Harry Potter and the NewClassic Outlook

[otterbeans]

Anyone with Microsoft Word > Stephanie Meyer

I use notepad.

I use Open Office.

Okay, even simpler. Anyone with a keyboard.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

NewClassic,

Thank you for explaining yourself. I wanted to see where you were going with some of your comments, and I appreciate you taking a moment to set the record straight. I sincerely hope you were not offended by any of my comments, I was merely hoping to offer some opinions on your review.

In all honesty, I do think that as a whole the review was fine. While I may not think your humor was necessary, I can totally concede that I am a bit blinded by my love for the Harry Potter series. Had you used humor in a positive review of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I may have had a completely different reaction since I would happen to agree with you.

Again, I have posted on many a message board in my time, and posted my initial comments with great trepidation. I truly appreciate a real discussion about anything, really, on the Internet. (In other words, thank you for not calling me a fag.) Keep up the good work, and we'll see how the next one goes.

 

[qbert4ever]

Forgive me for being an arrogant meat-stick, but what exactly makes these books (especially towards the end) "children's books"? Last time I looked, something containing that much violence isn't exactly made for the 6-12 year old crowd. Unless you mean to say that anybody under the age of, say 30 (I'm averaging here. There are plenty of people on both sides of that that enjoy the books) is a child.

I'm not going to get too deep into it right now because it's late and I need to get up early, but I will say that, aside from more or less disagreeing with you every step of the way, this was a fairly poor review. Mainly in the sense that instead of being fair, you focused mostly on the negative, and then found ways to muck up the positive. This ranged from seeming to just not understand the plot points (the chamber was relevant in the second book because that's when people started getting attacked. I doubt that Alcatraz is a huge gossip piece in New York schools, but if people were getting killed by a ghost from there, some talk may start happening), to just plain wrong (the three headed dog in the first book was not Cerberus, and what "mystery" are you talking about?).

I can assure you that I'm not some cracked-out Potterhead that will get all pissy if somebody misspells "Hermione", but good God man, you give the impression that you never even read the books, or at best skimmed over the summery on Wikipedia. If you don't like (yes, I know you said "average") something, that's fine. But if you're going to put together a piece saying why people should avoid it, at least get your facts right.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

i totally agree with you. i read the potter books... i persevered through the last 4 after having loved the first 3.

maybe it's because i got older as they came out, but i remember the first 3 being pretty good (not up to pratchett standards, oh no!) and the rest being... well... bad :\

i kept hoping for something brilliant... so i kept reading... eventually i just went back to Lord of the Rings because it made me forget the hours wasted on Potter and his ilk

Edit: did anyone else think Neville should have been the Chosen One? i mean... there was a foreshadowing of that in one of the earlier books... Harry should have been a vessel for Voldemorts soul and Neville should have had to kill him in order to save the world... anyone? anyone at all? no? just me then

Edit 2: what about having Dumbledore use Harry as a figurehead for his attack on Voldemort? see i though we could have Dumbledore using Harry, and the fact that he lived when he should have died, as a propaganda type thing against the big baddie. Dumbledore would have orchestrated each of the trials in the first 6 books and Harry would have found out in the seventh that he was just a tool being used for the furthering of the wizarding community... or something....

Actually, as I child, I gave up on the series halfway into Book 2. Turned out being the best executive decision of my life. My friends in high school harassed and harranged me, "Hey, you like magic/fantasy, you should read Harry Potter!" or "You like reading don't you, Harry Potter is the best!" At the time, I had some money, so I picked up the fullest box set at the time. This was just before Order of the Phoenix came out

So I read through the first two books in one day, much like I remembered them. Nothing really special, quick reads with mostly-believable characters and partly-believable storylines. As the books progressed, the tone got darker, and the Divine Lord DemiGod strong-willed Potter got a little more awesome. By the end of the series, he was a teenager capable of squaring off with someone who can organize, take over, and control an entire community through brute force. Kinda like Lu Bu from the Dynasty Warriors games, really.

Addressing Edit 1, I really think the prophetic nature of the series made the entire storyline pretty simple. Even if Neville had ended up being the chosen one, it would just become Neville Longbottom and the NewClassic Outlook. It wouldn't have changed the story significantly, maybe opened up one or two more butt jokes about his last name.

