# Harry Potter--why???



## secretreader (Aug 25, 2005)

I personally have read all the Potter books and I must say that with the exception of the sixth book, they are no more than just okay. I found that her writing was okay, her story was okay, but the content itself was very unoriginal. I mean, yes, there were some aspects that were creative, like the way she handle the classes, but I have a lot of problems with these books.

Her books are full of inconsistencies, flaws and illogical plot points. She has established that in her world, the kids are forbidden from using magic outside the school, but thery do it all the time and the only time the Ministry of Magic knows about it, despite the rampant use of magic outside school, is when it is part of the story. Otherwise, Rowlings does not stick to her own rules. 

Then there's the matter of the characters, which are about as interesting as grass. I don't mean to be brutal, but come on, does anyone really care what happens to Harry or anyone else for that matter. Her characters are dull and some are downright repulsive. 

As for realism and knowing how to write kids, which is something I once read in a review of one of Rowlings books. It stated that she knows how to write kids. But let's get real here. In her first book, you have an 11 yr old kid who has lived his life under the stairs, worn hand me down and very scruffy clothes, eaten scrapes and has gotten beaten up repeatedly by his cousin, as well as verbally abused by everyone in that house--yet, at no point does Harry, who has stated in no uncertain terms, that he hates living with the Durselys, has ever thought to report them. And what about him finding out he is a wizard. Listen, if this had been a real kid, after the life he has led in that house, don't you think he should have been bouncing off the walls upon finding out that, not only is magic real, but that he is going to some far off, magical school, where he will learn Magic. he reacted like he heard it had stopped raining outside. And then, when he finally gets to the school, he spends his classes, talking, not remotely paying attention to the teacher, who should have been saying something remarkably interesting, but who was instead, teaching these so-called, witches and wizards, ridiculous stuff like, giving people boils and changing living animals into cups. It makes magic sound cheesy and pointless. 

And Rowlings obviously has not respect for life whatsoever. And she is very prejudiced against anyone over weight. Everyone in her book who is overweight, but who is a good guy, is described as round or plump (neither word being very negative in her tone), yet, the "bad" people in her books who are equally overweight, are called, "FAT, Piggy, and made to sound grotesque.

Her characters are completely 2 dimensional. And they are all either completely good or completely bad, no in betweens there--no shades of gray to make a character interesting, or give them depth.

So I don't understand why her books have become so popular. I can onyl venture to guess that before Rowlings came out, there wasn't that much out there for kids 8-14. Before Rowlings, there were "baby" books, teeny-bopper books and teen books. Nothing remotely good or interesting for that age group (8-14). So for this I applaud Rowlings. She found a market that had not yet been born, and in doing so, she has opened a world of doors for other writers who wish to write for that age group. She got lucky. If it had been you out there, or me, or my neighbor who had done it first, we would probably be in her shoes now. She is Rowlings a genius, as many call her, I don't think so!


----------



## lisajane (Aug 25, 2005)

It's called _reading for fun_


----------



## playstation60 (Aug 25, 2005)

Perhaps you need to reread the books, and this time use your imagination.  The books are fiction.  They are not meant to be taken seriously, so don't treat them as such.  Just sit back and allow the story to play out in your mind.

I did not find her characters dull.  I do care what happens to them.  I felt the story was totally engaging, overall.

There were elements that I did not care for.  The excessive eating habits being one.  Everything food wise is done in excess, and I just don't care for it, but that's about it. 

With regards to the breaking of magic rules, so what?  How many times have you broken the rules and should have been caught?  How many times have you sped past an unseen police car?  It's called life.  Things don't always follow the rules.  Besides it helps the story along.  

I do not feel she is the greatest author ever to pick up a pen.  However I do believe she is quite good at what she does.  Her stories have grabbed the entire world, if for nothing else she deserves a lot of respect for that.


----------



## midlandsmuse (Aug 25, 2005)

Remember they are for kids. And for a kid the idea of a "muggle child" (Ie them) being a wizard is fascinating. 

And of course the kids break rules. if they stuck by the rules then kids wouldn't like it would they?

As for "reporting" his family. Think about it. All kids have moments when they think their family are "the worst on Earth" and usually shouts, "I hate living with you." It's just an extension of that.

