Harry Potter sucks

Harry is said to "Grown width readers" so read the last books before saying it's for childs.

I've read all the harry potter books, and I agree they are not so special, and the first two are childish. However, they have a tendency to make you care about the characters and want to find out what happens with them. The first book interested me just enough to pick up the second one, and from there on it only became more addictive. The last book is really not meant for children at all. Too complex, too long. I know several teenagers who have tried over and over again to read it, and just don't make it to the other end.

My advice for someone curious about harry potter is to watch the first two movies for the story background (the movies are very faithful to the books), and start off with book 3.

I agree with Joeri, the Harry Potter books grow with you and book 4 and 5 are
really good and so not for kids.
I just read The Da Vinci Code, well that's a really good book. I read all John
Grisham books too, I do like his books, A time to Kill was on of the toppers in my opinion. Just found out this week that there is a new one: The last juror.

Comment by Darice at February 10, 2004 10:28 PM | Permalink

harry potter is a ripoff of lotr, sorry, but I think so. LOTR is so much better. As for Grisham, he rules

"My advice for someone curious about harry potter is to watch the first two movies for the story background (the movies are very faithful to the books), and start off with book 3."

Let me just reply to that by simply mentioning that Christopher Columbus should be taken out and flogged for the travesty that he performed upon the Harry Potter books. He completely ignored the character development (which is the only fascinating part of the books, really) in favor of the magic (via special effects). I swear, it's almost as bad as the first two Star Wars films. None of the cast shows any genuine chemistry together, and this results in meaningless dialogue and nonsensical action.

Altho the first three books are simple, they don't suffer from overwriting that the last two have done. It seems JK wants people to feel like they're getting their money's worth by overloading the stories with overdescriptive subplots (the Quiddich World Cup is my favorite example - it just goes on and on....), and the novels' pacing becomes very uneven.

But on the whole - they're entertaining pop / fluff stories, with little pretention beyond the first read. I enjoyed them, but I won't bother re-reading the first ones to 'catch up' to the current books. Rather, I'll wait until all seven books have been published, and then whip thu 'em in one shot and call it a day.

I'm going to say this. "I think Harry Potter is probably the worse book to ever exist on the face of thi earth." And don't give me "Oh, but it grows on you." No, no, and just no. I actually grew out of it because the more the author wrote, the worse it got. Not to mention the movie was next to the worse thing. Bad acting, ugly children, oh god it just wouldn't stop. Not to mention all the characters are extremely annoying. It's not like anything intersting ever happens. Oh no, no one believes Harry... and yet.. he saves the day... until next year... wtf. Come up with a new plot Rowling.

The Da Vinci code is a really very bad bad book. An earthquake in Andorra!!! Jua jua jua, really very poor documented.

I just have to comment on the rubbish from "sk" the Harry Potter books are absolutely nothing like The Lord of The Rings to two plots are entirely different and I cannot see how one could begin to imagine that either comes close to the other.

Beyond that as far as Harry Potter goes, I disagree with whats mentioned on the movies, thats SO wrong. I didnt much care for the movies at all, if anything, I think I watch them just for the optical pleasure of seeing it, though I dont think they are all that faithful to the books, to the point where I know quite a few people that really like the books and refuse to watch the movies at all. Though I can assure you Nemo, if the children were any better looking then they are now (Emma Watson was so incredibly wrong for the part) then they would not be the characters. This is not a perfect world, I think your head needs to come out of the clouds.

I dont think people give many children a lot of credit as far as the books go, I know a lot of people all ages whom understood and enjoyed the later books while I also know a lot of adults whom really liked the earlier books. I think it comes down to what kind of person you are. They cant taylor to every individual so there is always bound to be someone whom doesnt like them, but then there's all the right in the world for others to like them.

I never read the Da Vinci code though I know a few people whom have and i admit a level of curiosity that might just drive me to reading it... I dunno though...

i don't like harry potter either. But the book can be excting and i agree that you get to know the characters and want to get the next book after that. It is also very original but it isn't like it's the only book of it's kind out there. there is the lord of the rings and plenty of other fantasy fiction style books. I don't understand why a lot of people are so obsessed with it at all. And now it's becoming some sort of marketing thing too. now that it's gotten to the pop culture they seel all kinds of harry potter products and movies and probably video games too.

