Poll: Harry Potter:Why the hate?

[fletch_talon]

They are not good books. It's fantasy pulp fiction.

J. K. Rowling writes sentences like, "the famous man looked at the red cup." This is not good literature! I voted hate.

[small]Also, I've never really been aware of the existence of Twilight.[/small]

I once saw a TV show about books where they get authors on to comment about literary issues and recent/popular novels/literature.
The show I saw had authors such as Bryce Courtenay and Matthew Reilly, known for writing "popular" fiction. Apparently they get frowned upon by critics and other authors because their writing is too simple. Matthew Reilly replied to this with a point that makes so much sense.

He basically said that some writer's and critics seem to think that its a reader's responsibility to enjoy reading a book. If they don't, its their fault for not understanding it, or searching for the deeper meaning. Popular fiction on the other hand is written to be enjoyed. Its the Author's job to make their books unambiguous and an enjoyable experience.

Rowling doesn't overcomplicate things, but she still writes fiction that paints vivid imagery for the young readers to whom it was targeting and also appeals to older readers too. Good literature shouldn't be judged on the complexity of language used. It should be judged by the way characters develop and the story progresses. Language is obviously important as it needs to flow, be easily understood and be able to adequately describe characters/settings/events. Beyond that however it is possible to go overboard.

Take Lord of the Rings for example. Its a great book to be sure, but it turns so many people off due to its complexity. Sometimes you don't need all the big words and page long descriptions to tell a story, when a simple paragraph will do.

 

[masher]

I just don't like her laws of magic and fantasy. XP as nerdy as that sounds, that about sums it up. I like the worlds created my Gary Gygax and J.R.R.Tolkien. I always found The "Harry Potter" realm to be a bit too child-friendly for me to really get into it. It's too puffed and pampered, in my opinion.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

There's hate for Harry Potter? Aside from religious fanatics that is? That's news to me.
In any case I think this [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Hatedom] should explain it. I don't understand it, I just know it exists. I could never imagine devoting so much time and energy into hating something.

 

[crimsonshrouds]

I liked the series but i read the first four so many times that by the time the fifth on came out i was starting to lose my younger obsession of it and then the sixth came out and my love of the books was waning and the seventh came out... i finished the book and became indifferent to the series.

i have no hate for the harry potter series, all my hate is reserved for twilight.

 

[Blue Musician]

Ok just to get it out of the way yes i like Harry Potter and im a guy.i guess i like it for its good storytelling and all that jazz. but lots hate it why? i am talking about the books. yes i know, the movies are rubbish

I do not really hate it, but I dislike it, except the last book, where it got more Amulet of Samarkand-ish.

It's simple. On the first books they got Hagrid out of proportions many, but many times. I would list them, yet I won't because I'm lazy.

Secondly of all, they got Voldermort too overuse on the series. I would have preferred different principal antagonists through the series and not just Voldemort being the only principal one. But also not to show Voldemorts plans through each book, why not make every event seem different and with no correlation until the last books tied them all up to make the events look more surprising just like the Bartimaeus Trilogy?

Also the narration is not so good. If you want to read a book with similar themes and yet it's so much better I recommend the Amulet of Samarkand.

 

[Jamieson 90]

Because of what the author did to it. In the first couple of books, there was a sense of wonder to them, like magic was something amazing and the world was unique. By the third book, it was going away, was almost gone in the fourth, and was non-existent in the fifth onwards. The magic became just another part of the universe as the books came to be more and more like a script, away from the wonder and more about the "action."

I agree with this, the first 4 books were very good, however by the time you get to the 5th and onwards it just seems like she could not be bothered anymore and got lazy, probably all that money that she is rolling in.

Once you read some proper adult fiction you understand that the Harry Potter books are pretty medicore are best and get worse as they go on.

I used to love to read them but I find that now as I have got older I just don't find them interesting anymore, don't even get me started on the films, First was magical, second and Third were decent/good, rest were boring/crap.

A good Series to read? The Dark Tower Series by Stephen King, blows Harry Potter out of the water, Eyes of The dragon is also great.

 

[Anticitizen_Two]

I love it because I loved it as a kid. Looking back, it's incredibly cliched and not particularly imaginative, but I still possess nostalgic affection for it.

EDIT: I've gotta agree with the poster above me, Stephen King's Dark Tower is fantastic. And of course there's The Lord of the Rings, which blows Harry Potter out of the water (the book, not the crappy Jackson films).

 

[oktalist]

They are not good books. It's fantasy pulp fiction.

J. K. Rowling writes sentences like, "the famous man looked at the red cup." This is not good literature! I voted hate.

I once saw a TV show about books where they get authors on to comment about literary issues and recent/popular novels/literature. The show I saw had authors such as Bryce Courtenay and Matthew Reilly, known for writing "popular" fiction. Apparently they get frowned upon by critics and other authors because their writing is too simple. Matthew Reilly replied to this with a point that makes so much sense.

He basically said that some writer's and critics seem to think that its a reader's responsibility to enjoy reading a book. If they don't, its their fault for not understanding it, or searching for the deeper meaning. Popular fiction on the other hand is written to be enjoyed. Its the Author's job to make their books unambiguous and an enjoyable experience.

Rowling doesn't overcomplicate things, but she still writes fiction that paints vivid imagery for the young readers to whom it was targeting and also appeals to older readers too. Good literature shouldn't be judged on the complexity of language used. It should be judged by the way characters develop and the story progresses. Language is obviously important as it needs to flow, be easily understood and be able to adequately describe characters/settings/events. Beyond that however it is possible to go overboard.

Take Lord of the Rings for example. Its a great book to be sure, but it turns so many people off due to its complexity. Sometimes you don't need all the big words and page long descriptions to tell a story, when a simple paragraph will do.

