# Why is Harry Potter so popular



## AdrienneW

Although I read several genre, young adult/children novels is what I enjoy writing.  I have read several in this genre including JKrowling's works.  She sets herself apart with her style...I have to wonder though, what makes her books so good? Why do people crave them? Is it the characters? or the story telling?  I have yet to read any one else who writes in this style (any suggestions? I would like to compare)....and while *I* have enjoyed the books...I am amazed at how popular they are.


----------



## rydenthorne

I think it's because she tells a vivid story that is playful yet has moments of drama and darkness.  It draws people in.  I classify it as apple pie type literature.  Everyone likes apple pie.  There's something in the series for everyone.  It has universal appeal.


----------



## slayerofangels

I've fallen out of reading the books though. I think the idea is a little too abstract...


----------



## Elysium

I've never read of any of the books, but from experience with being a very large Tolkien fan, I can assume that people love her books because they created an amazing world.  I love what Tolkien did because he created something that could be adapted.  I could make up my own stories in Middle-Earth and kind of feel like the story was more real and thus making it that much more cool.  Perhaps Rowling did something similar?


----------



## Cynic

On top of what Elysium just said, it's also that she created an easy framework in which her target audience can imagine themselves _in_ that world.  Sure, lots of books try to leverage the universal notions of attending school and generally hitching onto what life is like for a kid (like the Sweet Valley High crap or Goosebumps, etc), but the world of _Harry Potter_ is much cooler than usual.


----------



## Swift84

People like it because the marketing strategy has been superb. There is nothing overtly innovative about the storytelling, themes, etc.


----------



## AdrienneW

Swift84 said:
			
		

> People like it because the marketing strategy has been superb. There is nothing overtly innovative about the storytelling, themes, etc.


What kind of marketing strategy do you think they did different from other books and publishers?


----------



## Cynic

For one, I think the fantastic cover art helped a ton.  Sure you can't judge a book by its cover, but you know, people do exactly that all the time.


----------



## Benjirama

From what I can tell is that Ms Rowlings sucess can be put down to the fact that, she simpley produced the right material at the right time.  There has been a resurgent public intrest in the occult and fantasy for some time now, and it seems she was lucky enough to seize the public imagination as demand for such a story was reaching its highest.

If it wasn't Potter who made it to literatary super start status then maybe another in the similar ilk would of instead. Artimus foul, dark materials, mortal engines, and series of unfortunate event immediatly come to mind.


----------



## Swift84

Adrienne, I don't think the publishers did anything extravagantly different. But they marketed the material to the right public. Rowling herself said she didn't intend the books to be for children. In other words, while writing the first book, she wasn't thinking, "I wonder what kids would like to read here."

The publishers, however, decided the series should be marketed toward a younger audience; hence, the success. 

Children can't tell the difference between original and cliched storytelling. Then the publishers realized something: "Hey, now that we have a dumb audience to read this shit, let's act like it's a cultural phenomenon." So then we started to hear story after story about how Harry Potter teaches children to read and appreciate literature, when in fact all it does is make the younger generation approve of lackluster writing and overdone "I'm the little fucking engine that could" messages. 

How did the shitstorm stick even more? They produced a series of unoriginal video games and movies to go along with the books. But it didn't matter. The characters were still there, so people were dumb enough to consume these products, too.

Now that Potter has inspired a successful book, film, and video game series, many people just adopt the attitude: "Hey, it must be good if it's popular." Then they pick up the hackneyed nonsense.


----------



## Cynic

I'm generally more suspicious of people who _don't_ like Harry Potter than who _do_.


----------



## Swift84

Great logic.


----------



## Firewriter23

Cynic said:
			
		

> I'm generally more suspicious of people who _don't_ like Harry Potter than who _do_.



I agree.  Harry Potter is a big thing mostly because it goes well with adults, children, and teens.  Pretty much just about everyone likes it.


----------



## Craigy

I think its just one of those pieces of writing that everyone can easily read and enjoy. I'm trying to think where exactly it made the leap from normal book to literary phenomina. When it really boils down to it, I can't think of another book that had such an instant explosion to pop-culture. Lord of the Rings had a similar occurance, but that came fifty years after they were written!


----------



## Cynic

Swift84 said:
			
		

> Great logic.


 
Thanks! :thumbr:


----------



## Paper Pieces

Well I'm not a Harry Potter fan, but I have read two novels from the series. Basically I think it's because she's original, and puts you into a complete different world yet is still like ours. The reason I like it is because it's so rich in details, and it feels like I'm experiancing something new.


----------



## Mike C

Cynic said:
			
		

> I'm generally more suspicious of people who _don't_ like Harry Potter than who _do_.



Suspect me then.

I couldn't finish the first chaper of the first book, and have had no inclination to read any more.

What _is_ great about HP though is that it has got people reading who may not otherwise have done. Paying customers who have or will go on to try other books. That's never a bad thing.


----------



## Cynic

Life is too short -- we'll never get to read even a fraction of the things we might like to, even if we have enough of an obsessive-compulsive disorder to give it an honest shot.  So by all means, anyone who thinks they can call something as a whole crap from the first bunch of paragraphs, that's cool.  We read what we want, and what we want isn't anyone's business but our own.

But seriously, people who think they can honestly reject something on that basis remind me of trying to get toddlers to try new foods.  They're convinced that it's horrible by the time the fork has breached the smell barrier, and turn their little discriminating noses away.

It seems counter-intuitive to compare literary snobbery to a child's sincere desire to live out life on a steady diet of chicken fingers, mac-cheese, and stawberry milk, but there it is.


----------



## David Siudzinski

One of the reasons it's so successful is beacuse it imploys the same world that exists in reality with one tiny exception; there is magic. This is called magical realism. In addition that great themes of the bible and myths is imployed in the epic fight between good and evil. Also, the characters are realatable to kids (i.e.-kids vs. adults, like in real life). The story is also incredibly well written. All this equals mass appeal, hence, why it's so popular.


----------



## Swift84

> It seems counter-intuitive to compare literary snobbery to a child's sincere desire to live out life on a steady diet of chicken fingers, mac-cheese, and stawberry milk, but there it is.



Actually, it just seems desperate and pretentious. More power to Mike C. He didn't have to make his way through all of the overrated piffle.


----------



## Cy Skywalker

I agree with the person who said something along the lines of 'people like Harry Potter cause its universe is a simple, magical one right next to our own and people'd just plain like to be there'. McCaffery and Lucas did that same things. They're just...."cool". Escapism,  wish-fulfillment. Of course Harry Potter does have literary values--good characterization with unique people, and good concepts--of course modern day British wizards have a soccer-type game on broomsticks! Etc.


----------



## AdrienneW

Mike C said:
			
		

> Suspect me then.
> 
> I couldn't finish the first chaper of the first book, and have had no inclination to read any more.
> 
> What _is_ great about HP though is that it has got people reading who may not otherwise have done. Paying customers who have or will go on to try other books. That's never a bad thing.


 

Why didn't you like it Mike? Was it the style or story or what?


----------



## CroZ

> Children can't tell the difference between original and cliched storytelling.


they can actually. I did, and a lot of people in my class did. I think I was about 12 or 13 when the first book came out. I suppose kids today would have more sense for cliche'ness given the amount of movies flung in their faces. And given the sorry state of much of the fantasy genre, HP is fairly original.

My only wonder is how kids find these novels. I have never seen anyone under thirteen in a bookstore, yet one day this book suddenly appears in class and everyone's expected to love it.


----------



## mashowasho

When HP first came out it was a pretty novel concept with intruiging characters and storylines. Books 1, 3 and 4 were amazing (2 was still pretty good), then there was that huge gap.... then the fifth book came out and it was 5000000 pages long and was basically a load of waffle right up until about the last two chapters. Very disappointing. The sixth was pretty much the same, although a little better.

