Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Lab Assistant
Original Poster
#1 Old 3rd Jan 2018 at 8:17 PM
Default Do any of you still read Harry Potter?
I had never read the books until the illustrated versions started coming out which is very recent but I have fond memories watching the first four movies. They brought back fond memories of my childhood. I must admit that I was a little too young when the Harry Potter series first started coming out and I wasn't even born yet when it was first released and I was only a baby when it came out in the US but now my sister brought me all 3 illustrated versions that came out so far so that I could finally read them which she had all read back when it was really popular and I enjoyed all the artwork that was added to it. I'm currently reading The Prisoner Of Azkaban because i'm finished reading the 2 books and it so far it was a good read and I thought that they were better than the movies mostly because the movies left out some of the good parts from the books.
Advertisement
Mad Poster
#2 Old 3rd Jan 2018 at 10:10 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 3rd Jan 2018 at 10:34 PM.
Not so much any more, but I do occasionally read them if I get nostalgic, or I just leaf through to my favorite parts and read those. I also still like watching HP theories on Youtube, if I find good ones.

I may have had a little obsession when I was younger. I was 13-14, and started reading them a little before the 5th came out in English (which happened to be one of my first proper English books that wasn't a school book), not long before the 3rd movie came out. Movie 1+2 sparked my interest, then I borrowed the 4th book at the library (couldn't get hold of the 3rd), and was absolutely hooked, finishing it the next day. I think I've read the first 3-4 books somewhere close to 20 times each. I liked reading before I discovered HP, but the HP books made me love reading so much more, and opened my eyes to the awesome world of Fantasy/Sci-fi. I still love the HP books, but there are so many other good books out there. I've recently read the illustrated PS, and I'm currently reading the CoS edition (slowly, since I often read 2-4 books at a time - one in my backpack, and various books as bedtime reading).

I've got all 7 books in addition to the Quidditch/FantasticBeasts originals in my mother tongue + English, I've got the 3 first as illustrated versions (the new ones) in English, plus the Ravenclaw version of Philosopher's stone (guess which house I'm in...), the Fantastic Beasts screenplay book, that other book (that technically isn't by JKR, and probably works better as a play), plus a few more, and of course all the movies.

And yes, the books are better than the movies. That's a fact. The movies are good if you see them separate from the movies, and there are a few scenes I kinda like better in the movies, but not many. Several of the book scenes I liked a lot were changed in an unflattering way or even completely removed - but I guess that's what happens when the books are too long to put in 2+ hour movies, and 4 very different directors get to mess about with the same source material.
Lab Assistant
Original Poster
#3 Old 3rd Jan 2018 at 11:09 PM
Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
Not so much any more, but I do occasionally read them if I get nostalgic, or I just leaf through to my favorite parts and read those. I also still like watching HP theories on Youtube, if I find good ones.

I may have had a little obsession when I was younger. I was 13-14, and started reading them a little before the 5th came out in English (which happened to be one of my first proper English books that wasn't a school book), not long before the 3rd movie came out. Movie 1+2 sparked my interest, then I borrowed the 4th book at the library (couldn't get hold of the 3rd), and was absolutely hooked, finishing it the next day. I think I've read the first 3-4 books somewhere close to 20 times each. I liked reading before I discovered HP, but the HP books made me love reading so much more, and opened my eyes to the awesome world of Fantasy/Sci-fi. I still love the HP books, but there are so many other good books out there. I've recently read the illustrated PS, and I'm currently reading the CoS edition (slowly, since I often read 2-4 books at a time - one in my backpack, and various books as bedtime reading).

I've got all 7 books in addition to the Quidditch/FantasticBeasts originals in my mother tongue + English, I've got the 3 first as illustrated versions (the new ones) in English, plus the Ravenclaw version of Philosopher's stone (guess which house I'm in...), the Fantastic Beasts screenplay book, that other book (that technically isn't by JKR, and probably works better as a play), plus a few more, and of course all the movies.

