|
On June 05 2004 12:19 ItchReliever wrote: Show nested quote +On June 05 2004 12:13 pfff wrote:
im going to keep making you repeat yourself until you give me one concrete argument instead of empty phrases k? How are they empty? I can't quote and analyze the entire fucking book like you seem to be asking me to. Show nested quote +and the whole point of the simpsons exemple was that it a lot deeper and sophisticated then youd think at first sight, and that it can be watched on different levels, just like harry potter. There are no "different levels" in Harry Potter. Read my posts again and again until you understand it. Show nested quote +i mean, do you think everyone here who says they think harry potter books are great are lying or something?
if we read a book and we like it, then it has to be a good book no? I know many people who don't like Harry Potter. I ask you again to quote my posts if you're going to be serious because if you don't you can just ignore the key points, which you just did. t.t
ok, you cant analyze the whole book, then stop making dumb general statements like harry potter books are have no form of sophistication, harry potter books dont have different levels,...
well, i do think that i enjoy harry potter books on a completely different level then my 12 year old nephew.
and i also know people who dont like harry potter, but i know more people that DO like them.
and youre right that they dont take long to read, but if you start to read harry potter, you dont expect a war and peace, but you do get a great book. i dont really see why short to read=bad book, because it is still a children book, which generally are easier to read, but the fact that it is a children book doesnt mean you cant enjoy it as a 19 year old.
btw, i quoted youre post, are you happy now?
|
No, I'm not happy because you didn't use the quoting system properly.
I really think that I have said enough, that anybody with a brain would have fully understood me by now. But I'll continue if you so desire.
|
what does it matter?
you dont remember what you wrote 5 minutes ago?
|
Hey, what is the problem here. If you don't like the book, that's ur opinion and you don't have to read it and/or watch the movie.
And as far as the books being for kids, yes, it is aimed at younger audience, I'm not saying it isn't. But the thing that makes the book good is that an older audience can enjoy it too, that's what separate these books from other young adults fictions.
And about an older reader enjoying Harry Potter making him gay, I don't see how that work.... They just have an open minded view when it comes to reading different stuff. You really wanna know what's gay? read below
On June 05 2004 01:24 Servolisk wrote:
Normally it is retarded to flame others for their preference of books, but Harry Potter is the exception. It was bad enough that enough people liked the teletubby equivalent of books, maybe if you would be secretly ashamed and keep quiet no one would dislike you, but you bring the flames on yourself when you band together with your other deviants and try to shove the gayest thing since the san francisco gay men's choir down our throats.
it would be less gay if he has any idea how to write in english, or being coherent. Or it might not...
The bottom line is, you have no right to judge anyone based on their interest, especially if you have no background knowledge in that subject matter.
|
and even if it would lack sophistication, then that still doesnt make it a bad book.
Then it is, at best, a mediocre book, WHICH I SAID IT WAS. Read: "But they're all still "readable" books."
i mean, off course if you compare it with the great classics, it will fall short, but if you compare it with an average book, then you will have to admit that harry potter is FAR above average, even if its 'juvenile'.
EAGER-beaver, who I was responding to, said, "They're incredibly entertaining books, and the 4th one ranks high on my best book of all time list... [Harry Potter] ranks among the best in literature."
Simpsons is a satiric comedy, Harry Potter is not. And as for stuff that can be interpreted differently, books like Gulliver's Travels is one of them. Harry Potter, however, is not.
Because you did not quote me, you did not address this part of my post.
I fail to see the "different levels" that exist in Harry Potter.
|
On June 05 2004 12:38 ItchReliever wrote: Show nested quote +
and even if it would lack sophistication, then that still doesnt make it a bad book.
Then it is, at best, a mediocre book, WHICH I SAID IT WAS. Read: "But they're all still "readable" books."
i mean, off course if you compare it with the great classics, it will fall short, but if you compare it with an average book, then you will have to admit that harry potter is FAR above average, even if its 'juvenile'.
EAGER-beaver, who I was responding to, said, "They're incredibly entertaining books, and the 4th one ranks high on my best book of all time list... [Harry Potter] ranks among the best in literature."
Simpsons is a satiric comedy, Harry Potter is not. And as for stuff that can be interpreted differently, books like Gulliver's Travels is one of them. Harry Potter, however, is not.
Because you did not quote me, you did not address this part of my post. I fail to see the "different levels" that exist in Harry Potter.
Not all books have to have a "deeper meaning" to be enjoyable. In fact, all of the modern fiction novels nowadays has no deeper meaning whatsoever, I'm talking about the likes of Grisham, King, etc. Yet they attracted many adult readers. To me, those novels are no better/different than Harry Potter, might be even worse since they're not as imaginative and usually so very cliche.
|
Yea, but he said that there were "different levels" in Harry Potter. ~_~ So what you just said is pretty much irrelevant.
|
On June 05 2004 12:37 BerZergKer wrote:
Hey, what is the problem here. If you don't like the book, that's ur opinion and you don't have to read it and/or watch the movie.
