Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
discussion
Is Harry Potter overrated?
Simple answer? Yes.It's among the best-selling, most-hyped series of all time. Even being "jaw-droppingly good" isn't enough to save it from being overrated.
Having said that, I do see it as an outstanding series, and there isn't much harm in letting people feel excited about it.
I read this book when i was eight and i loved it then but now (I'm eleven) i think harry is stupid and all of his friends because it has been a really long time since i have read it so it seems dull
Feven wrote: "No, I don't think it's overrated, but I get your point.
For me and others, we've read Harry Potter at a young age (I read the series when I was 8) and part of the reason people are crazy about it ..."
Thanks for commenting, you give a lot of good insight.
I also read this series when I was young, when I was twelve. I'm only thirteen right now, so this is from a kid's point of view ;)
As for stereotypes, I think I should reword that. I felt that the characters weren't original. I loved the moral ambiguity of it, the grey characters who weren't all black and white, but rather part evil, part good, and it depended on the choices they made.
The lack of originality for the characters really bugged me...Dumbledore is the wise old man archetype, and while he was a very enjoyable character--deep, well fleshed out, etc.--he still kind of tasted the same as other wise old men. Harry is the Chosen One, the outcast hero, the ordinary boy who is also extraordinary...yes, we've seen that a bazillion times before, move on please. There were also quite a few elements and characters ripped off from the Lord of the Rings. While Rowling did put her own spin on it, it wasn't enough to satisfy me and took a little of my enjoyment away from the books.
You're right in the "rags to riches" thing. I mean, even I consider Rowling to be one of the greatest authors of all time...not just because of her books, but because she managed to write an impressively well-thought-out series while scraping for money just to feed her kids. AND she's a woman. That is always a plus for me.
For me and others, we've read Harry Potter at a young age (I read the series when I was 8) and part of the reason people are crazy about it ..."
Thanks for commenting, you give a lot of good insight.
I also read this series when I was young, when I was twelve. I'm only thirteen right now, so this is from a kid's point of view ;)
As for stereotypes, I think I should reword that. I felt that the characters weren't original. I loved the moral ambiguity of it, the grey characters who weren't all black and white, but rather part evil, part good, and it depended on the choices they made.
The lack of originality for the characters really bugged me...Dumbledore is the wise old man archetype, and while he was a very enjoyable character--deep, well fleshed out, etc.--he still kind of tasted the same as other wise old men. Harry is the Chosen One, the outcast hero, the ordinary boy who is also extraordinary...yes, we've seen that a bazillion times before, move on please. There were also quite a few elements and characters ripped off from the Lord of the Rings. While Rowling did put her own spin on it, it wasn't enough to satisfy me and took a little of my enjoyment away from the books.
You're right in the "rags to riches" thing. I mean, even I consider Rowling to be one of the greatest authors of all time...not just because of her books, but because she managed to write an impressively well-thought-out series while scraping for money just to feed her kids. AND she's a woman. That is always a plus for me.
Oh my, you did not just go there. This post will be swarmed by defensive Potterheads in a minute, just wait. I myself am a Defensive Potterhead but I don't feel like arguing at the moment. Just assume that I disagree.
Leah wrote: "Oh my, you did not just go there.
This post will be swarmed by defensive Potterheads in a minute, just wait. I myself am a Defensive Potterhead but I don't feel like arguing at the moment. Just a..."
That's kinda ironic, because I consider myself to be a Potterhead.
I'd like to say, just as an occasional reminder: my thoughts on the book is from a literary standpoint. It's just how I roll. I like to go into lengthy over analysis about plot, pacing, writing, characters, thematic development, climaxes, story structure, etc. If someone were to ask me whether I enjoyed HP or not, I would say that yes, I enjoyed it very much.
This post will be swarmed by defensive Potterheads in a minute, just wait. I myself am a Defensive Potterhead but I don't feel like arguing at the moment. Just a..."
That's kinda ironic, because I consider myself to be a Potterhead.
I'd like to say, just as an occasional reminder: my thoughts on the book is from a literary standpoint. It's just how I roll. I like to go into lengthy over analysis about plot, pacing, writing, characters, thematic development, climaxes, story structure, etc. If someone were to ask me whether I enjoyed HP or not, I would say that yes, I enjoyed it very much.
well, If you compare it's quality to some other mega-popular series, like "Twilight" or "50 shades of gray", then I wouldn't call HP overrated.
XD An unintential compliment, but a compliment all the same.
Feven wrote: "Jocelyn, this was her first novel(s). Authors general become more developed the more they write, I know it may not satisfy you, but Rowling has a point their."
I guess I should cut her some slack. But Tolkien's debut novel was The Hobbit, and it was awesome.
To each their own I guess.
I guess I should cut her some slack. But Tolkien's debut novel was The Hobbit, and it was awesome.
To each their own I guess.
Feven wrote: "Leah wrote: "Oh my, you did not just go there. This post will be swarmed by defensive Potterheads in a minute, just wait. I myself am a Defensive Potterhead but I don't feel like arguing at the m..."
Did that sound like scolding?
I think we have to look at the HP series as what it was meant to be, a story for children. Young people enjoyed it for what it was a good story with characters they could relate to and a plot which they could follow and be challenged with in some places. It got children reading, yes there are better/other books out there but if by reading HP children then became encouraged to read more, then I'm all for it.
Alison wrote: "It got children reading, yes there are better/other books out there but if by reading HP children then became encouraged to read more, then I'm all for it."