I agree that her writing is, at best, okay but she has tapped into what children want and, best of all, got them reading books that are 400+ pages long. I give her respect for that above everything else.

For me though, Potter isn't magical. Sounds weird I know but something like The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe is magical... Potter isn't.


----------



## Dookie (Aug 25, 2005)

I am fifteen and consider myself an adult, but I loved the books. Dont diss harry man!


----------



## Dookie (Aug 25, 2005)

It sounds like you guys are jealous. I'm sure you're not, just pointing it out is all.


----------



## secretreader (Aug 26, 2005)

jealousy is not the issue at all. I am an avid reader and feel, as a writer, that if you write a book, you should be faithful to it and not ignore the rules you have set for your world. And for those who say it is just for kids and who cares, well, I think they would care to know that they were being spoken down to in saying that these books are just for kids and who cares. Only a non-writer would say that everyone breaks rules. My comment about her breaking her own rules in having the Ministry only respond to the use of magic outside school when it serves the story is not about comparing thhat to kids who break rules. The comment was about Rowlings breaking her own rules. That is a sign of a writer who is not devoted to her work. I applaud the woman for her success and I think it is great kids are reading again, that was not the issue I brought up. In fact, if you read my post carefully, I gave her the credit she deserves for opening the doors to many other writers who wish to enter this genre.


----------



## Londongrey (Aug 26, 2005)

The only time I can remebr in a Harry Potter book when a kid has used magic outside Hogwarts is on the Hogwarts Express, which is considered part of the magical world and therefore not a breach of the Underage Magic laws.

It says in the books quite clearly that magic is only detected by the Minsitry when done inside a magical home, but as to who did it they don't know.  They assume that wizards and witches will guide their own children till they of age.

If you read the books carefully, she has not broken any of her own rules.  

Where are they broken?


----------



## playstation60 (Aug 26, 2005)

Would you be kind enough, secret, to tell us exactly where the rules are broken and there is no consequences rendered?


----------



## evidently okay (Aug 26, 2005)

The reason her books are so wonderfully popular is becasue it's what every kid dreams about, right?  They're insanely easy reads and action packed to grab the attention of people who don't normaly read.  I am thankful for these books simply because they have attracted many people who don't normally read, and it's nice to think that more people are enjoying books.

peace


----------



## Viqto (Aug 26, 2005)

secretreader said:
			
		

> As for realism and knowing how to write kids, which is something I once read in a review of one of Rowlings books. It stated that she knows how to write kids. But let's get real here. In her first book, you have an 11 yr old kid who has lived his life under the stairs, worn hand me down and very scruffy clothes, eaten scrapes and has gotten beaten up repeatedly by his cousin, as well as verbally abused by everyone in that house--yet, at no point does Harry, who has stated in no uncertain terms, that he hates living with the Durselys, has ever thought to report them. And what about him finding out he is a wizard. Listen, if this had been a real kid, after the life he has led in that house, don't you think he should have been bouncing off the walls upon finding out that, not only is magic real, but that he is going to some far off, magical school, where he will learn Magic. he reacted like he heard it had stopped raining outside. And then, when he finally gets to the school, he spends his classes, talking, not remotely paying attention to the teacher, who should have been saying something remarkably interesting, but who was instead, teaching these so-called, witches and wizards, ridiculous stuff like, giving people boils and changing living animals into cups. It makes magic sound cheesy and pointless.



Uhh, well you have to consider that he thought he was dreaming. Even though he didn't come out and say it, it was apparent when he woke up the next morning in the room at the Leaky Cauldron. Personally from that moment on he was so bombarded with new and interesting things that the shock continued to overtake him. Not all kids react the same as bouncing off the walls. As for talking during class, what kid, no matter how interesting the subject might be, has not talked during class. Obviously you didn't, but you represent a small minority in that aspect. 

As for not reporting his guardians....report them to who? When he wasn't in school, he was at home. And he wasn't allowed to do much outside the house as he was considered undesirably there. Plus do you really think that something so obvious to an adult would be so obvious to someone in that situation. Someone that sheltered wouldn't think of reporting them because the idea probably wouldn't even be realised as an option. I don't know if you have kids, nephews, nieces or whatever around that age, but they can be pretty ignorant of such possibilities. Plus, even if he did have the thought, there is still an underlying connection between the family that would probably conflict with the decision.

