HARRY POTTER!!!!!!

I have a hack writer I read myself. R.A. Salvatore. I haven't read any Harry Potter and more than likely won't. But to say you didn't enjoy DeLillo and you've read all five harry potter books really doesnt say much about the type of reader you are.

i haven't read harry potter because it just doesn't appeal to me. i applaud her writing success and her success at getting children to enjoy reading.

Mr. Thoreau,
Oh, now I get to go on defence, huh? Hmmmm.... In all honesty I read all kinds of books. I read Miller, King, Palahnuik, Christopher Moore, Jack Kerouac, Hemingway, Camus, and others.
I'm sure some of these writer's aren't "up to your level". So, I'm curious, how enjoying a book series discredits my opinion? I suppose I wasn't mature enough for DeLillo, I mean that WAS the first book I ever read. Maybe, it's time to ask yourself, "Do I frown on things that are best-sellers? Why do I consider myself the literary elite?" Honestly, I think the reason more people DON'T read is because of people that act high and mighty like you.

well said lazlosdead. people have the freedom to read what they want, and none of it is "above" any of the rest.

Thank you Trypdwyre.

Anyone have anything to say about J.K. Rowling though???

I did say that I read a hack writer as well, didnt I? I mean R.A. Salvatore is about as hack as the next guy, which should at the same time reveal the type of reader I am as well, I didn't mean to come off too sarcastic, just meaning to point out that I am not as elite as I would like to think myself as.

[img]http://members.tripod.com/~Dace23/cshard.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.bookpeople.com/images/isbn/0786928042.jpg[/img]

I love the Harry Potter series, like 'go out at midnight to spend thirty dollars and stand in line with ten year olds dressed up as witches' love it. And I love JK Rowling for one of the same reasons that I love Chuck: one of her main goals is to bring people back to reading that wouldn't have done it otherwise. You may hate what she writes, but you have to admire what she does.

What's a hack writer? There are writers you like and writers you don't. There is fiction and there is non- fiction. In one of my few trips to Borders, I've never noticed a "Hack Section". So I guess it breaks down to "judge not lest ye be judged" type of thing.

Oh, don't whore your hack story on my thread please.

ANYONE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT J.K. ROWLING?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jane s. [/i]
[B]I love the Harry Potter series, like 'go out at midnight to spend thirty dollars and stand in line with ten year olds dressed up as witches' love it. And I love JK Rowling for one of the same reasons that I love Chuck: one of her main goals is to bring people back to reading that wouldn't have done it otherwise. You may hate what she writes, but you have to admire what she does. [/B][/QUOTE]
.../me looks around to make sure no one is listening
same here.
I would like to not something too, I think the way you started this topic out was on a defensive note but then you were surprised when someone responded the way you expected.
anyway, fun books, good that people are maybe reading a little bit more than they used to because of it.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lazlosdead [/i]
[B]What's a hack writer? There are writers you like and writers you don't. There is fiction and there is non- fiction. In one of my few trips to Borders, I've never noticed a "Hack Section". So I guess it breaks down to "judge not lest ye be judged" type of thing.

Oh, don't whore your hack story on my thread please.

ANYONE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT J.K. ROWLING? [/B][/QUOTE]

A "Hack Section" is the best idea i've heard all day.

I have the HP books on my shelves and have read the first 4.
But then again, if i'm in the can i'll read the back of a shampoo bottle if i have to.

I can't get myself to read number 5, though, it looks like too much of a time investment and i'm not sure the payoff will be worth it after what i have been reading in the last months.

Rowling may get kids into reading, but she does nothing to get kids into reading for meaning. A kid who grew up on Harry Potter might pick up Survivor and tell all his or her friends it completely sucks because it is "a crappy book about a stupid guy who gets famous and hijacks a plane" or say Brave New Wold "Is a boring Scifi book about a tiny guy and an indian who kills people in the end." This kind of "plot only" reading is why I get so depressed in english class. When James Baldwin makes one brother in his story a math teacher and the other a heroin-addicted improvisational blues artist, an Advanced Placement English student should recognize the contrast between formulaic thinking and random lifestyle. Instead I point this out like it was nothing, and a girl yells at the teacher saying "how am I supposed to know that, I thought it was a story about a guy going to his brother's concert."

Oh and I think Potter is no better than any other fantasy series out there, in fact Tolken blows Rowling out of the water.

yes Tolkien does.
I think the thing is here, getting kids into reading starts a progression. You'rer love for books grow and expand. It's a matter of people who don't read at all, they'll never get the ideas you mentioned. I mean an AP student doesn't necessarily read in his spare time, it's not necessarily because he only reads Harry Potter.

