[unalone]

See, Harry Potter I love. I don't call it perfect, but I'd say it's the best children's lit I've read, despite the fact that Rowling's writing isn't as good as Lewis's or Pullman's.

As I wrote on another thread yesterday: Rowling's point is that we're not born equal. People are born more talented than other people. That's a fact. What doesn't change between people is that we can all choose how to live despite what we were born with. You can be brilliant and still be an awful person. Similarly, you can be pretty talentless and still do some great things.

Her writing never strikes me as bad. I know the criticisms, and I can see them when I read, but it's an acceptable level of bad. It gets out of the way to make room for her plot, which is one of the best plots I've found in any series (she writes mystery better than anybody), and for her characters, and her characters are among the best in literature. She has an extremely subtle hand at creating character traits, and a lot of people miss that because they feel that the way they feel about the characters is so obvious that it must be because she states things in an obvious manner, which she doesn't.

(I wrote my senior thesis paper on Harry Potter, and I have a huge essay crammed in my throat that's waiting for me to write once I have some of my other writing plans out of the way.)

Twilight, on the other hand, is awful in every way. The characters are terrible. The writing is sawdust. The plot and the morals are such a step back from the shades-of-grey of Harry Potter that I want to slap Meyer and all her fans in one grand-tour slapfest. Perhaps you escaped college before Twilight hit, but it brings out the worst in its fans. I cannot think of a single redeeming feature of the entire series.

[electromagnetic]

I think my hatred for Harry Potter isn't completely because of the fact that I hate the series. I believe it comes more from the fact that the English school system proposed placing it on the national curriculum's book list and were planning to remove either Of Mice and Men or The Lord of the Flies. Thankfully they completely changed this, allowing teachers to teach whatever books they want as long as they were established texts, which included Harry Potter.

I believe the rest of my distaste for the series came from when the books were initially released. There was such hype over a kids book and in my free time I was reading many of the sci-fi classics, and when I finally got to reading Harry Potter it was just an extremely campy version of Ender's Game. I believe even Orson Scott Card (who's a fan of Harry Potter) pointed this out when J.K. Rowling targeted her own fans for the Harry Potter lexicon for 'stealing her ideas'.

I'm fully aware of all that's wrong with the Twilight novels, but it never really bothered me and I've generally avoided books written in first person. However, I came from the UK so I never read or heard anything until I was ambushed into reading it by my (then fiancee) wife, I'd given her like my favorite book of all time to read The Strange Life of Ivan Osokin and she gave me Twilight, which wasn't exactly a fair trade: 200 page book at like 4x5 vs 500 page at 5x7. Then, of course, the movie came out and her friend just happened to have extra tickets for the opening night. I believe that's the easiest I've ever been tricked.

Although, rather ironically, I believe I've contributed more money to Rowling and the Harry Potter series as I have watched most of the movies and eventually actually paid to see the most recent one, and I've yet to give a penny to Mayer.

[unalone]

That's a fair enough reason to dislike something. I hate curriculums to begin with. They limit a teacher's freedom in a way that I dislike.

There was such hype over a kids book and in my free time I was reading many of the sci-fi classics, and when I finally got to reading Harry Potter it was just an extremely campy version of Ender's Game. I believe even Orson Scott Card (who's a fan of Harry Potter) pointed this out when J.K. Rowling targeted her own fans for the Harry Potter lexicon for 'stealing her ideas'.

To be fair, Rowling reminded the world that writers can be superstars given the right context. They reminded a lot of serious writers that literature isn't necessarily dead.

As for the Ender's Game comparison: Harry Potter is far superior. Ender's Game is better-written on first glance, but it does a lot of things I really dislike. As I get older, I like Card's writing less and less.

OSC himself is a hypocrite. He praised Deathly Hallows as one of the greatest moments in modern literature. Once Rowling called Dumbledore gay, OSC, who's devout Mormon, took every chance he could to insult her for that decision and tried as much as possible to show that he wasn't a Harry Potter fan after all. He completely about-faced. The man has a decent writing style, but his opinions are pretty messed up.

(I'd argue with you about the maturity of Harry Potter's plot, but I doubt you want a long diatribe about a book series you're not a fan of, so I'll clam up.)

[electromagnetic]

I follow the philosophy of 'if it isn't in the book, it isn't cannon' so I strongly disagree with how Rowling actually came out saying Dumbledore was gay. I don't get why it wasn't revealed in a book if the character was actually gay. Aside from the religious wackies (which I didn't presume OSC to be) I think most people in modern society aren't offended by a homosexual character, so it strikes me as moronic it wasn't simply stated. I mean he's like an 80 year old man who has no mention of ever being married, in a relationship or having children, I simply assumed he was gay from the beginning.

I'd argue with you about the maturity of Harry Potter's plot, but I doubt you want a long diatribe about a book series you're not a fan of, so I'll clam up.

I'm aware the plot gets more complex as the series progresses and I've considered reading the books, although I'll likely wait a while after the film series is completed. My opinion of it has changed, possibly because the series does mature as the characters do (which is actually quite commendable), but I believe when I tried reading the first book I think I was already trying to read much more complicated books, it felt like stepping down. I didn't see the reward in reading a book for kids when I was reading adult books, which my opinion now is beginning to change. I respect the YA fiction a lot more now, especially since that's what I'm aiming my first novel for.

So who knows, I might have eventually picked up the first Harry Potter book from a purely research perspective. I mean for all my criticism of Rowling, I do admit she's wildly successful and I forgot who said it but "There's no point in being a brilliant writer if no body ever reads it."

[unalone]

I think most people in modern society aren't offended by a homosexual character, so it strikes me as moronic it wasn't simply stated. I mean he's like an 80 year old man who has no mention of ever being married, in a relationship or having children, I simply assumed he was gay from the beginning.

There was never really any reason to say it. I think the seventh book hints at it but there's no point in the series where it would make sense for him to mention it.

As for canon: I think canon is stupid. I don't get into arguments about fictional characters. It makes sense to me that J. K. Rowling would make Dumbledore gay, so I don't care that she announced that, save that I think it might help some kids realize that homosexuality is okay.

I believe when I tried reading the first book I think I was already trying to read much more complicated books, it felt like stepping down. I didn't see the reward in reading a book for kids when I was reading adult books, which my opinion now is beginning to change. I respect the YA fiction a lot more now, especially since that's what I'm aiming my first novel for.

If you haven't read more than the first book I'd absolutely understand how you feel. I was really lucky: I started reading the books at a time when the fourth book came out just in time for me to buy it, and the fourth book is where there's a real turn in how the books progress. (The third book had begun this, and it won the Hugo, I believe; the second book is the single weak point of the series.) So I got caught up at an age and at a time where the series really lifted up.

I forgot who said it but "There's no point in being a brilliant writer if no body ever reads it."

Brilliant writers can't help but be noticed. Even when they're bizarro brilliant, like David Foster Wallace, they find people willing to accept them. And I think Rowling is brilliant too: she's not a brilliant writer, but she's one of the best storytellers I've ever come across.