:book:


----------



## AdrienneW

mashowasho said:
			
		

> When HP first came out it was a pretty novel concept with intruiging characters and storylines. Books 1, 3 and 4 were amazing (2 was still pretty good), then there was that huge gap.... then the fifth book came out and it was 5000000 pages long and was basically a load of waffle right up until about the last two chapters. Very disappointing. The sixth was pretty much the same, although a little better.
> 
> :book:


 

Really? I thought the fifth one one the best of all six...at least thats the one I have enjoyed the most.


----------



## Swift84

CroZ said:
			
		

> they can actually. I did, and a lot of people in my class did.



If you and your class thought Harry Potter was ingenuitive, then you just lost the argument (or rather, you didn't get my point).


----------



## burnitdown

1. Most people are morons.
2. Harry Potter delights morons.
3. Therefore, Harry Potter is popular.


----------



## Der_Parvenu_Meister

the boy playing harry is too old now, in the next fucking film he'll be 24 running around with 13 year olds.... and then we'll be asking THOSE sort of questions.:-$


----------



## AdrienneW

burnitdown said:
			
		

> 1. Most people are morons.
> 2. Harry Potter delights morons.
> 3. Therefore, Harry Potter is popular.


 

So, all the literary awards that the book earned were dolled out by morons?


----------



## S-wo

Harry Potter is so poular because her tale and her writing is spetacular and original. I'm mostly in it for the the characters. I can relate to a lot of what Harry feels and what he's going through. It's really not that popular a lot iof books aren't anymore, the number of readers is declining drastically day by day. Enough of my sad rant, but i just love JK's writing, I hate it when people say it's for children and that's another reason why I dislike the movies, they made it feel kiddy, whern it didn't feel like that at all to me when I read them.


----------



## Swift84

AdrienneW said:
			
		

> So, all the literary awards that the book earned were dolled out by morons?


Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. Just because people--even the so-called experts--like some books doesn't mean the books are automatically worthwhile in the long run. The best way to argue your position is to prove why Harry Potter is innovative and different from every other fantasy book ever made. Also, an explanation as to why anyone should give a shit about a re-worked "little engine that could" story would be necessary as well.


----------



## AdrienneW

Swift84 said:
			
		

> Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. Just because people--even the so-called experts--like some books doesn't mean the books are automatically worthwhile in the long run. The best way to argue your position is to prove why Harry Potter is innovative and different from every other fantasy book ever made. Also, an explanation as to why anyone should give a shit about a re-worked "little engine that could" story would be necessary as well.


 

Well, let me ask you this.  What book is truly original?  All works of fiction are based on a few basics, man vs man, man vs nature, man vs himself.  Its the basics of any story.  Original would be man vs nothing but then that would be rather boring don't you think? I do read a lot of young adult novels and no I have not found one written like Harry Potter.  Trust me, I have looked, this is the genre I am interested in, I enjoy studying the technique of established writers.
Is the story similar to other works of fiction, good vs evil? SURE...its the corner stone of just about any enjoyable work.
I think one of the hardest things that writers today, especially those who write for the young adult genre, have to compete with is TV and video games.  The HP books accomplish that, they are competative where as WAY to many stories are not and therefor kids won't bother to read them.


----------



## Walkio

Harry Potter is NOT particularly well written - very few people would try to argue that it is. Rowling isn't a great writer - you don't see many similes/metaphors/passages of breathtaking prose. You can't read the HP books on a higher level; there are no philosophies or morals as such. 

However, I can definitely say that the Harry Potter books are the best I've ever read. It depends what you want, and what you're looking for. If you're obsessed with the literary marvelous world of Steinbeck for instance, you're simply not going to appreciate the HP books. But if you want a book that's easy to read and very enjoyable, then HP is definitely one to pick up. That's why they're so good - the story lines are quite possibly the best EVER. (Except perhaps for Tolkein's LOTR - except they're very hard to read and I couldnt' really appreciate the story). But Rowling has created a world that most kids would just love to be in, and she's done it in such a way that they can believe they're in it. Her characters are people we care about and want to be like. The plot twists and turns and loops the loop. It's exciting and great fun. _That's_ why it's so popular, the majority of readers don't necessarily want a 'good' book, they want an enjoyable one. And so do I, to be honest.


----------



## Centurion13

Swift84 said:
			
		

> Also, an explanation as to why anyone should give a shit about a re-worked "little engine that could" story would be necessary as well.



WELL SAID, Sir! Your eloquence humbles me. Your stinging rebuttal sets the bar for pithy comebacks even higher. I am not sure I can meet your requirements for said explanation. So screw 'explanation'.

'Explanation', for you, appears to be setting the stories in a context relevant to things _you _value.  Since your values are embarrassingly vague, how about we take a closer look at what you _don't _value, instead?

You don't appear to value money, so the fact that the author has made a pile of it while publishing these books in a free-market economy means nothing to you. Since profitability *does *mean at least something to the rest of us, you explain it away by the improbable supposition that everyone who buys such books, watches the movies, etc, is a moron.

You don't appear to value the increased tendency for children to learn the habit of reading from books such as this. My own son has become an avid reader, and one of the portals to this was the Harry Potter series. Otherwise, you might consider it a positive mark for the book, regardless of what you personally prefer. 

Your attitude (and yes, that is precisely what it is, without remainder) appears to be that the writers of the world must conform to your particular desires before they can have any intrinsic value. This is exactly what I would expect from a post-Modernist egomaniac. Or a goddamn room troll, which is the same in the end.

No wonder sites like this wither and die. They end up populated in the end with purists such as you who demand that the world either conform to them, or it has no value. Welcome to Hell, mister.

 Mmmm.   Well, the truth is, I _don't_ 'give a shit' about the Harry Potter books. That's not what the books are for. They don't bear the weight of cynics and deconstruction-happy fools. They're for enjoying, for reading and suspending disbelief and getting into another place and having fun with people who don't exist, but you wish they did. You don't ask too many questions about such places, and those who truly want to visit, don't.

If you can't abstain from endlessly questioning and criticizing what lies behind something that _very obviously has no 'behind' in the first place_, I am here to tell you the fault lies with _you_, sir, and _not _the Harry Potter series.  I sincerely hope you get over yourself real soon.

Cent13


----------



## Cynic

Centurion13 said:
			
		

> They don't bear the weight of cynics and deconstruction-happy fools.


 
Hey, I like 'em just fine. ;-)  Otherwise excellent post.  Welcome!


----------



## burnitdown

AdrienneW said:
			
		

> Well, let me ask you this.  What book is truly original?



There's degrees of originality and quality. Stop trying to make this a binary difference "Harry Potter versus the World." Only morons argue like that.


----------



## burnitdown

Centurion13 said:
			
		

> Since profitability *does *mean at least something to the rest of us, you explain it away by the improbable supposition that everyone who buys such books, watches the movies, etc, is a moron.



It seems to mean everything to you. Linear thinking is the #1 sign of membership in the Moron Club.


----------



## burnitdown

AdrienneW said:
			
		

> So, all the literary awards that the book earned were dolled out by morons?



They were doled out on the basis of popularity with morons, so the difference is marginal at best.


----------



## Centurion13

burnitdown said:
			
		

> It seems to mean everything to you. Linear thinking is the #1 sign of membership in the Moron Club.


No, it doesn't mean everything to me, and I fail to see how you arrived at the 'seems' portion at all.  

I said it was one of several things that don't appear to count for much to the daring avant garde critics here. You know, the readers who hew to the opposite extreme, ie; the sort who think you've sold out if you get paid well for doing good work. As if writing for a living were something _dirty_.

But there is a difference between little meaning, and no meaning at all, and I don't think you have a leg to stand on if you say that 'mere' sales are *no *indicator of a work's intrinsic quality.

Your attitude towards linear thinking suggests that you do not fare well at it yourself. But it would be uncharitable of me to say that. Instead, all I will state is that linear thinking is quite useful in its place, and that it has served men well down through the ages. 

As there aren't very many other alternatives, I believe you don't have much support for your argument "To think linearly is the sign of a low intellect". Do you really, honestly think that only intelligent folks (and naturally, you include yourself among them) can think in a non-linear fashion to some good end? 