(forgot to include this next referenced topic in quote...and too lazy to add it  :lol: )  You have to consider that her target audience is not literary geniuses. Her characters are two-dimensional because it works with the story she's planned out. Adding other dimensions would otherwise distract the younger audience from what was happening.

 As for the appeal of Harry and other characters, I guess thats personal opinion. I thought Harry and his friends were such mildly interesting by themselves, that yes it may seem that itd be hard to like them; but its when they are together that the appeal kicks in. Because with such a "acceptance seeking" boy, his "somewhat clumsy, hotheaded" friend, and his "brainiac" other friend, the possiblities for the trouble they could easily get into our pretty broad. 

I'm not sure what exactly you are meaning when you say:



> She has established that in her world, the kids are forbidden from using magic outside the school, but thery do it all the time and the only time the Ministry of Magic knows about it, despite the rampant use of magic outside school, is when it is part of the story.



Every time they use magic outside of school, they do get reported and recieve one of those owls. If you are referring to the 5th book where they are fighting within the ministry itself, take into account all the confusion going around with post about Dumbledore. As well that type of post is sent to the homes of the children and ministry officials didn't apparate in to fix any such discrepencies. If there was another more specific example you want to talk about, by all means post it.


----------



## secretreader (Aug 26, 2005)

Where does she say that the train is okay for magic use? Where does it say that magic an only be done in magical homes? These are nothing more than assumptions made by the readers blinded by the popularity of the series.

As far as kids breaking rules is concerned---I know they do! That was not the point. 

Also, I noticed that no one made mention of the other aspects of Potter that were mentioned in original post. UMMM, I wonder why???


----------



## Londongrey (Aug 26, 2005)

secretreader,

I'm sorry I remember what I read.

It is made perfectly clear when Harry sits before the Court after he had defended himself against a Dementor in Little Whinging, that Underage sorcery is detected by underage wizards when done outside a magical home.  Dumbledore himself quite clearly states in book six, that underage magic in the home is not detected, as the Ministry can only detect the magic there, not who has done it.  That is not assumption but basic comprehension.

The Hogwarts Express, the Ministry of Magic, are both places where adult wizards are present, therefore magic takes place and is impossible for the Minsitry to detect who has performed it.  Whilst it is made quite clear that in Muggle areas it is possible to detect whom has performed it if Underage.  

I'm afraid secretreader that it appears to be your critique of the books that is based on assumption, you have not provided examples and it seems that basic comprehension of the plot and the world described falls down slightly on your part.

The other aspects have not been mentioned quite simply because they are ridiculous.  Report the Dursley's?  Rowling has prejudice against fat people?  Learn about satyr and context.


----------



## Ilyak1986 (Aug 26, 2005)

What the heck is the point of all of these kids learning magic when they are certianly no better than teachers?  Are they going to fight a war with it or something?  IMHO, Rowling's books are a travesty to magic...instead of making them a power or a force to be reckoned with, she makes it a kids' subject that does a whole lot of nothing besides make people surprised.  What about the flash magic found in RPGs?  What about the subtle yet vast magical powers of characters in works where magic still plays a role in medieval warfare fantasy stories?  IMHO, any page-turner fast-paced fantasy book is better than Rowling's shit.  Not to mention that that woman had the idea of a color-changing ceiling to match the sky, and when I included that in Mythica, people screamed Harry Pothead.

Now I want Rowling to be run over by a double decker bus because of that.  Die, Rowling, die, and burn in hell.  I wanted to have a nice little original idea and instead she already did it...die plz.


----------



## Viqto (Aug 26, 2005)

secretreader said:
			
		

> ...teacher, who should have been saying something remarkably interesting, but who was instead, teaching these so-called, witches and wizards, ridiculous stuff like, giving people boils and changing living animals into cups. It makes magic sound cheesy and pointless.
> 
> And Rowlings obviously has not respect for life whatsoever. And she is very prejudiced against anyone over weight. Everyone in her book who is overweight, but who is a good guy, is described as round or plump (neither word being very negative in her tone), yet, the "bad" people in her books who are equally overweight, are called, "FAT, Piggy, and made to sound grotesque.



