I'm sure I've already mentioned it, but the sheep-like following of a second-rate children's book series, and its inevitable movie adaptation, is quite disconcerting...
24:Harry Potter as LB:Farmar/Morrison
Nah. I just have a strong urge not to deify things that don't measure up artistically to the marketing hype. Oprah, Grisham. Rowlings, Jim Carrey, etc.
Potter isn't close to literature. It's greatness for the simple crowd. Even my 6 year old (at the time) was able to poke holes in it. To compare it to Tolkien, Lewis, Jordan, Eddings, King, etc., is just, well, childish fantasy...
We get it 24
Who compares it to Tolkien? I haven't heard that comparison anywhere. It's less cerebral than Tolkien, so it's obviously going to be more popular. This doesn't mean the series is without merit. _________________ 14-5-3-12
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:22 am Post subject:
ocho wrote:
24 wrote:
ocho wrote:
24 wrote:
I'm sure I've already mentioned it, but the sheep-like following of a second-rate children's book series, and its inevitable movie adaptation, is quite disconcerting...
24:Harry Potter as LB:Farmar/Morrison
Nah. I just have a strong urge not to deify things that don't measure up artistically to the marketing hype. Oprah, Grisham. Rowlings, Jim Carrey, etc.
Potter isn't close to literature. It's greatness for the simple crowd. Even my 6 year old (at the time) was able to poke holes in it. To compare it to Tolkien, Lewis, Jordan, Eddings, King, etc., is just, well, childish fantasy...
We get it 24
Who compares it to Tolkien? I haven't heard that comparison anywhere. It's less cerebral than Tolkien, so it's obviously going to be more popular. This doesn't mean the series is without merit.
Hey, just my opinion, and you are welcome to yours, but if you don't think it's being compared, you don't read much out there.
I agree about the accessibility, but I find it odd that you of all people would defend something that's artistically similar to a lot of things you rail against in other areas... _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
I'm sure I've already mentioned it, but the sheep-like following of a second-rate children's book series, and its inevitable movie adaptation, is quite disconcerting...
24:Harry Potter as LB:Farmar/Morrison
Nah. I just have a strong urge not to deify things that don't measure up artistically to the marketing hype. Oprah, Grisham. Rowlings, Jim Carrey, etc.
Potter isn't close to literature. It's greatness for the simple crowd. Even my 6 year old (at the time) was able to poke holes in it. To compare it to Tolkien, Lewis, Jordan, Eddings, King, etc., is just, well, childish fantasy...
We get it 24
Who compares it to Tolkien? I haven't heard that comparison anywhere. It's less cerebral than Tolkien, so it's obviously going to be more popular. This doesn't mean the series is without merit.
Hey, just my opinion, and you are welcome to yours, but if you don't think it's being compared, you don't read much out there.
I agree about the accessibility, but I find it odd that you of all people would defend something that's artistically similar to a lot of things you rail against in other areas...
Fair enough. Never heard anybody say that it's better than Tolkien. I certainly don't think it is.
We of course come to a divergence of opinion on the quality of the series. I think you lump it into the same company as stuff like Transformers whereas I think it's a lot better. The way I see it, it would be foolish to compare Star Wars to 2001 although both are considered in the same genre. Clearly, 2001 is a better film than Star Wars and has loftier artistic aspirations. Does this mean that Star Wars can't be enjoyed? Does this mean Star Wars has no place in the world of cinema? There is high art and there is fun genre stuff. As long as one isn't confused for the other I don't see the problem. Star Wars is actually similar to Potter in many ways. They aren't high art, they both create highly imaginative universes that house familiar character archetypes that engage in exciting adventures. It's not on the same level of artistic integrity as Lord of the Rings or 2001 but I don't think that was the goal in the first place. _________________ 14-5-3-12
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:26 pm Post subject:
Be careful Ocho, you're starting to make the Will Smith fans' argument
I considered Star Wars, but even that world is much more fleshed out, and there's a far superior story arc, not to mention 3 dimensional characters (and if Mark Hamill is more convincing than your prose, you have a problem).
