# JK Rowling



## rashadow (Jul 21, 2004)

I don't know if it has been already said and I do not care who you are. READ HARRY POTTER! I do not care what you think about the genre or the movies you have gosta read the whole series. You must. All agree that the Harry Potter novels are future classics. Even Stephen King loves em. This is fantasy at it's best and most whimsical. Truly a delight. Just imagine if these books were around when you were young.


----------



## hollyoake (Jul 21, 2004)

i've almost finished the fifth book!
this one seems a bit more violent than the other four... enough said.


----------



## Chris (Jul 21, 2004)

I don't know about fantasy at its best, but these books definately are fun to read! I ploughed through all five books in about 1.5 weeks. They are really good and really well written, my favourite so far is probably Order of the Phoenix, but Chamber of Secrets and Prisoner of Azkaban come close.


----------



## sully474 (Jul 21, 2004)

They are a pretty good read, but is it just me, or is JK Rowling not very good at portraying the actions of the supposedly evil characters. 

Malfoy never really seems do be as evil as he could easily be. You only ever hear him taunt Harry, Ron and Hermione, and try to get them into trouble. 

Voldemort seemed like a rather calm and quiet person when met in person. In the way people talked and such, Voldemort is evil enough all right, but not particularily in his actions. Sure, he killed a few people, but never without a reason. It was his colleagues that killed all of the muggles. He only took out people, personally, if there was a significance in doing it.

Snape isn't evil, even though he is called it many times. He is a very biased teacher, but he never really does a whole lot. And, who can really blame him for his actions towards Harry after what his father did to him. ROn and Hermione are sort of Sirius and Lupin to him. Hermione is Lupin, who makes halfhearted efforts to stop the other two, and Ron is Sirius, who is just as bad as Harry.

Umbridge definately isn't evil. She is simply following her beliefs.


----------



## Chris (Jul 22, 2004)

> It (Voldemort) was his colleagues that killed all of the muggles. He only took out people, personally, if there was a significance in doing it.



And doesn't that make him incredibly evil? In that muggle life is so insignificant to him, that he can't even be bothered to kill them himself. To corrupt and twist his wizards into doing his dirty work, thereby creating a gallery of villains, is much more, in my opinion, sinister and will have a greater impact on the world he is trying to rule.

Umbridge not evil? Maybe not in her mind, but the actions she took in Phoenix were beyond the ethics of even, I think, the ministry of magic. I personally loathed this character to such a point that my enjoyment of Phoenix was seriously tainted by it.


----------



## hollyoake (Jul 22, 2004)

i think the whole point was that you are meant to loath her... she was wonderfully writen, as was Snape! the more you have feelings for them, then the evidence is clear that they were portrayed very well!


----------



## Chris (Jul 22, 2004)

I agree.

"Phoenix" was very weird for me because even though I was supposed to hate Umbridge and the Ministry of Magic, they were so evil that I just felt frustrated when reading it. That's opposed to someone like Voldemort who I find great fun to read. I don't know, I guess I'm strange. I'll have to read the book again to see if I still feel that way.


----------



## hollyoake (Jul 23, 2004)

i have found that i can't seem to be able to get into the books again... like reading them all has ruined it for me... :?:


----------



## Vixen (Jul 23, 2004)

Something tells me Malfloy may be on the edge of good and evil, and that rowling underportrayed his evil side on porpuse, but I could be wrong. I tend to think of her as a genuis...


----------



## A_MacLaren (Jul 24, 2004)

I think The Order of the Phoenix is the weakest book. Rowling's editors appear to be too scared to touch anything she writes, and so she gets away with a fairly indulgent, wishy-washy plot. 
Malfoy's evil. Rowling's already said he won't be turning good or working for the good side, like Snape. And he threatened Harry with death.


----------



## rashadow (Jul 24, 2004)

The Order of the Phoenix is not the weakest book. It stands as strong as any of the others. It continues her ongoing story which is far from wishy washy. And if it's a bit indulgent, so what.


----------



## Chris (Jul 24, 2004)

A_MacLaren said:
			
		

> Malfoy's evil. Rowling's already said he won't be turning good or working for the good side, like Snape.



But Snape does work for the good side. He's part of the order. Sure he can be a bit of a tosser, but, as far as we know, he is a goody.