When you first went to school what did you expect? The experience of something is never exactly what you predict when you first imagine it. By your statement, you assumed that by going to a magic school he would be learning powerful magic. Let's make a stretch and compare this to english classes. You start with the basics and work up. The spells and incantations he started learning were the building blocks, and more simplistic ones, that would help him understand the more complex and related spells later on.

The way she depicts the overweight in this book is to subtly let the reader know if the character has good or evil intentions. however it is true this is a very 'evil' way to do it for impressionable young minds.


----------



## Wyndstar (Aug 26, 2005)

*story*

Well, there are a considerable amount of inconsistancies in the book, that's true.  Any adult with half a brain in the England I'm familiar with would take one look at Harry, how he's dressed and how he's treated and BAM! His caretakers would be reported in an instant---particularly in a well to do neighborhood.  Its very unseemly.   I found the adults to be unnaturally stupid given the circumstances (except Dumbledore) and the chars shallow and cliche.  It is understandable why at least one publisher turned down the manuscript the first time (I think).  However, drop the IQ a few points, forget for an instant that you can only be satisfied by Kerouak or Socrates, give your brain an hour vacation and have a read.  Its like a nice carneval ride. You know its cheesy, but its fun for a while and you let IT drive and you just enjoy the ride.

Besides, what kind of jaunt for a child would it be if Prof. Snape actually showed up, turned in Prof. Querl for suspicion of being in league with Voldemort, the teachers used THEIR magic to find and beat the troll first, and  Dumbledore followed the kids down to the mirror and fried Querl himself?  After all, we grownups are usually what spoils all the fun---like vivisecting children's books because they don't read like Wilder or Dickens.


----------



## playstation60 (Aug 26, 2005)

Ilyak1986 said:
			
		

> What the heck is the point of all of these kids learning magic when they are certianly no better than teachers?  Are they going to fight a war with it or something?  IMHO, Rowling's books are a travesty to magic...instead of making them a power or a force to be reckoned with, she makes it a kids' subject that does a whole lot of nothing besides make people surprised.  What about the flash magic found in RPGs?  What about the subtle yet vast magical powers of characters in works where magic still plays a role in medieval warfare fantasy stories?  IMHO, any page-turner fast-paced fantasy book is better than Rowling's shit.  Not to mention that that woman had the idea of a color-changing ceiling to match the sky, and when I included that in Mythica, people screamed Harry Pothead.
> 
> Now I want Rowling to be run over by a double decker bus because of that.  Die, Rowling, die, and burn in hell.  I wanted to have a nice little original idea and instead she already did it...die plz.



Ok, first of all, your opinion is not humble by the simple fact you are always quoting yourself, your work and saying IMHO.  

Secondly, get off of your high horse.  She beat you to it, get over it.  If you have any worth at all as a writer you'll find a way to distinguish yourself as a writer.  Yes, you may have a lot of people compare you to Rowling, but whatever, get over it.  If you do your job, which is to write, you will find success.

Third, please, please, please stop referring to magic in video games.  THEY ARE SEPARATE from literature.  Also take into effect that the Harry Potter books are for CHILDREN.  If you would read the books, then perhaps you would understand why magic is as it is.  The point of them learning how to use magic is the same as someone learning how to breathe when running, or how to spell.  Catch my drift here?

Fourth, you need to take a breath and relax.  You have way too much anomosity towards someone and something you have no control over.  You're a writer, you should treat other writers with respect, just as you expect them to treat you.  Your lack of respect in your posts on this topic and others may very well be part of the reason for your sudden loss in readers of your story.  You yourself came out and said you want people to enjoy what you write.  That can very easily be taken to EVERYTHING you write, including comments on other pieces, and opinions on non-related topics.


----------



## Slot (Aug 26, 2005)

Ilyak1986 said:
			
		

> Now I want Rowling to be run over by a double decker bus because of that.  Die, Rowling, die, and burn in hell.  I wanted to have a nice little original idea and instead she already did it...die plz.



The mark of a writer isn't always having the most original concept but tweaking it to give it an extra something that captivates one's imagination.

Writing about magic has been going on for quite a while now, and even had Rowling not chosen to write on the subject, someone else would have. Had she not "taken your idea", there is also no saying you would have found the success she held. Roll with your next concept and move on. Please. Move on.

