20 Years of Harry Potter

[EIM]

Never read a HP book, never seen a HP film in full. Saw part of one with a massive snake, and a parrot who spat at Harry and made him better or something. And I've seen a bit with Ian Brown reading a Brief History of Time while spinning a spoon on his finger.

She's done alright out of it, Rowling, hasn't she? From her difficult to track down first novel 'Fly Fishing' to global fame, she's made a fortune and helped other people who are into wizards and trolls and all that wank.

So, errr, any thoughts on this?

[WOM]

It's marvelous and she's earned every penny. We went to the Harry Potter attraction at Universal Studios in Florida couple of years ago, and I was rattling on about how this woman has conjured both a 'world' and an industry out of thin air. The books are spectacular, first of all, and my wife has not only read them to herself but also read all 7 out loud to our kids. The movies are terrific. The theme park is bonkers. Everything should be this good, imaginative and well-constructed.

[caja-dglh]

I look forward to reading them to the kids. Haven't read any of them, because grown ups reading YA books is creepy and weird and that is FACT.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Yeah, she's A-OK.

I've never read the books, but saw several of the films. I never understood how well realised they were until I watched the grandkids get into them (books and films.) They are very cleverly written for different ages. A four to six year old can handle the early books, but the later ones would be the stuff of bad dreams, and much of the plot way over their heads. They're brilliant because JKR gets how children develop, in the series they actually get to grow up with Harry. I don't know if another writer has pulled that off so well.

[WOM]

It's also noteworthy that, as the series got more popular, the books also became significantly longer...giving the reader way more bang than they otherwise would have expected.

[EIM]

The world isn't exactly out of thin air though, is it?

[WOM]

The world isn't exactly out of thin air though, is it?

No, she certainly didn't invent the idea of wizards or magic or flying broomsticks. But she combined them in a new enough way. It's hardly derivative in a Lady GaGa sort of way.

[EIM]

Is it not just a reboot of the Worst Witch series?

[WOM]

Possibly.

[Patrick Thistle]

It's also noteworthy that, as the series got more popular, the books also became significantly longer...giving the reader way more bang than they otherwise would have expected.

Tbh they got longer because she got amazingly popular and no one dared edit her any more. The first 3 are pretty tight, well paced stories. The 4th is basically 2 books in one and gets rambly. The 5th one was when she went mahoosive and is a sprawling mess full of random sub plots that go on and on and on and on and add nothing to the story. I gave up on them after that. In fact it annoyed me so much I charity shopped it and Vol 4 in the great spring clear out of 2017.

I like her, though. Think she's done well.

[tee rex]

Is it not just a reboot of the Worst Witch series?

I don't know the body count in the Worst Witch, but I doubt it gets anywhere near Potter. Rowling is a greedy serial killer, she gives me nightmares, never mind the kids. "Kill the spare" is one of the best: no movie cliche of telling the victim how much you're going to enjoy this, just get it done.

It must be difficult for parents now: children growing up with the books over a decade was one thing, but if your primary-age child picks up the first couple and immediately wants more like that ... s/he won't get it.

[Lang Spoon]

It's good I suppose that someone so rich votes Labour rather than Tory and talking shite about dragging themselves up By the bootstraps, a hand-up not a hand-out... Her reflexive anti-Nat stance on twitter, and her Sensible disdain for Corbyn on twitter, got a bit wearing but. That and comparing every major world figure to a character from her books.

[EIM]

Yeah. "What would Gryffindor* do in this situation?" You fucking tell me, love. You made the whole shite up.

*Look don't start. I don't care.

[WOM]

I realize that, with time, the natural response to anything popular is 'ahhh...it's just crap, really'. I mean, that's what being jaded is all about. But the whole Harry Potter thing is just not crap. Sure, she's borrowed from here and there, and the bigger books could use a nip and a tuck, but overall....shit, it's brilliant. Even if she's the most prolific pilferer in publishing history, she's pulled together floo powder, talking paintings, platform 9 3/4, Diagon Alley, the Whomping Willow, flying cars and motorcycles, and an astounding cast of characters and put them in one ingenious package. And it clicked.

[imp]

Read them all with my eldest at bedtime over several years, a memory we both cherish. My youngest said half way through Book 5, however, "This is boring. Do we have to keep going? Otherwise, I'll just catch the film." That was fine by me given that I was on my second run. Eldest re-read them multiple times, and listened to the tapes/CDs of the books every day for years - it's a thing for her generation to laugh and reminisce about. (We had Joy Division and The Smiths...) She re-watches the films when she wants to slob out and indulge herself (she's now 21).

