Am I the only one who hasn't read a Harry Potter book or seen a Harry Potter movie?

[KansDem]

Aside from hearing about or seeing bits and pieces--my family is "Harry-crazy" (read the books and watched the movies), I've not partaken of HP book discussions with my family or sat down and watched any of the HP movies. I know there is another movie scheduled for release in week (next Wednesday?) and my family is itching to go, but I just never warmed up to the HP series.

It's not that I don't like it--I just never found it entertaining or amusing enough to spend time reading the books or watching the movies...

Anyone else feel this same way?

[Bluzmann57]

1. No you're not

Just not into sci-fi.

[qazplm]

10. Harry Potter is NOT sci-fi

good grief, it's fantasy and it is not something I understand the appeal of either, but it is most definitely not sci-fi.

[Bluzmann57]

77. Whatever

Who cares? I just don't care for that genre

[HeresyLives]

12. It's fantasy, not sci-fi.

There are no wizards or magic in science.

[Sal Minella]

45. Young people around me are always making HP references I don't get,

but it's not worth plowing through those tomes just to nod smugly when such a reference crops up. (I just look bewildered, which has pretty much become my default look lately anyway.)

[Bluzmann57]

78. See post no. 77

I don't care. I just don't care for that genre.

[el_bryanto]

2. I like them well enough - but don't get all the hype

I mean I've read them all (but the last), they are good page turners as far as it go but far from the best thing I've ever read.

I thought Simpsons did a great take on them a little while back; Lisa skimming the whole book fro the family then them all throwing it out the window, where the weight of the book cracked the asphalt.

Bryant

[ZombieHorde]

3. Yes, you are the only one. Even the Pope enjoys Harry Potter cos play. nt

[Adsos Letter]

4. Nope.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Who's Harry Potter?

[road2000]

52. He was the CO on M*A*S*H

[no_hypocrisy]

61. Sherman Potter played by Harry Morgen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_T._Potter

[road2000]

62. Bad joke on my part.

[dmr]

103. No, I thought it was funny

[kjackson227]

6. Nope.

[rocktivity]

7. Not only that, I have yet to set a Rocky movie.

It was years before I found out why people started addressing me as "Yo, Adrienne!"


rocktivity

[Glorfindel]

14. Me, neither! I won't watch any movie about boxing

No matter how good it's supposed to be, not even "Million Dollar Baby"

[KansDem]

46. Include me!

I haven't seen a Rocky movie, either...

I'm not a Sylvester Stallone fan--I saw him in "Lords of Flatbush" (with Henry Winkler), but haven't seen either the "Rocky" or "Rambo" movies.

My sister and her husband tried to get me to watch one once, but I balked and left for the evening...

[Tesha]

114. Try Stallone as a funny man instead.

Demolition Man

(To some degree) Judge Dredd

Antz

Tesha

[Sal Minella]

48. I thought the Rocky movies were just DEADLY boring.

But I didn't see all seventeen or twenty-one of them, or however many -- just two or three. Maybe the series got better toward the end?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

91. Bullwinkle was OK, though

and the Way Back machine was always a thriller.

[Mrs. Overall]

8. I attempted to read the books, but I can't stand JK Rowlings' writing style,

but I do love the movies.

[KansDem]

30. Just curious--what is it about Rowling's style that you don't like?

[Mrs. Overall]

33. Oh, it's just my literary snobbery. She writes for a certain age level so her sentences

tend to be rather short and choppy and her descriptions are simple--absolutely appropriate for her target audience, but that sort of style (which some more adult oriented writers also use) makes me want to scream and tear my hair out. I love long, convoluted, complex sentences a la Margaret Atwood.

My critique of Rowlings is completely inappropriate and snobby, so please dismiss it!

I do love the movies.

[moggie]

69. I don't think that's snobbery at all

You gave the books a fair shake, but decided you weren't in the target audience. That's perfectly fair. The OP, on the other hand... perhaps I'm misinterpreting the intention, but it reminds me of Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television.

[uppityperson]

96. Have you tried to read any of the Twilight or Eragon books?

painful to read, very difficult, very very very painful.