And yes, the books are better than the movies. That's a fact. The movies are good if you see them separate from the movies, and there are a few scenes I kinda like better in the movies, but not many. Several of the book scenes I liked a lot were changed in an unflattering way or even completely removed - but I guess that's what happens when the books are too long to put in 2+ hour movies, and 4 very different directors get to mess about with the same source material.

I didn't know that you're a Harry Potter fan. My favorite book in the series so far is The Prisoner Of Azkaban but that's because I haven't read the others yet but I will the illustrated versions come out. For some reason I always get teary eyed toward the end The Sorcerer's Stone which they changed to The Philosopher's Stone for some reason that I don't understand mainly because the ending theme song reminds me of my childhood. Did you pick up the Illustrated version of The Prisoner Of Azkaban by any chance? I got it for Christmas.
Mad Poster
#4 Old 4th Jan 2018 at 1:15 AM Last edited by simmer22 : 4th Jan 2018 at 1:53 AM.
Philosopher's Stone is the original British title, and Sorcerer's Stone is the American title. Fun fact: They even went to the length of filming two sets of scenes for the movie, where they say Philosopher's Stone in the British version and Sorcerer's Stone in the American version.

Exactly why they renamed the book (and movie) to Sorcerer's Stone for America is a little vague. Maybe it was believed that American kids wouldn't know what a philosopher was, so they "translated" it into Sorcerer - which doesn't make that much sense, since the myth about the Stone is drawn from real life. The Stone has many names and can be found in various mythologies, but is perhaps best known as the philosopher's stone, or stone of the philosophers (in my language it's known as, roughly translated, "the stone of the wise"), basically a substance created via alchemy that could make base metals into precious metals (gold/silver), and make a potion for rejuvenation and immortality. Nicholas Flamel was a real person living in the 1300s, and there were legends surrounding him believing he'd discovered and/or found out how to make such a substance.

A lot of the HP universe, names used, and magical creatures are based on myths from real life. This goes quite deep. On the surface level, HP is just a fun story for children (of all ages) - but the deeper you dig into it, the more layers you realize JKR put into it. Most of the names have deeper meanings, often mirroring the person's story. Each wand is even set up to be a mirror of the wielder's personality. Things you barely notice when first reading suddenly pop out in a "OMG how didn't I see that?!?!" the 10th time you read one of the books. It's no wonder the HP story is still loved, because even if you've read the books 20 times, you still discover new things. I also love how she made the world so believable there's an explanation for how pretty much everything stays hidden from muggles. There's also Pottermore (although I did like the first version with the chapters much better. The new one is messy and too much like a trivia page with all the quizzes and "7 reasons why...).

(a tip for posting at MTS: You can use the "post quick reply" or "go advanced", or click the "reply" button and then delete the quote, if you don't want to quote the entire post above you).
Theorist
#5 Old 4th Jan 2018 at 12:48 PM
I think i was already too old when I read the Harry Potter books. I once tried as a child when they were first released but I found the first chapter so nauseating and written in such a condescending manner that I couldn't get beyond that. I just never liked children's literature when I was a child myself. It was like I could imagine J.K. Rowling standing behind me poking me and declaring over and over again "You are a child! You like silly things!"
And no, I don't mean silly things as in magic. Magic is awesome, unicorns and dragons are awesome, old castles are awesome. I just didn't care for the way Rowling presented those things, neither then nor now. I was a very dramatic minded child who read the Greek myths and legends of King Arthur, so I didn't really care for a Cerberus ripp-off named "Fluffy"

