Pullman, Rowling and a quandary

[IllegalArgument]

As usual I'm behind the times in my sci-fi/fantasy reading. In particular, Harry Potter having not read any of the books, but having seen movie 1,2 & 5.

I didn't like the first two movies, so I skipped 3 and 4, but went with some friends to see 5. Which I liked enough that I thought, now that the whole series is done why not read them.

So, I went to the library to check the first book out, all 196 copies in the county system were checked out... so I ask some friend if I can borrow their copy. While I'm waiting for my friends to find their copy and bring it to work, I noticed a "glowing" review for the "Golden Compass". I remember seeing a preview for the movie adaptation. I read more reviews, they are falling over themselves saying how good the "His Dark Materials" series is, so I decide lets try the first book out while I'm waiting for my friend to bring in the first Potter book.

The reviews are spot on, "The Golden Compass", is excellent, it's some of the best fiction I have ever read. I can't express how good I thought it was, the characters are complex-three dimensional people or bears as the case may be.

I immediately went out and bought the next two, but before I started on the second book, my friend bought me the first Potter book. Which I decided I would read before starting the next "Dark Materials" book.

And now the quandary, the Potter book was completely uninteresting for me, Harry was a cardboard cutout compared to Lyra. I found the dialog bad, pacing uneven and the climatic scenes, well not very climatic. The book wasn't bad, I have certainly read much worse, but it was very average. I tried read a few chapters out of "The Deathly Hollows", thinking maybe Rowlings writing had improved later on, but I found it no better.

So, the question I put to you, especially if you have read both series. What is it about the Potter books that you like?

A few caveats, since this is mode of communication that is fraught with mis-interpretation. I'm not saying you should not have liked the Potter books, I understand that the series has introduced a great number of children to reading, which is a great thing. What I want to know, as an adult reader, what is the appeal?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Nah, you got it right first time.

Pullman writes; Rowling types.

[ buggers off smartish]

[quixotecoyote]

Potter's a pretty safe book that does a decent job of worldbuilding in a way that people who don't generally read can relate to without trying hard.

[logical muse]

I'm a big, huge fan of the His Dark Materials trilogy, and I like the Potter books too. In fact, I like the Potter books for much more than my own experience in reading them.

When my niece was 12, I bought her the first HP book for christmas, and the second one for her birthday which was a week later. She devoured them. This was a big surprise to her mother, as Niece had never read a book before.

At this point I should probably mention that Niece was on medication for OCD. She had the classic constant-hand-washing variation, along with some other symptoms. Not being able to concentrate for long periods, she had just never sat down to read a book.

I hadn't met her at this point. She lives in England with her mother, and I'm in Australia. I ordered the books for her over the internets.

Her mum emailed to tell me what a breakthrough it was; Niece was reading! I promptly ordered the third book for her as well. Niece rang to thank me, and then emailed me. She drew a picture of Harry on one of his adventures and sent it to me.

A year or two later she came to Australia and I threw a Potter party for her and some other kids (but I think the parents enjoyed it just as much).

All her relatives in England contacted me to tell me of the change in Niece. She was more attentive at school, calmer, and able to do her homework.

We established a tradition where I would order each new HP book for her as they were released.

She's now at uni, doing very well. Thanks, Ms. Rowling.

[Retrograde]

What quixotecoyote said: Rowling is (or was, before the hype machine turned on) a decent writer of children's books of the old style - she taps into the British boarding school genre, the sports genre, with some fantasy trappings. I'm halfway through The Subtle Knife right now, and the IMHO it's a much, much better series.

Again IMHO, I think stratospheric fame make Rowling a worse writer. I've read all her books, and thought that she was making noticeable progress in pacing and characterization through book 3. Then the bloat began. I read Deathly Hallows last week, and thought there was a decent 250 page book crammed into its 700+ pages. Unfortunately, no one seems to want to take her aside and tell her how her book can be improved (and why bother? publishing's a business, and her grocery lists will sell.)

HP did get kids to read, though: more than once I've had to tell my 4th grade charges that interesting as it might be, they were on a field trip to learn about ecosystems, not to discuss the possible plot of the upcoming installment.

[hgc]

I didn't like the first two movies, so I skipped 3 and 4, but went with some friends to see 5. Which I liked enough that I thought, now that the whole series is done why not read them.


The third is far-and-away the best of the Potter movies so far.

[andyandy]

the first potter book is really nothing special imo - but i did read a friend's The Order of the Phoenix, and that was a real page turner.

having said that, the Dark Trillogy is truly exceptional - and i'd certainly rate Pullman above Rowling

[Mobyseven]

Hmmm...it's a tricky question.