As for the book's success: I can't quite explain it, but in captivates me as well as a majority of people. There seems to be something about the writing that holds onto people, though seeing as I have grown up on the books, my investment is it is quite evident. Had I not started reading the book pre-success at a young age, I cannot guarentee I'd love the storylines so much.

The portrayal of good and evil is in fact cookie cutter black and white, despite people's insistance on grey characters and things of that nature, but if you truly allow yourself to get lost in the story; to latch onto something and go with it, this doesn't truly matter.

This book isn't about being accurate, perfect, or the literary masterpiece of the century; it's merely a novel meant to appeal to kids and kids at heart that somehow stumbled into a whirlwind of success.


----------



## Viqto (Aug 26, 2005)

Amen.  [-o&lt;


----------



## playstation60 (Aug 26, 2005)

Well put!


----------



## Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor (Aug 26, 2005)

Why do people have such a problem with Rowling?  There are many other successful writers who write a lot worse than she does - not that she writes poorly (I love the Harry Potter series).  Anyway, I think the way people belittle Rowling is evidence enough that sexism is still alive and well.


----------



## playstation60 (Aug 26, 2005)

I, personally, don't think that it is so much the fact as that she is a woman, as people just need to learn to enjoy things instead of nitpicking all the time.  You know what I'm talking about, the people that pick apart movies, songs, books, just for the sake of doing so.  What we do, writing, as well as the other forms mentioned above is meant as a means of communication and entertainment, treat it as such!


----------



## Viqto (Aug 26, 2005)

Yea I disagree with the sexism thing. I think they just jealous in general.


----------



## Ilyak1986 (Aug 26, 2005)

playstation60 said:
			
		

> Ilyak1986 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If it's about the dumbass kids learning to use magic, how come there are such supervillains that require the use of magic?  Why is this dumb little kid Harry Pothead the hero?  Why is the entire series so damn black and white?  If you want a kids book, why write a damn 500 page novel every time?  Being compared to ROWLING of all people is an INSULT, outright.  Being compared to Tolkien isn't so bad, but ROWLING?  Ugh.  She writes kids stories, yes, but it's still quite a travesty if you ask me.  It makes an entire mockery out of magic, placing it instead of as the monstrously powerful force that it is, instead it's a damn school subject.  And not college subject, but for KIDS.  And does it teach anythin destructive or useful?  Nah...it teaches how to give someone boils or to make a creature appear or some crap like that...no matter which way you go about it, Rowling's books are a travesty to magic as it was recognized beforehand.  Yes, magic is taught and practiced, but it's not kiddy stuff.  It delivers neither the flash and bang that vivid magic delivers nor does it deliver the feeling of mystery and power that the more subtle Tolkien and Kaneish type of magic does.  It's just child's play.  

The sickening part is that Rowling is made popular for this...I really don't understand why more critics don't burn her down for these exact reasons.  Yes, these are kids books, but they should be relegated to kids, not have Harry Pothead become a legend because people are just too damn lazy to pick up any other type of novel without such a huge picture and text so large that a visually impaired one year old with a lobotomy can read it...

Rowling's books are so repulsive that it makes me want to puke.


----------



## playstation60 (Aug 26, 2005)

Ok, you do realize that magic is fake, right?

You obviously could not have read the books or you would know that they are taught more than just the boils and things of that sort.  The books portray magic as something that certain people use as a tool to help their lives.  Magic is a tool, not an entity. 

Take sports, are you taught JUST how to throw touchdown passes as a quarterback.  No, you're taught how to read defenses, how to move the ball down the field.  Same goes for baseball, there is more to it than just hitting homeruns. 

Magic does not have to be all about destructions and body parts being blown off.   You really need to expand your horizons.  Instead of knocking these novels, why don't you go read something different?  Or how about actually give them a chance?

You are so ignorant of how things work in the real world that your views on just about everything are clouded.  Take a breath, and relax.  Don't take life too seriously, you'll never make it out alive.


----------



## Ilyak1986 (Aug 26, 2005)

Yes, it's just that...a SIMPLE TOOL.  The books are downplaying something so vital to most stories.  And are popular for it.  I'd have no problem if more people burned Rowling for making such a mockery of magic, but they don't.  In sports, either you devote your entire damn life to it or you don't get anywhere with them.  What makes fantasy FANTASY is the magic (aside from the made up names or perhaps races).  Every single fantasy book has its subtle (or not so subtle in my case, and in the case of magic: the gathering novels, or warcraft novels) yet powerful magic.  Rowling dumbs down magic so as to make it confined to a little private school.  Ugh.