When you're young and reading, it doesn't matter what you're reading: it ALL has meaning, even if it's from the Sweet Valley High series, because everything of what you're reading when you're young is a new experience: identifying with and learning from others, fictional or not, through written language. That's why books about the human body are so popular among kids 3-4, because bodily functions are interesting to kids in that age group. As with, say, Nancy Drew, we may not think they have "literary merit", but they sure do for the intended audience.

What's important is that kids ARE reading, that they're establishing what Jim Trelease [author of the Reading Aloud Handbook] calls "pleasure connections" to reading, and they [I]are[/I] making those connections by reading Harry Potter.

If pleasure connections are being made, with Harry Potter or the Lord of the Rings or even comic books, then those same kids will read when they're older. If, however, the only books they read are the ones they've been assigned to read in school, pleasure connections will not be made, and they will NOT read later on, i.e. they will not become us.

Harry Potter is a gateway drug, basically.

well said, pattypants. here's another factoid: 80% of america's k-3 children are reading below grade level.

p.s. i have an autographed copy of the reading aloud handbook

Yeah, and that's why Harry Potter is so important. You may not like the books, but the very fact that she IS getting these kids to read is amazing, a huge accomplishment when television is such a distraction and when the listening level of most family-aimed television shows, if you were to read the scripts, tops out at grade 3. Harold Bloom says otherwise. He picks apart the books, looking for cliched language: that's why he should rot in a fucking hole, or, as he is now, in a forgotten corner of Yale [Yale? a hole? the same thing?].

Jim Trelease is awesome.

The first four books are, as they say in Freedom, [i]le bomb diggity[/i]. I'll get around to part 5 eventually. I'm pacing myself since I doubt 6 will be out any time soon.

and I suppose pop bands are good becuase the encourage kids to listen to various noises?

For a second, I thought you would actually be worth talking to.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DaJBman22 [/i]
[B]Rowling may get kids into reading, but she does nothing to get kids into reading for meaning. A kid who grew up on Harry Potter might pick up Survivor and tell all his or her friends it completely sucks because it is "a crappy book about a stupid guy who gets famous and hijacks a plane" or say Brave New Wold "Is a boring Scifi book about a tiny guy and an indian who kills people in the end." This kind of "plot only" reading is why I get so depressed in english class. When James Baldwin makes one brother in his story a math teacher and the other a heroin-addicted improvisational blues artist, an Advanced Placement English student should recognize the contrast between formulaic thinking and random lifestyle. Instead I point this out like it was nothing, and a girl yells at the teacher saying "how am I supposed to know that, I thought it was a story about a guy going to his brother's concert."

Oh and I think Potter is no better than any other fantasy series out there, in fact Tolken blows Rowling out of the water. [/B][/QUOTE]

The first book I read was a Goosebumps novel, written in a couple of weeks by RL Stine. Looking at them now, they're terrible, but it spiked my interest in reading. Next, I moved on to Harry Potter for a few years, and enjoyed them a lot. I've since been interested in reading, and have moved on to multiple other authors, such as Chuck Palahniuk, Mark Z. Danielewski, and Kurt Vonnegut. I had no trouble adapting to the more advanced plots as opposed to the childrens novels.

Plus comparing Harry Potter, a childrens novel, to the most critically acclaimed fantasy series in history just shows how truely full of shit you are.

-Bohonkie

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trypdwyre [/i]
[B]i haven't read harry potter because it just doesn't appeal to me. i applaud her writing success and her success at getting children to enjoy reading. [/B][/QUOTE]

what he said.

so i suppose i shouldn't have learned to read with picture books...i should've started with tolstoy like you did.

ok I'm man enough to admit it when i'm wrong. And I was wrong. Happy now?

actually, i was looking forward to you calling me a cunt again.

I never called anybody a cunt

no, no, he's right. i'm sorry, i have trouble keeping track w/ all the n00bs.

Boom shaka laka laka laka laka la

the only questions i have are:
does all of your reading have to be on a higher inellectual level?
is reading something that lacks a plot so terrible?
think about it, you probably watch movies that have little to no intellectual value, why is reading that type of a book so different?
isn't JK Rwoling taking enough flack from the extremist christians for writing a children's book about witchcraft?
when did attaining success become a negative thing?

"When James Baldwin makes one brother in his story a math teacher and the other a heroin-addicted improvisational blues artist, an Advanced Placement English student should recognize the contrast between formulaic thinking and random lifestyle. Instead I point this out like it was nothing, and a girl yells at the teacher saying "how am I supposed to know that, I thought it was a story about a guy going to his brother's concert."
I don't have much to say about Harry Potter, just thought I'd mention that Sonny's Blues, The story DaJBman22 is talking about is fan-freaking-tastic. I wrote a paper on it and it was actually an enjoyable experience. Got an A, too.

Actually, I'll say some things about Harry Potter. Back when I thought I wanted to be a teacher, I tutored kids with reading problems. If a kid was a reader of R.L. Stine and books like his, they'd just tear through book after book, not caring who the author was, as long as it was short and bloody. It was all simple stuff, way below their grade level, but everyon in America has been below grade level for what... 20 years? When I asked a Harry Potter fan what else they read, they almost always said 'nothing'. I know that's just anecdotal, but it seems that Harry Potter fans end up as just Harry Potter fans, not fans of books in general.

and this differs from a fan of any other author how?

It seems that with all the Harry Potter books selling so well that I'm hearing a lot more about children's literature...Books such as Holes and the Redwall Series are getting a fair amount of press (neither of which I've read, but I would if we crossed paths). So by proving that Children's books can make money (J.K. is the 2nd richest person in the UK) it's brought forth more authors, and the bookstores are trying to keep their young customers coming back.

right around 1993.

Whats special about 1993?

that's when in my estimation "grunge" and the entire nirvana-esque ethos really hit the mainstream, when the "me decade" of the 80's gave way to the anti-celebrity, anti-corporate culture of youth right around the time of kurt cobain's suicide. his suicide was the most drastic rejection of celebrity i think i've ever seen, and the whole way through nirvana's role as the "voice" of a disaffected generation was to denigrate success and popularity as a form of dishonesty.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lazlosdead [/i]
[B]It seems that with all the Harry Potter books selling so well that I'm hearing a lot more about children's literature...Books such as Holes and the Redwall Series are getting a fair amount of press (neither of which I've read, but I would if we crossed paths). So by proving that Children's books can make money (J.K. is the 2nd richest person in the UK) it's brought forth more authors, and the bookstores are trying to keep their young customers coming back. [/B][/QUOTE]
those books got a fair amount of press before harry potter actually. They themselves were large successes until Harry Potter trumped it all.

Really? My knowledge of children's books in appauling.

believe it or not, childrens' book writing is a pretty cut-throat field, more so than adult publishing.

so, what do you think of madonna's book? personally, it makes me want to scream about all of the unfair things in the world.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by moe.ron [/i]
[B]so, what do you think of madonna's book? personally, it makes me want to scream about all of the unfair things in the world. [/B][/QUOTE]
which book?

The children's book she wrote about her life.

man they shouldn't show naked pictures of madonna to children...

[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0670058831.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg[/img]
or
[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0670036781.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg[/img]
or
[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/043960978X.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg[/img]
or
[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0757991971.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg[/img]
or "Sex" or "American Life", or one of the others i may have miseed?

well, i was talking about the english roses...but sex was far more interesting.

i read one of her children's books, but don't remember which one. the book was good though.

Is that the Spice Girls on the cover of "The English Roses"?

I love the Harry Potter books I started reading them back when they first hit the U.S., before they started making the movies. And I just can't stand the thought of waiting another 2 years for the next one in the series to come out...they're just...fun

Imagine Fight Club in Hogwarts. No shirts, no shoes, no wands.

pussys cant fight with fists so they haveta use their batons. fucking fairies

Wouldn't mind getting some serious HP convo going. Im a big fan and have developed a few thoughts/ideas on whats to come.

any fans out there what do you think of this possibility.

in book 5 and 6 you get into some more depth about snape.

A few memories of snape that harry saw in the pensive involved Lilly and snape. Lilly stood up for snape when harry's dad was picking on him.

Then lilly was said to be REALLY good at potions, Lilly and snape were both similar in the fashion that neither were pure bloods. Snape may have followed the cliche of thinking less of lilly about that but on the basis of the nick name he gave himself "half-blood prince" he wasnt as ashamed of his muggle heritage as he would lead on.

Why does this seem to have the makings of young love...... Cause dumbledore always had a reason to trust snape that he would never tell anybody! not even harry. but he would constantly reiterate that he has a profound reason to undoubtedly believe in snapes remorse and what more of reason could that be then him accidentally sentencing a women he loves to murder..... cause its also strange that lord voldemort wasn't going to kill lilly??? so why would Lord voldemort offer to spare lilly's life at goddericks hollow...... its a big mystery and not much sense of that can be made at the moment.

this theory fits cause dumbledore is such a love guru. And the obvious reason Snape killed albus was because he had made him promise that he would live up to his unbreakable vow cause snapes position of double agent was more important than dumbledore's life and albus did show pitty for the situation draco was in and did a good job of talking draco making sure he would do it leaving snape to have no choice but to do it instead. and as dumbledore mentioned many times "there are more things to be afraid of than death"

So i guess im predicting for alot more depth to come from snape, cause up to this point he has been very one dimensional with the "IM JUST A JERK WHO HATES YOUR DAD CAUSE HE WAS A BULLLY!" that perspective by itself just doesn't hold up at all with me anymore...... there is more to this than that. I also feel the same way about draco, i think there is more to both of theses hyped up "villains" i predict both of them will have the most interesting plot twists that will involve helping harry defeat V

7-21-07!!!!!!!!!