Somehow I missed the Hogwarts Express

Carolyn Cordon says:

06:48am | 30/11/10

I’m with TimB. The book is the thing. The films are a kind of thank you for the passionate ones, and a way to entice ordinary people (those who didn’t get into it and follow it as the books came out), into the Hogwarts world.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I read the book as soon as I bought my own copy, and I remain in awe at JK’s talents.

BJ says:

07:02am | 30/11/10

Does it really matter that you don’t like Harry Potter? I don’t think anyone cares to be honest. Read them don’t read them it makes no difference to the rest of us.

don'tcaremuchforboringposts says:

07:22am | 30/11/10

For someone how cares “not much for Harry Potter” you certainly seem to know alot about the characters… suspect this might be more of a late night need for a blog inspiration and a constant desire to be seen as an anti-hero rather than an insightful commentary.

K says:

07:34am | 30/11/10

To avoid the kind of hysterical potter-mania that first jumped into my head when I read this, I’ll try to keep it balanced. I like how you acknowledge that merits of the series, not just slamming it. As pointed out, the books are better (they always are) Honestly, I missed the Hogwarts Express as well and didn’t read the books until I was 19. I read them all in 5 weeks and became consumed by it. Compare JK to another highly successful writer, Stephenie Meyer, and the writing styles, plot, characters are infinitely better.  One can only dream of the success she has had

Hermano says:

07:39am | 30/11/10

Tl;Dr.
I don’t care for HP at all.

martinX says:

07:49am | 30/11/10

I enjoyed the first book, but each successive one became longer and wordier - seemingly for its own sake - and just too hard to wade through. Dobby was the beginning of the end. I hoped it would go away but, like herpes, it kept making an unwelcome appearance. That creature is simultaneously Rowling’s Deus ex machina and Jar Jar Binks.

derision says:

08:06am | 30/11/10

Good books, average movies. I hate to tell you this though, you are definitely not the only person to dislike Harry Potter so don’t convince yourself you areunoque and different too quickly.

Pea says:

08:21am | 30/11/10

It happens mate! No justifications required! Besides, they’re not meant for you, necessarily!

mywandisbiggerthanyours says:

09:45am | 30/11/10

“I feel like the blind guy at the Playboy Mansion”
Best line in the whole article

GB says:

10:26am | 30/11/10

Never read the books or seen the movies and have no desire to do either.

J.J. Rambo says:

01:29pm | 30/11/10

I am not interested in Harry Potter, have not read one book and only (half) watched the first movie. It’s simply not my genre, doesn’t mean I am inadequate or unhuman, just means I value different stories, styles and authors.  Personally I prefer historical-fiction (i.e. novels based on real-life events but with fictional plots) or even non-fiction books about events in our world.  I can understand why people like the HP series, but let me set the record straight: not everyone has read the book or even watched the films (e.g. not one of my family or friends, about 50 people, have had anything to do with HP).  Different horses for diferent courses.

BT says:

01:33pm | 30/11/10

I never got into the books either - I felt they were written for children with ADHD.

Harry Homo says:

03:17pm | 30/11/10

My GAY year 3 teacher read me the first Harry Potter Book, he had bleached blonde hair and worse purple pants and Doc Martins…. that turned me off for life I am now 22..

markO says:

03:30pm | 30/11/10

Read all the HP books and enjoyed the first three. Thought the first movie did a great job of recreating the feel of the books.  I lost interest after that for two reasons. First, I’m not in the target audience (being in my 50’s). All the more credit to Rowling, then, for having drawn me into those first three. Secondly, I didn’t like the lad HP himself. That is not a criticism of the creation of the character. In fact, I thought he was so well done that I REALLY didn’t like him. I always found deeply serious male teenagers, real and imagined, pretty awful creatures anyway (I was one).