HP has more in common with the second batch of SW, IMO. Same goofy, lowbrow, kid centric stuff devoid of congruence. Think Star Trek, the series, because Potterites are very much the new Trekkie.
Don't get me wrong. I get why Budweiser, McDonald's, and the Jonas Brothers are popular. I get that the average reader/ movie goer doesn't get, much less enjoy, anything of real substance. I just don't think that we should back-fill a phenomenon by applying substance to it that isn't there in the first place.
Fact is, Rowlings is an execrable writer. Technically, she's not fit to write a college term paper. The first book was the best, primarily because it was the original foray into the millieu, written for pre-pubescent children by a GED-quality writer. It's cute in its way, lightweight but with some imagination.
The problem is that she inexplicably hit the crosshairs of the hype machine, and thus continued to write them, albeit without any editorial pressure to up her game. It's quite clear she had no real direction the story was heading when she penned the first one. Her "style" is strictly paint-by-numbers, and she's never even learned to vary the dialogue indicators beyond, "then he said", and "she said". The plot arcs of each book are strictly Saturday Afternoon Special, straight from the "plots for dummies" school.
I am amused when people point out to me how the story has become "older", "darker", and "edgier". It has always been written at the level of a 9-10 year-old, and the new darkness is really quite like what a 10 year old would think was dark and edgy. Despite the fact that Rowlings has advanced past the age of 11, her story nonetheless stays firmly rooted in the 10 year-old mindset. The teen angst, romance, and "adult" concepts remain viewed through the prism of someone who may be a bit precocious, but has not actually experienced such things.
Harry remains remarkably 2-dimensional. He reminds me of Forrest Gump, preternaturally lucky, but incapable of understanding, much less fully participating in, his adventure. Like Gump, the world turns up roses for him, and all the tragedy happens around him. Like Gump, he maintains a "box of chocolates" mentality. He's a prop piece, and we must necessarily dis-invest ourselves of our complexity in order to identify with him. He hasn't a clue what all this means because, quite frankly, Rowlings doesn't either.
That was the beauty of Tolkien, his ability to tap into the mind and imagination of a child, and make the very adult myths and archetypes accessible to them, leading them through time to a more mature understanding of things. He took the simple and the fanciful, and married them in a way that was imaginative and entertaining, but also substantial.
Rowlings is exactly the opposite. She requires adults to shed their most basic understandings and lower their gaze to pre-teen cliche', and encourages kids to remain locked in never-never land. THere are no bridges to greater meaning, merely ham-handed and puerile attempts at unsophisticated allegory. I suspect she fancies that she's deep and meaningful, but in the end she's merely trite and simplistic. Friendship is good? Discrimination is bad? Really? Who woulda thunk it? Harry doesn't teach children to accept the muggles of life, nor do the muggles ever achieve anything of value themselves. It is not his muggle half that makes Harry successful, it is his magic and luck (and one of the most inept villains in literary history). It's like telling a story about the trials of a half-black child in the 50's, except everything good that happens is because he can pass as white. And the friendship angle is really only a boon to Harry. In the end, he's the pinnacle of the privileged people, and all the little people are just set pieces that help him advance to becoming the greatest wizard of them all.
Worst of all, Rowlings success resets the entire genre, so now instead of looking for the next Tolkien, publishers are looking for the next Rawlings. And you end up with Twilight. Parents are so ecstatic that their kids will read, they fail to realize that what they are reading has been stripped of most of what makes you want your kids to read in the first place. Feeding a kid French fries will not make him a vegetable lover, no matter how hard you try to imagine it will.
OK, so I'm taking it too seriously. I should lighten up and just accept it as entertainment. Unfortunately, like everything else in our crass commercial world of inanity and hype, Potter is working to make sure that that's all their is, the easy, the mass-produced, the vapid. Funny thing, I bought my nephew the complete LOTR for Christmas. After a brief try, he admitted he's not reading it, because it's "too hard". But he was on hand for HP's midnight release, and he's planning to start Twilight. And he's 12. There's a reason America isn't pumping out the world's great minds anymore. None of the kids want to take Physics at Stanford. They're too busy taking Magic at Hogwarts... _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Be careful Ocho, you're starting to make the Will Smith fans' argument
I considered Star Wars, but even that world is much more fleshed out, and there's a far superior story arc, not to mention 3 dimensional characters (and if Mark Hamill is more convincing than your prose, you have a problem).
HP has more in common with the second (bleep) of SW, IMO. Same goofy, lowbrow, kid centric stuff devoid of congruence. Think Star Trek, the series, because Potterites are very much the new Trekkie.
Don't get me wrong. I get why Budweiser, McDonald's, and the Jonas Brothers are popular. I get that the average reader/ movie goer doesn't get, much less enjoy, anything of real substance. I just don't think that we should back-fill a phenomenon by applying substance to it that isn't there in the first place.
Fact is, Rowlings is an execrable writer. Technically, she's not fit to write a college term paper. The first book was the best, primarily because it was the original foray into the millieu, written for pre-pubescent children by a GED-quality writer. It's cute in its way, lightweight but with some imagination.
The problem is that she inexplicably hit the crosshairs of the hype machine, and thus continued to write them, albeit without any editorial pressure to up her game. It's quite clear she had no real direction the story was heading when she penned the first one. Her "style" is strictly paint-by-numbers, and she's never even learned to vary the dialogue indicators beyond, "then he said", and "she said". The plot arcs of each book are strictly Saturday Afternoon Special, straight from the "plots for dummies" school.
I am amused when people point out to me how the story has become "older", "darker", and "edgier". It has always been written at the level of a 9-10 year-old, and the new darkness is really quite like what a 10 year old would think was dark and edgy. Despite the fact that Rowlings has advanced past the age of 11, her story nonetheless stays firmly rooted in the 10 year-old mindset. The teen angst, romance, and "adult" concepts remain viewed through the prism of someone who may be a bit precocious, but has not actually experienced such things.
Harry remains remarkably 2-dimensional. He reminds me of Forrest Gump, preternaturally lucky, but incapable of understanding, much less fully participating in, his adventure. Like Gump, the world turns up roses for him, and all the tragedy happens around him. Like Gump, he maintains a "box of chocolates" mentality. He's a prop piece, and we must necessarily dis-invest ourselves of our complexity in order to identify with him. He hasn't a clue what all this means because, quite frankly, Rowlings doesn't either.
That was the beauty of Tolkien, his ability to tap into the mind and imagination of a child, and make the very adult myths and archetypes accessible to them, leading them through time to a more mature understanding of things. He took the simple and the fanciful, and married them in a way that was imaginative and entertaining, but also substantial.
Rowlings is exactly the opposite. She requires adults to shed their most basic understandings and lower their gaze to pre-teen cliche', and encourages kids to remain locked in never-never land. THere are no bridges to greater meaning, merely ham-handed and puerile attempts at unsophisticated allegory. I suspect she fancies that she's deep and meaningful, but in the end she's merely trite and simplistic. Friendship is good? Discrimination is bad? Really? Who woulda thunk it? Harry doesn't teach children to accept the muggles of life, nor do the muggles ever achieve anything of value themselves. It is not his muggle half that makes Harry successful, it is his magic and luck (and one of the most inept villains in literary history). It's like telling a story about the trials of a half-black child in the 50's, except everything good that happens is because he can pass as white. And the friendship angle is really only a boon to Harry. In the end, he's the pinnacle of the privileged people, and all the little people are just set pieces that help him advance to becoming the greatest wizard of them all.
Worst of all, Rowlings success resets the entire genre, so now instead of looking for the next Tolkien, publishers are looking for the next Rawlings. And you end up with Twilight. Parents are so ecstatic that their kids will read, they fail to realize that what they are reading has been stripped of most of what makes you want your kids to read in the first place. Feeding a kid French fries will not make him a vegetable lover, no matter how hard you try to imagine it will.
OK, so I'm taking it too seriously. I should lighten up and just accept it as entertainment. Unfortunately, like everything else in our crass commercial world of inanity and hype, Potter is working to make sure that that's all their is, the easy, the mass-produced, the vapid. Funny thing, I bought my nephew the complete LOTR for Christmas. After a brief try, he admitted he's not reading it, because it's "too hard". But he was on hand for HP's midnight release, and he's planning to start Twilight. And he's 12. There's a reason America isn't pumping out the world's great minds anymore. None of the kids want to take Physics at Stanford. They're too busy taking Magic at Hogwarts...
