- This topic has 28 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Does everyone here think Harry Potter is the greatest thing ever or does anyone share my sentements of “bah humbug” ?
-
It’s not him I despise, its that Rowling character. Anyone who claims responsibilty for degrading the work of JRR Tolkien and reducing it to the level of a 5 year old should be shot. repeatedly.
-
yep, personally I dont see what all the hype is about. I’ve read far better books then any of the HP series yet most of these books will never see best seller status
-
It’s not him I despise, its that Rowling character. Anyone who claims responsibilty for degrading the work of JRR Tolkien and reducing it to the level of a 5 year old should be shot. repeatedly.[/quote:31fc551bfc]
What? thats idiocy. JK Rowling has wrote books that she wanted to write. She hasn’t done anything to the work of Tokien.
Its the marketing machine thats behind her that I despise.
As for the books, I read the first 4 i think, and feel no need to read the others. I’ve read far better books. Bus as people repeatedly say to me, “They children’s books!” So then why has the world gone mad and everyone from 5-80 reading them? I find nothing to relate to in the characters and I’m a big fan of fantasy and as such have read much better fantasy books. Maybe thats the charm, its people reading fantasy for the first time and not realising that it can be done so much better. -
I’ve really enjoyed the books I’ve read so far (the first 4), and will get around the the remaining two at some point reasonably soon. Can’t say specifically what I like about them – they just seem to be a set of well paced, creative stories with just enough edge on the usual stereotypes and characters to remain fresh.
Dave
-
Do you not find them predictable ?
-
What? thats idiocy. JK Rowling has wrote books that she wanted to write. She hasn’t done anything to the work of Tokien.
Its the marketing machine thats behind her that I despise.
As for the books, I read the first 4 i think, and feel no need to read the others. I’ve read far better books. Bus as people repeatedly say to me, “They children’s books!” So then why has the world gone mad and everyone from 5-80 reading them? I find nothing to relate to in the characters and I’m a big fan of fantasy and as such have read much better fantasy books. Maybe thats the charm, its people reading fantasy for the first time and not realising that it can be done so much better.[/quote:4108b0c1e1]
My point was that she has taken many elements of Tolkiens work and integrated them into her own, at the same time aiming the book at a younger audience. Now while this is done cosntantly its the effect that it has on people that gets to me. I’m told constantly that “Oh its a good way to get into Lord Of The Rings” and thats what really makes me angry. You don’t need to “get into” it, you either like and appreciate it or you don’t. If the size of the book is overwhelming then read The Hobbit. But a book of that caliber being called the “biggest”, “most popular” or I’ve even read “one of the most entertaining” is a disgrace. As you said, its people reading fantasy for the first time and not realising that it can be done so much better. Its a shame thats all… -
My point was that she has taken many elements of Tolkiens work and integrated them into her own, at the same time aiming the book at a younger audience. Now while this is done cosntantly its the effect that it has on people that gets to me. I’m told constantly that “Oh its a good way to get into Lord Of The Rings” and thats what really makes me angry. You don’t need to “get into” it, you either like and appreciate it or you don’t. If the size of the book is overwhelming then read The Hobbit. But a book of that caliber being called the “biggest”, “most popular” or I’ve even read “one of the most entertaining” is a disgrace.[/quote:1332ccb7b6]
My apologies. However, I think she’s within her right to do that. Its the public perception that I’m still more annoyed with. Because its not the norm to read the likes of LOTR, people read Potter instead and thats the biggest shame. -
Bus as people repeatedly say to me, “They children’s books!” So then why has the world gone mad and everyone from 5-80 reading them?[/quote:aff926d725]
At heart, the Simpsons is just a childish cartoon with silly storylines about Duff beer, nerds, bullies etc. Within that though, people find the stories mirror their own situations – people inherently need to laugh and see the bully become the victim.The Potter series is similar to that. It offers us real world problems which we can relate to, but which we cant solve with a wave of a magic wand. Great writers can create characters that people of all age groups can empathise with in this way. By tapping into core human desires and needs they create an audience that is timeless as well as captivated.
