Lewis Carroll, James Herriot, A cross-stitches, etc.

[ftah3]

Aberforths_Goat wrote:
> [Have you all also ever ruined your enjoyment of a good book by 
reading it
> according to the rules of the wrong genre? 

Yep.  Asimov.  I went into an Asimov book thinking "whee, Star Trek 
in print!"  Doh.

>(Could it be that we do this with
> HP occasionally?) 

Do you mean, do we attempt to hold HP to standards that don't apply?  
I think some people do, really.  For example, a film critic on CNN 
the other day extolled the virtues of LotR, and ended his reviewed by 
saying, I think he thought quite cleverly, "It makes Harry Potter 
look like Little Orphan Annie."

Well, no ****, Sherlock!  Harry Potter *is* Little Orphan Annie!  

It's a movie (and book) in which kids are the focus, and the 
perspective always stays within the realm of a youthful voice.  

Granted that JKR uses quite a lot of myth/lit references, weaves 
increasingly complex stories, and touches on 'grown-up' issues; and 
adults can interpret, speculate, analyse and pick apart to the great 
stimulation of their mature intelligence.  

Still, at the core of Harry Potter, Kids Rule.  And that *does* make 
it a different 'genre' than, for example, Lord of the Rings.  Imho, 
expecting differently misses the point entirely, and doesn't give 
Harry Potter the justice it deserves.

Interestingly, and on this subject, the neighbor kid (age 12) who got 
me into Harry Potter had gone from Robert Jordan to Harry Potter, 
loved them both, then thought he'd read Tolkein...and hated it.  
Couldn't get into Lord of the Rings. He was expecting something quick-
moving and exciting, and got a bit more dry and slow, with geneaology 
lists to boot.  :-P  However, he's looking forward to the movie, 
because "the boring parts won't be in it" (he says).

Mahoney