----------



## A_MacLaren (Jul 25, 2004)

> But Snape does work for the good side. He's part of the order. Sure he can be a bit of a tosser, but, as far as we know, he is a goody.



Yes, that's what I said. Snape works for the good side, but Malfoy never will.



> The Order of the Phoenix is not the weakest book. It stands as strong as any of the others. It continues her ongoing story which is far from wishy washy. And if it's a bit indulgent, so what.



Phoenix is very much the weakest book. She sets up a vague hook right at the beginning, then plays around describing the Ministry of Magic and getting far too involved in Humbridge and Harry's terrifically unexciting love sub-plot, then says 'Oh right! The plot!', whereupon she suddenly takes Harry to a life-or-death situation and kills off a major character so we feel that we got something out of the book other than a sense of dissatisfaction.
Then we get taken back to Hogwarts to learn 'the whole story', which turns out to be the biggest cop-out you could possibly imagine.


----------



## Chris (Jul 25, 2004)

A_MacLaren said:
			
		

> > But Snape does work for the good side. He's part of the order. Sure he can be a bit of a tosser, but, as far as we know, he is a goody.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's what I said. Snape works for the good side, but Malfoy never will.



Ah okay. Misread you there, sorry.   

I'll have to disagree with you about Order of the Phoenix though. Book five was about the Ministry of Magic; it's influence, it's corruption, it's ignorance, power etc. Umbridge is the enforcer of all these bad attributes, so it makes sense to have her clash with Harry, our hero. The plot is the Ministry's take over of Hogwarts. Overall, I found Order of the Phoenix to be much more pointed than Goblet of Fire, which, while still enjoyable, tended to dilly dally.


----------



## A_MacLaren (Jul 25, 2004)

Phoenix might have been better if it was a lot shorter. Think Chamber of Secrets size. 
There was very little mystery, which I think is what these books depend upon. Apart from a vague mention of a 'weapon' at the start, Harry just dances about getting into mischief with Umbridge. Which, fair enough, does have a point, but it's not that great a point that it can maintain a book over six hundred pages.
A bit more on the weapon, a lot less pages and less indulgence on Rowling's part would have gone a long way to making this better.
Goblet is my second favourite book. Definitely the darkest. It was the most twisted, at the end, and I can still remember staying up till three a.m, finishing it off. Ah, memories...


----------



## Chris (Jul 25, 2004)

Yeah, Cedric's fate is the most chilling moment in the entire series (so far anyway). Goblet definately had a fantastic ending.


----------



## spunkymonkey (Jul 26, 2004)

You actually think i haven't read them!!!!?????  :roll: i love Harry Potter! i have read all of them and have seen all the movies at leats twice each. The first and second i have seen like a thousand time and i've read the books tooooo many times to count!   :wink:  :lol:


----------



## A_MacLaren (Jul 27, 2004)

It's not healthy to have that many smilies and exclamation marks in one post.


----------



## desired_destiny (Aug 2, 2004)

I've read all of the books.  My favorite would have to be the first.  I can't wait until the 6th book comes out!


----------



## jules (Aug 2, 2004)

i've read them all numerous times, both the american and the UK versons. PoA was my favourite, but i do love them all.  i'm so excited for the next one, as well! 

xoxoxoxo


----------



## neverendingdisasterpoetry (Dec 14, 2005)

I've read the first 4 eight times each, the 5th one 3times, and the 6th one twice. I love them. I want there to be millions more but it's so sad there is only going to be one more. They are the best books ever!!!
The Broken One


----------



## aboyd (Dec 15, 2005)

So now that book 6 is out, I have some guesses about book 7.

SPOILER WARNING!!!  (Even if my guesses about book 7 are wrong, I talk about book 6 stuff too.)















    * Even though Snape killed Dumbledore, I think Snape is still on the side of good.  Snape is deceiving Voldemort, being a skilled Occlumens.
    * I believe that Malfoy will be turned to good.
    * I believe that Dumbledore used Snape's skills as an Occlumens to telepathically beg Snape to kill him before Draco did it, so that Draco could be saved.

Also, I don't like that book 6 sets up Harry as a lone ranger.  By the end he's saying goodbye to everyone that can help him.  I hope book 7 doesn't follow that path.  I want to see Hagrid's creatures used for battle.  I want to see Neville put his skills at duels to use.  I want Hermione's knowledge to be put to use.  Ron & Ginny have skills too.  I just hope it isn't "Potter saves all the grown-ups" in book 7.  Minerva and the rest of the gang are too intelligent to be helpless.

