Harry Potter - Popular, but never to be a Classic

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I never read the second or the rest of them. Just not my cuppa (I love fantasy, but Harry Potter seemed... dunno... too childish or something. The whole bit with Harry's childhood and all felt like it was written for a ten years old. Perhaps it was. But it was really offputting for the adult me.)

This ties in with a given for me; I can only enjoy children’s books if I’m reading them with a child. I started them with a six-year old nephew in 1999; we caught up and read The Prisoner of Azkaban when it came out that year and kept up with them after that. He still loves the series, but annoys his friends because he brings a very critical eye to the story, the characterizations, the discontinuities and so forth, which were fodder for our discussions of the texts when he was a kid. I might not have been the ideal reading companion.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by issybird

This ties in with a given for me; I can only enjoy children’s books if I’m reading them with a child. I started them with a six-year old nephew in 1999; we caught up and read The Prisoner of Azkaban when it came out that year and kept up with them after that. He still loves the series, but annoys his friends because he brings a very critical eye to the story, the characterizations, the discontinuities and so forth, which were fodder for our discussions of the texts when he was a kid. I might not have been the ideal reading companion.

OTOH there are children's books that are perfectly enjoyable by adults and don't feel particularly childish. The Hobbit, for example. Also one of my childhood favorites, Krabat by Otfried Preussler (ok, that one was probably meant for teenagers, but still). The Mowgli stories (no idea if Kipling wrote them for children initially or not, but they're usually classified as such nowadays).

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by hobnail

I remember when I finished the second Harry Potter book I was scratching my head thinking that the Voldemort part of the story hadn't been advanced and developed; he was a problem that popped in and had to be solved and when that was done, move on. Each book was a collection of various standalone threads somewhat interwoven; the Quidditch match, the visiting professor, Voldemort, etc.

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

This happens in most Urban Fantasy series I read and I always liked that - having one side-plot wrapped up and solved in each book, but having the larger plot giving out teasing danglers until finally wrapping up and coming to a conclusion.

That type of story telling reminds me of old episodic TV series, like Battlestar Galactica or The Fugitive. I don't care for it as a style of storytelling. All too often you get sick and tired of the storyline before any conclusion is reached.

As Gordie said in Stand By Me: Wagon Train's a really cool show, but have you ever noticed they don't really get anywhere? They just keep on wagon-training...

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

I've met and dated a few non-readers. When asked why they don't try giving reading more chances, they all told me they were too burned out by the boring books schools had them read and have no interest in trying out reading now that they're "free" and not forced to chore through the school-picked tales.

Some may use it as an excuse, so it may be true.

I do think it's an excuse. You also watch plenty of bad films in school (With titles like What is Zinc?), yet there isn't a drop in people watching films.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by hobnail

One of the things I didn't understand about the books until several years after I'd finished them is that the model she was using was very similar to the standard mystery series where you can pick up any book in the series and enjoy it without having read the prior ones. Of course with both you'd have enjoyed it more if you had read them in order but it's not like Lord of the Rings where reading them in order is crucial.

Any book in a series that has any character development that carries over to any other book and any reference to anything that happened in a past book is not a stand alone book. So in most series, most books are not standalone. They either have some sort of character development or something is referenced from another book in the series. Just because a book has a fresh start and a definite ending does not make it standalone. All it takes is one sentence and a book is not standalone.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Not me. When I didn't like something as a child or as a teenager, I never did as an adult either. I guess some people's tastes and preferences change when they get older, but others' don't. I read Les Miserables for the first time when I was 11 or 12 and liked it; the same with The City and the Stars and Jane Eyre; but I didn't like Hemingway then and I didn't like him later either. YMMV, of course.

The way I look at it is if I didn't like a book or author when I was younger, I'm not going to try again now. There are too many other books to read that I will like. There's no reason to attempt to try to like something I didn't.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I do think it's an excuse. You also watch plenty of bad films in school (With titles like What is Zinc?), yet there isn't a drop in people watching films.

I don't think it's an excuse. The "movies" shown in school were not really movies. They were film strips. And they were documentaries. If those film strips were going to turn off anything, they would turn off kids to watching documentaries. They were not actually movies.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I don't think it's an excuse. The "movies" shown in school were not really movies. They were film strips. And they were documentaries. If those film strips were going to turn off anything, they would turn off kids to watching documentaries. They were not actually movies.

By the same token, reading the play Romeo and Juliet isn't really anything like reading Jurassic Park, is it?

[Sirtel]

Avid readers usually read for pleasure long before they have to read "difficult" mandatory books in school. Anyone who says that school put them off reading has never been all that interested in reading anyway.

I know several people who don't read for pleasure. Most of them never have. My sister lost interest when her children were born and never regained it. Not one of these non-readers has ever accused school (or parents, for that matter) for their lack of interest. They are honest and say they're simply not interested in reading as a form of entertainment.

Several of those people are well educated, far better than me with my unfinished high school. Go figure.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I do think it's an excuse. You also watch plenty of bad films in school (With titles like What is Zinc?), yet there isn't a drop in people watching films.

I'm one of those kids who never got to watch movies in school. I keep hearing of others getting to watch things - lucky! I just remember these horrible warning documentaries, but no movies.

But yes, in many cases you're right it's probably just an excuse, although if some only associate reading some stuff they were forced to read in school that they didn't enjoy, I can see how it would help turn them off reading.

[Paperbackstash]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

That type of story telling reminds me of old episodic TV series, like Battlestar Galactica or The Fugitive. I don't care for it as a style of storytelling. All too often you get sick and tired of the storyline before any conclusion is reached..

I read a lot of series and most of them have this, but I love the series and don't get tired of not having everything wrapped up in one book, so I don't mind it. As others have said, everyone's different though. Leave the cliffhangers away from me, please Does anyone like them? They're so common, yech

[gmw]

Harry Potter a classic? It's not for us to say. Give it another 30 years and then look around and see if any sort of consensus has been reached.

In my opinion the Harry Potter series is more than just a good yarn, there are technical reasons for appreciating it. But whether these are enough to earn it status as a classic at some point in the future is still unknown. That may be an up-hill battle because it really is best looked at as a full series.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Paperbackstash

...if some only associate reading some stuff they were forced to read in school that they didn't enjoy, I can see how it would help turn them off reading.

Of course the reason they would only associate reading with books they were forced to read in school because that is likely the only time they ever read.

If school didn't have kids read anything, do you think those same people would have spontaneously become readers?

[MGlitch]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Of course the reason they would only associate reading with books they were forced to read in school because that is likely the only time they ever read.

If school didn't have kids read anything, do you think those same people would have spontaneously become readers?

Careful it sounds like you’re implying that parents should actually take a role in their child’s lives or something

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The "movies" shown in school were not really movies. They were film strips. And they were documentaries. If those film strips were going to turn off anything, they would turn off kids to watching documentaries. They were not actually movies.

Two words, "Reefer Madness."