It's sad to think that a book written for children so consumes the literary capacity of so many adult readers.  This series is poorly written and so juvenille it wouldn't be given to high school students to study.  I hope Harry Potter dies and the human intelligence isn't insulted by a ridiculous reassurection for the sake of cashing in on the sad state of literature.  

Don't bother asking stupid questions like this.  Please read something written by a true writer.

It's juvenile because it's aimed at children.  So what if adults read it?  It's entertaining.  And I have included it as part of an English unit of work, so it is taught in schools.

P.S. What is reassurection or did you mean to type resurrection?

Thank you for agreeing with me that it is juvenille and aimed at children.  That was my point.  If your only response is to pick on a single typo you may wish to review the structure of your previous post on this topic.  I hope you do not include passages structured like the following in your curriculum:

"Even though I think this it'd be sad if true as he represents the 'good' in people and, let's face it, that's not so common as it was - or so it seems".

As a moderator I thought you would encourage a reasonable range of opinions and not just your own.

You're welcome!   What's wrong with being juvenile, though?  Children need that in their lives.  They grow up far too soon.

Quoted Text

"Even though I think this, it'd be sad if true, as he represents the 'good' in people and, let's face it, that's not so common as it was - or so it seems".

It's true!

As a moderator I do encourage discussion and have.  Had I not done so, your post would have been edited or deleted.

As for the typo, language changes so fast, even an avid linguist might miss something.  Thanks for the clarification.

I agree with you Paula.  Times are changing quickly.  

I remember in Year 10 studying "The Crucible" and "Mosquito Coast".  In Year 11, I studied Xavier Herbert's "Capricornia" and Shakespeare's "Macbeth".  For Year 12 it was Jane Austen's "Emma" and "Antony & Cleopatra"

Die Harry Potter!!!

I don't know about you guys, but Harry Potter is more like harry pothead. The plot is just so typical -- a young boy who lives in horrible conditions ends up becoming a great wizard with a destiny. Frankly, I don't see what is so creative about it. It's just common suck-up-to-kids literature.

SNORE.

I found Shakespeare's untranslated works much more interesting. Dr. Suess's books were better written than Rowling's train wreck of a sequel. Obviously, reason why she's writing more books is just to rake in more cash.

I vote that he dies because he is painful.  Of course, that is my opinion, and it doesn't have to be yours.

I have only read the first book in passing, so most of my opinion is biased on personal prejudice without even reading the full series, anyway.  Harry Potter sucks for a multitude of reasons:

1. It's written for kids, but it's not written for kids. Books like that always suck. Yes, even Stephen King's Eyes of the Dragon sucks.

2. The writing is just substandard. A wee bit better than Da Vinci Code, sure, but that's not saying much, is it? I can stand blocky writing as long as what's happening is intriguing enough; Neil Gaiman's work immediately comes to mind. Harry Potter is soulless, dull, monotonous, unexciting.

3. Harry Potter, the kid, the protagonist, is a dweeb. I can't, even on a superficial level, relate to him. Not even as a kid.

4. Hogwarts is bollocks. Quidditch is bollocks. Not one thing about the supposedly magical school is remotely enticing. Harry Potter's world is not half as interesting as Peter Straub's Shadowland--a far superior and highly underrated book on magicians by any standards.

5. Every huge monster presented is just a leftover from Lord of the Rings and Neverending Story.

6. I just don't care about anyone in the book. No one. I wouldn't mind if you hung them up on crosses and torched/electrocuted/drugged/tickled them to death.

7. Finally, I love kid's books. I'm not kidding. I still adore almost every fairy tale ever written. Cinderella's glass slipper still fascinates me. So does Sneezy and company. But Harry Potter just doesn't. I highly doubt if I would've been hooked to the series if I'd been a kid.  

And I would certainly die if my child had to study it at school!

If he doesn't die I hope that Harvard Lampoon get a hold of it and give it the "Bored of the Rings" treatment. I love LOTR but Bored of the Rings was asking to be written after the movie hype. "Harry Potter and the Ridiculous Book Franchise" need a working over. The best I've seen is a fun reference by MXC. It was short, sweet, very funny and completely unprintable.

I think that JK Rowling took the title from Neverending Story and ran with it just a little too long. Is she trying to compete with Police Academy by releasing 7 versions and making us cringe with the thought that an 8th might escape into print?

Maybe it'd be fun to ask what the next Harry Potter will be called. Here's my suggestion:

Hairy Pothead and the Wand of Ganja

LOTR?  I hated that at school and I hate it now.  Yet, I love The Hobbit.

I think HP is pure escapism and anything that makes students want to read a book for school is okay by me.  I teach at a tough, disadvantaged school where students see reading as being 'uncool', so to have a class of 30 all quietly reading HP for 10 minutes is a miracle.

The Hobbit is a fantastic book!!!  It was one book my parents didn't have to pay me to read when I was young.  I was not a very motivated reader and the only way my parents got me to read was to pay me $2 per every book read.  I'm glad things changed over time. I love reading more than ever now.