No fucking crap, but this is what we like to call a discussion.
|
so what are you saying? that i enjoy the book in THE EXACT SAME WAY as my little 12 year old nephew?
sorry, but that doesnt make any sense. its obvious that i enjoy them in another way. i mean, he loved the movies, because the movies focused on the aspects of the books that he liked, but i didnt really like the movies much, i only enjoyed them because i read the books.
really, if you had a Latour everyday, youd be craving for a beer.
|
Dealer
Sweden1368 Posts
The first three books were decent, but the fourth and fifth are very good.
|
On June 05 2004 12:50 Dealer wrote:
The first three books were decent, but the fourth and fifth are very good.
yeah, i think so.
|
On June 05 2004 12:48 ItchReliever wrote: Show nested quote +On June 05 2004 12:37 BerZergKer wrote:
Hey, what is the problem here. If you don't like the book, that's ur opinion and you don't have to read it and/or watch the movie. No fucking crap, but this is what we like to call a discussion.
well, my bad, just seems that the discussion, even if resolved, would not benefit anyone. and if whoever you're discussing against (this forum is so crowded  ) said that Harry Potter has "different levels" of comprehension, he's an idiot. True you won't experience it in the same way as ur 10 yr old sister, but in the end you both understood equal amount of information, assuming she reads it carefully and not word-skip-word
|
On June 05 2004 12:49 pfff wrote:
so what are you saying? that i enjoy the book in THE EXACT SAME WAY as my little 12 year old nephew?
sorry, but that doesnt make any sense. its obvious that i enjoy them in another way.
How do you enjoy it in a differnt way? In Gulliver's Travels, when you read it when you're young, it is nothing more than an adventure story. When you read it later though, you notice the vast symbolism and the extensive satirical content. Can you say the same for Harry Potter? NO. HARRY POTTER ISN'T SOPHISTICATED ENOUGH.
really, if you had a Latour everyday, youd be craving for a beer.
wtf does that mean?
|
[QUOTE]On June 05 2004 12:57 BerZergKer wrote:
[quote]well, my bad, just seems that the discussion, even if resolved, would not benefit anyone. and if whoever you're discussing against (this forum is so crowded ) said that Harry Potter has "different levels" of comprehension, he's an idiot.[/QUOTE]
Then according to you, Pfff is an idiot. And I would wholeheartedly agree.
|
really, if you had a Latour everyday, youd be craving for a beer.
wtf does that mean?[/QUOTE]
yeah, wtf ?
|
chateau latour is an estate that has produced some of the best wines ever. it means that sophisticated isnt a synonim of good, cuz most of the times youd rather drink a beer then an expensive, sophisticated wine like a latour ok?
cuz it seems like you are using sophisticated and good as synonims which is not true at all.
and i dont mean that harry potter is a satire or has deeper symbolism in it like gullivers travel or animal farm.
with different levels i mean that there are elements in it that a 12 year old will not notice nor understand, and this is why the books can be enjoyed by a younger and an older audience.
|
Russian Federation1020 Posts
|
On June 05 2004 13:01 pfff wrote:
chateau latour is an estate that has produced some of the best wines ever. it means that sophisticated isnt a synonim of good, cuz most of the times youd rather drink a beer then an expensive, sophisticated wine like a latour ok?
cuz it seems like you are using sophisticated and good as synonims which is not true at all.
Whether sophistication equates to good or not is an entirely different debate. I made it explicitly clear that Harry Potter is an average book that lacks sophistication. I even kept using the same word so that you wont be misled.
and i dont mean that harry potter is a satire or has deeper symbolism in it like gullivers travel or animal farm.
with different levels i mean that there are elements in it that a 12 year old will not notice nor understand, and this is why the books can be enjoyed by a younger and an older audience.
Such as?
|
as you said yourself, im not going to analyze the whole book just to prove a point to you.
but you can not be serious that a 12 year old has the exact same mindset as me.
when did unsophisticated equal average?
i dont really see why a book has to be sophisticated to be a great book, nor do i see why a book should be sophisticated to be enjoyed by both younger and older people
|
On June 05 2004 01:24 Servolisk wrote:
Normally it is retarded to flame others for their preference of books, but Harry Potter is the exception. It was bad enough that enough people liked the teletubby equivalent of books.
The books seem unsophisticated at first but when you look at them, a little deeper you see economic and social tensions with prejudice. I guess for me I connected to the characters. The problem with what Servolisk said, was that he didn't just state that he didn't like Harry Potter, he stated that anyone who did was an idiot, if they weren't a child and deserved to be sentenced to death (kidding or not).
Maybe if you would be secretly ashamed and keep quiet no one would dislike you, but you bring the flames on yourself when you band together with your other deviants and try to shove the gayest thing since the san francisco gay men's choir down our throats.
We didn't try to shove anything down anyones throats, was this a harry potter recruitment thread? No, it was a discussion about the movie, which turned into you telling people on one hand that you think its stupid to flame people for preferring one type of books, but then saying that we are the exception and we deserve to die. Stop harping on people who enjoy things you don't enjoy, or understand why they enjoy it. I feel different after reading the book than you do, does that mean I deserve to be told I'm an unsophisticated idiot?
So for once I'm going to do something I rarely do on these forums, and say fuck off Servolisk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
