Got Harry Potter?
- Thread starter epicstruggle
- Start date
Done!
To comment on the whole issue of 870 pages being inappropriate for a "children's book", I think it's a bit of a misconception that the entire Harry Potter series is directed at, say, 8 year-olds. It's a pretty common misconception, though, probably because the first book really could be said to be directed a a precocious 8 year-old, but that's become steadily less true as the series has progressed.
My take on it is that the "target audience" for each book is, very roughly speaking, the age Harry is in that book: so, 11 in the first book, moving up to 15 in this latest one. This is not only pretty obvious when reading the books, but makes a great deal of sense as the series is at its essence about a boy growing up. This isn't to say, of course, that people of almost any age can't enjoy them, and I'm certainly of the belief that kids can handle much more than what society tends to label as "age-appropriate" for them. But HP:OotP is really not a kids' book.
Quick spoiler-free mini-review:
It's good.
It's not too long, and although it's obviously going to go quicker in some places than others, it's pretty consistent after a slowish start and certainly couldn't be said to sag anywhere.
In a lot of ways it's classic Harry Potter: it has the same structure all the books have been falling into. The biggest difference is probably Harry himself, who is very much the moody teenager, particularly in the first half of the book. This book marks a move even further into Buffy:TVS metaphorical terrain, where (for those who didn't watch the show) the fantastical struggles of a teenaged hero fighting the forces of darkness arrayed against him/her stand in for the struggles and tribulations of solipsistic teenagers growing up everywhere. This is particularly borne out as the plot focuses on Harry's innate psychic connection with Voldemort, and the lack of self-control this brings out in him. Along with this, as with all Manichean sci-fi/fantasy epics, there's an increasing emphasis on the temptations of the dark side, ala Star Wars. Of course, these themes were set up in the earlier books, but here they resonate much more with Harry's personality and his stage of development. On a similar note, all the magical joys and surprises of the first couple books, along with their losses of innocence, could perhaps be said to mirror the development of an 11 and 12 year-old, but I found the connection much more obvious here.
By the end of the book, it would seem that just about all of the filling-in-the-historical-record that consumed especially books 3-5 is pretty much over. Unlike the previous books, there isn't really a huge guess-who-the-real-bad-guy-was-all-along twist at the end, although the plot is still of course rather twisty. The climactic fight is a little dense, what with about 50 pages worth of wizards diving behind furniture and yelling "stupefy" and "petrificus totalis" at each other, although the magic at the end of it is pretty badass. But the really good plot twists come in the denouement, which IMO is pretty great. Of course all Harry Potter books have this end structure: the plot twists that reveal who the bad guys were and what they were up to; the big fight; and the denouement in Dumbledore's office. So, in this one, the bad guy plot bit and most of the fight are somewhat sub-par, but the end of the fight and the denouement very good.
The bulk of the book is quick moving, quite funny (although perhaps not quite as funny as some of the others), and a generally good addition to the series. It's hard for me to say how it ranks with the others, as it's been a couple years since I read them, but overall I'd put it more with my favorites (#s 1 and 4) than my less-favorites (2 and 3), although probably not at the very top of the list.
To comment on the whole issue of 870 pages being inappropriate for a "children's book", I think it's a bit of a misconception that the entire Harry Potter series is directed at, say, 8 year-olds. It's a pretty common misconception, though, probably because the first book really could be said to be directed a a precocious 8 year-old, but that's become steadily less true as the series has progressed.
My take on it is that the "target audience" for each book is, very roughly speaking, the age Harry is in that book: so, 11 in the first book, moving up to 15 in this latest one. This is not only pretty obvious when reading the books, but makes a great deal of sense as the series is at its essence about a boy growing up. This isn't to say, of course, that people of almost any age can't enjoy them, and I'm certainly of the belief that kids can handle much more than what society tends to label as "age-appropriate" for them. But HP:OotP is really not a kids' book.
Quick spoiler-free mini-review:
It's good.
It's not too long, and although it's obviously going to go quicker in some places than others, it's pretty consistent after a slowish start and certainly couldn't be said to sag anywhere.
In a lot of ways it's classic Harry Potter: it has the same structure all the books have been falling into. The biggest difference is probably Harry himself, who is very much the moody teenager, particularly in the first half of the book. This book marks a move even further into Buffy:TVS metaphorical terrain, where (for those who didn't watch the show) the fantastical struggles of a teenaged hero fighting the forces of darkness arrayed against him/her stand in for the struggles and tribulations of solipsistic teenagers growing up everywhere. This is particularly borne out as the plot focuses on Harry's innate psychic connection with Voldemort, and the lack of self-control this brings out in him. Along with this, as with all Manichean sci-fi/fantasy epics, there's an increasing emphasis on the temptations of the dark side, ala Star Wars. Of course, these themes were set up in the earlier books, but here they resonate much more with Harry's personality and his stage of development. On a similar note, all the magical joys and surprises of the first couple books, along with their losses of innocence, could perhaps be said to mirror the development of an 11 and 12 year-old, but I found the connection much more obvious here.
