I know, I know, I'm not entirely serious! It's just my opinion. If someone gets pleasure from it, who am I to dissuade them? The world needs its literary chavs as well, you know.

Ok, I'm just deliberately being inflammatory. Just before anyone actually explodes. Like what you like. You have my permission. Just please stop going on about how 'good' and 'fun' it is. People who've never had champagne, will swear by Lambrini, but that's just taste for you.

I never 'switch off' and I resent the insinuation that I am somehow comparable to some automated device.

Terry, I know what you mean. I just think there's better ways (for me) to switch off. I would rather switch off and lose myself in a good book. I tried HP and didn't like it. I don't understand why someone would switch off by reading something they know is crap when there are better things to read, but that's just me and if it works for them then great.

Myrtle,

This is why I was putting on my hard hat. I don't think I do switch off, and don't feel the need to. It's why I'm no good at parties, dinner parties, social gatherings – unless it's with people who share common interests. I can do a few minutes of the How are you, What do you do, How's your father? stuff but then I get frustrated that it doesn't go any further – just endless talk about holidays, kids, jobs, etc, which makes me want to run away. Which I do sometimes. I suppose I do switch off when watching football – there is absolutely no mental nutritional value in sport at all. But not with reading/TV/film. Maybe for me 'Buffy'/'Angel' is pretty close to switch-off stuff, but even then I get inspired by the great characters and sharp dialogue. What I was trying to say, with my ham-fisted theory, is that some people – well, me in this case – perhaps run more evenly with what they do and think. For example, I tend to work for the vast majority of the day and weekend hours, but it doesn't feel like work to me because it's what I enjoy doing, and am almost always enthusiastic about.

Terry

Amen Terry! A person can switch-off by keeping their mind active, can't they? I'm with you on the football watching as well.

Myrtle, i also relax by walking to the pub. And drinking.

I'm like that horrible girl from The Ring.

I never sleep...

Lol!

JB

I would classify watching football or Buffy in the same league as Eastenders, but I suppose that's because I can't stand either (of the former), so I don't see them as not switching off, in the sense that presumably your mind is working harder when you're looking at a hefty manuscript than when you're watching a ball kicked into a net. If Eastenders finished tomorrow I would just shrug and not need a helpline, but I watch it because I can't go to the pub whenever I like (unless I take my baby...) and I feel the need to separate myself from writing/work/parenting for an hour or so a day. So I guess I'm in the other category, except that I am also rubbish at small talk - it's one of the reasons I rarely go to the hairdresser.
M.

I don't think my mind's working when I'm watching football. My emotions are getting churned up around a pretty stupid premise – that when I was 8 years old I decided I was going to support Chelsea, because blue was my favourite colour and they were the first team I saw that played in that colour. My dad took me to West Ham several times, because they were nearest to us and he thought they were a 'proper' football team, but as soon as I was old enough, I was off to Stamford Bridge. Buffy is different, in that I get/steal lots of idea/approaches for my own writing. And I do enjoy working on other people's manuscripts – because then I'm helping someone realease their own creativity. But, football, well, no excuses. Call me old fashioned, but I find it hard to respect a woman who likes football (because it's so stupid), unless she's a player.

You're all mad.

What is relaxing for one person is a subject for analysis for another. That's why some people can read Harry Potter on the beach, and others will read and re-read and discuss and argue. That's why Harry Potter and Eastenders Quiz books exist.

What you find mundane and uninteresting and shallow, others will find fascinating, exciting and philosophical.

But there's no exuse for sloppy editing and bad writing - so I reckon HP's shite!

Colin M
(what? you thought I was sitting on the fence? Pah!)

Snigger.

You've given yourself away as a secret "Beano" reader there.



<Added>

Still, that's one up from Potter - ba-bum!!!

I'm rather late to the party, but here's my 2C: I read the first 2 HP books and thought they were adequate children's books but in no way did they catch or hold my interest. I don't like shallow stuff - not at all. If I DO read or watch it, it's only to be contstantly critisizing it. My daughter watches BB and sometimes I join her for a few minutes only to nag at her for watching such crap, and explainingto her why it's crap and disgusting.
I don't watch only deep documentaries, however; some reality shows are a bit more than entertaining. I have to admit to liking Wife Swap, and Little Angels; that's because in them you see how people actually learn and grow; there's some intelligence behind what is going on.
I will knowlingly read a crappy, empty book like P S I love you just to be informed about more crap publishers are hyping as The Next Big Thing and to be able to talk about it (I'm a bit of a curmudgeon, I believe!)
I do have a need to "renew the batteries" which is not the same as switching off. I walk on the beach with my dog; just one look at the sea is for me so refreshing, so mind-expanding, just five minutes of it is enough. I don't do anything for fun, in fact; I don't like the concept of fun at all. I guess most people would call me boring. I actually think that fun has nothing to do with happiness; happiness has more depth to it. I'm a bit like Terry - can't stand parties and small talk and wasting time with the shallow stuff. I feel awkward in such situations and escape thewm whenever I can. Once I was supposed to join a group of screenwriters at a SOho night club - the only time I'd ever been in such a place! I went with a fellow writer and I stayed exactly 10 minutes. I just couldn't stand it - the chatter, the loud music, the smoke. I fled!
I have a great yearning to do something like gardening in my spare time - but I have none! I have a neighbour who does nothing but gardening and I envy her so much.... as well. Once my novels are international bestsellers raking in the millions I'll retire to a cottage by the sea and garden and watch the waves all day long...

