But if you haven't read the other books . . . Well, in my opinion the first three or four books could be read out of order. Each tells a complete story, although it's clearly also part of the larger arc of the series. But that stops right around ORDER OF THE PHOENIX--the one right before HALF-BLOOD PRINCE. The later books are moving towards the climax of the larger story and not so much complete in themselves. HALF-BLOOD PRINCE wouldn't stand well on its own, IMO.

I have to agree that Rowling lacks some in technique. But I do think she had a compelling story to tell, which is how she got away with it. That, and it is YA, where apparently they're a little more lax about certain things.

I've just finished THE LIGHTNING THIEF and I have to say, the technique there is even worse. Other than an interesting premise, the story is not that compelling, either. Episodic, with no particular connection between one event and the next. And, in places, it didn't even make good sense.

The only thing I don't remember seeing in the movie was Grawp, and he will be important later. There may also be a little more information that will help you figure out about the locket. Although, come to think of it, I actually think that information came out in ORDER OF THE PHOENIX, not in HALF-BLOOD PRINCE.

I went into reading Twilight with an open mind - knowing that it was really popular, not expecting Masterful Fiction, just expecting to be entertained. It's easy to be entertained by those books, I think particularly if you were every 17/18 and hopelessly in love with somebody who you either weren't sure loved you back or who confused you or who loved you crazy or whatever.

The part in NEW MOON in the book where Edward leaves, Bella is distraught, then you turn the page for a new chapter and it says like December on the page heading. You turn the next page and it says January. You turn another and it says February...that was masterful, in my opinion. It was risky, because it's kind of a gimmick, but at that place in the story, in that emotional space the writer created, it hit me like a kick in the gut and I knew *exactly* what Bella was feeling. A writer who can put me in that place where I get it so completely is doing a lot of things right, even if she over-uses the description "marble" as referenced to skin of vampires.

If you've watched all the HP movies but haven't read the books, and are at all interested in the process by which screenplay writers have to adapt the storyline to tell a story in a compressed format (remember most screenplays are 120 ish pages long. Even the first HP book was well into the 250 page range, maybe 350 or more, I can't recall.)

I felt there was some emotional resonance missing in HALF-BLOOD the movie because of the missing funeral scene, and the missing breakup of Ginny and Harry, and overall I didn't care for the way they handled their romance, it wasn't as obvious as happens in the book - as clear-cut. Which means what's at stake for Harry in the next film won't be as clear-cut, although to be fair I don't think Rowling really ran with that concept for DEATHLY HALLOWS (book) as much as she could have.

My son was *devastated* that they cut the whole battle scene in Hogwarts at the end of book 6. I also thought they lost something by not having that little bit where harry's been immobilized by Dumbledore on top of the Astronomy tower, but then when dumbledore dies, he is suddenly able to move again...a somewhat good clue that dumbledore has died.

But (to completely go back and forth across my logic stream tonight) - the part that was added of Slughorn talking about "a great student" (lily) having given him a fish in a bowl, and coming down one morning to find the fish dead, that was pure genius. for people who have been watching the movies and reading the books, the message, oddly analogous to the dumbledore/harry/astronomy tower situation (which is another reason it struck me as odd that they didn't repeat that part of the story) was so perfectly clear. It was neat.

But anyway - if you go back and read the books and watch the movies, you can see how the screenplay writer had to make certain decisions, make certain cuts throughout. Not very many in the first two books, but more and more as the series goes on.

In my opinion, Harry Potter aces on story. Interesting, compelling, cool plot elements interweaving, etc.
Twilight aces on pacing, and on emotional resonance (though I have a feeling the resonance is strongest with women who have or are going through the teen years, as I don't think most guys get it as much.) Pacing in Twilight is spot-on, I think. Fast, lots of action, scary scary, then calm for a bit. Breather. then up the ante. Fast again. Eek. calm. etc.
Meanwhile, I loved the Percy Jackson books, sorry some of you didn't! The thing I loved about them most was the character voice. Very compelling character voice and TONS of humor. That humor was what was missing from the movie, though, and that was a big disappointment to me. I think it was a missed opportunity, I think the movie would have done better with more of the book's humor, because they played it too grown-up, tilted it toward teens instead of tweens (it's the tweens who are reading it! the 10 and 11 year olds, not the 18 year olds...even the casting was a little ridiculous, since Percy's supposedly 12 when the series starts, and the actor who played the MC does not have a 12 year old body...)