Harry potter overrated.

ShipOfFools wrote: I agree, there's nothing really special about Harry Potter.

Yeah there is. He's a wizard for a start, that's pretty secial.

Jim Garten wrote: Steve Vai gig? Now that is childish

Meany


Edited by Forgotten Son - September 28 2007 at 09:00

How about the movies eh?....every single chick in this world thinks its the most important series in the world....pfft its js a childrens book for dud sake

Hirgwath wrote: mystic fred wrote: there must be some reason why these books sell in millions all over the world - J K Rowling is the best modern British children's writer since Roald Dahl, i've never read a single book but i will give credit where it's due. Exactly. Think of the children! She's not going to experiment with disconnected narrative, or have characters that are heroin junkies who enjoy discussing Jean Paul Sartre while shooting up, or a plot that revolves around a serial killer who lives in a trailer park in Alabama and reads Dostoevsky and Carl Jung. She's not the kind of writer who is going to over-complicate and obscure things just to be more "literary", "existentialist", "modernist", or "postmodernist." She realizes that a novel is essentially pop entertainment (Gasp! The truth is painful!), regardless of what anyone may tell you, and that it takes characters to empathize with and intriguing plot to write a good novel. She's also a genuinely witty writer (S.P.E.W., for instance, was a very clever parody of parts of the political left). Folks, just because assholes like Harold Bloom (a famous literary critic) will automatically ignore the value in Harry Potter, doesn't mean that you should just to appear to be "smart." Harold Bloom is a literary critic/theorist, and is thus less trustworthy than say, Dick Cheney. If you like Dickens or Jane Austen, or if you have an intellectual interest in Christian morality (You don't have to be a Christian!), or if you happen to just love novels with all the essential elements (again: plot and character), then these are just plain wonderful books. Snobs...please reconsider your views.

I think your post dismisses your contribution as valid; I know you haver a point, but the way you put it is just as arrogant as the stand you accuse. And referring to a public person as to an "asshole" because you don't agree with him it's the perfect anti-argument (and, maybe, a show of personality that doesn't do you any good). It only looks like the opposite snobbery of the snobbery you're seeing.

If we're talking about value, remember that value comes from fulfilling a purpose. A purpose of a book can be both a good entertaining leisure, and a complex artistic achievement. It depends on who reads it; myself I go for the second purpose, and I judge books by it. Not that I'd refuse the right to judge it in the other way (as you do). And I find calling a literary critic a "snob" is just... I don't know how to call it. A literary critic is supposed to talk about books from the perspective of artistic achievement. It's their job. If  Harold Bloom says that a certain book is a sub-standard literary product, it's honest expertise (just like it would be if he called it a masterpiece). [You can only argue against his stand by staying on the same grounds, otherwise it's not fair. If Bloom says a book "is bad", it's not logical to respond that "I liked it" (or "that's snob!" ); they're just two different plans. A literary critic's opinion that a book is bad does not imply nobody should read it, just that those who seek exceptional artistic achievement - like me - should avoid it]. Had he started talking about the book as a popular culture item, now that would have been hypocrisy. That's for people and sociologists to speak about.

Hey, I'm sure we can all live together, we just need to be fair to each other (and show some civility, of course). To each his own.

Cheers,

Passionist wrote: Geck0 wrote: Passionist wrote: Also, thank God we still have R.A.Savatore who writes 5 books a year.     He doesn't quite write that many a year.  Maybe 3 at a push. Heh, all I know is that they keep my dad busy as he's translating one of them all the time to my language. He's not a fan though, not even close

Well Salvatore's books are a guilty pleasure of mine, but he's not that fantastic a writer.  I really love the Forgotten Realms setting though and as Salvatore seems to have written the most FR books, with the longest series of one character, I started with him.  His Sellswords books (I've only read Servant of the Shard) was a breath of fresh air after the Drizzt Do'Urden books though.

Elaine Cunningham is a better writer, but less prolific.

Although both Cunningham and Salvatore have also written Star Wars books, so they must be doing something right.  Apparently Salvatore's SW book was quite dark.  I only wish his FR books were darker (he's limited by Wizards of the Coast, unfortunately).

^  Maybe if you spent less time shaking your spear and changed your name to something like Dipwick (or Longfellow) you'd feel differently....

 

 

Geck0 wrote: Passionist wrote: Also, thank God we still have R.A.Savatore who writes 5 books a year.     He doesn't quite write that many a year.  Maybe 3 at a push.

Heh, all I know is that they keep my dad busy as he's translating one of them all the time to my language. He's not a fan though, not even close

Sex is so overrated. 

I do agree with Hirgwath and Peter 100%. What does 'overrated' mean anyway? That we don't like them?

Yes, the HP books may have been hyped and all that, but they're much better than they're usually given credit for. As Hirgwath said, they can be very witty, and they also contain lots of reference to British contemporary society, as well as nods to a long-standing tradition of literature for young readers. Moreover, and most important of all, they convey a very clear message against racism in the indictment of Voldemort's followers towards Muggles and Mudbloods.

Agreed, the term "overrated" is not only insulting, but it means nothing in particular.

However, the final verdict that we all agree on is that you can like or dislike whatever you want, based solely on the substance, not on its advertisements, knock-offs, by-products, reviews, fan-mania, et cetera. (Am I right?) I do like the books (except for the most recent three) and the movies are half-decent (except for the newest), but the fan-mania that tags along with it is utterly obnoxious and annoying, and because of it, many people have developed a bitterness towards the Harry Potter thing in general.

I think that's the only reason people are being close-minded in this thread - and still, it's not as bad as other topics.

The only point I was making in my previous post (two posts ago, I guess) was that you can't simply say "it must be good because it's so famous." That is all.


Edited by Shakespeare - September 25 2007 at 16:39

mystic fred wrote: there must be some reason why these books sell in millions all over the world - J K Rowling is the best modern British children's writer since Roald Dahl, i've never read a single book but i will give credit where it's due.

Exactly. Think of the children! She's not going to experiment with disconnected narrative, or have characters that are heroin junkies who enjoy discussing Jean Paul Sartre while shooting up, or a plot that revolves around a serial killer who lives in a trailer park in Alabama and reads Dostoevsky and Carl Jung. She's not the kind of writer who is going to over-complicate and obscure things just to be more "literary", "existentialist", "modernist", or "postmodernist." She realizes that a novel is essentially pop entertainment (Gasp! The truth is painful!), regardless of what anyone may tell you, and that it takes characters to empathize with and intriguing plot to write a good novel.

She's also a genuinely witty writer (S.P.E.W., for instance, was a very clever parody of parts of the political left). Folks, just because assholes like Harold Bloom (a famous literary critic) will automatically ignore the value in Harry Potter, doesn't mean that you should just to appear to be "smart." Harold Bloom is a literary critic/theorist, and is thus less trustworthy than say, Dick Cheney.

If you like Dickens or Jane Austen, or if you have an intellectual interest in Christian morality (You don't have to be a Christian!), or if you happen to just love novels with all the essential elements (again: plot and character), then these are just plain wonderful books. Snobs...please reconsider your views.