-Tony


----------



## jk7070436 (Dec 15, 2005)

Oh... My... Gosh... *screams like a little girl* I love Harry Potter! It's so sad to think there's only one book left... . And JK Rowlings probably rich enough to just stop there and live the rest of her life in paradise. Gosh, I really hope she continues to write. But I doubt her writing will have the same 'magic' as the Harry Potter Sequence, unless she keeps the same characters or something. Again, I LOVE HARRY POTTER!


----------



## Kira the wanderer (Dec 15, 2005)

Harry Potter is extremly overrated. The first book was genius though. The second was pretty good and suspense. The third was interesting and I really only liked Sirius, but other than that not really as good as the others. The fourth was ok, pretty interesting but had a HORRIBLE ending. It left me unsatisfied and upset that it would end like that. It left one too many loose ends, and I understand it was done unpurpose, but I thought it was pretty much pointless. I tried the fifth but it was the SAME thing over and over again.

I feel that Harry Potter made its own type cliche. Magical Schools, witches and warlocks, I mean nobody really wants to read about that unless its Harry Potter. And if they do it seems so overly used. 

Also, the books are very predictable. You'd think that by the second time Voldemort tries to kill Harry Potter you think they would know not to go back again because he'd be bacl the next year. Or if they were that densae that they wouldn't return to Hogwarts the fourth year. But every year they act surprised, and every year Harry Potter saves the day. Every year they fight Voldemort. It gets repettative. I know that is what the series is about but it becomes so boring after a while.

And on that note- The fourth movie was garbage. It left everything out, cut scenes, and the time flow as screwy. The ending for that was worse than the book even. Though seeing Voldemort's face did make me laugh which was highly inapropriate considering that Cedric was dead on the ground, Harry was bleeding from his wrist, the worst enemy ever has been ressurected. First thing I thought was "Voldemort got a Micheal Jackson nose job!"


----------



## Sephiroth (Dec 30, 2005)

Has anyone ever read the books of magic by Neil Gaiman written in the early 90's.....if you havent and like Harry Potter, maybe you should. Then you'll hate JK Rowling as much as I do.
A small boy, mild mannered boy, with glasses, a funny scar, an owl, and who is destined to become the greatest wizard of his age....wow. 

Funny how she has taken legal action against people who 'stole' her ideas....frankly I think Neil Gaiman was too soft...and should take for all she's worth....


----------



## kalibantre (Dec 30, 2005)

SPOLIER WARNING. for phoenix onwards, i think.

My old teacher used to work with Gaiman, she thinks he's a prick but she hates Rowling more, he should have sued her into the ground.

The story line is ok, but poorly executed in my opinion. I want to know whats happened but I want to hear it from ym freinds who have read the books not read them, I got bored. 

Another thng that gets me, a few years back Enid Blyton (sp?) was slated for keeing children reading at the same level for years at a time.. is J.K. Rowling not doing the same thing? yeah ok kids are reading but they're only reading her books. I've heard no under 16 that wasn't already a bookworm talk about a book that wasn't harry potter.

And I agree with the above statement that it's too predictable, the best thing she can do it kill of Harry. And even that would beobvious. There's no good way for this to end, it's getting dull. Sirius was ace, and she killed him off in a paragraph, I didn't even think of being upset when dumbledore died.

I really don't think the author is all she's cracked up to be. butit gives me faith that if she can get this much publicity, surely I can get a book or two published. I won't use the verd beamed 4 times in 2 pages. trust me it's obvious.


----------



## bobothegoat (Dec 31, 2005)

The books are okay.  The movies, frankly, have been progressively getting worse with each one.  The third one was bad enough that I almost vowed to not go to the next one.  Almost.

I ended up going just because I saw it with a couple friends, and I didn't have to pay for the ticket.  The problem with the movies, I think, is they cannot stand on their own.  Had the books not been widely read as they were, and the movie was released, people would have hated them.  But because it's Harry Potter, it's automatically considered good.

