Poll: Harry Potter:Why the hate?
- Thread starter The_Eskimo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
They are pretty clumsily written. I read the first three while working in a bookshop, I found them actually quite horrible to read, but I admit they had a good story lost somewhere in the dreck. The story wasn't my cup of tea, but I didn't think it was terrible, just the writing.
It's a decent book series. Nothing exceptional but a very deep world. It's in a league of it's own.
Twilight on the other hand, you need to burn this shit.
Twilight on the other hand, you need to burn this shit.
Kinda wish there was a degree between "Love" and "Indifferent."
I have all the books and have read the series a couple times through, because it's a well-executed series. There are some glaring weaknesses, but I find most of the characters to be enjoyable and consistent with each other.
I absolutely despise the movies though, especially the fourth, and I expect that as the books get longer, the associated movies are going to leave more and more out. They are clearly meant to be a kind of companion to the books, not a substitute, but I can't get over some of the plot holes that appear in the movies and how fake Hogwarts feels. To each his own, of course. I just prefer the books.
I have all the books and have read the series a couple times through, because it's a well-executed series. There are some glaring weaknesses, but I find most of the characters to be enjoyable and consistent with each other.
I absolutely despise the movies though, especially the fourth, and I expect that as the books get longer, the associated movies are going to leave more and more out. They are clearly meant to be a kind of companion to the books, not a substitute, but I can't get over some of the plot holes that appear in the movies and how fake Hogwarts feels. To each his own, of course. I just prefer the books.
I think most of all it's popular and successful, but isn't of interest to EVERYONE here.
As much as I feel she kind of stole Terry Pratchett's thunder, by being the new biggest selling author in the UK, and writing fantasy books, she's done well, she's created a world of her own that many many people enjoy, I don't think any of it's 'bad', it's just bleh..child actors put me off immediately, I just want to slap the precocious little buggers.
Of course they're all older now, so I'll even forgive them having been kids once
Pratchett is still the UK's most shoplifted author tho, and he's still miles ahead of Rowling in writing, volume, talent, beards and hats. Also, even tho 'Going Postal' was hacked down to a tiny part of its original tale to fit a movie, the movie of the book was still better than any of the HP ones imo.
My argument for Pratchett over Rowling, is that Rowling's books are about kids who become wizards, Pratchett's books are about our world and our lives, reflected in a warped mirror that is the Discworld, and this leaves him open to infinite avenues of new tales. I just wish for his alzheimer's disease to be very slow and let him create at least a few more books before it takes his magic away. (Selfish in a way, but damn, the end of the Discworld will be a sad day.)
In the end, HP, Twilight, whatever, if it gets kids reading they're far more likely to read other stuff and widen their interests and knowledge, and that's worth making Meyer a millionaire a few times over and I don't begrude her or Dan Brown or Rowling (who I don't put in with Meyer or Brown, while I don't like her stuff I know it's creative and well written) becoming rich and famous, all the time Paris Hilton is rich and famous for just owning hotels and a vagina.
After all, if kids listen to Busted and McFly and the like, and as a result take an interest in other guitar music, surely that's worth letting the bands live?
As much as I feel she kind of stole Terry Pratchett's thunder, by being the new biggest selling author in the UK, and writing fantasy books, she's done well, she's created a world of her own that many many people enjoy, I don't think any of it's 'bad', it's just bleh..child actors put me off immediately, I just want to slap the precocious little buggers.
Of course they're all older now, so I'll even forgive them having been kids once
Pratchett is still the UK's most shoplifted author tho, and he's still miles ahead of Rowling in writing, volume, talent, beards and hats. Also, even tho 'Going Postal' was hacked down to a tiny part of its original tale to fit a movie, the movie of the book was still better than any of the HP ones imo.
My argument for Pratchett over Rowling, is that Rowling's books are about kids who become wizards, Pratchett's books are about our world and our lives, reflected in a warped mirror that is the Discworld, and this leaves him open to infinite avenues of new tales. I just wish for his alzheimer's disease to be very slow and let him create at least a few more books before it takes his magic away. (Selfish in a way, but damn, the end of the Discworld will be a sad day.)
