Oscars, HP Directors!

[naamagatus]

--- In HPFGU-Movie at y..., Malia Kawaguchi <malia at q...> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2002 Schlobin1 at a... wrote:
> 
> > srae1971 at i... writes:
> > 
> > > I had no such problems with the HP books.  They have been, 
without fail,
> > > absolute page turners.  I 
> > 
> > But why is easy equated with good? Accessible with excellent?
> > 
> > Susan
> 
> Actually, usually it's the other way around.  The obscure and 
difficult is 
> usually seen as automatically "better" than the easy and accessible.
> 
> I think that's why I love HP so much.  To be good AND easy AND 
accessible 
> AND excellent is quite a feat. 
> 
> Tolkein is difficult and excellent.  JKR is easy and excellent.  
Very 
> different flavors of excellent, some valued more by some than by 
others.
> 
> -M

I hope I'm not going to sound too horribly snobbish, but have you 
never tried reading Kafka or Dostoyevsky? Tolstoy? Faulkner? 
Steinbeck? Thomas Mann? Conrad? Virginia Wolf? Joyce (Ulysess is 
still sitting hopefully on my book shelf)? Shakespeare?

I have to say that I find it somewhat ridiculous that people here 
describe Tolkien as difficult. I have read LOTR goodness knows how 
many times and for me it's definitely under the category of fun 
reading.
(Although it *is* much more intense than HP. In fact, my emotional 
involvement with the story is so high it can become painful. The 
amazing thing about the movie (for me) was that I reached the same 
level of involvement as with the book. Fantastic.)

Naama, who also thinks that the HP movie was .. ummm .. <euphemism> 
ordinary </euphemism>