I actually don't think I could say which series I prefer. I agree that Pullman is a better writer, but both Pullman and Rowling are able to spin stories that draw you in and make you want to keep going.

I think Northern Lights was my introduction to the fantasy genre. One thing is for certain: Pullman's books were far darker from the outset than Harry Potter seemed to be.

* Mobyseven runs off to re-read His Dark Materials.

[kiwimac]

You might also try Garth Nix, He writes really quite wonderful books. I recommend especially the Abhorsen series.

[pgwenthold]

And now the quandary, the Potter book was completely uninteresting for me, Harry was a cardboard cutout compared to Lyra.

I see this as an unfair statement. Harry Potter in Book 1 IS cardboard. Jeez, what do you expect for an 11 year old kid who goes from a life of living in a cupboard under the stairs and is thrown into a world that he knows nothing about? There is no depth to him at all, because there has been nothing to build it. Instead, he is an 11 year old who, when faced with a test of being sorted into houses, thinks maybe he has to pull a rabbit out of a hat, and thinks that he is always on the brink of being kicked out of school. These are the worries of an 11 year old.

To expect Harry Potter in the first book to be a sophisticated and deep character is completely unwarranted. He's 11, and the book is written so that 11 year olds can relate. Clearly, that was done well.

[zombiebex]

I have read both series and really enjoyed both. Both books left me sobbing after reading the last of the series. :blush:

Pullman's series was definetly a lot deeper with more complex themes, and is certainly a great deal darker and more adult.

But don't give up on Harry Potter just yet! The first book is simpler, but still very well written with terrific, tight plots. The books do get better as they go on, the third one being my personal favorite. I love that these are childrens books, but don't talk down to kids or sugar coat anything. Obviously, this is something children respond to.

I also highly recommend a Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket. While not terribly deep, complex, or philosophical, they are highly entertaining with lots of literary in-jokes. I've yet to finish the series, but I did laugh out loud at the ones I did read.

[Lucy82]

I love both series, but Pullman is head and shoulders above Rowling in terms of writing ability and the sheer depth of the ideas he explores. I'm dreading the film of Northern Lights (Golden Compass in the US) - I just don't see how they'll do justice to the book. I hope I'll be pleasantly surprised though.

Has anyone come across Susan Cooper? She's a British fantasy author who was quite active in the 70s. Her 'The Dark Is Rising' sequence is one of the best fantasy series ever written. They've just filmed one of the books but Hollywoodised it out of all recognition. Ugh.

[patrick767]

I haven't read the HP books. I recently finished book 2 of His Dark Materials and they're very good. I normally avoid "young adult" books because I just don't enjoy them, but on the extraordinary strength of the reviews for Pullman's work, I decided to try it.

Now I can't wait to see what the "Harry Potter is evil" fundie crowd does when the His Dark Materials movies come out. Every human has a daemon. The church is the enemy. And that's before you find out what the goal of Lyra's "uncle" truly is.

[patrick767]

Has anyone come across Susan Cooper? She's a British fantasy author who was quite active in the 70s. Her 'The Dark Is Rising' sequence is one of the best fantasy series ever written. They've just filmed one of the books but Hollywoodised it out of all recognition. Ugh.

The Dark is Rising series is excellent fantasy for young adults. It's been many years since I read them, but I do remember really enjoying the series.

I'd also recommend Lloyd Alexander's Prydain books and the Riddlemaster of Hed trilogy. The author of the latter escapes me right now.

[IllegalArgument]

I see this as an unfair statement. Harry Potter in Book 1 IS cardboard. Jeez, what do you expect for an 11 year old kid who goes from a life of living in a cupboard under the stairs and is thrown into a world that he knows nothing about? There is no depth to him at all, because there has been nothing to build it. Instead, he is an 11 year old who, when faced with a test of being sorted into houses, thinks maybe he has to pull a rabbit out of a hat, and thinks that he is always on the brink of being kicked out of school. These are the worries of an 11 year old.

To expect Harry Potter in the first book to be a sophisticated and deep character is completely unwarranted. He's 11, and the book is written so that 11 year olds can relate. Clearly, that was done well.

I stick by my comparision, if Harry was a real boy, I would expect him to be naive, not cardboard. Again, there is no absolute standard of truth here, just my opinion.

Again, I'm not interested denigrating people for liking the Potter books, just curious why adult readers like them.

Pgwenthold just curious, have you read "His Dark Materials"?

