20 years of Harry Potter

[Claireliontamer]

It is 20 years today that the first Harry Potter book was released.

I have to say I love the books (and the movies) 

[xSilverPhinx]

20 years already?  Since Harry is 11 years old in the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone that would make book Harry my age today. Interesting.   

When I watched the first movie back in 2001 I thought I wouldn't enjoy it because I was too old for that type of kids' movie, but I was wrong.

Those publishers that rejected her work early on must have been wanting to die after the series became as successful as it did. 

[Recusant]

The Guardian yesterday had some good things about the effect of the Harry Potter books on the generation that grew up with them.

"'I got Gryffindor pyjamas for my 27th birthday': fans on 20 years of Harry Potter"

In the 20 years since the first book arrived on shelves, publishers and parents have been asking what alchemy has made JK Rowling's series so loved. But even if we could quantify the appeal, it would ruin the magic. It is better instead to look at the impact they have had on their readers. Yes, the books were about a boy wizard taking on a dark and powerful villain, but they were also about love trumping hate, about justice and perseverance; in the words of Albus Dumbledore, choosing "between what is easy and what is right". Rowling's entire cast of magical misfits – from bookish Hermione to oddball Luna Lovegood, to late bloomer Neville Longbottom – were all people we wanted to be.

I grew up with Harry (in the final book, he is 17 and so was I), and together we became opinionated children, stroppy teens and world-weary young adults. When the seventh and final book came out in 2007, I read for 12 hours without a break and cried as I finished. I felt something akin to grief; the end of Harry's story signalled the end of my childhood. I was suddenly adrift. Meanwhile, my now Potter-mad father hovered impatiently nearby, waiting for the appropriate moment to snatch the book off his sobbing daughter.

[Continues . . .]

"Twenty years of Harry Potter – the 20 things we have learned"

4 Children's books can be political. Rowling's brilliant decision was to have her characters grow up at the same rate as her readers. Each book was set in one school year, and grew longer, darker and more adult in theme. By the time we reached book four, Goblet of Fire, we were seeing do-gooding Hermione's Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare formed in response to the bond slavery of these sock-loving poppets. In the person of the hack journalist Rita Skeeter, Rowling sent up the tabloid press. The ministry of magic sent up Whitehall bureaucracy. And, as any fool could plainly see, the story's master narrative – with purebloods fighting a war of annihilation against "mudbloods" – is about the struggle against your basic blood-and-soil fascism.

[Continues . . .]

[Dave]

20 years already?  Since Harry is 11 years old in the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone that would make book Harry my age today. Interesting.   

When I watched the first movie back in 2001 I thought I wouldn't enjoy it because I was too old for that type of kids' movie, but I was wrong.

Those publishers that rejected her work early on must have been wanting to die after the series became as successful as it did.

I'm jyst a little older than you, Silver,  and I have enjoyed every Potter production books and films (haven't seen the play but it got rave reviews). Chronological age has nothing to do with it and if you ain't young in heart and spirit might as well crawl into the grave.. I had to drag my sister's kids to see E.T. as my camouflage - don't bother with camo now - big and brave rnough to go on my own!



PS: well, not that big sctually . . .

[xSilverPhinx]

20 years already?  Since Harry is 11 years old in the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone that would make book Harry my age today. Interesting.   

When I watched the first movie back in 2001 I thought I wouldn't enjoy it because I was too old for that type of kids' movie, but I was wrong.

Those publishers that rejected her work early on must have been wanting to die after the series became as successful as it did.

I'm jyst a little older than you, Silver,  and I have enjoyed every Potter production books and films (haven't seen the play but it got rave reviews). Chronological age has nothing to do with it and if you ain't young in heart and spirit might as well crawl into the grave.. I had to drag my sister's kids to see E.T. as my camouflage - don't bother with camo now - big and brave rnough to go on my own!



PS: well, not that big sctually . . .

Well, you know...I as a 15-16 year old with a bit of an attitude thought I was closer to the grown-up side of the spectrum, especially since I'm the eldest of my siblings.  I didn't see myself reading the likes of Harry Potter.

I thought I was too old to get involved in the wizarding world craze at the time, until I was given The Prisoner of Azkaban by my aunt for Christmas and I tried my best to hide any hint of disgust as I unwrapped it. After a few days I decided to open the book, just out of curiosity, and read a couple of pages, testing the waters. Long story short I saved up my allowance money to buy the previous two books as well. The only thing I regretted was buying the translated versions. They were well translated, I think, but it's never the same thing.

Your story?     

[Dave]

20 years already?  Since Harry is 11 years old in the Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone that would make book Harry my age today. Interesting.   

When I watched the first movie back in 2001 I thought I wouldn't enjoy it because I was too old for that type of kids' movie, but I was wrong.

Those publishers that rejected her work early on must have been wanting to die after the series became as successful as it did.

I'm jyst a little older than you, Silver,  and I have enjoyed every Potter production books and films (haven't seen the play but it got rave reviews). Chronological age has nothing to do with it and if you ain't young in heart and spirit might as well crawl into the grave.. I had to drag my sister's kids to see E.T. as my camouflage - don't bother with camo now - big and brave rnough to go on my own!



PS: well, not that big sctually . . .

Well, you know...I as a 15-16 year old with a bit of an attitude thought I was closer to the grown-up side of the spectrum, especially since I'm the eldest of my siblings.  I didn't see myself reading the likes of Harry Potter.

I thought I was too old to get involved in the wizarding world craze at the time, until I was given The Prisoner of Azkaban by my aunt for Christmas and I tried my best to hide any hint of disgust as I unwrapped it. After a few days I decided to open the book, just out of curiosity, and read a couple of pages, testing the waters. Long story short I saved up my allowance money to buy the previous two books as well. The only thing I regretted was buying the translated versions. They were well translated, I think, but it's never the same thing.

Your story?   

My story? Just a 52 year old going on 12 (and still trying to grow up at 72) when I borrowed a copy of the first book. Pratchett was another of my faves and I had been reading sci-fi and fantasy for a  long time before either of those. Now hooked on smne of the magic stuff available as ebooks, but that hook is straighrening out because some get too same-same after a while, or are like a good short story stretched by stuffing it with irrelevancies snd repeated bits.

Rowling and Pratchett are masters of language and finding exactly the right tone. A friend scoffed at such stuff until I challenged her to read Pratchett's, 'Wyrd Sisters' ('cos it was the only one I had at the time.) She really enjoyed it, but went back to her crime stories.