http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/18/news/funny/bc.leisure.boxoffice.reut/index.htm

I was very disappointed in HPGOF (the movie). I know the book rather well, and the movie was little more than a series of incoherent cartoons of the plot. I think Newell’s work was far inferior to Alfonso Cuaron’s Prisoner of Azkaban in atmosphere and cinematic artistry, and inferior to all the other movies in plot coherence and magical feeling. Moaning Myrtle was one of the few bright spots – but she was better still in the book.

I preferred to devote the time (on that genra) to trying Philip Pullman’s books, which I much preferred. I will try the Potter books again…one day….but I have this huge huge huge reading list, and I cannot see me finding time any time soon.

Understood…. I haven’t gotten around to reading the Pullman books, though they’ve been recommended by people whose taste I trust. I must have at least a hundred novels around that I haven’t gotten to yet. Physics keeps interfering with my reading habits. (Know of any joint physics/literature jobs? )

Donna wrote:

The Potter books are fun and my youngest enjoys them, but Tolkein *is* fine literature that practically invented the genre of fantasy.

I actually find it kind of hard to justify Tolkien as “fine literature,” but it probably amounts to wondering what defines “literature” anyway. Tolkien did some amazing things in those books, constructing a deeply intricate world and telling a compelling story. But much the same thing can be said for what Rowling has done in the Harry Potter books! It’s hard for me to pinpoint what it is that makes the Tolkien books seem more serious as literature, because, well, they just don’t seem to be to be that literary. I haven’t read one in its entirety in ages, but from what I recall (and glancing back at bits) the prose was just kind of clunky and stilted. If Tolkien is a great storyteller it’s because of the greatness of the story, not of the telling. In that sense the works fall short of truly great literature. On the other hand, there’s undoubtedly something about the books that makes them seem like serious literature. I guess it’s probably the thoroughly academic approach Tolkien took to building a fantasy world, investing it with realistic languages and cultures that were developed in far greater depth than was presented in the novels themselves. This underlying richness seeps through and makes the story that much more compelling. I’m really sort of apathetic about Tolkien compared to most people I know — I have little desire to ever re-read his books — but I do think they are a great achievement.

That said, I think Rowling has created a pretty impressively detailed fantasy herself. It’s really all the little things that make the HP books so nice: recurring minor details that build up the sense that this is a detailed and believable world. It might not have the encyclopedic background that Tolkien developed, but the world of Rowling’s books is quite intricate and consistent. She also writes with great humor and wit.

With Potter I have the “advantage” of not having read, and not planning to ever read, the books, so no expectations to disappoint.