[tracteurgarcon]

Can we all agree that Quidditch is an absolutely shit sport though?

[Patrick Thistle]

I saw a quidditch pitch someone had built in a fishtank once, so it looked like the fish were playing the game. Thought that was quite clever.

The game made no sense though.

[WOM]

Totally shit sport. Golden Snitch...the fuck? Weakest spot in the series.

[Lang Spoon]

She's big into the Rugger, JK. Figures she'd make up a shit sport so.

[elguapo4]

The main difference is that Ireland reached the quiddich world cup whereas our various rugby golden generations have never got past the quarter finals

[Hot Pepsi]

Quidditch doesn't make much sense. A broomstick-based sport would be cool, but letting one player win the whole thing by catching the snitch is dumb.

But otherwise, it's not dumb. The whole HP thing is pretty great. The writing style isn't going to win any accolades in MFA workshops, but she did a great job of developing characters and telling a great yarn. I enjoyed the books after being cajoled for a long time to read them by a friend. My niece and nephew are way into it and have been to the thing in Orlando several times (they live an hour away). But mostly it seems to be people in their twenties now who really love it, because they latched onto them in their teens. That's really the best time to read something like HP. Because its a lighter read than the classics one is being assigned in English class yet it covers adolescence, which is obviously a hot topic for adolescents.

If HP isn't your thing, but you can abide magic and what not, I recommend The Magicians. I think the TV series is actually better than the books, but the books are pretty good. Sort of like Harry Potter goes to college. In America. With chronic depression and/or substance dependency.

[Jon]

"It must be difficult for parents now: children growing up with the books over a decade was one thing, but if your primary-age child picks up the first couple and immediately wants more like that ... s/he won't get it."

Yes, this is part of why I have held back in reading it with my seven year old son. (We're currently nearly at the end of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe if you're interested). I've got a kid in my Year 3 class whose mum is really pushing him to read the Harry Potter books (because she thinks it'd be a challenging yet rewarding read for an 8 year old, I guess) but I don't think he's getting much out of them.

Personally, I think I've seen a bit of the first film and I know I've read the first book but only because I was doing a PGCE at the time and I figured I'd better start reading some children's books as I was going to be teaching kids soon. It didn't grab me but then I'm told they do get better.

[Various Artist]

I suspect most book series aimed broadly at youngsters are going to get more 'challenging' as they go along, especially if they run to seven volumes or so, even if the Potter sequence is an extreme case. I mean, if you're going to introduce your 7-year-old to the rest of the Narnia series then you're going to end up with The Last Battle, which has metaphysics, nested realities, death, deities and the end of the world. And that's aside from working out a logical reading order, given that this requires explaining how everyone starts with the The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe but The Magician's Nephew is basically a prequel to it even though it appeared later and arguably should be read first. And The Horse and His Boy is what nowadays would be called an 'interquel' (it takes place during the time of TL,TW&TW, our only glimpse of the reign of the adult-children-before-they-end-up-as-children-again)... and in general is really pretty bloody weird.

[Benjm]

I look forward to reading them to the kids. Haven't read any of them, because grown ups reading YA books is creepy and weird and that is FACT.

Do they still produce editions with different covers for sheepish adults? I remember a mature colleague reading one with an out of focus, B&W shot of a train on the cover, way back when.

[Amor de Cosmos]

I suspect most book series aimed broadly at youngsters are going to get more 'challenging' as they go along, especially if they run to seven volumes or so, even if the Potter sequence is an extreme case. I mean, if you're going to introduce your 7-year-old to the rest of the Narnia series then you're going to end up with The Last Battle, which has metaphysics, nested realities, death, deities and the end of the world. And that's aside from working out a logical reading order, given that this requires explaining how everyone starts with the The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe but The Magician's Nephew is basically a prequel to it even though it appeared later and arguably should be read first. And The Horse and His Boy is what nowadays would be called an 'interquel' (it takes place during the time of TL,TW&TW, our only glimpse of the reign of the adult-children-before-they-end-up-as-children-again)... and in general is really pretty bloody weird.

You're right of course. I thought of Narnia, and also Peter and Wendy as soon as I'd posted. I should have said Modern Childrens' Fiction. Lewis, like Tolkien, Barrie, Grahame and other early-mid 20th century authors wrote books that children would enjoy, but didn't write for them as a genre, which is relatively recent development. Their adult audiences required some acknowledgement of burgeoning maturity. However, I'm no expert but most of the kids series I grew up with in the 50s and 60s were frozen in time: Blyton's Famous Five/Secret Seven, and the "William" and "Jennings" books for example. Perhaps that's changing, and maybe JKR is one of the reasons why.