You know, that's what I thouught when HP came out and become a hit. But, it turned out that this generation of children was encouraged to read books like "Twilight" :-)) I don't really see that as an worthy goal :-))
I haven't read the Twilight series, so I can't comment but I do see the problem with children becoming fixated on one genre/style of books. But it is the same with adults, I've see friends of mine who don't really read becoming obsessed with the 50 shades series, again I've not read it and probably won't.
And the question is, will those people that haven't read before "50 shades", ever take a non-trashy book?
my mom used to read harry potter to me when i was little and i read the last book when i was ten first i than started to read the rest of the series and i must say i loved it
I think, moving away from the thread a little, that this comes from the popularity of sites such as amazon and supermarkets selling books, now i have bought and often do buy books from both of these outlets but it does limit way some approach buying books-how often do people go to a library/bookshop and ask the advice of staff/read the recommendations?
Jocelyn wrote: "I myself am a fan of these books, but....
This series definitely isn't perfect. I mean, I heard so much about the stunning amazingness of this series. I picked the books up...and while I liked the..."
I agree with every word of this.
This series definitely isn't perfect. I mean, I heard so much about the stunning amazingness of this series. I picked the books up...and while I liked the..."
I agree with every word of this.
Nathaniel wrote: "No book is ever "overrated" if by that you mean that people give it better reviews than it deserves. People get out of a book what they get out of it.
I have ready books that were highly rated, a..."
Certainly Nathaniel. That's the point of a discussion, right? Since no one has the exact same opinion, they come to share it and make the otherwise supremely boring world interesting again with a variety of views.
I have ready books that were highly rated, a..."
Certainly Nathaniel. That's the point of a discussion, right? Since no one has the exact same opinion, they come to share it and make the otherwise supremely boring world interesting again with a variety of views.
What! No way is hp overrated! What is that supposed to mean! All of your points.... Could I just have some examples of a stereotypical person or Rowling telling instead of showing. Because personally I don't see it. At all.
Erin wrote: "What! No way is hp overrated! What is that supposed to mean! All of your points.... Could I just have some examples of a stereotypical person or Rowling telling instead of showing. Because personal..."
Well, Harry is the stereotypical outcast hero, the ordinary guy who doesn't know how extraordinary he is. Wow, haven't seen THAT before.
Hermione is the know-it-all bookworm.
Ron is the bumbling sidekick.
Dumbledore is the generic wise old man.
Voldemort is the same old Dark Lord we've seen a bazillion times before.
Draco is the stereotypical bully.
As for telling instead of showing...
Rowling has this really annoying habit of withholding info, then dumping it on the reader at the very end. Info dumps are telling instead of showing, and this happens at the end of EVERY. SINGLE. DAMN. BOOK. This goes in with the thematic development--instead of Rowling letting things speak for themselves, she has to have Dumbledore bash the reader over the head with the "messages" of love and friendship.
In the Sorcerer's Stone, Quirrel tells Harry what happened with him and Voldemort, and Dumbledore tells Harry about the power of his parents' love.
In the Chamber of Secrets, Dumbledore tells Harry about Tom Riddle and Hagrid's expulsion.
In the Prisoner of Azkaban, Sirius and Lupin dump a bunch of info about Sirius's past and Wormtail's involvement in the Potters' deaths.
In the Goblet of Fire, Dumbledore uses the Veritaserum to make Barty Crouch (is that his name? I forgot a bit...) dump a bunch of info about what happened.
In the Order of the Pheonix, Dumledore dumps clumps of exposition about what he meant to do by avoiding Harry, and about Sirius.
In the Half-Blood Prince, Draco dumps a bunch of info about how he and the Death Eaters managed to sneak into Hogwarts.
And the Deathly Hallows...oh my gods, this ENTIRE book is info dumping, especially with the Hallows, Dumbledore's past and the Elder Wand.
What would be SHOWING would be if Rowling decided to spread bits of exposition throughout the book, rather than waiting until the end and using last-minute plot devices to explain stuff.
Rowling also occasionally overuses Macguffins (Wikipedia that if you don't know what it is), which is definitely telling instead of showing.
Well, Harry is the stereotypical outcast hero, the ordinary guy who doesn't know how extraordinary he is. Wow, haven't seen THAT before.
Hermione is the know-it-all bookworm.
Ron is the bumbling sidekick.
Dumbledore is the generic wise old man.
Voldemort is the same old Dark Lord we've seen a bazillion times before.
Draco is the stereotypical bully.
As for telling instead of showing...
Rowling has this really annoying habit of withholding info, then dumping it on the reader at the very end. Info dumps are telling instead of showing, and this happens at the end of EVERY. SINGLE. DAMN. BOOK. This goes in with the thematic development--instead of Rowling letting things speak for themselves, she has to have Dumbledore bash the reader over the head with the "messages" of love and friendship.
In the Sorcerer's Stone, Quirrel tells Harry what happened with him and Voldemort, and Dumbledore tells Harry about the power of his parents' love.
In the Chamber of Secrets, Dumbledore tells Harry about Tom Riddle and Hagrid's expulsion.
In the Prisoner of Azkaban, Sirius and Lupin dump a bunch of info about Sirius's past and Wormtail's involvement in the Potters' deaths.
In the Goblet of Fire, Dumbledore uses the Veritaserum to make Barty Crouch (is that his name? I forgot a bit...) dump a bunch of info about what happened.
In the Order of the Pheonix, Dumledore dumps clumps of exposition about what he meant to do by avoiding Harry, and about Sirius.
In the Half-Blood Prince, Draco dumps a bunch of info about how he and the Death Eaters managed to sneak into Hogwarts.
