Page 26 of 28

Re: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling

Posted: 08 Oct 2017, 18:39
by Anita Bensoussane
Thanks Rob, Daisy and Sunskriti.

Rob, I wouldn't recommend seeing the play unless you're familiar with all seven books (or have watched all eight films) as events, characters and references in the play depend heavily upon what has gone before.

Re: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling

Posted: 09 Oct 2017, 15:19
by sixret
It does sound wonderful. Reading your description, I can imagine the scenes. :D

Re: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling

Posted: 13 Dec 2017, 20:48
by Courtenay
And now for something completely different... I just stumbled across this new Harry Potter story written by a predictive text bot and couldn't stop laughing. It's surreal and strangely hilarious.

If you're interested, have a read of this Guardian article on how it was created — then give the story a go:
Harry Potter and the Portrait of what Looked Like a Large Pile of Ash :shock: :twisted: :wink:

Re: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling

Posted: 21 Dec 2017, 20:57
by Machupicchu14
To think that I am 15 years old and not once has I ever read a Harry Potter book.
I'm sure it's a really good book but I fear it's not my type.
(That's what happens when you start reading classics at the age of 6) :lol:

Re: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling

Posted: 22 Dec 2017, 01:05
by Courtenay
I'd say you haven't really missed that much, María Esther, but I'm the sacrilegious type. :wink: (I have read them all and quite enjoyed them, but have never felt any desire to read them again.)

Re: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling

Posted: 22 Dec 2017, 01:25
by Yak
I think you have missed a great deal to be honest ... I also think that the definition of 'classic' is subjective. How do you know if the books are not classics if you've not bothered to read them?

Re: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling

Posted: 04 May 2018, 20:41
by Machupicchu14
Yak wrote:I think you have missed a great deal to be honest ... I also think that the definition of 'classic' is subjective. How do you know if the books are not classics if you've not bothered to read them?
I know, I know everyone of my friends has told me this. :lol: And maybe one day I'll read them but for now let me be with my "oldies" which are the best and the ones that teach me the most. :wink:

Re: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling

Posted: 04 May 2018, 20:42
by Machupicchu14
Courtenay wrote:I'd say you haven't really missed that much, María Esther, but I'm the sacrilegious type. :wink: (I have read them all and quite enjoyed them, but have never felt any desire to read them again.)
I take your word Courtenay, because we have very similar taste for books! :wink:

Re: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling

Posted: 04 May 2018, 23:41
by Courtenay
Well, I would still say don't knock it till you've tried it, but if you never feel inclined to read Harry Potter, that's fine too — it doesn't necessarily mean you're a lesser human being. :wink: There are plenty of popular books (and TV shows) I've just never felt inclined to try either.

Re: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling

Posted: 05 May 2018, 16:27
by KEVP
The definition of classic is that it has "stood the test of time". In other words, something that is good despite the fact that it is old.

I am not sure whether the books of J.K. Rowling are yet old enough to be "classics".

Re: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling

Posted: 05 May 2018, 18:40
by Machupicchu14
Thank you so much for that definition of "classic" I totally agree with you... :D

Re: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling

Posted: 06 May 2018, 00:16
by Courtenay
Yes, it will be interesting to see how the Harry Potter books do fare over time. I'm sure they won't be forgotten, but in 50 years' time will they still be in print and selling well, like Tolkien or C.S. Lewis or, well, Enid Blyton? I wouldn't be surprised if they are, but we won't know until then...

Re: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling

Posted: 06 May 2018, 16:06
by 7upromana01
I would say that, since the growth of the series, that Harry Potter has always been a classic, despite it still being quite new. The reason I say this is that it has had such an effect on people's lives everywhere that I wholeheartedly believe it will stand the test for time. For me, it was the first book I read that I adored and spawned my love of reading that probably wouldn't exist without the series. I'm currently rereading the series for the fourth time, and I just seem to enjoy it more and more. And my story is fairly basic - it only takes a simple google search to hear other people's stories on how deeply it has affected them.

I also saw the play around 3 weeks ago, having read the script when it was released and waited 14 months (like Anita) to see it. If you have read it, I would still recommend you seeing it if you are a Potterhead because there is an indescribable magic onstage, both in terms of its incredible effects, actors and aura itself. The actors are stupendous, and I too saw Samuel Blenkin as Scorpius Malfoy, and he was absolutely perfect in the role. I think I possibly fell in love! The play really does extend the universe, and I have accepted it as canon - I now regard it as highly as the novels, and I am considering buying tickets for a couple of years' time!

Re: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling

Posted: 06 May 2018, 18:36
by KEVP
It's certainly possible to say "In my opinion, I think this will stand the test of time". Thus one can say "I think this is destined to become a classic". But before something has actually stood the test of time, you cannot say FOR SURE whether or not something will become a classic.

But then another question would be, "How much 'time' has to elapse before we can say that a work has 'stood the test of time' and thus become a classic?" I think I would say it has to be at least a generation. And I count a generation as lasting, on average, about 28 years. The first Harry Potter book was published in 1997, so by my calculations we won't know FOR SURE if it is a classic until 2025.

Re: Harry Potter - J. K. Rowling

Posted: 06 May 2018, 19:13
by Anita Bensoussane
7upromana01 wrote:I also saw the play around 3 weeks ago, having read the script when it was released and waited 14 months (like Anita) to see it. If you have read it, I would still recommend you seeing it if you are a Potterhead because there is an indescribable magic onstage, both in terms of its incredible effects, actors and aura itself. The actors are stupendous, and I too saw Samuel Blenkin as Scorpius Malfoy, and he was absolutely perfect in the role. I think I possibly fell in love! The play really does extend the universe, and I have accepted it as canon - I now regard it as highly as the novels, and I am considering buying tickets for a couple of years' time!
Brilliant to see you posting, Abi! Hope all is going well for you. I'm glad you've seen the Cursed Child play and found it a memorable experience. It really is an enchanting piece of theatre.