[Mrs. Overall]

97. Oh yeah. My teen daughter is obsessed with the Twilight series and I started the first book--

couldn't read it.

The absolute worst one that I attempted was James Patterson's Maximum Ride, which my son was reading. Could not believe it was published.
Patterson has a movie deal as well.

On Edit: I don't mean to dismiss the actual stories, which obviously have adventure/romance/movie value, just the writing styles.

[uppityperson]

101. Books that make me wish everyone would die 1/3 way through are not well written

My young adult child brought the movie home so we could watch together with drinking games. "every time Edward is conflicted we take a drink". At least the movie didn't go on and on and on and on about the aging stalker's alabaster pects.

I have never read any Patterson, will have to look at it at the library. Eragon was written by a teen home schooler, and it shows. Try the library, but boys of a certain age (6th/7th grade) seem to like it.

"Just die, get it over with, kill each other and die and then I can quit reading this tripe"

[Love Bug]

132. If you've seen Star Wars you don't need to read Eragon

I took my grandson to see the movie when it came out and the entire plot was stolen from Star Wars. I expected R2D2 and C3PO to show up at any moment.

[wolfgangmo]

9. Look around.

You will find PLENTY of folks in Kansas who consider the entire series a serious threat to children. They say it is because it glorifies witchcraft but I think it is because it gets the little buggers reading which is threatening to any fundie.

I found them to be an amusing read and good movies. Nothing great, but good, which is better than most of the dreck out there.

[Gwendolyn]

11. Nopey, you aren't the only one.

Just don't mention it in a crowd unless you're ready for the stricken expressions of disbelief.

[dysfunctional press]

13. i never read the books- but i really do enjoy the movies.

i'd much rather see helena bonham carter as bellatrix lestrange than in some pretentious piece of shit from the mind-numbing boredom brokers at merchant ivory.

btw- does everyone know that the final book of the series is being broken into two movies? harry potter and the deathly hallows parts 1 & 2. they are milking every last cent out of the series.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0926084 /
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1201607/

[Mrs. Overall]

19. Yeah, I can't wait to see Mrs. Weasley kick Bellatrix's ass.

That will be good.

[Voltaire]

64. That will be worth the price of admission

I loved the last few chapters of Deathly Hallows

[Love Bug]

133. I hope they let her say

"GET AWAY FROM MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!!" or I'll be very disappointed.

[doodadem]

15. Nope, same here

It's not just fantasy, its kid fantasy. Just never piqued my interest, much like the Witch and the Wardrobe stuff, or whatever it was.

But I'm a major sci-fi freak!

[Pharlo]

16. Nah, you're not alone.

I'm a sci fi fan, not really into fantasy. To me, this never looked interesting. I never got into the 'Lord of the Rings' thing either.

[mkultra]

17. yes you are, anyone here saying otherwise is lying to make you feel better

[abbeyco]

18. Nope - you're not the only one

The fantasy-style genre just has never interested me.

I also never watched any of the Star Wars, Close Encounters or Star Trek movies or shows.

Friends that are really into all that are really dedicated. I'm more into murder/mystery, thriller & romance stuff - or some history.

Cheers to all of us for our differences

[mitchum]

20. I'm an adult; why would I read or watch that stuff?

It's not for me.

[JuniperLea]

25. Harrumph! I guess you put a lot of people in THEIR place!

Anyone who enjoys a wander through wonderland or a trip to the Shire, or a stroll down the yellow brick road are a bunch of childish dolts. Though I never understood how the original stories by The Brothers Grimm were ever told to children, I must confess my puerile tendencies as I peruse the grimmest of Grimm.

So be it. Thankfully I don’t give an airborne rodent’s derrière what you think of my reading habits. So there… pblllbllbllbllbbbb *raspberries*

[Mrs. Overall]

27. +1

[mitchum]

74. But there is a difference between luxuriating in childhood nostalgia...

Wonderland, Oz, etc... (that's just human nature)
and going apeshit over some children's book series that started when I was like thirty or so (that's marketing conditioning)
The Harry Potter brand wasn't intended for me.