I don't like LOTR either, it tries too hard.

Do like Matthew Reilly, though, for the awesome non-stop action sequences.

Anyway, you seem to have given a pretty good definition of pulp fiction. It's like the Halo 3 of books. Not bad, exactly, just stupefyingly mediocre, but could be called a guilty pleasure. So I do hate it when people (and there are a lot of them) hail Rowling as the new Kipling or Roald Dahl.

And I'm not just talking about the use of language. I do agree that it's not the only factor to be considered.

EDIT: This:

it's incredibly cliched and not particularly imaginative

 

[octafish]

They are not good books. It's fantasy pulp fiction.

J. K. Rowling writes sentences like, "the famous man looked at the red cup." This is not good literature! I voted hate.

[small]Also, I've never really been aware of the existence of Twilight.[/small]

I once saw a TV show about books where they get authors on to comment about literary issues and recent/popular novels/literature.
The show I saw had authors such as Bryce Courtenay and Matthew Reilly, known for writing "popular" fiction. Apparently they get frowned upon by critics and other authors because their writing is too simple. Matthew Reilly replied to this with a point that makes so much sense.

He basically said that some writer's and critics seem to think that its a reader's responsibility to enjoy reading a book. If they don't, its their fault for not understanding it, or searching for the deeper meaning. Popular fiction on the other hand is written to be enjoyed. Its the Author's job to make their books unambiguous and an enjoyable experience.

Rowling doesn't overcomplicate things, but she still writes fiction that paints vivid imagery for the young readers to whom it was targeting and also appeals to older readers too. Good literature shouldn't be judged on the complexity of language used. It should be judged by the way characters develop and the story progresses. Language is obviously important as it needs to flow, be easily understood and be able to adequately describe characters/settings/events. Beyond that however it is possible to go overboard.

Take Lord of the Rings for example. Its a great book to be sure, but it turns so many people off due to its complexity. Sometimes you don't need all the big words and page long descriptions to tell a story, when a simple paragraph will do.

Are you telling us that this is what J.K. does? Amazing! She is the queen of turgid prose.

Lets take Mathew Reilly as an example. He writes pretty fun, pretty trashy, page turners. He actually is a good writer, clean, coherent, and concise. He spends a lot of effort in stripping out the unnecessary and the superfluous.

J.K. isn't a bad writer because she writes popular fiction, she is a bad writer because she writes badly. She never heard the expression "Show, don't tell", don't tell me a character is scared, describe the situation so that I am scared too. Her books are about fifty percent exposition and last book recaps. If she wrote these stories with any amount of restraint or skill I may have read them all. They might even have been good.

Read some Bukowski, Hemingway, or Peter Temple, hell even some Matthew Reilly to get an example of some clean, uncluttered writing.

 

[fletch_talon]

Read some Bukowski, Hemingway, or Peter Temple, hell even some Matthew Reilly to get an example of some clean, uncluttered writing.

Read some Bukowski, Hemingway, or Peter Temple, hell even some Matthew Reilly to get an example of some clean, uncluttered writing.

I've read everything by Matthew Reilly and they share with Rowling's work, the most appealing aspect I find in a novel, it keeps me interested until the very end.
The supposed excessive exposition and lack of restraint/skill in her work isn't as obvious to me as it clearly is to you. I can't help but think if her writing was as bad as you say, then it would impair the quality of reading it. Yet it doesn't, the story, and the way she tells it is more than enough to keep me reading, and it seems a large part of the world feels the same.

I'm not trying to say she's a great writer or even necessarily a good writer. She's an adequate writer who told a great story with the skills at her disposal.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

Like just about everyone else in this thread...people hated/are hating on it? I've heard the occasional joke made about it, but I've always thought it was a pretty established series and that in one way shape or form, everyone has some respect for the books. Personally, I never read past the first 100 pages of the first book simply because it didn't interest me, but I never put anyone else down for reading it.

As for the movies, they've only gotten better. The last movie was actually really good and kept me interested throughout it.

 

[Crystal Cuckoo]

I grew up with them and loved them, reading them several times throughout my younger years.

Dan Brown is a decent writer, as well. He, at least, bothers to do some research before writing *coughMeyercough*.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

The story did get a little contrived in the later episodes, but the general arc was fairly entertaining, and hey, a book that size will keep you busy for a while, and it's fairly cheap.

Ultimately, I've read better books, but it's entertaining enough.

 

[Aulleas123]

I have a friend of mine who took the GRE once, then read the series again and (without studying) got a much higher verbal score. It's an anecdote I know but I find it amusing.

Actually, I really don't have anything against the series, it's gotten kids reading again and I've known priests who have bashed the extremists that all of you guys are talking about. (To be honest I haven't heard much from them in years but oh well)

 

[Legend of J]

Why could of you made instead of that english guy and makin urself look a bit like an idiot and put the hatered for the fact the guy likes to have sex with horses (i know it was all a play but still).

 

[GodsAndFishes]

The first four were great, but the series did really go downhill from there. The last book in particular was silly, three wizards who haven't even finished school are able to defeat one of the most powerful wizards and his entire army!! Doubleyouteefuck??

But the films are without a doubt all shit.

 

[Woodsey]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone hate on Harry Potter.

 

[Halceon]

The books are repetitive. There is very little character growth between the books and the writing seems to get tired. The seperate books on their own are passable, but as a series it descends into boring. And people hate that.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Good books, good movies...and not the worst games ever, too. Not GOOD games, but you could buy far worse for children.

I see little to hate.

 

[TeH PizZa Guy]

most people hate it because its popular. people hate Halo, CoD, LotR, and others because they are popular.