I suppose it's all relative. When I was eleven, I was reading Stephen Donaldson and Tolkien. Some kids read a hell of a lot from higher age groups. I started reading Stephen King when I was thirteen, and my brother Will is the same. I don't think we're the only ones.

Part of the problem I have with JK is her arrogance. He hard luck stories are grating, and her pop at 'fantasy' is just vile. So, not only has she ripped a lot of authors off (Dementors i.e Ringwraiths ect), she's now going to trash their work as well?

And the films are terrible. I've seen less ham on a pig farm.

Oh well, whatever floats your (somewhat leaky) boat.

JB

What, JB, you are unmoved by poor rich but orphaned Harry living in a cupboard and all those poor-as-church-mice but happy Weasleys? Shame on you...


<Added>

Did anyone read Guardian article about Conference for Potter freaks? If that doesn't make her feel embarassed, nothing will.

Dumbledore dies? Oh noooooo.....

Ah well, just saved meself eight quid.

I reckon Harry dies in the last one. Either that or he time-travels back into his baby-self, otherwise it wouldn't necessarily be the end to it all. I don't really care to be honest, but as no one seems to be particularly shocked by anything so far, it's going to be a hell of an achievement for JK to come up with the twist of the century.

Maybe he gets a cyanide flavour jelly bean. That would be an abrupt ending.


Colin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:Many people have noticed similarities between Timothy Hunter — a bespectacled English teenager with family troubles who has a magical owl as a pet — and the later and more famous Harry Potter.

I was moved in the FIRST INSTANCE VM. Years ago...

JB

Hi guys,

I've not read past the first six or even postings on this thread, but I think I get the gist. I've just one question: Is Harry Potter something read by people who don't usually read?

Nik.

PS

I know I sound terribly arrogant, but it just seems so unchallenging and safe that people who read and are used to reading good, great, even just average books, know it's flimsy and crap. It seems that the majority of people who read HP don't want a better option. They want it to be thin, self-contained and safe. No questions. Nothing to think about after you've turned the final page (or the first)just nothing. It's like Neighbours for books.

Oh for goodness sake!!!!!!

No it bloody well isn't! It isn't a sign of low intelligence, inability to read a 'proper' book or any other completely OTT theories!
They're just FUN. Flippin' heck!

...similarly, I don't think the fact that I watch Eastenders makes me less intelligent - I enjoy a bit of light entertainment / brain-drain in front of the telly, just not in the pages of a book. But no, my HP-loving friends don't stick to light reads by any means. I could tell you how much I love Eastenders and you could point out how shoddy the scripts are, how one-dimensional the characters and how flimsy the plots, but I wouldn't care one jot. It does something for me. What I would care about is if everyone had their heads shoved up the arses of the makers of Eastenders and we had to listen to them drone on about how they'd reinvented the genre.

Myrtle

Like Rowling, you mean?

I wouldn't take reading Harry Potter as a sign of low intelligence Nik. That's a little unfair. I would say it was more a marked sign of lousy taste.

JB

This raises an interesting theory – and I'm putting on my hard hat, digging my trench here, ready for the flak – but broadly speaking there would seem to be two basic approaches to reading/TV/film and probably everything. Some people like to alternate between serious stuff and stuff they can switch off to. They tend to be like this with work/play, too: put a lot of mental effort into their job, say, then go out in the evening and 'switch off' with gossip, chat, whatever. Then there are those who don't really ever switch off. They tend to approach everything with the same level of interest and application. Possibly – and I'm conjecturing wildly here – they aren't always so successful in their careers, because they don't throw all their energies into it; they run more evenly. This kind of person, in other words, doesn't need to switch off. Therefore, they wouldn't watch soaps or read HP, because they don't need a mindless escape. They might watch a sci-fi film, say, to relax, but even then their minds will be working with it, running with the concepts and thinking of their own ideas.

I believe the switch on/switch off approach is the majority one, which is why our society is structured around it. Even the whole holiday idea works on the basis that most people bust a gut at their jobs throughout the year, then lay on a beach for two weeks, thinking about nothing and reading, well, I better not fill in that particular blank.

I apologize,

I didn't mean to suggest that people who read HP have low intelligence. What I meant to say was it's a book for people who don't want anything too taxing. Yes, it's like Neighbours, yes it's like EastEnders, and there's nothing wrong with that.

It's just that the few people I know who read HP (and I know that's not a fair cross-section of the UK) are people who only read HP. They won't read anything different inbetween, in fact they re-read the old ones. That's what I meant when I said they don't seem to want a better option.

As I said, I apologize if I've offended anybody, I really didn't mean to. That's just my experience of the HP phenomenon.

Nik.

Interesting theory, but we're not machines Terry!!! When one considers the whole gamut of humankinds culture, with all the possibilities to choose from, all the mighty works of imagination to be inspired by, then in that context, Harry Potter is basically newspaper for a cat litter tray.

The simple fact is, some people are more susceptible to hype than the rest of us.

JB



<Added>

I make no apology for my opinion. These books are badly written, badly edited, plagiarist, over hyped guff, and if you, as a 'writer' support it, you should bloody well be ashamed of yourselves!!!

Yeah, I think you're right JB about the hype thing. I personally don't see how someone could be at full pelt all of the time. Fair play to them if they can though!

I'll say it again:

I make no apology for my opinion. These books are badly written, badly edited, plagiarist, over hyped guff, and if you, as a 'writer' support it, you should bloody well be ashamed of yourselves!!!

JB, to soften the edges of my theory a little – some people willingly and knowingly read crap, as a kind of escape from the pressures of life, as they perceive it. And some people don't. And I think hype tends to work best on the first type, in that a lot of people who go for it kind of know they are, yet they're enslaved by it anyway. Which is a bit like being in thrall to the bust-a-gut/switch off thing I was talking about.

Terry

JB and Terry and Nik,

Out of interest, what do you 'switch off' to, if at all?

M.