Television Harry Potter TV series

harms said:
Yep, Weasleys do feel very natural for POC actors lore-wise. It was more about them being described so often and so vividly in the books — and the MCR1 mutation is a predominantly (albeit not exclusively) white thing. But you're right, visually you can find a way out while contextually they make sense.

Thinking about it, Rowling is one of the worst authors to blind cast. Half of her characters' traits are showcased through their looks, she's actually very problematic in that way, almost as a modern-day phrenologist. If you want to stay true to her (a bit flawed to say the least) vision, you have to stay true to the text descriptions.


Oh, right, didn't think of that! The entire slavery subplot is so bad, with Harry being the "good slaveowner" and no one truly challenging the system with the exception of Hermione (and even she more or less gave up at some point).
Click to expand...
Yeah the characters were also illustrated enough on books covers, with her approval, that I struggle to see the value in changing their appearance if it also then impacts storyline or how other characters are perceived.

For example Hermione being black, I don’t think is an issue because Hermione is also a victim of marginalisation via other means. There isn’t anything about her character that being black would significantly change about her or those who interact with her, that isn’t already implied via other means.
 
sullydnl said:
On the other hand, of all the performances in the films it's arguably Alan Rickman's as Snape that casts the biggest shadow, mostly because it was so specifically an Alan Rickman performance. His particular presence and vocal intonations are really heavily associated with the character at this point.

Which possibly lends merit to deliberately trying to do something very different with the TV show version.
Click to expand...

snape-obviously.gif
 
Be kinda cool to have a TV show without race being a major plot point. Don't see it happening with this though.
 
altodevil said:
Be kinda cool to have a TV show without race being a major plot point. Don't see it happening with this though.
Click to expand...
I mean the whole pureblood thing is a pretty obvious stand-in for real world racism, so no matter the casting that was never going to happen. It's pretty much the whole motivation for the bad guy in this story.
 
Mike Smalling said:
I mean the whole pureblood thing is a pretty obvious stand-in for real world racism, so no matter the casting that was never going to happen. It's pretty much the whole motivation for the bad guy in this story.
Click to expand...
No way, really?
 
The books are modern classics and will remain great literature long after we are all worm food.

I haven't seen Rowling say anything that controversial either tbh, but I'm open to correction there.
 
Mike Smalling said:
Fair enough. Those two sides won’t see eye to eye, that much is clear.
Click to expand...

I tried to look it up briefly before but there was so many bad takes I gave up. I have limited capacity for researching the morality of children's authors :lol:. If there have been quotes of Rowling saying a bunch of problematic stuff then fair enough...it kind of got buried under all the shite though.
 
Reapersoul20 said:
I tried to look it up briefly before but there was so many bad takes I gave up. I have limited capacity for researching the morality of children's authors :lol:. If there have been quotes of Rowling saying a bunch of problematic stuff then fair enough...it kind of got buried under all the shite though.
Click to expand...
I mean she’s pretty openly a transphobe, in my opinion, but to others she is fighting for women’s rights or whatever. But I can understand that most people aren’t terminally online like myself, and just think it’s a good universe she’s created.
 
Reapersoul20 said:
The books are modern classics and will remain great literature long after we are all worm food.

I haven't seen Rowling say anything that controversial either tbh, but I'm open to correction there.
Click to expand...
She's a nutter. And they're definitely modern classics, but more so down to their Immense Popularity, than it being 'great literature'.
 
Rowling is an awful, hateful person and if casting a person of color to play a character that was white in her novels pisses off her and people like her, I'm all for it.

In fact I really hope that they add at least one character that is trans into the story just to throw some extra shade her way.
 
Todd said:
Rowling is an awful, hateful person and if casting a person of color to play a character that was white in her novels pisses off her and people like her, I'm all for it.

In fact I really hope that they add at least one character that is trans into the story just to throw some extra shade her way.
Click to expand...
She actively encouraged the casting of a black actress as Hermoine. Made Dumbledore gay (after there was no risk of it impacting sales).

She was Queen of the liberals at one point, it’s easy to forget.
 
gormless said:
She actively encouraged the casting of a black actress as Hermoine. Made Dumbledore gay (after there was no risk of it impacting sales).

She was Queen of the liberals at one point, it’s easy to forget.
Click to expand...
Yeah she was definitely seen as a liberal icon of the 90s and 00s for progressive writing.
 