Addressing Edit 2, I really think Dumbledore's character was designed to be that of pure, unstoppable benevolence. He was the big, white-robed man on the mountain, basking in the sunlight and showing the world what archetypal good-guy is supposed to look like. To suspect him of that kind of subterfuge would be to mar this pure-white image. Which, honestly, would've made the character quite a bit less flat. Although, I think that's just a figment of your over-analysis.

I liked the first six books. Yeah, the plots were trite, but in each one Harry had to deal with the loss of his parents (in book one), Dumbledore (book six) or Ron (temporarily in book seven). Great life lessons for teenagers, and not a few adults.

The ending of the seventh book, though, was crap. One reviewer described the (anti-)climatic battle as Harry arguing about contract law, and I really have to agree. I'd expected the books to complete a circle: Voldemort would try to insta-kill Ginny, and Harry would realize for the first time exactly what motivated his mother to throw herself in harm's way to protect him. (But he'd be saved by a Deux Ex Machina involving his possession of two of the three Hallows.)

I agree with the life-lessons thing, but it's a lesson poorly delivered. You don't need a 7-book, 1.2 million-word public service announcement. That aside, the dealing with death cannot be learned from a book. I feel like this too is one of those over-analysis findings, as there wasn't really enough in the book to justify calling it a "Deal with death" life lesson. Especially since it hardly impacted Harry at all, except as a convenient plot device.

And yes, the Deus Ex Machina is not at all missing from any of the Harry Potter books. Further proof of the capability for better writing.

Forgive me for being an arrogant meat-stick, but what exactly makes these books (especially towards the end) "children's books"? Last time I looked, something containing that much violence isn't exactly made for the 6-12 year old crowd. Unless you mean to say that anybody under the age of, say 30 (I'm averaging here. There are plenty of people on both sides of that that enjoy the books) is a child.

I'm not going to get too deep into it right now because it's late and I need to get up early, but I will say that, aside from more or less disagreeing with you every step of the way, this was a fairly poor review. Mainly in the sense that instead of being fair, you focused mostly on the negative, and then found ways to muck up the positive. This ranged from seeming to just not understand the plot points (the chamber was relevant in the second book because that's when people started getting attacked. I doubt that Alcatraz is a huge gossip piece in New York schools, but if people were getting killed by a ghost from there, some talk may start happening), to just plain wrong (the three headed dog in the first book was not Cerberus, and what "mystery" are you talking about?).

I can assure you that I'm not some cracked-out Potterhead that will get all pissy if somebody misspells "Hermione", but good God man, you give the impression that you never even read the books, or at best skimmed over the summery on Wikipedia. If you don't like (yes, I know you said "average") something, that's fine. But if you're going to put together a piece saying why people should avoid it, at least get your facts right.

First of all, I wouldn't be so harsh on them if I hadn't read them. I am slightly bitter about spending that much time reading something I fairly universally found to be more taxing than entertaining. Although, I do think I was being fair.

What makes them children's books? People [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3066788/Harry-Potter-rival-Brisingr-is-fastest-selling-childrens-book-of-the-year.html] say [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-giltz/why-harry-potter_b_57099.html] so [http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/02/14/reviews/990214.14childrt.html]. They're also marketed as such. The publisher in the US, Scholastic, is also primarily a publisher of young adult and children's books.

Yes, I did focus on the negative, because that's what a review does. It points out the wrong in a series. I feel like I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't point out the negative in a review. I focus on it because that's what this review is about, the not-so-great of Harry Potter. Why did I focus on that, because that's what I see in the series. It's even in the review title. "The NewClassic Outlook." That's how I look at the series, through a series of flaws and parts that could see improvement. Hence why I brought up aesthetics in the final lines, because that's what this is all about. It's a taste thing, always has been.