Dave
-
-
At heart, the Simpsons is just a childish cartoon with silly storylines about Duff beer, nerds, bullies etc. Within that though, people find the stories mirror their own situations – people inherently need to laugh and see the bully become the victim. [/quote:ec80ddb72f]
The Simpsons also have a lot of jokes that are purely aimed at older audiences. Its a childrens cartoon that has managed to combine children’s humour with adult humour. Same applied to Futurama. -
And you’re right Dave, my main point however is that that same atmosphere and idea is captured in far superior books such as LoTR and The Hobbit and the HP series is luring people away from these classics with big advertising campaigns and massive hype…[/quote:9cd0b723f4]
HP didnt start with the massive marketing hype – it was just another book that sold really well off its quality before they republished, rebranded and made it an international phenomenon.I also think its very dubious to say that LOTR is a ‘far superior book’ – there is no question that the quality of Rowlings writing is fantastic, and while she may not have been a professor of English Literature, she has definately captured her audience far more than LOTR did. THe one thing that made LOTR famous was its innovation – it *created* orcs, elves etc as we understand them today and as they are repeated in countless rehashes. It has been mentioned that LOTR today might not even get a publishing deal:
– The main bad guy is never seen in the books
– the ultimate evil in the trilogy is an inanimate object
– the ending is dire and anticlimactic – the main bad guy dies before his main lackey who still causes mischief for another half a book.
– the pacing is completely out of whack with modern literary standards – he spends entire books at a time talking about one set of characters and ignoring the others.
– he meanders for an incredibly long time at the start, focusing on a character that does not have any significant role in the later books.
– he writes content in languages that dont exist to the bewilderment of casual readers.
– he introduces characters like tom bombadil :)Tolkiens work was fantastic for those who are predisposed to liking it – Rowling has created a world which anyone can associate with, old or young, fluent in elvish or not.
Dave
-
I havent read the books or seen any of the films. If it was Xmas and I was drunk and a HP film was on tv….I *might* watch it…..thats a big might though.
-
I havent read the books or seen any of the films. If it was Xmas and I was drunk and a HP film was on tv….I *might* watch it…..thats a big might though.[/quote:f8b13852b0]
lol, its amazing what you’ll watch with a couple of drinks on you. Last night i watched the flash….it’s been years since I’ve seen it.
-
I also think its very dubious to say that LOTR is a ‘far superior book’ – there is no question that the quality of Rowlings writing is fantastic…[/quote:1ac554b226]
Hrm, I would say its of a very good standard, but only for a childrens book. I’ll reserve overall judgement until she writes a book aimed at an older audience..It has been mentioned that LOTR today might not even get a publishing deal..[/quote:1ac554b226]
The reasons you have given there are why the book remains so timeless, it doesnt correspongd to a particular age and I would say that, ignoring the standard of English used throughout, no matter when you ask someone when it was written the person would have difficulty guessing. When the films were released many of my friends asked me when it was first written. When I replied that they were started in 1954 none of them could believe it. The same cannot be said however, for much of todays writing I believe.While the HP series are aimed at children and theres nothing inately wrong with that, I just think that those people who are willing to “give it a try” and who fall into an older age bracket should read The Hobbit and LoTR first, something that won’t happen due to the marketing machine behind HP. Slogans such as “Lord Of The Rings for a new generation” are what annoy me when most of the current generations have yet to experience LoTR bar the films…
-
Nah harry potter is one of those things i cant watch or read..
the little nerd gets under my skin, almost as much as adults going. they’re not just for kids they’re really addictive and clever. seems to me from what i saw of hp2 (think it was on in the background in one of my cousins houses). That nobby\dobby\gobby whatever his names is a blant rip off of Gollum.Speaking of how hp has had bad effects on ppl.
In fact one of my buddy (23) was outside water stones on friday night last to pick up one of the first copies, while the rest of us were getting drunk on corona and vodka jelly at a house party with many beautiful ladies. Maybe Im boring shallow, and an uncultured bastard, but i’d opt for option 2 any day. :P
-
I don’t want to get drawn into the HP vs. Tolkien debate, but feel the need in my usual arthritic (Skyclad) and pedantic (Omen) way to point out a few corrections…
Firstly, Tolkien didn’t invent Orcs and elves (although did he invent Middel Earth and many other of its creatures), both had in fact been ‘created’ long before he used them (see Dunsany and others)
Secondly, the books didn’t start in 1954 but in 1936 (I think) and had there publication interrupted by the WW2
<gives a curmudgeonly harrumph and continues about his business>
Breaking both a promise to myself not to get drawn in and the habit of a lifetime, I agree with Dave on this one
-
Breaking both a promise to myself not to get drawn in and the habit of a lifetime, I agree with Dave on this one[/quote:7e59250654]
Confused, what are you argeeeing with ? That its a good book, or something else.I don’t want to get into HP vs LOTR either…
I do believe its a children’s book and JKR would agree with that, and its the older audience that pretned different that get at me.
I had to spend aover a year in uni with 3 guys that were mad about it. Eventually agreed to read the first 4, think the 5 was just coming out at the time. Didn’t read it. Then again, I think I’ve only ever read 2 hard-back books, so that alone was a major put off :) -
Breaking both a promise to myself not to get drawn in and the habit of a lifetime, I agree with Dave on this one[/quote:d2bc256bec]
Confused, what are you argeeeing with ? That its a good book, or something else.I don’t want to get into HP vs LOTR either…
I do believe its a children’s book and JKR would agree with that, and its the older audience that pretned different that get at me.
