I heard this rumor:

[Gerbil]

I guess the thing I don't like about 'light' reading is that my personal view on life is that too many people take the easy options which are ultimately less rewarding.

I'm not saying HP are bad books (in my opinion they are, but of course everyone is entitled to their opinions and I'm all too aware people will disagree), simply that reading something like LotR takes more mental effort and as such is more of an experience. Books like HP I just read. It's a story. LotR I was able to be sucked into, like it was another reality.

Let me put this clearly.
I hope HP makes more kids read more.
I am kind of glad that HP makes adults read more.

But where do they go from there? Is it a stepping stone, or do they just stop there with HP the be-all and end-all of their literary aspirations? That would be quite quite tragic.

THat's why I've not really got a problem with, say, you liking HP. You've obviously read more, and like it on it's merits over other works. You have a basis for comparison.

But for someone to read it and simply label them the best books ever, I find it more an indication on the person saying it than the books themselves.

[jerseydevil]

Since I'm a computer person - I think all day. Analyzing, developing and coding programs. I just don't always want to go home and think.

I have read a lot also - Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, Dickens - not just fantasy. I also read a lot about New Jersey and American History (especially the American Revolution). In high school, I read a lot about Bristish History - especially about the Plantagenets. In college I was reading a lot of Russian History - mostly about Peter the Great and the Romanovs.

Just because a person may love the Harry Potter books - does not mean they are illiterate fools. Katherine Kurtz is also one of my favorite authors - with the Deryni series. Her first books - books 4,5,6 in the series at this time - were much lighter and basic than the books that she wrote later on. Few books can touch the Camber trilogy which makes up the first three books of the series. Harry Potter was JK Rowling's first book - she may grow as a writer too. Even if she doesn't match up to Tolkien's literary style - what does it matter? The Harry Potter books are enjoyable - and enjoyment is the most important thing.

I have a friend that felt the only way he could truly consider himself well read is if he read War and Peace. I am not like that - I read because I enjoy the subject matter or I like the author. I am not going to base my decisions on what I read because some "literary experts" praise or condemn it.

After reviewing the first post, I guess this discussion has completely gone off thread now.

We cross posted - so I'm just going to reply to your post above. I agree LOTR draws the reader in much more. At least in my opinion. The history of Middle Earth is almost like an extension of our own and makes the books so much more real. With HP - there is always this level of disbelief at things. But it is pure fantasy and HP are just fun books to read.

[Gerbil]

<snip JD's list of other authors he's read>

See? I knew you were well read - which is why I'd be more inclined to trust your opinion of say, HP, than someone else who has only read HP

[HOBBIT]

Gerbil, can you even form an opinion on Harry Potter? I mean have you read the books? And, as I said earlier, I don't mean did you pick up one of them, quickly skimmed through said "man this is easy" or "this is to childish" and put it down....I mean did you really read it? Even if you have only read the first book, thats enough to form an opinion on...even though you should read all of them before doing that as they get progressively better. These are not kids books man.....a lot of kdis had trouble reading book no. 4....the reading level and character development went up so much..its like when harry ages so does the quality of the story. Its great. Someone who calls Harry Potter and the sorcerer's stone (or philosophers stone in Europe) "HP and the Philantricants Scone" just has no right to go criticizing.

[HOBBIT]

OK you called it " HP and the philanthropist's scone" I think thats even worse .

[Gerbil]

Well, I'm glad JK Rowlings is improving as an author. Maybe by the end of the series it'll be worth reading. Except of course it wont, because she's already written the final chapter of the final book (see, I do keep up to date with some of the trivia .

As for me reading it, why? I've got a fairly good idea of what I do and don't like.

As for what I called HP's book (you realise HP is actually a dinner sauce, like tomato ketchup right? , I'm glad you showed you read it at first by misquoting me. As for saying that me making a silly comment somehow nullifies the whole arguement is, of course, a silly comment. Does that mean your arguements are null and void also?

Defend HP all you like, but it looks to me like the roles are reversing here - you started out claiming I was dead set against HP in all shapes and forms, and needed to be more open to others judgement. Nice to see the tables turned

[HOBBIT]

What are you babbling about?

Lets be to the point here: you have not read the books, therefore you cannot form an opinion on them or about them. Plain and simple.

[HOBBIT]

I mean don't get me wrong, you can think that you won't like them.....but until you have read them....you can't do all the critizcizing that you have been doing. You can't say that adults whose favorite book is Harry Potter are idiots because you yourself can't judge the books....... your opinion of what you think of the books, and all your other opinions are valid....but i'm sorry your opinion on Potter is not a valid one, as much as people say every opinion is valid, that is not true! If you have never read a book, you can't go on about how much it sucks.......if you have never been to a restaurant, you can't say that you dislike it, etc, etc. Not to say that as a post your view is not valid, but as a 'book review' or something like that.

[Wayfarer]

Harry Potter and the Philanthropists Scone?

[Arathorn]

I enjoyed both the JRR and JK series of books. But sadly I can't say whether I could accurately give a comparison on the "which is better" scale.

LOTR/Silmarillion draws me into a macroscopic view of a world complete with language, lore, and politics. I feel like I'm reading a whole subscription set from some international daily in a forgotten realm.

With the HP set (4 of 7 so far), it feels like a school paper where you know just about everybody and you read a lot of gossip and the articles a closer to "real-time". It's a much smaller world and therefore more closely knit.

With Tolkien's world I lose myself in the world environment while with Rowling's I lose myself in the close relationships; at least that's how I feel.

Both books, however, are neither my favorite.

Give me the FEYNMAN'S LECTURES ON PHYSICS set any time!

[Gerbil]

Ah, but I am not going to read them because I've been told by friends who have read them, and who's taste in books I trust, have told me they aren't worth reading.

Not that they are bad, just that they aren't great either.

My opinion of people who read them and say they are thebest thing ever stands. If they don't have the basis of comparison to know better, then I pity them more than anything.

Bear in mind I've not yet heard one person here say they think they are the best books ever. Why? Because everyone here has read more. So to imply that my opinion is worth less than that of someone who in recent history has probably ONLY read HP, is utter rubbish.

The more we read, the more we can compare. Which I've done so. Which I don't believe these other people are able to. Which means I think they should read a great deal more.

[Starr Polish]

My opinion as a reader: They were slightly entertaining and kept my attention, especially as the series grows.

My opinion as a (amateur) writer: They weren't a masterpiece.

[HOBBIT]

*sigh* No comment...we are just repeating ourselves (Gerbil and I)...it is obvious that you are not going to change your mind, so......lets end it here. (Hmm. I guess that was a comment, but not to your reply)

[Eowyn, The Lioness]

Originally posted by Lightice
There are two time scales out, which the longer is propably the right one. First time scale published, had FotR at december 2001, TT at summer 2002 and RotK at december 2002, but then was published the longer, and propably the right time line, FotR at december 2001, TT at december 2002 and RotK at december 2003.

That's what I thought, but just thought I'd check.

[markedel]

HP is a good book (I found it more enjoyable then the hobbit-but I read the silmarrilion and LOTR first so I suppose I may be less attuned to Tolkien's children literature) but I'm not quite sure of it's unique appeal. Political correctness? Rare humor? I don't know I say if you want exhilerating children's literature it's all about Watership Down!

[Legolas_BowKing]

The three movies should of came out in three days!

[jerseydevil]

I personally never considered Watership Down to be a childrens book. To me it's classic literature - just like Animal Farm. Watership Down is an awesome book though - however it is categorised. The movie is cool too.