[IllegalArgument]

I haven't read the HP books. I recently finished book 2 of His Dark Materials and they're very good. I normally avoid "young adult" books because I just don't enjoy them, but on the extraordinary strength of the reviews for Pullman's work, I decided to try it.

Now I can't wait to see what the "Harry Potter is evil" fundie crowd does when the His Dark Materials movies come out. Every human has a daemon. The church is the enemy. And that's before you find out what the goal of Lyra's "uncle" truly is.

I have been keeping an eye on the "Golden Compass" movie news. Considering the casting, I think it has a chance, but I'm really curious-worried what changes were made for the screenplay.

There was a theatrical production of the "Golden Compass", so it's not the first time someone has tried to bring it to a different medium.

[pgwenthold]

I stick by my comparision, if Harry was a real boy, I would expect him to be naive, not cardboard. Again, there is no absolute standard of truth here, just my opinion.


If by cardboard you mean lacking depth, then I say absolutely he should be cardboard, especially in book 1. He has done no growing at all, neither magiical nor non-magical. To expect him to feel complex feelings is asking way too much.


Again, I'm not interested denigrating people for liking the Potter books, just curious why adult readers like them.


Because they remember what it was like to be a kid?


Pgwenthold just curious, have you read "His Dark Materials"?

no

[linusrichard]

Have you ever eaten a well-seasoned, well-cooked steak, with maybe some redskin potatoes, steamed asparagus, a small spinach salad, and perhaps a glass of wine?

Have you ever eaten a big piece of chocolate cake, with vanilla ice cream and chocolate syrup on the side?

To me, this is the Dark Materials/Harry Potter analogy in a nutshell. I can get a Harry Potter book (well, not anymore, I guess), and devour its nearly-1000 pages in 2 or 3 days. Very enjoyable, but not all that satisfying, I suppose. Or I can sit down with one of Pullman's book and really get a substantial and satisfying reading experience. Does this make Pullman "better" than Rowling? Sure, I suppose. But just as there is room in my literal diet for empty calories, so too is there room in my literary diet for stuff like Harry Potter, Dan Brown, etc.

Since people are making recommendations of magical books in this thread, I'll toss in Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke.

[RemieV]

I stick by my comparision, if Harry was a real boy, I would expect him to be naive, not cardboard. Again, there is no absolute standard of truth here, just my opinion.

Again, I'm not interested denigrating people for liking the Potter books, just curious why adult readers like them.



Most books (in my experience) that are written for younger readers have an extremely passive tone.

Passive tone would be writing like this:

Harry was angry. He had never felt this way before. His hands were clenched and sweat stood on his brow...

Vs the more active interpretation:

Anger burst from Harry - a physical force unfamiliar and alien that curled his hands into tight balls and brought the sweat out upon his brow.

(Those are entirely made-up, by the way, so don't fault JKR if they happen to suck.)

Other books that are passive include Matilda by Roald Dahl, The Hobbit by JRR Tolkien (though I imagine I'll get thrashed for that, and will remind everyone that The Hobbit is only a deep book if you retrospectively impress the ideals of The Lord of the Rings onto it.), etc.

The point of using a more passive tone when writing children's literature is to keep the audience once-removed from the action. It is safe to have a large group of people die if you say, for example:

The mighty hand of the giant came down upon the group of onlookers, and Harry knew at once they were dead.

Instead of:

A shriek of terror took hold of the onlookers. In their widening eyes, Harry saw that they realized the truth - no escape. Nowhere to run. With a mighty splatter, the giant's hand crushed the onlookers. Rivulets of blood poured from beneath the palm, and Harry knew they were all dead.

As JKR wrote each book, the audience became older and more able to cope with what was happening within the stories. The stories became older. The conflicts became more grey than black and white. The characters grew deeper.

In the same way that Gollum went from being (in The Hobbit) nothing more than a monster to a tragic figure more worthy of pity (in The Lord of the Rings), well... spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler. ;)

Deep moral conflicts are simply not found in children's books because right and wrong, to children, are very clearly defined.

As to why adults like Harry Potter books... well... I see the value of a lot of literature, and try not to limit my scope.

[DRBUZZ0]

It's still a book about someone in a school for wizards, you know.


I mean if I write "Binky the magic pink bunny grasped his carrot as a feeling of dispair hung over the empty garden. The winds blew with a seemingly colder, harsher bite through Lollypop Glenn. The storm rolled further over the hills, allowing the sun to illuninate the damage. The lollypop trees hung limp as the pixies began to peak out from their hiding places"

But... it's still a story about a magic bunny and pixies and stuff. No matter how you dice it. It doesn't seem adult... well unless it's really gratutiously violent, which would make it something of a one-joke farce. or maybe sexual... which would make it a Japanese porn.

