*giggles... loudly*

[conuly]

From a certain book community:

"Finally - There are over eight THOUSAND communities and users listing Harry Potter as an interest, so please, keep the cape wearing kiddies out of this, hrm? There are plenty of other places to discuss it, so leave at least one book community free of it, okay?"

Damn straight. I'll agree, I like Harry Potter, I'll read it, I've read all the books

But it's not great literature by any means. There's better kids' books out there. I don't suscribe to the belief that kids' books make up some inferior subset of literature, so...

In fact, I'll list the better books out there, starting in fantasy, and sticking with the kids section:

1. The Enchanted Forest Chronicles, Patricia C. Wrede
2. The Woman in the Wall, author's name is lacking
3. Beauty, Robin McKinly
4. So You Want to Be a Wizard, Diane Duane

Moving past fantasy (hard for me, but I try)

5. The Secret Garden, Eesh, how could I forget her name?
6. Letters from the Inside, John Marsden
7. Tomorrow, When the War Began, John Marsden
8. Goodnight, Mr. Tom don't recall, sorry
9. Speak, Laurie Halse Anderson

Those are books that I feel have more literary value. Well. Except the Enchanted Forest Chronicles, those are just funnier than Harry Potter.

Not every book has to be full of literary value, of course, but... I don't know why Harry Potter is so popular, nor why it completely overshadows everything else. Some of that is hype, of course, but they didn't start getting hyped until they were already popular.

Okay. Moving on. We can skip literary value. Maybe Harry Potter is more popular because the books are funnier? Let's see...

1. The Enchanted Forest Chronicles (again)
2. There's a Boy in the Girl's Bathroom, Louis Sacher
3. A is for AAAAARRRRGGGHHH! Forgot, and may have misspelled the title

Funnier isn't it. Hm. They present the most serious issues, such as slavery or racism? I'm not even going to bother debating that one, as there are books written ABOUT those issues for kids. And, in fact, I'm not too thrilled with arguments I've seen showing those serious issues in HP. The serious real world issues are mostly sidelines from the real plot, and are easily ignored by the dedicated reader.

Maybe, just maybe, Harry Potter isn't as popular as I think? That could be. I often hear from people who are sick of Harry Potter Hype.

Let's check amazon.com

Rating for Harry Potter:
1. 5 stars
2. 5 stars
3. 5 stars
4. 5 stars
5. 4.5 stars

Wow. Five stars. For the first four books. Do the books really merit five stars? Well, let's pick some books from the list that I think deserve more than (though that's not possible) Harry Potter.

I'll pick:

The Enchanted Forest Chronicles.. well, that's four books, so I'll pick the first, Dealing with Dragons. I'll also take The Woman in the Wall, Beauty, and Tomorrow when the War Began.

DwD: 5 stars
WitW: 5 stars
B: 5 stars
TWB: 5 stars

Hm. Okay, I forgot what I was trying to prove, but I'm sure I had a point. Let's go to the reader reviews....

*dies laughing* Let's not, let's make that a separate post.

Geez, I'm bored. I had a point here, you guys go figure it out, 'k? Lemme know what it was when you're done!

Comments

[joeymew.livejournal.com]

My theory of why it may be popular is the school element of it. Sure it's magic and everything, but it still has to deal with the same thing everyone else does. Evil teachers, loads of homework, jerks who are just jerks, and everything like that. But that's just my theory.

I like the books as well, but I hate fads and the like. I hear about the books so much that it does get annoying after awhile. Sure they're great and all, but we don't need Harry Potter underwear.

*adds some of the books you listed to the list of books she should get from the bookstore on of these days.* You're not the first to tell me to read them, but the first to inspire me to write them down XD

[conuly]

I know. I'm sick of hearing "If you like Harry Potter..." even in connection to completely different books. And you can't go through the fantasy aisle without hearing it....

Ever feel like saying "but I don't"?