Compare this to Lord of the Rings.  True, it's a fairly popular book.  However, When the movies came out, I noticed many people who previously didn't care for LotR liked the movies anyway.  Many went on to read the books.  HP does the opposite, and suffers as a movie.  I suspect the Da Vinci Code movie will suffer the same effect, though admittingly, without Dan Brown's atrocious writing, the movie might be a bit better than the book.

Anyway, there's my rant...


----------



## socrates (Dec 31, 2005)

harry is good. teh movies are rubbish. i mean come on in teh 4th one they cut out all the quidditch world cup they made ahrry and them sit in a lower box. and before this one they never mention any feelings toward chang from harry. if they had a better budget and more time they could make a decent 5th movie. teh books are ok but the first to sucked. she just brought harry in at the 1st one in a to sad and depressed then silver linning way. the second one was just a frikin love and hate story.teh third was o my he's a killer not and he's my god father. i ahve a family. she did a ok but she didn't portray it in a manner i found interesting. more mushy than a action story.


----------



## blankslatejoe (Dec 31, 2005)

the films, as far as book-to-films translations, arent half bad. its VERY tough to make a good translation, especially of a fantasy book, especially of a serial.

You don't see them often because they aren't easy and the risks outweigh the rewards.Yeah.... Harry potter movies were a lot like cliffnotes...but only during the first half hours or so of each film. After that each one stood well enough on it's own.
I think the reason a lot of people aren't into HP like they're into LOTR is that HP carries a dorky context, a only-little-kid-pokemonfans-or-only-english-major-chicks-dig-these-books context... so a cultural backlash pops up against, comparitively decent films. 
LOTR was too old, and too anitquated to carry any sort of backlash like that.

Look at ALLfantasy films ever made. HPs stand up pretty high on the quality list...
---on an offnote, The effects in the most recent film are technically miles ahead of ANY of the LOTR movies... the dragon is probably one of the most skillfully animated CGI creatures ever to be put on film. ---

But..effects don't make a movie. Yeah, LOTR does top it in a lot of ways, but it's kind of silly to compare them.

The LOTR books have had quite some time to season, and the films had a single direction, were filmed all at once, had a set ending they could work towards from film 1...stable casts, dedicated budgets,...those are a lot of nice things that HP hasn't had. They still had to take major risks (jackson was one of those risks..the man had done virtually nothing to warrant giving him control of 300 million).. but luckily those risks payed off VERY nicely.

now, for Harry potter's failings: the beginings of all the scripts were rushed and convoluted, columbus got sickeningly wholesome, half the cast is getting too old too fast, richard harris died,  the third film was atrociously over edited and over america-fied... but even so they did make Rowlings world exactly as I had envisioned it visually and thematically... even better than I imagined... So, in my opinion, that was a success. 

Seriously, guys... take a look through all the fantasy films out there... there's only a handful of decent ones in existance, and towards the top of that list are the LOTR and HP movies together... 

and if anyone here says dragonheart or krull were good movies, I'm gonna slap ya!!.


----------



## blankslatejoe (Dec 31, 2005)

willow.. willow might be another decent one. I'd have to rewatch it though, i might just be remembering it to be better than it actually was. 

point is, the genre is in it's infancy. it was impossible to create whole fantasy worlds with reasonable budgets up until a few years ago.


wow... i went on a bit of a rant.. I just thought you guys were being a bit harsh on those films is all. They're not perfect, but then again, neither were rowlings books.


----------



## Verago (Dec 31, 2005)

socrates said:
			
		

> harry is good. teh movies are rubbish. i mean come on in teh 4th one they cut out all the quidditch world cup they made ahrry and them sit in a lower box. and before this one they never mention any feelings toward chang from harry. if they had a better budget and more time they could make a decent 5th movie. teh books are ok but the first to sucked. she just brought harry in at the 1st one in a to sad and depressed then silver linning way. the second one was just a frikin love and hate story.teh third was o my he's a killer not and he's my god father. i ahve a family. she did a ok but she didn't portray it in a manner i found interesting. more mushy than a action story.



Well put?

-Ethan


----------



## Aztecsfinest (Jan 5, 2006)

Harry Potter is an exact copy of Jill Murphy's The Worst Witch. From the castle to the much hated Potions teacher, to the extra soft headmisstress, the forest the Malfoy the friends the classes. Everything.,
but... You gotta admit, love her or hater her she took the magic school thing to a whole new level, and she did turn an generation of 'should be playing video games' children onto reading.