When I finally came around to read them, I just found the whole world Rowling created pretty appalling. Wizards, even the "good" ones like Mr. Weasly treat "Muggles" basically like dumb animals, their schools segregate the children into groups and encourage animosity between them, Hogwarts is a death trap, Dumbledore a hypocrite who plays favourites, the Dursleys are cartoon caricatures and Harry is pretty boring and pretty judgmental (let's leave aside the blatant protagonist-centered morality).
I particularly dislike Dumbledore in fact, at least Voldemort is honest about using you as a disposable pawn, Dumbledore will chess with your life for 17 years without ever letting you in on it and then thinks of himself as the "good guy" and staffs his school with incompetent people he just happens to like, when better alternatives are clearly available.
Sorry as a child I woult not have wanted to go to Hogwarts as a child, I would have wanted to go to Beaubaxtons, but that's a different subject. There were some interesting characters in the middle/later books like Sirius, Remus, Tonks, Narcissa Malfoy and so forth, but they hardly showed up, instead we were stuck with boring Harry in boring and Hogwarts finding out who some "Halfblood Prince" is (as if I cared) and listening to descriptions of Quidditch (barf). Truth be told I think Neville, Ginny and Luna would have made much more interesting protagonists than Harry, Hermione and Ron.

The last book, when the big final war was supposed to take place, we instead go camping, with all of the heroes (all of those characters introduced with their special abilities and know -how) are hiding in some remote cottages while innocent people (including children) are being herded off to concentration camps and have their souls getting eaten. Wooo! Go team!
And in the end nothing in the Wizarding World has changed, everybody marries their highschool sweetheart, everybody names their children after dead people, centaurs and goblins are still treated as second-class citizens (something the good guys approve of) and non-wizards are still treated as, at best, pets, test-subjects and funny curiosities.
What a lovely universe!

Aisde from that I do think that JK Rowling is a good writer, and some parts of the book I did find interesting and enjoyable (I particularly loved every moment Luna was on page), the overall product just wasn't my personal taste. I didn't like the the specific colour she painted her world and story in.
Lab Assistant
Original Poster
#6 Old 5th Jan 2018 at 2:11 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Orphalesion
I think i was already too old when I read the Harry Potter books. I once tried as a child when they were first released but I found the first chapter so nauseating and written in such a condescending manner that I couldn't get beyond that. I just never liked children's literature when I was a child myself. It was like I could imagine J.K. Rowling standing behind me poking me and declaring over and over again "You are a child! You like silly things!"
And no, I don't mean silly things as in magic. Magic is awesome, unicorns and dragons are awesome, old castles are awesome. I just didn't care for the way Rowling presented those things, neither then nor now. I was a very dramatic minded child who read the Greek myths and legends of King Arthur, so I didn't really care for a Cerberus ripp-off named "Fluffy"

When I finally came around to read them, I just found the whole world Rowling created pretty appalling. Wizards, even the "good" ones like Mr. Weasly treat "Muggles" basically like dumb animals, their schools segregate the children into groups and encourage animosity between them, Hogwarts is a death trap, Dumbledore a hypocrite who plays favourites, the Dursleys are cartoon caricatures and Harry is pretty boring and pretty judgmental (let's leave aside the blatant protagonist-centered morality).
I particularly dislike Dumbledore in fact, at least Voldemort is honest about using you as a disposable pawn, Dumbledore will chess with your life for 17 years without ever letting you in on it and then thinks of himself as the "good guy" and staffs his school with incompetent people he just happens to like, when better alternatives are clearly available.
Sorry as a child I woult not have wanted to go to Hogwarts as a child, I would have wanted to go to Beaubaxtons, but that's a different subject. There were some interesting characters in the middle/later books like Sirius, Remus, Tonks, Narcissa Malfoy and so forth, but they hardly showed up, instead we were stuck with boring Harry in boring and Hogwarts finding out who some "Halfblood Prince" is (as if I cared) and listening to descriptions of Quidditch (barf). Truth be told I think Neville, Ginny and Luna would have made much more interesting protagonists than Harry, Hermione and Ron.

