# Harry frigging Potter



## J77 (Jul 17, 2007)

It's been done before...

but Harry bloody Potter.

The books have been shit since the 2nd one, and even those first two weren't any good.

The last two books were a couple of the biggest piles of surplus words I'd read in a long time.

The first couple of films were alright.

Saw the last film the other day -- my gf's first utterance upon leaving was "confusification" -- it was fast, loud and empty.

Now, I wake up to hear about ASDA not being able to sell the book or something -- on Radio ruddy 4, please R4 don't give it more talk than it already has everywhere.

Now the new books coming out -- and me, like everyone else who's read the others, will probably read this one too.

I hope all the characters die.

Wank.


----------



## baldrick (Jul 17, 2007)

i agree.  it's shit.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 17, 2007)

i saw  the paper saying  she is coapaigning  to have   a find maddie  poster in all the bookshops selling  harry potter


the insanity is breading


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jul 17, 2007)

^^^ fucking hell!

I work in a bookshop and stupidly agreed to work the midnight opening.

Yay for me  

I have to wear a fucking stupid potter t-shirt too.

Bastards.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 17, 2007)

i saw a waterstones  where  the staff had to have face paint  and one had a broom.... and this  wasn't even  the day of release

they need to be able  to beat the shit out of the manager who decided on that


----------



## Balbi (Jul 17, 2007)

The films have a quality cast though  

Alan Rickman is the acid test for quality cinema. Gary Oldman also.

Even Lost in Space


----------



## Reno (Jul 17, 2007)

J77 said:
			
		

> It's been done before...
> 
> but Harry bloody Potter.
> 
> ...



Haven't read the books and hated the first two films, but the third one turned out unexpectedly good (directed by the excellent Alfonso Cuarón who did Y tu mamá también and Children of Men). I think the films have been ok ever since.

Anyway, how many Harry Potter threads do we need ? There have been at least 4 in the last month.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 17, 2007)

it's poo. saw the first film but have never read any of the books. be happy when its all finished


----------



## J77 (Jul 17, 2007)

No and no -- in reply to Balbi and the one after


----------



## Balbi (Jul 17, 2007)

J77 said:
			
		

> No and no -- in reply to Balbi and the one after



Ah give over. If it was anything but Potter, the cast would have you changing your underwear  Surprisingly British as well for a big franchise!


----------



## Belushi (Jul 17, 2007)

I've never read any of the books, seen one of the movies and it wasnt bad for a kids film.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 17, 2007)

Harry Potter provides a great service to kids and those adults who find proper books too hard.


----------



## J77 (Jul 17, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Harry Potter provides a great service to kids and those adults who find proper books too hard.


I found it harder trawling through the last two books than I did reading Tom Jones.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 17, 2007)

Madzone will be along in a minute to throw all her toys out of the pram and accuse us of being intellectual elitists.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 17, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> Madzone will be along in a minute to throw all her toys out of the pram and accuse us of being intellectual elitists.


I think I am an elitist, no matter how much I struggle


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 17, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> The films have a quality cast though
> 
> Alan Rickman is the acid test for quality cinema. Gary Oldman also.
> 
> Even Lost in Space



Uncle Alan, i'll grant you. Maybe Oldman to an extent. But there's something lame about these cobbled together brit casts, it's like Kenneth and Emma and Hugh and Steven and all that all over again.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 17, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Harry Potter provides a great service to kids and those adults who find proper books too hard.



Im sometimes tempted to try one as they are so popular, but then I remember that its that kind of thinking that lead me to read Captain Corellis Mandolin and the Da Vinci Code


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 17, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Im sometimes tempted to try one as they are so popular, but then I remember that its that kind of thinking that lead me to read Captain Corellis Mandolin and the Da Vinci Code




ditto. I read half of one. It's not awful, but there's so much out there that is much much better.


----------



## SubZeroCat (Jul 17, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> I've never read any of the books, seen one of the movies



Same.

I'm indifferent when it comes to Harry Potter.


----------



## Sunray (Jul 17, 2007)

Its nice to see children take an interest in books en mass and they are reasonably well written.  

I'll buy the last two just so I finish the story, the last one was a bit slow, but I have hope for the rest.  

The only thing of note is that this does show that the breaking of the RRP for books really did mark the death knell for local independent book stores.  Its a hard back being sold for paper back prices before its even launched.


----------



## J77 (Jul 17, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> Ah give over. If it was anything but Potter, the cast would have you changing your underwear  Surprisingly British as well for a big franchise!


The Tonks character was quite refreshing but she was hardly in it.

The kids are damn annoying.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 17, 2007)

Sunray said:
			
		

> Its nice to see children take an interest in books en mass and they are reasonably well written.
> 
> I'll buy the last two just so I finish the story, the last one was a bit slow, but I have hope for the rest.



its the adult thing that gets me, are they really that good?

I look back with fondness at the books I loved as a kid, Arthur Ransome, CS Lewis, Rosemary Sutcliffe etc etc but I have no desire to re-read them now as an adult.


----------



## Reno (Jul 17, 2007)

J77 said:
			
		

> I found it harder trawling through the last two books than I did reading Tom Jones.



I don't understand why you keep reading them if you hate them so much that you have to start another Harry Potter thread just for your little rant. 

I don't read them as I don't think I'd enjoy them. Problem solved as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 17, 2007)

They are very much a symptom of this decade.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 17, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> They are very much a symptom of this decade.




oh fuck, here we go.. 

half-baked cultural critiques from our very own Michael Ignatieff


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 17, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> oh fuck, here we go..
> 
> half-baked cultural critiques from our very own Michael Ignatieff


Oh, come on, Dubversion - can you imagine the Harry Potter phenomenon taking hold in any other decade except this one?


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 17, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Oh, come on, Dubversion - can you imagine the Harry Potter phenomenon taking hold in any other decade except this one?



That's an impossible question to answer because there hasn't been a decade like this one. Or the last. Or the one before that.

It's a meaningless point.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 17, 2007)

but what the hell, eh? 

which part of the Potter phenomenon do you mean, poster?


----------



## Reno (Jul 17, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Oh, come on, Dubversion - can you imagine the Harry Potter phenomenon taking hold in any other decade except this one?



Maybe you haven't noticed, but Harry Potter has been going on since the previous decade. 

In any case, they don't strike that as that different from some of some of the kids books I read in the 70's when I grew up, apart from the fact that they are a lot longer.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 17, 2007)

heh


----------



## PacificOcean (Jul 17, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> Maybe you haven't noticed, but Harry Potter has been going on since the previous decade.



Indeed.  The first book is from 1997.

I haven't read the books, but the films aren't bad.  I wouldn't pay to see them, but I quite enjoy them if I catch them on Sky.


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 17, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> Maybe you haven't noticed, but Harry Potter has been going on since the previous decade.


Yeah, but do you mean the tail end of it where it started to get like this decade? I have to confess I don't know which year Harry Potter first began.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jul 17, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> They are very much a symptom of this decade.



In the first decade of the last century there was a craze for the Wizard of Oz books.  If you've ever read them, they arn't any better, from a literary standpoint, than Harry Potter.


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 17, 2007)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> Indeed.  The first book is from 1997.


Oh, so further to my previous post - YES, in other words.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 17, 2007)

J77 said:
			
		

> The Tonks character was quite refreshing but she was hardly in it.



For "_refreshing_" read _"i so would, but that's objectifying women"_


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 17, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> In any case, they don't strike that as that different from some of some of the kids books I read in the 70's when I grew up, apart from the fact that they are a lot longer.


Maybe, but the whole country didn't get it's collective knickers in an over-rated, over-hyped, over-discussed twist over them, did they? _That's_ the factor I'm talking about that applies so hideously to this decade.


----------



## tangentlama (Jul 17, 2007)

I'm going to wait until my brother falls asleep reading it, and then steal it from under his pillow so I can read it 

I've read every single one, using the above method, and loved them all.


----------



## N_igma (Jul 17, 2007)

Harry Potter is a load of balls.


----------



## Reno (Jul 17, 2007)

Yuwipi Woman said:
			
		

> In the first decade of the last century there was a craze for the Wizard of Oz books.  If you've ever read them, they arn't any better, from a literary standpoint, than Harry Potter.



They are a good comparison and I used to really like them when I was little. Then of course there are the Narnia books, The Neverending Story and Krabat, which also was about a wizards school.


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jul 17, 2007)

tangentlama said:
			
		

> I'm going to wait until my little brother falls asleep reading it, and then steal it from under his pillow so I can read it
> 
> I've read every single one and loved them all.



To be quite honest, I read them for those quaint Briticisms that ceased to exist long ago (and perhaps only existed in our imagination).


----------



## Balbi (Jul 17, 2007)

And bloody J.R.R Tolkein. I mean, why write a complicated book which spawned nerds when there's a perfectly good series of films


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 17, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Maybe, but the whole country didn't get it's collective knickers in an over-rated, over-hyped, over-discussed twist over them, did they? _That's_ the factor I'm talking about that applies so hideously to this decade.




so you don't think there have  been similar fads in the past? the nature of the media is different now, so the direct comparisons you're trying to make are futile, but you need to do a little research. look at Rudolf Valentino, Frank Sinatra and the bobbysoxers, Beatlemania, Bay City Rollermania, Bros Mania, Star Wars, Princess Di, fucking Pokemon.

there's nothing remarkable about Harry Potter that isn't a function of the current nature of the media compared with other decades.