In fact, I wasn't as thrilled as I might've been to see Tamora Pierce got a special stand for her books, I started to get scared the hype would hit upon another series I love... *worries*

[feathered.livejournal.com]

I'm suffering from my usual nearly-five-in-the-morning-brain-dead-ness, so I might comment more after I've slept, but I just wanted to tacklepounce you for mentioning Speak. That book was my bible for Jr. High. I was Melinda, sadly enough. I still adore it and reread it every few months. Lovely book. Maybe I'll reread it now.

[conuly]

Oh, how I love that book. *I* wanna tacklepounce me.

I've got to go to the bookstore....

[feathered.livejournal.com]

*preens* I've got a signed copy of Speak. With a personal inscription and everything. My friend squirrlgrrl works for the company who published the book, so she got it for me. It's one of my most treasured posessions.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

Patricia C. Wrede! I read those books SO long ago, and nobody else had any idea what they were. They were so good.

I agree on Harry Potter. I like the books, but on the same level I like a lot of other books. I refused to read them because they were so faddish up until the first movie came out, then I crumbled and read them. Still. The concept isn'tt REALLY that new. It's just a more classic take on urban fantasy (which is what I like to write. So instead of street witches you have modern day witches in a castle).

I forgot my point.

[ril-chan.livejournal.com]

"2. The Woman in the Wall, author's name is lacking"

Patricia Kindl. She also wrote Owl in Love, I believe.


I've read most of the books you list here, but I disagree: I like Harry Potter better. I do agree that the books are too hyped, though, and that it does gets irritating.

[conuly]

You like Harry Potter better than Letters from the Inside? *boggles*

[ril-chan.livejournal.com]

Mm-hmm. Harry Potter is probably my favorite book series, along with Simon R. Green's Hawk and Fisher/Blue Moon books and his Deathstalker books, and C.S. Lewis's Narnia, Jane Yolen's Dragon Pit Trilogy, and John Marsden's Tomorrow series (discovered this last year and love it).

I'm not entirely sure why I like Harry Potter so much. It has something to do with the writing style and the sheer length of it, I think, though--I can get lost in these books, and when I'm done it's not like "That's all?" Well, actually it is, but not quite as badly as with much shorter books.

Think it might also have to do with the re-readability of those books; I can read them over and over and not lose interest, whereas with most other things I can't read them more than two or three times a year.

It's all personal preference.

[conuly]

Well, I think you're a bit off (is that a british thing to say? it's the only thing that fits...) in your choice of books, but I certainly can't argue the "I just like 'em better" line. I suppose we can't all have my perfect taste... :P *giggles* I'm being a silly, of course, not my place to dictate books.

[ril-chan.livejournal.com]

Heeeeeeee. Well, I'd love to tell you I think you're a bit off too, but I loved almost all the books you've mentioned and can easily see why you might prefer them, so. ;-P

my two cents?

[mhari.livejournal.com]

The Secret Garden, Eesh, how could I forget her name?

Frances Hodgson Burnett. I like "A Little Princess", too, and "The Lost Prince". "Fauntleroy" was too sappy.

Stylistically, HP is nothing at all to write home about. But it has a damn sight more imagination than probably 90% of what's available for kids (ENOUGH with the omgangst! crap), and it hits that balance between fantasy and realism that a lot of kids go for.

Re: my two cents?

[conuly]

Yes, there's a reason I liked Secret Garden best out of her books... but that wasn't her fault, she was a bit of a pioneer, I think, that was the writing style for kids back then.

I don't mind the angst in kid's books... so long as the book itself is well-written and whatever angst is there fits, isn't overdone, etc. My sister, wonderful girl that she is, is a fan of V.C. Andrews and Lurlene McDaniel, so her tastes differ somewhat.... After that, I didn't mind normal angst so much. But I don't find HP so imaginative... Certainly not amongst fantasy books, which, admittedly are the bulk of my reading... and not all that much compared to other books. Nothing in them (other than Quidditch, and a few of the monsters) is that out of place from the rest of them. You have school, slightly overdone villians (are NONE of them female? siderant), you have your fair share of angst (though that isn't overdone so much), and you have standard magic stuffs.

