posted
I think Rowling should write more in the series for one reason. Part of what makes the Potter books so fantastic is the elaborate world that Rowling has created. Of OSC's MICE quotient, I think it could be argued that the Harry Potter books are mileu stories. Because of that fact, it would be a shame for there not to be more stories that take place in Hogwarts. Harry Potter or Voldemort don't even have to be mentioned in them. Rowling could create new characters completely, but the books would still be totally awesome. I'd read them, and so would millions of others. If Rowling forever abandons Hogwarts and the Magical world that she has so painstakingly crafted, I will be severely dissapointed.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Rowling wants to get away from Harry Potter. I think she wants to do other things. As a writer, I would want to see if I could have success doing other things. Sure, the Potterverse has been hugely successful, but could she do something else. It's like OSC's Enderverse. He has a hugely successful collection of books all in the same universe, but he has been able to find success with outside of that universe as well.
Perhaps Rowling will write new books in the same universe, but if she does, I hope she waits twenty years to do it.
posted
She had planned to write a book for adults (so she said a few years ago) but apparently that's gone by the wayside. She says she wrote a new children's book between books 6 and 7 (I think that's right - or maybe between 5 & 6?), but that was set aside to finish the HP books. I think she'll come back to her magical world at some point, but I sure hope she doesn't wait 20 years - and I'd love to read more about Harry. He's such a great character!!
posted
Hollywood and their incessant need to screw up good movies with sequels seems to stem from their inability to come up with anything original.
As for the Potter series, I have to disagree that there is anything at all fantastic about the world Rowling created. At least, it is not what drew *me* into the stories. I found the world itself to be a mish-mesh of popular fantasy and mythology -- nothing that hasn't been done before and will probably be done again. Not even the idea of sending kids to wizarding school is unique, although now if anyone else does that they're accused of copying Harry Potter. The magic system is actually underdeveloped. It has never been clear to me what the cost of and rules for magic are. If you want to kill someone, why don't you say Havadah Cadavrah (sp? Sorry...I listen on tape) all the time?
But the stories themselves are charming and the characters interesting and sympathetic. What Rowling really does well, IMHO, is tell a story. I'm not sure if it will transfer to future endeavors but I wish her luck.
posted
I wouldn't get my hopes up. As a character, Harry Potter is built from the ground up to die heroically. Doesn't mean he will, but I wouldn't bet against it.
Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't read any HP until I saw the first two movies. I figured it was a stupid kid series and thought adults were idiots for reading them.
I really liked the first two movies. There was charm, I liked the characters. Looking back, the first two movies are the weakest, and Christopher Columbus has no imagination. Those movies are flat compared to the rest.
posted
J -- I agree. I don't know if Harry will die or not at the end of the seventh book, but Rowling has set up a situation in which such a death would be believable, tragic, and not entirely unexpected. i can honestly say that going into the seventh book, I fear for the hero's life. I rarely feel that way with adult fiction, so she must have done something right!
RMatthewWare: I saw the movies after reading the books but I have to agree that the first two movies were weak and unimaginative. I also thought they tried too hard to capture every moment of the books verbatim, which is not the strength of a movie. The third and fourth movies did a much better job of bringing the world to life. (Although in all cases, the books were better, of course! )
So, have you actually read the books at this point or have you still just seen the movies? You're really missing out if you haven't read the books. Even in the first movies, they missed so much of the characters. Some of the minor characters are really a treat to spend time with but the movies don't have the time.
posted
On whether Rowling will write more---there's an anecdote about J. D. Catcher in the Rye Salinger going around, about how every so often, he shows up at his bank to put a manuscript-sized bundle in his safe deposit box. Short of him working the most incredible con, a manuscript-sized box could only mean he's handing over a manuscript.
Rowling might write and hang on to the result---after all, like Salinger, she won't need the money, and, also like Salinger, the Harry Potter series will be a hard act to follow. But I doubt she'll stop completely.
(I found Catcher repellant, myself---alien to what I liked in literature in those days---then again, I did have to read it in school---and that's a killer to just about everything one might read.)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