----------



## fieryjack (Jul 17, 2007)

the books are fine for what they are, no point in over-reacting to them to make some half-baked point about how fucking scene you are.

if they didn't exist, I wouldn't have Wizard People, Dear Reader, the finest piece of comedy I've encountered since Spinal Tap.


----------



## J77 (Jul 17, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> For "_refreshing_" read _"i so would, but that's objectifying women"_


----------



## Reno (Jul 17, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Maybe, but the whole country didn't get it's collective knickers in an over-rated, over-hyped, over-discussed twist over them, did they? _That's_ the factor I'm talking about that applies so hideously to this decade.



You have not much of a grip on popular culture in the 20th century then. Ever heard of Star Wars ?


----------



## Balbi (Jul 17, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> You have not much of a grip on popular culture in the 20th century then. Ever heard of Star Wars ?



That's not a cult. That's *CULTURE*


----------



## Reno (Jul 17, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> That's not a cult. That's *CULTURE*



Me no understand, nein !


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jul 17, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> And bloody J.R.R Tolkein. I mean, why write a complicated book which spawned nerds when there's a perfectly good series of films



Well its not like nerds are going to reproduce themselves, is it?  (Unless, of course, their reproduction is asexual.)


----------



## J77 (Jul 17, 2007)

Star Wars is teh real.

e2a: bet the final book ends with the Voldemort geezer becoming all nice and friendly -- reappearing in ghost form at the end as Harry dances with the Ewoks...


----------



## Balbi (Jul 17, 2007)

Give a couple of kids sticks and watch them pretend to have lightsabers, it's in the bone


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 17, 2007)

Yuwipi Woman said:
			
		

> (Unless, of course, their reproduction is asexual.)



how could it possibly be any other way?


----------



## Balbi (Jul 17, 2007)

And Robert Plant. That's Tolkeins fault


----------



## madzone (Jul 17, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> ^^^ fucking hell!
> 
> I work in a bookshop and stupidly agreed to work the midnight opening.
> 
> ...


Can you nick me a copy and can we have your t-shirt when you're finished with it? 

Some good should come from your distress and I'd like to help


----------



## fear-n-loathing (Jul 17, 2007)

I've never read any of the books and only seen part of christ knows which one of the films. utter shite all of it


----------



## Allan (Jul 17, 2007)

I worked on HP as a stand in for Voldemort. They shaved my hair, put me in the prosthetics and wispy costume (which was a pain in the ass as I kept tripping over it). They didn't cut my nose off, though. In fact, because I'll otherwise have nothing to do with HP (it was only the money that made me do it) I had no idea that my Voldemort had no nose. How did he smell...?

I stood in for that guy with the funny pronunciation of his first name during the bit where Gary Oldman is tortured by a magic wand. Something about "you'll get it for me"? GO stood next to me inbreaks in filming and like all hollywood stars that have stood next to me during breaks in filming totally ignored me. I've been ignored by all the greats, ya know!  

So - HP paid for my car, satnav and insurance. So I have no complaints. I still refuse to read/watch any of it, though. (The ministry of magic set was impressive, though. Looked like a train station.)


----------



## madzone (Jul 17, 2007)

Allan said:
			
		

> I worked on HP as a stand in for Voldemort. They shaved my hair, put me in the prosthetics and wispy costume (which was a pain in the ass as I kept tripping over it). They didn't cut my nose off, though. In fact, because I'll otherwise have nothing to do with HP (it was only the money that made me do it) I had no idea that my Voldemort had no nose. How did he smell...?
> 
> I stood in for that guy with the funny pronunciation of his first name during the bit where Gary Oldman is tortured by a magic wand. Something about "you'll get it for me"? GO stood next to me inbreaks in filming and like all hollywood stars that have stood next to me during breaks in filming totally ignored me. I've been ignored by all the greats, ya know!
> 
> So - HP paid for my car, satnav and insurance. So I have no complaints. I still refuse to read/watch any of it, though. (The ministry of magic set was impressive, though. Looked like a train station.)



Oooh, can I stroke you?


----------



## Allan (Jul 17, 2007)

madzone said:
			
		

> Oooh, can I stroke you?



You may bask in my reflected glory.


----------



## J77 (Jul 17, 2007)

Allan said:
			
		

> You may bask in my reflected glory.


You'll probably get a gig on the Weakest Link in ten years time


----------



## Allan (Jul 17, 2007)

J77 said:
			
		

> You'll probably get a gig on the Weakest Link in ten years time



She's ignored me too. It was while I was being an extra in My Family in the studio next door at Pinewood.... blah... blah... blah.... etc.


----------



## madzone (Jul 17, 2007)

Allan said:
			
		

> You may bask in my reflected glory.


I'll only bask in reflected glory if it has a pink gel on it


----------



## Santino (Jul 17, 2007)

Allan said:
			
		

> I had no idea that my Voldemort had no nose. How did he smell...?


Awful.


----------



## Fruitloop (Jul 17, 2007)

Boom boom!


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jul 17, 2007)

I know one thing, Harry Potter fanfic has to be the most odious of the type.

But even this is beyond the pale.  There's gotta be a special dungeon in the depths of Hogwarts for this:

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/2828044/ 



> Hi my name is Ebony Dark’ness Dementia Raven Way and I have long ebony black hair (that’s how I got my name) with purple streaks and red tips that reaches my mid-back and icy blue eyes like limpid tears and a lot of people tell me I look like Amy Lee (AN: if u don’t know who she is get da hell out of here!). I’m not related to Gerard Way but I wish I was because he’s a major fucking hottie. I’m a vampire but my teeth are straight and white. I have pale white skin. I’m also a witch, and I go to a magic school called Hogwarts in England where I’m in the seventh year (I’m seventeen). I’m a goth (in case you couldn’t tell) and I wear mostly black. I love Hot Topic and I buy all my clothes from there. For example today I was wearing a black corset with matching lace around it and a black leather miniskirt, pink fishnets and black combat boots. I was wearing black lipstick, white foundation, black eyeliner and red eye shadow. I was walking outside Hogwarts. It was snowing and raining so there was no sun, which I was very happy about. A lot of preps stared at me. I put up my middle finger at them.



Synopsis for thos who don't wish to read the whole thing:

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/My_Immortal


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Jul 17, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> I don't understand why you keep reading them if you hate them so much


Yes, this somewhat surprised me too  

You'd think if your experience suggests you don't like something, then you'd stop repeating said experience


----------



## JoePolitix (Jul 17, 2007)

Middle class wank.

Fuck Harry Potter. What a shower of fucking shite.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jul 17, 2007)

You're all probably grown-ups, and these are children's books, so it doesn't really matter what you think.   

Children really like them. The two children in my family have been reading the last one again this week to bring them back up to speed ready for the next one. 

They're going to see the film this week. We won't be going out at midnight but I imagine we'll pick up a copy at Asda or Tesco. 

I will pick up the book once they've finished or, more likely, the older girl - age 13 - will get fed up half way through and the younger one - age nine - will read the first chapter and the ending. Last time I started reading but found I could download the American audiobook as quickly as I could read it so I listened to Jim Dale instead.


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 17, 2007)

Fullyplumped said:
			
		

> I will pick up the book once they've finished or, more likely, the older girl - age 13 - will get fed up half way through and the younger one - age nine - will read the first chapter and the ending. Last time I started reading but found I could download the American audiobook as quickly as I could read it *so I listened to Jim Dale instead*.


Jim Robinson?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 17, 2007)

Jim Dale from Carry On? I thought Stephen Fry did them?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 17, 2007)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> Jim Robinson?


That's Alan Dale


----------



## Tank Girl (Jul 17, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> ^^^ fucking hell!
> 
> I work in a bookshop and stupidly agreed to work the midnight opening.
> 
> ...




sorry VP, I am sad for you having to work when it's harry potter night, but I did smile at having to wear the fucking stupid potter t-shirt  

(((VP))) x x


----------



## mentalchik (Jul 17, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> And Robert Plant. That's Tolkeins fault





Oi.....


----------



## Balbi (Jul 17, 2007)

Only his wankier excesses. The stuff about drinking, shagging and rocknroll's class


----------



## mentalchik (Jul 17, 2007)

:d


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Jul 17, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Jim Dale from Carry On? I thought Stephen Fry did them?



Yep, Jim Dale does the American ones (& the ones easiest to download).

I don't care who reads them as long as I don't have to - I managed the first three as bedtime stories but baulked at the length of the others - they are pretty dull to read aloud, though I can see why kids like them.


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jul 17, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Jim Dale from Carry On? I thought Stephen Fry did them?


Stephen Fry does the British audiobooks but Jim Dale does them in the US. He's really quite good. The US publisher "selected Dale in part because his English accent has been tempered by living in the States since 1980. American children sometimes find very strong English accents difficult."







