Harry Potter

[fatbadger]

I've only read the first one. I was working as a bookseller at the time and I always tried to read anything which sold well - you know, to be knowledgeable about the stock etc etc.

Unfortunately it was one of the worst books I've ever read. It's badly plotted, derivative, and a stylistic mess. It was in serious want of a good editor. Now, to be fair, I'm told that each one has been better than the last, as Rowling has learnt to write. They do, however, seem to be growing in size, which implies that editorial intervention is decreasing rather than increasing.

Put simply, I don't know why kids read them - there's much, much better stuff out there along the same lines; and quite why a literate adult would read them is beyond me.

 

[Scotty Mac]

people at college were not happy today, after several people accidentally let the ending 'slip' out

 

[Schrödinger's Toad]

Unfortunately it was one of the worst books I've ever read. It's badly plotted, derivative, and a stylistic mess. It was in serious want of a good editor. Now, to be fair, I'm told that each one has been better than the last, as Rowling has learnt to write. They do, however, seem to be growing in size, which implies that editorial intervention is decreasing rather than increasing.

I think they've got steadily worse as they've gone on - the last two (I haven't finished this one yet, but it's pretty awful so far) have been ridiculously long and dull, and crying out for about 300 pages to be lopped off. Whatever worked in the first few books seems to have been replaced by a great ability to waffle.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

Read the first four in a few days each, thought they were ace, but got bored during the opening 100 pages of the last biblically-proportioned one, found it really tedious. Not too bothered about this new one tbh.

 

[Meade's Ball]

My brother has had to write the piece Why I Hate Harry Potter on the beeb website. I'm looking forward to his follow-up when he's finished reading it.