----------



## Ilyak1986 (Jan 5, 2006)

JK Rowling, while she has my respect for writing the books, she has my utter hatred and complete disrespect for simply being a lucky bitch to getting paid as much as she did.  She hit it big for the same reason Bush won both elections.  Appeal to the retards.  Indeed, the only people that appreciate her books are the "should be playing videogames" retards that know absolutely nothing on a good book.

First 12 pages of Harry Pothead and the Sorceror's Stoned: the guy puffs up his aunt and runs from home with the family saying "POTHEAD, GET BACK HERE!!!"

When you have that little teenager hero story going to school, and learning about growing up, I just think you should put a revolver with all 6 bullets in against your head and play Russian Roulette.  

Frankly, I wish JK Rowling would get run over by a bus.  She sets a terrible example in that people like teenage heroes--that idea is atrocious.  

Rowling ranks up there on my shitlist with Britney needs to be Speared, Christina Faguilera, Jessica dumber than Homer Simpson, Hillary smokes bad Stuff, and other such idiotic overpaid celebrities.  I just wish all of their heads would explode.


----------



## semtecks (Jan 5, 2006)

> I don't know if it has been already said and I do not care who you are. READ HARRY POTTER! I do not care what you think about the genre or the movies you have gosta read the whole series. You must. All agree that the Harry Potter novels are future classics. Even Stephen King loves em. This is fantasy at it's best and most whimsical. Truly a delight. Just imagine if these books were around when you were young.


 
Agreed. The book's a walking lesson to all writers. And don't give me any of that "Why is this book popular?" crap.  I'll agree that the series peeks at book three but the upside is it gets more adult as it goes on ... Harry Potter 6: Harry Pothead?


----------



## Gauda (Jan 5, 2006)

Aztecsfinest said:
			
		

> Harry Potter is an exact copy of Jill Murphy's The Worst Witch. From the castle to the much hated Potions teacher, to the extra soft headmisstress, the forest the Malfoy the friends the classes. Everything.,
> but... You gotta admit, love her or hater her she took the magic school thing to a whole new level, and she did turn an generation of 'should be playing video games' children onto reading.



Is that so? I never knew that!! Do you think she unconciously copied it? I can't say myself.

But I do have to say, Harry Potter is a very good series. It's a delight to read and it really is true entertainment :] I fell in love with the characters, plots, story...basically you could just say I fell in love with harry potter!


----------



## Ilyak1986 (Jan 5, 2006)

To all of those that like harry potter: WHAT ELSE HAVE YOU TRIED READING?  Robert Jordan?  Any R.A. Salvatore?  Scott McGough?  Cory Herndon?  J. Robert. King?  

I love how all of you hold Rowling in such high acclaim yet don't even read anything else...narrow-minded idiots...


----------



## casperthesheet (Jan 13, 2006)

When Harry Potter came out back in the day and everyone I knew had copies I refused to read it. I wasn't going to get on the wagon, that all changed when I seen Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Everyone was telling me to see the other movies so I could understand what was going on but I decided to read the books instead. Books are so much better. 

I just finished The Prisoner of Azkaban (sp?) and I feel as though every book follows the same time-line. Example: At home with the Dursley - Diagon Alley - Trip to Hogwarts - personal/social conflicts - insert mystery here - Quiddich - more mystery/run in with facility - more Quiddich - final part of mystery - Dumbledor steps in  - back to Dursley.

What makes it a great series is that even though I see that pattern when reading she still makes it interesting. I'm always wondering not WHAT is going to happen next but HOW it's going to happen.


----------



## Sj.snugglebug (Jan 13, 2006)

Yeah. That's the right spelling.
The funny thing is....that happened to me too. Everyone was reading it and I decided, because of that, I wouldn't read it.
In year seven, my sister grabbed all the books that were out, dropped them onto my lap, and basically said: "Read them."
LOVE THEM! (Thought I DO hate Harry with a passion.)


----------



## Raging_Hopeful (Jan 13, 2006)

I've read the series at least 13 times all the way through. It's just a fun read and somehow I can get into them everytime. My favorite characters are the weasley twins. They are hysterical!!! I love these books and as Aztec pointed out, she did turn millions of children onto reading. I love how they have become more adult and developed as the story progresses. It shows a lot of depth in the characters and I can't WAIT for book seven!! (Although I am slightly fearful as well...)