[JuniperLea]

79. I wonder how apeshit people went when those tomes were released....

I remember hearing my great grandmother relate what what would now be considered apeshit crowds gathering upon the release of new sheet music for tunes newly heard on the radio. Things were slower then, but today's nostalgia could very well have been yesterday's hot ticket.

[sybylla]

93. I thought the same, but then we bought an audio version

of the first book, read by the amazing Jim Dale. We listened to it in the car on the return leg of a family vacation, mainly to appease my then 9- & 11-year-olds. We pulled into the driveway and stopped and no one wanted to get out of the car until the CD ended. Me included.

I would never have read them myself, but hearing it "performed" by Jim Dale and all the wonderful voices he does, I found it very entertaining and highly addictive - even if I'm not in the target audience. There's nothing I appreciate more than children's entertainment that has at least a modicum of appeal to the parents who have to sit through it as well. For me, Harry Potter has more than succeeded on that level.

[FailureToCommunicate]

99. THREE CHEERS for Jim Dale!!! We read the first book with our twins, but on a car trip

we listened to Jim Dale's amazing narration - and were completely HOOKED. No offense to KANSAS, but listening to Harry Potter as read by Dale, hundreds of miles could go by and I wouldn't be able to tell you what traffic or landscape we passed!
The kids would follow along reading the pages as Dale spoke the story. For us "grown-ups" it was like being read to when we were little, absolutely transporting. Beats the heck out of watching TV as a family activity!
By the way, Dale received a Grammy for his voice work -which included over a hundred different voices for the characters, I believe!

On one trip by train across the country, an Amish family got on at one point and sat near us. I had hooked up four headphones to a tape player so we could all enjoy listening -and reading along-the latest Potter book. (It had just come out that summer, and others on the train were seen, like us, toting their thick copy of the book all over the train...) Anyway, I saw what I took to be a look of disapproval from the father of the Amish family as we sat there all plugged in and I said to him "Its 'books on tape'" His frown brightened a bit. But then I said "Yes, we're listening to the latest Harry Potter book" And his frown returned. After awhile I noticed that the family had found seats elsewhere on the train. Oh, well.

[JuniperLea]

21. No... I am HP ignorant...

I know there is a kid, a school, a wizard, that's it. I'm blissfully ignorant.

[AngryOldDem]

22. Nope. Never read one, never seen one.

And never will. That genre does not appeal to me.

[cyberswede]

23. No HP for me...yet

I wanted to get the first book to read with my 8 year old over the summer, but the library only has the American version - I want to read the Elnglish one. I guess I'll have to go to amazon.com.uk.

If it weren't for the kiddo, I would probably avoid the books. I have zero interest in the movies.

[MrSlayer]

24. How do you know that it's not entertaining or amusing enough if you never read it?

I avoided it until the fourth book came out because I figure anything that is that popular has to suck. So I grabbed the first one off of my brother just to see what the big deal was and was back for the rest the next day. The books are that good. The movies not so much because they can't properly tell the story in movies but the books are well worth the read. And you can get in now and read the whole series without having to wait a year for next one.

Try it, you'll like it.

[Voltaire]

35. I avoided them for a long time as well

Then just this spring/summer, I read all the books in about three weeks. Loved them. The movies are okay but I like the books better. There is just no way you could film the entire book, the damned movies would be 7 hour long! Looking forward to the movie next week and to the final two when they come out, I'll be interested to see the director's interpretation. Because some heavy shit went down in that last book, in the last two books actually!

[MrSlayer]

40. Supposedly they're doing Deathly Hallows in 2 movies.

Which is what they should have been doing since Goblet of Fire.

[Voltaire]

63. I suppose they could have done 2 since Goblet

Just film the whole thing, cut and edit for two films, release one at Christmas and one in July. Because when you've read the books, some of the stuff they leave out of the films make them seem really abrupt. I find myself going "hey wait....but...that's where...."

Of course, if one has only seen the films, they are okay.

[Clintonista2]

72. I hate how they completely cut the dursleys out of the goblet of fire

The very beginning of each book where Harry is with the Dursleys has always been my favourite part of each book.

