Major Chip Hazzard Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 I have just picked up my son's copy of the last Harry Potter book, and started to read. Got to the second chapter and put it down again. I have a lot of respect for JK and what she has done to get the young to read books, but at least write something properly. It's a good story but poorly written and kids will come to think this how good books should be penned. Have other people come to the same conclusion? Do you think it is well written or not? Or is it just me coming from a older generation when English had to properly written?
Albert Tatlock Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 Or is it just me coming from a older generation when English had to properly written? Cough!
Slim Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 I have just picked up my son's copy of the last Harry Potter book, and started to read. Got to the second chapter and put it down again. I have a lot of respect for JK and what she has done to get the young to read books, but at least write something properly. It's a good story but poorly written and kids will come to think this how good books should be penned. Have other people come to the same conclusion? Do you think it is well written or not? Or is it just me coming from a older generation when English had to properly written? That's quite something, your grammar and punctuation is awful, this really is the pot calling the kettle black! I think JK's writing is fine, she just needs editing. It's common of many artists once they get successful that their editors have less control over there work. The last few Potters could have had a good chunk edited out and you'd have had a better book.
Mission Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 Heh - you might want to do a bit of editing yourself Slim.
Major Chip Hazzard Posted July 25, 2007 Author Posted July 25, 2007 That's quite something, your grammar and punctuation is awful, this really is the pot calling the kettle black! Hehehe Evening Slim It was done totally on purpose, but you are correct about the editing. I don't think the publisher was brave enough to edit the might JK's work. The first two books were okay; I had to 'read' them at bedtime to my kids, and quite enjoyed doing so. However, as the books got longer, they became a real bind to read, and fortunately for me, my kids were at an age, where they could enjoy reading them for themselves. The question is: is JK going to retire, move on to something different, or come up with a lame excuse to do more Harry Potter, just to make even more money? Only time will tell....
Slim Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 Heh - you might want to do a bit of editing yourself Slim. Oh, I know I typo and make mistakes all over the shop, but I'm not bleating about one of the most successful authors of all time's writing abilities!
Bobbie Bobster Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 But being successful does not equal having good writing ability. I offer Dan Brown as cast-iron proof.
Slim Posted July 25, 2007 Posted July 25, 2007 But being successful does not equal having good writing ability. I offer Dan Brown as cast-iron proof. Agree with that, what a bag of shite that is.
Major Chip Hazzard Posted July 25, 2007 Author Posted July 25, 2007 But being successful does not equal having good writing ability. I offer Dan Brown as cast-iron proof. ... and the film was even worse too !!
Miss Take Posted August 6, 2007 Posted August 6, 2007 I've just finished number seven, having read them all in a row. Considering that they are written for kids, it's admirable that she managed to put enough in there to keep so many adults interested without having to resort to the 'you'll understand it when you're older, kid' type humour that appears in childrens' films these days. Yes, a few of the books were a bit bloated, but she's earned herself the right to it. Most first novels won't even be read by publishers unless they are no more than around 80,000 words, which is an incredibly short read and a length that would not remotely satisfy the millions of readers eagerly anticipating each new instalment. The world of Harry Potter is one that's supposed to fit in around the existing 'muggle' world, so it's no wonder that the people in it have similar interests to those in the dominant culture of today - it was never supposed to be a pure 'secondary world' and to criticise it for not being so seems to be missing the point a bit. I stopped reading pratchett when I started to get the feeling with each new book that I'd read it before. At least with the Potter series now ended, these books will stand alone and shouldn't be added to (please let's not have the next generation of Potters with their own set of seven books - there's just no need).
VinnieK Posted August 6, 2007 Posted August 6, 2007 A lot of the criticism of Rowling is overblown, but then so is a large part of the hype surrounding her books. My gripe with the Harry Potter series is that it's like a tale from the thirties: Some orphan goes to public school in an attempt to escape beastly suburbia and, despite some problems and coming from a lower middle class background, makes friends with some dweebs and triumphs in the face of adversity to become the biggest rah of them all (only in the Potter universe this equates to being the bestest person in the whole world). Essentially, the series is based on a strong contempt for the lower and middle classes, who are characterised as mediocre and resentful with little prospect for self improvement. People born to the lower orders, who in this instance labour under the name of muggles, are close to being a distinct (and lesser) species from the inherently gifted inhabitants of Harrowarts. Notice that despite being raised by muggles, Harry's success is ultimately a consequence of his birthright: he was born to his eventual status and could no more relinquish it than those of a lesser pedigree can, in Rowling's stories, hope to better themselves or achieve any significance beyond the mundane. The only exception to this depressing story comes in the form of "squibs" - analogous to toffers who don't live up to the expectations of their background and who are in a sense the lowest of the low, whose existence is barely even acknowledged, thus in the Harry Potter universe the only form of social mobility is negative (and in one example comes from direct interaction with brutish members of the underclass). Rowling's an alright author, but Harry Potter is an awful, miserable story full of antiquated notions (whether consciously included in the narrative or not) about class and opportunity (or in the latter case, the lack of). I hope there's going to be one more book where harry goes to university, decides he's a communist for three weeks, graduates with a third in classics and a boating trophy and becomes a civil servant, only to perish when a buzz bomb comes through his roof during the blitz. NB: Totally agree with the view on Terry Pratchett, by the way. One alright idea stretched over a million books.
Albert Tatlock Posted August 6, 2007 Posted August 6, 2007 Rowling's an alright author, but Harry Potter is an awful, miserable story full of antiquated notions (whether consciously included in the narrative or not) about class and opportunity (or in the latter case, the lack of). £545 million is an awful lot of money too. I don't like her for 'nicking' battlechess - I was playing that on the Amiga in 1986.
ai_Droid Posted August 7, 2007 Posted August 7, 2007 If you want to read harry potter, but are (understandably) too embarrased, you can use these Alternative book covers Warning, these are well offensive.
VinnieK Posted August 7, 2007 Posted August 7, 2007 I've never wanted to read anything more than I want to read "McDead" right now.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.