Harry Potter Books: Bollocks or Brilliant? *Possible Spoilers*

A couple of years ago, after I had already seen the first two movies, I finally read the first Harry Potter book, The Sorceror's Stone.

I thought it was crap. I mean, the writing was absolutely awful. Although I already knew I liked the overall story from watching the movies, I just couldn't get past how bad the writing was and I couldn't understand at all how the books had become so popular when the writing was so obviously sub-standard.

So, I kept watching the movies but avoided the books, and I pretty much decided the books were crap and the whole Harry Potter phenomenon was an overall sign of the sad state of modern popular literature. Once in a while, though, I did wonder if perhaps Rowling had improved her style in the later books, seeing as how Sorceror's Stone was her first attempt.

Anyway, I recently took a flight from Bombay to Los Angeles, and I wanted something easy to read that would keep me turning the pages. So, I decided to give the Harry Potter books another try. I got Order of the Phoenix. Though this was skipping from Book 1 to Book 5 in the series, I'd already seen the movies so I wanted a story I didn't already know.

I was actually expecting to be disappointed by this book, but whaddyaknow, I was very pleasantly surprised. Hey hey hey, it's not bad, not bad at all. Rowling still isn't the greatest writer around or anything (WAY too many adverbs, especially in the dialogue descriptors), but she's vastly improved from the first book and the story never stops moving. One thing I love about this book is that it's all story, all the time. There's very little description, no backstory to speak of, and no unecessary asides or explanatory paragraphs. Everything is story story story, and it moves along at a nice clip and it's got a good sense of humour. It's also a fairly adult themed book. She doesn't mince around things when it comes to death or violence, and there's a lot of darkness and satire in there.

So that's it I guess, I've finally jumped on the big wagon and become a Harry Potter fan. I've actually decided to go back and read all the books I've missed now, and then proceed on to finish the series. I'm not ranking it up there with The Dark Tower or Lord of the Rings or anything, but it's certainly a worthy diversion and a good fun read.

Philosophers Stone!


Movies suck. Books are ok (4, 5, 6 specifically).

Could not get past the first one... Especially after reading LoTR. As Cartman so clearlt states says: "What are you guys playing?", "Harry Ptter!", "Fags!" (no disrespect meant, just quoting...)

Originally Posted by Mudd

Philosophers Stone!


Movies suck. Books are ok (4, 5, 6 specifically).

You know you love the books.

Anyways, Harry Potter is at most the most amazing books i have ever read. I fell in love with every single one of the characters and me and my friends pretend as if we will be wizards some day haha. It seems as if with every book the plot line elaborates even more and you get even more and even more excited about what will happen with the next book, etc. Lovely. Now i have to go shopping. Goooodbye.

I like the movies and books, i'm not an avid fan, but I like reading them none the less.

Badly written, weak characters, unorigional ideas, poor plots.

About the only good thing going for them is that they are simple books which encourage simple people to read. Why anyone would choose them over a Niel Gaimon or a China Mieville I don't know.

Originally Posted by Tostig

Badly written, weak characters, unorigional ideas, poor plots.

About the only good thing going for them is that they are simple books which encourage simple people to read. Why anyone would choose them over a Niel Gaimon or a China Mieville I don't know.

And why would people have to choose them over Mieville or Gaiman? I like all three. So you can't like Dostojevskij or Hamsun, because you enjoy Conan Doyle, as well?

But I guess we're all simple people, with simple lives, reading simple books...

Originally Posted by -apocalypsis-

And why would people have to choose them over Mieville or Gaiman? I like all three. So you can't like Dostojevskij or Hamsun, because you enjoy Conan Doyle, as well?

But I guess we're all simple people, with simple lives, reading simple books...

Here here!
I absolutely despise the literary elitism that is intent on condemning a book just because it's read by a lot of people.
I read the first book before the real hype started and was hooked right away. I got the last four books the day they came out and I am eagerly anticipating the seventh.

On another note: Rowling recently announced that in book 7, she will kill off two "main characters". Who do you think will die?
I am unsure: what defines "main character"? THE main chracter (protagonist) is oviously Harry Potter. Then we have Ron and Hermione, who could be defined as main characters as well. Then there's Voldemort, as the antagonist.
I'm absolutely certain Voldemort will snuff it in the last book, but I'd be devastated if either Harry, Ron or Hermione (aka "the Trio") would die.

all the books are the same (apart from the last one)

1 potter goes to school 2 something is wrong at school 3 potter saves school The end

Hey, my son never read an entire book till he read Harry Potter. Now he has read all the Narnia books and continues reading. That's enough for me to love them. Plus I like them on my own.

bollocks the story just got progressively worse.

What makes the books good IMHO is that they can be enjoyed by adults and children alike. A good sign of a good fairytale. And I just love the whole parrallel (sp?) world she has created. And sure, Dostojevskij is good as well, but his books aren't exactly neither meant for children nor meant to be entertaining fairytales with some morals all children (and some adults as well) can relate to. If you examine the overall purpose of the books they are absolutely brilliant.
And the movies have gotten progressively better as well.

Rowling is a very talented author.

It is a great series in my opinion, I've kinda grown up with it and I read the first book when I was 11 I think, but the books have also gotten maturer and better, it's good that she tries to keep the original fans interested .

Bollocks.

For some reason I cant vote in the poll. Anyway I like the books a lot, regardless of what others say. The movies are abysmal though.

I read the first couple of books before the craze started and I quite liked them. I read the Goblet of Fire six times because I had nothing else, then it just got boring. But I can't stop myself, every time a new one comes out I just have to get it. Otherwise people will be asking me about it for weeks.

The books are excellent and the movies are good. The books depict the whole "magic exists" concept very realistically and intelligently in a modern setting. The movies, though obviously divergent from the books due to issues involving the film's run time, stay fairly consistent to the main events that occur.

The Harry Potter novels are a superb project and Rowling deserves every ounce of her success. The sheer scope of the continuity - the whole 7-book story having been conceived as one integrated element; the plots are complex and yet fit together like a jigsaw puzzle, not only within each book but over the course of the series; the characters are like familiar friends; the fantasy background world is just silly enough to be convincing; the villains are vile, the heroes heroic. Snape is my favourite character - enigmatically vile, brimming with power and purpose.

To those of you who cast aspersions and try to leach the happiness out of it: Expecto Patronum.

Latin is magic, you know. It's a proven fact.

It'd be cool if it ended with just total war between the death-eaters and the british military. Just shootouts all over the place. Probably won't, though. Be too violent for younger readers. It'd make the story that much more interesting, though...
In any case, Voldemort's probably going to die, and Harry is probably going to die. Tie up loose ends by killing off the two primary protagonists.