Viewing Thread:
"Harry Potter Book One"

Ok, I tried to read it last night, I really did. I got as far as him with some giant, taking him round a shop to choose a wand or something.

Christ almighty, what you are people doing reading this for? Sure, there's some imagination there but the style?
"Harry picked up his hat and tried it on, he moved it about and it fit just fine"
??????????
That's the sound of Rainman writing a story, I bet the editors put the punctuation in whilst Rowling just muuuuhed into a dictaphone with no pauses for breath

"and then the wizard said i dont like you but then harry ran down the path and he ran into a bush and it hurt him and he said owee and then wizard said there there thats ok and harry cried but used magic to make himself feel better and then they went to hogwarts" etc etc.

Read decent books unless you are a child. Or a retarded adult.
Decent books like Catch-22, Bukowski, Edward Bunker, Shakespeare.
It makes me furious that grown-ups read this drivel and think it makes them clever
I'm amazed more of you dont fall down a lot when walking.

Harry Potter? I'd like to throw them into the sea and send adults to Borders with a list of adult authors.
"Oh come on, it's just fun"
Yes, badly written fun. Try Phillip Pullman for fantasy writings, or try reading Dashiel Hammett, Elmore Leonard, ANYTHING but a poorly written children's book.

Next time you see an adult reading one, walk over and say "Has mummy or daddy left you here alone?"
"...what?"
"Would you like me to help you find them?"
"....what??"
Then knock the book from their hands, push them to the floor and walk away muttering "####ing retard"

MoJoJoJo wrote:

> "Decent books like Shakespeare"
>
> You seem to have mistakingly stated that Shakespeare is good. Correct
> your mistake.

Or that Shakespeare's plays are books. They are not. They are plays

DébUK wrote:
> Tried
> "1984" the other week, but had to stop because I couldn't
> be
> bothered.
>
> Oh, please persist, it is a brilliant book!

I think it's a victim of it's own popularity. All the ideas and morals are commonplace in society now and are discussed freely. Excuse the pun, but it's "dated".

MoJoJoJo wrote:

> "Decent books like Shakespeare"
>
> You seem to have mistakingly stated that Shakespeare is good. Correct
> your mistake.

Or that Shakespeare's plays are books. They are not. They are plays.

Oh, and I'm taking OotP with me to re-read. Just thought I'd add that :)

Might re-read Catcher as well, it's been a while.

"Doing a Bell"

*sniggers*

DébUK wrote:
> Anything that can persuade a 13 year old kid to pick up a brick of a
> book like Book 5, deserves praise, in my opinion!

Certainly if they pick up a book instead of a brick.

I think that in some ways Harry Potter is better written then Lord of the Rings.

I'm in no doubt that Lord of the Rings has a MUCH better plot, but J.R.R Tolkeins writing style really doesn't do it for me. He uses the same words too many times, his sentance structure bugs me and he goes over the top in describing the history behind his story, which make his books dull. Except the Hobbit, which I find to be better written. But then thats a kids book too isn't it. So Obviously IM JUST STUPID.

My mum has most of them. Tried flicking through the new one... muuuurgh. Crap.

"Decent books like Shakespeare"

You seem to have mistakingly stated that Shakespeare is good. Correct your mistake.

Right. I have to go pack for my holiday, as I am leaving early tommorrow. I am saying this so Goaty doesn't think I'm doing a Bell and running away from a debate.

Tried
> "1984" the other week, but had to stop because I couldn't be
> bothered.

Oh, please persist, it is a brilliant book!