The last book, when the big final war was supposed to take place, we instead go camping, with all of the heroes (all of those characters introduced with their special abilities and know -how) are hiding in some remote cottages while innocent people (including children) are being herded off to concentration camps and have their souls getting eaten. Wooo! Go team!
And in the end nothing in the Wizarding World has changed, everybody marries their highschool sweetheart, everybody names their children after dead people, centaurs and goblins are still treated as second-class citizens (something the good guys approve of) and non-wizards are still treated as, at best, pets, test-subjects and funny curiosities.
What a lovely universe!

Aisde from that I do think that JK Rowling is a good writer, and some parts of the book I did find interesting and enjoyable (I particularly loved every moment Luna was on page), the overall product just wasn't my personal taste. I didn't like the the specific colour she painted her world and story in.

I agree with everything that you said and one part that bothered while reading The Chamber Of Secrets is why Dumblebore couldn't find out who the heir of Slytherin was when he's supposed to be the greatest wizard of all time when he used to teach him half a century ago and he continues to keep the school open when there is a giant Basilisk running loose turning an animal,students and a ghost into stone and is deadly when you look straight into its eyes and then he hires a stuck up selfish professor like Lockhart who cares about nobody but himself and I don't know why they couldn't fire him after that big pixies fiasco that nearly wrecked the whole classroom and injured a student in the process. Other then that I still love the Harry Potter series and why do you think Harry is judgmental and boring.
Lab Assistant
Original Poster
#7 Old 5th Jan 2018 at 2:20 AM Last edited by Gamegenius : 5th Jan 2018 at 5:36 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
Philosopher's Stone is the original British title, and Sorcerer's Stone is the American title. Fun fact: They even went to the length of filming two sets of scenes for the movie, where they say Philosopher's Stone in the British version and Sorcerer's Stone in the American version.

Exactly why they renamed the book (and movie) to Sorcerer's Stone for America is a little vague. Maybe it was believed that American kids wouldn't know what a philosopher was, so they "translated" it into Sorcerer - which doesn't make that much sense, since the myth about the Stone is drawn from real life. The Stone has many names and can be found in various mythologies, but is perhaps best known as the philosopher's stone, or stone of the philosophers (in my language it's known as, roughly translated, "the stone of the wise"), basically a substance created via alchemy that could make base metals into precious metals (gold/silver), and make a potion for rejuvenation and immortality. Nicholas Flamel was a real person living in the 1300s, and there were legends surrounding him believing he'd discovered and/or found out how to make such a substance.

A lot of the HP universe, names used, and magical creatures are based on myths from real life. This goes quite deep. On the surface level, HP is just a fun story for children (of all ages) - but the deeper you dig into it, the more layers you realize JKR put into it. Most of the names have deeper meanings, often mirroring the person's story. Each wand is even set up to be a mirror of the wielder's personality. Things you barely notice when first reading suddenly pop out in a "OMG how didn't I see that?!?!" the 10th time you read one of the books. It's no wonder the HP story is still loved, because even if you've read the books 20 times, you still discover new things. I also love how she made the world so believable there's an explanation for how pretty much everything stays hidden from muggles. There's also Pottermore (although I did like the first version with the chapters much better. The new one is messy and too much like a trivia page with all the quizzes and "7 reasons why...).

(a tip for posting at MTS: You can use the "post quick reply" or "go advanced", or click the "reply" button and then delete the quote, if you don't want to quote the entire post above you).

Well that explains a lot and thanks for the information. Where did you get the Ravenclaw edition and Pottermore from?
Mad Poster
#8 Old 5th Jan 2018 at 3:00 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 5th Jan 2018 at 3:30 PM.
Pottermore is the official HP site: https://www.pottermore.com/

The House editions of PS/SS can be found in regular bookshops (if you're in an English-speaking country), or on sites like Amazon (link - the rest are shown at the bottom if you scroll down. There's both hardcover and pocket editions, and they've got some black and white illustrations inside.)