What he said.
I'll also add that Brandon was stuck on that HP crap and shying away from hard reading. He was required by us as parents to read an hour a day and he was in the 5th grade and reading at 11th grade level, but still I knew he was reading but not using his brain at all.
So I started to put the time in with him. We have so far read and completely dissected "To Kill a Mockingbird," "Animal farm," and "Huck Finn." We start on "The Bluest eyes." this week. He reads the chapters and then we spend hours on the Cliffs notes examining themes, literary devices and symbolism. It takes time, but it's a great bonding experience and most importantly, I know he's getting the best possible chance to study anything he damn well wants at Stanford or Harvard. _________________ “It took many years of vomiting up all the filth I’d been taught about myself, and half-believed, before I was able to walk on the earth as though I had a right to be here.”
― James Baldwin, Collected Essays
Last edited by KobeBryantCliffordBrown on Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
Well I certainly agree with some, and disagree with other elements of your assessment of the franchise. I'm curious as to how many of the books you've read, or how many of the films you've seen. I assume you read 1 or 2 and then stopped?
I can appreciate your lamenting of the infrequency of high quality literature, but think you're taking that anger out on poor Harry a bit unfairly. I don't think that series was ever meant to be anything other than a fun story. It just became far more popular than it should have been. High art is never going to be the most popular thing out there. Perhaps you nephew will return to the series when he's a bit older and find that it's a more satisfying experience. After all, it's not like Tolkien's work has been brushed under the rug or suffers from a lack of popularity. It's certainly lasted the test of time, kids still read it and the movies were extraordinarily successful. I think there is enough room to have both, though I can certainly understand the frustration that the inferior work is far more popular. _________________ 14-5-3-12
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:54 pm Post subject:
ocho wrote:
Well I certainly agree with some, and disagree with other elements of your assessment of the franchise. I'm curious as to how many of the books you've read, or how many of the films you've seen. I assume you read 1 or 2 and then stopped?
I can appreciate your lamenting of the infrequency of high quality literature, but think you're taking that anger out on poor Harry a bit unfairly. I don't think that series was ever meant to be anything other than a fun story. It just became far more popular than it should have been. High art is never going to be the most popular thing out there. Perhaps you nephew will return to the series when he's a bit older and find that it's a more satisfying experience. After all, it's not like Tolkien's work has been brushed under the rug or suffers from a lack of popularity. It's certainly lasted the test of time, kids still read it and the movies were extraordinarily successful. I think there is enough room to have both, though I can certainly understand the frustration that the inferior work is far more popular.
I tend to agree that I am taking out things on Potter, but then again, the worship of Potter contributes mightily to the things I'm angry about in the first place. I don't blame Rowlings either. Hey, if you suck, but people keep telling you how great you are, how would you know you suck, much less have any motivation for improvement?
I'm sure there are tons of evil businesses, but Wal-Mart catches the flak because it's the most visible, and thus the more relevant target. If you want to oppose the giant, you aim for the head, else no one will know what you are talking about. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:56 pm Post subject:
BTW Ocho, I've read all but a couple of the books. My Kids were huge on them, and I wanted to see for myself. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Be careful Ocho, you're starting to make the Will Smith fans' argument
I considered Star Wars, but even that world is much more fleshed out, and there's a far superior story arc, not to mention 3 dimensional characters (and if Mark Hamill is more convincing than your prose, you have a problem).
HP has more in common with the second batch of SW, IMO. Same goofy, lowbrow, kid centric stuff devoid of congruence. Think Star Trek, the series, because Potterites are very much the new Trekkie.
Don't get me wrong. I get why Budweiser, McDonald's, and the Jonas Brothers are popular. I get that the average reader/ movie goer doesn't get, much less enjoy, anything of real substance. I just don't think that we should back-fill a phenomenon by applying substance to it that isn't there in the first place.