[MrSlayer]

76. I hate the way they cut out huge chunks of the story in most of them.

And radically alter it. I watched Order of the Phoenix and the plot is almost completely different from the book. I know you have to cut some stuff out but I'm one of those guys that say if you can't do it right, don't do it at all. I hated the Lord of the Rings movies because of the butchering of the story. They could have made twice as much money with the HP series if they had made multiple movies for each book. The first two were short enough to do in one go but the others should have been two or more. It is what it is I guess. The books are always going to be better.

[Clintonista2]

89. Really you didn't like the LOTR movies? I thought they did a pretty good job for the most part

Considering the length and depth of the novels. Plus, there are TONS of scenes that were cut out from the theatrical release on the DVD extended editions. About an hour is added on each of the DVDs (my two favourite novel chapters "the voice of saruman" and "the mouth of Sauron" from the third novel are there).

Apparently when Peter Jackson first pitched the idea of a LOTR movie, he didn't think anyone would be willing to pay for three separate movies, so he suggested it just be ONE movie. It was one of the executives who was a fan of LOTR who insisted that it be three movies. I am cringing trying to think how disastrous it would have been if they had tried to condense three LONG books into one movie.

[MrSlayer]

95. Yeah, I hated them.

The scenery and costumes and stuff were fantastic but the story was butchered beyond repair. I was really hoping for an honest translation and it didn't happen. Love story nonsense and the like.

[Touchdown]

102. That's why it's called "Adaptation"

Those stories weren't butchered. They're still right there, sitting on your shelf, as original as they were when you first read them.

Film adaptations are never meant to be a replacement for the books they're based on, and I would never want them to be. Tell me a story on the theme and soul, and make it your own work of art, don't film a word for word, scene by scene book for me. I know that story already.

Case in point...
The Shining: 1979 with Jack Nicolson. Brilliant and tense thriller. Loosely based on the book, very little of the book's narrative remains, but the theme is intact.
The Shining: 1996 TV mini-series with Rebecca DeMornay. Shot by shot transfer of the page to screen. Ridiculous, boring, nausea inducing narrative, and barely watchable.
The book is one of King's masterpieces.

Or short stories make for better movies.

Bonfire of the Vanities. One of the worst movies ever made. One of the most brilliant satires of New York high society and city politics ever written.
Disclosure. An interesting character study by Michael Crichton turns into yet one more Michael Douglas gets involved with a psycho woman from Hell movie.

Short stories...
Die Hard. A classic adventure film based on a 100 page pulp novel that nobody read.
Stand By Me. Based on the short Stephen King story "The Body".
Total Recall. Based on a 17 page story by Phillip K Dick called "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale".

[DireStrike]

124. I think that would be a bad idea

Unless they want to re-cast. I don't think Harry is supposed to have chin stubble.

[KansDem]

39. I would pass through the room when my family was watching one of the movies...

I might sit for a few minutes and watch, too--then I'd move on to something else.

My wife would be reading one of the books and chuckling. I'd ask her what she was chuckling about and she'd tell me. Just didn't find it all that interesting. Granted, I'm sure one would have to be quite familiar with the series to understand bits and pieces in later books, but I just didn't have the desire to jump into the entire series.

She'd get a book and exclaim, "Oh-oh, we find out that Voldemort(sp?) is really a good guy!" or "Oh-oh, in this book is the first kiss!" or "Uh-oh, he dies!" and so on... Who's "Voldemort," who's kissing whom, and who dies?

I get bits and pieces, but not enough to create an interest...

[MrSlayer]

42. Well grab the first book and read it.

If you get halfway through and still aren't into it well then you're just not going to. But give it a serious try.

[Obamanaut]

26. The fundies don't watch him. nt

[Sal Minella]

51. I know that I know that I know not WHY .......

[flvegan]

28. I haven't done either.

I know lots of folks that love the stuff, though. To each his/her own.

[LeftinOH]

29. Nope -me neither.

[kegler14]

31. I had no choice if I wanted to understand what my kids were talking about.

I like the movies but could get through only the third book.

[National Steel 27]

32. Add me to the list.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

34. Count me in

I know many among my friends and family who like it but I've somehow never gotten in to it

[Maru Kitteh]

36. I have never had an interest either - you're not the only one

[bigwillq]

37. Never had any interest.

I've never seen any of the movies or read any of the books. Just not my thing.