But that is not my real question. What *I* want to know is this: where does a intellectual wannabe like you get off calling people you've never met, 'morons', simply because they don't agree with you?

Feh.  Room trolls.  This place is infested with posers who have entirely too much time on their hands.

Cent13


----------



## burnitdown

Centurion13 said:
			
		

> the sort who think you've sold out if you get paid well for doing good work.



No, you miss the point: we don't think they're doing "good work." You snuck that in there and hoped we wouldn't notice, but to anyone paying attention, it's clear you're debating phantoms of your mind and not the people here. 

Quantity > quality only works for commerce. Not literature. And lest you think I'm merely a bigot against those who sell lots of books, I'm no less fond of the obscure literary magazines and their pompous, irrational fiction (with only a couple notable exceptions).


----------



## Swift84

Cent13, a book doesn't have to meet any standards set forth by me for it to be considered original. My entire argument has been that it lacks innovation, and that should lead you to believe that I am stacking its merits against OTHER WORKS OF FUCKING ART, NOT PERSONAL WHIMS.

Also, your little spill about your son is a red herring, and profit should NEVER mean anything when evaluating literature. To suggest otherwise is lunacy.

Finally, if you're going to preach against a condescending tone (or one that you find condescending), then it would make sense not to sound self-important yourself. The only poser is you.


----------



## Centurion13

burnitdown said:
			
		

> No, you miss the point: we don't think they're doing "good work." You snuck that in there and hoped we wouldn't notice, but to anyone paying attention, it's clear you're debating phantoms of your mind and not the people here.


No,  I did _not _miss the point. You very obviously consider financial success a sure indicator that quality is absent - otherwise, why would you collectively refer to the folks who _do _read, watch and enjoy Harry Potter as 'morons'? Plainly, we lack intelligence, because otherwise we would have your discerning taste and reject said works. 

And I refer to 'you' in the same sense you refer to yourself as 'we'. As if there were more than one of you. As if, somehow, the number of fellow critics who agree with your opinion works in *your *favor, where said numbers do *not *for satisfied customers who have bought HP and liked what they got.



> Quantity > quality only works for commerce. Not literature. And lest you think I'm merely a bigot against those who sell lots of books, I'm no less fond of the obscure literary magazines and their pompous, irrational fiction (with only a couple notable exceptions).


I think you miss *my *point, which is that Quantity is not better than Quality, nor equal to it (unless you're the author paying the bills). Rather, it is one of many indicators of Quality, where we assume the average reader has average intelligence and that the author is doing their best to please the audience and write a good book. 

You and your fellows do not assume these things. You propose that the books Rowling has penned are bad writing. Further, that because they are bad, everyone with a shred of intelligence should see it as you do. And because they don't, the author by extension is a money-grubbing hack, and the readers are obviously morons who don't know good from bad and are easily parted from their money.

That's an awful lot to pin onto a preference, or lack thereof, for Harry Potter books. Why don't you try the more honest statement "I don't happen to like these books, though I understand many other people do."? You might even progress to the point where you could illustrate two passages side by side, one from Harry Potter and one from another work, where you could show the difference and explain _why we should care._

Please, please try to get your head around the idea that maybe, just maybe, the lack of faculty to appreciate these books may lie in you and your fellows. It certainly makes more sense than what you are proposing, which is that you are correct, and the other 95% of the readership is not only dead wrong, but stupid into the bargain.

I can't swallow that last assumption.  I assume there are many others here who can't, either.

Cent13


----------



## Centurion13

Swift84 said:
			
		

> Cent13, a book doesn't have to meet any standards set forth by me for it to be considered original. My entire argument has been that it lacks innovation, and that should lead you to believe that I am stacking its merits against OTHER WORKS OF FUCKING ART, NOT PERSONAL WHIMS.


Innovation? Who gives a light about innovation? Who gives a tinker's damn if it's 'original'? Do you think anyone looks at a book down at the local bookshop and puts it back with a sniff as they mutter "No. Not for me. It's too derivative" It's about pleasing yourself as a writer and pleasing your audience. You have _no business_ comparing it to 'works of art', because it was never meant to *be *a work of art. It is a series of books and it pleases most of those who read it. If it doesn't please you, then say so, but don't jump off into an unfavorable comparison with James Joyce or some such claptrap. I don't buy your objection, and I wager I'm not alone.
   Oh, and slipping into trollish language does not advance your case.



> Also, your little spill about your son is a red herring, and profit should NEVER mean anything when evaluating literature. To suggest otherwise is lunacy.


Neither do personal attacks. They simply reveal how little ground you stand on, and a disappointing lack of self-control. Show some class, man!



> Finally, if you're going to preach against a condescending tone (or one that you find condescending), then it would make sense not to sound self-important yourself. The only poser is you.


I don't care if you condescend or not. I call it like I see it. If you're spouting insults and verifiable balderdash at the same time, I'll call you on it.

I don't pretend to be what I'm not. I'm not a troll. More important, I'm not a pseudo-intellectual attempting to 'educate' his fellow forum members, while insulting them when they disagree with his refined taste in 'art'. I don't for five seconds believe I'm in a position to judge art; but then, I don't believe I'm doing that. Finally, I don't refer to fellow forum members as 'morons' or 'lunatics'. 

You do.  

Who fills the bill more adequately, sir?

Cent13


----------



## Cynic

And this all brings us back to the original question.  Why are the Harry Potter books so popular?  Because people find them enjoyable.  Telling people they shouldn't be enjoying what they clearly do says way more about you, Swift84, than anyone else.


----------



## AdrienneW

burnitdown said:
			
		

> There's degrees of originality and quality. Stop trying to make this a binary difference "Harry Potter versus the World." Only morons argue like that.


 

Never did...what is your obsession with everyone being a moron?


----------



## S-wo

AdrienneW said:
			
		

> Never did...what is your obsession with everyone being a moron?


He's been reading Catch-22 too much.


----------



## Swift84

Cynic: People can enjoy whatever they want. I'm not debating against their right to enjoy something. I'm simply raising serious questions as to why someone would enjoy a series of books that don't offer anything that different.

Cent13: You should give a "light" about innovation. Without it, we would be reading the same old shit all the time. I can't believe you missed that elementary principle. 

As far as comparing it to other works of art, sorry, it is art. Art is simply a way of expressing yourself through a craft. This expression can be a story like Harry Potter. My point is that Potter is bad art. 

Also, you almost seem to suggest that higher authors like James Joyce never pleased themselves and readers with their writings. I think this is where you miss the boat. You think you can read minds. You imply Rowling is thinking, "Hey, I'm really glad I wrote this entertaining stuff, and that my readers can enjoy it, too!" Then you imply that established authors of the past thought on a different wavelength. How would you know? How can anyone know?

Stop criticizing me for personal attacks. You have also utilized name-calling, and I haven't been whining like a bitch about it. If you're going to make a point, don't look like a hypocrite.

On another note about judging art, there's nothing wrong with trying. I may be wrong. But at least I'm making an effort to think about something I read. 

Finally, concerning the condescending remarks, if you say you "call it like you see it," then so do I.


----------



## Centurion13

You're repeating yourself, and it's not because something needs clarification.

Feh.  You've shot your bolt.  Go troll some other thread.

Cent13


----------



## Swift84

No, actually I addressed every concern you set forth in a previous post. Either you can't comprehend simple language, or you realized you can't argue. Doesn't surprise me coming from someone who supposedly laments personal attacks while utilizing the abhorred technique.


----------



## Stewart

Walkio said:
			
		

> If you're obsessed with the literary marvelous world of Steinbeck for instance, you're simply not going to appreciate the HP books. But if you want a book that's easy to read and very enjoyable, then HP is definitely one to pick up.


I don't know about that. Steinbeck's prose is easy to read too. And better.

Like MikeC above, I've read the opening of the first _Harry Potter_ novel and found it wholly unremarkable that I didn't see the point in continuing beyond the first couple of pages. But then, I'm an adult and I'm certainly not in the original demographic for potential book sales as I've got hair in adult places. I will never understand adults reading school level English with the exception of those reading it aloud to their own children.

