Crossbow

I'd say HP takes an attention span. #4 is really long. And I'm more enthralled with HP as an adult than I ever was with Lewis Carroll (the child pronographer) or C.S. Lewis (the raving Christian) as a child.

One of the things I admire about it is the way the reading level goes up with Harrys age. Sure, it makes the earlierst books a bit slow for adults, but I have to appreciate how she did it.

Frelling Tralk

Well yeah the author Lewis Carroll and his fetish for little girls like the Alice the book was based on does creep me out. But I am talking about the book, not the author as a person.

And when I was a child I didn't even pick up on the christian themes in the Narnia books, many adults will tell you the same, and it was only as adults that they picked up on the subtext. Doesn't change the fact that I thought they were good books, and far more innovative than boy wizard goes to boarding school and is challenged by evil sorcerer that got corrupted by maigc.

Some Harry Potter fans are becoming a bit defensive, I didn't know it was compulsory for every person to love Harry Potter.

Squishy

Well, deliberate or not, the opening of the first book was quite frustrating. Nothing really happens until halfway through the book.

Books 2 and 3 were my favourites. They were very well-written I thought. The fourth book was much more epic, but I don't think it was done as well as the others. JKR admitted that she lost track of the plot while writing it, and while it's still a good piece of work, there are so many holes in it. I hope Book 5 doesn't suffer the same problems.

Squishy

I think I suffer from that problem. I'm 17 now, and I read Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass when I was younger, as well as several of the Narnia books. Back then, I didn't struggle to get through them, but when I looked back at the books a few weeks ago, I'm actually amazed I had the attention span to finish them back then, because I don't think I could read them through again right now.

A lot of kids are brought up with TVs, video games, explosive movies, etc. They expect to get flashy effects, and books are obviously the things that lose out. I used to love reading, but I think that part of the lack of patience to sit through long, tedious descriptions in books rubbed off on me. I tried reading "Dracula" by Bram Stoker quite recently, and I only got a few dozen pages in until I just started skimming, because it wasn't going anywhere very fast.

I honestly think the solution is to rewrite some books so that they're more "modern" and faster-paced. Yes, parents who loved the classics will be wringing their hands and saying that "the essence of the stories will be lost". But I honestly think that a good abridgement doesn't lose any more essence than translating a story into another language. While a few hundred years ago, I'm sure Dickens was wonderful for keeping people entertained for long hours, we really do live in faster times, and I personally can't sit through pages of description of what one field looked like. A shortened version makes it more relevant and interesting to read.

[ 06-09-2003: Message edited Si ]

trash addict

Maybe they're trying to explain to you why they think they are something special. i didn't think this was the 'diss harry potter' thread, i know i'm at least trying to add some balance to the conversation.
and don't underestimate the power of fast-reading books that are pretty simple - my love of reading stemmed from goosebumps by R.L Stine!

*Maxi*

The Horse Whisperer by Nicholas Evans. Lots of people had raved about this excellent book, and when I finally read it I thought it was for the most part dull, predictable and not very well written.

Crossbow

I sure did, and it bugged the h*ll out of me. I was 8 when I read them, and I was a religious, Catholic, and I STILL felt like I was being beaten over the head with the Christianity in the books. Or maybe I was sensitive to it because I had to hear so much about Jesus all the time anyway. I loved The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, but the rest of the series left me cold.

Actually what I don't like about Alice in Wonderland isn't so much knowing what a perv the author was - I didn't know that until much later - but the way it seemed like someone's opium dream. (Yeah, I did know what opium was.) Just a bunch of far-out ideas with a complete lack of structure. It has its moments, though, like

"We're all mad here," said the cat. "I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" asked Alice.
"You must be," said the cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

All in all, I wish Harry Potter had been around when I ws a kid.

~Kat_Manc~

Lord of the Rings. I found it slow and it took a huge effort to read, i got compleatly bogged down in the middle part and had to leave it for a couple of months before i could finish it.

StellaSlight

Catcher in the Rye. Thought it was a waste of time reading it, it has no point, no purpose, and I wanted to slap Holden the Teenager.

Wuthering Heights. I thought it was one of the most cruel stories I've ever read. I liked the first part with all the love angst and all, but I hated the second part where things turned mentally cruel. And the author wanted us to see her characters as romanesque?

Kadie

White Oleander, I liked the book for awhile up until it got so boring I just had to stop reading it.

artist

The Catcher in the Rye [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

jk_d25

W-what?! A Pulitzer?

You must be kidding.


[img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]

talyra

hello, newby on this board [img]smilies/wave.gif[/img] I'll make a good start - by whining!

I don't know if it's fair to say this cos I've never finished the book, but: Jane Eyre. I get to the part where Mr. Rochester is being rude about her drawing and give up. Before you call me lazy though, I've done this around five times, so I have at least tried...

I thought the first Harry Potter was very, very slow to start. A friend of mine couldn't get into it at all, but she read the second book and loved it.
I think they probably are overrated, not in that the quality of the writing or general fabness of the story are bad but in that they're too hyped. The bestest of the best of anything can be ruined by excessive hype. I hate hype. It just raises people's expectations to the point where they are bound to be disappointed. After all, nothing's perfect!
Oh dear, I'm ranting, I do apologise, I'll go now.

chariZmatic

true true

Also A walk to remember. I don't get it....I thought it was boring.

Crossbow

I loved the first one - I can read it over and over. I really had to struggle to get through TTT, which other people seem to think is the most exciting. I think that one's overrated.

I'm trying not to say more about Harry Potter, since it's been rehashed to death, it has its own thread anyway, but even though the first one is supposed to be so wonderful, I liked them more as they went on. I thought #1 was cute but not enthralling, #2 ws better, #3 really had me pretty intrigued, and I absolutely loved #4. So while I agree that #1 is pretty overrated, but I really enjoyed the series altogether. I think anyone who gives up after the first book is missing out, since that is the one written for the lowest reading level. #4 is much closer to an adult level. I expect #5 to be even better!

What is The Catcher in the Rye about? I read it 20 years ago and I don't remember. I remember the hero's name, and I know I wrote in my diary that I liked it, but it clearly made no lasting impression.

[ 06-18-2003: Message edited Crossbow ]