Aruna, I don't think it's boring to be who you are.

I like both pursuits. I can be a bit of a socialite, and when I'm out and having a laugh with people I really care about, I don't think that's shallow. It's an adventure. It's human interaction when people are relaxed enough to forget themselves, and I take inspiration from that. But I also love long walks by the sea, and in the Downs, and every so often have to get away from it all and do just that.

JB

I gotta say, that while I'm not going to insult anyone's intelligence, and I'm not sayin that the Potter boy is perfect, but there is so much jealousy bandied around with this kind of thing.

If it was some kind of cultish writing like Gaiman, or real, proper fantasy (like orginal and imginative, with reeeeeeeams of changing plots, invading fleets, secret missions, magical apprentices, amazing settings and stories that yer average 12 year old can't make head nor tail of) as in Magician by Raymond E. Feist, then it wouldn't have sold ten squillion copies.

There is a reason for its success, and while it may not be all because of the quality of Joanne Rowling's writing, she has acheived something which very few writers do, and that is to connect with the reader on a very basic and fudamental level, and freshen up steroetypes for a new generation. Kids LOVE her books, THAT'S who she writes them for, so that is where she mashes up Gaiman, who is obviously a better writer from the point of view from an adult male, but probably not for an eleven year old girl.

I'm not surprised she slates the fantasy genre, it's dominated by beardy Yank blokes in white socks ands sandals who think The Lord of The Rings is actually the Offical History of Medieval England or something, and I wouldn't mind betting she gets snotty responses from all of them, most of the time, and just laughs and thinks, fuck em and their stupid genre. I wouldn't mind betting there's a fair bit of snidey sexism involved.

While we sift through reams of mass debates on why it is crap and we should be earning untold buckets of cash coz our writing/characters/stories/ideas are sooooooooooooo much better than hers, we should try and see what she has acheived, and, I know this is just a crazy idea, actually commend the woman for doing what so many, including Gaiman, Feist and the rest, failed to do, coz maybe they were a little too clever, or a little too original, to connect with the masses, who let's face it, love a pulpy, easy to follow story with great chracters.

That's all she's done, so no point in getting bitter about it.

I for one admire what Rowling has done, and particularly the way she handles herself, and puts up with the legions of doubters pushed on by their insatiable envy.

Kids NEED stuff like this, and while I really feel for you all, and Gaiman and co, I don't think blaming Rowling is the best solution.

I've read all the Potter books, and think they get better and better. While using common archetypal characters, and borrowing a few ideas, she brings the world of Hogwarts, and all that comes with it, to life with enthusiasm, simplicity and something than many books (like that PILE OF SHIT the DA VINCI CODE) fail miserably at; a magical feeling. See I've seen Dan Brown get his arse licked on this site, when his writing reads to me like a demented chimp on acid has come up with it. His characters are laughable, at least J K puts a bit of love and care into hers.

She brightens up the day for her millions of fans, and I've read most of Terry Pratchett's Discworld stuff, and he does the same. Yeah, he's better, more original, but when you get to their league, who sold the most is just splitting hairs.

They are both fine examples of British writers taking the world by storm and re-inventing tired old genres. Rowling has done something that was waiting to happen. While you can accuse her of plagerism (though you'd be wrong to, why not level that accusation at Pratchett, as he has used many steroetypes from fantasy novels in his work, including when he wrote that Omens one with Gaimen, in the same way. I mean a normal child who discovers he's the anti-christ? A disillusioned "not that bad really" devil called Crowley who drives around in a sports car etc) you can also commend her for making her characters come alive and mean so much to so many kids across the world, brightening their lives, maybe teaching them things they miss out on in their real lives, helping them to realise what friendship is about - all these cheesy things, that's what she is achieving while you all sit there and slag her off.

And The Order of the Pheonix was the best so far, didn't think it needed editing. Funny how the people who hate it are the ones who have read it in so much detail they are actually editing it as they go. Or maybe they haven't really read it.

I mean, I'm not sayin she's that great or anything, but despite everything else, she's British, and she's shown you can write a fantasy book for the masses if you aren't said Yank white socked, sandaled and bearded Professor. All I'm saying is wouldn't it be more productive to take all that frustration and write something that rivals her on the book shelves, then, if you despise it all so much, you can take out Potter and feel good about it at the same time!

The thing is, I believe, and I'm sure JK does too, you can re-invent a genre, you don't have to be hyper original, so long as your characters are lovable and interesting, and you write with love, again, and enthusiasm.

Just coz you didn't get there first, don't be bitter, we're all on the same side

I've been thinking about this, and to be fair, most writers are influenced by other works. Gaiman himself uses a whole wealth of ideas and characters from other books, ranging from Stephen Donaldson to Stephen King, so it is acceptable, as long as you're doing something new. My own writing is influenced by ancient myths, biblical lore and fantasy I've read, so I can't really knock that.

I just don't think Rowling's writing is of a very high standard, and it bores me. I read it because I am a published writer and I like to stay abreast of current events. Harry Potter is a publishing phenomenom and it is worth knowing, at least roughly, what it's all about.

The intelligence insulting is intended as a joke. If you enjoy it, who is to say you shouldn't? If you don't, who is to say that you should? Kids love it, on the whole, and I do agree that if a book drags them away from their nintendos and happy slapping, and gives them a love of literature, then so much the better.

JB