# Harry Potter?



## TrackerOrc (May 19, 2020)

So I've never been able to get into the Potter books at all, but recently listened to the first one as an audiobook read by Stephen Fry, andI must say I rather enjoyed it.

Is the series worth investing any time or money in?


----------



## Erestor Arcamen (May 19, 2020)

I've always really enjoyed them and have read the series 3-4 times. It's probably all personal taste but I like them a lot. I like the stories, the character building and the coming of age of the characters as they mature throughout the books.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 19, 2020)

I read several as they came out. Got bogged down in the long trial, IIRC, can't recall the volume. Haven't gotten to the last two or three.


----------



## Firawyn (May 19, 2020)

Well. I'm probably one of the biggest Harry Potter nerds on the planet, so good question to ask me. Much like Tolkien, the Potterverse left SO MUCH left unexplored that it's packed full of questions left to be answered and explored. I adore that. There's cultures to explore, languages to dig into, economics and social structures to learn and try to understand, and given it's working on the framework of a before and after a major war which shapes the society (a civil war) the questions to explore really happen more in the "how did this war impact Wizarding society, and why did the war need to happen?

Honestly, more of the debate, the questions, and the intrigue, is in the post books environment. It's in the fanfiction community. Which is _huge_. 

We have our "do balrogs have wings" questions. Potter fans have "Can a werewolf be an animagus?" There is a ton of intellectual debate. 

There is also a fair bit of harshness toward JK Rowling, which is a turn from Tolkien fans, considering we tend to do nothing but respect him. Potter fans, myself included, have a hard time respecting JKR because a) she can't keep her own facts straight within the books already written, b) in the cannon she continues to build, she keep contradicting herself even further. As a fan, it's infuriating. An example of this would be that the birth date of Minerva McGonagall (Deputy Head of Hogwarts, Transfiguration Professor) was originally listed as 1925. She then revised it a few years later to 1935, and then with the release of the Fantastic Beasts films, she is featured to be teaching alongside Albus Dumbledore in 1927, pushing her date of birth at least as far back as 1900, give or take, in order for other issues in her personal history to have been resolved before she supposedly returns to Hogwarts post graduation to teach. When there is a thirty-five year gap of "she was born somewhere in there", it leaves fans with a lot to debate over, and that is just one example of many.

That is the joy of Harry Potter. There are rich characters, a solid story, and some truly great world building which while not developed by JKR as well as it could be, the fanfiction community is doing a great job finishing the job for her with the avid discussion, debate, and writing. You read the books, then you sink your teeth into the fanfic. Honestly, there's more good writing in the fanfic community than there is in the books, especially if you're keen on exploring the "what if", and not all of it is "shippy" (romance driven). A bunch of it is, not even going to lie. 😆 That said, it's well written! You just have to have the framework of having read the books to understand the fanfiction.

Also, let's be real... The last three books were the best of the series, as they were more geared for adults and not meant for children. Less cutsie. Once you get past the hump of Goblet of Fire, everything changes. The war begins, and things take a darker turn. At that point it stops being about little kid problems and whining, and and the big picture comes into play. That's when the story really gets good. I think you quit at exactly the wrong time, my friend. 😏


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 19, 2020)

I do keep meaning to get back to it, so you may have rekindled interest.


----------



## Firawyn (May 19, 2020)

Squint-eyed Southerner said:


> I do keep meaning to get back to it, so you may have rekindled interest.



I'm awesome like that. 😏


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 22, 2020)

Well I've just bought them all on kindle.
From all your replies it seems that the series gets better the deeper you get into them, which is always a good sign.


----------



## Alice (May 23, 2020)

Well, I have read the series in my childhood for several times and reread it at age of 18-19 years old (three first volumes though).
And I need to say that HP is that kind of book which you better read, when you are a child. When rereading it I have found some interesting things which I didn't get, when I was younger, though it doesn't change the fact that it is much better for kids then for adults (though many adults enjoy them)


----------



## Ealdwyn (May 24, 2020)

My son was at the perfect age for HP, so I got into them by reading them to him as each one was published. They get better with each volume imho (with the exception of half of the last book, which is endless camping). I enjoyed them immensely at the time, but I haven't had the urge to re-read them since.


----------



## Squint-eyed Southerner (May 25, 2020)

Somewhat OT, but I guess related, as they push HP down the to-do list, are other series I find absorbing, such as Peter F. Hamilton's SF Commonwealth Saga, several of which I've reread, though lately he seems to have expanded into bloat. At least he's still alive to write, unlike Robert Jordan, who should have stuck to his original plan for eight books. I wonder if his last word was "Oops".

I also reread a number of Feist's Midkemia books, but was left with a bit of a sour taste when he apparently got sick of them, and pulled a Got season 8. 

I haven't gotten into fanfic with any of these, though I imagine there's plenty -- especially Midkemia, given its origins.


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 25, 2020)

Just finished the first HP. I really enjoyed it. Obviously there was a lot to set up in a first book, but it was done really well. I think the closing chapters boded well for the future - the introduction of He who shall not be named was very good especially.
I haven't seen any of the films, but obviously I've seen enough news and trailers etc to have an idea of the actors involved - which is a complete reversal of my reading Tolkien before the films came out, so that's quite unusual.


----------



## Ealdwyn (May 26, 2020)

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I did 😁 



TrackerOrc said:


> I haven't seen any of the films



I always think that's best. There are few book adaptations imho that are as good as the source material. 
(In fact I'm struggling to think of even one)


----------



## Sir Eowyn (May 26, 2020)

Little while ago I picked up all my old childhood favourites... C. S. Lewis, Lewis Carroll, Roald Dahl, etc. Wanted to see how they held up. And most of them held up beautifully.

