Why is Harry Potter so crap? (2 Viewers)

[goosiegoo]

Well the first three books - philsophers stone, chamber of secrets and the prisoner of azakaban were quite good. But after that the plot was really repititive.

Whats worse are the movies - horrible characterisation, ridiculous acting in general by all those acting. Whats worse - I have a feeling the books now being written- are being written for the movie rather than a proper novel in itself.

If you see other novels such LOTR - where I guess it is not a series but the movie was just outstanding.

Any reason why the novels now being written and the movies are well below par? I mean I stopped reading after the Goblet of Fire, and watched all 4 movies - only cause surprisingly I was forced into it - (cause of my brother) - but I felt all the movies didnt reflect the book and was just in general crap.

Hmmm.

I don't think the title of this topic quite reflects what you're trying to say.

I agree that the movies could be alot better, but that has absolutely nothing to do with J.K.R and her writing and the books.. the reason their greatness depends on directors, warner bros, etc. And i don't think anyone can ever say 'Harry Potter is crap' purely because of the movies... because the movies are just adaptations of the books. It's like someone saying Lord of the Rings is crap, because they didn't like the movies... or saying that a song is crap, only because of the newly released cover version. You can say the movies are crap, yes... but the movies in no way reflect the goodness of 'Harry Potter'... because they are books.

I disagree that the books are being written for the movies, i don't think JKR would ever do that - shes hardly involved in the movies anyway. If the books were being written for the movies wouldn't she make them a bit shorter? With plot lines easier for movie... and more flashier things? I don't see her doing that.

And besides... if you stopped reading after Goblet of Fire.. then how do you know the plot in the other books is really repetitive? I mean, order of the phoenix has a completely different plot to any other harry potter books i've seen.. and if you've read HBP you'd know that DH (book seven) is going to be completely different to all the books for sooo many reasons...

that is true. but i'd say its because her writing has matured along with harry's age. in that, as he has got older her writing has become progressively darker and focused on older audiences to reflect the changed nature of her content. and this is a good thing.

I definitely agree with you.. her writing has become darker.. i mean.. torture, so much more death, more betrayal not to mention the inferi. I don't believe that someone could possibly say Philosophers stone is darker than Half Blood Prince.

And now with the title of the seventh book released it's looking to be an extremely grim book.

Anywho, i can accept you saying that you think the Harry potter movies are crap, but bad acting has nothing to do with JKR and the movies are not a good reflection of the real Harry Potter.

 

[ditto.]

I love girls who love HP.

Much love, katy.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Agreed

Success of the first few books = writing for money rather tahn whatever she was originally writing for?

Yeah even though she had the whole series planned out from the start if the first one was successful hey?

Although I can't get over how awful the teen romance is in 6, I mean what kinda 16 year old boy talks about "sunlit days"? And the chest monster... more like pants-monster! _{Maybe it's just because I don't like the ship}

 

[bazookajoe]

Yeah, she really can't adapt her writing to reflect them growing up. They don't even swear, and Harry's never thinking about boobies

 

[ccc123]

Yeah, she really can't adapt her writing to reflect them growing up. They don't even swear, and Harry's never thinking about boobies

Yeah i agree that her characters are perfect to the point that they seem artificial...i never realised how none of them ever swore thats an interesting point. But i still think Rowling does try to reflect some of the realities of adolescence, and (in my opinion) does so with accuracy.

 

[cupcake08]

And besides... if you stopped reading after Goblet of Fire.. then how do you know the plot in the other books is really repetitive? I mean, order of the phoenix has a completely different plot to any other harry potter books i've seen.. and if you've read HBP you'd know that DH (book seven) is going to be completely different to all the books for sooo many reasons...

yeah, i also disagree with the op. i found the first three books were all extremely formula (particularly one and two). if anything the series has become less predictable and repetitive since then.
although yeah, the romance isn't done too well

 

[bubz :D]

Actually, the characters do swear - JKR just doesn't put the actual words in the novels, which is understandable. I think it was when they were all telling Harry how Percy had ditched the family, when it said something like "Harry swore under his breath"

and stuff like "Ron told Malfoy to do something Harry knew he would never have dared say in front of Mrs Weasley"... etc etc

 

[hannahxxx]

Hmmm my english teacher was dead against the books. She said a lot of the symbolism and ideas were stolen from other texts. I asked her to elaborate but the bell rang. Also- I know that when some texts get extraordinarily popular and develop "cult" followings, people can occasionally miss the textual integrity of the work and instead dislike them because they are too successful. I'd call it "the Phar Lap syndrome".

I think my main complaint about the books would have to be the simplistic and cliched nature of the whole good/evil dichotomy. While I know we've got to keep in mind that these were originally created for children, there are mythological allusions that are clearly intended for older readers as well.

I also dislike the gender stereotypes. The submissive feminine archetype has surfaced throughout the series e.g. book 1-Hermoine rescued from troll; Book 2-Ginny rescued from Basilisk; Book 4- Cho rescued from Lake. It goes on. Harry typifies the traditional idea of masculinity-the adventurer, the rescuer(in the majority of cases anyway).

But while the books have there faults, I also reckon Rowling should be given credit. I can remember reading the transcript of an interview when I was 10 where she noted that she had mapped the whole Hogwarts castle (changing staircases, grounds, offices, statues-everything) and regularly referred back to it and all these in depth character profiles when writing. For all the faults of the series, I can't help but see the works as an extraordinary creation on Rowling's behalf.

Anyway if anyones got the time I'd check out Tom Norris' (a past ext 2 english students)Harry Potter essay. It kinda makes you see that there are some clever parts to the series that a lot of us don't pick up on.
http://www.boredofstudies.org/view.php?course=8

I 50/50 like/dislike the series.