Shockingly, for me at least, this star of Carry On Cowboy and Pete's Dragon is now 71 years old!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 17, 2007)

Authors who are better than Rowling in her field: Phillip Pullman, Tolkien, Darren Shah, and the bloke who wrote the Artemis Fowl books. And on the subject of Fowl, he is a FAR better character than shitty Potter. Expecto Petronus!  Expecto-a kick in the teeth you weedy uninspiring tool.

If your reading this Rowling, then I hope your shitty derivative and badly written cack is swiftly forgotten. Do you read woman? I reckon you should read His Dark Materials and then kill yourself you polluter of the fine genre that is childrens literature


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jul 17, 2007)

DotCommunist said:
			
		

> Authors who are better than Rowling in her field: Phillip Pullman, Tolkien, Darren Shah, and the bloke who wrote the Artemis Fowl books. And on the subject of Fowl, he is a FAR better character than shitty Potter. Expecto Petronus!  Expecto-a kick in the teeth you weedy uninspiring tool.
> 
> If your reading this Rowling, then I hope your shitty derivative and badly written cack is swiftly forgotten. Do you read woman? I reckon you should read His Dark Materials and then kill yourself you polluter of the fine genre that is childrens literature


Grown-ups' views don't matter. I couldn't be bothered with Tolkien when I was wee. Few nine-year-old girls, other than ones whose parents think them to be "gifted", would be motivated to read Tolkien or Pullman. 

Anyway Harry Potter books are children's books and many very readable children''s books aren't "great". 

I can't imagine that you have much time for Tracy Beaker, for example, but then you're probably in your forties.   As am I.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 17, 2007)

Fullyplumped said:
			
		

> Grown-ups' views don't matter. I couldn't be bothered with Tolkien when I was wee. Few nine-year-old girls, other than ones whose parents think them to be "gifted", would be motivated to read Tolkien or Pullman.
> 
> Anyway Harry Potter books are children's books and many very readable children''s books aren't "great".
> 
> I can't imagine that you have much time for Tracy Beaker, for example, but then you're probably in your forties.   As am I.




deeply wrong dude, im a mere 24, and I read Tolkien as a child (off my own back) and LOVED it

Plus, Artemis Fowl. Short and sweet kids fiction with a similar nature to the Potter books but with one major difference. A kead character who isn't fucking shit


----------



## Fullyplumped (Jul 17, 2007)

DotCommunist said:
			
		

> deeply wrong dude, im a mere 24, and I read Tolkien as a child (off my own back) and LOVED it  Plus, Artemis Fowl. Short and sweet kids fiction with a similar nature to the Potter books but with one major difference. A kead character who isn't fucking shit


You never said what you think about Tracy Beaker, or the Jacqueline Wilson _œuvre_.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2007)

DotCommunist said:
			
		

> Authors who are better than Rowling in her field: Phillip Pullman, Tolkien, Darren Shah, and the bloke who wrote the Artemis Fowl books. And on the subject of Fowl, he is a FAR better character than shitty Potter. Expecto Petronus!  Expecto-a kick in the teeth you weedy uninspiring tool.
> 
> If your reading this Rowling, then I hope your shitty derivative and badly written cack is swiftly forgotten. Do you read woman? I reckon you should read His Dark Materials and then kill yourself you polluter of the fine genre that is childrens literature



Now, I like the Artemis Fowl stories, but the writing is absolutely shit. The first book, in particular, read like the work of a 13-year-old. The storylines are engaging, though - simplistic, in some ways, but with a good pace - and the imagined world is fantastic. Harry Potter has the same pluses and the same minuses, except that the writing's actually a bit better.

I know that's a matter of opinion, but, even in terms of variation of sentence types and vocabulary, Harry Potter is still miles ahead while being aimed at the same age group. 

Damnit. I swore I wouldn't bother defending these fun-but-not-great-literature books again on yet another I Hate Harry thread. (Esepcially since there are more threads complaining about Harry Potter hype than there are threads hyping Harry Potter). 

I read because I was avoiding housework, and clicked post because of this:




			
				Yuwipi Woman said:
			
		

> I know one thing, Harry Potter fanfic has to be the most odious of the type.
> 
> But even this is beyond the pale.  There's gotta be a special dungeon in the depths of Hogwarts for this:
> 
> ...



Try Googling "Gateway Girl" "Blood Magic" or the same author with "Snakes and Lions." They are both excellent works of fiction and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them to anyone who likes well-crafted fantasy. I can't give you a link because fanfiction seems to have gone into meltdown lately and half of them have disappeared, so where you find a fic might change from day to day. 

Harry Potter is a huge fanfic fandom; I would never have read any if I hadn't known a couple of people who wrote them, so I think I've avoided the really awful stuff, of which there is tons (generally written by children and teenagers, unsurprisingly!)


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2007)

Fullyplumped said:
			
		

> You never said what you think about Tracy Beaker, or the Jacqueline Wilson _œuvre_.



I liked the first Tracy Beaker. I loved 'The Illustrated Mum,' and liked a couple of others. Then Jacqueline Wilson got a bit egomad and started writing books about kids who love an author who bears a suspicious resemblance to Jacqueline Wilson (as does the potential foster Mum in Tracy Beaker).

(I read a ton of children's books for my PGCE; I'm not purely infantile).


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 18, 2007)

artimis fowl is  actully really rather shit in places

nice idea...  but   very in danger of disapearing up it's own arse many a time

however  i think  that series improves over time  where as  the potter stuff  has managed  to implode in under itself...  the last one  was terible  it made artimis fowl  look like  Aeschylus


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2007)

Shippou-Chan said:
			
		

> artimis fowl is  actully really rather shit in places
> 
> nice idea...  but   very in danger of disapearing up it's own arse many a time
> 
> however  i think  that series improves over time  where as  the potter stuff  has managed  to implode in under itself...  the last one  was terible  it made artimis fowl  look like  Aeschylus



I wouldn't say the last Harry Potter was terrible, but otherwise I agree with you about the ways the series have developed. Rowling really does need a strict editor.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 18, 2007)

ok....  i'll reserve terible for the one before...  the last one was simply excedingly bad


----------



## J77 (Jul 18, 2007)

I guess that's what happens when you promise seven and the ideas run out.

As far as the children's book thing is concerned: why the adult covers then? Why the promotion towards the adults? When at best, the books don't go much beyond a Mallory Towers edge into life.

I think I wouldn't mind if they were just a kids book -- like the other popular one at the moment whos name I can't recall -- it's all the ruddy promotion, like it's the greatest works ever.

Then there's the knock-on effect of loads of other crappy kids books aimed at adults too.

Plus, someone said, "It gets people reading". Well, I wager a lot of people would think that this reading's lark a pile of wank if the only book they've read is HP. Considering the hype.


----------



## PacificOcean (Jul 18, 2007)

J77 said:
			
		

> I guess that's what happens when you promise seven and the ideas run out.
> 
> As far as the children's book thing is concerned: why the adult covers then? Why the promotion towards the adults? When at best, the books don't go much beyond a Mallory Towers edge into life.
> 
> ...



I have not read them myself, but I think you are in a very small minorty as everyone here at work who has read HP raves about it.


----------



## J77 (Jul 18, 2007)

PacificOcean said:
			
		

> I have not read them myself, but I think you are in a very small minorty as everyone here at work who has read HP raves about it.


 

The entire workforce of Maccy D's have read HP!


----------



## electrogirl (Jul 18, 2007)

i've just had an e-mail from my friend who i'm seeing this weekend asking me and everyone else we're meeting up with not to ruin the ending of the new book. 

for pete's sake.

i just don't understand how adults can find them interesting/challenging. 

I tried to read the first one but found it boring...probably like I would most kid's books. And if ONE more person says to me.."oh the first one is rubbish, they get so much better"..

so why did you keep reading after the first rubbish book??!!


----------



## obanite (Jul 18, 2007)

Because of the hype...

It is the hype that's most annoying. I've mostly managed to ignore it - I saw the first film and thought it was ok but really was a kid's story, since then I just try to close my eyes and ears to it.

Philip Pullman is really good though.


----------



## jæd (Jul 18, 2007)

electrogirl said:
			
		

> i just don't understand how adults can find them interesting/challenging.



Because most adults have the reading age of a 10 year old...




			
				electrogirl said:
			
		

> so why did you keep reading after the first rubbish book??!!



Because they are stupid...?  

If anyone over the age of 15 tells me they've read the HP books I assume they are an idiot, and can be ignored...


----------



## madzone (Jul 18, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> If anyone over the age of 15 tells me they've read the HP books I assume they are an idiot, and can be ignored...


Even if it's just for research? It was good enough for pete townsend.......


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> Because most adults have the reading age of a 10 year old...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With every feeble minded generalisation I read by you I think less of you.  

There is no reason why people can't enjoy low and highbrow culture. I have a good friend who is very well read, but enjoys reading the HP books as well. There is nothing idiotic about her.


----------



## jæd (Jul 18, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> With every feeble minded generalisation I read by you I think less of you.
> 
> There is no reason why people can't enjoy low and highbrow culture. I have a good friend who is very well read, but enjoys reading the HP books as well. There is nothing idiotic about her.



Gotta love people who take everything so seriously...


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> Gotta love people who take everything so seriously...



The old forum trope of pretending no to have been serious with a smattering of condescending smilies. Quite the comedian, aren't you ?