The cast carried that series. It wasn't shit at all but the cast was as good as it got. The three main kids were basically just about average actors (not bad either, just never beyond that -- cannot predict how child actors will develop, impossible really).
They could be carried (and were decent at their roles tbf)

This sounds like a BBC styled shitshow to me. HBO gives you hope. But if they use that BBC tone (of the last decade or so -- the degenerate sherlock tone) then you're looking at something destined to fail.

Cast is subpar so far. Some of them are actually shit actors but you let it go because they entertain you.
 
Donaldo said:
She's a nutter. And they're definitely modern classics, but more so down to their Immense Popularity, than it being 'great literature'.
Click to expand...
No, they are great literature. They are books mostly aimed at teenagers and young adults and within this category, they are clearly among the best. There is no need to shit on the books just because Rowling got lost in the depths of the internet and turned herself into the leading voice of transphobia.
 
HTG said:
No, they are great literature. They are books mostly aimed at teenagers and young adults and within this category, they are clearly among the best. There is no need to shit on the books just because Rowling got lost in the depths of the internet and turned herself into the leading voice of transphobia.
Click to expand...
It cut across. One of those.

They had to market with child and adult covers because adults didn't want to read it with the child's cover on the train. I remember it. Some books do that. Lord of the Rings, etc.
 
HTG said:
No, they are great literature. They are books mostly aimed at teenagers and young adults and within this category, they are clearly among the best. There is no need to shit on the books just because Rowling got lost in the depths of the internet and turned herself into the leading voice of transphobia.
Click to expand...
I thought it was pretty much accepted that the prose in Harry Potter is pretty poor, and that they are full of plot holes. They thrive mostly on a unique new world created by Rowling that hadn't been seen before.
 
Mike Smalling said:
I thought it was pretty much accepted that the prose in Harry Potter is pretty poor, and that they are full of plot holes. They thrive mostly on a unique new world created by Rowling that hadn't been seen before.
Click to expand...
The world building in itself is incredible and there are reasons why so many people can’t let go of this world. This in itself is already a huge accomplishment.
I won’t deny the flaws of the books. But there are seven of them, all with more than 500 pages. That’s absolutely normal. Lord of the rings has its flaws, too. They get overlooked because the audience is different and its creator had died before he could use social media to destroy his image.
Rowling created an extremely captivating world, filled it with interesting and deep characters. It connects with millions worldwide in a unique way. And yes, despite Rowling terrible character, conveys mostly great values.

I can’t help but feel that people are desperately searching for flaws in the books just so they can be the ones who can say she always sucked or everyone should have known.
 
HTG said:
The world building in itself is incredible and there are reasons why so many people can’t let go of this world. This in itself is already a huge accomplishment.
I won’t deny the flaws of the books. But there are seven of them, all with more than 500 pages. That’s absolutely normal. Lord of the rings has its flaws, too. They get overlooked because the audience is different and its creator had died before he could use social media to destroy his image.
Rowling created an extremely captivating world, filled it with interesting and deep characters. It connects with millions worldwide in a unique way. And yes, despite Rowling terrible character, conveys mostly great values.

I can’t help but feel that people are desperately searching for flaws in the books just so they can be the ones who can say she always sucked or everyone should have known.
Click to expand...

Rowling's writing has been criticized since the books came out, because it's not very good. Popular things of mediocre quality gets criticized all the time, it's completely normal. Dan Brown is one of the best selling authors of all time, and he's really bad. If he didn't sell books no one would care, because there's no shame in not being a good writer, but when you sell a lot of books some are going to point it out.

Sometimes mediocre or poor writers create books that become extremely popular. Just like mediocre or poor artists can create very popular music, or mediocre or poor movies can sweep the world.

People enjoy entertainment for other reasons than artistic quality.
 
HTG said:
The world building in itself is incredible and there are reasons why so many people can’t let go of this world. This in itself is already a huge accomplishment.
I won’t deny the flaws of the books. But there are seven of them, all with more than 500 pages. That’s absolutely normal. Lord of the rings has its flaws, too. They get overlooked because the audience is different and its creator had died before he could use social media to destroy his image.
Rowling created an extremely captivating world, filled it with interesting and deep characters. It connects with millions worldwide in a unique way. And yes, despite Rowling terrible character, conveys mostly great values.

