Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Seven Reasons Harry Potter Is Overrated

Expand Messages
  • Patrick H. Wynne
    Fans and foes of the Harry Potter books might find cause for apoplexy and/or approbation in the following item from the Cinematical website:
    Message 1 of 5 , Nov 18, 2005
      Fans and foes of the Harry Potter books might find cause for
      apoplexy and/or approbation in the following item from the
      "Cinematical" website:

      http://www.cinematical.com/2005/11/18/cinematical-seven-reasons-harry-potter-is-
      overrated/

      (If the above link doesn't work, just go to www.cinematical.com
      -- the story is currently the second item from the top of the
      page.)

      To whet your appetite, here's reason #1:

      "J.K. Rowling, despite the initials, is no C.S. Lewis or J.R.R.
      Tolkien -- Disclaimer: Admittedly, I am a snob about things
      like this. Lewis and Tolkien were both members of The Inklings
      and associated with Oxford. Outside of their fiction writing,
      both were and are well-established academics and scholars
      in their fields (Tolkien is a rock-star amongst medievalists).
      J.K. Rowling, on the other hand, has no such scholarly ties
      and writes formula novels. Sure, they may be entertaining,
      but they're not literature. There's a reason that there's always
      that twist in the third act when the guy we thought was a villain
      isn't and the guy we thought was a good guy is the villain."

      Discuss amongst yourselves.

      -- Pat
    • WendellWag@aol.com
      In a message dated 11/18/2005 8:24:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, pwynne@gvtel.com writes: J.K. Rowling, on the other hand, has no such scholarly ties and
      Message 2 of 5 , Nov 18, 2005
        In a message dated 11/18/2005 8:24:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
        pwynne@... writes:

        J.K. Rowling, on the other hand, has no such scholarly ties
        and writes formula novels.


        I think the Harry Potter novels are indeed overrated, but the fact that
        Rowling has "no such scholarly ties" (which means, what, that she doesn't have a
        Ph.D. and has never taught at university level?) has nothing to do with it.

        Wendell Wagner


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • WendellWag@aol.com
        Excuse me, I should have made it clear that the quotation from Pat s post was a quotation he took from the web site. Pat would never say anything like that
        Message 3 of 5 , Nov 18, 2005
          Excuse me, I should have made it clear that the quotation from Pat's post
          was a quotation he took from the web site. Pat would never say anything like
          that himself. I hope.

          Wendell Wagner


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Walkermonk@aol.com
          In a message dated 11/18/2005 7:24:32 AM Central Standard Time, pwynne@gvtel.com writes: To whet your appetite, here s reason #1: J.K. Rowling, despite the
          Message 4 of 5 , Nov 18, 2005
            In a message dated 11/18/2005 7:24:32 AM Central Standard Time,
            pwynne@... writes:
            To whet your appetite, here's reason #1:

            "J.K. Rowling, despite the initials, is no C.S. Lewis or J.R.R.
            Tolkien -- Disclaimer: Admittedly, I am a snob about things
            like this. Lewis and Tolkien were both members of The Inklings
            and associated with Oxford. Outside of their fiction writing,
            both were and are well-established academics and scholars
            in their fields (Tolkien is a rock-star amongst medievalists).
            J.K. Rowling, on the other hand, has no such scholarly ties
            and writes formula novels. Sure, they may be entertaining,
            but they're not literature. There's a reason that there's always
            that twist in the third act when the guy we thought was a villain
            isn't and the guy we thought was a good guy is the villain."
            ---------

            Hmmmm . . . haven't read the whole article Pat referenced, but am thinking
            about the above quote. I quite like Harry Potter (well, except for the 5th one
            -- but the 6th one stole my heart). I am no intellectual highbrow, but I'm
            pretty sure formula doesn't keep something from being literature. Jane Austen's
            books are formulas, I think in many respects the Narnia tales -- which I love --
            are formulas. Many of Shakespeare's plays are formulas. So I don't think
            that's a valid argument. I find JKR to be very much in the older tradition that
            Lewis and Tolkien loved. She is not their equal, but she does credit to ideas,
            traditions, images, and fairy stories that they both enjoyed and revered.

            grace monk


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Stolzi
            ... I didn t find that to be so; there was a Harry Potter story, but it was not this one; so I waved my wand and cried TINYURLIUM! http://tinyurl.com/ax4bx
            Message 5 of 5 , Nov 18, 2005
              > (If the above link doesn't work, just go to www.cinematical.com
              > -- the story is currently the second item from the top of the
              > page.)

              I didn't find that to be so; there was a Harry Potter story, but it was not
              this one; so I waved my wand and cried "TINYURLIUM!"

              http://tinyurl.com/ax4bx

              Diamond Proudbrook
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.