Re: my two cents?

[mhari.livejournal.com]

Call me a cynic, but I find a lot of modern YA fantasy -- and this from a fantasy fan -- tedious. Blah blah blah princess adventure blah. Even Lloyd Alexander, devoted as I am to him, is pretty formulaic. And sure, it may be wonderful stylistically, or it may have one Terribly Clever Concept, but a lot of it boils down to the same old same old.

Re: my two cents?

[mhari.livejournal.com]

Crap, I cut myself off--

HP is imaginative not so much in the Great Sweeping Groundbreaking sense -- yes, okay, The World Is In Peril etc. etc. -- but in the details. The little grace notes like the jellybeans and the giant squid. The fact that there's this whole parallel society with its haves and its have-nots and its infrastructure and its currency and its quirky habits.

They're not Great Art, obviously. I have to snicker at the hardcore fans who insist that all of Rowling's infelicitous word choices and plot holes are the hallmarks of a CAREFUL AND MASTERFUL AUTHOR. *eyeroll*

But she's obviously having a hell of a lot of fun. So much so that it's infectious. And that, that is refreshing.

Re: my two cents?

[joeymew.livejournal.com]

"are NONE of them female?"

Sorry if this isn't my thread, but I had to comment.

UMBRIDGE. Sure she didn't work for Voldemort's side, but I have never hated a character more in my life. But I think that may just be because she reminds me of my stepmother.

[joeymew.livejournal.com]

My theory of why it may be popular is the school element of it. Sure it's magic and everything, but it still has to deal with the same thing everyone else does. Evil teachers, loads of homework, jerks who are just jerks, and everything like that. But that's just my theory.

I like the books as well, but I hate fads and the like. I hear about the books so much that it does get annoying after awhile. Sure they're great and all, but we don't need Harry Potter underwear.

*adds some of the books you listed to the list of books she should get from the bookstore on of these days.* You're not the first to tell me to read them, but the first to inspire me to write them down XD

[conuly]

I know. I'm sick of hearing "If you like Harry Potter..." even in connection to completely different books. And you can't go through the fantasy aisle without hearing it....

Ever feel like saying "but I don't"?

In fact, I wasn't as thrilled as I might've been to see Tamora Pierce got a special stand for her books, I started to get scared the hype would hit upon another series I love... *worries*

[feathered.livejournal.com]

I'm suffering from my usual nearly-five-in-the-morning-brain-dead-ness, so I might comment more after I've slept, but I just wanted to tacklepounce you for mentioning Speak. That book was my bible for Jr. High. I was Melinda, sadly enough. I still adore it and reread it every few months. Lovely book. Maybe I'll reread it now.

[conuly]

Oh, how I love that book. *I* wanna tacklepounce me.

I've got to go to the bookstore....

[feathered.livejournal.com]

*preens* I've got a signed copy of Speak. With a personal inscription and everything. My friend squirrlgrrl works for the company who published the book, so she got it for me. It's one of my most treasured posessions.

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

Patricia C. Wrede! I read those books SO long ago, and nobody else had any idea what they were. They were so good.

I agree on Harry Potter. I like the books, but on the same level I like a lot of other books. I refused to read them because they were so faddish up until the first movie came out, then I crumbled and read them. Still. The concept isn'tt REALLY that new. It's just a more classic take on urban fantasy (which is what I like to write. So instead of street witches you have modern day witches in a castle).

I forgot my point.

[ril-chan.livejournal.com]

"2. The Woman in the Wall, author's name is lacking"

Patricia Kindl. She also wrote Owl in Love, I believe.


I've read most of the books you list here, but I disagree: I like Harry Potter better. I do agree that the books are too hyped, though, and that it does gets irritating.

