Just 10 More Days...
July 10, 2007 5:09 PM   Subscribe

As The Boy Who Lived battles tonight to topple the evil Lord Bay, and with the biggest bookselling event maybe in history awaits in just over a week, 'tis time to recount some of the truth, lies, errant speculation, and unexpected activism to arise out of Pottermania.
posted by Navelgazer (29 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: we do not need a potter update every day, please put this in the open thread -- jessamyn



 
Full disclosure, I'm a huge fan of the books (the movies, less so, though I'm going to a midnight showing of the new one tonight.)

Also, just to beat you all to the punch: these links, they do not vibrate.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:11 PM on July 10, 2007


Frickin' Potterheads.

Sorry, sorry. Couldn't stop myself. I'll probably go to the movie, myself.

Frickin' Potterheads!
posted by katillathehun at 5:36 PM on July 10, 2007


truth: for many adults, Harry Potter books are the only books they have read in years, if not decades.

speculation: these people are idiots.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:36 PM on July 10, 2007 [3 favorites]




Couldn't you have put this in yesterday's Harry Potter thread?
posted by ardgedee at 5:40 PM on July 10, 2007


I really enjoyed the articles by Damon Lindelof and Polly Horvath in the New York Times. The other ones not so much, but these two I quite liked.

My downstairs neighbor when I was growing up was a small-time publisher in Iceland. Then he bought the rights to publish Harry Potter before the craze had got going. He became a big time publisher in Iceland. Then he bought the rights to publish Da Vinci Code in Iceland and Denmark. Now he has a pan-Scandinavian publishing company.

I like the books well enough to have read all of them once and I'll certainly read the last one too, but I'm never tempted to go back to them.
posted by Kattullus at 5:45 PM on July 10, 2007


Rowling isn't a good enough writer to make me want to wade through 800 pages of her prose. Thus, I wait for the movies. The new one is pretty good. Not as bad as the first two, not nearly as good as the third, not quite as good as the fourth.
posted by goatdog at 5:49 PM on July 10, 2007


A bigger question of course would be: which Harry Potter character is your lover? I mean, if Harry & Draco weren't about to come out of the closet, that is.

Dagnabbit! I spilled the beans AGAIN. Ugh!
posted by miss lynnster at 5:52 PM on July 10, 2007


I haven't read a single one of the books nor seen a single one of the movies - this is because I am to cool for school.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 5:54 PM on July 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


Oh geez, so you didn't go to school & you can't read? :(
posted by miss lynnster at 5:57 PM on July 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


Snape kills... Dumbledore?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 6:10 PM on July 10, 2007


Oh geez, so you didn't go to school & you can't read? :(

Or spell.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:14 PM on July 10, 2007


Salmay, Dalmay, Adonay!
posted by tellurian at 6:43 PM on July 10, 2007


This is getting fucking ridiculous. I am content in the knowledge that the book will no doubt be spoiled for me far before I finish it.
posted by graventy at 8:10 PM on July 10, 2007


"I am content in the knowledge that the book will no doubt be spoiled for me far before I finish it."

I am content in the knowledge that I will never start these books so I care not who spoils it for me.

To each his own. I'm happy that Harry Potter has instilled in many an interest in literature that may not have begun for some, since it appears at times for younger generations to be a dying fad. Still, Rowling doesn't do much for me personally. I'm sure she's a great author, but just as I enjoyed Peter Jackson's interpretation of LoTR more than I did my feeble attempts years before to decipher Tolkien's ramblings myself, I'd rather wait and see the films.

With that said, Prisoner of Azkaban's the only one I'd consider putting in (the lower end of) my top 250 favorite films.

"Harry Potter books are the only books they have read in years..."

The only novels I've bothered reading in years are the rare Christopher Golden Buffy novel, and most recently I've become mildly addicted to the Kinsey Milhone Letter Mysteries by Sue Grafton.

Gonna speculate on my idiocy too, UbuRoivas? I'll save you the trouble.

MetaFilter: "Your favorite X sucks Y."
posted by ZachsMind at 8:53 PM on July 10, 2007


Buffy novel?

* bites tongue, turns red in face, punches self in balls... must... maintain... healthy... respectful... discussion...
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:15 PM on July 10, 2007 [2 favorites]


Actually I can read, but can't spell - and also disagreed with the gateway argument initially. But thinking about it probably got into reading books through Eddings, who I guess is no Shakespeare.
posted by Samuel Farrow at 9:44 PM on July 10, 2007


Having regained my composure, I can clarify my earlier point. Whilst I find it a little unfortunate that so many adults are apparently unable to get into reading (fiction or otherwise) for pleasure, it is not for me to judge whatever they do to pass the time as inferior to reading.

What I do find sad, though, about the Harry Potter / Da Vinci Code phenomena is the way people jump blindly onto these bandwagons when there are zillions of books out there that they could just as easily get into, at least a dozen of which would be of higher quality, or more suited to the readers' tastes.

