Potter Shmotter
I, Akaijen, being of sound mind and body do hereby declare that I do not like nor want to read the Harry Potter books. My opinion is informed by my reading of the first book in the series, in which I thought the writing was weak at best.
However, I attest that the overall plot and characters are well-imagined and are great for the silver screen. I enthusiastically look forward to each film adaption.
However still, I greatly detest the use of made-up Potter words in common, everyday language. I think "muggle" and "mudblood" are perhaps the stupidest words I have ever heard, and I cringe when I hear them uttered aloud. Therefor, I further declare that if you use those words when speaking to me, I will immediately cease listening to you.
In the spirit of our great, American Democracy, you are certainly entitled to your contrary point of view. However I will not stand to be ridiculed for my honest opinion of these tomes, especially as it is my inalienable right to disagree with the masses.
I kindly ask that you piss off if it is such that you cannot leave me in peace on this matter.
-- Signed, sealed, and delivered by Akaijen on this twenty-fourth day of July in the year two thousand and seven.
Comments
I can totally see why kids would love these books, and will hand it to Rowling for keeping book-reading alive in video-dominated culture. The setting is imaginative to say the least.
However, at the end of the day it's a long, drawn-out tale of good verses evil that's simplistic at its core. I find the characters to be fairly one-dimensional archetypes with 'totally-saw-it-coming' twists in their personalities. There's a lot of fuss in the current movie about Harry's teen angst. Find a me a teenager that didn't have angst. Hell, I had enough angst for several kids. I don't really care what happens to the characters, so there ya go.
I also think she takes all the mystical creatures and beasts too far. I think it would have been more sophisticated to build on existing mythological characters than devise whole new ones.
Which brings me to all the made up words. They irk me. It goes beyond cute into full-blown annoying, especially when she renames things that have words.
I mean c'mon. They're clearly all English and have a English-based governing system. Their government offices are in London. They even refer to getting in touch with the "muggle prime minister" in the current movie (which I did see, btw) so pretending that they all go away to a "whole other world" tires me out.
Seriously, I'd sooner read a series of books about Charmed.
My best friend in high school lent me The Goblet of Fire, telling me I HAD to read the book. So I read it, and concluded: it's a fantasy book for children. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. What I have a problem with is the so-called pedestal to which fanatics place the series on above all other young adult/children's books.
I guess I can say it's akin to Star Wars, which I like, but not in a fanatical sense. At the same time, I have no problem with Star Wars bashers, even if their arguments are as hollow as: "I don't like science-fiction." That's perfectly fine.
It is fascinating, though, to read a dissection of what's wrong with the Potter books by a bunch of people - a bunch of elitists - who haven't read them.
They certainly aren't great novels, but neither are they poorly written. Dan Brown novels are poorly written. Harry Potter novels are kid lit -- very good kid lit -- but kid lit nonetheless. One doesn't go into the reading experience expecting linguistic pyrotechnics. I loved James and the Giant Peach when I was growing up, and I'd probably enjoy a rereading of it today, but I wouldn't mistake it for James Joyce.
I'm not even remotely troubled by the millions of readers who have never picked up a Harry Potter novel, but what I do find curious are the reactionary legions who seem to feel the need to make an affirmative choice NOT to read them. The sad reality of being a literate adult is that you will certainly die before you get an opportunity to read even a fraction of the worthwhile books that are available. I may never get around to reading War and Peace, but I'm also not going to blog about how I'm NOT going to read it because of all the annoying Tolstoy fanboys out there.
Second: It's a bit more than annoying when you tell people you haven't read the HP books, they treat you like you're from Mars.
Third: I agreed that it's a good kids book. It's the adults that gush over them that are a bit disturbing. Grown people dressing up to go buy a kid's book is more than a bit strange.
I agreed that it's a good kids book.
That's the conceit here: that what is suitable entertainment for children is unsuitable for adults, and that millions of adults who enjoy well-written childrens' books are wasting their time, and that you are somehow superior for resisting the urge of popular culture.
