> > I view the upcoming Harry Potter movie somewhat skeptically.

> I view it with more than skepticism. I view it as a waste of time, because of an article by
> some Yale English prof on how horrible the woman's righting style is. I realize how ignorant
> it is to base one's opinion of something on a single source, but i didn't WANT to be interested
> in the icon of Harry Potter

I've never really noticed whether Rowling's writing style is bad; I usually don't notice writing style unless it's truly awful.

The thing that gets me about the Potter books I've read is that Rowling doesn't always think about the real consequences of the funny things that happen.

Case in point: In the third Harry Potter book, we meet the witch who teaches Divination at Hogwarts. She's your typical 'psychic' who squints into a teacup or crystal ball and makes vague pronouncements that could mean anything. She hasn't a clue about real divination, wouldn't know a genuine vision if it walked up and bit her on the nose (and proves this last point not once but twice in the course of the book).
Okay, it's kind of funny, but it also means that the cream of the next generation of wizardry is being taught totally bogus ideas about what divination is and how it works.
And the headmaster knows this, and is allowing it to happen.


> I understand the draw of such a flick, because it is the reader's chance to test one's own vision
> of the story against that of those involved in the film.

On the downside, some people figure that now the movie's here they don't need to bother reading the book at all.

Going back to Harry Potter, one of the positives of the Potter Phenomenon is that it encourages a lot of children who might not otherwise have done so to read, and to use their imaginations.
Only now there's going to be movies of all the books, and in a few years' time we'll have kids saying to themselves: Why should I wade through these big thick books when I can rent the video and have someone else do all the hard work for me?


Paul