[conuly]

You like Harry Potter better than Letters from the Inside? *boggles*

[ril-chan.livejournal.com]

Mm-hmm. Harry Potter is probably my favorite book series, along with Simon R. Green's Hawk and Fisher/Blue Moon books and his Deathstalker books, and C.S. Lewis's Narnia, Jane Yolen's Dragon Pit Trilogy, and John Marsden's Tomorrow series (discovered this last year and love it).

I'm not entirely sure why I like Harry Potter so much. It has something to do with the writing style and the sheer length of it, I think, though--I can get lost in these books, and when I'm done it's not like "That's all?" Well, actually it is, but not quite as badly as with much shorter books.

Think it might also have to do with the re-readability of those books; I can read them over and over and not lose interest, whereas with most other things I can't read them more than two or three times a year.

It's all personal preference.

[conuly]

Well, I think you're a bit off (is that a british thing to say? it's the only thing that fits...) in your choice of books, but I certainly can't argue the "I just like 'em better" line. I suppose we can't all have my perfect taste... :P *giggles* I'm being a silly, of course, not my place to dictate books.

[ril-chan.livejournal.com]

Heeeeeeee. Well, I'd love to tell you I think you're a bit off too, but I loved almost all the books you've mentioned and can easily see why you might prefer them, so. ;-P

my two cents?

[mhari.livejournal.com]

The Secret Garden, Eesh, how could I forget her name?

Frances Hodgson Burnett. I like "A Little Princess", too, and "The Lost Prince". "Fauntleroy" was too sappy.

Stylistically, HP is nothing at all to write home about. But it has a damn sight more imagination than probably 90% of what's available for kids (ENOUGH with the omgangst! crap), and it hits that balance between fantasy and realism that a lot of kids go for.

Re: my two cents?

[conuly]

Yes, there's a reason I liked Secret Garden best out of her books... but that wasn't her fault, she was a bit of a pioneer, I think, that was the writing style for kids back then.

I don't mind the angst in kid's books... so long as the book itself is well-written and whatever angst is there fits, isn't overdone, etc. My sister, wonderful girl that she is, is a fan of V.C. Andrews and Lurlene McDaniel, so her tastes differ somewhat.... After that, I didn't mind normal angst so much. But I don't find HP so imaginative... Certainly not amongst fantasy books, which, admittedly are the bulk of my reading... and not all that much compared to other books. Nothing in them (other than Quidditch, and a few of the monsters) is that out of place from the rest of them. You have school, slightly overdone villians (are NONE of them female? siderant), you have your fair share of angst (though that isn't overdone so much), and you have standard magic stuffs.

Re: my two cents?

[mhari.livejournal.com]

Call me a cynic, but I find a lot of modern YA fantasy -- and this from a fantasy fan -- tedious. Blah blah blah princess adventure blah. Even Lloyd Alexander, devoted as I am to him, is pretty formulaic. And sure, it may be wonderful stylistically, or it may have one Terribly Clever Concept, but a lot of it boils down to the same old same old.

Re: my two cents?

[mhari.livejournal.com]

Crap, I cut myself off--

HP is imaginative not so much in the Great Sweeping Groundbreaking sense -- yes, okay, The World Is In Peril etc. etc. -- but in the details. The little grace notes like the jellybeans and the giant squid. The fact that there's this whole parallel society with its haves and its have-nots and its infrastructure and its currency and its quirky habits.

They're not Great Art, obviously. I have to snicker at the hardcore fans who insist that all of Rowling's infelicitous word choices and plot holes are the hallmarks of a CAREFUL AND MASTERFUL AUTHOR. *eyeroll*

But she's obviously having a hell of a lot of fun. So much so that it's infectious. And that, that is refreshing.

Re: my two cents?

[joeymew.livejournal.com]

"are NONE of them female?"

Sorry if this isn't my thread, but I had to comment.

UMBRIDGE. Sure she didn't work for Voldemort's side, but I have never hated a character more in my life. But I think that may just be because she reminds me of my stepmother.