Sorry - that IS an elitist stance.
Akaijen never said people who spend their time reading Harry Potter books were wasting their time.
Maybe if you were more secure in your literary choices, you wouldn't feel the need to flame out everyone who chooses to disagree about the greatness of those choices.
As I mentioned before, Potter-maniacs are the Beatle-maniacs of literature. Seriously, what's all the fuss about? It's a mediocre book for young adults. And I don't have a problem with older generations enjoying a kid-lit book. But the way these people jizz themselves over Harry Fucking Potter is disturbing. Right on, Akai.
Ha! There's plenty of entertainment that children adore that adults find mind-numbing. And besides, I gave two examples on Hotrod's Vox of children's books that I would read again and again. I don't have anything against children's entertainment on the whole.
However, I don't think this book is particularly well-written, certainly enough to warrant me reading a second, third or sixth book in the series. I'm not the only one that feels that way.
If you don't believe that my impression is based purely on the book that I've read, and you continue to insist that I'm taking an elitist viewpoint in an effort to dodge popular opinion, then you are essentially calling me a liar.
You've known me for years and years, and I would like to think that "liar" is not a noun that would come to mind when you consider my traits and qualities. If I say that I don't like something for the precise reasons that I stated above, then as a friend who knows me well, I think that should be enough evidence to prove to you that I have made an informed and personal decision.
I may have a dissenting view point, but it is truthful. I simply did not like the first one enough to continue reading the series. That's it. Yes, I can obviously offer up reasons why I didn't like them, which I concede may annoy you, especially if you are fond of the things I don't like. Still, it's not a personal attack. I do not think anything less of you for reading the entire series.
You told me, and everyone like me, to piss off. Somehow I managed to state my position without resorting to calling you names.
Well alrighty then.
I have no doubt you found many faults with the book you read, but I also believe you were reading in some part specifically to find fault.
I will admit that I like a limited, particular type of music. But I'm up front about it. I've always said that I'm the most close-minded when it comes to music. I like what I like, but it has nothing to do with popular opinion. How else do you explain that some of my favs are "You Steal My Sunshine" and "Waterfall." I also love just about everything by Madonna and would also bang my head to "Smokin' in the Boys Room." I recently admitted to liking "Hips Don't Lie" and didn't say that Dave and Jodi were stupid for liking the iPod commercial song, Fratelli's or something? I did recently dis that Christina Aguilera song b/c I generally don't like the warbley diva singing, and anyway I think you guys only like it b/c she's hot. Hell, I even like the Chicago sound track. So I gots no problem liking popular music, but our tastes just don't line up too much in that regard. I'm doubting that you'd be into my blippy, bleepy electronica or my Indian-fusion. But it worries me not. Somehow I'm elitist b/c I don't like alt-country. Whatever.
I don't recall ever discussing books with you, and generally I'll read just about anything. I read a lot and quickly, so I'm usually not too discriminating. I didn't read Harry Potter originally to find fault with it. I can't see myself wasting my time that way.
As for movies, I like quite a lot of movies. I had a massive Netflix queue. I'd say I'm easiest on movies, and will watch just about anything within reason. I will watch sappy chic flicks and shoot-em-ups. I like a good horror movie and stupid comedies. I'll watch period films and documentaries. I like old black and whites and animated films. I'd say I'm most open-minded about movies, actually.
You and Dabysan are the ones that argue these things. Not me.
ok im scared of you all. but i will admit that i
I tried reading the first Harry Potter book twice to see what the big fuss was about and it never caught on with me. I'm not going to waste my time reading something I don't enjoy if the point of reading the book is enjoyment. And I agree with akaijen, the word "muggles" makes me throw up in my mouth a little.
I ended up buying Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy for my 13-year old niece, who, I found out later, also didn't care for the first Harry Potter book, which she begrudgingly finished. She loved the Pullman trilogy, however. You have to love a story where the villainess is named "Ms. Coulter."