Fact is, Rowlings is an execrable writer. Technically, she's not fit to write a college term paper. The first book was the best, primarily because it was the original foray into the millieu, written for pre-pubescent children by a GED-quality writer. It's cute in its way, lightweight but with some imagination.
The problem is that she inexplicably hit the crosshairs of the hype machine, and thus continued to write them, albeit without any editorial pressure to up her game. It's quite clear she had no real direction the story was heading when she penned the first one. Her "style" is strictly paint-by-numbers, and she's never even learned to vary the dialogue indicators beyond, "then he said", and "she said". The plot arcs of each book are strictly Saturday Afternoon Special, straight from the "plots for dummies" school.
I am amused when people point out to me how the story has become "older", "darker", and "edgier". It has always been written at the level of a 9-10 year-old, and the new darkness is really quite like what a 10 year old would think was dark and edgy. Despite the fact that Rowlings has advanced past the age of 11, her story nonetheless stays firmly rooted in the 10 year-old mindset. The teen angst, romance, and "adult" concepts remain viewed through the prism of someone who may be a bit precocious, but has not actually experienced such things.
Harry remains remarkably 2-dimensional. He reminds me of Forrest Gump, preternaturally lucky, but incapable of understanding, much less fully participating in, his adventure. Like Gump, the world turns up roses for him, and all the tragedy happens around him. Like Gump, he maintains a "box of chocolates" mentality. He's a prop piece, and we must necessarily dis-invest ourselves of our complexity in order to identify with him. He hasn't a clue what all this means because, quite frankly, Rowlings doesn't either.
That was the beauty of Tolkien, his ability to tap into the mind and imagination of a child, and make the very adult myths and archetypes accessible to them, leading them through time to a more mature understanding of things. He took the simple and the fanciful, and married them in a way that was imaginative and entertaining, but also substantial.
Rowlings is exactly the opposite. She requires adults to shed their most basic understandings and lower their gaze to pre-teen cliche', and encourages kids to remain locked in never-never land. THere are no bridges to greater meaning, merely ham-handed and puerile attempts at unsophisticated allegory. I suspect she fancies that she's deep and meaningful, but in the end she's merely trite and simplistic. Friendship is good? Discrimination is bad? Really? Who woulda thunk it? Harry doesn't teach children to accept the muggles of life, nor do the muggles ever achieve anything of value themselves. It is not his muggle half that makes Harry successful, it is his magic and luck (and one of the most inept villains in literary history). It's like telling a story about the trials of a half-black child in the 50's, except everything good that happens is because he can pass as white. And the friendship angle is really only a boon to Harry. In the end, he's the pinnacle of the privileged people, and all the little people are just set pieces that help him advance to becoming the greatest wizard of them all.
Worst of all, Rowlings success resets the entire genre, so now instead of looking for the next Tolkien, publishers are looking for the next Rawlings. And you end up with Twilight. Parents are so ecstatic that their kids will read, they fail to realize that what they are reading has been stripped of most of what makes you want your kids to read in the first place. Feeding a kid French fries will not make him a vegetable lover, no matter how hard you try to imagine it will.
OK, so I'm taking it too seriously. I should lighten up and just accept it as entertainment. Unfortunately, like everything else in our crass commercial world of inanity and hype, Potter is working to make sure that that's all their is, the easy, the mass-produced, the vapid. Funny thing, I bought my nephew the complete LOTR for Christmas. After a brief try, he admitted he's not reading it, because it's "too hard". But he was on hand for HP's midnight release, and he's planning to start Twilight. And he's 12. There's a reason America isn't pumping out the world's great minds anymore. None of the kids want to take Physics at Stanford. They're too busy taking Magic at Hogwarts...
I have to say, I agree with pretty much everything you said. That said, I've read all of harry potter and twilight and I enjoyed both of them
Be careful Ocho, you're starting to make the Will Smith fans' argument
I considered Star Wars, but even that world is much more fleshed out, and there's a far superior story arc, not to mention 3 dimensional characters (and if Mark Hamill is more convincing than your prose, you have a problem).
HP has more in common with the second batch of SW, IMO. Same goofy, lowbrow, kid centric stuff devoid of congruence. Think Star Trek, the series, because Potterites are very much the new Trekkie.