The HP books aren't perfect, and neither are the characters. The writing style is in the child/YA category, so they're perhaps not meant to be up there with Shakespeare or whatever. There are also several WTF?!? moments in them, and to be honest I wouldn't have attended the school even if it was real and I had the magic gene - but I loved the books when I was younger, and still have a soft spot for them now, even if they're not my absolute favorite books any more. The HP books made me start loving fantasy books (+ movies, series, sci-fi, etc.), and they've also made a whole lot of kids all over the world get interested in reading, so JK must have done something right. The books aren't for all, sure, but they're still going strong. Maybe other people see different things in them than you do, Orphalesion.
Mad Poster
#9 Old 5th Jan 2018 at 3:44 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 5th Jan 2018 at 3:58 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by Gamegenius
I agree with everything that you said and one part that bothered while reading The Chamber Of Secrets is why Dumblebore couldn't find out who the heir of Slytherin was when he's supposed to be the greatest wizard of all time when he used to teach him half a century ago and he continues to keep the school open when there is a giant Basilisk running loose turning an animal,students and a ghost into stone and is deadly when you look straight into its eyes and then he hires a stuck up selfish professor like Lockhart who cares about nobody but himself and I don't know why they couldn't fire him after that big pixies fiasco that nearly wrecked the whole classroom and injured a student in the process. Other then that I still love the Harry Potter series and why do you think Harry is judgmental and boring.


Dumbledore suspected Riddle/Voldemort, but didn't have any proof, particularly since everyone but Dumbledore and a few other people thought Voldemort already was dead, and that there wasn't a way he could come back (spoiler warning for book 4 through 7 here, so I won't go further into it). Everyone but Dumbledore thought Hagrid somehow did it, and if I remember correctly, the school board (Read: Lucius Malfoy) tried kicking out Dumbledore. The CoS was a little known legend, and very few took it seriously. They were on the verge of closing down the school the same day Harry & company solved the mystery. Also, Harry was the only one who could hear the basilisk, so no one knew a giant snake was having a blast in the pipes until Hermione put two and two together. But yeah - after so many kids + a ghost + a cat petrified, they should have acted sooner.

As for Lockhart, Dumbledore was running out of options. There's a very good reason they couldn't keep the DADA teachers more than a year, but again - spoiler for book 6. Dumbledore was scraping the bottom of the barrel by the time Lockhart got the position (and he didn't last much longer than any of the others, coming out of it for the worse).The only person who wanted the position was Snape, and there were good reasons as to why Dumbledore didn't want to give him the job.

The whole "aged old man/woman putting responsibility on the chosen one/a young and unexperienced character" is a much used trope. Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are well known examples plus a lot of epic fantasy also have this going. It's nothing new. Besides, the further into the story you get, the more you realize that there's a good reason why Dumbledore puts so much responsibility onto Harry's shoulders. Also, he may come off as the 'wise old man with a beard' kind of character, but he's much more complicated than that, and he does make a lot of mistakes - but at least he admits to not being perfect several times throughout the books, particularly from book 5 and on. He's not the one with all the answers, and he does make lots of mistakes that make Harry's life much harder. I'd say he comes off more human than a lot of the other old, wise, bearded characters I've seen in various franchises.
Mad Poster
#10 Old 5th Jan 2018 at 5:23 PM
I haven't read the books themselves in a long time, but I'm constantly finding new books about the HP series to read. A lot of pop science and psychology/philosophy essays on things like Harry Potter can be more revealing than just reading a philosophy text by itself. There are also more and more literary analyses of the series showing up, putting it (rightly) in the same camp as some classics by authors like Tolkien and Lewis. There's also some interesting discussion in the collection of essays I'm reading now that discuss the fallacy of assuming that any books are "kid's books" or "adult books' in such a black-and-white way- setting, characters, vocabulary, tropes, all of those end up stereotyping books one way or another, when really, looking at the substance of a story doesn't depend on any of those things. Harry Potter is written in language that makes it work as a "kid's book," sure, but the themes that it deals with (life, death, love, self-sacrifice, etc) are plenty adult enough to be found in "adult books" too. In the same vein, the notion of a book as being inappropriate for kids just because it's an "adult book" is flawed too- sure, you probably don't want a 4th grader reading books with graphic sex or violence (say, ASOIAF), but they should read some things that are "beyond" their age group- that's how you learn to grow as a reader. At this point, the meta-analysis of these books can be as interesting as the books themselves.