[RemieV]

But... it's still a story about a magic bunny and pixies and stuff. No matter how you dice it. It doesn't seem adult...well unless it's really gratutiously violent, which would make it something of a one-joke farce. or maybe sexual... which would make it a Japanese porn.

(Bolding mine)

What is it that keeps it from being 'adult'? You're absolutely right about one thing - there is no sexual activity aside from 'snogging'. But why would there need to be in order to have a piece of adult fiction?

I agree that sex is a normal part of adult relationships, but the story isn't about adults. And a novel being centered around children doesn't automatically make it for children.

Take "The Body" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_(novella)) by Stephen King, for example. The characters are undoubtedly a bunch of kids, but the story sure isn't very kid-like. Clearly the characters being children doesn't necessarily mean the plot has the basic construct of a piece of tissue paper.

If you say that Harry Potter is a kid's story, I absolutely won't argue with you, especially regarding the early books. They feel like kid's stories, they have kid-style plots and thoughts and devices, and little or no symbolism or thematic elements. The literary elements they do contain are obvious, easy to comprehend, and normally said out loud by a character in case we happen to have missed them.

But why is it that in order for a book to be "for adults" it has to stop being "for children"?

Take the Shrek movies for example. There are jokes within the movie that a child has no hope of ever understanding, and it's because the writers realize that adults are going to be watching them too. There's no reason that it has to be for one specific age group. That is limiting. Why limit it at all?

The story of a hero maturing into adulthood often has the feel of being "for children". Star Wars is a great example of a maturation/hero story. Would you say that Star Wars is for children? It certainly can be watched by children, who will most certainly enjoy it. Perhaps elements of it are even designed for children. There is certainly no sex in the original movies.

In my opinion, really great stories can be read and enjoyed by everyone. There is no age limit.

After all, Wizards are Jedi are Cowboys are "The Chosen Ones" and Sauron is Voldemort is Darth Vader is "The Force of Evil".

[hgc]

There is certainly no sex in the original movies.


And I wish there weren't in the latter movies...

NATALIE Portman and Hayden Christensen have been voted the least convincing movie couple of all time courtesy of their dismal on-screen chemistry in Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones.


http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22275298-7642,00.html

[pgwenthold]

(Bolding mine)

What is it that keeps it from being 'adult'? You're absolutely right about one thing - there is no sexual activity aside from 'snogging'.

Yeah, but had Ron not walked in on Harry and Ginny on Harry's birthday...

[IllegalArgument]

In the same way that Gollum went from being (in The Hobbit) nothing more than a monster to a tragic figure more worthy of pity (in The Lord of the Rings), well... spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler spoiler. ;)

Deep moral conflicts are simply not found in children's books because right and wrong, to children, are very clearly defined.

As to why adults like Harry Potter books... well... I see the value of a lot of literature, and try not to limit my scope.

Hi Remie!

I'm all for reading all sorts of books.

I'm specifically focusing on the Potter books, only because I have read another series that is considered for children and it was so damn good!

[Buckaroo]

What is it that keeps it from being 'adult'? You're absolutely right about one thing - there is no sexual activity aside from 'snogging'. But why would there need to be in order to have a piece of adult fiction?

I agree that sex is a normal part of adult relationships, but the story isn't about adults. And a novel being centered around children doesn't automatically make it for children.

Which is the interesting thing about the His Dark Materials series... the backbone of the story is ALL about sex, and it's centered around children, and is "children's" literature, all the same.

God, I love that series. I think the comparison above was apt... Pullman is nutritious and satisfying, Rowling is (enjoyable) junk-food.

[RemieV]

Which is the interesting thing about the His Dark Materials series... the backbone of the story is ALL about sex, and it's centered around children, and is "children's" literature, all the same.

God, I love that series. I think the comparison above was apt... Pullman is nutritious and satisfying, Rowling is (enjoyable) junk-food.

I bought the series so I can decide whether or not everyone's full of it :D

[Lithrael]

There's also the subset of adults whose tastes are gleefully immature - basically the ones who still love comic books, cartoons and video games as a solid chunk of their entertainment budget. I definitely enjoy the Potter books in the style of the chocolate cake analogy above. The extra perk is the fun of all the fannish stuff that springs up around any popular franchise like that. I drew a scene from the last Potter book and got 600+ compliments on an online gallery - even if it's mostly just kids going 'omg!' that's still just plain fun.