[Bertha Venation]

38. Nope. I haven't. Not interested. n/t

[VWolf]

41. I read the 1st book due to pressure from my daughters

That made me read the 2nd
And the 3rd
And the 4th
And the 5th
And the 6th
And the 7th


One of my guilty pleasures.

They're by no means literary classics, but they're easy reads when you're just looking to escape.

[Scout]

43. yes n/t

[virgdem]

44. No you're not...

I've seen snippets of the movies due to my DH's interest in the movies, but I've not read the books or seen the any one of the movies from start to finish.

[seabeyond]

47. i havent. and i am a HUGE reader. kid stuff, lol. not interested. havent read

any of the twilights either

though my youngest son read them and loved them. nothing greater than watching a 10 yr old read over a 1000 pg book.

[UTUSN]

49. Adding myself to the list n/t

[garybeck]

50. i haven't , nt

[burning rain]

53. I'm with you.

I suspect Harry Potter books appeal to those who don't want to read something "hard."

[Mrs. Overall]

60. No, I know quite a few very intelligent individuals who adore the books and the movies.

It's fantasy and one thing I do like about the overall story is that Rowlings stays away from the simplistic black/white and good/evil. The lines are a bit blurred and I think that is what upsets so many fundamentalists.

[burning rain]

67. Lotta smart people like some brain candy here & there, no doubt.

~

[KansDem]

87. Interesting...

...Rowlings stays away from the simplistic black/white and good/evil. The lines are a bit blurred and I think that is what upsets so many fundamentalists.

I never looked at it that way. I know the fundamentalists hate HP because of the emphasis on witchcraft, but I never thought about the blurred lines between good and evil. That certainly would tend to throw them into a quandary for a group so used to thinking in black and white.

I'll ask my wife and kids about this and see what their take is on it.

Thanks!

[Mrs. Overall]

94. Although the poster above dismisses the books as "brain candy" I do believe

that there is a complexity to the characters and to the themes that are introduced. Although Rowling's writing style is not nearly as honed and masterful (not even in the same league) as Tolkien or C.S. Lewis, I think that the Harry Potter series can be compared and contrasted to both The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia on a thematic level. I might get beat up for saying that by the more literary among us.

[WhollyHeretic]

83. Way to go! You are so much better than those people.

[burning rain]

105. Didn't suggest I was. Your malice says more about you than it does me.

For my own part I used to watch Mr. Ed and was pleased to describe it as brain candy and not make silly claims that I was rapt in philosophical profundities. Partaking in some brain candy is fine, but portraying it as profound stuff is straight silly. Since you've shown yourself as malicious, I'll make it clear that being silly does not make a person bad or worse than me or another Hitler.

[WhollyHeretic]

106. I'm malicious? You're the one who questioned the intelligence of millions of people based on your

ideas about books you haven't read. I think that says a lot more about you than my snarky response to your condescension.

[burning rain]

109. Now you're lying about me.

Nowhere

[burning rain]

110. Now you're lying about me.

Nowhere in that post did I question anyone's intelligence.

[Mrs. Overall]

113. There is a continuum between what is profound and brain candy--

I think your post comes across as dismissive of the Harry Potter series as complete fluff on par with Mr. Ed or Green Acres or Hannah Montana.

You are absolutely correct stating that Rowling's work is not philosophically profound and I would add that it is not exactly "literary" either, but it does have more depth, complexity, and story arc than many other children's books or series.

When my children read the books, we had some interesting discussions about religion, education, appearance vs. reality, Christian fundamentalism, paganism, and fear based politics. The last book made into a film, Order of the Phoenix, was very political and dealt with censorship and fear mongering. As a former Latin teacher, I was personally impressed that she threw in Latin phrases for most of the spellwork throughout the series.

Does Rowling grapple with issues like Chinua Achebe or Shakespeare? Of course not.

Is Harry Potter more challenging and thought provoking than the Goosebumps series or The Magic Treehouse series? Definitely.