I can’t help but feel that people are desperately searching for flaws in the books just so they can be the ones who can say she always sucked or everyone should have known.
Click to expand...
The criticism of the plot holes is not something related to Rowling showing her true colors. It's been going on for as long as the books have been out. Her main problem is that she fills her world with incredibly powerful items and abilities without giving it much thought beyond the situation she needs them for.

The analysis of the stories as they relate to Rowling's world view is newer and kind of interesting, in my opinion. There is clearly some nitpicking, like you describe, but also genuine criticism with some merit, mainly the fact that none of the secondary issues in the world are solved. Harry wins because of a technicality, the evil Nazi wizard dies, things returns to the status quo, and Hermione becomes Prime Minister, because she always did her homework. The end.

Anyway, I think the Dan Brown comparison made above is perfect. It's the old "Consumed in great numbers does not equal high quality". Harry Potter is the same as Taylor Swift, Marvel movies, and McDonald's. Calling it great literature is a huge stretch.
 
HTG said:
No, they are great literature. They are books mostly aimed at teenagers and young adults and within this category, they are clearly among the best. There is no need to shit on the books just because Rowling got lost in the depths of the internet and turned herself into the leading voice of transphobia.
Click to expand...
Ok, HTG.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Rowling's writing has been criticized since the books came out, because it's not very good. Popular things of mediocre quality gets criticized all the time, it's completely normal. Dan Brown is one of the best selling authors of all time, and he's really bad. If he didn't sell books no one would care, because there's no shame in not being a good writer, but when you sell a lot of books some are going to point it out.

Sometimes mediocre or poor writers create books that become extremely popular. Just like mediocre or poor artists can create very popular music, or mediocre or poor movies can sweep the world.

People enjoy entertainment for other reasons than artistic quality.
Click to expand...
I was head of the Harry Potter Quiz Club which met solemnly and swore they were up to no good back in the wonderful year of 2002, and I'm sure 14 year old me thought it was great literature.

There's this thing about growing up though.
 
HTG said:
The world building in itself is incredible and there are reasons why so many people can’t let go of this world. This in itself is already a huge accomplishment.
I won’t deny the flaws of the books. But there are seven of them, all with more than 500 pages. That’s absolutely normal. Lord of the rings has its flaws, too. They get overlooked because the audience is different and its creator had died before he could use social media to destroy his image.
Rowling created an extremely captivating world, filled it with interesting and deep characters. It connects with millions worldwide in a unique way. And yes, despite Rowling terrible character, conveys mostly great values.

I can’t help but feel that people are desperately searching for flaws in the books just so they can be the ones who can say she always sucked or everyone should have known.
Click to expand...
NotThatSoph said:
Rowling's writing has been criticized since the books came out, because it's not very good. Popular things of mediocre quality gets criticized all the time, it's completely normal. Dan Brown is one of the best selling authors of all time, and he's really bad. If he didn't sell books no one would care, because there's no shame in not being a good writer, but when you sell a lot of books some are going to point it out.

Sometimes mediocre or poor writers create books that become extremely popular. Just like mediocre or poor artists can create very popular music, or mediocre or poor movies can sweep the world.

People enjoy entertainment for other reasons than artistic quality.
Click to expand...

I think this is an interesting discussion. I would agree that on a sentence by sentence prose level Rowling is mediocre. However, if we are comparing prose to a Faulkner/Woolf standard then every single high fantasy author ever, including Tolkien and even George RR Martin, who is probably the best, are also just mediocre prose writers. The reason is that high fantasy is not a genre that people read because of well constructed sentences and clever, but not overdone, metaphors. People read fantasy for story and world building not prose. Even if we expand to all of fantasy/sci-fi I'd still say there are only a handful of writers above mediocre in those genres (JG Ballard and Ursula Le Quin are probably the best along with one or two others that I am aware of). Moving outside fantasy, I would also put Charles Dickens in that category of mediocre writers, at least partially because he was paid to write by the word so he inflated word counts with unnecessary words which resulted in very mediocre prose.

But then there is the flipside. There are obviously some writers with insane command of language. But often those books sit virtually unread because 99.9999% of the population can't get into them despite their high level of artistic prose (James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake is the best example). Personally I am not sure if I would even call Finnegan's Wake "great literature". It might have the highest level of difficulty to write, but if pretty much no one, outside a masochist MFA creative writing professor familiar with turn of the 20th century Irish slang, ever finishes the book, is it truly great literature?