I don't buy the argument that while it's not literary prose that shouldn't stop it from being a good read. To me, prose doesn't have to be literary, the person doing the writing just has to have talent. Steinbeck, as mentioned above, used prose about as simple as Rowling but he just displayed a better use of the words. He knew his tools. Words, as I see it, are the be all and end all of the book. It's with them we are offered characters, scenes, have our senses tickled, and more. Rowling just can't do it for me, as an adult. As a child, with less expectations of a book, perhaps she can. But I can never feel it.

I'm happy to agree with Swift84 also that her success can most likely be attributed to a large marketing machine. But what I would like to see is evidence that her works have got children reading beyond _Harry Potter_; that children are actively seeking out new reads.



> the majority of readers don't necessarily want a 'good' book, they want an enjoyable one


 Shouldn't a good book, by default, be an enjoyable one? I think so. Or are you suggesting that enjoyable books are bad? It looks that way.


----------



## Swift84

Ernest Hemingway also wrote in a simple style. 

Unlike Rowling, Hemingway and Steinbeck brought something fresh and interesting to the table, not just a marketable franchise.


----------



## Stewart

Centurion13 said:
			
		

> I said it was one of several things that don't appear to count for much to the daring avant garde critics here. You know, the readers who hew to the opposite extreme, ie; the sort who think you've sold out if you get paid well for doing good work. As if writing for a living were something _dirty_.


Money should be the least of writers' goals. I should expect that the writer who writes for money turns in an inferior product. (Or is a ghostwriting vigilante.)

Being paid well for a good work is certainly not a sell out. Irish author, John Banville, over the last twenty or so years enjoyed a readership in the UK and Ireland of about 3,000 readers. His royalties obviously weren't a great deal to him and he survived. He wrote because it's what he wanted to do. It's admirable. When he won the 2005 MAN Booker Prize his sales for that book soared to around the 300,000 mark and sparked an interest in his back catalogue. I would say that he is now rolling in the cash and I would also put forward that he is not a sellout. Your contention that critics of Rowling and Pottermania follow the false syllogism of popularity means bad is offensive. 

There's nothing wrong with writing for a living. It would be just nice if the majority being read for doing so were better than what they are.



			
				Centurion13 said:
			
		

> I don't think you have a leg to stand on if you say that 'mere' sales are *no *indicator of a work's intrinsic quality.


Er, that's crazy. You might as well say that _The Da Vinci Code_ is a quality work. No. Not at all. The only optimism that may arise from the prodigious sales of such tat as that is that the publishers now have more cash with which, if they care about literature, _really care_, then they will invest it by taking on authors who may sell less units but have the potentional, a few books down the line, to bring prestige to their publishing operation.


----------



## Stewart

Centurion13 said:
			
		

> This place is infested with posers who have entirely too much time on their hands.


I think that statement is especially offensive, coming from some person with a mere five posts' contribution to this site. You've not been here long enough to form opinions on _anyone_.



			
				Centurion13 said:
			
		

> You propose that the books Rowling has penned are bad writing. Further, that because they are bad, everyone with a shred of intelligence should see it as you do.



I would also put forward that, from the slight portion I read, that the books are examples of bad writing. But then, I'm not the market and neither are you, Centurion13.

When it comes to reading, I would say that beyond good books and bad books, there are also good readers and bad readers. While it's fine for people to enjoy what they read, their is a weighting of their opinion of what they like. Some people - the bad readers - have opinions at a disadvantaged weighting. An example of why one person's opinions may count less than that of another is that a person's literary palate may not be as varied as a better reader.


----------



## Stewart

Swift84 said:
			
		

> I'm simply raising serious questions as to why someone would enjoy a series of books that don't offer anything that different.


One possible reason is that the person - and in this case, a child - has not read what has gone before. The Chronicles Of Narnia, for example, were in a bit of a lull since the eighties, so today's children may not have crawled through that wardrobe to Narnia. Such older books, also, are not being actively marketed in the way that the new material is.

As for why something isn't just marketed again and _Harry Potter_ comes back to Rowling with a rejection slip, there is the possibility that the older stuff has dated and there's a gap for a mythology that has the potential to create the same impact but for its own time. _Harry Potter_ fills this role.

As for why adults would read and enjoy it, they either don't want a good read aimed at them or they don't know what's out there for them. A third notion may be that their vocabulary isn't all that developed to enjoy an average adult novel.


----------



## Cynic

So of course, since chicken cordon bleu is techincally superior to a cheeseburger, anyone who like cheeseburgers is therefore an idiot.  Sure, Hemingway wrote in a simple style.  And if your idea of a rollicking good time is reading about a sullen guy fish, go right ahead.  But it's nothing short of snobbery to suggest that what someone else considers to be fun is somehow wrong.

And Stewart, I may be new to the board, but I'm not new to the planet, so don't even think about telling _me_ I don't know a snob when I see one.


----------



## burnitdown

Cynic said:
			
		

> But it's nothing short of snobbery to suggest that what someone else considers to be fun is somehow wrong.



You're right. The Deftones are as good as Beethoven, and Frank Miller is every bit as good as Caravaggio. What were we thinking, culture? Or even striving for supremacy? It's elitist and cruel and snobbish, and the Crowd doesn't like it.


----------



## Stewart

Cynic said:
			
		

> And Stewart, I may be new to the board, but I'm not new to the planet, so don't even think about telling _me_ I don't know a snob when I see one.


Cynic, when I address you then that means I'm talking to you. As I recall I was referring to Centurion's five posts. As for the name calling of _snob_ that says nothing of the person you are referring to but does tell us all about you.


----------



## AdrienneW

Stewart said:
			
		

> Money should be the least of writers' goals. I should expect that the writer who writes for money turns in an inferior product. (Or is a ghostwriting vigilante.)
> 
> .


 


Well unfortunately publishers do not feel the same way. They LOOK specifically FOR marketable work...at least the majority of them do.   Remember they are not publishing you out of the goodness of their heart...they are looking for works that will bring them a profit.
Yes, writing well is important, but writing well and not writing something something that will satisfy audiences will guarantee you no sales and thus no publisher would want you.  If you plan on self-publishing all of your works, then I suppose that doesn't matter.
It's not only morons that like to be entertained.  You can, just have a story, for the sake of it being a story, not everything needs to have engrained morality and  set deep in meaning.  A drop of rain, can be just a drop of rain and still be as important.
Personally, I enjoy a story just for being a story and not for being three layers deep in emotional turmoil, hidden context, etc (that's when I am not reading scientific journals about recombinant DNA, mobile genes, etc).  If that makes me a moron so be it...Luckily, I don't restrict myself to such a two dimensional view of people, those who are morons those who are not.


----------



## Stewart

AdrienneW said:
			
		

> Well unfortunately publishers do not feel the same way.


Of course the publishers should feel differently. I was, however, talking about writers.



> You can, just have a story, for the sake of it being a story, not everything needs to have engrained morality and set deep in meaning. A drop of rain, can be just a drop of rain and still be as important.


I agree.


----------



## Swift84

Cynic said:
			
		

> So of course, since chicken cordon bleu is techincally superior to a cheeseburger, anyone who like cheeseburgers is therefore an idiot.  Sure, Hemingway wrote in a simple style.  And if your idea of a rollicking good time is reading about a sullen guy fish, go right ahead.  But it's nothing short of snobbery to suggest that what someone else considers to be fun is somehow wrong.



Actually, you only perceive it as snobbery. A person has every right to read and enjoy whatever he wants, just as Stewart and I have every right to think Harry Potter is a waste of time. I guess appreciating something that is obviously superior equals "snobbery" now. 

Again, we're not saying it's "wrong" to like Harry Potter (at least I'm not). However, the fact remains that, when compared to other writers, Rowling doesn't stand a chance, and there's nothing wrong with pointing that out. As far as I'm concerned, a book isn't worth my money and time if it can't offer something innovative or at least stand up to the greats.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson

I enjoy Harry Potter, it's a fun story.  But I don't have any illusions of it as high literature or anything, her command of the language is choppy and poorly cadenced at best.