I had to spend aover a year in uni with 3 guys that were mad about it. Eventually agreed to read the first 4, think the 5 was just coming out at the time. Didn’t read it. Then again, I think I’ve only ever read 2 hard-back books, so that alone was a major put off :)Oh, and as an aside, I think some of the points that Dave mentioned about LOTR are what makes it great :) Especially creating the whole kingdom, history and languages. Added that extra “je ne c’est quai”
-
Secondly, the books didn’t start in 1954 but in 1936 (I think) and had there publication interrupted by the WW2[/quote:219c885a3c]
Ah I meant to say it was first published in 1954. Work began, albeit unofficially, on The Lord Of The Rings in around 1937 however due to his other commitments he only wrote on and off and it was only after the war that he concentrated on it… -
The Harry Potter books are easy to read and fun, because they are kids books, and there is nothing wrong with that.
The LotR books are difficult to read, complex and immersive.I prefer LotR because they require more mental thought and effort to read and understand, for that very reason I find them more satisfying and immersive. I also can’t see Harry Potter being considered a classic in 100 years time, if its even remembered at all. I can see Tolkiens work being remembered for a long long time.
I also think comparing the literary quality of the two is a complete joke.
-
I also can’t see Harry Potter being considered a classic in 100 years time, if its even remembered at all. I can see Tolkiens work being remembered for a long long time.
I also think comparing the literary quality of the two is a complete joke.
[/quote:c5b3a1cdb9]
Yup, thats it in a nutshell. Thats how I felt when I heard people saying what I mentioned earlier… -
Since we are Harrumphing :)
Firstly, Tolkien didn’t invent Orcs and elves (although did he invent Middel Earth and many other of its creatures), both had in fact been ‘created’ long before he used them (see Dunsany and others)[/quote:dcfeee17d9]
Edit: I’m going to save this one for the shindig :)Dave
-
Breaking both a promise to myself not to get drawn in and the habit of a lifetime, I agree with Dave on this one[/quote:a3935c6c87]
Confused, what are you argeeeing with ? That its a good book, or something else.[/quote:a3935c6c87]ok, what I was agreeing with was that – by today’s sensibilities – HP is better written than LOTR, (not necessarily a better book) and I doubt that LOTR would be published today for the same reasons that Dave mentioned PLUS the fact that his dialogue is terribly archaic by todays’s taste. To say that either is better literature than the other is subjective in the extreme, as you can’t really make an apples for apples comparison without taking into account the very points that Dave made. I think JRRT and JFK are both accomplished authors(For the record I personally prefer LOTR to HP and if I was stranded on a desert island – no contest – I’d want LOTR for company). However, even take a a lookat the 3 LOTR movies… The dialogue of 2 & 3 is in stark contrast to the dialogue of 1, which more closely mirrors the books – and that was deliberately changed after criticisms of the first film by audiences. I think it’s even referenced in the commentaries on the DVDs. Simply put, audiences’ tastes to day have changed (also why War of the Worlds, which I loved by the way, had an ending unchanged from the book that simply doesn’t work for a modern audience)
I do believe its a children’s book[/quote:a3935c6c87]It’s primary audience is kids, sure. But having come late to HP, I read all first 5 books back to back and it’s obvious to me anyway that JKR’s style matures with in line with her audience aging. So it’s for teens at this stage. Many people consider LOTR a kids book – either way it’s irrelevant. Both series can be read and appreciated on their own terms
Oh, and as an aside, I think some of the points that Dave mentioned about LOTR are what makes it great :) Especially creating the whole kingdom, history and languages. Added that extra “je ne c’est quai”[/quote:a3935c6c87]Couldn’t agree with you more. I don’t think Dave was citing them as criticisms necessarily
-
Listen to teh bunneh…
-
I think JRRT and JFK are both accomplished authors[/quote:3dcf3b0936]
JFK was a writer?! :)By the by, I never meant HP wasn’t good, just that it doesn’t appeal to me and I can’t fathom what it is that deals people in. To me, its a kids book…
-
I don’t think Dave was citing them as criticisms necessarily[/quote:9c42c878b9]
Absolutely. Except for Tom Bombadil. -
I don’t think Dave was citing them as criticisms necessarily[/quote:eec3a08b26]
Absolutely. Except for Tom Bombadil.[/quote:eec3a08b26]agreed… methinks JRRT dropped one too many of the ole psylocybins -
I think JRRT and JFK are both accomplished authors[/quote:f44cd50385]
JFK was a writer?! :)[/quote:f44cd50385]he was actually!! But I meant JKR, obviously
-
- The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.