So I personally don't think sentence prose is the only factor to determining artistic quality. I do think story and world building can be a valid factor in grading literature, although not the only one either.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I think this is an interesting discussion. I would agree that on a sentence by sentence prose level Rowling is mediocre. However, if we are comparing prose to a Faulkner/Woolf standard then every single high fantasy author ever, including Tolkien and even George RR Martin, who is probably the best, are also just mediocre prose writers. The reason is that high fantasy is not a genre that people read because of well constructed sentences and clever, but not overdone, metaphors. People read fantasy for story and world building not prose. Even if we expand to all of fantasy/sci-fi I'd still say there are only a handful of writers above mediocre in those genres (JG Ballard and Ursula Le Quin are probably the best along with one or two others that I am aware of). Moving outside fantasy, I would also put Charles Dickens in that category of mediocre writers, at least partially because he was paid to write by the word so he inflated word counts with unnecessary words which resulted in very mediocre prose.

But then there is the flipside. There are obviously some writers with insane command of language. But often those books sit virtually unread because 99.9999% of the population can't get into them despite their high level of artistic prose (James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake is the best example). Personally I am not sure if I would even call Finnegan's Wake "great literature". It might have the highest level of difficulty to write, but if pretty much no one, outside a masochist MFA creative writing professor familiar with turn of the 20th century Irish slang, ever finishes the book, is it truly great literature?

So I personally don't think sentence prose is the only factor to determining artistic quality. I do think story and world building can be a valid factor in grading literature, although not the only one either.
Click to expand...
Am reading the revised lightning tree Rothfuss book on holiday. It's infuriating because of the 3rd book it's absolute poetry.
 
Redplane said:
@oneniltothearsenal id love to see you imply GRR Martin is a better writer than Tolkien on any of the 1,001 fan sites and forums. Curious to see the reaction :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah this is a hot take and a half.

Lord of the Rings got dumbed down heavily by the editors, publishers and his own son because it was initially very difficult to read.

Read the published version of the Silmarillion (which is also dumbed down, by his son), and the seperation is night and day between tolkien and martin.
 
Also, I have yet to read something as heartwrenching as this letter:

Say what you feel, without reservation, about this addition. I began this under the stress of great emotion & regret – and in any case I am afflicted from time to time (increasingly) with an overwhelming sense of bereavement. I need advice. Yet I hope none of my children will feel that the use of this name is a sentimental fancy. It is at any rate not comparable to the quoting of pet names in obituaries. I never called Edith Luthien – but she was the source of the story that in time became the chief part of the Silmarillion. It was first conceived in a small woodland glade filled with hemlocks at Roos in Yorkshire (where I was for a brief time in command of an outpost of the Humber Garrison in 1917, and she was able to live with me for a while). In those days her hair was raven, her skin clear, her eyes brighter than you have seen them, and she could sing – and dance. But the story has gone crooked, & I am left, and I cannot plead before the inexorable Mandos.
Click to expand...
 
fen4e said:
To all the book critics in here; What do you consider good literature then?

Genuine question
Click to expand...

In general, or alternatives to Harry Potter?

The first book is basically a children's crime/mystery novel in a fantasy setting. I'm not aware of contemporary stuff in that genre, but a lot of the old Hardy Boys, Bobbsey Twins and Nancy Drew stuff will have a more coherent plot, and a bunch of them (depending on the ghostwriter) better prose. That's crime, not fantasy, and I'd hesitate to call much of it good. Just better. Maybe some of Agatha Christie's work could count, or some of the Sherlock Holmes stories, even though they're not specifically written for kids.

The series then evolves into more typical YA fantasy. From the same period Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials is much better, and if you go to the classics you'll have loads of stuff, like Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea series, that is vastly superior. I'm not huge on Tolkien personally, but he's also better.

That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with preferring to read Harry Potter over all of the above, though.
 
Redplane said:
@oneniltothearsenal id love to see you imply GRR Martin is a better writer than Tolkien on any of the 1,001 fan sites and forums. Curious to see the reaction :lol:
Click to expand...

Been there, done that about 20 years ago. I'll counter by saying if you take a creative writing class anywhere taught by published authors who actually study good writing for a living, you won't find many that put Tolkien anywhere near the top tier of writers.

Even among the people I've known that love fantasy, I've never heard Tolkiens prose praised, they love LotR for the story and world building not because Tolkien can write anywhere near the quality of someone like Cormac McCarthy.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.