Blurring the positive? I assure you that I made no efforts at all to make obscured and flawed side-glances of the positive aspects of the series. Most of the stronger parts were, to me, still fairly weak. Especially where the topic of best-sellers and highly acclaimed novels are involved. I was advertised a triple cheeseburger by the hype and my friends, and instead was sold a sandwich with undercooked meat and entirely missing the cheese. If you want to know the good about Harry Potter, read every other Harry Potter book review out there [http://www.google.com/search?q=Harry+Potter+Book+Review&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a]. I'm content to leave mine restricted to my opinions, just like I advertised it to be.

As far as the relevant subjects go, you're right about conversation-to-relevance concept. If news does start happening, it will only be remarked upon then, I understand that. But even a passing mention to it before the fact would've been nice. But the only thing Rowling foreshadows at all is the Horcruxes, everything else rapidly becomes introduced only in the book where it is relevant. I don't think series should do that, as it strikes me as a sign of poor writing.

As far as my facts go. I remember the book refers to "Fluffy" as a Cerberus. Just because Rowling re-wrote what a Cerberus is for her book series doesn't mean it makes it right. She changed the Guardian of Hell to be a plot piece, that doesn't mean it still isn't a Cerberus. Changing the lore you use isn't a sign of good writing, it's laziness in the form of lack of creativity. As I said earlier, though, I did read the books. If you want to go about saying how I didn't, that's fine. Next time I'm at home, I'll go ahead and take a picture of my stack-o-Potter, I might even throw in a "'Sup /b/" index card, or maybe an Iron Ninja Cigar or something...

As far as putting together a piece, I definitely put this piece together with several hours effort. Don't think I simply ranted until I felt better. Each word was considered, weighed, and used with care. If you disagree, alright, congratulations, you're among the thousands who think I'm out of my mind for having this opinion the way I do.

But, I can't help but feel you missed why I wrote this piece. It's in the thread title, it's even posted in the last line. This is a taste opinion, one largely of feelings and... Well... Opinions. I tried to back my opinions with events from the books, but that clearly didn't cut it for you. I'm not sorry, though, because I still believe in my opinion. The books weren't bad, they were instead average, but they definitely don't deserve the attention they get. All I can really say in this article's defense is "It's a shame you disagree." I can't argue aesthetics...

Anyone with Microsoft Word > Stephanie Meyer

I use notepad.

I use Open Office.

Okay, even simpler. Anyone with a keyboard.

I'm on a laptop, so would that be called a keyboard? I don't know...

 

[Amnestic]

Anyone with Microsoft Word > Stephanie Meyer

I use notepad.

I use Open Office.

Okay, even simpler. Anyone with a keyboard.

I'm on a laptop, so would that be called a keyboard? I don't know...

I believe so. It's still a board with keys after all.

 

[Labyrinth]

I'm arrogant enough to refuse point-blank to actually read Deathly Hallows, though I did pick up a Wikipedia plot synopsis just for the sake of amusement. I wasn't thrilled.

The first few Harry Potter books are good children's novels, and I read and enjoyed them as such. However, despite claims that her style has 'matured' I find little proof thereof. Instead I see little more than more complex language glued no-budget-film style to a plot which retains the same childhood themes. And it doesn't work terribly well for me in numbers five and six, I'd rather not further the quagmire experience by drowning with seven.

 

[qbert4ever]

Not gonna quote, it'll take up the whole page.

I'm not trying to argue with you over if the books were good or not. Like I said, if you don't like them, there's nothing I can do to change your mind. All I'm trying to say is that in reading your review, I got the impression that you barely flipped through them. Whether this is the case or not, it's still the impression I got from the review.

Really, I could sit here and argue with you all day about if Fluffy is Cerberus or what have you, but that would be a waste of both of our time. So I'm just going to leave it at I disagree with your points, and leave it at that.

 

[TheGhostOfSin]

Is it just a coincidence that you reviewed Harry Potter soon after I mentioned it to you?

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

I'm arrogant enough to refuse point-blank to actually read Deathly Hallows, though I did pick up a Wikipedia plot synopsis just for the sake of amusement. I wasn't thrilled.

The first few Harry Potter books are good children's novels, and I read and enjoyed them as such. However, despite claims that her style has 'matured' I find little proof thereof. Instead I see little more than more complex language glued no-budget-film style to a plot which retains the same childhood themes. And it doesn't work terribly well for me in numbers five and six, I'd rather not further the quagmire experience by drowning with seven.