I do enjoy meatier stuff when I bother to read it, I just usually get motivated by friends going READ IT READ IT READ IT and that happens more often with a series like Harry Potter.

[Jabberwock]

I like both, but I find Rowling is all about plot. Discussions I've had about Potter were always more about, "I bet in the next book, X happens." Definitely agree on the bloat, I think the later books would have been better had an editor been able to chuck some of the extraneous stuff out. Still they are fun reads, but I don't have discussions like, "What does Rowling think of the state of humanity." Pullman, conversely, definitely has something to say! Discussions I've had about the trilogy go much deeper than the ones about Potter. Another series to check is Cornelia Funke's "Inkheart" series!

[IllegalArgument]

I bought the series so I can decide whether or not everyone's full of it :D

Great, you are in for a treat. :)

[DiskoVilante]

His Dark Materials >>> Harry Potter.
Why? HP is a bloated story. More fluff and elaborate non-essentials than pure story. His Dark Materials is denser in "story stuff."

Besides, the Amber Spyglass made me cry.

[hgc]

I've seen The Golden Compass movie poster at the cinema down the street. It's got Lyra and Iorik Byrinson, like here (http://www.goldencompassmovie.com/) at the website. December 7th!

[RemieV]

I'm a bit into the third book now. I'm going to get slaughtered for saying this, I'm sure...

But Lyra is way, way, way more fluff than Harry Potter. Okay, I'll give you that there is an extremely mature writing style here... Does that somehow make it better? The plot drags. The action feels like inaction. Lyra is the girl everyone loves, and reeks of Lucy from The Chronicles of Narnia.

The plot is, so far, convoluted. Parts of the story are interesting, but most of it is left hanging. As soon as someone fulfills their purpose, they disappear. I get no real emotion off anyone.

Example (and spoiler):





When Will's dad bites it, how long do we see Will's reaction? Less than five seconds? Are we not going to delve into how he feels, ever?


It feels like the books are more interested in weaving the tapestry of a complicated story than creating characters with any depth. None of the characters, so far, have any conflict within them. They all have very specific purposes, very specific guidelines in which they act, and very specific adventures they must undertake.

It's like someone took Tolkien, sucked out the drama, and put it back together again.

Again, the writing style itself is great. Full of imagery. If they're attempting to create ideas of alternate worlds where you can see every little bit of it, then good show.

If the point, though, is to care for the characters... I don't. Lyra is a little hero. So? That's her only definition. Characters like that... I just can't care what happens to them.

[RemieV]

P.S. I understand, by the way, that the characters mature. As they begin to realize their purpose, they change ever so slightly to fulfill their role in the grand scheme or whatever. But there is no true conflict of nature. They are exactly who they are supposed to be. Each is designed for their purpose, even if they must grow into it slightly.

A hero, to me, is someone who goes against the easy way. Someone who has to fight to do the right thing instead of automatically knowing or feeling what that thing is. If the innate nature of Will and Lyra guides them on their quest so that they can complete it without instruction, then they learn nothing. They know nothing. They are the same people they were at the beginning, with a couple of years of age thrown on.

Going back to the examples I gave earlier...

Frodo's quest was a lot more interesting than this one is because he did *not* want to trudge around with that ring. Every step he took was a struggle. Every moment he headed toward Mount Doom was torture, yet he went anyway. He struggled on. I will even give you that some of the characters within LOTR are like the ones we see here. Sam never had the depth of character I'd hope for. He was a constant, unchanging sidekick.

Now, the great stories to me address not only a conflict of quest, but a conflict of being. A conflict of nature, a conflict of desire.

The Harry Potter stories are lacking in flowery language. They are up-front and in-your-face about exactly what's happening and, for the most part, who is feeling what.



Harry Potter spoilers ahead:




Harry is a brat, quite honestly. And the final book really pounded that in - that he knew nothing, that everything we had seen in every sentence of every book before was filtered through a Harry-lens.

Snape... I don't even know if I should print such a vast spoiler, so I won't. Let's just say that he's a fantastic tragic figure.



Also, this series reads a lot like "The Talisman" and "The Great and Secret Show". Same sort of story, slightly different packaging.

[ImaginalDisc]

And I wish there weren't in the latter movies...




http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,,00.html

Wasn't it a reviewer for the daily Show who said "these two couldn't have less chemistry if they were in separate movies?"