I just believe there is a middle ground and I would never lump Rowling's work with the likes of Mr. Ed.

[Moondog]

54. Hardly.

[woofless]

55. I never even picked up a copy until Costco

had a boxed set at a very attractive price. I thought that I might send it on to my Grandson in a couple years. I pulled out volume one on a whim and by the time I was done I had read all seven volumes in a row. I am in my late 50's and had not read a fantasy novel for many years. I thoroughly enjoyed the Potter series. I tend to shy away from band wagons but Harry is worthy.

Woof

[a la izquierda]

56. i haven't...

don't care to...

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. No, of course not. But I love the books.

I can think of much worse ways to make a gajillion dollars than to write books that get kids hooked on reading.

Someone upthread suggested that the books were written in a choppy style, suited for people with a 12 year old's attention span. So is the bigger story... it's written as a collection of well-described imaginative vignettes, affixed into a hero myth storyline.

The bigger narrative is effectively communicated in the movies, but I find the imaginative vignettes (e.g. the whomping willow) is the stories appeal, much of which is left out of the movies.

[applegrove]

58. I haven't. I'm sure some day I will read all the books. But for now I'm just not into fantasy.

[closeupready]

59. I tried reading the first book, but couldn't get into it. Though I saw the first film.

Enjoyed that, but this kind of story doesn't seem to appeal to me as much as it used to.

[SeattleGirl]

65. Nope. I haven't either.

Never had an interest in reading the books or seeing the movies.

[Hard_Work]

66. No,

to quote a MJ song, "You are not alone".

[Vidar]

68. Saw one movie with my niece. Couldn't see the appeal.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

92. Yup. nt

[Hepburn]

70. Never read it or seen a Potter movie. You are not alone. n/t

[Echo In Light]

71. No, and I grew up with and still read/watch plenty speculative fantasy, science fiction & horror

[ellie]

73. No, you're not

[mnhtnbb]

75. Never read a book and never saw a movie. My youngest son was crazy for H. Potter.

Lost his collection when our house burned down.

[Blue_In_AK]

80. You are not the only one.

I couldn't care less.

[undergroundnomore]

81. OH MY

I posed this same question on another site almost a year ago. It seemed to me that EVERYONE I knew had either read a Harry Potter book and/or seen the movies. I have done neither. For me there are just so many other books that I want to read. I am glad that this book got kids to read more. Really I'm for anything that gets kids reading.

[Octafish]

82. Count me in, please.

My wife read the things to our son.
She really, really, really loves him.

Me? I'm just jealous of the boy and the talented Ms. Rowling.

[silverweb]

84. Same here.

I read the first book only to see what all the Bible-thumpers were carrying on about. It was a mildly amusing story and my opinion of the fundamentalist nutzoids was confirmed. However, the book left me with no desire to read more of the series or to see any of the movies.

The main value of the books, as I see it, is that they got more kids reading for pleasure. For that alone, they are admirable.

[NC_Nurse]

85. No. Me too.

[MadHound]

86. Question, how do you know that you don't like Potter if you've never read a book or seen a movie?

If all the Harry hype is turning you off, I can understand. But really, you're doing yourself a disservice to base your preferences on this matter solely on the hype surrounding it. There's a reason why millions of people worldwide are creating such a buzz, because Rowling wrote a really good set of books that appeal to both children and adults.

I suggest that before you write Potter off completely that you actually read the first book in order to make a knowledgeable judgment about whether you like them or not.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

88. No, kind of. I did take my goddaughter back in the day to see the 1st movie.

That's the extent of my exposure to it. It's just not my thing. But my younger brother and older sister have probably read all the books and seen all the movies.

[ecstatic]

90. You're not alone. I'm not into stuff like that but am always forced

to go along with friends/etc.

[Release The Hounds]

98. I watched the first movie...

After that snoozefest I will not see any more or pick up any of the books.

[FailureToCommunicate]

100. Give the audio version a try (from your library): Jim Dale's rendition bests reading AND

the movies. (Though we have liked those too!)

[PSzymeczek]

104. Nope, you're not

I haven't either.

[azmouse]

107. I've never read a HP book or seen a HP movie.

Probably never will. Too many other things I'd prefer to read or watch.