Reading suggestions have been thrown up here so I’d like to offer one especially those who missed the “HP express”. Try the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett.  Yes, they are “fantasy”. Yes, they have gaudy covers. But don’t be put off. I sneered at them (we ex-deeply- serious-teenagers can still do a good sneer) for years before was persuaded to actually read one. Haven’t stopped since.  It you too want to roll around in a rich, delirious, rollicking satire of literature itself and of most of its genres; of politics, race, money, the press, war, religion, the whole shebang .. Then pick up Terry’s books. You can start into them anywhere, although the beginning is not a bad place either.

Paul says:

04:45pm | 30/11/10

Saying something like ‘You know, sorry, but i don’t much care for Harry Potter’ (when you weren’t even asked) is a lot like telling your sister at her engagement partt that you don’t much care for her fiance. And it will get the same reaction.  also, be careful with your metaphors…  you confess to feeling like a blind guy at the Playboy mansion? That is just your problem!! I suspect he would feel just great!!!  You sound like someone who sat in the corner all night whinging and then came home and said the party sucked!!  You gotta be in it to win it, mate.

Rick says:

05:50pm | 30/11/10

I didn’t read the books either and I thought the first couple of movies were boring. But my girlfriend adores HP so I often have to hear all about it. Then again, she doesn’t understand the finer points of Ghostbusters like I do, so we’ve got something in un-common.

Drunk Guy says:

06:06pm | 30/11/10

I have never read the books, any of them and my kids have most of them, I just can’t get past the first 50 pages and I read those pages about 5 times before dropping the idea of ever getting past them and finishing one.  I think as a young bloke I read the DUNE series and couldn’t put them down, the movie as many have said could really only put the tip of the iceberg in and still keep the story flowing. During a Family outing I was almost a Pariah on exiting the cinema, apparently not only had i slept, but had actually snored for a few seconds, I have never been asked to participate during following movies and thats ok, I much prefer reruns of scrubs or ultimate cage fighting, . . .

JH says:

02:41am | 01/12/10

I’ve never seen the movies or read the books. The whole thing struck me as a bit of a rip-off of Lord of The Rings, as soon as I saw they have a wizard who appears to be identical to Gandalf! Even the actor is identical - may actually be the same guy?

Steven says:

11:05am | 01/12/10

Just saw the movie last night, I have read all the books and of course the books are much better. This movie was ok but to me it is just a blatant grab at milking audience attendances by splitting this into two parts. If they were serious the Half Blood Prince should have been made into two parts. That was the best book by far and they screwed it up with the movie by leaving half of it out and making other stuff up.
The deathly Hallows was by far the most boring book for me and it shows in this first part. Like others have said so much has been left out of the movies that unless you have read the books you would have no idea what is going on in the screen.

interloper says:

12:57pm | 01/12/10

I suspect the books will be seen as great literature in the future, with Snape one of the great characters of children’s literature. The intricacies of the plot, with important elements being mentioned in passing books in advance, make them a stunning achievement. And the denouement (the revelation of Snape’s motivation) still takes my breath away.
For those of you who haven’t read (all) the books, well, frankly, you’re not qualified to comment on them. For those who didn’t like them, fair enough. It takes all types.
I stopped watching the movies after the third one, when I realised that they didn’t have time to include the subtleties which make the story work. They showed many of the scenes of the books without explaining the deeper human meanings. It’s that stuff which elevates the books.

BO says:

04:16pm | 01/12/10

Harry Potter is great if you’re high.

Hvizah says:

06:10pm | 07/02/12

For what it’s worth, in the “grown up land” of reidang, we sing the same laments, but rather than blame JK Rowling, we blame Oprah.  however, the effect is the same: adult readers are taught a few things about writing by Oprah that make me, and my colleagues, cringe: One, the book must have a message; Two, for the message to matter, it must be a redemptive message; Three, for the book to be REALLY good, a woman must be in peril of some kind and over come that peril.  The quality of the writing, the pacing, the descriptions, the depth of introspection? Who cares.  As long as there’s a message.  Crinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnge, indeed.