----------



## MrTamborineMan

As much as you all are suggesting that there is no complexity in the Harry Potter series, I beg to differ.  There are so many political undertones in those books.  They aren't exactly subtle, but she does not go right out and make the comparisons for you.  For example, the books touch on issues such as racism (notice how the Malfoys are Aryans, it fits right into what they are supposed to represent), anti-terrorism precautions (the ministry of magic's warning pamphlet about what to do in case they come across a death eater, slavery (the house elves), and a bunch of other stuff.


----------



## HarryG

I’ve read Harry Potter, and I’ve recognized the author’s brilliance long before finishing the first chapter.  It amazes me that people have the temerity to criticize any person whose books have sold hundreds of millions of copies.

Sure, I enjoy Steinbeck and Hemingway too, and many others, but I take my hat off to JK Rowling, and she doesn’t deserve criticism from fools.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson

MrTamborineMan said:
			
		

> As much as you all are suggesting that there is no complexity in the Harry Potter series, I beg to differ.  There are so many political undertones in those books.  They aren't exactly subtle, but she does not go right out and make the comparisons for you.  For example, the books touch on issues such as racism (notice how the Malfoys are Aryans, it fits right into what they are supposed to represent), anti-terrorism precautions (the ministry of magic's warning pamphlet about what to do in case they come across a death eater, slavery (the house elves), and a bunch of other stuff.


Exactly, there's nothing subtle about it.  It's blatant, in your face parallelism that everyone can get behind.  The old good versus evil huzzah, huzzah.

I think she can think up a great story.  If Rowling knows one thing it's how to write a story people will want to read.  The old "good versus evil" and "pureblood" conflicts are tried and proven in their effectiveness, and everyone wants to escape in some way or another.  Wizarding school?  Most.  Marketable.  Idea.  Ever.

So in that sense, yes, Rowling is a GENIUS.  I'm just saying her writing ability is a little lackluster.  Very lackluster.


----------



## MrTamborineMan

You seem to be a big proponent of the modernist movement of the early twentieth century, which requires a great deal of interpretation on the part of the reader.  However, you cannot exactly call Victorian-era writers such as Dickens or Twain incredibly subtle.  When they had a message, they would hit you over the head with it.  They were also incredible story-tellers, and their works are widely regarded as classics.  When it comes to Dickens, he was, for the most part, in it for the money.  I think Rowling's stories in undertones (especially in the nomenclature of her characters) and narrative voice are very similar to his.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson

MrTamborineMan said:
			
		

> You seem to be a big proponent of the modernist movement of the early twentieth century, which requires a great deal of interpretation on the part of the reader.  However, you cannot exactly call Victorian-era writers such as Dickens or Twain incredibly subtle.  When they had a message, they would hit you over the head with it.  They were also incredible story-tellers, and their works are widely regarded as classics.  When it comes to Dickens, he was, for the most part, in it for the money.  I think Rowling's stories in undertones (especially in the nomenclature of her characters) and narrative voice are very similar to his.


Rowling's narrative voice doesn't have the tonal quality of Dickens.  Sure, he was paid by the word, but he picked some fantastic words for which to be paid.  Rowling doesn't have that, and she has the cadence of an abortion.

Edit: Also, Twain's Huck Finn is considered the genesis of Modern American Fiction.


----------



## Hodge

Twain was an American writer. The Victorian era applies to _British_ writers, because they were, you know, ruled by queen Victoria. 

The American literary chronology is different from the British one. Like we didn't have a romantic period, but we did have the transcendentalist period, which was very similar.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson

Hodge said:
			
		

> Twain was an American writer. The Victorian era applies to _British_ writers, because they were, you know, ruled by queen Victoria.
> 
> The American literary chronology is different from the British one. Like we didn't have a romantic period, but we did have the transcendentalist period, which was very similar.


True and touche.


----------



## Stewart

HarryG said:
			
		

> It amazes me that people have the temerity to criticize any person whose books have sold hundreds of millions of copies.



Why? It's not as if there is a correlation between quantity sold and quality of writing. I can't fault her sales, but I sure can fault her writing. But as it's for children, I'm not about to tear into it the way I would at the complete ineptness of something for adults, like _The Da Vinci Code, _itself a big seller.



> I take my hat off to JK Rowling, and she doesn’t deserve criticism from fools.


There's the door. Leave the debate if you can't respect others' opinions and prefer to sling mud.



			
				MrTamborineMan said:
			
		

> As much as you all are suggesting that there is no complexity in the Harry Potter series, I beg to differ. There are so many political undertones in those books. They aren't exactly subtle, but she does not go right out and make the comparisons for you. For example, the books touch on issues such as racism (notice how the Malfoys are Aryans, it fits right into what they are supposed to represent), anti-terrorism precautions (the ministry of magic's warning pamphlet about what to do in case they come across a death eater, slavery (the house elves), and a bunch of other stuff.



I think I'm going to against that grain and believe that that sort of stuff can be read into; things put there purely by the subconscious writer. I don't believe she would have consciously done such things given that, with the first Harry Potter novel,  the woman didn't realise she was writing fantasy.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson

Stewart said:
			
		

> I think I'm going to against that grain and believe that that sort of stuff can be read into; things put there purely by the subconscious writer. I don't believe she would have consciously done such things given that, with the first Harry Potter novel,  the woman didn't realise she was writing fantasy.


Oh, Terry Pratchett.  How do you know all my turn-ons?


----------



## MrTamborineMan

Of course we all know that Terry Pratchett is God, and Douglas Adams is the giant turtle on which our whole world rests.


----------



## Stewart

There is no God. But there's a Terry Pratchett. Ergo, Terry Pratchett is not God.


----------



## Mike C

HarryG said:
			
		

> I’ve read Harry Potter, and I’ve recognized the author’s brilliance long before finishing the first chapter.  It amazes me that people have the temerity to criticize any person whose books have sold hundreds of millions of copies.
> 
> Sure, I enjoy Steinbeck and Hemingway too, and many others, but I take my hat off to JK Rowling, and she doesn’t deserve criticism from fools.



Ergo everyone who criticises her is a fool? It seems to me, from this and other posts by your esteemed self, that your only criteria for quality is number of books sold. Not so, and to assume it is and promote that idea is in itself foolish. That would suggest that the greatest writer of the 21st century is probably Dan Brown.

I've stated the case for and against elsewhere, and won't do it again.


----------



## Swift84

Someone compared Rowling to Dickens and Twain. 

Oh, the severe headaches we can suffer.


----------



## elfishmoonfeather

Im so late, I know, but JK deserves our credit. she maybe a billionaire or whatever now, but back in the day; she was writing her first book on spare napkins from the local cafe


----------



## Jolly McJollyson

elfishmoonfeather said:
			
		

> Im so late, I know, but JK deserves our credit. she maybe a billionaire or whatever now, but back in the day; she was writing her first book on spare napkins from the local cafe


Because her previous attempts had all failed.

See: The reason I'm not pursuing writing as a career.


----------



## Stewart

elfishmoonfeather said:
			
		

> JK deserves our credit. she maybe a billionaire or whatever now, but back in the day; she was writing her first book on spare napkins from the local cafe


 
Why does her choice of writing material matter? There are many who werite with pen on paper when they could easily afford a PC.


----------



## red lantern

I have read all the Harry Potter books do date, and I have loved them. I think the appeal is that she has taken some classical and ageless themes in lwestern literature and reworked them for a modern audience. The themes being magic in the 'real world', and childhood adventures. Two classical theme strands in a great deal of english work of the pre-post war eras, stories for boys and girls type stuff. She has simplfied and modernised them so that they appeal to everyone, a good adventure without the complexity and length of Tolkien but more depth than the Chronicles of Narnia (not say its not deep but as a comparative). She treats the readers as mature and educated and does not shy away from themes such as death, bullying, discrimination, and so forth. JK knows that her audience will know these to be a reality of thier own world and does not mollycoddle them to make it seem otherwise (Chronicles or Narnia again) and respects their intelligence. It makes it easier for her to make the addition of magic into the world of Harry Potter. 