And the Deathly Hallows...oh my gods, this ENTIRE book is info dumping, especially with the Hallows, Dumbledore's past and the Elder Wand.
What would be SHOWING would be if Rowling decided to spread bits of exposition throughout the book, rather than waiting until the end and using last-minute plot devices to explain stuff.
Rowling also occasionally overuses Macguffins (Wikipedia that if you don't know what it is), which is definitely telling instead of showing.
ForeverAquarius wrote: "Short answer to title of post:
NO!
Long answer:
Cant be bothered writing it."
Eh, whatever.
NO!
Long answer:
Cant be bothered writing it."
Eh, whatever.
Harry Potter seems so damn divisive. I began reading the books when I was in Primary School, and thoroughly enjoyed them. Waiting for book 4 or 5 in High School I got pretty disenchanted and convinced myself they were rubbish... and then I ate up the last few books when I was in University.Now, if I bring it up with my more literate friends they often start booing and hissing and decry the books as gutter trash. They speak aobut them in almost the same tone they talk about Twilight (I agree on that count, NOT a Twilight fan).
I feel like there's quite a vogue for hating on Harry Potter, and some complaints are justified. The books are far from perfect. Obvious flaws are Harry's less than stellar characterization, and the odd way the Universe seems to revolve around him. I have a friend who quite enjoys listing the many, many MacGuffins introduced throughout the series which could have solved all the series' problems pretty quickly. Gotta admit I'm a little stumped on why they didn't use the time machines or the luck potion more.
There are also some pretty ardent fans out there who think it's just about the best book ever.
More curious, I think, are people who write off the series' popularity as a fluke. After all, the Worst Witch was pretty much the same thing, and all it got was an ITV series made on a £5 budget. I think this is right out, though- while one might argue the two series' objective quality, I think there are a lot of clear reasons why Harry Potter was so successful. A large part of it is the author sympathy with Harry. We might have felt some sympathy for Mildred, but given the opportunity to be the Worst Witch or the Chosen One I know which I'd go for...
I'm middle of the road myself, as far as the books' quality goes. There are definitely a lot of fine points to recommend the series, and I think it overcomes many of its flaws and contrivances. Perfect? No. Dreadful? No. I think they're quite good books, and I really don't think J.K. Rowling fluked her way into her current position.
Could've used more editting, though.
nope. not even. harry potters perfect.
I don't agree with some comments that we have grown it up. I read Harry Potter books in one-setting when I was 14(i'm 16 now) and for me they are the best books ever. I mean I admire J.K.Rowling, she created these whole magic world all by herself. It's amazing. The story, the writing, the characters..EVERYTHING! Yes, Harry Potter books and series are PERFECT.
No, I don't think it's overrated. But then again, we're talking about my all-time absolute favorite books that I've devoured at least three times.No, they are not perfect, but nothing created by a human being is, and contrary to popular belief, JKR is just human. So yes, maybe there's a plothole here and there, and maybe she gets carried away once in a while (e.g. long passages of Order of the Phoenix), but it doesn't really matter to me because these books have managed to draw me in, in a way that no other books ever have, and probably ever will. And to me, that's what's most important.
If you weren't as drawn in as I was, then I can understand why you would tend to focus on all those other things, and I think it also comes down to taste. I like the way Jo writes, but I can understand why some people would find it very descriptive and explanatory, and of course it's hard to really love a book if you don't really love the writing.
I'm going to draw the Twilight card now, I'm sorry. But I know more than one person who's about my age (early 20s) and who seriously think that Twilight is well-written. I don't see that at all. To me it's just one cheesy cliché after another. But it may just be a matter of taste, and I think it's the same with the HP books. Both JKR and Stephenie Meyer have very distinctive writing styles, and either you like them or you don't. I happen to love JKR's and despise Meyer's. And this is not just because I desperately want to hate Twilight. I read all four books, and didn't find them as horrible as I expected, but I did find the writing horrendous. However, this is not a Twilight discussion. Sorry again.
I also happen to like the plot, and I think that it's brilliantly put together. I love re-reading the books and suddenly find little clues to what happens in a later book, that I never realised were there.
Finally, I don't agree that the characters are stereotypes. I think they're the exact opposite: Every single character is flawed, and most of them have depth. The only character that's entirely good is Dobby, and the only one entirely evil is Voldemort. If they are archetypes, they're at the very least a mixture of different archetypes. For examples I just wrote my bachelor dissertation on how Harry resembles the archetypical heroine in Gothic literature, whereas many would argue that he is also a very classically masculine hero.
I think that JKR's characters are very deep and well-developed, and that's actually one of the thing I love the most about her books. I feel like I actually know these people personally after following their lives for so many years. I cry when some of them die and I'm happy when everything turns out all right for others.
Myself being a huge Potterhead, I feel the need to opine to you. I strongly disagree with a few of the points. 1) Your description of Rowling's writing style, is quite accurate. However, you must keep one thing in mind. The first book was the first novel she'd ever written. Jo didn't go to school to write, or anything. You say she rambles about things that have no utter importance. This I don't think is accurate at all. You must understand, that Rowling is writing about a whole world. Not a single plot line, even though we follow Harry through. Almost every, 'little not needed detail' comes up later. In this case, we must respect how deep the Wizarding World is. It wouldn't have that realistic, possible feeling if Rowling hadn't expanded on it. Remember, there is no single plot.
2)This again, goes back to the my interpretation of the first point. She is creating a new world, of course it's going to be rushed. Say, if you were to write a book about our world,would you be able to cram it into 3407 pages? I think Jo did a pretty fine job of cramming that in.