----------



## jæd (Jul 18, 2007)

Spoiler-tastic thread for people with better books to read...

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=215215


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 18, 2007)

electrogirl said:
			
		

> so why did you keep reading after the first rubbish book??!!


Because_ everyone_ was doing it, you see, and this is the 2000s where we all have to be celeb-worshiping herd-followers. 

Wouldn't want to be seen as different and be ostracised from our bitchy peer-groups now, would we? 

Christ, the who of the UK today reminds me of The Village from _The Prisoner_ series - where those who don't conform to whatever fad-of-the-day is going on are labelled "unmutual" by the other residents.


----------



## J77 (Jul 18, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> Spoiler-tastic thread for people with better books to read...
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=215215


I guess those who don't want spoilers should stay away from message boards for the next couple of weeks.

There are (already here) and are sure to be loads of threads with titles which are spoilers.

Not from me mind. Despite my hating, I'll read the cruddy thing


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Because_ everyone_ was doing it, you see, and this is the 2000s where we all haev to be celeb-worshiping herd-followers.


Celeb-worshipping is not a new phenomenon


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> Because_ everyone_ was doing it, you see, and this is the 2000s where we all haev to be celeb-worshiping herd-followers.
> 
> Wouldn't want to be seen as different and be ostracised from our bitchy peer-groups now, would we?
> 
> Christ, the who of the UK today reminds me of The Village from _The Prisoner_ series - where those who don't conform to whatever fad-of-the-day is going on are labelled "unmutual" by the other residents. :rollleyes:




you're one of those people determined to appear smarter than the average bear but goes about it so hamfistedly that the reverse proves to be the case


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 18, 2007)

Well, I've bought every Harry Potter since the fourth one on the day it came out, locked myself away for the day with a spliff or two and read it - and thoroughly enjoyed it.  And I'll be doing the same with this one.

Harry Potter's great.  Whatever the cultural snobs think.  So sue me.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 18, 2007)

electrogirl said:
			
		

> i've just had an e-mail from my friend who i'm seeing this weekend asking me and everyone else we're meeting up with not to ruin the ending of the new book.



When the last one came out, at least one person splashed up spoilers on several threads on here to do precisely that.

Some people don't get the idea that, even if they don't like a book, that's no reason to wreck it for everyone else.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> When the last one came out, at least one person splashed up spoilers on several threads on here to do precisely that.
> 
> Some people don't get the idea that, even if they don't like a book, that's no reason to wreck it for everyone else.




so, you don't want to know that Bfnfffhfrjfrfhfrjfrhrhgrh


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> so, you don't want to know that Bfnfffhfrjfrfhfrjfrhrhgrh


The best summerised synopsis for a HP book I've ever seen.


----------



## fieryjack (Jul 18, 2007)

dick move, cuntfingers


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

tum te tum


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> tum te tum


Best summerised _sequel_ to an HP book I've ever seen...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> Some people don't get the idea that, even if they don't like a book, that's no reason to wreck it for everyone else.


Apart from when it's Harry Potter and you really should know better, so deserve to be let down


----------



## untethered (Jul 18, 2007)

Is Harry Potter racist? (Apologies if this has already been done.)


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

who gives a fuck?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 18, 2007)

Dunno, purposefully spoiling something for someone, just on grounds of taste, strikes me as rather childish and petty, if you ask me.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Dunno, purposefully spoiling something for someone, just on grounds of taste, strikes me as rather childish and petty, if you ask me.


Of course it is  But reading Harry Potter is also childish


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> Is Harry Potter racist? (Apologies if this has already been done.)



Yes he is, didn't you see the swastika tatoo on his forehead ?


----------



## Belushi (Jul 18, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Dunno, purposefully spoiling something for someone, just on grounds of taste, strikes me as rather childish and petty, if you ask me.



Yeah, but theres no children posting on here so no harm done.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 18, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> Yes he is, didn't you see the swastika tatoo on his forehead ?



The eighth volume is going to be Harry Potter and the Spear of Destiny.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Of course it is  But reading Harry Potter is also childish



and so is labelling everyone who doesn't like it as a 'sneering cultural elitist' or somesuch. 

if the more vociferous Potter fans weren't such defensive wankers, there'd be no problem.


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> and so is labelling everyone who doesn't like it as a 'sneering cultural elitist' or somesuch.
> 
> if the more vociferous Potter fans weren't such defensive wankers, there'd be no problem.



...and all of them are of course.  

I don't actually care that much about HP, I'm just bored at work.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> if the more vociferous anti-Potter fans weren't such aggressive wankers, there'd be no problem.



As above, so below.


----------



## jæd (Jul 18, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Dunno, purposefully spoiling something for someone, just on grounds of taste, strikes me as rather childish and petty, if you ask me.



Isn't it one of the marks of literature that you read a book for the writing, rather than the plot...? I know the ending to LOR, but occasionally dip in because I like the language. Same with a good film... 

HP is a sequence of events, linked through deus ex machinas...


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> Isn't it one of the marks of literature that you read a book for the writing, rather than the plot...? I know the ending to LOR, but occasionally dip in because I like the language. Same with a good film...
> 
> HP is a sequence of events, linked through deus ex machinas...



Why not enjoy different things for different reasons ? You seem to operate under the assumption that anybody who enjoys an occasional bit of lowbrow pop culture does nothing but.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> and so is labelling everyone who doesn't like it as a 'sneering cultural elitist' or somesuch.
> 
> if the more vociferous Potter fans weren't such defensive wankers, there'd be no problem.


Thank you for the new tagline!


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Thank you for the new tagline!




i suspect the credit is due to madzone or some other whinging tit.


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Of course it is  But reading Harry Potter is also childish


 So is reading Phillip Pullman's Dark Materials. 

I guess the difference is that Pullman's trilogy is on the Approved List of the U75 Intelligentsia committee so it's alright to read those particular children's books.

And of course it would be outrageous to spoil it for anyone who hadn't. You don't do that at all. Unless it's populist titles we like to sneer at.


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> So is reading Phillip Pullman's Dark Materials.
> 
> I guess the difference is that Pullman's trilogy is on the Approved List of the U75 Intelligentsia committee so it's alright to read those particular children's books.
> 
> And of course it would be outrageous to spoil it for anyone who hadn't. You don't do that at all. Unless it's populist titles we like to sneer at.



Agreed. I tried to read that one as well and like HP I couldn't get into it because it also read like a kids book.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> So is reading Phillip Pullman's Dark Materials.


It has an adult theme and it is good though


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> it's populist titles we like to sneer at.


Yes, though I can sneer at bad intellectual work too


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> So is reading Phillip Pullman's Dark Materials.
> 
> I guess the difference is that Pullman's trilogy is on the Approved List of the U75 Intelligentsia committee so it's alright to read those particular children's books.
> 
> And of course it would be outrageous to spoil it for anyone who hadn't. You don't do that at all. Unless it's populist titles we like to sneer at.



Christ, are you on a mission to reel off all the weakest, unsubstantiated moron arguments ever? 

grow up


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> It has an adult theme and it is good though


 Apparently millions of adults think the very same thing about Harry Potter.

Though clearly they are clueless. If only they read U75 and were shown the error of their ways.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> Apparently millions of adults think the very same thing about Harry Potter.


They're idiots.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 18, 2007)

Fucks sake, it's just a bloody book, some people like it, others don't, why all the fucking about?


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> Christ, are you on a mission to reel off all the weakest, unsubstantiated moron arguments ever?
> 
> grow up


 Keep that in mind the next time someone posts the word chav eh?


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> Apparently millions of adults think the very same thing about Harry Potter.
> 
> Though clearly they are clueless. If only they read U75 and were shown the error of their ways.



well, clearly not since many people on urban like Harry Potter.

Logical argument isn't your forte, is it?


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> They're idiots.


Oh that's all settled then.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> Keep that in mind the next time someone posts the word chav eh?




eh?
again with the fuckwitted answer - how does that even relate?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> They're idiots.


Why?


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> eh?
> again with the fuckwitted answer - how does that even relate?


 As I said in another thread:



> Funny how some of the very posters who get incensed with rage at peeps scorning and ridiculing people with certain taste in fashion think it's perfectly okay to scorn, ridicule and spoil things for people with certain taste in literature.


.


----------



## jæd (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Thank you for the new tagline!



I thought that was mine...?


----------



## Balbi (Jul 18, 2007)

Christ, you can tell it's a wednesday


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> Oh that's all settled then.


See. Just ask me next time and I'll tell you what to like and what to scorn. It works better that way.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

Balbi said:
			
		

> Christ, you can tell it's a wednesday


What happens on Wednesdays?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

beesonthewhatnow said:
			
		

> Why?


The same reason Coldplay fans are idiots


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> What happens on Wednesdays?


Quidditch practice.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> What happens on Wednesdays?




This thread.


----------



## J77 (Jul 18, 2007)

LOL @ the haters, defenders, apologists


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> The same reason Coldplay fans are idiots


Which is?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

beesonthewhatnow said:
			
		

> Which is?


They lack the ability to discern quality


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> They lack the ability to discern quality


Quality being defined by whom, exactly?