As for the evil characters. I think JK does a great job portraying them and you're right, Malfoy is never as evil as he could be, but I think that's the point. He's a slimy bastard but he's still just a kid as we clearly see in book six. He is trying to live up to a reputation and has been raised that way... but it will be interesting to see where he goes from here. As for Snape... !!!!!! he is a brilliant character!! I love to hate him but there is pity for him as well. I think that's why these books are so popular. Everyone can relate to a character in the book. She's got them all.

And as for people who criticize her series.... do you have a best selling series that is sold in more than 42 languages and loved by millions of people (adult and children) worldwide? No, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting your time here. 

Harry Potter books kick ass! The first three movies were alright as far as films from books go, but the fourth one is dreadful. *shakes fist*


----------



## Aztecsfinest (Jan 14, 2006)

Well said '_Raging Hopeful_'. But... As a european, very close to England (Ireland!) I know something you all may not know about what might happen to Harry in book seven, but if I told you, you'd despise me...
And I hate it when people hate me... (laugh!)


----------



## Stiltspear (Jan 16, 2006)

I think the Harry Potter books are somewhat over-rated. They certainly don't stand out to me as great writing, but then again what they lack in literary skill they make up for in sheer fun. To me they're just incredibly fun books to read, and that's it. By now I'm also starting to get a bit tired of them, since they are quite formulaic, as has already been pointed out. I haven't read the newest one yet, although when I do finally pick it up I'm sure I'll be hooked until it ends. 
The endearing characters and fantastical environments make-up for the generic storyline. I do think it's great that they have turned so many kids onto reading though... I think what just annoys me about the whole thing can be pinpointed to a particular event on the bus home, where some snotty 14 year old girl was saying how crap Lord of the Rings was compared to Harry Potter and how boring it was. I got into a war of words with her over it, heh. It frustrates me that a lot of kids like that are going for what's easy and fun, no LOTR isn't particularly easy to read but it's much more rewarding. It's a wonderous piece of literature that I rate along with work by Dostoevsky and Kafka, etc. Not easy, not always fun, but deeper, more intellectual, and more rewarding. 
Obviously this is all highly opinionated and I don't think that just because something is branded as a classic or if it's the latest fad like dear old Harry, that it's respectively good or bad - a trap it's easy to fall into - but from my personal reading taste I find Harry Potter to be a fun, whimsical, and exciting adventure, and nothing more.


----------



## mdemanatee (Jan 19, 2006)

I've always loved the Harry Potter books. The story like is great and fun. It's inspired many people to read. They are just a lot of fun and I definatly think it will be it will be kind of sad to finish the final book.


----------



## Mystman13 (Feb 14, 2006)

*Half Blood Prince Is UNBELIEVABLY INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

Yup, that sez it all! I cried all day after I read the ending. I`m also a little confused and excited for the final installment. I can`t believe Harry`s journey is almost at an end! J.K., please write about his years beyond Hogwarts! Yuo can`t say Harry P. is just fun. I think it`s the first series that stretches across the world, to all ages, and brings excitement and adventure into every bookshelf. Gotta love it.


----------



## Stiltspear (Feb 16, 2006)

I do think it's great that the series has gotten so many children into reading, but the truth is that it's not great literature: the writing isn't anything special and the plot tends towards the formulaic. Nevertheless I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, and I certainly don't hate it or anything - I like it very much - but I just get annoyed sometimes by how over-rated it is. 

Try reading Lord of the Rings, or something by Dostoyevsky, Mervyn Peake or George Orwell. No, not all of their books are 'fun' and sometimes you need to persevere, but they're a lot deeper and ultimately more fufilling if you can wean yourself off the Harry Potter fun ride.
That's what it is really, it's like a rollercoaster ride; easy, you can just sail along with it, and it's loads of fun. But I think it's sad that it's become a benchmark for a lot of kids, and that many whom I've talked to are so focused on this idea of a book owing you something; that it has to be 'fun' or they stop reading it. 
That's what I don't like about the whole Harry Potter phenomenon.


----------



## Fyrethrid (Feb 16, 2006)

Wow, kids want and enjoy books that are fun for them? Shocking.


----------