And is it me, or is the fact that there are teenage boys "playing with their rods" and make them "shoot stuff" strike you as wrong?  Why is Rowling packing her books full of underlying phallic references?


----------



## Ben (Aug 26, 2005)

Ilyak.. they're just wizards with wands. There's nothing 'sexual' about it. They have been around for ages. Most definately not an invention of Rowlings.


----------



## Ilyak1986 (Aug 26, 2005)

I'm making a damn joke.


----------



## blademasterzzz (Aug 26, 2005)

Ok, Ilya, first of all, go read George R R Martin. That might give you some clue into fantasy writing that DOESN'T have sorcerers shouting gigantic spells and crushing each other with tidal waves or meteors. 

Fantasy novels don't have to be centred around magic. I see that most of the books you are referring to are in some ways connected to videogames or games or something else. 

Ilya, books are BOOKS, not a lower form of video games in words instead of graphics.


----------



## Ilyak1986 (Aug 27, 2005)

I realize that.  And I'll keep an eye out for that author you're talkin about.  But I have my tastes.  And whoever said books were a lower form?


----------



## blademasterzzz (Aug 27, 2005)

Well, whenever you refer to magic in fantasy books, it's usually along the lines of "Like in that awesome video game, only without graphics, so it's not that impressive".

You seem to apply the typical RPG system to characters, too, and besides many faults, there's a big one: 

In Rpg, you level up gradually, and it can be very monotone. Books cannot be that way, as you cannot manipulate the story. The story must capture you enough to just sit and watch (well, read), rather than have a wish to interfere.


----------



## playstation60 (Aug 27, 2005)

Ilyak, you agreed that magic is a simple tool.  You also mentioned supposed sexual undertones....well let's work on that.  In Rowling's books magic is more of the underlying tone.  The story is really about Harry Potter, hence the title.  Magic is not the core of the story.  Nor should it be.  Magic does not HAVE to be what a story about.  Magic can be powerful, yes, but it is not always powerful.  Remember our arguement before about knowing when and where to use power?  Same situation here.  The fact that you sit there and piss and moan about her getting published and you not is doing NOTHING positive for your cause.  She does not dumb down magic, she shows that there are more avenues magic can be used under than simply blowing stuff up.  Sometimes embarassing an opponent, or wounding one is a better thing that just out and out killing them.  She is not making a mockery of magic either.  You provide no proof, no examples...not even something other than video games to compare it to.  I hate to break it to you again, kid, but video games are not the same as books, nor will they ever be.


----------



## Ilyak1986 (Aug 27, 2005)

Of course there can be more avenues for magic than blowing stuff up...that's only one avenue of magic...it can be used to heal, used to transport, used to power cities (Laputa, etc...), and it can be used whenever technology is not readily available yet.  However, what the heck is the point of making a snake appear or giving someone boils?  If you want to harm someone with magic, blast them.

What ticks me off is that magic is studied in this little academy where everyone wears school uniforms and it is treated like a subject like math or english or whatever.

Magic the way Rowling does it is just disgusting.  It can be subtle magic such as Kane's or Tolkien's, or it can be flash magic that would add great flair to not only battle, but cities and other things as well.  

And as for Rowling making a mockery of magic, how about when Harry puffs up his aunt and makes her hit the ceiling like a balloon?  Why not just smash her through a wall or cut off her breathing?  Why do you have to make a fat slob fatter and then hold her on the ceiling?  Can we have something a little less of a joke and more efficient?

Or giving someone boils...can you say ICE BLAST?  Is it more effective to give them irritated skin or to shatter their very flesh and bone?  Come on now...

As I said, Rowling won't have anything horrifying or brutal in her books since they're kiddy stuff, and that's why I can't stand them.  It dumbs down magic so it'll be kid-friendly.

Blademasterzzz, I actually am planning to implement a sort of level-up in my story, but it's not from fighting enemies or killing monsters.  It's from experiences, the type of magic you come across, and your (and your mind/body's) necessity to adopt such a kind of magic.  