----------



## Belushi (Jul 18, 2007)

J77 said:
			
		

> LOL @ the haters, defenders, apologists



You missed out the Denialists


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

beesonthewhatnow said:
			
		

> Quality being defined by whom, exactly?


Me of course.


----------



## Iam (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> They lack the ability to discern quality



Haven't you got a load of Big Brother to post about?


----------



## Balbi (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> What happens on Wednesdays?



People trapped in their meaningless unsatisfying jobs piled upon by petty requests, choking bureaucracy and a strong desire to slope off down the pub find themselves two days from the weekend and two days away from the last weekend.

Friction normally comes out in a thread which takes the course of this one.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

Iam said:
			
		

> Haven't you got a load of Big Brother to post about?


Haven't watched it. I'm not a fan.


----------



## jæd (Jul 18, 2007)

Sneering Interlectualal said:
			
		

> Here, from page 324 of The Order of the Phoenix, to give you a typical example, are six consecutive descriptions of the way people speak. "...said Snape maliciously," "... said Harry furiously", " ... he said glumly", "... said Hermione severely", "... said Ron indignantly", " ... said Hermione loftily". Do I need to explain why that is such second-rate writing?


http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/07/harry_potters_big_con_is_the_p.html


----------



## Iam (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Haven't watched it. I'm not a fan.



Oh. Drat.

Can't you pretend you watch to not spoil my joke??


----------



## The Groke (Jul 18, 2007)

beesonthewhatnow said:
			
		

> Quality being defined by whom, exactly?




People who don't like Coldplay or Harry Potter.


Keep up Bees'!


----------



## baldrick (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> They're idiots.



i'm not an idiot  

harry potter is derivative bilge. i did read the first one, dunno if it got any better, i suspect not.

i read almost exactly the same stuff as a kid - i wouldn't read it now, because i am no longer a child. i do not understand why adults like it.


----------



## The Groke (Jul 18, 2007)

Iam said:
			
		

> Oh. Drat.
> 
> Can't you pretend you watch to not spoil my joke??



Were you going to give away the ending?


bastard.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

Idiot!


----------



## Pigeon (Jul 18, 2007)

Swarfega said:
			
		

> Were you going to give away the ending?



Ron kills Hermione. In the face.


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2007)

I am not incensed or annoyed with anything at work or elsewhere but for what I've gathered some people have posted spoliers, whether real or not, about the new Potter book.

That is simply not on regardless of what you might think about the books, and anyone who thinks it's okay to do that because they happen to believe the books are shit and the readers are stupid/retards/whatever, is a complete twat.

No offence.


----------



## Iam (Jul 18, 2007)

Swarfega said:
			
		

> Were you going to give away the ending?



No. I don't know the ending.



> bastard.



Yes.




			
				Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Idiot!



Yes!


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jul 18, 2007)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> Middle class wank.
> 
> Fuck Harry Potter. What a shower of fucking shite.



Why is it particularly middle-class? Don't the Weasleys live on benefits?


----------



## Pigeon (Jul 18, 2007)

ChrisFilter said:
			
		

> Why is it particularly middle-class? Don't the Weasleys live on benefits?



It's an angry 7 page thread about a children's book. You want logic?


----------



## Belushi (Jul 18, 2007)

ChrisFilter said:
			
		

> Why is it particularly middle-class? Don't the Weasleys live on benefits?



Yeah, but at least they've got one less mouth to feed now.


----------



## baldrick (Jul 18, 2007)

Lol


----------



## poster342002 (Jul 18, 2007)

baldrick said:
			
		

> i do not understand why adults like it.


A lot of today's adults behave increadibly childishly nowadays. I've actually known of graduate 20-something brats to _literally_ stamp their foot in public if they don't get their own way.

I keep on saying - it's this silly decade we're living through. The decade where people didn't grow up.


----------



## untethered (Jul 18, 2007)

poster342002 said:
			
		

> I keep on saying - it's this silly decade we're living through.









http://www.amazon.co.uk/Big-Babies-Cant-Just-Grow/dp/1862078831/


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jul 18, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Big-Babies-Cant-Just-Grow/dp/1862078831/



I work 60 hours a week.  I take care of an elderly parent.  I'm active in a couple charities.  In my tiny bit of free time, I'll act as childish as I wanna.  So There!  <stamps foot>


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 18, 2007)

Jesus.  

Who'd have thought a kids' book could cause quite so much acrimony.  Yes, it's overhyped and it's not worth half the attention it gets; yes there are better kids' books out there; yes to all the other completely specious arguments as to why people shouldn't read Harry Potter ... but frankly, is it really worth half the anger, acrimony and sheer bollocks coming across on here - not to mention the unbelievable snobbery and elitism towards it coming from one or two people?  I really don't think so...  FFS, it's just a fucking story.  




			
				Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Apart from when it's Harry Potter and you really should know better, so deserve to be let down



I really hope you don't mean that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> I really hope you don't mean that.


Not entirely


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

I just wish people would read better books


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I just wish people would read better books



They don't ?


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I just wish people would read better books



I do read better books.  Its just taht once-in-a-while I like a bit of mind candy too.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I just wish people would read better books



What makes you think people don't?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> What makes you think people don't?


The amount of people I see reading HP and the sales of course


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 18, 2007)

No, what makes you think that everyone who reads Harry Potter doesn't read *better* books?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> No, what makes you think that everyone who reads Harry Potter doesn't read *better* books?


Nothing, but when they're reading HP, they're not reading something else


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> The amount of people I see reading HP and the sales of course



The thing is that most people don't read great literature, watch good films, listen to challenging music, etc.etc. What are you going to do about it ?

Unlike something like Barbara Cartland, Harry Potter also gets read by people who are quite literate. Most people I know like both high and low brow culture. I don't like Harry Potter books, but I do read the occasional horror or thriller novel, which probably no better, so I don't see why I should condem people who like HP. The only reason there is a huge Harry Potter backlash is because it's so popular. How about starting a thread about Jilly Cooper or how shit the Transformer film is instead all banging on about the same thing ? People think they are asserting their individuality by pissing on something wildly popular, but it's really just pack mentality and not that clever or interesting.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> The thing is that most people don't read great literature, watch good films, eat decent food. What are you going to do about it ?
> 
> Unlike something like Barbara Cartland, Harry Potter also gets read by people who are quite literate. Most people I know like both high and low brow culture. The only reason there is a huge Harry Potter backlash is because it's so popular. How about starting a thread about Jilly Cooper or how shit the Transformer film is instead all banging on about the same thing ?


Yeah, but that's the hoi polloi who always have shit taste - I've been seeing people who should know better reading Harry Potter


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

gives orang a standing ovation


----------



## Belushi (Jul 18, 2007)

> about Jilly Cooper or how shit the Transformer film is instead all banging on about the same thing ?



Because they're not all over the media at the moment?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> gives orang a standing ovation


I'm unleashing my inner git today


----------



## Belushi (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I'm unleashing my inner git today



It's because she killed off the ginge aint it


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> gives orang a standing ovation



Yes, it was a dead clever response. :sarcasm:


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> Nothing, but when they're reading HP, they're not reading something else



I spend half my life reading *something else.*  I just happen to like HP 'cos I find it a good read to relax with.  And what's wrong with that?


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I'm unleashing my inner git today




I admire your persistence and your willingness to go to extremes.

Meanwhile, I snicker at the gullibillity of others


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, I snicker at the gullibillity of others



I'm well aware he's on a wind-up, Dub.  On the other hand, he's making exactly the same arguments as some people who actually mean them, and at this time of an afternoon with three galsses of wine inside me (I love graduation days  ) it's easier to engage with the spoof version than the real thing.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> I'm well aware he's on a wind-up, Dub.  On the other hand, he's making exactly the same arguments as some people who actually mean them, and at this time of an afternoon with three galsses of wine inside me (I love graduation days  ) it's easier to engage with the spoof version than the real thing.




I'm not saying he doesn't SORT of mean it, by the way


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> I admire your persistence and your willingness to go to extremes.
> 
> Meanwhile, I snicker at the gullibillity of others



I think you are to easily pleased. The thought of you snickering about this is a bit sad really.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> I think you are to easily pleased. The thought of you snickering about this is a bit sad really.




i think the way you keep responding to Orang in such a po-faced manner is even sadder


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> I'm not saying he doesn't SORT of mean it, by the way



I'm sure he does, and I'm sure you do.  And I challenge you both to come and read through the contents of my living room bookshelves and then not want something as light as Potter to read in the evenings!


----------



## obanite (Jul 18, 2007)

HP is trendy.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> I'm sure he does, and I'm sure you do.  And I challenge you both to come and read through the contents of my living room bookshelves and then not want something as light as Potter to read in the evenings!


There's good light and bad light though!


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i think the way you keep responding to Orang in such a po-faced manner is even sadder



Once the quality of the comedy and japes and shit improves I'll slap my thighs and have a good old chortle. For now I think we should go have a cry on each others shoulder. It's all just too fucking sad.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 18, 2007)

obanite said:
			
		

> HP is trendy.



Yeah, thats the only reason Dub and OU dont like it.


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Yeah, thats the only reason Dub and OU dont like it.



They think they are being cool.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 18, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> They think they are being cool.



Your right, they're the same about Girls Aloud


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> They think they are being cool.


