Rereading Harry Potter as an adult and finding it difficult

[Dasisr]

Obsessed with Harry Potter as a teenager but finding it a difficult read as an adult. How badly he is treated by the Dursleys. How deprived of love he was and in later books how he was kept away from his friends/family. All the death of loved ones he had to witness. Honestly finding it tough to get through. AIBU or anyone else the same?

This comment is mad. I can't write, why does that mean I should read badly written fiction? I couldn't perform surgery, I sincerely hope that if ever I needed surgery they'd not use that a reason to give me a surgeon who can't perform surgery either.

Perhaps you’ve identified your problem. You’re used to a vacuum.

A Casual Vacancy was brilliant - if you understand how local government works. Very accurate.

https://amindformadness.com/2017/12/prose-j-k-rowling/?utm_content=cmp-true

Everything is derivative of something else.

I couldn't have phrased it better myself @AllProperTeaIsTheft!

I had a browse through that critic's reviews. Almost without exception, his reviews are of serious pieces of literature. And he apparently works very hard to use the maximum amount of words to express any single thought.

His review of a children's book seems bizarrely out of place - especially when he confesses that he's writing a damning review of a book that hasn't actually been released yet, and that he's not read.

He provides scant examples of why the writing is so poor in his opinion, other than to be scathing about JKR's use of adverbs. I wonder if he's forgotten who the target audience is here? I fail to see anything wrong with her use of adverb, especially as it makes the dialogue much clearer for children.

As for other vague accusations such as plodding text, surely that's very subjective? I didn't find it to be plodding, nor overly descriptive. What I did find to be plodding and overly descriptive were his reviews. Not just the HP one, but all of his others. He seems determined to cram together a sequence of words that he thinks expresses his superior knowledge of the English language. In reality, his reviews are ponderous, lack detail, and often veer from the subject. I find him to be self-indulgent, and extremely pleased with himself - but I also accept that it's a subjective opinion that others might not share.

I enjoyed JKR's books and I disagree with a PP - you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Stephen Fry may be a marvellous orator, but if the writing was poor, the audio book would still be dire.

It doesn't really matter to me if a book is "written well" if I enjoyed it. But I was curious to find out what I had evidently missed, and so far there's nothing to objectively show that the writing is poor. It doesn't matter to me either way whether JKR's writing is good or not, I don't have any reason to defend her. But I can't see any of the accusations of poor writing have any substance other than subjective opinion.

Absolutely.

Is the story gripping? Is it a page turner? Does it inspire you? Questions like these are the most important ones when it comes to what books to read. My mum (a teacher) mention Dahl as being critiqued for his prose, but when it comes to capturing your imagination there are none better.

This is a far better critique of JKR - I don't necessarily agree with it all, but it's not the same self-indulgent waffle as the article in the Guardian.

Interesting to note though, this critique is not of the HP books but her other work.

Anyway.

I think this reviewer has a point when he says her opening sentence could be punchier, but I disagree that it's hard to understand or confusing.

And also this comment from the review: "Later, the narrator calls the proposal “the most perfect.” What does that mean? There aren’t levels of perfection."

The reviewer is beginning to sound like a bit of an arse, tbh. It's a colloquial turn of phrase and we all know what it means. There's nothing wrong with describing something as "the most perfect" in casual dialogue as it's a phrase that many adults might use. It's a tool in establishing a tone of voice, surely?

I would say that this reviewer has succeeded in critiquing her style, but failing to identify errors, as he claims to do.

I read all the Harry Potter books as an adult and loved them. Sounds like they are not for you.

Totally agree with you. I don't believe she is a good writer. She was just at the right place when children were crying out for something different other than the traditional fiction they were use to.
I don't even like the films and my daughter always said it was unbelievable

Eh, it was to demonstrate that I can usually tolerate bad writing to finish a book, not sure what kind of vacuum you are referring to?
The Casual Vacancy, to me, was unreadable. A rarity as I normally plough on to the bitter end of my chosen read.

I find that if I read again as an adult the books that I read as a child then a lot of them are much less believable or have massive plot holes. Also tv programmes. There are hardly any parents who visit in children's ward. The secret seven boys go out at night repeatedly to solve crime while their parents never realise. And Josie Miller gets train track braces on her teeth when she is about 5 or 6!

Whatever you think about jk, Harry Potter is an utter piece of crap with no literary merit whatsoever. I'm glad it's falling out of favour with children.

Forgot to add that someone (I think it was David Walliams) said that it's easier to write children's books where the adults are either dead or neglectful because that way the children can do more exciting things without being stopped from doing it by sensible adults.

So just opened this thread. It went mumsnet very quickly! Lots of people love Harry Potter including many of the disadvantaged children I work with. I snap up copies in charity shops to pass on for them to read. If it allows escapism and encourages reading you would have to be a pretty miserable, out of touch arsehole of a human being to be snobby about it. I used to read Malory Towers and the Famous Five, then as teenagers we all read Flowers in the Attic. I still managed to scrape a grade A in English Lit at A level and sometimes still read worthy, critically acclaimed stuff. But I really love well written fluff.

Every. Single. Fairytale.
FFS do you do the same for Cinderella, Snow White, Jack and the Beanstalk???
🙄❄

Neville wasn't dim at all. He was using a wand that hadn't chosen him, which meant that it wouldn't work properly. He also lacked confidence because for his grandmother he was always in his father's shadow. Being bullied by Professor Snape didn't help. He was courageous from the start.

Personally love Harry Potter i read the series and watch the films at least once a year. It's not the greatest literary works but most things aren't.

Although I think Matilda was written in early 90s I have a feeling it was set in an earlier period (post war?) I could be wrong but the Quentin Blake illustrations seem to suggest not a modern school.

You've clearly not read the Strike Novels then... the main protagonist is 4 stone overweight and is disabled.

Uhm, no, because the entire series is fab and there are bits that are supposed to tug the heartstrings. Dude, it ain’t that dark.

Actually, whatever your view on JKR’s writing and the Harry Potter series, I’m just loving a bunch of adults arguing passionately about books.

Reading so many heartfelt views about the characters, and the rights and wrongs of the plot is just great to see.

Books were my world as a child, my coping mechanism, and they’re still my greatest pleasure. I genuinely love listening to people who are enthusiastic about books.

Put the book in the freezer.

Piers Polkiss. Dudley's right-hand man when bullying at school:

Piers was a scrawny boy with a face like a rat. He was usually the one who held people's arms behind their backs while Dudley hit them.

Is that really the best argument that you can construct?

I'll take the views of 500 million people over those of a Guardian critic.

Totally agree with you. I don't believe she is a good writer. She was just at the right place when children were crying out for something different other than the traditional fiction they were use to.

That makes no sense whatsoever. There was no shortage of children's authors writing in the years before and during the time when the HP books were released. Why did none of them achieve that level of success? And what makes you say HP isn't traditional children's fiction? Because it's about magic?! Hardly unusual in children's fiction!