On a digression, everyone here treats games or anime or novels as something mutually exclusive.  There are ways to bridge the gaps.  No, in books, you won't have characters beating up endless amounts of monsters.  You won't have this omnipotent force deciding which way characters go and what techniques they use.  Are you trying to say that videogames have not been novelized or vice versa?  Look at Lord of the Rings...they were a novel, but now you can pick up Aragorn or Legolas or Gimli or Frodo and go on a hack and slash through middle-earth.  You thought starcraft was only a game?  Nope, there are novels on that, too, and really, they are NOT half bad.  I would advise anyone here to go and pick up some videogame turned book pieces of literature or literature turned videogame games and say that they're bad, because really, they aren't.


----------



## Londongrey (Aug 27, 2005)

Ilyak,

When are you going to get a sense of humour?

Blowing up Aunt Marge was hilarious, and I'm 26!!  It just shows that very few people outside the UK understand satyr or irony, you simply don't!!  J. K. Rowling displays quite a culturally bias sense of humour in the books, in other words, a sense of humour that most British people pick up on.  

I should also point out that 'magic schools' is one of the oldest forms of writing about magic in the literary circle, had you spent less time playng video games and more time reading you perhaps would have noticed that???

The Harry Potter books come from a culturally biased view, it is a very British construct both in the characters and the way people live their lives  in these books.  I went to school with people like Hermione, Ron and Neville so I can relate to it.  I also knew a few Malfoy's.

These books are made relevant to childrens lives today, especially within the UK.  Did you forget that?


----------



## playstation60 (Aug 27, 2005)

London, I believe that we are simply wasting our time defending Rowling to this kid.  He has a view that will not be shaken, regardless of how much evidence we provide of his errors, and his lack of evidence to prove contrary.  He can't even site examples, he resorts to nothing more than slamming the books, and saying it is dumbing it down.  His views are scewed to the point that magic HAS to be some grand thing that is used for death and destruction.  Subtle uses, and non-aggressive purposes for magic are something that he views is not worthwhile.  It's a shame, because he's going to lose out on a lot of really great things in life because of it.


----------



## Ilyak1986 (Aug 27, 2005)

Did you read my latest post where I said magic can be used for transportation, to power things, heat, etc...or what?


----------



## Farror (Aug 27, 2005)

Ok, so Harry Potter puffs up his aunt and makes her float upwards because of his anger. This is a completely non-intentional use of the magic. You're saying it would vastly improve the quality of the novel to have her head exploded in an eruption of flames?


----------



## Ilyak1986 (Aug 27, 2005)

Not just that one time, but overall.  Instead of puffing her up, make her go boom.  Instead of boils, make their skin break out in fire, or something crazy to that nature.


----------



## Farror (Aug 27, 2005)

You... Missed the point... So badly...

I give up.


----------



## Dirkin (Aug 27, 2005)

I'm 20, and I enjoyed the Harry Potter series very much... I don't think it would have been improved by making the magic more dangerous looking. The reason why magic is so dangerous is that its subtle.

When you think of wizards and witches in the Harry Potter setting, don't think of Gandalf. Certainly, Dumbledore is quite similar to Gandalf, but all in all, think more of classical "witches". Perhaps Harry should have been a Warlock instead of a Wizard. That might have made it better.

Anyway, The curses and jinxes that the students learn and use are the same jinxes and curses that have been written about by classical authors for ages. Everytime you read about a witch in classical literature, THAT is the image of magic that should be thought of when you read harry potter. Harry Potter's world of magic has very few curses that cause conflagration, mostly because Harry Potter's magic is subtle.

And don't think that its all turning match sticks into needles. The forbidden curses are all very brutal. Cruxiato causes unspeakable agony in the victim. That's pretty brutal. The Imperius curse causes you to lose all control - people were killed by their friends and family members under the influence of this curse. That's brutal as well. And then there's Avada Kedavra. This spell is the ultimate snuff spell. You cast it, and the person's life is just put out.

So not all of Harry Potter's spells are useless and childish. There are some seriously dark undertones to the magic that is used in the book. If you could get your head out of your anus for just a few minutes and read it, you might like it. If nothing else, quit this feud. Just because Rowling came up with a similar idea to you (actually, its not one of her more original ideas) you want her to get run over by a bus.