[aries]

Let me start in a different place:

The famous Danish writer, Hans Christian Andersen, also wrote for children. And everyone was also nagging him about it. Why? Because he wrote from the child's point of view, not the adult's point of view. There were no morality lessons in his writings, just pure loyality for the children's point of view. And it is exactly the same same thing which are in J.K. Rowling's writings. And this has always been very worrysome for adults, since adults seem to to think that children all need morality lessons in (childrens') books.

To me, it is not surprising that Harry Potter don't know anything at all. The books are clearly told from Harry's point of view, so of course, Harry will have his own opinions etc. on what is (and were) happening during the years he spent at Hogwarts. (age 11-17).

As for the popularity of the books, I don't know. Maybe it has something to with the fact that we follow as he grows up, from being a kid of 11 to a grown (young) man of 17. The story itself is also surprising and takes surprising twists and turns, you, even, as an adult reader, never would have guessed. And the social satire, especially in book 5, is very good & outstanding. And the the fifth film really captured this as well as made it clear that power never has it easy when power misused is made fun of during the schoolyear.

And let us not forgot that it was the children themselves that 10 years ago, way back in 1997, did borrow or buy the first book in the series, and started to make webpages all of their own, talking about this Harry Potter kid, and J.K. Rowling during the next 2-3 years. On top of that the books are really easy to read. I don't understand why children's books, or other books, for that matter, shouldn't be easy to read.

I have tried reading Philip Pullmann's 'dark materials' and quite frankly, it seems to that mr. Pullmann is out to push his agenda (whatever that is?) down our throats. J.K. Rowling, fortunately, doesn't do that. She just wants to tell a decent story, with little clues spread out as to the morals & ethics to the story.

PS: Braze yourself, you good people in the US. Daniel Radcliffe is going to be playing the same character in Equus as he did in a at theater in London. Prepare for the Christians to get in uproar over this, since Daniel can been naked in one scene in the play. (just telling you now, so you know...)

[Darat]

...snip...

It's like someone took Tolkien, sucked out the drama, and put it back together again.

...snip...

There was drama to be sucked out of a Tolkien work? I presume "Farmer Giles of Ham" since I've never read that.

:duck:

[Darat]

...snip...


Going back to the examples I gave earlier...

Frodo's quest was a lot more interesting than this one is because he did *not* want to trudge around with that ring. Every step he took was a struggle. Every moment he headed toward Mount Doom was torture, yet he went anyway. He struggled on. I will even give you that some of the characters within LOTR are like the ones we see here. Sam never had the depth of character I'd hope for. He was a constant, unchanging sidekick.

...snip...

Frodo may be a "hero" but he is not heroic, he just fulfills his destiny; it is Sam who is the heroic one as he is only there because he is "human" (or hobbit if you will ;) ). Sam is the true hero.

...snip...

Now, the great stories to me address not only a conflict of quest, but a conflict of being. A conflict of nature, a conflict of desire.

...snip...


Which you do not get in Tolkien - Tolkien's characters are archetypes and occasionally cyphers (and quite deliberately so - I do not criticise Tolkien for that).



Snape... I don't even know if I should print such a vast spoiler, so I won't. Let's just say that he's a fantastic tragic figure.



Slightly off-topic but what is this "reverence" about spoilers for Harry Potter books?

[CFLarsen]

Let me start in a different place:

The famous Danish writer, Hans Christian Andersen, also wrote for children. And everyone was also nagging him about it. Why? Because he wrote from the child's point of view, not the adult's point of view. There were no morality lessons in his writings, just pure loyality for the children's point of view. And it is exactly the same same thing which are in J.K. Rowling's writings. And this has always been very worrysome for adults, since adults seem to to think that children all need morality lessons in (childrens') books.

You have got to be kidding.

H. C. Andersen was all about morality lessons. E.g., "The Snow Queen", "The Little Mermaid", "The Emperor's New Clothes" and "The Ugly Duckling" are all about morality.

Nothing "let children be children" there.

[Retrograde]

Harry is a brat, quite honestly. And the final book really pounded that in - that he knew nothing, that everything we had seen in every sentence of every book before was filtered through a Harry-lens.

Snape... I don't even know if I should print such a vast spoiler, so I won't. Let's just say that he's a fantastic tragic figure.
My problem with Harry is that he is largely passive: he stands around, often conveniently hidden under his invisibility cloak, while the people around him make the plot move. This is most evident in #6, which devotes large chunks of text to Harry's watching Voldemort's memories in the pensieve, or watching Dumbledore and Draco interact. For someone who's supposed to be a powerful wizard, maybe as powerful as Voldemort, he seems to be rather inept at magic, save for his Defense Against the Dark Arts classes: he has no problem taking credit for the Half-Blood Prince's discoveries.


