots of activities, costume contests, and such. My 10 year old already has enough costume gear and may even look a little more like Harry on the book covers than Daniel Radcliffe. My 6 year old wants to dress up too - as Spider-Man (and he has a costume from Halloween). My wife & I laughed for about 5 minutes when she told me that. He even suggested he wants the Hulk Hands with it too. He’s been trying to let his hair grow enough to slick it back like Malfoy, we may see if he’ll try that instead.
I usually hate the Tattered Cover. It just oozes cultural snobbery. But while the grocery store is also having a midnight book sale (and for $10 less), I’m sure the kids will think all the decorations & fuss will be worth it.
I know the book is about 800 pages, but I think Wes may not sleep until he’s read it all the way through. I’ve only read the first two books, but will probably read the 3rd this weekend. My wife has dibs on the 2nd read of the book, so it’ll be a little while before I can get to that one.
And while I thought Quidditch was a terrible game just from reading the first book too, it also struck me as an excellent representation of what a kid would vaguely dream up as the ‘ultimate game’. Not unlike lots of the rest of the book, too. There’s a Quidditch card game that we have and it’s even worse. It seems to try to be very faithful to the ‘actual’ game, in that there’s a whole lot of meaningless fuss and then the Golden Snitch appears and whoever captures it wins. But it’s even worse than that - the rules are unclear, incomplete, and there isn’t any aspect of the game that seems functional. Like most of you here, I’m a big fan of games, but can’t remember ever seeing a game with so little value.
I would tend to agree. Who was it that said that there are only fifteen different plots; the Greeks discovered thirteen and Shakespeare the other two?
At any rate, the books have gotten better, with the fourth being the best of the bunch. It deals, rather darkly, with bigotry, puberty, school cliques and what it’s like to be the smart kid. Yet, it doen’t deal with those concept simplistically. For all the fact that there’s 734 pages, it didn’t fall into the trap of endless exposition of its key points. The points were told through the story.
Is it great literature? I dunno, though if I’m reading it, it’s probably not. 
But it’s an entertaining read, with some interesting characters and an inventive world.
Ah, yes, Enid Blyton. My daughters loved the Noddy books, though we haven’t explored her other work. I’ll have to look into them.
I have read them all and found each of them quite good. I have to agree with Loyd about the fourth one. I too don’t understand the folks who don’t like Rowling and am reminded of the backlash toward other popular writers like King.
As for the movies, I am less satisfied. The films seem to be trying to hard to be an exact copy of the story and it often ends up boring, although it’s always fun to see who is going to play what role.
You guys know there are supposed to be like 7 or so books in the entire series? [/u]
I’ve only seen the first movie, and I thought that was good mainly due to the incredible campiness of it all, especially Alan Rickman.
I’d agree with this. The producers and directors seem to have defined “being faithful to the books” as “how many of everyone’s favorite scenes can we cram into the movie”, rather than “how can we be faithful to the spirit of the story of this kid”?
I’m hoping the change in director will help in the next film.
Yeah, I agree with Loyd too. The fourth one is Rowling hitting her stride. I’ve always thought Rowling was mainly influenced by Dahl. So I’m surprised this thread has gone this far with anyone giving props to old Roald. I mean, look at the Dursley’s for cryin’ out loud!
Oddly enough, I found books two and three to be better than book four, which just seemed longer to me. There’s a lot of great stuff in book four, and it’s nice to see the growing tension in the rock-solid Ron/Harry friendship. But book four seemed to be more a series of episodes than the previous two were.
Troy
I personally liked three the most (a lot of that is due to the amazing reveal during the last quarter), but four was pretty good in expanding the universe and upping the stakes.
Stylistically or in regard to content, I don’t think J.K. Rowling could have less in common with Roald Dahl. You might have a point that the Dursleys seem like a version of the family in Matilda, except a lot less entertaining or interesting. I’ve enjoyed the Harry Potter books, but everytime I hear the Dahl connection I think people are forgetting exactly how monstrously original, hilariously cruel and obsessed with the freakish and revolting Dahl was, because compared to him, Rowling is pretty sugary. Dahl would have never written anything as derivative and sweet as the Potter books.
I personally think the third one is the best. The fourth has some really great scenes, but overall I think it is the weakest after the second novel, which was really pretty bad.
Crypt, what do you think of Lemony Snicket?
Actually, I kind of like him, but I only read the first two books and the entire schtick was getting pretty old even by the end of the second book. I appreciate him more for the constant poetic allusions to his own haunted past (which may or may not be legit) and the way he keeps on introducing words that the average ten year old might not know the definition of, then following it with “which here means…” and then some ridiculous definition. Again, he’s no Roald Dahl and I’d say, overall, he’s more one-noted than Rowling is, but I enjoyed the couple books I read by him.
Rowling has said she’s puzzled by the comparision – she’s much more influenced by Enid Blyton and E. Nesbit. She’s also said that she doesn’t really care for Roald Dahl’s stuff. Me neither.
Lemony Snicket, bleah. Half-assed Edward Gorey.