Yeah, that's right. And iconoclastic. And just better than everybody else generally. We're cultural arbiters


----------



## Belushi (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> We're cultural arbiters



You enormous wanker


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Your right, they're the same about Girls Aloud



Dub is going to start up on the Beatles again any moment now.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> You enormous wanker


That too!


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> Dub is going to start up on the Beatles again any moment now.


 We really know nothing do we


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> We really know nothing do we


You might as well give up now


----------



## Belushi (Jul 18, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> Dub is going to start up on the Beatles again any moment now.



The Rotter


----------



## obanite (Jul 18, 2007)

That's why I don't like HP either 

Nuke it from orbit, I say...


----------



## Yuwipi Woman (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I'm unleashing my inner git today



Or, overcompensating for intellectual deficiencies.  Instead of buying a big, fuck off SUV, you're buying big fuck off books.  A truely secure man could read HP and more eddifying fare.


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 18, 2007)

Blah - we've done this, haven't we?

people, who know me well enough to know better, reckon i'm a lowbrow nob-head for reading harry potter.

or more accurately, they don't want to read them, so they deride those who do.  blah.

it's stupid-arse bollocks.  it's like never going to see a film unless it's a fabulous example of the film-maker's craft.  whereas we all know that there's great fun to be had with not-very-cleverly-made films (qv, people's enjoyment of 28weeks later).  or the fact that it's for children and isn't very good to boot - which puts it on a par with say, the 70s film version of charlie and the choclate factory...

blah.  

why be snarky?  it's so boring.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 18, 2007)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> Blah - we've done this, haven't we?



About two years ago when the last one came out, and two years prior to that, and so on...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> why be snarky?  it's so boring.


Cos it's fun and I don't have enough work to do this week


----------



## madzone (Jul 18, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> Once the quality of the comedy and japes and shit improves I'll slap my thighs and have a good old chortle.


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2007)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> Blah - we've done this, haven't we?
> 
> people, who know me well enough to know better, reckon i'm a lowbrow nob-head for reading harry potter.
> 
> ...



I've just been reliably informed that all of this was "wind up" or "comedy" and that affording anybody the respect to come up with a reasonably eloquent answer is "sad". You now must "snicker". It's the appropriate response, apparently.


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2007)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> Blah - we've done this, haven't we?
> 
> people, who know me well enough to know better, reckon i'm a lowbrow nob-head for reading harry potter.
> 
> ...


 Quite.

I've heard better dialogue in some porn movies than in the Star Wars films. But that's not the point of the films of course. If it were, most people who don't like HP books wouldn't be seen dead watching those flicks.


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2007)

Reno said:
			
		

> I've just been reliably informed that all of this was "wind up" or "comedy" and that affording anybody the respect to come up with a reasonably eloquent answer is "sad". You now must "snicker". It's the appropriate response, apparently.


 Whereas it might have been comedy or a wind-up exercise, the original posting of spoilers certainly was not. And yet some people found it hilarious.


----------



## madzone (Jul 18, 2007)

I posted a thread about Krapps Last Tape and got one fucking reply - harry potter gets pages and pages


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> Quite.
> 
> I've heard better dialogue in some porn movies than in the Star Wars films. But that's not the point of the films of course. If it were, most people who don't like HP books wouldn't be seen dead watching those flicks.




you make this shit up as you go along.

You're immensely slow-witted, even when compared to other HP fans


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

madzone said:
			
		

> I posted a thread about Krapps Last Tape and got one fucking reply - harry potter gets pages and pages


I liked that play


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2007)

madzone said:
			
		

> I posted a thread about Krapps Last Tape and got one fuckng reply - harry potter gets pages and pages


 Are there any wizards, flying brooms and ginger tossers in it?

Well, there you have it then...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> I've heard better dialogue in some porn movies than in the Star Wars films. But that's not the point of the films of course. If it were, most people who don't like HP books wouldn't be seen dead watching those flicks.


I don't really understand what you're saying here


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I don't really understand what you're saying here




I'm not sure he does either, it's his usual MO


----------



## madzone (Jul 18, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> Are there any wizards, flying brooms and ginger tossers in it?
> 
> Well, there you have it then...


I meant no replies from the people who are slagging off potter for being too low brow. You give them something high brow to talk about what do they do? Spend fucking days slagging off a kids book instead


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> you make this shit up as you go along.
> 
> You're immensely slow-witted, even when compared to other HP fans


 Oh do fuck off.

By the way still haven't answered my question about why is it so odious and repugnant to laugh at people with a certain taste in fashion and accessories (your pet hate as any regular will know) and yet okay to laugh at people with a certain taste in literature.

Care to enlighten us?


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

sorry to spoil your carefully constructed but utterly fallacious arguments, madzone, but my issue with HP is not that it's lowbrow, it is that it's very poor.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> Oh do fuck off.
> 
> By the way still haven't answered my question about why is it so odious and repugnant to laugh at people with a certain taste in fashion and accessories (your pet hate as any regular will know) and yet okay to laugh at people with a certain taste in literature.
> 
> Care to enlighten us?



life's complicated


----------



## madzone (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> sorry to spoil your carefully constructed but utterly fallacious arguments, madzone, but my issue with HP is not that it's lowbrow, it is that it's very poor.


My argument still stands though darling. Krapps Last tape isn't generally thought to be poorly written but it still only got one reply


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

madzone said:
			
		

> My argument still stands though darling. Krapps Last tape isn't generally thought to be poorly written but it still only got one reply




As I'm sure you're aware, even the most diligent of posters can't be expected to see every thread, eh?

maybe everyone had you on ignore?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

madzone said:
			
		

> My argument still stands though darling. Krapps Last tape isn't generally thought to be poorly written but it still only got one reply


OK then, next time you start a thread, why don't you run it by me first? It's the best way.


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2007)

Orang Utan said:
			
		

> I don't really understand what you're saying here


 I'm saying that when something has been generally accepted to be 'cool' amongst a generation/group, folks are more than happy to overlook the lack of artistic merit within a book or film and enjoy it for what it is.

When something is however perceived as uncool or irrelevant however it's okay to slag it off and suggest anyone who enjoys it is a retard.

Now it might be the case that you or Dubersion don't have any time for Star Wars films either and see any adult who admits to enjoying the films as little more than a uncultured fool too. But I certainly have come across others who are rather selective in their scorn and ridiculing of certain books or films.


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> life's complicated


 I.e. ''I've been caught out''


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> Now it might be the case that you... don't have any time for Star Wars films either and see any adult who admits to enjoying the films as little more than a uncultured fool too.


Misguided fools, not uncultured


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> When something is however perceived as uncool or irrelevant however it's okay to slag it off and suggest anyone who enjoys it is a retard.



noo - you've got it wrong.

fuckwitted argument number 4 in the series is "you only dislike it because it's cool and you want to be different", not "you only dislike because it's uncool".

Pull  your socks up, T&P


----------



## Crispy (Jul 18, 2007)

Different tastes? Great! Fine!
Being a snob about it? A bit sad really.


----------



## Reno (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> noo - you've got it wrong.
> 
> fuckwitted argument number 4 in the series is "you only dislike it because it's cool and you want to be different", not "you only dislike because it's uncool".
> 
> Pull  your socks up, T&P



This may come as a shock, but not everybody has to play by your rules, you know.


----------



## Dubversion (Jul 18, 2007)

Crispy said:
			
		

> Different tastes? Great! Fine!
> Being a snob about it? A bit sad really.




taking some playful ribbing too seriously? a  bit sad also


----------



## Crispy (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> taking some playful ribbing too seriously? a  bit sad also


whatever. feeling strongly about it in either direction = a bit sad really.


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> noo - you've got it wrong.
> 
> fuckwitted argument number 4 in the series is "you only dislike it because it's cool and you want to be different", not "you only dislike because it's uncool".
> 
> Pull  your socks up, T&P


I would ask you whether you like Star Wars but I don't know if you do.

However I am willing to bet you enjoy watching _some_ movies or reading some books of very little merit and quality that amount to nothing more than escapism and fun. Whether it is Star Wars, Flash Gordon or fuck knows what else.

But you still feel right as rain on top of your high horse slagging off those who enjoy a bit of escapism you happen to dislike.

Now, if you however have never, _ever_ willingly read a book or watched a film of poor literary/artistic merit and enjoyed it for the piece of harmless fun and escapism it was, please accept my apologies and continue to laugh at us all for the brain-dead stupid idiots we clearly are.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 18, 2007)

I like Flash Gordon but I don't like Star Wars. I love watching poor films (though FG isn't a poor film). I don't like reading poor books. Funny that. That still doesn't stop me taking the piss as it's not supposed to make sense, is it?


----------



## jæd (Jul 18, 2007)

T & P said:
			
		

> Now, if you however have never, _ever_ willingly read a book or watched a film of poor literary/artistic merit and enjoyed it for the piece of harmless fun and escapism it was, please accept my apologies and continue to laugh at us all for the brain-dead stupid idiots we clearly are.



I'm fine with people reading or watching mindless pap, as long as they *know* its mindless pap... Its the people who read the Da Vinci Code or Harry Potter and think its great literature that I've a problem with...