Don't get me wrong. I get why Budweiser, McDonald's, and the Jonas Brothers are popular. I get that the average reader/ movie goer doesn't get, much less enjoy, anything of real substance. I just don't think that we should back-fill a phenomenon by applying substance to it that isn't there in the first place.
Fact is, Rowlings is an execrable writer. Technically, she's not fit to write a college term paper. The first book was the best, primarily because it was the original foray into the millieu, written for pre-pubescent children by a GED-quality writer. It's cute in its way, lightweight but with some imagination.
The problem is that she inexplicably hit the crosshairs of the hype machine, and thus continued to write them, albeit without any editorial pressure to up her game. It's quite clear she had no real direction the story was heading when she penned the first one. Her "style" is strictly paint-by-numbers, and she's never even learned to vary the dialogue indicators beyond, "then he said", and "she said". The plot arcs of each book are strictly Saturday Afternoon Special, straight from the "plots for dummies" school.
I am amused when people point out to me how the story has become "older", "darker", and "edgier". It has always been written at the level of a 9-10 year-old, and the new darkness is really quite like what a 10 year old would think was dark and edgy. Despite the fact that Rowlings has advanced past the age of 11, her story nonetheless stays firmly rooted in the 10 year-old mindset. The teen angst, romance, and "adult" concepts remain viewed through the prism of someone who may be a bit precocious, but has not actually experienced such things.
Harry remains remarkably 2-dimensional. He reminds me of Forrest Gump, preternaturally lucky, but incapable of understanding, much less fully participating in, his adventure. Like Gump, the world turns up roses for him, and all the tragedy happens around him. Like Gump, he maintains a "box of chocolates" mentality. He's a prop piece, and we must necessarily dis-invest ourselves of our complexity in order to identify with him. He hasn't a clue what all this means because, quite frankly, Rowlings doesn't either.
That was the beauty of Tolkien, his ability to tap into the mind and imagination of a child, and make the very adult myths and archetypes accessible to them, leading them through time to a more mature understanding of things. He took the simple and the fanciful, and married them in a way that was imaginative and entertaining, but also substantial.
Rowlings is exactly the opposite. She requires adults to shed their most basic understandings and lower their gaze to pre-teen cliche', and encourages kids to remain locked in never-never land. THere are no bridges to greater meaning, merely ham-handed and puerile attempts at unsophisticated allegory. I suspect she fancies that she's deep and meaningful, but in the end she's merely trite and simplistic. Friendship is good? Discrimination is bad? Really? Who woulda thunk it? Harry doesn't teach children to accept the muggles of life, nor do the muggles ever achieve anything of value themselves. It is not his muggle half that makes Harry successful, it is his magic and luck (and one of the most inept villains in literary history). It's like telling a story about the trials of a half-black child in the 50's, except everything good that happens is because he can pass as white. And the friendship angle is really only a boon to Harry. In the end, he's the pinnacle of the privileged people, and all the little people are just set pieces that help him advance to becoming the greatest wizard of them all.
Worst of all, Rowlings success resets the entire genre, so now instead of looking for the next Tolkien, publishers are looking for the next Rawlings. And you end up with Twilight. Parents are so ecstatic that their kids will read, they fail to realize that what they are reading has been stripped of most of what makes you want your kids to read in the first place. Feeding a kid French fries will not make him a vegetable lover, no matter how hard you try to imagine it will.
OK, so I'm taking it too seriously. I should lighten up and just accept it as entertainment. Unfortunately, like everything else in our crass commercial world of inanity and hype, Potter is working to make sure that that's all their is, the easy, the mass-produced, the vapid. Funny thing, I bought my nephew the complete LOTR for Christmas. After a brief try, he admitted he's not reading it, because it's "too hard". But he was on hand for HP's midnight release, and he's planning to start Twilight. And he's 12. There's a reason America isn't pumping out the world's great minds anymore. None of the kids want to take Physics at Stanford. They're too busy taking Magic at Hogwarts...
though i agree w/a lot of what you're saying about hp and rowlings...i think you've overlooked that the books were targeted for a junior high school audience and the central character started out as a boy and then watching his life as a teenager.