The world she created is believable and one can see why any child or adult would enjoy being there, I personally would love to go to Hogwarts  as student

Also I think she has struck a chord with a public overfeed with many authors straightjacketed into thier narrow genres and devoted readers. By making it more open to both the young and young at heart she has made it a showpiece to more than one age group. From a purely commerical perspective her target market is greater hence the appeal and popularity and hence why this topic in this forum


----------



## slayerofangels

I don't think the world of Harry Potter is as believeable as I once did...


----------



## Stewart

red lantern said:
			
		

> I think the appeal is that she has taken some classical and ageless themes in lwestern literature and reworked them for a modern audience.


 
Edit: A modern _*child*_ audience. 



> more depth than the Chronicles of Narnia


Are you basing depth on how far they'd sink if you were to place them in a bucket of water? The _Chronicles Of Narnia_ are complete allegory. _Harry Potter_ is just a story about some kid with a wand. How is _Harry Potter_ deeper than a religious allegory?


----------



## Cynic

I think you're making the unsupportable assumption that being an allegory to something religious makes a thing "deep".  The Chronicles of Narnia relies heavily on the assumption that its audience _also_ appreciates the thing that it is derived from.  You know, kind of like how American Idol contestants rely heavily on their audience appreciating the sources they are derived from.

Harry Potty makes the considerably less-shallow attempt to stand on its own.


----------



## Stewart

Cynic said:
			
		

> I think you're making the unsupportable assumption that being an allegory to something religious makes a thing "deep".


It's as unsupportable as saying Harry Potter is deeper.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson

Cynic said:
			
		

> You know, kind of like how American Idol contestants rely heavily on their audience appreciating the sources they are derived from.


Feces?


----------



## Swift84

At the very least, Harry Potter is more derivative than Narnia.


----------



## Cynic

Well, there's a little equivocation going on here (my fault).  I wouldn't say Harry Potter is "deep" per se.  When I suggested it was less-shallow, I didn't mean "more profound" so much as that it has more integrity.  Less shallow in a high school way, not more deep like an insightful philospher.

Anyway, Harry Potter is derivative in the sense that it exists within a certain set of genres and more or less drops certain retread fantasy archetypes and cliched angst-ridden plotlines right into the narrative.  Sure.  But it does so with a fair degree of inventiveness.  The stregth of the Harry Potter series isn't originality, but _fun_.  Fun apparently isn't something the literary snobs appreciate, but the teaming millions of moronic fans apparently do, and well, I think it should be clear who really wins.

Narnia isn't all that original either.  It also has fantasy archetypes dropped directly into it.  It premise isn't all that original either.  While some of the characters are fun, HP has plenty of fun characters within it as well.  If we're going to talk about profundity, though, we have to look at the message intended.

From what I can tell, the message of Narnia is that women are either evil or to be subserviant, (male) humans are superior to everyone, and everyone should bow down an worship the first lion they meet.  Why?  Because it has _allegory_ to another book the author _assumes_ you have _already_ read and already _agree_ with.  Some call that deep.  I call it lazy at best.  There's nothing in Narnia itself that supports its own argument.  (And there sure as heck isn't anything in the bible either.)

Harry Potter on the other hand is chock full of useful wisdom.  It might be old hat, but it's there.  Every generation could use that information, and whatever gets each generation to digest it has value just because of that.  The lessons from Harry Potter, while not "deep", are at least modern, applicable, and not the bigoted "wisdom" of Bronze Age sheep hearders.

Nor did JK Rowling require her audience to already agree with her to read and enjoy it.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson

Cynic said:
			
		

> Nor did JK Rowling require her audience to already agree with her to read and enjoy it.


That implication makes a pretty sweeping, inaccurate statement about C.S. Lewis.


----------



## Cynic

Jolly McJollyson said:
			
		

> That implication makes a pretty sweeping, inaccurate statement about C.S. Lewis.


 
OK, so why worship the first lion you meet?


----------



## Jolly McJollyson

Cynic said:
			
		

> OK, so why worship the first lion you meet?


Because that queen's a total bitch, and the lion's an ok dude.


----------



## Cynic

Jolly McJollyson said:
			
		

> Because that queen's a total bitch, and the lion's an ok dude.


 
I'm an OK dude.  Will you worship me?


----------



## Jolly McJollyson

Cynic said:
			
		

> I'm an OK dude.  Will you worship me?


You can't maul me with giant claws.

EDIT: Besides, they've just been thrust into fantasy-land.  What're they gonna do?  No we won't join your resistance?  That way we have an crazy-ass ice queen AND a pissed-off lion to deal with?  Forget that.  I'm bowing.


----------



## Cynic

Jolly McJollyson said:
			
		

> You can't maul me with giant claws.


 
So is Lewis' message to children that you should worship the first creature that seems nice and could tear your head off, especially if there's a total bitch in the vicinity?

More importantly, does he support that anywhere in the book, are are children supposed to agree to it without question, either because they already do or just because shouldn't question?


----------



## Jolly McJollyson

Cynic said:
			
		

> So is Lewis' message to children that you should worship the first creature that seems nice and could tear your head off, especially if there's a total bitch in the vicinity?
> 
> More importantly, does he support that anywhere in the book, are are children supposed to agree to it without question, either because they already do or just because shouldn't question?


Now we're getting validity of the message confused with readability.  The Chronicles of Narnia can be read without agreeing with CS Lewis's whole Jesus thing.

I believe that my ridiculously simplified version should not be used as Lewis' point.  There's no need for a straw man, the message of his book (the Christian allegory I mean) is clear enough.  What I meant when I said your statement was too sweeping in its implications was that there are many readers out there who are not Christian who can enjoy Lewis' work.

A cynic such as yourself, or such as myself for that matter, might think the whole "good versus evil" thing is tripe, but not everyone thinks that way.  Also, that good versus evil theme is not an inherently Christian concept, so I would have to say, yes, people outside Lewis' belief system can enjoy his book.


----------



## Cynic

Jolly McJollyson said:
			
		

> Now we're getting validity of the message confused with readability. The Chronicles of Narnia can be read without agreeing with CS Lewis's whole Jesus thing.
> 
> I believe that my ridiculously simplified version should not be used as Lewis' point. There's no need for a straw man, the message of his book (the Christian allegory I mean) is clear enough. What I meant when I said your statement was too sweeping in its implications was that there are many readers out there who are not Christian who can enjoy Lewis' work.
> 
> A cynic such as yourself, or such as myself for that matter, might think the whole "good versus evil" thing is tripe, but not everyone thinks that way. Also, that good versus evil theme is not an inherently Christian concept, so I would have to say, yes, people outside Lewis' belief system can enjoy his book.


 
Enjoy the book sure.  But we were talking about how "deep" it was versus Harry Potter.  My statement was that for such perception of depth, Lewis relied exclusively on allusions to the bible.  It's "deep by association" only.  In other words, it's only deep if you consider the bible deep.  Worse, the bible is only deep if you believe it.  So Lewis is, in fact, requiring that people think the bible is deep in order to have that impression of his own work.

My restatement of your simplified version of Lewis isn't a strawman -- I'm not putting words in your mouth.  And that really _is_ what the book boils down to.  The problem with allegory is that for the story that uses it to have support, the source that uses it must also be supported.

This isn't about validity versus readability.  It's about whether the depth is real, or just a cheap veneer used to give that apprearance.  You can tell the difference by the support an author gives to the messages that are to be taken away.  You don't have to agree with the message, as you say, but we're going to claim "deep", there should be support to it.  Otherwise we're left to wonder: "_what's_ deep"?

In Narnia, we're left to wonder that all over.  Worship the lion.  Why?