Then Rowling... oh, man. I was actually shocked how badly written the Potter books are. Just uninspired, leaden prose. I used to love them as much as anyone... now, not at all. I got rid of them.

They also may have entirely warped the worldview of a generation (my own generation), wherein anyone who disagrees with you about anything is a Death Eater. I've seen it in practice --- pretty ugly. But ah, I breathe free air again.

Ealdwyn, what came to mind at once was the David Lean version of Oliver Twist, late '40s. But then again, MOST films have been made from source material, and unless that book is by Dickens or Tolkien, oftentimes the movie, if it's any good, blows it right out of the water. I don't feel for a second film is any way inferior as an art form... trouble is, when the book is already a masterpiece, there's often little left to adapt. If the book is somewhat lesser, though, that's when cinema takes over.


----------



## Ealdwyn (May 26, 2020)

The thing about Dickens is the novels can be far, far too longwinded in places (can't you just tell he was paid by the word?). A good Dickens adaptation can cut through the filler - and there have been some good adaptations.
A lot of the time I find that movie adaptations are not actually adaptations of the story at all, but rather the movies have taken a central premise from the book and then built a different story around that. Examples: Bladerunner, Children of Men, Apocalypse Now, The Shining.
I don't doubt that there are exceptions, but I'm struggling to think of any off the top of my head.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (May 26, 2020)

Dickens may have been paid by the word, but reading "Great Expectations," you never would know it. Funny enough,t he celebrated Lean adaptation of that I felt fell short of it, except for certain scenes like Miss Havisham. 

Back to Potter... the movies do indeed feature some of the best actors around, and gave a bigger audience to those like David Thewlis, Timothy Spall, Jason Isaacs. Do feel, though, that the story's essentially coreless. Now with Tolkien, even when they take liberties, usually that core still beats beneath it.


----------



## Ealdwyn (May 26, 2020)

Sir Eowyn said:


> Back to Potter... the movies do indeed feature some of the best actors around, and gave a bigger audience to those like David Thewlis, Timothy Spall, Jason Isaacs. Do feel, though, that the story's essentially coreless. Now with Tolkien, even when they take liberties, usually that core still beats beneath it.


The amount of world-building that went into Tolkien's works make it an unfair comparison in terms of depth. 😁
The thing about HP is that the core plot relies on established fantasy tropes and just places it in a boarding school setting. It's not doing anything partciularly original that hasn't been done a thousand times before and with more substance. As a kids book that doesn't matter so much but, reading it as an adult with exposure to more complex work, HP just doesn't stand up.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (May 26, 2020)

Yes, I didn't mean to compare it to Tolkien in that sense. Unfair, I agree.

But Roald Dahl, Lewis Carroll, etc. have endless depth, and it's there in every line they write. I don't much care if something's intended for children or not --- writing is writing. So happy that these others stand up.


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 26, 2020)

Sir Eowyn said:


> Little while ago I picked up all my old childhood favourites... C. S. Lewis, Lewis Carroll, Roald Dahl, etc. Wanted to see how they held up. And most of them held up beautifully.
> 
> Then Rowling... oh, man. I was actually shocked how badly written the Potter books are. Just uninspired, leaden prose. I used to love them as much as anyone... now, not at all. I got rid of them.
> 
> ...


I think because I've had so much indirect exposure to the books (and films) I've actually gone in with no great expectations (is that a pun?) and I'm enjoying them a lot so far. I haven't been expecting anything like great literature, or an immersive world view like Tolkien or Donaldson et al so I've been happily surprised at hwo well I've taken to them.


----------



## Sir Eowyn (May 26, 2020)

TrackerOrc said:


> I think because I've had so much indirect exposure to the books (and films) I've actually gone in with no great expectations (is that a pun?) and I'm enjoying them a lot so far. I haven't been expecting anything like great literature, or an immersive world view like Tolkien or Donaldson et al so I've been happily surprised at hwo well I've taken to them.



Are you referring to Dickens, or Potter? If the latter, yeah, great literature it ain't. Visually, though, a couple of the later films are alright. And of course, great character actors.


----------



## TrackerOrc (May 27, 2020)

Sir Eowyn said:


> Are you referring to Dickens, or Potter? If the latter, yeah, great literature it ain't. Visually, though, a couple of the later films are alright. And of course, great character actors.


Oops, Potter I meant.
I’ve read Dickens but can’t say I’m a huge fan.


----------



## Aldarion (May 28, 2020)

I used to like the books, once. Now, I still enjoy them, but don't think them particularly interesting - brainless entertainment at the same level as Paolini's _Inheritance Cycle_ (though latter is arguably _even worse_). That is to say, I read them when I don't feel like using my brain and also don't feel just staring off into distance. Naturally, I haven't read them for some years, as nowadays I go out for walk or draw something rather than waste my time.


----------



## The Golden Flower (Apr 28, 2021)

Aldarion said:


> I used to like the books, once. Now, I still enjoy them, but don't think them particularly interesting - brainless entertainment at the same level as Paolini's _Inheritance Cycle_ (though latter is arguably _even worse_). That is to say, I read them when I don't feel like using my brain and also don't feel just staring off into distance. Naturally, I haven't read them for some years, as nowadays I go out for walk or draw something rather than waste my time.


I don't think it is fair to call Potter bad. Is it a work of great literature, probably not, but it certainty is not bad. As for _Inheritance Cycle,_ I can agree that it was poorly written, but Paolini was quite young at the time. Harry Potter is geared towards kids, but the themes are timeless and the magical wizarding world captivates the imagination. I personally think that Potter is well written, at least for the age group it is meant for, and is, in my eyes, a classic.


----------