I've said on another thread that success was possibly the worst thing that happened to Rowling the writer. Her first book was OK, but I thought she was showing real progress in 2 and 3. Then the phemomenon was born, no one seemed willing to edit her, and she seemed like she was trying to put awholelotostuff in the books to satisfy her young fans, resulting in book bloat.

Snape, IMHO, was a wasted opportunity. He was growing into a remarkably complex character, and I was hoping the last book would give him more prominence.

I just finished His Dark Materials, and I have to agree with well prepared meal vs cake analogy above. Lyra's a brat at times, and I thought the ending was a little unsatisfactory, but I choked up when Lee and Hester died. In Deadly Hallows there's a pile of dead Hogwarts students and ancillary characters and I just didn't care.

ETA: I don't often agree with Christopher Hitchens, but I found his review of HPatDeadly Hallows spot on: http://http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/books/review/Hitchens-t.html?ex=1189656000&en=d1a4f49d218ee9de&ei=5070 (http://http//www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/books/review/Hitchens-t.html?ex=1189656000&en=d1a4f49d218ee9de&ei=5070)

[pgwenthold]

My problem with Harry is that he is largely passive: he stands around, often conveniently hidden under his invisibility cloak, while the people around him make the plot move. This is most evident in #6, which devotes large chunks of text to Harry's watching Voldemort's memories in the pensieve, or watching Dumbledore and Draco interact. For someone who's supposed to be a powerful wizard, maybe as powerful as Voldemort, he seems to be rather inept at magic, save for his Defense Against the Dark Arts classes: he has no problem taking credit for the Half-Blood Prince's discoveries.



Who supposes Potter to be a "powerful wizard"? Expectations of the wizarding world notwithstanding, the whole point of the books is that there is far more to being a "great wizard" then just being able to do great magic!

In SS, Hermione tells Harry, "You are a great wizard." They were 11 years old, so obviously this has nothing to do with his he's great magic skills.

Apparently you missed that part of the story.

[Retrograde]

Apparently you missed that part of the story.

The only one of the series I actually bought was Philosopher's Stone, so I'm going largely by memory here.

In the beginning of PS, Dumbledore and Company are celebrating Baby Harry's apparent victory over Voldemort and marvelling that he survived. When he first arrives at Hogwarts, it's to whispers of awe that he's that Harry Potter. There are repeated declarations throughout the series that he's destined for great things, as he's the only wizard who's ever faced Voldemort and lived. He seems to be exceptionally good in certain fields -DADA, for example, and in one of the books the adults marvel at his ability to produce a Patronus at so early an age. To me, that says the wizarding world in general thinks he could be on a par with Voldemort - whom he foils in book after book after book. After all, in GoF, even though everyone is surprised that his name comes out of the goblet for that long, drawn-out tournament they pretty much all shrug it off as "it's Harry Potter, what do you expect, he's special" and defy centuries of tradition to add him as a champion. Seems like he's got some mojo working for him!

Of course, in later books Rowling says it's because of his mother's love and the features he absorbed from You Know Who.

[pgwenthold]

Of course, in later books Rowling says it's because of his mother's love and the features he absorbed from You Know Who.

I think you need to separate Rowling from her characters. Just because she wrote that the wizarding world (and heck, even Harry himself, for that matter) expected Harry to know and have special magical powers doesn't mean that it was true, or that she agreed. There were other, wiser wizards (Hermione, Dumbledore) who understood that it wasn't extraordinary magical ability that made Harry an extraordinary wizard.

As I said, it was all about Harry being a wizard of extraordinary character, placed into circumstances by an act that gave him tools that he needed to face the challenge, the most important of which is the passionate desire to accomplish the deed. The whole lesson is that you don't need extraordinary magical ability when you have those other qualities.

Most of the wizarding community mistakingly thought Harry's secret was in magical ability (as I said, so did Harry and even Snape). The truly wisest wizards understood it.

If you were supposing that Harry was extra-magical, then you fell right into the same trap as the wizarding community. Don't blame the story for that, blame your own preconceived notions.

[hgc]

I think you need to separate Rowling from her characters. Just because she wrote that the wizarding world (and heck, even Harry himself, for that matter) expected Harry to know and have special magical powers doesn't mean that it was true, or that she agreed. There were other, wiser wizards (Hermione, Dumbledore) who understood that it wasn't extraordinary magical ability that made Harry an extraordinary wizard.