----------



## Swift84

Cynic, I'm willing to admit Narnia utilizes fantasy archetypes as well. However, whereas it was released in the early 20th century, Harry Potter is a recent phenomenon. And Rowling also borrows heavily from Narnia. My point is that Narnia offered more ingenuity for its time. Potter, to be considered better, must rise above its current level of mediocrity.


----------



## Cynic

Swift84 said:
			
		

> Cynic, I'm willing to admit Narnia utilizes fantasy archetypes as well. However, whereas it was released in the early 20th century, Harry Potter is a recent phenomenon. And Rowling also borrows heavily from Narnia. My point is that Narnia offered more ingenuity for its time. Potter, to be considered better, must rise above its current level of mediocrity.


 
Are you suggesting that Harry Potter would have been better if it had been released in, say, 1931?


----------



## Holden Blake

Jolly McJollyson said:
			
		

> I enjoy Harry Potter, it's a fun story. But I don't have any illusions of it as high literature or anything, her command of the language is choppy and poorly cadenced at best.


 
If people scruitinised their works so much nothing would ever get written. Novels don't need to be packed with flowery language or sophisticated to such a level that only the academics can make use of it. I think thats what makes it so popular it's generic and readable for everyone. Pompus writers are just plain annoying, in my opinion telling an interesting story is what will grip readers rather than bombarding them with a pile of high-minded mombojumbo


----------



## Jolly McJollyson

Holden Blake said:
			
		

> If people scruitinised their works so much nothing would ever get written. Novels don't need to be packed with flowery language or sophisticated to such a level that only the academics can make use of it.


Hence my enjoying the book.


----------



## Stewart

Holden Blake said:
			
		

> Novels don't need to be packed with flowery language or sophisticated to such a level that only the academics can make use of it.


 We know that. And many authors have won prestigious awards for their use of simple language: Hemingway and Steinbeck, the Nobel Prize in Literature, for example. But let's not compare men of literary integrity with JK Rowling, some kiddie hack. Though what your comments about academics are all about, I have no clue.



> Pompus writers are just plain annoying, in my opinion telling an interesting story is what will grip readers rather than bombarding them with a pile of high-minded mombojumbo


I think, like Cynic's earlier namecalling of 'literary snobs', that this shows more about you, your (mis)understanding, and attitude towards books that you can't get to grips with.  You can't follow them, or whatever, then that's fine, but you shouldn't label the author as pompous or the reader as a snob simply because you don't get it. You can bet someone will get enjoyment out of it. I, for example, can't get past the first few pages of a Saul Bellow book,  but the guy won the Pulitzer, published many novels, and is cited by Martin Amis as his biggest influence. I don't think Saul Bellow is pompous and I don't think Amis is a snob for liking him.


----------



## MrTamborineMan

Swift84 said:
			
		

> Someone compared Rowling to Dickens and Twain.
> 
> Oh, the severe headaches we can suffer.



That might have been a bit much, but face it, Rowling was heavily influenced by Dickens.


----------



## dannyboy

for me Rowlings uses the fool/hero device and has more in common with Percival than Dickens.
the device of the 'other' magical land is always popular for escapists and there are no 'better' escapists than children (perhaps the whole point of Peter Pan)..


----------



## Swift84

Cynic said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that Harry Potter would have been better if it had been released in, say, 1931?



Let me explain this again because you obviously have no idea what "originality" means. I'll use the genre of science fiction as an example.

Imagine the literary world before science fiction entered the realm. Now, an author comes along--some scholars say Edgar Allen Poe invented or helped invent the sci-fi genre--and writes the first science fiction story. 

This story becomes standard reading. It inspires other authors to write within the genre. So others write their stories. Some imitate the style of the initial sci-fi story; some use the original story as inspiration but are still able to create very different imagery and themes.

A little more than a century passes. A new author writes a marketable series of science fiction books. Notwithstanding its popularity, one can notice, upon careful inspection, that many of the ideas have been lifted from various authors who wrote in the same genre. The lack of elegance in the language is also noted. 

So, if the stories had been written a long time ago, Harry Potter would be more original because the books wouldn't be as derivative (you can look that word up if you're still having trouble: www.dictionary.com). 

To clarify, for you have much trouble with inference and implications, I'm not saying it's impossible at this point to write an innovative fantasy story. The point is that Rowling hasn't done this.


----------



## burnitdown

Swift84 said:
			
		

> So, if the stories had been written a long time ago, Harry Potter would be more original because the books wouldn't be as derivative (you can look that word up if you're still having trouble: www.dictionary.com).
> 
> To clarify, for you have much trouble with inference and implications, I'm not saying it's impossible at this point to write an innovative fantasy story. The point is that Rowling hasn't done this.



I'm in agreement here. There's also enough better examples than HP to make it superfluous.


----------



## Cynic

I see.  So what you're saying is, if it isn't innovative, or original, it is therefore crap and unfit to read.

Is that it?


----------



## crystan01

I think JK Rowling's gift is that she created a world that engages everyone's imagination, while writing it in a way that automatically draws you in.  I have read some stories with more ingenuitive plots, but the writing seems to drag.  Ms. Rowling has that magic with words where even the most boring parts of the book seem interesting.

No, she's not that original, but nothing in fantasy is truly original anymore.  I think it's mainly because people from all ages can find something they identify with in her books, be it the humor, the teachers, the students, or the general world she creates.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson

crystan01 said:
			
		

> Ms. Rowling has that magic with words where even the most boring parts of the book seem interesting.


I'm sorry....

but....

WHAT???

She's so stilted and hackneyed....


----------



## crystan01

Stilted and hackneyed she may be, but that doesn't stop the magic.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson

crystan01 said:
			
		

> Stilted and hackneyed she may be, but that doesn't stop the magic.


Haha, see, I think it's the story itself that draws so many readers.  It's such a great escapist concept.  Wizarding school is a GOLDMINE.  Personally I don't see much substance to her writing itself, but I think her story is probably the most phenomenal book-selling concept on the face of the planet.


----------



## Hodge

Her writing style reminded me of Roald Dahl's when I tried to read the first book (which I didn't, because I was too old for Roald Dahl). There's nothing particularly wrong with her books, but it's more that they're well marketed than well written or original.


----------



## akgroom

it's very uplifting


----------



## Noodles

hm I've thought about that question before and really what I came up with was that she created a modern day fanasty. What I mean by that is that she set it differently than other books I guess. Her idea was unique and different from other books at the time.


----------



## SkullFarmer

Even as old as I am I find the characters engaging and the storyline quite interesting. I was immediately captivated by the clever names of the places, things and characters. Also, I am naturally drawn to anything that plays around with the idea of alternate dimensions/realities. 

It's all far from my favorite thing to read, but it is worthy and it is very good.

-SF


----------



## speakerphone2

rydenthorne said:
			
		

> I think it's because she tells a vivid story that is playful yet has moments of drama and darkness. It draws people in. I classify it as apple pie type literature. Everyone likes apple pie. There's something in the series for everyone. It has universal appeal.


 
I hate apple pie && I hate Harry Potter.


----------



## Jolly McJollyson

speakerphone2 said:
			
		

> I hate apple pie && I hate Harry Potter.


...

Will you marry me?


----------



## G. Palmer

My problem is that they haven't really engaged/engrossed me in the early pages/chapters, and when a book is 500 pages long it is kind of a requirement. The prose from memory struck me as being flat. I found the first three enjoyable when I was 10 or so, but it kinda wore thin on me. I think they're also a bit too formulaic.


----------



## bluromantic

Hodge said:
			
		

> There's nothing particularly wrong with her books, but it's more that they're well marketed than well written or original.


 
Not original?! Ok, then what did she copy? It's not like Eragon, where Paolini blatantly is a Tolkien-copycat.

&& in the beginning, she never was "well marketed"... she got turned down by bunches of publishers! But for the last book... of course there's A LOT of publicity.


----------



## Stewart

bluromantic said:
			
		

> in the beginning, she never was "well marketed"... she got turned down by bunches of publishers!


 
Er, you do realise that the marketing tends to come after the publisher has taken the book on and not before?