3)This point is very arguable. The plot in the books is very large, but that's the way it is. It must spiral and expand. That is the magic in it. That is why we fans love it so dearly, it is new, and not at all like the mundane everyday things in our own world. Perhaps, Jo was a bit afraid to kill of Harry and maybe it did seem, 'a bit too safe'. But, really we were with Harry for around ten years. He was fostered in her head, do you really think that she could kill him? Anyways, tons of characters we have grown to love were killed. Fred, Severus, Dobby, Hedwig. I cried when Fred died. How do you think Jo felt?
4)One thing about this you might not realize is that, the first book was published in 1997. That is before some of the fiction that we read today... Perhaps, Harry Potter was the inspiration for those stereotypes? Anyways, there will be certain stereotypes in everything. The good, the brainy, the clumsy, the evil. It is the nature of the world-as of writing.
5)This one, is questionable. Again, Jo has created some of these cliches, minus the Lord of Rings, of course. Anyhow, that is a bit of the charm. We grow to realize that there are these such things every where. Good vs. Evil, even in a place where they simple mutter an 'accio' to grab things.
I don't want to make you feel bad, or anything. These are just my points of view. Harry Potter was my childhood. I picked up the books at age seven, and I'm still adoring them. I really respect that you allow yourself to have such views. A lot of fans wouldn't let themselves think that openly. Harry Potter isn't perfect, but it's the closest thing we've got, I think.
Sorry if it was harsh. But, that's the way I am. My true Slytherin qualities, really come out when I debate. Anywho, follow me on Pottermore?
ScaleAccio29552
1) Your description of Rowling's writing style, is quite accurate. However, you must keep one thing in mind. The first book was the first novel she'd ever written. Jo didn't go to school to write, or anything.
Well, I don't know. I've always thought that just because she's inexperienced, doesn't mean it's impossible to write something decent. And she did go to school "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_K_Rowl..."
J.R.R. Tolkien's first novel was The Hobbit, and I thought it was nearly close to perfect. Being a debut author doesn't give you any slack.
You say she rambles about things that have no utter importance. This I don't think is accurate at all. You must understand, that Rowling is writing about a whole world. Not a single plot line, even though we follow Harry through.
What I mean when she rambles is that sometimes, it has little to no relevance to the main conflict. I don't care if she's writing about her world--if something can be cut without changing anything of importance, it has to be cut. This is a number one fiction writing rule. You should condense your writing as much as possible. If you want to introduce your super-detailed world, it has to relate in some way to the main conflict. Otherwise, cut it. It's possible to stay relevant and still have a detailed world. Trust me, it's been done before, and it's been done well.
Almost every, 'little not needed detail' comes up later. In this case, we must respect how deep the Wizarding World is. It wouldn't have that realistic, possible feeling if Rowling hadn't expanded on it. Remember, there is no single plot.
This is something that really annoys me in literature, when a single random detail I really don't care about comes up later. It should be compelling in some way from the start, and it should be relevant. The reader is the only one that counts. This is true for every single fiction book out there. If the reader won't be able to care, it should be cut.
2)This again, goes back to the my interpretation of the first point. She is creating a new world, of course it's going to be rushed. Say, if you were to write a book about our world,would you be able to cram it into 3407 pages? I think Jo did a pretty fine job of cramming that in.
Easy solution: use more books. She could write a series of eight books, or nine or ten. There's no excuse for having rushed pacing. The reader, again, is the only one that counts. The ONLY one.
3)This point is very arguable. The plot in the books is very large, but that's the way it is. It must spiral and expand. That is the magic in it. That is why we fans love it so dearly, it is new, and not at all like the mundane everyday things in our own world.
What I'm saying is that Rowling's writing seems to be out of control. In the middle of the series they're exploding to over 600 pages. It can spiral and expand, but it needs to maintain consistent plot relevance all the way through. Again, number one rule of fiction writing: if it can be cut, cut it. It doesn't matter about the world or anything. She should have imbedded the details of the world throughout the book in a more subtle manner, rather than reserving large chunks of the book for it, for which it serves no purpose but to take up space and add padding. An author is supposed to spread it out, not dump it on the reader at totally random times.
Perhaps, Jo was a bit afraid to kill of Harry and maybe it did seem, 'a bit too safe'. But, really we were with Harry for around ten years. He was fostered in her head, do you really think that she could kill him?
I didn't mean that the ending was bad because Harry didn't die. I meant that it didn't have as much emotion as it should have. Harry should have gotten some massive--MASSIVE--character development in the climax with Voldemort. There doesn't seem to be any major internal conflict within Harry that is resolved in the end. It's only the external conflict that's resolved.
Anyways, tons of characters we have grown to love were killed. Fred, Severus, Dobby, Hedwig. I cried when Fred died. How do you think Jo felt?
I'm right with you on that. I practically cried with Dobby died. But I don't remember saying the ending was bad because no one died...
4)One thing about this you might not realize is that, the first book was published in 1997. That is before some of the fiction that we read today... Perhaps, Harry Potter was the inspiration for those stereotypes?
No, I've read books and watched movies published before that with those stereotypes. The Lord of the Rings. Star Wars. A Game of Thrones. Harry Potter was most definitely not the inspiration for those stereotypes.
Anyways, there will be certain stereotypes in everything. The good, the brainy, the clumsy, the evil. It is the nature of the world-as of writing.
Heh, good point. Stereotypes, archetypes and tropes DO define things, like genres and stuff.
