Premier Rock Forum

I once read a perfect description of Harry Potter:


"They are incredibly sloppily written - the literary form of background
noise, not intended to be read for sense, but to facilitate the eye moving
across the page as easily as possible. To clarify, it is quite correct that
writers should never write sentences that are ambiguous in meaning, that
they should spend their time in craft, so the attentive reader doesn't have
to waste time reading sentences more than once.

However, writers like JK Rowling use cliches and meaningless or superfluous words in monotonous cadence, to help the eye slide across the page. They do not repay close attention, in fact, they deflect it.

What is more, the books are claustrophobic, and unimaginative - conservative and mean in scope and mind.

This, of course, is why the books are popular, since they form a safe womb, reminiscent of childhood fantasies - people sucking at the milkless teat of their callow dreams, untempered by reality.

Tom"

Jeez, the Harry Potter books/Movies are for KIDS. Whatareya gonna do, throw Millhouse a copy of "Gravity's Rainbow" or the "Time/Life WW II Series" or something?!
Anything to get a kid reading is good.

That's the thing about Harry Potter- yeah, it gets some kids into reading, but a lot of those kids only read Harry Potter. The quote about Harry Potter books being very easy to read is very, very true. Still, I'll stand by that it's good for kids; however, the fad has spread to many people much older than should really be spending time on these books. I mean, there are better things to read, even for kids. It's like Pokemon, at this point, where it's just something kids do because everyone else is.

alex wrote:I once read a perfect description of Harry Potter:


"They are incredibly sloppily written - the literary form of background
noise, not intended to be read for sense, but to facilitate the eye moving
across the page as easily as possible. To clarify, it is quite correct that
writers should never write sentences that are ambiguous in meaning, that
they should spend their time in craft, so the attentive reader doesn't have
to waste time reading sentences more than once."

However, writers like JK Rowling use cliches and meaningless or superfluous words in monotonous cadence, to help the eye slide across the page. They do not repay close attention, in fact, they deflect it.

What is more, the books are claustrophobic, and unimaginative - conservative and mean in scope and mind.

This, of course, is why the books are popular, since they form a safe womb, reminiscent of childhood fantasies - people sucking at the milkless teat of their callow dreams, untempered by reality.

Jeeeesus.

To clarify, it is quite correct that
writers should never write sentences that are ambiguous in meaning, that
they should spend their time in craft, so the attentive reader doesn't have
to waste time reading sentences more than once.

really

i have had to reread large portions of many of my favorite books to understand them fully

am i retarded? or just inattentive?

tmidgett wrote:

To clarify, it is quite correct that
writers should never write sentences that are ambiguous in meaning, that
they should spend their time in craft, so the attentive reader doesn't have
to waste time reading sentences more than once.

really

i have had to reread large portions of many of my favorite books to understand them fully

am i retarded? or just inattentive?

no I am always rereading stuff, sometimes that's part of the fun

or I am just an inattentive reader

my sarcasm did not come thru

it's a dumb thing to say, i think, that every sentence should be crystal clear. you can have specific ambiguities and general clarity.

yr sarcasm came through, I just ignored it

back to HP: people love it, I don't have strong opinion one way or ther other, but I will just stick w/ a Wrinkle in Time

total crap, the only parts that came close to being interesting were directly copied from j.r.r. tolkien's books (L.O.T.R, sillmarillion, unfinnished tales.)
and i hate the kid who plays harry in the movies
DIE IDie

tmidgett wrote:i have had to reread large portions of many of my favorite books to understand them fully

am i retarded? or just inattentive?

No, the author should have been clearer. But it's the next paragraph that deals with the problem with Harry Potter.

And it's exactly kids who shouldn't be reading this. What worse time is there to be exposed to this kind of paradigm of expedience over significance than when you're learning to frame the world? The patterns determine how you interpret things for the rest of your life.