[noel711]

108. I just don't get it....

I've heard "Harry Potter" was the "Wizard of Oz" for this generation.
Okay, I'll bite; I've been an Oz-o-phile for years...
So...
I tried.. could not even get thru the first chapter.
Just not caught up in it.

Not that I'm a fantasy-phobe; I love fantasy,
the Ray Bradbury books, Tolkien.
But Harry Potter... meh.. not so much.

I thought it was me. guess I'm in good company.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

111. Yes. You're The Only One. Every One Of The 6 Billion Other People, Even The Illiterate And Blind,

have read and seen harry potter.

Yes. It is just you.

[greguganus]

112. I've never read or seen any Harry Potter stuff. n/t

[cemaphonic]

115. I feel that way about Updike (though I have read a couple of his books)

for that matter, I really don't much care for that whole sub-genre of naval-gazing New Yorker crap.

Others hate "Moby Dick," even though it is awesome.

Pretty much any popular or celebrated creative work is going to have people who like it and people who don't, so I guess my answer is "no, you're not alone," though I'm not sure why this would be all that surprising.

As for Harry Potter, it's not any worse than most bestseller fiction, and better than a good deal of it (Dan Brown, I am looking at you...), and it's always nice to see some contemporary fantasy that isn't a Lord of the Rings pastiche. It's lightweight, but it's not as if I'm always going to be in the mood to read Pynchon or Nabokov, or any other literary writer.

[Toucano]

116. I have tried

The movies are the most soporific stubstance known to man, IMHO.

I cannot get through as single one. I ALWAYS fall asleep within 40 minutes.

Yes, you can call me a freak.

[Brigid]

117. No, you're not alone.

I jut never became interested in trying out the books or the movies.

[ccharles000]

118. OMG I love Harry Potter I have all the books and a HP cap.

[Flabbergasted]

119. I started reading the books to my daughter and fell in love with them. Their Great.

[bertman]

120. No.

[Zavulon]

121. No, you're not, and I feel the same way.

My better half tried for YEARS to get me into Harry Potter, until I finally lost my patience and told her to back the hell off. No interest means no interest. I told her that when she gets into hockey, I'll try one book. She finally backed the hell off.

[eridani]

122. I think the reason the books are popular is that there are so many loose ends

That means, if you are into that kind of thing, you can imagine lots of alternative story lines in the same story universe. Pullman's His Dark Materials series was far better written, but never developed a following because every loose thread is tightly woven in to a whole that you really can't add anything to. There is nothing left for readers to imagine.

[Boomerang Diddle]

123. I've never read the books but the movies are pretty cool.

eom

[Norrin Radd]

125. I've seen the movies, but have avoided the books, as I'm a

speculative fiction snob.

[Orsino]

126. I think you mean to say...

...that what you've heard about Potter has not made you want to read the books or to see the movies.

You're not alone, and I wouldn't dream of taking you to task for that, but I think you're not entitled to an opinion on how "entertaining or amusing" Potter is. What you are really critiquing, I think, is just a part of the related public discourse, and perhaps the concept of English kids at a school for wizardry.

If you are feeling peculiar about this, though, don't. Billions of people get along fine without Potterdom.

[SoCalDem]

127. waves hand in air..

[madokie]

128. I haven't

don't plan to either as I don't care about this kind of entertainment, if that is what it's called

[alcibiades_mystery]

129. I watched one of the movies once

Meh.

I guess I'll have to read the books to the kids when they get a bit older. Or maybe they can just read them themselves, and I can avoid the whole thing. Fingers crossed!

[hack89]

130. We have had some great family moments

listening to Harry Potter audio books on long car trips. Everyone in my family, adults and kids, have read every book at least once.

[femmocrat]

131. I never read any of the books. Saw the first movie.

It was OK, but then I could never keep track of which episode came next in the saga.

[enigmatic]

134. I prefer Alfred Hitchcock and The Three Investigators

[mix]

135. no n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

136. I think I saw the first movie and that was about it.

From what I've heard, the books are a decent read. I just haven't the time or the volition to get around to reading them.