QUOTE: Originally posted by samb191

I've read all four and have to say the Harry Potter series is my favourite so far, purely for Rowling's talent in story telling and her extensive imagination (although the fifth book was somewhat disappointing). I wish I could jump into her brain for a day or two!

I didn't enjoy Eragon as I felt it was far too predictable, and the writing annoyed me greatly. I'm unlikely to read the next two books in this trilogy.

As for Artemis Fowl, I found it immensely difficult to get into mainly because I didn’t like any of the characters, so after the first two books, I gave up. It is a highly original idea though.

Lord of the Rings...I managed to read the first one but I found the endless pages of description to be quite detrimental to my attention span! I much prefer watching the films.

QUOTE: Originally posted by LinnAnn

I love the PERN books,(cried horribly when Robinton died) except the last one co written by her son. I think he wrote all of it as it's not very good at all.

I really loved the first two and the Dragonsinger books, but she lost me with White Dragon. But that doesn't stop me from rereading the earlier ones every time I visit my parents.[:)]

My mum first read the Hobbit to me when I was 7 and it's been one of my favourite books ever since. I even like it more than the Lord of the Rings, and that's saying something!

I've had mixed feelings about the Harry Potter series. I think it's wonderful that it's encouraged so many people to read, and I think the books are enjoyable, but I don't necessarily believe it deserves all the hype that has surrounded it. At least, I don't think it deserves the hype more than many other children's books that don't get mentioned so often.

swimmer337 wrote:

There all so good, I don't know which one to post about. Where one fails, the others easily fill in.

same here with me my screen name is durza but i have to say that eragon is better than lord of the rings.

HP #6 was horrible, yeah;)) Or so has been said all around, so I didn't buy it, and waited to get it at the library.

I enjoyed all HPs so far (some more, some less, but it's an engaging story, nevertheless;)) - I'm sure many authors get neglected and I wish I knew more, but my library just doesn't have many fantasy books except the 'real (global) hits'.

The last book seemed, well, unedited. It could easily be cut for at least a 1/3 and I had a sneaky suspicion at this point of her career, nobody dared tell Ms Rowling to cut unnecessary sentences and keep it sharp and up to the point.

Yes, I was disappointed with Snape's obvious betrayal, too. But even more disappointed with the fact I was actually able to put the book down and didn't have the 'fever' to get back to it, like, immediately.

The teenage 'love' relationships seemed strained, it seemed.. awkward.. Surely, adolescents are awkward, but it was just... too much!! Why would Harry be put to all these pains regarding Ron's approval?? Earlier in the series Ron expressed anger at Ginny for not liking H. anymore!! And why would he let go of Ginny while keepin' Ron and Hermione around. Surely she's proved her strength in combat against evil (and qwiddich;)) since her earlier days. And the last sentence - he thinks just about Ron and Hermione, not thinking one bit of Ginny after all the long pages of whining how he's been in love with her?? It's just inconsistent, sorry. Maybe to oblige the fans sighing after H-Hermy relationship. I also wanted to hear more of the Grawp.

Still, it's a good book, heavily edited might be great!!

Otherwise, it's always been a reverent frenzy to read these books before my sister stole them from me, and everybody in the house would respectfully let the one reading to immerse into the magic world - there was a silent pact to not nag with other 'irrelevant' worldly things;)) Ha ha;))

Ovrall, I think Tolkien is as good as it gets.  The LOTR books are simply wonderful beyond words.  C.S. Lewis is a very close second.

But I also think the Harry Potter books are incredible.  All of them. 

I'm lukewarm on Artimus Fowl, and I honestly think Eragon is one of the most derivative and badly written published novels I've yet read.  I think you need an insatiable appetite for fantasy fiction to get through this one.  Just bad in every conceivable way, except one.  It has a good story, and this is enough for many readers..

Forget Artemis and that silly Eragon thing.  Potter and Rings are the only real competition here--although I'm not sure it's fair to compare Harry Potter with Lord of the Rings.  I''ll give it a go. 

