Antichrist_Online wrote:I second Dee. Harry Potter is in my opinion a bad plot aimed at the idiot masses, completly unlike books such as Nineteen-Eighty-Four or Hitchhikkers Guide to the Galaxy, to name some books of similar success but a bit more depth or at least humour.
Christ on a cracker, apples and oranges, much?
Harry Potter = children's literature.
1984 = NOT FOR CHILDREN.
Hitchhiker's = As deep as an ice cube on a hot day.
(Neither 1984 nor Hitchhikers has has the level of success that HP has had, by the way, but they are different markets, and therefore not comparable).
You absolutely cannot read Harry Potter as if you were reading a novel written for an adult. It's not fair to the book, it's not fair to yourself. You have to set aside comparisons with 1984, Vonnegut, and other "deeper" novels and come to it as "this is lighter reading than I am used to, but I will embrace the characters as they are and enjoy the storytelling." They are not deeply plotted-- they are not supposed to be. They tend to repeat themes, ideas, plotlines-- because children's lit is repetitive for a reason.
It is not a "bad plot." It is, in fact, a retelling the classic archetypal Hero's Journey that has been repeated in nearly every hero-quest narrative and folkstory for the last 2000 years or so (including, I might add, 1984). If you have a problem with the characters, fine. You don't have to like them, you don't have to read them. But give a little credit to the fact that these books are being taught in grad school children's lit programs because they're actually *good*.
I think you resent HP's success because it is "just" a children's book and because of the marketing hype. I did, too, at first. I especially thought that, while it was encouraging to have a resurgence in kids' interest in reading, it was also discouraging that: 1) they were being made into movies so fast, no kid would ever read another book, and 2) the attention to HP might be drawing attention away from just as worthwhile novels in the same general market.
But then I actually read them, gave them a chance, and was completely drawn in. The first three books are the most tightly-written, and in my opinion, they are stronger books than the most recent 3. However, they're still good books. They are not the Very Best Children's Books Ever, but they are good books, well-told stories, with compelling archetypal characters that people enjoy reading about.
If you must compare them to something outside of market, how about Robert Jordan, who has written a gigazillion "best seller" novels. Six books in, you couldn't have PAID me to keep reading, because there was no more story to tell. At least with each book, JKR moves the story further along, tells an actual story instead of having a bunch of duplicative characters stand around and do nothing.