I agree most-heartedly. Although her books did 'mature' in the sense that they improved on some of the flaws as time went on, but she picked up many more between points A and B. For every step forward, she took two back.

Not gonna quote, it'll take up the whole page.

I'm not trying to argue with you over if the books were good or not. Like I said, if you don't like them, there's nothing I can do to change your mind. All I'm trying to say is that in reading your review, I got the impression that you barely flipped through them. Whether this is the case or not, it's still the impression I got from the review.

Really, I could sit here and argue with you all day about if Fluffy is Cerberus or what have you, but that would be a waste of both of our time. So I'm just going to leave it at I disagree with your points, and leave it at that.

Works for me, although next time, I'd appreciate it if you say "This seems ill-researched to me" instead of outright saying that I formed my opinion without reading the books.

Is it just a coincidence that you reviewed Harry Potter soon after I mentioned it to you?

Not [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.71600.731966] really [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.70358.689093].

 

[PurpleRain]

Way to ruin the story for me! I had no idea Snape kills Dumbledore!

Great review. I got through the first book and decided to wait for the movies.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

I'm shocked, nay, SHOCKED, you didn't mention Harry's perpetual mopping more. The kid's literally been given the keys to the greatest secrets in human history, has years to read up on truths that no non-magical human has ever imagined.
I spent the majority of the series wanting to knock out Harry and rummage around in the world's libraries for an hour.

Good world, bad angle to look at it from.

 

[qbert4ever]

Works for me, although next time, I'd appreciate it if you say "This seems ill-researched to me" instead of outright saying that I formed my opinion without reading the books.

...you give the impression that you never even read the books, or at best skimmed over the summery on Wikipedia.

I bolded the important part for you.

 

[Tanthalos]

Sidenote: The plot of original Star Wars trilogy is "white knight saves princess from dark knight, then slays the evil king to free the kingdom from his tyranny". Oh "and the peasants rejoice".
Which is one of the most basic and over played storylines ever.

See? If you know how to word things then you can show that anything was stolen from something tired and over played.

Back to the Harry Potter series for a moment. I am a die hard fan of the world and the implementation of the world in the movies, assuming I discount the existence of the Goblet of Fire film. The books are hard to read (except number 3) and a lot of the faults you pointed out are correct. Book 6 for example was beyond a chore for me to read, it honestly felt as though she put no effort in and was just picking up and discarding plot devices long enough to drag the mangled story from start to finish. Book 5 suffers heavily from T.M.E. (Too Much Emo can't read) but there is something that Rowling's should be given credit for.
She got people reading. Specifically I am referring to people who would normally not take the time away from the TV, console or computer to pick up a book.

Regarding "Potter-mania" anytime you have a popular fad there has to be a reason for it. The main reason being that the works are functional enough to let us enjoy ourselves, to distract us and in extreme cases give us an outlet within which we cope. Most popular things that reach "Mania" or fad status are usually of a technical low quality.
Which of the following from a technical writing stand point is well rounded, well thought out, with a good story, strong character developement, and has good pacing:
Transformers? G.I. Joe? Pog? Pokemon? Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? Power Rangers? The Lord of the Rings films? Titanic? Simpsons? Family Guy?

The answer most people will come to is none of them assuming you can cast aside your nostalgic rose colored glasses and take a good hard look at Transformers.

When it comes to books I would rather write a piece of lower quality fiction that makes people happy, has them talking to and connecting with people they wouldn't normally connect to, and gets them reading than write something that is technically superior but largely discarded by the masses.

 

[Blayze]

1) It's a pity that Snape was the only "villain" who wasn't Always Chaotic Evil. Hell, the Big Bad in my own fantasy saga has motives for her actions other than "I want to be an utter cockbag" (She's had to put up with humanity's greed, misuse of magic and general assholery for centuries, her power, wealth and influence haven't helped in the slightest and she's had to justify a hell of a lot of difficult and controversial decisions by the results she achieved).

Contrast that to "LOL I R DARK LORD".