having to figure things out when you're a young teenager...teenagers THINK they figure stuff out but rowlings goes out her way to have harry make mistake while you're reading...you are seeing rowling's world through the eyes of a kid and since most of her readers are young people, it's easier for them to relate and of course it's easier for 'older people' like me to keep track of. (the first couple of books could be read over a weekend). hp is first and foremost fun for all the magic but kids get a sampling of seeing a kid hang out w/friends...the social ladder that kids go through at school...dealing w/loss...that not all folks are meant to be teachers (parents probably deal w/that all the time)...people in politics have their self-interest as a priority and there's nothing to wrong to root for a kid who chose to use his gifts not always for self-interest which is why at the moments when he needed to call upon his magic, he got great results. all ideas that are simple stuff. nothing trancendent, or overly philosophical.
rowlings just happened to hit paydirt. in that sense you could cite a she's a forest gump?
if the hyperbole that people use about her bugs you, i have no arguement there. otherwise it all comes to one thing...
Joined: 25 May 2008 Posts: 18984 Location: The High Desert
Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:23 pm Post subject:
American Idol and all the variants
Lord of the Rings
Football of any kind
College sports of any kind
Harry Potter
Plain milk
Coffee
Mashed potatoes
Quentin Tarantino movies
Individually wrapped cheese
Colin Cowherd
Open discussion classes
and that's all I can think of right now _________________ ...in my opinion.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:44 pm Post subject:
LakerFan87 wrote:
American Idol and all the variants
Lord of the Rings
Football of any kind
College sports of any kind
Harry Potter
Plain milk
Coffee
Mashed potatoes
Quentin Tarantino movies Individually wrapped cheese Colin Cowherd
Open discussion classes
and that's all I can think of right now
I can't believe a non coffee drinker would be lucid enough to come up with those gems. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:24 pm Post subject:
frijolero01 wrote:
the idea of black laker jerseys
What are you, racist? _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Having relationships
Religion
Democracy
Football
Obama
Las Vegas
Alcohol
Jewelry
Toothpick skinny women
US national anthem
Caffeine drinks
The Indian Ocean
Traveling
Seinfield
Gambling
World peace
JFK
Dane Cook
Family Guy
Birthdays
Jack in the Box commercials
Car talk
Sports rivalries
Rap/hip hop
Reality shows
Jessica Alba (I just don't get what's so special about her)
College sports
Soccer
Root beer (everyone in the world should hate that nasty crap)
Believing in a soul or prayer when you don't believe in any other divinity or supernatural force.
Fashion
Talking/texting on phones
National Treasure movies
Will Smith
The Sun
Network TV
Pandas
Photography as an artform
MMORPG's
Organic food
I'll try to think of more later, I don't know if I've alienated everyone in the world yet
wow, did that stand out or what?? _________________ 'How many kids can say growing up that they'll turn pro and play for their favorite team in the world and spend your entire career there? IT'S BEEN A DREAM!'-Kobe Bryant 11.29.15
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 Posts: 13197 Location: @ the beach
Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 9:36 am Post subject:
Food that is cooked in Soup/Broths/Stews/or anything liquid! _________________ ♪ ♫One good thing about music, when it hits, you feel no pain...
So hit me with music! ♪ ♫
Joined: 02 Sep 2005 Posts: 13197 Location: @ the beach
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:40 pm Post subject:
frijolero01 wrote:
Free_Kobe wrote:
frijolero01 wrote:
other things I dislike:
-Vacation in those "tropical,paradise" places like cancun, bahamas, etc.
-bluetooths
-Iphones
-SUV's
-chicks with tattoos on their lower backs
-chicks w/ sissy ass tattoos like butterflies or fairies. get a flaming skull on your arm or something. THAT'S a real woman!
-fake boobs
-Roxy
-guys who wear jeans and sandals........douchebags.
isnt Roxy for girls?
aren't fake boobs for girls too?
point?
ahh cmon fake boobs are for everyone!!! _________________ ♪ ♫One good thing about music, when it hits, you feel no pain...
So hit me with music! ♪ ♫
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
