Of why harry potter and dan brown books sucks

[WelshRarePasta]

Well, I can see how people might like HDM if they haven't had the chance to read widely. It does strike me that those of us who are bashing the books are all self-professed bibliophiles. As such, I imagine that if we convinced these youngsters to read, say... something by Marquez that they would come to the conclusion that it was boring, slow, poorly written, confusing, and had no relation to their lives. They'd be wrong, but that's ok.

There usually is accounting for taste, and exposure to a wide range of literature and philosophy tends to change the way one reads. I mean come on, when I was 12 I really liked Stephen Lawhead's novels.

[Capellini]

It might also be an age issue (and I really hate using that, as 99% of the time I don't think age has much relevance), but here, these books were written for 12-15 year olds, and I read them a few months ago, at 28. From my perspective, it was overly obvious that this writer sat down and said, "I need to write books that will make kids hate Catholicism", and this is what he came up with. But the fact that plenty of people in his target audience read and enjoyed the books proves that he's at least good at hiding his ulterior motives from that audience. I found his books absurdly patronizing, but they weren't written for me in the first place. A 12 year old would probably find the idea of a corrupt authority and the fight against it as novel and exciting. My response to that idea is pretty much, "Well, duh."

[Edd]

This is precisely the reason I haven’t read Rowling or Pullman; I feel that I am not the intended audience and would not appreciate it. I am 35, my daughter is 10, so neither one of us has had a great inclination to read these books.

As far as Dan Brown; I read both The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. The ‘literary license’ he took with some facts, his unbelievable characters and the underlying premise that ‘Da Vinci believed it so it must be true!’ turned me off. His writing is about as good as any other bestseller.

[Zankou 2.0]

This is precisely the reason I haven’t read Rowling or Pullman; I feel that I am not the intended audience and would not appreciate it. I am 35, my daughter is 10, so neither one of us has had a great inclination to read these books.

As far as Dan Brown; I read both The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. The ‘literary license’ he took with some facts, his unbelievable characters and the underlying premise that ‘Da Vinci believed it so it must be true!’ turned me off. His writing is about as good as any other bestseller.

It was never marketed as truth. It is a fictional story.

[Edd]

I know, I just had too much trouble suspending my disbelief.

[WelshRarePasta]

I just had a hard time suspending my desire for decent dialogue, characterization, and something approaching relevance.

[GreenRain22]

HDM was tedious, didactic, and I found the language to be immature. The comparison to HP is stark.

HP presented intricate themes and murky questions about morality and life, and used language that was challenging to it's target audience.

HDM took an idea as old as time (organized religion sucks ass) and used pedantic and easy-to-follow language to beat it's target audience over the head with it, in a not evenly slightly veiled attempt to indoctrinate.

I am also VERY intrigued by the respective responses of Rowling and Pullman to media criticism re: religious issues. Rowling was completely dismissive of all talk that churches and such were suggesting their congregations ignore the books, and Pullman complained that religious groups didn't think he was evil.

Pullman had an obvious axe to grind, it wasn't even a unique or interesting axe, and he used a highly contrived children's story to do it. It was the absolute definition of didactic.

*SPOILERS*




It was supposed to be a direct parallel to the Chronicles of Narnia. The religion depicted in the book doesn't even exist, and it wasn't actually God they defeated, anway.

HDM was full of philosophy, and I liked the way in which it was written.

And, besides, the story presented was just so awesome that you can disregard it's faults.

And in all fairness, Harry Potter is also tedious.

Exactly, which is why I don't understand why church's have such a porblem with it. I've pointed this out to several people, but they're closed minded assholes. >>

Harry Potter was pretty tedious. You have to plod through about 300 pages to get to the really important scenes.

[Capellini]

This is precisely the reason I haven’t read Rowling or Pullman; I feel that I am not the intended audience and would not appreciate it. I am 35, my daughter is 10, so neither one of us has had a great inclination to read these books.

As far as Dan Brown; I read both The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. The ‘literary license’ he took with some facts, his unbelievable characters and the underlying premise that ‘Da Vinci believed it so it must be true!’ turned me off. His writing is about as good as any other bestseller.

Re: Harry Potter - I did find the first two to be a little beneath me in a literary sense, but the magic of the books (no pun intended) is that the writing actually matures with the characters. Once you get to the third book, you no longer know you're reading kids books. THAT is one of the reasons I thought they were so great.

Dan Brown was entertaining, but when it comes to his research, he's no Michael Crichton. That guy knows how to cite a source.

[Moral Minority]

Dan Brown's books are good thrillers but have style over substance (especially the DaVinci Code). The only Dan Brown book I liked was Digital Fortress.

HP is good, but it's overrated.

[WelshRarePasta]

A suggestion: I notice that a lot of people have said they really like the Harry Potter books. If you liked those (and I did), you might check out Terry Pratchett's Tiffany Aching novels if you haven't already. They have some superficial likenesses: both are fantasy series, both involve early teens starting their magical educations, and both deal with fairly adult issues at times. The books, which are The Wee Free Men, A Hat Full of Sky, and The Wintersmith, describe a young girl becoming a witch. They're great, and possibly better written and certainly a lot funnier than the Harry Potter books (although I know it is blasphemy to say so).

[Detective TurtleHolmes]

A suggestion: I notice that a lot of people have said they really like the Harry Potter books. If you liked those (and I did), you might check out Terry Pratchett's Tiffany Aching novels if you haven't already. They have some superficial likenesses: both are fantasy series, both involve early teens starting their magical educations, and both deal with fairly adult issues at times. The books, which are The Wee Free Men, A Hat Full of Sky, and The Wintersmith, describe a young girl becoming a witch. They're great, and possibly better written and certainly a lot funnier than the Harry Potter books (although I know it is blasphemy to say so).

Booyah!
**High fives WelshRarePasta**

On a side note, Terry Pratchett rather dislikes JK, as she didn't know her books were fantasy. Good old Terry replied with:

"I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds, jumping chocolate frogs, owl mail, magic food, ghosts, broomsticks and spells would have given her a clue?"

[black bart]

I have loved the Terry Pratchett novels ever since one of his books gave the brilliant advice:

"Never trust a dog with orange eye brows."

You wont get anything like that in Harry Potter I'll wager.

I can confirm this advice is correct because I owned a dog with orange eye brows and he was, amongst other bad things, a thief and nearly got me killed by a Rastafarian.

The headline would have read: Pastafarian killed by Rastafarian.