What I mean, however, is that she doesn't make an attempt to put her own spin on those stereotypes. A Game of Thrones uses TONS of stereotypes--yet they all seem very original and refreshing. It's possible to use stereotypes and archetypes and still be original. You just have to put your own unique spin on it.
5)This one, is questionable. Again, Jo has created some of these cliches, minus the Lord of Rings, of course. Anyhow, that is a bit of the charm. We grow to realize that there are these such things every where. Good vs. Evil, even in a place where they simple mutter an 'accio' to grab things.
No, that's not true at all. Rowling definitely did not create those cliches. Star Wars had them as well. And, like you pointed out, the Lord of the Rings. The Wheel of Time was published in 1990. That series had those cliches as well. The Sword of Truth. I could go on and on, but you get the point.
I will concede, though, that there are many creative elements in Rowling's world--despite all the holes I found in the magic system, Rowling still managed to make it compelling.
I don't want to make you feel bad, or anything.
XD No, I don't feel bad at all. I did like your rebuttals, they're pretty entertaining. And to be honest, it's a lot better than the simple "IT IS PRRRFECT" with no explanation to back it up. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
These are just my points of view. Harry Potter was my childhood. I picked up the books at age seven, and I'm still adoring them. I really respect that you allow yourself to have such views.
Ha, thanks. I respect that you can disagree with someone without getting mad at them.
A lot of fans wouldn't let themselves think that openly. Harry Potter isn't perfect, but it's the closest thing we've got, I think.
Sorry if it was harsh. But, that's the way I am. My true Slytherin qualities, really come out when I debate. Anywho, follow me on Pottermore?
*shrug* I guess it's a matter of perspective. I definitely do not think that HP is the closest thing to perfect literature. The Lord of the Rings is awesome. Narnia is awesome. A Song of Ice and Fire is awesome. The Eddas. Odyssey and Iliad. I do appreciate, though, that HP gets people to read; that's always a plus.
Well, I don't know. I've always thought that just because she's inexperienced, doesn't mean it's impossible to write something decent. And she did go to school "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_K_Rowl..."
J.R.R. Tolkien's first novel was The Hobbit, and I thought it was nearly close to perfect. Being a debut author doesn't give you any slack.
You say she rambles about things that have no utter importance. This I don't think is accurate at all. You must understand, that Rowling is writing about a whole world. Not a single plot line, even though we follow Harry through.
What I mean when she rambles is that sometimes, it has little to no relevance to the main conflict. I don't care if she's writing about her world--if something can be cut without changing anything of importance, it has to be cut. This is a number one fiction writing rule. You should condense your writing as much as possible. If you want to introduce your super-detailed world, it has to relate in some way to the main conflict. Otherwise, cut it. It's possible to stay relevant and still have a detailed world. Trust me, it's been done before, and it's been done well.
Almost every, 'little not needed detail' comes up later. In this case, we must respect how deep the Wizarding World is. It wouldn't have that realistic, possible feeling if Rowling hadn't expanded on it. Remember, there is no single plot.
This is something that really annoys me in literature, when a single random detail I really don't care about comes up later. It should be compelling in some way from the start, and it should be relevant. The reader is the only one that counts. This is true for every single fiction book out there. If the reader won't be able to care, it should be cut.
2)This again, goes back to the my interpretation of the first point. She is creating a new world, of course it's going to be rushed. Say, if you were to write a book about our world,would you be able to cram it into 3407 pages? I think Jo did a pretty fine job of cramming that in.
Easy solution: use more books. She could write a series of eight books, or nine or ten. There's no excuse for having rushed pacing. The reader, again, is the only one that counts. The ONLY one.
3)This point is very arguable. The plot in the books is very large, but that's the way it is. It must spiral and expand. That is the magic in it. That is why we fans love it so dearly, it is new, and not at all like the mundane everyday things in our own world.
What I'm saying is that Rowling's writing seems to be out of control. In the middle of the series they're exploding to over 600 pages. It can spiral and expand, but it needs to maintain consistent plot relevance all the way through. Again, number one rule of fiction writing: if it can be cut, cut it. It doesn't matter about the world or anything. She should have imbedded the details of the world throughout the book in a more subtle manner, rather than reserving large chunks of the book for it, for which it serves no purpose but to take up space and add padding. An author is supposed to spread it out, not dump it on the reader at totally random times.
Perhaps, Jo was a bit afraid to kill of Harry and maybe it did seem, 'a bit too safe'. But, really we were with Harry for around ten years. He was fostered in her head, do you really think that she could kill him?
I didn't mean that the ending was bad because Harry didn't die. I meant that it didn't have as much emotion as it should have. Harry should have gotten some massive--MASSIVE--character development in the climax with Voldemort. There doesn't seem to be any major internal conflict within Harry that is resolved in the end. It's only the external conflict that's resolved.
Anyways, tons of characters we have grown to love were killed. Fred, Severus, Dobby, Hedwig. I cried when Fred died. How do you think Jo felt?
I'm right with you on that. I practically cried with Dobby died. But I don't remember saying the ending was bad because no one died...
4)One thing about this you might not realize is that, the first book was published in 1997. That is before some of the fiction that we read today... Perhaps, Harry Potter was the inspiration for those stereotypes?
No, I've read books and watched movies published before that with those stereotypes. The Lord of the Rings. Star Wars. A Game of Thrones. Harry Potter was most definitely not the inspiration for those stereotypes.
Anyways, there will be certain stereotypes in everything. The good, the brainy, the clumsy, the evil. It is the nature of the world-as of writing.
Heh, good point. Stereotypes, archetypes and tropes DO define things, like genres and stuff.