Just because you are not intelligent enough to see that it is mere ficton and that the readers seek jor in the books, dosen't mean you should trash talk Harry Potter. I am very pleased to see someone who speaks there own opinion on things. I admire that, but I would kindly ask you to consider others' opinion no lower than that of your own.

Comment by Carolynn at October 25, 2005 05:50 AM | Permalink

I think Harry Potter is horribly overrated.
Sure, the books are interesting, and could hold your interest for a long while. However, there are plently of other books that have no attention whatsoever that not only can accomplish such, but hold much more imagination, imagery, and symbolism that could take your breath away. Harry Potter can't.
The plot does get a bit dry after awhile, and the writing style is thin. It's great for children and young teens, but does not deserve as much praise as it recieves.

LOTR is one of my favourite books of all time, is a sophisticated allegory of WWII and a highly respected literary work. Harry Potter books are just fun fiction for kids.
However it is not fair to say that Harry Potter is a rip-off of LOTR as there is little to compare between them plot-wise.
While LOTR presents a grim and complex plot, full of twists and subplots as well as a complete biblical history with fully formed cultures and languages, Harry Potter provides good old adventure stories, a bit like Saturday morning pictures. Some of the characters and monsters bear comparison, but again, this is not a rip-off. This type of fantasy character appeared in many books from the early to middle 20th century, for example: Peakes Gormonghast and C.S.lewis' The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe.
Taken in this context, Harry Potter stands alone, and although I personally do not like it at all remember that if anything gives people a lot of pleasure, IT IS GOOD whether you personally like it or not. I am amazed how many numpties that have probably never taken the time to actually read the books themselves seem to think that they are the ultimate critic and that their opinion has value above all others.
Now shut up and go and do something useful.

i like Harry Potter movies very much, and there is very suspence in it.Harry Potter movies are now not availbale in the market.
i have only
1. Harry potter and the prisoner of azkaban
2. Harry potter and the chamber of secrets
3. Harry potter and the sorcerer's stone

The Lord of the Rings is not allegory. Tolkien had been inventing Middle Earth long before World War II. The work in "The Silmarillion stretches back to the first world war. The Lord of the Rings is really just a continuation of that work. The first part being the war of the jewels and the latter being the war of the rings.

I love the harry potter books and think that anyone who is willing to read them will like them
Mrs. Rowling is amazing!

When I first read Harry Potter (i.e. The Sorcerer's Stone), it was interesting enough to make me read the whole book, but that was it. When I returned to the second book, I grew so exasperated with the book I ripped it.

In my opinion, there are only two volumes worth reading; The first one, and the third one. The others, especially Order of the Phoenix and the Half-Blood Prince, is extremely...dissatsifying.

Fuck you!!! Harry Potter is the best thing that has happend to this world, and I'm NOT the only one who loves harry potter more than anything! There are millions of ppl out htere. Im 16 y old now, and there's only 1 girl in my class who's read AND did not love the Harry Potter books. And... LOTR... omg, you just CAN'T mention it in the same sentence as 'Harry Potter'. LOTR and HP has NOTHING incomntr!!! LOTR sux!!!

Ok Whoever said Harry Potter sucks they already know, "harry is too cool for them"...yea i admit it has similarities with LOTR but that doesnt mean its a rip-off. even if it was, who cares? u get the equal amount of excitement, fun and fiction...(comedy too). About the characters, i dont think there is anyone in LOTR as hilarious as Ron. And the plot in Harry Potter is more interesting bcuz every teenager can relate to it in some way or the other. I could relate to Sirius for example...im not criticizing u Harry Potter haters but seriously, dont criticize an author like JKR. she has more potential than any other femal fiction author. Tokien rocks too and i know he is awesome and experienced and maybe many books are rip-offs of his ideas but think of only the quality of Harry Potter. Leave alone the origin and stuff. And then judge it. You will see that it deserves to be on every top list of famous books...