By the end of the book, it would seem that just about all of the filling-in-the-historical-record that consumed especially books 3-5 is pretty much over. Unlike the previous books, there isn't really a huge guess-who-the-real-bad-guy-was-all-along twist at the end, although the plot is still of course rather twisty. The climactic fight is a little dense, what with about 50 pages worth of wizards diving behind furniture and yelling "stupefy" and "petrificus totalis" at each other, although the magic at the end of it is pretty badass. But the really good plot twists come in the denouement, which IMO is pretty great. Of course all Harry Potter books have this end structure: the plot twists that reveal who the bad guys were and what they were up to; the big fight; and the denouement in Dumbledore's office. So, in this one, the bad guy plot bit and most of the fight are somewhat sub-par, but the end of the fight and the denouement very good.
The bulk of the book is quick moving, quite funny (although perhaps not quite as funny as some of the others), and a generally good addition to the series. It's hard for me to say how it ranks with the others, as it's been a couple years since I read them, but overall I'd put it more with my favorites (#s 1 and 4) than my less-favorites (2 and 3), although probably not at the very top of the list.
Its standard reading for anybody into the fantasy genre, though its definately a lot more dense than most 9 years old will read. Nothing like a little dwarven song to send a kid scuttling after their Yugio cards or GBAs.Deepak said:
RussSchultz said:
My 8 yeal old has just read The Hobbit and is half-way through The Order of the Pheonix now. He has stated he's next read will be LOTR. Which is about the age I read it, though the Atari 2600 ahdnt been invented yet and all I had was Pong as a distraction
I think waht helps for Harry Potter and LOTR for younger audiences is also the films and tapes. They watch the films, have the tapes as part of their bedtime routine so know the story before they read it.
BTW I'm too busy to have finsihed it yet..
Randell said:
It's 870 in the US (dunno where that 896 came from). As for the font size, they fit 32 lines per page, which is respectable if rather on the low side for a hardcover of that size. (Paperbacks generally range from about 29-33 lines per page; a large hardcover piece of literature generally comes in at about 37 lines per page, while hardcover nonfiction is often 41-43 lines per page.) I'm fairly sure 32 lines per page is an increase over previous hardcover editions of Harry Potter, at least in the US. Incidentally, note that words per page generally scales with the square of lines per page, although in many cases (including HP:OotP) the issue is not so much large letters but rather large spaces between lines.
How many lines per page in the UK edition? Or did they just leave out a few chapters?
LOTR is definitely much harder for children, compared to say the Hobbit and HP. HP is much more in line with classics like the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.
I read LOTR when I was like 10, but I also was not the avg kid (kinda a bookworm at the time). I didn't really like it immensely until I reread it when I was 15 and then 23.
LOTR is an adult book, pretty much not designed for kids at all. Its much more like Le Mort D'arthur, The Nibulungen Ring, Beowulf, etc etc
" He will come to death, an image of the splendor of the Kings of Men, in glory undimmed before the breaking of the world. But you, my daughter, you will linger on, in darkness and in doubt. As nightfall in winter that comes without a star. Here you will dwell, bound to your grief, under the fading trees, until all the world has changed and the long years of your life are utterly spent. "
I read LOTR when I was like 10, but I also was not the avg kid (kinda a bookworm at the time). I didn't really like it immensely until I reread it when I was 15 and then 23.
LOTR is an adult book, pretty much not designed for kids at all. Its much more like Le Mort D'arthur, The Nibulungen Ring, Beowulf, etc etc
" He will come to death, an image of the splendor of the Kings of Men, in glory undimmed before the breaking of the world. But you, my daughter, you will linger on, in darkness and in doubt. As nightfall in winter that comes without a star. Here you will dwell, bound to your grief, under the fading trees, until all the world has changed and the long years of your life are utterly spent. "
Deflection
Newcomer
RussSchultz said:
Card for sure. And I can see how you might consider Asimov's book for kids too, though he has such a unique stye of writing I really don't. Haven't really read much of Heinlen.
"children's books" to me means appropriate for 5-10 year olds.
While some children of that age may read Card, Asimov or Heinlen, I'd be mighty hesitant to place them in the same category as The Black Cauldron; Nancy Drew; Hardy Boys; Pipi Longstockings; etc. (Though, truth be told, some of the early Heinlen was relatively short and simplistic. The later stuff was long, convoluted, and way too sexually oriented)
While some children of that age may read Card, Asimov or Heinlen, I'd be mighty hesitant to place them in the same category as The Black Cauldron; Nancy Drew; Hardy Boys; Pipi Longstockings; etc. (Though, truth be told, some of the early Heinlen was relatively short and simplistic. The later stuff was long, convoluted, and way too sexually oriented)
I read lotr between 10 and 13, quite big gaps between the volumes and for each of the 6 books I used to take ages over the first half and then zip through the rest in a weekend
Liked it quite a bit and didn't find it particularly difficult, haven't got round to re reading it yet.
Liked it quite a bit and didn't find it particularly difficult, haven't got round to re reading it yet.
The only parts I found difficult in LOTR are the parts with excessive role-playing esque talk. I couldn't help but imagine seeing my friend (skinny, boney fellow with glasses, if you can imagine) dressed up as an elf with a sword. :shudder:
Geeks ruin classic literature even faster than English classes.
As for HP, I've never been too much of a fan myself. More of a Palahniuk and satire (and whatever category Jennifer Government falls under) fan when it comes to fiction.
Geeks ruin classic literature even faster than English classes.
As for HP, I've never been too much of a fan myself. More of a Palahniuk and satire (and whatever category Jennifer Government falls under) fan when it comes to fiction.