While Tokien says the thing is for kids--its not.  The Hobbit was, to be sure--but these were kids a century, whose sensibilities were more than a little different.  Fact is, books just are not written llike Tolkien wrote anymore.  The style is alien, the sensibilities antiquated, and the substance difficult to penetrate.  Nevertheless, Rings is the greatest masterpiece the genre has seen.  Read it aloud and you see what poetry the whole thing is, its rhythm alone an amazing achievement by itself.  The novel is paced excellently, and structured oddly--but the story is enormously complex and so constructed on fictional history and multi-dimensional realities that it moves so far beyond anything yet written in terms of fantasy literature, inasfar as setting is concerned.  He works with profound themes, and his premise is as grand as the art of the thing itself.  Its a story about death.  On the other hand, of course, is the fact that his characters are weak, less than tridimensional things who have trouble evolving, changing, and being dramatic creatures.  Saruman, Galadriel, Arwen, Gimli, all of them--with the exception of Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Gandalf--are dreadfully underdeveloped, one-dimensional things that serve the plot and the sensory appreciation of Middle Earth before anything else.  This, in the long run, makes Rings a far lesser thing than it might have been.

Harry Potter on the other hand is structured ingeniously--more modernly, naturally, and with immense care and complexity--and most important of all, it is driven by characters and characters alone, which makes the story itself stronger, and its substance deeper.  Rowling's characters are not flat or cardboard things--these kids, and the adults around them, are full of contradictions, reservations, foibles, insecurities, points of view and odd particularities.  Even the wicked Voldemort is emerging as a multidimensional creature; we are understanding why he is the way he is, especially in lieu of Blood Prince.  (Which, while not the best novel, was my favorite, beating out Azkaban for that position; in this last novel, Rowling brings a great deal to an emotional and dramatic head, and all of it is purely character-driven, the direct result of action and reaction and we understand the motivations for some--certainly not all--of the actions.  This is the backbone of truly great drama.  I'm also not convinced we can consider Harry Potter a "series" anymore--it is coalescing to become one massive set of character arches.)  Can you really predict what Rowling's characters are going to do?  No.  Can you predict what the Fellowship would do?  Well, of course--although, one can argue that that doesn't mean much.   

Tokien shows us a world--takes us from place to place, says, Look and see what I have built, and shows another reality to contemplate and an elaborately masked statement about human nature.  Sometimes, I wonder if Rings is more a poem than a novel.  We know where Tolkien came from, after all.

Potter is a novel.  A big novel.  Rowling gives us characters, and these characters evolve through relationships and as they act and react.  The enormity and complexity of the plot she has structured is far more meaningful, and far more important, than the world she creates, which is a pale shade of Tolkien's whole universes.  Potter is not about another world, another place to show the reader, or an amazing fantastic history.  Potter shows us meaning about many things--and gives many subtly veiled lessons to kids receptive to them--but I really dont know what Rowling means precisely to say to her audience quite yet.  Potter IS about characters; Rings is not.  And so, ultimately, Potter is a better novel. 

Just not quite as cool.

samb191 wrote:

I've read all four and have to say the Harry Potter series is my favourite so far, purely for Rowling's talent in story telling and her extensive imagination (although the fifth book was somewhat disappointing). I wish I could jump into her brain for a day or two! I didn't enjoy Eragon as I felt it was far too predictable, and the writing annoyed me greatly. I'm unlikely to read the next two books in this trilogy. As for Artemis Fowl, I found it immensely difficult to get into mainly because I didn’t like any of the characters, so after the first two books, I gave up. It is a highly original idea though. Lord of the Rings...I managed to read the first one but I found the endless pages of description to be quite detrimental to my attention span! I much prefer watching the films.

I would have to say they are all good. Harry Potter is one of my all time favorites. I LOVE artemis Fowl, I liked Eragon, but thought Eldest was really dissappointing. I've never read LOTR because I thought they were very hard to get into. But, all the others I give two thumbs up!!!