2) What was all that crap about the "beast" in Harry's chest that growled (Something to do with Ginny) in book six? It was like reading a bad fanfic.

3) The Weasleys. If there was ever a sure-fire way to piss off redheads like myself, it was to dump a load of us on the shitheap and play up how downtrodden they were.

4) LOL EXPELLIARMUS SAVES TEH DAY. Seriously. It was like the finale of Avatar with Aang's Eleventh Hour Superpower, but it seemed to solve every single one of Harry's fucking problems. I'm sure that in book eight (Harry Potter and the Messy Divorce) Harry will simply Expelliarmus the world away in order to move something behind him close enough that he doesn't have to walk over and pick it up. This leads to two points:

4a) Magic in my creation (Estra) isn't just a bunch of lights and sounds with an oh-so-convenient solution as the magic word just so happens to make stuff happen just how you want it to. In Estra, mana reacts to thought (Although many characters have different theories) but requires actual control or the resulting spell could either get out of control or someone could steal it from you. What do we have in Harry Potter? "Blah blah muggles can't see it".

4b) Luja, both a character in Estra and one in Larenxis's awesome RP, tries to use non-combat and less-used spells in unconventional ways. Similarly, Teganor the healer--with his knowledge of human anatomy and spells that can adjust human anatomy--is just as capable of breaking bones as he is of mending them. However, it's not as if they can solve any problem with methods like that. What does Harry do? Certainly not mix it up a bit.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

[sup](Besides, we all know she stole the plot from George Lucas [http://www.saynotocrack.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/61074_harrypotterstarwars.jpg].)[/sup]

You mean the Heroes Journey(Monomyth) that was also used by Buddha, Christ and Moses? Oh and approximately every fantasy adventure since...well...fantasy adventure existed?

 

[Gxas]

I'll agree that the plot wasn't very original but what is these days? Paolini ripped off of basically every best-selling fantasy novel, Colfer took parts from Potter and other parts from various other fantasy novels. Basically what you're saying is that it was worth a read-through once, but not a second time because you could just go read the books that it ripped off of and have a better time doing it.

I did like Harry Potter, the movies were terrible along with the games, but I will agree that the ending of the series got tedious.

 

[corporate_gamer]

everything you said is entirely correct, for god sake she uses the phrase snogging (which i'm glad to find chrome has decided isn't a word). However, when reading any harry potter book i'm 8 again and actually a wizard. Which is why I like the series.

 

[vrmlguy]

I'll agree that the plot wasn't very original but what is these days? Paolini ripped off of basically every best-selling fantasy novel.

When I first started reading Eragon, it felt like it'd been written by a 15-year-old. So, I looked Paolini up on wikipedia, and surprise, surprise: it turns out that when he started, he was a 15-year-old, who cited LotR, Star Wars, the Pern series and Wagner's Ring cycle as inspiration. Only Wagner was a surprise to me, but in retrosepct Galbatorix is obviously Wotan. Reading the wikipedia spoilers for the second book, I'd already predicted all of the plot twists, but now I'm hoping that he goes for a Wagnerian finale.

I did like Harry Potter, the movies were terrible along with the games, but I will agree that the ending of the series got tedious.

Like Stephen King, J.K.Rowling has the economic power to get books into print uneditted, which really hurts the quality of their recent writing. Even a mediocre editor would have had Rowling pull all of the "who *really* owns a wand" crap and replace the climax with something more thrilling than a lecture.

 

[Mr. Moose]

Anyone with Microsoft Word > Stephanie Meyer

I use notepad.

I use Open Office.

Okay, even simpler. Anyone with a keyboard.

Stephanie Meyer has a keyboard, does that mean she's better then herself.
Wha?

 

[milskidasith]

It's the same reason I'm okay with Eoin Colfer continuing the Hitchhiker's Guide series. Despite the fact that his books are also children's books, they're better written. Even if the story is a lot less accessible. But that's neither here nor there.

When did this happen? I need more Hitchhiker's Guide!

EDIT: Also, I hope he takes some inspiration from the radio series, where it ends with Arthur Dent & Co. getting teleported by their Babel Fish to the RatEotU and finding Fenchurch.