Hi Clopin.
Please don't forget Harry was an abused child forced to live in a cupboard. Hardly a nice life living with people who resent you.
Printable View
Hi Clopin.
Please don't forget Harry was an abused child forced to live in a cupboard. Hardly a nice life living with people who resent you.
But there never was a big deal made of this, was there? At the end of most books, character X says something to the effect of "it's a shame he has to go back to those people, but I guess he must"" with no regard for the fact that he was abused, beaten, starved (probably). And I'm sorry, but if you were an abused child, you don't go rushing headlong into the situations he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydneysider
Edit: of course, I realize analyzing Harry Potter for psychological realism is absurd.
Hmmm.... J K Rowling with a new book. I heard her in an interview sometime ago saying that she was writing a political fairy-tale (don't know what that means) but this seems to be different.It would be interesting to see how the book is taken by the masses. I'm looking forward to reading the book because I liked the Harry Potter series, merely for the magical world created in them.
I too am surprised by some of the extreme negative reactions this series provokes. I don't see anyone going out on a limb trying to 'prove' just how awful the Dan Brown or Twilight books are, but reputed critic Harold Bloom and excellent author A S Byatt have made fools of themseves with their completely asinine criticisms of HP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydneysider
Professional jealousy. :-)
More Harry Potter???
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/...926-26ljl.html
I think the difference is that popular society has done a great job on its own of tearing apart Dan Brown and Twilight. Harry Potter's place, however, seems to be "this miraculous series that turned a generation onto reading" - and this is what irks critics, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by mona amon
Here's an early review in the Chicago Tribune.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...,1197037.story
If Twilight enjoyed anywhere near as close to the size of the market share, it would have. Dan Brown has been ripped into a lot as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
I don't know about the book, but the Chicago Tribune should fire her, she is a terrible reviewer. What a prosaic and dull reading, I bet you she didn't even read/finish the book. It seems like something anybody could have cooked up by reading the blurb on the back (the summary seems word for word).Quote:
Originally Posted by Calidore
Seriously what a tedious review - the deep emotional complexity? Harry Potter? Even my professor in China knows they are stick-figure heroes, and he reads Chinese stick-figure heroes for a living.
Dreadful review. It read as a press release. Way too much fawning over the author.
I don't know about 'deep emotional complexity' of the HP characters or whether it's even necessary since the books are plot driven rather than character driven. Certainly I've never thought of the characters as emotionally complex. But I do know that they are well drawn, multifaceted, convincing, and most important, they're characters whom you can care about.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
The most recent book I tried to read was Run by Ann Patchett. I think she's considered a good writer, and her Bel Canto got good reviews here on this forum. I struggled through about half the book, but found that I didn't care what the characters did, or said, or what happened to them, and I gave up. I'm sure Jo Rowling will do better than this.
Here's another review, by Lev Grossman for Time Entertainment.
I have no opinion. I have not read the novel.
Here is a question: Who thinks the HP movies will be remade in 20 years?
That was an excellent review. It gave me enough convincing details and motivation to make me want to read Rowling's new book.Quote:
Originally Posted by TurquoiseSunset
For comparison, here's Harold Bloom's scornful review twelve years ago: http://www.fanpop.com/spots/harry-po...s-harold-bloom
Comparing the two reviews, Grossman is a far better reviewer than Bloom. When reading Grossman, I learn about Rowling's new book. When reading Bloom, I learn about Bloom's ego.
Now I have a soft spot for Bloom. He introduced me to the idea that the original writer of the main stories of Genesis, known as J, was likely someone from Solomon's court, likely a female, and so likely Solomon's mother, Bathsheba. That got me reading more of Bloom's writing which quickly disappointed.
At the moment, I'm under the impression, largely from reading Bloom, that many literary critics are little more than parasites. The goal of these critics is to get their names associated in some way with people who have better known names than their own and then either pass a good judgment or a bad judgment to start sapping some of the celebrity from their betters to themselves. They are not interested in telling their readers anything of value nor even in entertaining their readers.
In the case of Harry Potter, I suspect Harry Bloom calculated that scorning Rowling's writing would make him look superior to her or, if that didn't work, getting his name associated with Rowling's would make it look as if somehow he was at her level. He's neither.
The BBC has collated a number of reviews. The sentiment seems to be pretty mixed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19740849