----------



## T & P (Jul 18, 2007)

I know HP books are children's books, and not very good at that. I'm still looking forward to reading the last book though, preferably on a beach during my next holiday. Just as I would enjoy reading many of the thrillers and assorted paperbacks found at your nearest airport departure lounge. It's what the things were written for.


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 18, 2007)

jæd said:
			
		

> I'm fine with people reading or watching mindless pap, as long as they *know* its mindless pap... Its the people who read the Da Vinci Code or Harry Potter and think its great literature that I've a problem with...


has anyone here said that, though?


----------



## jæd (Jul 18, 2007)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> has anyone here said that, though?



I wouldn't think that anyone on U75 would equate Harry Potter with "literature", but there are many that do in the "real" world...


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Jul 18, 2007)

electrogirl said:
			
		

> i just don't understand how adults can find them interesting/challenging.


I've posted before that I found Harry Potter really helpful when I was so depressed and struggling with things that I couldn't read anything else.* It was precisely that it was simple which actually made it possible to read when I couldn't concentrate on anything else, and personally, I found it engaging enough to have an escapist quality. I wasn't going to get that from Dostoyevsky at the time - in fact reading more challenging books made me feel like shit because they couldn't hold my attention.  

This is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point I'm going to make. Not everything people want to read needs to be challenging all the time. In fact I really hate it when people look down on people for reading a certain "unchallenging" book and make judgments about readers being stupid when they often have no idea what else that person might read, or what they want from a book at that time in their lives. My reading matter varies strongly depending on what is going on in my life. Before I started my very challenging course, my reading matter was a lot more "high brow" than it is now; because now I have to read so much for work, I don't want to be challenged so much in my literature atm. Plus lots of people (me included) have a wide taste in literature, and that can range from James Joyce (or similarly "WTF?" authors) to Booker prize winners to Potter!

I personally won't be running out to buy Potter because I'm generally not that bothered, and I certainly don't think they're "great". However, because I have read the previous books there is a slight interest in what may happen, and if someone was to lend me a copy, I might want to read it (like I did with the most recent one). If anyone wanted to say that this made me stupid, I'd challenge them to read the huge pack of psychoanalytic theory I've been getting through this week! And then possibly call them a judgmental cunt.  

I can understand people not liking certain books. However, when implicit or explicit judgments about the readers start being made** then that's when it seems to get a bit snobby and, well, wanky tbh. 

*apart from re-reading the HHGTTG series again which is of course totally socially acceptable  

**with obviously exceptions relating to offensive content and personal stance, e.g. someone reading Mein Kampf because they agree with it


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 18, 2007)

Those that miss the point of reading a harry potter book just need to loosen up and stop taking things so seriously.......its un adulterated escapism, nowt to do with litertaure prowess....nothing else...


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Jul 18, 2007)

And following on from my previous post, if people want to read "unchallenging" books all the time, then that's fine too. My mate reads celeb mags all the time. People on here may well look down on her for that and think she's a stupid sheep. She's actually very bright, is a rising star in academia and is doing a PhD. Because she works so hard, she doesn't particularly want to have to think in her fair time. And fair play to her.


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Jul 18, 2007)

haylz said:
			
		

> Those that miss the point of reading a harry potter book just need to loosen up and stop taking things so seriously.......its un adulterated escapism, nowt to do with litertaure prowess....nothing else...


Yup.

Exactly the reason I enjoy Pratchett!


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 18, 2007)

Agent Sparrow said:
			
		

> And following on from my previous post, if people want to read "unchallenging" books all the time, then that's fine too. My mate reads celeb mags all the time. People on here may well look down on her for that and think she's a stupid sheep. She's actually very bright, is a rising star in academia and is doing a PhD. Because she works so hard, she doesn't particularly want to have to think in her fair time. And fair play to her.



quite, its those that have to turn everything into an intellectual playing field that really need to get some EQ ...   

I hate that term but was the nicest i could find


----------



## Iam (Jul 18, 2007)

haylz said:
			
		

> Those that miss the point of reading a harry potter book just need to loosen up and stop taking things so seriously.......its un adulterated escapism, nowt to do with litertaure prowess....nothing else...



See, that's what I reckon, too.

Still, it's not like the opinion of some random on the 'net can affect peoples' enjoyment of a thing anyway, is it?


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 18, 2007)

Agent Sparrow said:
			
		

> Yup.
> 
> Exactly the reason I enjoy Pratchett!



my ex always had his nose in them 

I love flying away with a bit of "harold robbins" as im  really a 70s sex crazed groupee with lip gloss and a big flicked hairsprayed fringe........


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 18, 2007)

Iam said:
			
		

> See, that's what I reckon, too.
> 
> Still, it's not like the opinion of some random on the 'net can affect peoples' enjoyment of a thing anyway, is it?



I subscribe a game of twister for these folks


----------



## Agent Sparrow (Jul 18, 2007)

haylz said:
			
		

> quite, its those that have to turn everything into an intellectual playing field that really need to get some EQ ...
> 
> I hate that term but was the nicest i could find


Very restrained haylz!  

My mate also reads chic lit, the ones with really gaudy front covers which are always advertised on the tube (which tbh, I would never read). However, she likes them and has enough inner confidence to be quite amused by the sneering stares she gets on the tube! 

Edit: this is the reason you should never automatically look down on someone for their reading material - they could be far more intelligent than you!


----------



## PacificOcean (Jul 18, 2007)

I've not read a Harry Potter, but I was wondering if those who slate it as mindless drivel, can give me an aproved reading list?

I hear the Nazis used to provide this useful service too.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 18, 2007)

Agent Sparrow said:
			
		

> Very restrained haylz!
> 
> My mate also reads chic lit, the ones with really gaudy front covers which are always advertised on the tube (which tbh, I would never read). However, she likes them and has enough inner confidence to be quite amused by the sneering stares she gets on the tube!
> 
> Edit: this is the reason you should never automatically look down on someone for their reading material - they could be far more intelligent than you!



yes me too, i love the stare i get when im reading 'The Betsy' another robbins book on my hols!!!!  fuck em..... 

ooooopps, was doing so well with the restrained bit then


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 18, 2007)

I've just seen the film and:

1. It's better than the book IMV - GoF was where Bloomsbury's editors started getting scared of Rowling's 'I control the future of this company' power and stopped actaully editing her writing properly, OOtP was worse, but the film (from what I remember of the book) strips LOADS of the fat off, leaves the story more intact that the GoF film managed.

2. The final battle sequence in the Ministry has absolutely everything I could want from an FX sequence - and it's good to go to a film where the best FX actually come at the end of the film (the bit where Voldermort blows all the glass out...awesome)

3. New lust object, Natalia Tena as Nymphadora Tonks.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 19, 2007)

Big whirling ball of water. Now that's what magic should look like


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 19, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> 1. It's better than the book IMV - GoF was where Bloomsbury's editors started getting scared of Rowling's 'I control the future of this company' power and stopped actaully editing her writing properly, OOtP was worse, but the film (from what I remember of the book) strips LOADS of the fat off, leaves the story more intact that the GoF film managed.



Tbh I think Order of the Phoenix is the best of the books precisely because it's long.  It seems more ... rounded and complete somehow than the earlier books, with the exception of Goblet of Fire. In contrast, I was disappointed with Half-blood Prince because it was too stilted, too brief, as if she was writing down to a strict word limit and didn't have space to develop sub-plots and characters as she did in the two previous books.


----------



## Iam (Jul 19, 2007)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> Tbh I think Order of the Phoenix is the best of the books precisely because it's long.  It seems more ... rounded and complete somehow than the earlier books, with the exception of Goblet of Fire. In contrast, I was disappointed with Half-blood Prince because it was too stilted, too brief, as if she was writing down to a strict word limit and didn't have space to develop sub-plots and characters as she did in the two previous books.



Agreed. There was a definite slip, imo.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 21, 2007)

Fullyplumped said:
			
		

> You never said what you think about Tracy Beaker, or the Jacqueline Wilson _œuvre_.




Well I won't comment on what I haven't read....


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 21, 2007)

scifisam said:
			
		

> Now, I like the Artemis Fowl stories, but the writing is absolutely shit. The first book, in particular, read like the work of a 13-year-old. The storylines are engaging, though - simplistic, in some ways, but with a good pace - and the imagined world is fantastic. Harry Potter has the same pluses and the same minuses, *except that the writing's actually a bit better.
> 
> I know that's a matter of opinion*,
> 
> ...


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 21, 2007)

Just come back from seeing it........WOW it was brilliant, the storyline was amazing and the fight scenes and new characters wonderful.....was sad that sirius died, me and fern blubbed away!!!


----------



## Dhimmi (Jul 21, 2007)

Fuck 'em, they're only childrens books.


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jul 21, 2007)

Dhimmi said:
			
		

> Fuck 'em, they're only childrens books.



exactly


----------



## Julie (Jul 21, 2007)

Never read a Harry Potter book or seen any of the movies. Wizards are not my cuppa java.


----------



## winterinmoscow (Jul 22, 2007)

right can someone give me a summary of the last one, cos I'm nowhere near a bookshop and would like to know what happens? Puhleease


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 22, 2007)

well i clicked on that spoiler website and none of it was real ... i loved the book, just finished it


----------



## winterinmoscow (Jul 22, 2007)

frogwoman said:
			
		

> well i clicked on that spoiler website and none of it was real ... i loved the book, just finished it



please tell me what happens! as you've finished it!