What I mean, however, is that she doesn't make an attempt to put her own spin on those stereotypes. A Game of Thrones uses TONS of stereotypes--yet they all seem very original and refreshing. It's possible to use stereotypes and archetypes and still be original. You just have to put your own unique spin on it.
5)This one, is questionable. Again, Jo has created some of these cliches, minus the Lord of Rings, of course. Anyhow, that is a bit of the charm. We grow to realize that there are these such things every where. Good vs. Evil, even in a place where they simple mutter an 'accio' to grab things.
No, that's not true at all. Rowling definitely did not create those cliches. Star Wars had them as well. And, like you pointed out, the Lord of the Rings. The Wheel of Time was published in 1990. That series had those cliches as well. The Sword of Truth. I could go on and on, but you get the point.
I will concede, though, that there are many creative elements in Rowling's world--despite all the holes I found in the magic system, Rowling still managed to make it compelling.
I don't want to make you feel bad, or anything.
XD No, I don't feel bad at all. I did like your rebuttals, they're pretty entertaining. And to be honest, it's a lot better than the simple "IT IS PRRRFECT" with no explanation to back it up. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
These are just my points of view. Harry Potter was my childhood. I picked up the books at age seven, and I'm still adoring them. I really respect that you allow yourself to have such views.
Ha, thanks. I respect that you can disagree with someone without getting mad at them.
A lot of fans wouldn't let themselves think that openly. Harry Potter isn't perfect, but it's the closest thing we've got, I think.
Sorry if it was harsh. But, that's the way I am. My true Slytherin qualities, really come out when I debate. Anywho, follow me on Pottermore?
*shrug* I guess it's a matter of perspective. I definitely do not think that HP is the closest thing to perfect literature. The Lord of the Rings is awesome. Narnia is awesome. A Song of Ice and Fire is awesome. The Eddas. Odyssey and Iliad. I do appreciate, though, that HP gets people to read; that's always a plus.
I also happen to like the plot, and I think that it's brilliantly put together. I love re-reading the books and suddenly find little clues to what happens in a later book, that I never realised were there.
Interesting. I didn't think it was brilliantly put together. Everything seemed so last-minute, Rowling pulling out plot devices and Macguffins out of nowhere. For example, the Horcruxes. That was not adequately foreshadowed at all. The Hallows. Oh, man. That was almost as if Rowling had gone onto the Internet, found out that everyone had guessed her twists, and decided to use the Hallows to provide more suspense.
Finally, I don't agree that the characters are stereotypes. I think they're the exact opposite: Every single character is flawed, and most of them have depth.
Stereotypes aren't the same as perfect characters. When I say stereotypes, that doesn't mean I think they're perfect and have no depth.
When I say stereotypes, it's just the lack of creativity on that level. No originality. Almost every character is someone we've seen before a thousand times. The Dark Lord. The wise old man. The outcast hero. The bumbling sidekick. The know-it-all bookworm. The stereotypical bully. Yeeeeeees, we've seen that before, move on please.
The only character that's entirely good is Dobby, and the only one entirely evil is Voldemort. If they are archetypes, they're at the very least a mixture of different archetypes.
Again, when I say stereotypes, I'm not saying they're perfect characters with no depth. Who said stereotypes can't have depth? George R.R.Martin uses them spectacularly in his Song of Ice and Fire series.
For examples I just wrote my bachelor dissertation on how Harry resembles the archetypical heroine in Gothic literature, whereas many would argue that he is also a very classically masculine hero.
I don't think femininity and masculinity have any role in how stereotypical a character is. Harry, for me, was the same old Chosen One of the Speshul Prophecy. He just kind of tasted the same as all the other Chosen Ones I've seen before.
I think that JKR's characters are very deep and well-developed, and that's actually one of the thing I love the most about her books. I feel like I actually know these people personally after following their lives for so many years. I cry when some of them die and I'm happy when everything turns out all right for others.
I thought they were well developed as well. I just thought that very few of them were original. Some of them seemed to be copied and pasted from the Lord of the Rings. Some of them, like I said, were old archetypes and stereotypes.
Interesting. I didn't think it was brilliantly put together. Everything seemed so last-minute, Rowling pulling out plot devices and Macguffins out of nowhere. For example, the Horcruxes. That was not adequately foreshadowed at all. The Hallows. Oh, man. That was almost as if Rowling had gone onto the Internet, found out that everyone had guessed her twists, and decided to use the Hallows to provide more suspense.
Finally, I don't agree that the characters are stereotypes. I think they're the exact opposite: Every single character is flawed, and most of them have depth.
Stereotypes aren't the same as perfect characters. When I say stereotypes, that doesn't mean I think they're perfect and have no depth.
When I say stereotypes, it's just the lack of creativity on that level. No originality. Almost every character is someone we've seen before a thousand times. The Dark Lord. The wise old man. The outcast hero. The bumbling sidekick. The know-it-all bookworm. The stereotypical bully. Yeeeeeees, we've seen that before, move on please.
The only character that's entirely good is Dobby, and the only one entirely evil is Voldemort. If they are archetypes, they're at the very least a mixture of different archetypes.
Again, when I say stereotypes, I'm not saying they're perfect characters with no depth. Who said stereotypes can't have depth? George R.R.Martin uses them spectacularly in his Song of Ice and Fire series.
For examples I just wrote my bachelor dissertation on how Harry resembles the archetypical heroine in Gothic literature, whereas many would argue that he is also a very classically masculine hero.
I don't think femininity and masculinity have any role in how stereotypical a character is. Harry, for me, was the same old Chosen One of the Speshul Prophecy. He just kind of tasted the same as all the other Chosen Ones I've seen before.