The idea wasn't that great, so you really need to get over yourself.


----------



## Farror (Aug 27, 2005)

Alright, I'll try one more time. These are students being taught. In school. To them, magic is an every day tool. Would it be  good idea to teach students as young as eleven years old to "make their skin break out in fire"? 

Magic does not exist, it is a fictional creation. Rowling used it in a different way than you like. So what? Your approval does not make or break a novel. She is not mocking magic, she's using her own interpretation of it.

Also remember, she made curses that torture, kill and control. Not all spells make boils.

Does this not make sense to you?


----------



## playstation60 (Aug 28, 2005)

As stated above, if you would actually read the books you would find out the different facets for magic.  The fact that in the novels they live in a world in which magic inhabits a lot of things.  So you have magical creatures, transportation.  There are so many thing that are magical in the stories that she pretty much HAS to make children attend a school to know even a portion of it all.  

Get over yourself and your selfinflated view of magic and what it should be.  Remember that each and every person is entitled to their own view on things.  It's called creative license.  

Wishing bodily harm to someone because they wrote a story contrary to what you think it should have been is wrong.  Grow up!


----------



## Isis (Aug 28, 2005)

> Ilyak's comments.



I have a feeling I missed a lot here, but this got pretty annoying. 

Repeat after me: Magic is not real. 
Repeat that again. 
And again. 
Thank you. 

Since it's not real, it's a construct of fiction, writers have the right to twist magic every which way that they like. There is no "this is magic, use this method or die" because that would be very stupid and very unoriginal and it would be completely defeating the purpose. The point of magic is to have something different, and be able to make and use a world in your own eyes. It gives you control, and something to think about - you have to make your own rules and stick to them, all the while making it interesting and fun. I think that a writer that can pull off a fairly original system of magic well should get more than some respect. 

She took a different take on magic than you're used to. _Deal with it_. I thought it was interesting. I knew about more "classic" fantasy before, and the idea that magic could be light and fun...I liked that. It was new, and it was interesting. It proved that people could have a sense of humor. 

You, apparantly, don't. I'm sorry about that; you're really missing out.


----------



## bmroyer (Aug 28, 2005)

Everyone has their own opinions about J. K. Rowling's writings, but most of the opinions are positive. Why you say? Well, the downright truth is, she caught her audience's attention. They are hungry for more. She keeps the plot of every story a secret. They are dieing to get their hands on a new book because noone but rowling, her editors, and a few other people know what the story is about. Sure, you can bash her with you opinons about what magic should be like, and that her characters are dull...but most people will see it differently. Remember, imagination, is the key.


----------



## ReikiMeg (Oct 31, 2005)

Wow, reading through this thread made my head hurt. There is a point where writers analyze others in order to improve on their own skills and then there is something I call Literature Anger. Some people get so caught up in analyzing certain authors that it feels like they are exuding anger over their findings. 

Does the world today make it too hard for people to lighten up and enjoy things for the simple sake of enjoyment?

HP is a feel-good series.


----------



## Rhea (Nov 3, 2005)

Um, ok. I'll admit I didn't read the whole of your post. But the general gist of it, I get.

Harry Potter was ever meant to be a childrens' book. Read Roald Dahl? Yeah, it's not very logical either. It only just so happened that everyone else, regardless of age, loves Harry Potter, too. But she wrote it as a childrens' book.

I think her characters are genuinely very real. I'd love to get to know them. Or maybe I'm just an obsessive fan.

But she _is_ very funny, she has me laughing at almost every chapter. You know, except the ones that have people dying in them and stuff. "There's no need to call me 'sir', professor." Hilarious. Fred and George...hilarious.

And I repeat what *Isis* said about magic not being real.

Rowling breaking rules about the magic and the Ministry thing: it was explained in the books. It goes along the lines of, the Ministry can detect magic, but not who does it. The Ministry can't detect if it's underage magic, just that magic is being performed. Therefore, the Ministry can't really tell if someone's doing underage magic - the only say they can be "sure" is if it's performed, like in Harry's case, in a place where only an underage wizard could have done it. The Ministry trusts parents to ensure that their kids won't use magic when they're out of school - Dumbledore's words. Read the sixth book again.


----------

