I don't care what anyone else says, I thought the first book was no more then ok and the second such a total turd I haven't bothered with the others.
that's fightin' talk!
I can understand why kids love the franchise but grown ups need to realise that there are other fantasy books out there that are better.
I find it hard to understand how people can blinker themselves, ignoring the entire fantasy and sci-fi genres yet read a book touted as a childrens book. Not that I'm knocking that you understand, I just find it odd.
"grown ups need to realise that there are other fantasy books out there that are better. "
Do you have any examples of fantasy books that are better?
I ask since I've found that the vast majority of "adult" fantasy is formulaic, derivative, commercial crap.
It's such a wide genre. Grab a copy of Perdido Street Station by China Mieville, it's kind of a genre mash but fantasy is a major element.
90% are total crap. I'll grant that. But good ones are there, don't discard them out of hand. And a few of that 90% are good for mindless escapist fun.
It's easier to find intelligent sci-fi works. I love the work of Micheal Marshall Smith. His latest books have been contempary thrillers written without the Smith on his name (doinng an Iain M Banks) but I prefer his more futuristic works and hope he does another at some point.
Hmm... you can think of just one arguably book that's better? That's not much of a basis on which to dismiss an author's entire work. I'm sure you can see why that's not very convincing, no? If there's so much fantasy out there that's better, tell us what it is.
Or if that doesn't work, let's try a different tack. What did you find in Rowling's work that led you to describe it the way you did? What specifically about her books did you find bad.
No I gave one example, do you really want a long list? Dismiss he entire body of work? I read the first two and I didn't like them, I think that will pretty much turn any reader off an author or at least that series.
It's a few years since I read them and neither really engaged me but I can say that Chamber of Secrets was painfully and needlessly contrived. I understand that the book is aimed at kids but a pet hate of mine is talking down to or being condesending to kids and I sure as hell don't want to read a book that does it.
Oh and the baby plant things were just wrong. Painting them as being little people (down to stopping them climbing into each others pots for a bit of hows your father) then boiling them just didn't sit right with me.
I found the baby plant things hilariously macabre, but taste is a variable thing.
Contrived, yes. It's a murder/mystery. If they're not to a degree contrived they tend to rely on omniscient 3rd person, or are crushingly boring. Needlessly? I don't recall much shoehorning or unlikely coincidence that didn't feed into the resolution of that book or later subplots.
And, well, yes, a long list. See, I don't think there is a long list of good fantasy. I think it's a pitifully short list, but seeing what your long list is might give me some insight into what you find objectionable about the Potter books.
just as an aside, it is widely accepted among Potter fans that the second book is certainly the weakest, and the third, fourth, and fifth are light-years better, and aimed at slightly older audiences.
and that display is a lovely testament to both Harry Potter and OCD.
Fantasy books are good, 90% of them are shit, just like anything. But the few good ones are frickin ace.