I think that JKR's characters are very deep and well-developed, and that's actually one of the thing I love the most about her books. I feel like I actually know these people personally after following their lives for so many years. I cry when some of them die and I'm happy when everything turns out all right for others.
I thought they were well developed as well. I just thought that very few of them were original. Some of them seemed to be copied and pasted from the Lord of the Rings. Some of them, like I said, were old archetypes and stereotypes.
Yes, Feven! No offense to anyone else, but it annoys me when someone says "nope, I don't agree" without justifying it. People may respect people's opinions, but most people won't give a damn to them unless they actually explain it. Myself included.
While i have always been a harry potter fan to the point where i read the last book in under 24 hours and then re-read it again later, i must admit that after going through lots of other books i have discovered some that i have found to be twice as good and only got a third of the recognition. so i do feel that the books are some-what over-rated.
What, exactly, is your definition of "overrated"?
Leah wrote: "What, exactly, is your definition of "overrated"?"
Are you asking me or Saidazmi94?
Are you asking me or Saidazmi94?
Jocelyn wrote: "Leah wrote: "What, exactly, is your definition of "overrated"?"Are you asking me or Saidazmi94?"
Well, if 'overrated' means 'totally awesome and amazing and a great story that rocks so so much that is flawless and successful', then yes, it is extremely overrated.
Leah wrote: "Jocelyn wrote: "Leah wrote: "What, exactly, is your definition of "overrated"?"
Are you asking me or Saidazmi94?"
Well, if 'overrated' means 'totally awesome and amazing and a great story that ro..."
No....I meant that, was the question "what is your definition of overrated" directed at me, or Saidazmi94?
Are you asking me or Saidazmi94?"
Well, if 'overrated' means 'totally awesome and amazing and a great story that ro..."
No....I meant that, was the question "what is your definition of overrated" directed at me, or Saidazmi94?
No, I don't think the series is overrated, though I'm not blind to its flaws, especially in the fifth and sixth book.But, like others, I grew up with Harry Potter. My mother read the books to my sister and me when we were, like, seven and five respectively, and now I'm 17 and still love and am brought to tears by the books and, I listen to them on audiobook at least once every two years.
The books have brought joy to a whole generation, hell, more than one.
The books got children to read again, as I've seen many claim that Harry Potter inspired them to keep reading, and the books teach us about friendship and morality.
Admittedly, the series was hyped and I'm quite out of love with the movies, but the books are perfect.
Just imagine, where would YA, MG and children's books be today, if it hadn't been for J.K.Rowling and Harry Potter?
inga wrote: "No, I don't think the series is overrated, though I'm not blind to its flaws, especially in the fifth and sixth book.But, like others, I grew up with Harry Potter. My mother read the books to my..."
Agreed
My honest answer would be a solid 'no'.I won't be stubborn and say it's absolutely perfect in every way, but I've always considered 'perfect' to be impossible to achieve when writing any book for that matter.
The series really means so much more to me than just a book. Even though I got into the whole franchise rather late into the film series, it still seems to represent my childhood to me. The morals and lessons I've learned are things I could never forget; I can't even begin to list them all.
What I'm really trying to say is this: While it may be imperfect and flawed, the things it's given me is for life. And that's perfect to me. ♥
Taryn wrote: "My honest answer would be a solid 'no'.I won't be stubborn and say it's absolutely perfect in every way, but I've always considered 'perfect' to be impossible to achieve when writing any book for ..."
I absolutely agree.
Yes and no.It isn't perfect . . . but its perfectly readable and the plot was magnificent . . . say what you will, it wouldn't have worked/be readable if it had a seriously weak plot.
People complain that she used the same tired elements, and I even read an opinion piece by A.S. Byatt where she was essentially scolding people for this return to infantile desires reading this book, but I thought it wrong. I think what a lot of people miss about Harry Potter is that the books aren't perfect, when you read them with a critical eye. No books are. But when you read them they allow you to read them with a child's eye. The books recapture a bit of your childhood, which is why so many adults have read them. They can be read like The Hobbit or The Chronicles of Narnia, all of which modern critics have problems with even Peter Pan but just like those books they transport us back to when we were young, a more magical time. That's the true magic of the books. They feel like those books read the first time, as a straight up adventure. A battle between good and evil, a nice simple story.
One of the things I found perplexing in Byatt's critique was that she called Rowling's world a world made up of other world's . . . all the characters reference mythology etc. But isn't that what author's in the past and even present do? Hearken back to previous writer's and eras of literature? Isn't that one of the signs of great literature?
I thought it a bit mean spirited and I think most critiques of Rowling from writer's are . . . tinged with a bit of jealousy at her runaway success. Except for Stephen King's his read like a fanboy's responses.
Harold Bloom on the other hand had actual grammatical and literary reasons for disliking her writing and I hold more with his critique that yes, the books are not exactly well written.
I don't think Rowling is any great stylist, and I don't think that has anything to do with how many books or what, and it has something to do with editors kowtowing to her whims, but even so, I think the books will remain in the English Children's canon, and just like Peter Pan and The Chronicles of Narnia they will have those people who find fault with them, but they are like Harry Potter, nothing more than the products of their time.
That said, there was a lot there to love, and the argument that she used cliched tropes is weak. Especially in the face of "There is only one story, boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back." And how long that has lasted and gotten us through a tremendous amount of different literature. It isn't what you use, its how you use it. You can grind down any character to something basic, like an orphan or a bookworm know it all, but in the end its what you do with the trope that defines success or failure and I think Harry Potter as a character is a resounding success. Completely flawless, no. A brilliant series worthy of constant review and rereading . . . why yes, I think I will. Thank you.
