Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wombat" data-source="post: 2469162" data-attributes="member: 8447">I think the phenomenon of Harry Potter needs to be compared to its closest counterpart:&nbsp; The Wizard of Oz.&nbsp; When Baum wrote that first book it took off like a house on fire.&nbsp; No one in the book industry anticipated what a huge success it would be.&nbsp; From 1900 until sometime in the 1940s every year at Christmas time there was another Oz book, first by Baum, later by other authors.&nbsp; Toys, games, and eventually even movies were created based on those books.&nbsp; And every year people waited anxiously for those Oz books.Why did Oz take off?&nbsp; Well, it was a children's book that parents could actually enjoy reading.&nbsp; They gave both hope and delight, while being utterly amazing adventures.&nbsp; Above all, they were very well written, much more so than the other books meant for the same age range.&nbsp; And once they had caught on with an audience, it was easy for the appeal to magnify.&nbsp; Oz, in its day, was a craze equal to, if not exceeding, Harry Potter.I have seen a number of reviews of the Harry Potter books of late that slam the book because they are not written either as an adult book or a simpler children's book.&nbsp; The odd trick to the HP series is that the books are growing up, just like the kids themselves are, but they will never actually be fully adult, either as characters or as literary material.&nbsp; Conversely, the books are not static, remaing as something written for an average 10 or 11 year old.&nbsp; This is not a bad thing in the slightest.&nbsp; Still, it makes the books a bit difficult to place.&nbsp; Some people expect them to be psychologically deeper than they actually are, while others demand that they remain splendid, but rather simplistic, fantasies.&nbsp; Since the books do neither, they are open to a fair amount of criticism.&nbsp; I like Jo Rowling's books.&nbsp; I hope that when Harry Potter is done (one more book and that is all) that she will try her hand at writing something else.&nbsp; It may not be as magical as Harry and Ron and Hermione, but it could still be interesting.&nbsp; I know a lot of people who do not like Harry Potter; many of them dislike all fantasy literature, while others expect much more (or much less) out of these books than is actually there.&nbsp; Still others simply do not like the writing style.&nbsp; Hey, no book is going to please everyone, and no book should.&nbsp; Much like with Firefly, X-Men, War &amp; Peace, The Lord of the Rings and hundreds of other books, comics, movies, et alia, there will be some people who like it and some people who don't.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wombat, post: 2469162, member: 8447"] I think the phenomenon of Harry Potter needs to be compared to its closest counterpart: [I]The Wizard of Oz[/I]. When Baum wrote that first book it took off like a house on fire. No one in the book industry anticipated what a huge success it would be. From 1900 until sometime in the 1940s every year at Christmas time there was another Oz book, first by Baum, later by other authors. Toys, games, and eventually even movies were created based on those books. And every year people waited anxiously for those Oz books. Why did Oz take off? Well, it was a children's book that parents could actually enjoy reading. They gave both hope and delight, while being utterly amazing adventures. Above all, they were very well written, much more so than the other books meant for the same age range. And once they had caught on with an audience, it was easy for the appeal to magnify. Oz, in its day, was a craze equal to, if not exceeding, Harry Potter. I have seen a number of reviews of the Harry Potter books of late that slam the book because they are not written either as an adult book or a simpler children's book. The odd trick to the HP series is that the books are growing up, just like the kids themselves are, but they will never actually be fully adult, either as characters or as literary material. Conversely, the books are not static, remaing as something written for an average 10 or 11 year old. This is not a bad thing in the slightest. Still, it makes the books a bit difficult to place. Some people expect them to be psychologically deeper than they actually are, while others demand that they remain splendid, but rather simplistic, fantasies. Since the books do neither, they are open to a fair amount of criticism. I like Jo Rowling's books. I hope that when Harry Potter is done (one more book and that is all) that she will try her hand at writing something else. It may not be as magical as Harry and Ron and Hermione, but it could still be interesting. I know a lot of people who do not like Harry Potter; many of them dislike all fantasy literature, while others expect much more (or much less) out of these books than is actually there. Still others simply do not like the writing style. Hey, no book is going to please everyone, and no book should. Much like with [I]Firefly[/I], [I]X-Men[/I], [I]War & Peace[/I], [I]The Lord of the Rings[/I] and hundreds of other books, comics, movies, et alia, there will be some people who like it and some people who don't. [/QUOTE]

Verification