What is so difficult about asking bookstore staff for recommendations, browsing "top 100" lists, websites, newspapers etc to find something to read? How totally devoid of imagination would you need to be for the only book you've read in years to be the exact same book that fifty million people like you also just happen to also be reading?
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:45 PM on July 10, 2007


Suddenly, The Mists Of Avalon on my nightstand isn't so embarrassing. Thanks, ZachsMind!
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 10:21 PM on July 10, 2007


I am going to be en route from Arizona to my home in Massachusetts the very day the book comes out! I have pre-ordered a copy, but I think I'm gonna have to buy another one in the Phoenix airport, because being caught on a plane surrounded by people reading the book and gasping and oohing and wailing in grief is going to make me and my Pottermaniac kids so crazy that WE will vibrate

Oh, and DaVinci and Harry? They don't even belong in the same breath.
posted by Biblio at 10:23 PM on July 10, 2007


Oh and, UbuRoivas, there are plenty of booksellers, teachers and librarians turning Potter fans into readers of other books via "If you liked Harry, you'll like these books" lists and displays. My 12 year old got into Tolkein after reading the first few Potter books. He read the entire Lord of the Rings series when he was 10.
posted by Biblio at 10:25 PM on July 10, 2007


UbuRoivas--

Just so you know, I favorited that even after taking a blast of Tubgirl in the eye from you over in the grey today. So that's a serious favorite. It's like a favorite squared.
posted by palmcorder_yajna at 11:17 PM on July 10, 2007


New York Times puts a bit of a damper on that whole 'Harry Potter is getting kids reading again' thing, which Harold Bloom has been saying for years. My favorite quote of his on the subject (from):

Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by [...] Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.
posted by troybob at 11:33 PM on July 10, 2007


Harold Bloom has been saying along the lines what NYT is saying here, I mean--not the single-quoted entity
posted by troybob at 11:36 PM on July 10, 2007


I never would have read them, but then a friend gave me the first two, with his strong recommend. Oops. Of course my copy of the newest will arrive via Night Bus on release day. I like the stories. The movies, not very much.
posted by Goofyy at 11:48 PM on July 10, 2007


argedee: I did the standard tag-check before posting, and somehow didn't come across yesterday's thread, of all things. Even without that, I was a little wary to post something that so easily could've been removed as "lame," what with all the mania causing a backlash amongst non-fans. Still, I was so personally excited today that once I came across the link about the fansites banding together for the Save Darfur cause, and just how much a few of them had done personally, I decided that I had to post it.

Anyway, I just got back from the movie, and it's the first one to not disappoint me. It had all of the faults of the other films (mainly the sense that the filmmakers didn't care about the story so much as about the cool things they could do in the background of it) but to a far smaller degree. It also had more to recommend it than the others (even Cuaron's stylistic Prisioner of Azkaban.) Luna and the Ministry of Magic take the distinction of being the first things in any of the films to have been even better than I imagined them myself. So, I liked it, with all the standard disclaimers.

I'm a voracious reader, and nothing excites me more than a new Potter book. If Doug Addams were still alive and writing, then that'd probably be the only thing that could compete. I, too, avoided them as childish and a silly fad until I had nothing else to read on a flight and borrowed the first one from a friend. When the flight touched down, I ran off to the nearest bookstore to get the rest of them. If I've got a new one in my hands, I can't put it down until I've finished it. No other books affect me that way, so you can say what you will about JKR's prose style - I myself find it extremely engaging - but her stories are top-notch, and actually have something behind them. Trashy mysteries might have me turning pages, but then only to see how it all turns out. With these I have genuine concern for the characters, and that doesn't happen without a great deal of skill involved.
posted by Navelgazer at 1:04 AM on July 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


For people who would read anyway, a book fad means just another book, even if it's not a very good book, to add to the pile. Potter-like book fads are only good for people who otherwise read nothing -- it gets them to read a book every year or two.

The only book fad that would make a big difference to many kids would be schools suddenly being crazy about making them read a steady stream of books, maybe a book a week, 35 or 40 books a year, starting as soon as they can read (before they become pixel addicts). That's almost all the English class they would ever need -- reading every day, talking about the books in class, and responding to them with essays due every Monday morning. Give them a couple of summer book assignments, too, so they don't fall out of the habit.
posted by pracowity at 1:12 AM on July 11, 2007


I will be reading the new book anywhere from a week to 2 days before it's sold to the public. And... seeing as how i'm quitting my no-good, horrible, very bad bookselling job, i'll take utter pleasure in ruining the ending for some of the very evil regular customers that haunt my particular store...

I can't wait!
posted by Derek at 1:50 AM on July 11, 2007


I imagine a metafilter perfect storm:

Harry Potter gets an iPhone and compiles a play list of old school alternative music videos on Youtube and gets interrupted by a phone call from Ann Coulter.
posted by srboisvert at 1:50 AM on July 11, 2007


« Older Eye Yai Yai...   |   Charles Lane: You Knew the Face Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments