Golden Deer Pub Community Forums

I looked back at the first and last book, and man it is so different

but still, Harry Potter is not something people will remember in 100 years, like the works of Tolkien or Lewis

We're more likely to forget Lewis than to forget Harry Potter, what with the mega-sales on the books and the uber-movies. It's a cultural phenomena and to say that in 100 years we won't remember it is silly.

The world of fantasy would have been better without Tolkien. It is not whether his work was good or bad, but the influence he has had.

I read Alice In Wonderland and The Hobbit for English literature back in highschool. I wouldn't put Harry Potter on my literature list if it had been written back then.

(Btw, people called me crazy when I went on to read the LotR trilogy in English afterwards.. )

Harry Potter first three books > Lord of the Rings any day of the week

Anything else from that series was pure shit and her catering to the "OMG WE NEED A WIZARD WAR!!". >_< I fucking loved the little kid stuff. The fourth book was just like OMG ANGST.

And seventh book does not exist for me. Fucking didn't even take place in Hogwarts! THAT'S WHY I WAS READING THE BOOK, YOU BITCH!!


Kino?? You don't think she put it in the book that he was gay? In the first book he WEARS A FUCKING BONNET during the Christmas scene. I dunno about you but I called it way back then.

it is very hard to take you seriously sometimes :<

but you're still maxine <3

It isn't in the book that he is gay. There's just as much canonical evidence that McGonagall is a lesbian or that Seamus and Dean are lovers. Nowhere in the book does Rowling expound on that characteristic and simply retconning that into the series is unnecessary and immature.

I did not say Harry Potter would be taught in classrooms, but merely that it's blip on the cultural radar isn't going to go away. Millions of adults and children have read the books, and even if you haven't read the book you are at least familiar with it.

I hold an entirely different point on the matter than Maxine, it seems, because I feel that 5-7 are far superior to 1-3. Book 7, yes, takes place outside Hogwarts; about time. Book 6 felt utterly constricted by the limits of school year, and frankly the narrative was too rushed toward a conclusion. You knew nothing could be resolved until the end of the year, and it cheapened matters. Nonetheless, the penultimate book is similar to and vastly better than the sophomore effort that was Chamber of Secrets, which is clearly the weakest one in the series.

Do the books deserve all the hype? Not really. But they received hype, and they will remain part of our culture for the next 100 years.

kino is my hero

If I was feeling better, I would have a retort to Kino's post, but, I'm feeling too shitty at the moment to care about attempting to defend Harry Potter in any way.

Aww. Well if you need someone, I am here for you. :[

I think that the last books are certainly better than the first books, in terms of language, construction and pretty much everything. Not that the first books are bad, but they are too childlike, which makes sense as that's who the series was aimed at.

Harry Potter will be around for a long old time yet, it's a huge series that's outshone almost all others in recent times. The fact of the matter is, that Harry Potter is already being taught in schools. In the UK, it's used at 12-13 year old level for analysis and it's used in Latin and Welsh classes as well. It's never going to be used in comparison to Dickens, or Lord of the Flies; however, it's going to be used for younger end English lessons.

Just like Narnia was.

A teacher here tried to teach Harry Potter in school... had a whole unit ready with info she had gotten from a London trip and everything. Of course, parents immediately objected because Harry Potter = the Devil. Welcome to Oklahoma.