As I said, it was all about Harry being a wizard of extraordinary character, placed into circumstances by an act that gave him tools that he needed to face the challenge, the most important of which is the passionate desire to accomplish the deed. The whole lesson is that you don't need extraordinary magical ability when you have those other qualities.

Most of the wizarding community mistakingly thought Harry's secret was in magical ability (as I said, so did Harry and even Snape). The truly wisest wizards understood it.

If you were supposing that Harry was extra-magical, then you fell right into the same trap as the wizarding community. Don't blame the story for that, blame your own preconceived notions.


That's very eloquent. But please explain how he had such extraordinary ability as Quidditch Seaker right from the get-go. He wasn't especially motivated to that before his talent was displayed. Hmmm? :p

[pgwenthold]

That's very eloquent. But please explain how he had such extraordinary ability as Quidditch Seaker right from the get-go. He wasn't especially motivated to that before his talent was displayed. Hmmm? :p

Unfortunately, outside of winning the Triwizard Tournament, his Quidditch ability didn't really help him. (I am actually thinking about that statement, is it true? Wherelse did he exploit his exceptional flying skills?)

Besides, Ginny was a better all-around Quidditch player, anyway.

[IllegalArgument]

Since, the Golden Compass is coming out soon.

I want to do a one time bump, to bring this back onto the forum radar.

[fuelair]

Unfortunately, outside of winning the Triwizard Tournament, his Quidditch ability didn't really help him. (I am actually thinking about that statement, is it true? Wherelse did he exploit his exceptional flying skills?)

Besides, Ginny was a better all-around Quidditch player, anyway.
Triwizard cup.:)

[Lensman]

Triwizard cup.:)

The trophy was the "TriWizard Cup", but the contest was the "TriWizard Tournament - so you're BOTH right. :D

[skeptigirl]

Perhaps it is a matter of taste, but I absolutely loved the first of the Potter series. It fell apart a bit in the last three books. If you saw the movie instead of reading the books, there's your problem right there.

I haven't read the Golden Compass but I've been looking for a new sci-fi or fantasy book to read. Perhaps I'll take your recommendation.

[BPScooter]

I'm well along with a marathon holiday re-read of the Harry Potter books, after not having actually read the texts for a while and having seen the movies with their understandable truncations and omissions. Whether it's hindsight or foresight on Rowling's part (making plot elements later out of casual mentions, or carefully planting clues) there's a lot of fun stuff I'm enjoying by re-reading. Just little mentions of things that are very easy to overlook the first time around seem much more significant to me now. I guess I just like the whole premise. A pre-industrial magical world that has sort of co-existed with our regular world on its own terms. I think I'll also take the general acclamation for the Golden Compass (or whatever the series is properly called) but be sure to read before seeing it on film.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

I have been listening to both series. I have read all of the Harry Potter books, but this summer I started to check out the CDs from the library.

This summer I also inherited my hubby's old mp3 player (big bulky iRiver type). I downloaded (from http://spl.lib.overdrive.com/) Lemony Snickets A Series of Unfortunate Events (which are read by Tim Curry, except for three by Daniel Handler, Tim Curry is much better). This is what I listened to when I gardened. I planted fall bulbs while listening to Eoin Colfer's first Artemus Fowl book.

This fall I downloaded The Golden Compass, but since I was sick and had my laptop in the bedroom there were connectivity problems. It got all but the 9th section, so I am waiting for the CDs (I read the last couple chapters from my daughter's copy). I just finished listening to The Subtle Knife while waiting at the pharmacy for my son's post-wisdom teeth extraction meds.

In between times when I am waiting for my e-audio holds, I have been relistening to the Harry Potter books, from the ones we bought for a long roadtrip to the CDs that I can get from the library (they come quicker because there are more copies, and the older ones are not in much demand... though some are scratche, grumble grumble).

I would not say one author is better than the others, but I find the children's books easier to listen to because they do not really require my FULL attention. Plus the narration is entertaining. The Pullman books are narrated by Pullman (I think) with a full cast playing characters like Lyra, Mrs. Coulter, etc. It is like listening to a radio play (which I also enjoy doing).

[skeptigirl]

The Harry Potter reader in the audio books is excellent.

[BPScooter]

Jim Dale, I think, is the voice of the Harry Potters. He's so much a part of this, to my family's enjoyment. He does all the character voices, mocks and mimics and everything.

Though nobody else gets it, it's like hearing Bob Dylan actually sing Knocking on Heaven's Door or Watchtower. This must be what the words should sound like!