Posted on 07/25/2007 1:00:58 PM PDT by meandog
Actually, I'd give it ten before the entire series is turned into a television series, which will be able to show the entire stories, not just select portions, and spend time developing some of the minor characters using background notes that never made it into print.
And seven years is typical for TV contracts and syndication deals, so it fits in with the seven books fairly well.
In any case, the first book stands alone quite nicely, so I can see it added to many suggested summer reading lists, which will be a great way to entice kids to read further.
Then you should try reading the third book where she wasn't edited as much and had a little more control over things. (Plus, it's one of the best in the series.)
Okay, I know of 8-10 years olds that have started the Potter series. Most that I knew that starting "Foundation" prior to, say, senior year in high school couldn't get through the first book, or if they did, they really didn't know what was going on. Granted, Foundation did have a story behind it, which was originally entitled "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". Sheesh, to rip of a classic like that, the guy must've been a hack!
TS
;-)
I remember originally not wanting to read the series unless I could get the British edition, when I found out that Scholastic "dumbed down" the original, by changing its title. (Yeah, well, that never happened and I eventually got the U.S. versions.)
btw, being "preachy" isn't a bad thing according to Paul :)
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions...
Funny thing about the article -- the reason people "love" Snape's character isn't because of his moral struggle, but because he's an enigma. We don't know which way his moral compass is pointing. Of course, this isn't surprising. We know whose name is in the title and whose POV the series takes on. Only one character gets internalized throughout the series.
Foundation (started) 4th grade, LOTR 4th into 5th grade. I was a weird kid. I found Asimov, as well as Piers Anthony (probably 6th grade when I discovered him), too verbose (in their different manners). Course having Asimov as my first introduction into ‘hard’ sci-fi has affected me as I tend to shy away from authors that put the technology ahead of the story. My algebra teacher in 7th grade put me in the back of the class and gave me Stephen King books to read to prevent me from asking questions ;)
And also it isn't a true comparison, because the Lord of the Rings is not a children's fantasy tale. "The Hobbit", on the other hand, is, and Bilbo doesn't have any moral conflicts. In fact in LotR, Gandalf states that it's because of the inherent goodness within Bilbo that he never fell victim to the Ring in all those years that he had it.
Great idea. What are you using for toxic brain candy? Entertainment Weekly and People Magazine spring to mind as well as every "novel" every written based on a character from the television series "Full House".
Ah, that explains much! If you're brought up on a steady diet of Hard SF (not even the running the spectrum, as it were), then why in the world would you even waste your time on fantasy novels. Much too soft.
Actually, there isn't any magic in Harry Potter at all, anyway. It's all just sufficiently advanced techology (you know, the nanobots at the core of the wands reproducing themselves through verbal commands and telepathic instructions). But don't worry, after book 7 the magic goes away.
I still haven't figured out the "that was too easy" argument that I've heard from people that apparently thought that Harry should die, even though it's been known for several books that one must die at the hand of the other. I never had a doubt that Harry was going to live through it and the series wouldn't be worth ever reading again if he was going to die and everything he did was for nothing. Dumbledore didn't raise a lamb to be slaughtered.
By the end of the book I almost felt I was watching an old episode of Star Trek where Harry, Ron and Hermione where like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy who always escaped unscathed while several red shirt security personnel would die.
Unscathed?? Were you reading the same book as I was? Perhaps Harry should've lost the ear instead of George? Harry had everything taken from him that mattered: starting with Dumbledore, then his owl, his broom (the one thing he was really good at, if you recall), his friend Ron (ok, yeah, he came back later after some more trials and tribulations) and his wand. He was left with one item: his cloak. Maybe the centurions should've gambled for that after he died.
Also, the epilogue seemed so contrived as to have been written by a junior high student who just had a few minutes left to tack on some fluff at the end... Let's see, everyone marries their Hogwarts sweetheart, breeds like rabbits (I guess to make up for the action none of them seemed to get during the series...)
OH,NO!! They were being fruitful and mutliplying! After not engaging in any pre-marital sex for seven long years, and I bet they were long years, especially the last few. All those lonely nights camping in the woods, and yet they never gave into any kind of temptation even though the end of the world might be at hand.
And I find it odd that 3 kids is breeding like rabbits.
There was no "personal slam" in my post. Merely trying to point out that you weren't listening.
You still aren't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.