----------



## chilango (Jul 22, 2007)

well I woke up yesterday morning with a bastard of a hangover, so instead of heading off to pick up som punk CDs wandered down to the general store round the corner and picked up the first copy of the US 1st edition that the shop's employees were unpacking out of a box (yeah even in Mexico HP in english...cool) and spent the afternon alternatatly popping ibuprofen and reading the book.

Yeah...a lot a predictable stuff (though i guess that was kinda satisfying) and one or two throwaway and unneccesary twists to spice things up.

Felt a little anticlimatic at the end mind.

Still, I enjoyed it.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 22, 2007)

I've finished the book, and was pleasantly surprised at how good it was. I expected it to be very enjoyable, but didn't expect the writing to have improved that much - or perhaps I went into it with low expectations because of all the people (mostly those who haven't actually read the books) saying that the Harry Potter books are badly written. (Though someone needs to take JK aside and teach her about punctuation, in particular colons and semi-colons). 

I'd give it a nine out of ten.


----------



## George & Bill (Jul 23, 2007)

why can't jk rowling or whateverhernameis make up her own stories instead of just keep on making books-of-the-film??!!


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 23, 2007)

winterinmoscow said:
			
		

> please tell me what happens! as you've finished it!


erm you'll have to read it yourself lol ... where are u up to??

x


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 23, 2007)

I rather enjoyed the book too. But my word, JK Rowling's a bit bloodthirsty. Is she working her way through some sort of emotional catharsis by butchering all those characters? She's like the Grim Reaper with a combine harvester...

SG


----------



## slaar (Jul 23, 2007)

elevendayempire said:
			
		

> I rather enjoyed the book too. But my word, JK Rowling's a bit bloodthirsty. Is she working her way through some sort of emotional catharsis by butchering all those characters? She's like the Grim Reaper with a combine harvester...
> 
> SG


To be honest, I was expecting loads more main characters to die.

One thing I did think at the end is that actually the wizarding world is quite small in terms of numbers.

Really enjoyed the book though, the best yet I think except for about a third of the way through when it gets slow for a few chapters. The last few chapters are great.


----------



## elevendayempire (Jul 23, 2007)

How many times did Harry get his kit off, too? I reckon Rowling might've been writing those bits with the film version in mind... 

SG


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 23, 2007)

> One thing I did think at the end is that actually the wizarding world is quite small in terms of numbers.



yeah, me too! I was expecting it to be way bigger!!  There aren't that many witches and wizards at all, and I assumed that there were other wizard schools in the uk apart from Hogwarts, but no...


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 23, 2007)

scifisam said:
			
		

> I've finished the book, and was pleasantly surprised at how good it was. I expected it to be very enjoyable, but didn't expect the writing to have improved that much - or perhaps I went into it with low expectations because of all the people (mostly those who haven't actually read the books) saying that the Harry Potter books are badly written. (Though someone needs to take JK aside and teach her about punctuation, in particular colons and semi-colons).
> 
> I'd give it a nine out of ten.


right abouth the punctuation - but that's a function of the editing process, surely?

what I found truly clunky are the two entire chapters of exposition toward the end. i  guess it's hard to wrap up a series neatly without it - and those chapters probably saved us 400 extra pages of conventional storytelling, but...

oh - and i hated the epilogue.

but i loved it.  and i cried.  when did i cry?  see below in white...

when you find out that lupin and tonks have died - somehow much worse than fred because you don't "see" it happen - and you think about their poor baby, and it reminds you of harry... it's all very upsetting.

but otherwise i thought it quite exciting.  rather too reliant on polyjuice potion, but fabulous nonetheless.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 23, 2007)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> right abouth the punctuation - but that's a function of the editing process, surely?



It would be if she had a proper editor, but, sadly, she doesn't. 

I also hated the exposition ('show, don't tell,' Rowling!) and the epilogue (seemed lifted from a fanfic) - but not enough to mar my general enjoyment of the book.


----------



## felixthecat (Jul 23, 2007)

We had  a booknapping at work today - a colleague's Harry Potter book was kidnapped and held for ransom - 6 chocolate eclairs to be in the fridge by 9am tomorrow or her book would be returned....................... page by page. 

So far she's blamed everyone except for the actual culprit


----------



## jæd (Jul 24, 2007)

scifisam said:
			
		

> It would be if she had a proper editor, but, sadly, she doesn't.
> 
> I also hated the exposition ('show, don't tell,' Rowling!) and the epilogue (seemed lifted from a fanfic) - but not enough to mar my general enjoyment of the book.



Started reading it last night. And then found that JK's style hasn't changed since the first book. (Leaden writing, too much exposition, and deux ex's,  So I rapidly flipped to the end to see what happens... Very meh at the ending... 

Its ok for a kids books, but there isn't a plot twist I haven't seen before. (Or even a interesting enough plot twist...)


----------



## heartof gold (Jul 24, 2007)

I Feel Sorry For The Bookshops They Cant Compete With The Supermarkets Who Want To Sell The Book As Cheap As They Can And Push Small Shops Out Of Business.

I Dont Read Them But Each To Their Own As They Say.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 24, 2007)

heartof gold said:
			
		

> I Feel Sorry For The Bookshops They Cant Compete With The Supermarkets Who Want To Sell The Book As Cheap As They Can And Push Small Shops Out Of Business.
> 
> I Dont Read Them But Each To Their Own As They Say.



Why Are You Capitalising Each Word?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 24, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> Why Are You Capitalising Each Word?



bETTER tHAT wAY tHAN tHIS.


----------



## Julie (Jul 28, 2007)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> bETTER tHAT wAY tHAN tHIS.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 28, 2007)

heartof gold said:
			
		

> I Feel Sorry For The Bookshops They Cant Compete With The Supermarkets Who Want To Sell The Book As Cheap As They Can And Push Small Shops Out Of Business.
> 
> I Dont Read Them But Each To Their Own As They Say.



Me Too. But That Goes For Lots Of Other Books Too, Not Just Harry Potter. I Don't Buy Books From Supermarkets Because Of The Way They Treat The Authors And The Bookshops. 

That capitalising thing is catching - I feel like I'm talking in really over-corrective German.


----------



## Jenerys (Jul 28, 2007)

Can I tell you all who dies?

It's really not that hard to work out.....hmmm 3 main characters....


----------



## Jenerys (Jul 28, 2007)

ps as someone who hasnt read the books and was talking to my dad today who has, but is also bloody well read, do you, like him, believe HP wont be remembered 100 years from now, as dad said, he isnt Oliver Twist?


----------



## scifisam (Jul 28, 2007)

Nah. It's too important for the generation who've grown up with it, not to speak of the grown-ups who like it. 

Dickens is, in many respects, Not That Good. Oliver is about as rounded a character as Spongebob Squarepants.


----------



## Jenerys (Jul 28, 2007)

scifisam said:
			
		

> Oliver is about as rounded a character as Spongebob Squarepants.


I find myself sexually aroused by Spongebob Squarepants  

Oliver Oliver, never before has a boy wanted more

HP - fucking pussy

So...shall I tell you who dies?


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 28, 2007)

LilJen said:
			
		

> I find myself sexually aroused by Spongebob Squarepants
> 
> Oliver Oliver, never before has a boy wanted more
> 
> ...


there is a spoiler thread already.  interestingly, the most widespread spoilers were wrong.  

But anyway, don't - or on behalf of the slow readers I *will* hunt you down and bitch-slap you...


----------



## scifisam (Jul 29, 2007)

LilJen said:
			
		

> I find myself sexually aroused by Spongebob Squarepants
> 
> Oliver Oliver, never before has a boy wanted more
> 
> ...



Everyone, eventually. 

You can tell me all whatever you like. And I shall point and laugh because most of the spoilers were wrong, and I've read the book.


----------



## bellator (Jul 29, 2007)

I've read the book too and as much as people say on some of these sites that adults are idiots for reading childrens books. Ok I'm an idiot 'cause I bloody enjoyed it!


----------



## Pinette (Jul 29, 2007)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> so you don't think there have  been similar fads in the past? the nature of the media is different now, so the direct comparisons you're trying to make are futile, but you need to do a little research. look at Rudolf Valentino, Frank Sinatra and the bobbysoxers, Beatlemania, Bay City Rollermania, Bros Mania, Star Wars, Princess Di, fucking Pokemon.
> 
> there's nothing remarkable about Harry Potter that isn't a function of the current nature of the media compared with other decades.


Agree with you 100%


----------



## Cheesypoof (Jul 29, 2007)

fucking loathe harry potter


----------



## J77 (Aug 2, 2007)

"It was better than the last book", Hermione exclaimed.

"Yes", replied Harry as his sacr started to tingle.

Ron went red.

*****

JK should get me in to write the prequels... "





> On July 24, 2007, Rowling announced in an interview that she "probably will" write an encyclopedia of the Harry Potter world, which would include background information cut from the narrative as well as post-Deathly Hallows information, including details of what happens to the other characters, who the new Hogwarts headmaster is, and more. [21]


----------