----------



## Charlie_Eleanor

Fun/Good Story with characters people like.
Really easy and simple to read.  Not always a bad thing, but it is not as complex as LOTR.
The movies rock pretty hard.  I think that helps.


----------



## heatherlouise

i love the Harry Potter books, which surprised me as i don't normally read that sort of thing.  i was bought the first few one christmas years ago and when i ran out of other readin material i forced myself to read it.  instanlty i loved them, she creates such beleivable and at the same time magical worlds and charectors.  i can honestly pictutre myself there, being a student and learning magic, and i feel as if i know the charectors personally.  haha, i also cried when Dumbledore died. :cry:
Heather


----------



## nineteen

interjection: don't know about the rest of you but i can't put them down, don't know what it is about them.


----------



## JK_Wannabe

AdrienneW said:
			
		

> Although I read several genre, young adult/children novels is what I enjoy writing.  I have read several in this genre including JKrowling's works.  She sets herself apart with her style...I have to wonder though, what makes her books so good? Why do people crave them? Is it the characters? or the story telling?  I have yet to read any one else who writes in this style (any suggestions? I would like to compare)....and while *I* have enjoyed the books...I am amazed at how popular they are.


When I first read _Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone_, I was in a "reading slump". I only liked mysteries but they were becoming too predictable for me. (Which is saying something, as I was only 7!) It introduced me to the way fantasy books can take you away to another place. I was instantly hooked.

Now almost everything I read/write is in the fantasy genre. So for me, I would say Harry Potter was a significant milestone.


----------



## assassin

rydenthorne said:
			
		

> I think it's because she tells a vivid story that is playful yet has moments of drama and darkness. It draws people in. I classify it as apple pie type literature. Everyone likes apple pie. There's something in the series for everyone. It has universal appeal.


 
Not really, I don't like the books ... the movies, yes.
The books are in my sort of reading field being about magic and all, but I read only a paragraph of the first book before putting it back on the shelf ... and that's when all the Harry Potter hype first appeared.
Honestly, it just didn't grab me.

I don't like apple pie either  lol


----------



## MEShammas

JK_Wannabe said:
			
		

> When I first read _Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone_, I was in a "reading slump". I only liked mysteries but they were becoming too predictable for me. (Which is saying something, as I was only 7!) It introduced me to the way fantasy books can take you away to another place. I was instantly hooked.
> 
> Now almost everything I read/write is in the fantasy genre. So for me, I would say Harry Potter was a significant milestone.


 
Harry Potter? Sure, I am addicted to Harry Potter to, but a story with far more meaning/depth/prose/allegory/addictive elements/hope/despair/flashes of humor/common elements/metaphors/similies, etc. is the Lord of the Rings series.

TALK ABOUT REVOLUTIONIZING THE FANTASY GENRE :joker: .

P.S.- Again, I love Harry Potter, but it does NOT have enough meaning infused within to keep me coming back as much as Lord of the Rings does (maybe because it is more mature IMO).


----------



## Stewart

MEShammas said:
			
		

> Lord of the Rings
> 
> TALK ABOUT REVOLUTIONIZING THE FANTASY GENRE :joker:


 
I would say it has stagnated it more than it has revolutionised it.


----------



## Gilwing

Hey there Sports fans,

I have taken some time tonight to go through the responses in this thread to come up with a list of all the salient points.  I want to point out first that this list is not the "Why is Harry Potter so popular?" list anymore than it is the list for many other successful works.  It took a little doing to filter this but i think you'll find it interesting...in the sense that you probably already knew this on some level.

 1.)  Immersive world.  So complete anyone could write a story about it or in it with or without using the characters that made the world popular in the first place.

  2.) Easy framework.  The target audience can imagine themselves IN that world and want to do so.

  3.) Right time and place.  It provided something the public wanted just as interest was reaching a peak.  

  4.) Universal appeal.  It holds some interest and has something for everyone outside of their target audience as well as those within.

  5.) Magical Realism.  Very much like our own world but with one element of fantasy added thus making it easier to absorb.

  6.) Relatable characters.  The target audience can relate to the characters, their struggles, and the themes they represent.

  7.) Competitive.  Holds interest for readers in the face of/despite other forms of media.

  8.) Well written.  The actual telling of the story is above competent and feels fresh to many readers with classic themes revisited and interesting events told.

  9.) Enjoyable.  The story itself is simply enjoyable to read.

  10.) Marketing/marketable.  The story has strong foreseeable revenue generating possibilities and its publisher pays to have it marketed properly. (Wizarding  School)

  That's it.  Ten points of success?  Or just something alot of money makers have in common?

You decide!  (but said in a retro fifties giant B-movie voice with vibrating text and circular fade out.)

Gilwing


----------



## RustyHicks

And they are well made points Gilwing.
I enjoy reading Harry Potter, I like it but I am not one to sit 
and analyze why it is I like a book. If I like a book, then I 
like a book. Everyone has their own taste and style in
reading, and if something doesn't sit well with you so you move
on to another book. I don't think we have any right to call someone
down or judge cause they like a book or series of books your
not fond of. Everyone has thier own likes, that's life.


----------



## sixlivesdown

It's quick, easy, addictive reading. I've preordered the last one, and I'll read it in a couple of days, and enjoy it. Call it beach reading. It doesn't have to be fantastically deep, or full of lifelong meaning....just fun to read. And that's what it is.


----------



## JoannaMac

I'm fairly cynical about the "Harry Potter" series, but like them in spite of myself (I just finished reading "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince"). There are many other children's writers much better than J.K Rowling and her success is largely due to the publicity machine. I actually think there is a childishness to her writing which condescends to children a bit. At 12 or 13 I probably would have seen the use of rhyme, alliteration, and word association for peoples names eg 'Rita Skeeter', 'Severus Snape', and Remus Lupin as something for little kids. Harry is seventeen by the time the series finishes and I don't think the writing grew up with the audience who originally fell in love with the story. The other major thing that annoys me is sex stereotyping everywhere. Despite all this, I get hooked on the story itself, which is quite well put together. When it comes down to it, "Harry Potter" can out sell "The Chronicles of Narnia" or anything by Roald Dahl, for the same reason that the 'Spice Girls' could sell more albums than the 'Beatles'. Hype.


----------



## Kathiee

rydenthorne said:
			
		

> I think it's because she tells a vivid story that is playful yet has moments of drama and darkness.  It draws people in.  I classify it as apple pie type literature.  Everyone likes apple pie.  There's something in the series for everyone.  It has universal appeal.



Although not everyone likes the Harry Potter books. (Excluding the idiots who see the movies (which are crap, I hate books turned to movies) and then say they don't like the books because the movie wasn't as good. Or the people who just say they hate it because they're too lazy to pick it up and read it, "oh it's too long!" or whatever.) I, myself, love them. But not eveyone likes apple pie either. The thought of pie half the times makes me queasy. (I'm allergic to cinnamon too, a common ingredient in most pies. But before the allergy I didn't like them either.) It's usually a person's interests and preference.

But I do agree, she does draw people in. Her imagery and characters are amazing, and her wittiness is a major plus. And it wasn't that cliche, it was different, new and creative. A different world the reader entered. (I lived there for the main part of last summer.) A break from reality. That's what drew me in.


----------



## Rahvin

I don't like the books (I don't really know why, either. I just think they're too... I don't know, childish, and most of the books I own are better written that Harry Potter), but I think the appeal of them comes from the fact that they are aimed (initially, at least), at grabbing the attention of children. It's clever marketing. If the children like it, they will want their parents to read it to them, and there is enough maturity and realism in them to snare adults as well. They appeal to a wide variety of people.

Not me though. For some reason, I just don't enjoy reading them. There's nothing to hook me in.


----------



## Yustynn

I could probably think of a million books better than Harry Potter, but the reasons why it's so popular are probably these:
1. It's for all ages. Kids read it, get their parents to read it.
2. We can relate to the characters in the book easily
3. JK makes the characters seem real. She gives them flaws that she thinks real people would have. It just makes the book more popular
4. it's just a lucky series

Probably 4


----------