 

[Libbster]

But while the books have there faults

learn to spell. who cares about the submissive feminine stereotype, people are just reading too much into hp.

 

[Dave2007]

You can NEVER read too much into anything

Maybe subconsciously JKR likes being dominated?

Anyway im surprised to see all this hating...even if you don't think theres anything complex or "fun" about the novels, their incredible rise to popularity from absolutely nothing must show some testament to, if not writing ability, a creative idea that really captivates a shitload of people with every book release.

 

[hannahxxx]

learn to spell. who cares about the submissive feminine stereotype, people are just reading too much into hp.

Start putting capitals at the beginning of your sentences and question marks at the end of your questions and then we'll talk.

You can NEVER read too much into anything

Agreed. People who talk about hp as a purely simplistic series remind me of those who say "The Simpsons" is 'just a cartoon' . They have their heads in the sand. By all means enjoy books/shows for entertainment purposes-but realize there are often messages about race/gender/politics/economics etc. beneath it all. If you ignore this completely then you're just being manipulated.

Maybe subconsciously JKR likes being dominated?

Lol mayb. It could also be that she feels she might lose her male fan base if she strays too far from traditional stereotypes. The reason she used her initials J.K. instead of her real name was that she thought young boys might not want to read a female authors' work(it's in her interviews). I dunno-there's a tonne of possibilities.

 

[jhakka]

Hai guys, just a token reminder that flaming is not toleratated in here. While there was nothing major happening, silly debates about spelling and grammar in place of actual arguments often lead this way.


I personally don't see why Rowling was so worried about young boys being turned off her books because she is a woman. Certainly I can see the concern, but I don't think it's such a huge issue. Looking at Australian examples like Emily Rodda would suggest that the sex of the author is not really a huge issue.

 

[Dave2007]

She didn't necessarily believe it, her publishers before book 1 (and before her obvious rise to fame) decided in their market psychoanalysis wisdom that boys are more likely to think "wow, cool!" seeing a book from JK Rowling than from "Joanne Rowling".

And stop the flaming, let the haters be silly

 

[HotShot]

yeah, i also disagree with the op. i found the first three books were all extremely formula (particularly one and two). if anything the series has become less predictable and repetitive since then.
although yeah, the romance isn't done too well

Harry Potter has always been far too predictable and reptitive - all of the books. The first book was different and it was particularly - made for children who dont think too far or too much.

Later on she pushes and pushes it, just a bit too far and now people buy the book simply by because of everyone else buys it, the hype surrounding it and the fact book it does have some die-hard fans like anyother book.

It would been much better if she had - more of the real world -muggles invovled rather focusing soley on the spells and the other world - hogwarts etc because she has already covered all that.

maybe muggles developing their own way of fighting against these wizards or managing to find their secret and exploit it.

Voldemart should die sometiime - no point in his existing if he keeps dyiing and coming back to alive, dying and coming back to lfie etc.

 

[cupcake08]

Harry Potter has always been far too predictable and reptitive - all of the books. The first book was different and it was particularly - made for children who dont think too far or too much.

Later on she pushes and pushes it, just a bit too far and now people buy the book simply by because of everyone else buys it, the hype surrounding it and the fact book it does have some die-hard fans like anyother book.

fair enough. but hey, i'll probably be on that bandwagon for the last book and i still don't think its a bad read for what its worth.

It would been much better if she had - more of the real world -muggles invovled rather focusing soley on the spells and the other world - hogwarts etc because she has already covered all that.

maybe muggles developing their own way of fighting against these wizards or managing to find their secret and exploit it.

Voldemart should die sometiime - no point in his existing if he keeps dyiing and coming back to alive, dying and coming back to lfie etc.

the thing is, the premise of the series was that it would revolve around harry/voldemort conflict resolving itself in the last book. if you take that away, the whole series would loose central idea underpinning it, regardless of whether that idea is becoming repetitive for readers like yourself.

 

[Josie]

I quite enjoyed the first three books- after that it just felt like she was trying too hard.

 

[HotShot]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - 21 July 2007

And what doe that have to do with, well, anything in my last post? Rowling was never convicted of plagiarism in any way, shape or form. Go look it up.

Yeah I am sure - with 6 billion people in the world - I am sure she didnt copy from anyone.

 

[ObjectsInSpace]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - 21 July 2007

Yeah I am sure - with 6 billion people in the world - I am sure she didnt copy from anyone.

Not intentionally. Sure, ideas will get regurgitated - William Shakespere said there are only seven basic types of stories we can tell - but you seemed to be implying she had directly plagiarised. There was a case where an American author named Nancy Stouffer tried to sue Rowling for use of the word 'muggles', though the court found Rowling had not plagiarised and Stouffer had lied to the court and fabricated evidence

 

[HotShot]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - 21 July 2007

Not intentionally. Sure, ideas will get regurgitated - William Shakespere said there are only seven basic types of stories we can tell - but you seemed to be implying she had directly plagiarised. There was a case where an American author named Nancy Stouffer tried to sue Rowling for use of the word 'muggles', though the court found Rowling had not plagiarised and Stouffer had lied to the court and fabricated evidence

that was Nancy trying to get a share of Rowling's wealth.

Intentionally or not - she did copy a lot from other people.

But who cares.

Soon..it will be over...

 

[$hiftyIceQueen]

Re: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - 21 July 2007

Even if she did copy, her version is way better

I didnt realise that Godric's Hollow was actually a village :S I need to re-read the series.

And HotShot why do you hate HP so much ?