In the end, HP, Twilight, whatever, if it gets kids reading they're far more likely to read other stuff and widen their interests and knowledge, and that's worth making Meyer a millionaire a few times over and I don't begrude her or Dan Brown or Rowling (who I don't put in with Meyer or Brown, while I don't like her stuff I know it's creative and well written) becoming rich and famous, all the time Paris Hilton is rich and famous for just owning hotels and a vagina.
After all, if kids listen to Busted and McFly and the like, and as a result take an interest in other guitar music, surely that's worth letting the bands live?
I was kind enough to source my argument, please feel free to do the same. Everything I've found seems to be Gaiman denying any wrongdoing without any mention of fearing lawyers. Also interesting to note that The Books of Magic is a DC comic, Neil Gaiman wouldn't be responsible for the lawsuit, his publisher would, the same goes for Rowling. Now I'm sure Rowling's publisher has shitloads of money now, but if there truly was an issue then surely DC would have brought up matters in the early stages of HP's popularity.manythings said:
Thus far the only similarities I have read of are the two Character's appearances, the fact that they go to magic school and have owls. Gaiman himself, in the interview I posted above, stated that both of their works bear similarities to other works which would be stronger grounds for claims of plagiarism.
Finally, and whilst its a very weak supporting argument, Why would Rowling even have knowledge of Gaiman's comics? I could understand if we were talking about a series of books, but comics aren't really a medium I can imagine Rowling having read. They certainly aren't well known enough for her to have caught wind of it, thought; "There's a good idea" and copied.
Who said they were. Not everyone possesses the common sense, mental health or will power required to value health and well being over artificial happiness and indoctrinated beliefs.
I actually like the Harry Potter books. It was just a shame J.K. Rowling said Dumbledore is gay seeing as when I read it I found absolutely no clear indicators about that fact.
Was she trying to suggest something with Grindelwald? I think it was just an attempt to make homosexuals buy her books. Not that there is anything wrong with that but I just don't see him that way.
Anyway, I reserve my hatred for Twilight. Harry Potter did nothing to ruin wizards. Twilight did everything it could to destroy Vampires.
Therefore: Harry Potter > Twilight
Was she trying to suggest something with Grindelwald? I think it was just an attempt to make homosexuals buy her books. Not that there is anything wrong with that but I just don't see him that way.
Anyway, I reserve my hatred for Twilight. Harry Potter did nothing to ruin wizards. Twilight did everything it could to destroy Vampires.
Therefore: Harry Potter > Twilight
I personally enjoyed them.
I read them out of desperation (I had absolutely nothing to do) and ended up loving them.
[sup]Luna Lovegood ftw.[/sup]
I read them out of desperation (I had absolutely nothing to do) and ended up loving them.
[sup]Luna Lovegood ftw.[/sup]
I liked it up until book 5. The thing I liked about the first four was that it was exciting, had fast paced action and mystery. Then Rowling decided to slow the pace and add in teen angst and romance. That kind of made it almost a chore to read them.
She killed Fred Weasley.
Personally, I've got the fifth book onwards, mainly because I haven't been assed getting the others. And I got the other books for birthdays. I don't hate the series, but they're not my favourite. I just fail to see why there is such a huge hype behind it...
Think of HP as Afghanistan and Twilight as Iraq. That's how I've always viewed them.Aby_Z said:
At first I was very resistant to it, because I hate anything popular & mainstream due to me deep rooted belief that today's generation simply has bad taste in absolutely everything (Reality shows, music, fashion, Naruto, movies).
So I was coerced by friends into watching the movie. Unlike the non-70s Star Wars movies I was also coerced into watching, I actually liked Harry Potter. What I liked most about the books was that I felt they were dark & depressing, yet parents still read it to their kids. Actually, I have never met a Potter fan under the age of 18.
I think A Series of Unfortunate Events was a touch more interesting though. I can't believe it's for kids; child labor, attempted child murder, & pretty much everyone dies & in a greusome fashion.
So I was coerced by friends into watching the movie. Unlike the non-70s Star Wars movies I was also coerced into watching, I actually liked Harry Potter. What I liked most about the books was that I felt they were dark & depressing, yet parents still read it to their kids. Actually, I have never met a Potter fan under the age of 18.
I think A Series of Unfortunate Events was a touch more interesting though. I can't believe it's for kids; child labor, attempted child murder, & pretty much everyone dies & in a greusome fashion.