Welcome to the Dark Side...
We lied about having cookies.
Mad Poster
#11 Old 5th Jan 2018 at 8:36 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 5th Jan 2018 at 8:49 PM.
I'd say the HP books are more in the YA (young adult) category, perhaps best fitting for pre-teens and teenagers roughly the age of the main characters (10-17). They don't have anything that would be unsafe or very inappropriate for younger kids down to 6-8 to read, but some of the scenes can be a bit too much for younger kids.

The books deal with a lot of important themes, like friendship (particularly a little nudge to not having to choose the strongest most popular people as your friends), growing up and getting more responsibility, teamwork, bullying (both among children, among adults, and between teacher and child), discrimination (house elves and other humanoids), racism (particiularly muggles/muggle-born/half-bloods/pure-bloods), and themes of death - like losing people and moving on from there. It also deals with resentment and regrets, particularly between the Dursleys and Harry, and how Petunia deals with her sister's death - but also another important character I won't mention. Several of the over-arching themes in the books are very spot-on to what various teenagers around the world has to deal with on a daily basis.

The characters are not perfect, but they aren't meant to be. Some of them (like the Dursleys) are more like charicatures, but there exist more than enough examples of parental figures who mistreat kids under their care. Teachers very much like Snape and Umbridge exist, seemingly only to mistreat the kids they're supposed to teach. But there are also kind and caring teachers like Lupin, and strict but fair teachers like McGonnagal - both teacher types who find the best in their students.
Lab Assistant
Original Poster
#12 Old 6th Jan 2018 at 2:42 AM
Quote: Originally posted by simmer22
Dumbledore suspected Riddle/Voldemort, but didn't have any proof, particularly since everyone but Dumbledore and a few other people thought Voldemort already was dead, and that there wasn't a way he could come back (spoiler warning for book 4 through 7 here, so I won't go further into it). Everyone but Dumbledore thought Hagrid somehow did it, and if I remember correctly, the school board (Read: Lucius Malfoy) tried kicking out Dumbledore. The CoS was a little known legend, and very few took it seriously. They were on the verge of closing down the school the same day Harry & company solved the mystery. Also, Harry was the only one who could hear the basilisk, so no one knew a giant snake was having a blast in the pipes until Hermione put two and two together. But yeah - after so many kids + a ghost + a cat petrified, they should have acted sooner.

As for Lockhart, Dumbledore was running out of options. There's a very good reason they couldn't keep the DADA teachers more than a year, but again - spoiler for book 6. Dumbledore was scraping the bottom of the barrel by the time Lockhart got the position (and he didn't last much longer than any of the others, coming out of it for the worse).The only person who wanted the position was Snape, and there were good reasons as to why Dumbledore didn't want to give him the job.

The whole "aged old man/woman putting responsibility on the chosen one/a young and unexperienced character" is a much used trope. Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are well known examples plus a lot of epic fantasy also have this going. It's nothing new. Besides, the further into the story you get, the more you realize that there's a good reason why Dumbledore puts so much responsibility onto Harry's shoulders. Also, he may come off as the 'wise old man with a beard' kind of character, but he's much more complicated than that, and he does make a lot of mistakes - but at least he admits to not being perfect several times throughout the books, particularly from book 5 and on. He's not the one with all the answers, and he does make lots of mistakes that make Harry's life much harder. I'd say he comes off more human than a lot of the other old, wise, bearded characters I've seen in various franchises.

Don't get me wrong I still enjoyed reading the books but there are some parts in it that I don't think makes any sense but I think it's because the original two books were meant for children.
Back to top