Ottery wrote: "That said, there was a lot there to love, and the argument that she used cliched tropes is weak."
As is the argument that Harry Potter was original. I don't think HP is horribly unoriginal (not as original as, say, Eragon), but it just really annoys me when HP fans gush, "OmgZ Rowling is like SOOOO amazing and original!"
As is the argument that Harry Potter was original. I don't think HP is horribly unoriginal (not as original as, say, Eragon), but it just really annoys me when HP fans gush, "OmgZ Rowling is like SOOOO amazing and original!"
No, there is a reason it was read so many times! Also, it has all the elements of an epic (like The Odyssey) making it a worthwhile read-haha if that makes any sense! That's my opinion anyway...
This series is awesome, not overrated. I think the Lord of The Rings stuff is overrated, but it gets so much respect because its been around longer(I do like the stories though). HP was definitely written for a young audience, so the writing will be simpler and to the point, that doesnt make it rushed. Rowling does take risks in this series by killing off a lot of characters as the series moves along, especially in the last book.
If you want to discuss a poorly written overhyped series, then talk about Twilight(even though I liked that too), but leave HP alone!!
Stop complaining and enjoy it. From a literary standpoint, yes, it has flaws. But what boosted this series, and made it so legendary was the fans. And whatever fans choose to obsess over is going to be glorified. No one cares that the characters were stereotyped, and that the plot was rushed. We're too busy celebrating having read a good series. If you're really going to let some inconsequential comments gushing about HP bother you so much, then look forward to a long and cynical life, because HP fans are the least of your problems. Just chill and enjoy the story.
Umm let me think on every page there is the sentence Harry Potter Your Awesome or I feel guilty but at least I am a legend. Let's see what I think o.kby the way love the book but wish if j.k.r used some nartion duel or something
This series brought people together. It inspired millions of people. It was an INTERNATIONAL PHENOMENON. It will live on forever. Not ovverated, just appreciated by people who love to read and the community it brings.
O.k just wanted to answer a question. I am a fan a pretty big one. I love ginny not harry o.k don't know why o.k
Jocelyn wrote: "Erin wrote: "What! No way is hp overrated! What is that supposed to mean! All of your points.... Could I just have some examples of a stereotypical person or Rowling telling instead of showing. Bec..."I just wanted to address something you said about Draco being the standard bully- I disagree with that point. There's a background that goes into that; he comes from a place that shaped him to be the person we see in the books.
Draco is practically a reflection of Harry. Born into powerful pureblood families, they are both talented, athletic, witty young boys with loads of potential when they enter Hogwarts, but it is their raising that made them who they are. He isn't just a bully J.K. Rowling scooped up out of thin air and placed there to present a petty opposition to Harry. We see further on in the books that he's really just a vulnerable, overwhelmed boy trying to find his way.
That said, I agree with some of your other points. You presented a well thought out case.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Odyssey (other topics)
The Star Wars Trilogy (other topics)
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (other topics)
Homer (other topics)
George Lucas (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Pathways to Bliss: Mythology and Personal Transformation (other topics)The Odyssey (other topics)
The Star Wars Trilogy (other topics)
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
J.K. Rowling (other topics)Homer (other topics)
George Lucas (other topics)
This series definitely isn't perfect. I mean, I heard so much about the stunning amazingness of this series. I picked the books up...and while I liked them, even loved them, I wasn't as impressed as I expected it to be. For a number of reasons:
1. The writing--Rowling's prose can be telling instead of showing, rushed and hurried, and occasionally rambling onto irrelevant details that have little to no relevance to the plot.
2. The pacing--All seven books felt horribly rushed, like Rowling had too much story to cram into too few pages.
3. The plot--Again, I love HP, but if I hear one more person say "the plot is amaaaaaaazing" I'm going to explode. While the plot may seem complex and cool, many plot elements have little to no relevance, and Rowling really struggles to keep her writing in control. It spirals and expands continuously when it's not necessary at all.
The climax of the seventh book was kinda disappointing. I felt like Voldemort made a lot of stupid cartoon villain mistakes, as well as the fact that there was no emotion to match the victory. Typically, the last book in a series will have a climax when the MC has some sudden realization, or undergo a massive amount of character development in very little time. I think this was what disappointed me the most--Harry didn't change much during the climax. It just felt too "safe" for me, like Rowling was afraid to take risks and anger her fans.
4. The characters--personally I love the characters, but many people could argue that HP is filed to the brim with stereotypes and archetypes. It's kinda frustrating, a bit, when you read a character and think, "how many times have we seen this before...."
(Though on the other hand, one could also argue that Rowling purposely used stereotypes to make them more relatable to the target audience.)
5. Lack of originality--there's so many cliches and generic plot elements in this series. The Chosen One has been done a thousand times before. The boy/boy/girl combo of outcast hero, sidekick and know-it-all bookworm we've seen before. There are also quite a few ripoffs of the Lord of the Rings, all of which are rather shameless and blatant and don't really make an attempt to hide themselves.
I'd like to make a request: please don't do the "at least it's better than Twilight" thing, because most of us have probably had that very one-sided conversation a bazillion times before. They all kind of taste the same.
Also: this is not meant to bash HP because like I said, I myself am a fan. So please don't take offense at this. And please don't tell me I'm not a "true" fan because I found flaws in the books.
And one last thing: this is from a literary standpoint, not from "I learned so many morals from this" standpoint, or any other.
That being said...what do you guys think?