I've never read any of them and only saw parts of the first movie which put me off watching any of the sequels as it was woefully inept in just about every department.
However, I did hear that the first book was billed as a masterclass in the English language in terms of structure, syntax and probably verbs and some of them noun things thrown in for good measure.
As I've never read any of them I can't comment, but, anyone else?
the first book is a bog standard, not very good, but not especially bad childrens book, made into an unfortunately abysmal film by the truely reprehensible Chris Columbus. Don't let this put you off, the second film (also by the arch child patroniser Columbus) is unmitigated tot, but the 3rd, 4th and 5th films are really good.
The books improve exponentially after book 3, when Rowling realised that the majority of her readers where now adults.
Maybe for a book targetted at 11 year olds it is, but not compared to an actual book.
I assumed that was the case, but I seem to recall one of them late night BBC2 literary programmes where they discuss books and they had the first Potter Book (I think - I can't remember the order they go in, Harry Potter and the Temple of Doom perhaps) and these English type professors were fawning over it claiming it was amazing the way words were being used.
Of course I was drunk at the time and with a face full of pizza, but still, I digress, back to the gay wizard...
Its possible that the type of stuff English Proffesor that they get reviewing stuff on Newsnight Review are also the kind that spend their lives reading Chaucer, classic's, or post-modern exestential garbage, rather than good honest books. To someone thats used to reading twaddle like that, the simplistic nature of a reasonably well written childrens book probably is a revalation...
Thats not really what I was saying (and I was being somewhat tongue in cheek) but I do think that most books that are considered classics aren't really all that great.
Just because I don't think that Chaucer is "a masterclass in the English language in terms of structure, syntax and probably verbs and some of them noun things thrown in for good measure." I'm apparantly a daily mail reading petrol head???
Again with the - "I was being tongue in cheek" - for christs sake we were talking about why someone on Newnight Review might think that "harry potter and the temple of doom" was a "masterclass in the English language"... can you not understand that a post is not serious unless theres a smiley in it....
It’s “to each his own” to be honest, ones man’s literacy masterpiece is another man’s toilet paper. I mean I fully understand that Shakespeare’s work is considered by many to be the daddy and of great importance, but to me it’s complete and utter bat poop.
Meanwhile I think that Homer’s (not Simpson) Illiad and Odyssey are storming pieces of work, the same with Beowulf – who doesn’t love things with monsters in it?
Are they up there with Shakespeare, Chaucer, or some of the great American authors like Stephen Crane? Nope. Are they very good literature? Very much so.
Well, literary merit is a bit of a fraught issue these days. Postmodernists keep insisting that it doesn't exist. While I have postmodern sympathies, I wouldn't go that far.
I've read and seen about six Shakespeare plays and none of them have overly impressed me. I honestly think the guy just had good PR people, I certainly don't see why we should force kids in school to study about four different Shakespeare plays, two at most would be enough, there are thousands of over equally good but drastically different authors out there.
Yeah, well I beg to differ. I don't see why we should force them on children either, but I very rarely experience strong emotions when I see art, and I do respond to shakespeare. Matter of personal preference.
Well that's certainly true. All kids seem to learn in English lit is Shakespeare. Mind you, mine used to go off the curriculum (to his eternal credit) and teach us shamus heaney, milton, and stuff like that. It'd be nice to see more 'popular' and contemporary literature being encouraged too- and marked on their analyses to it, in the same way that you can do stuff about pop art on the course that I'm on.
Just noticed this, but seperating the 2 can be correct. My wife is Asian (Indian) but not Oriental. So Asian and Oriental would be correct.
As for Dumbledore being gay, so what. I honestly thought Harry was at first. Didn't bother me then, didn't bother my girls then. Nor now.
There are gay people in all walks of life. They have been here forever and will be forever. Learn to deal with it and accept it. Your life will be so much better for it.
I think, though, this is why the Harry Potter series is getting the response it has. Aside form the total "rags to riches" story of the author, many of these books have story lines which move them in some shape, way, or form. I cannnot imagine speaking to someone who wasn't moved by the last book's final scenes, who wasn't moved by the fate of Dumbledore, who wasn't possessed of strong feelings about Snape, etc.