Jump to content

Rank the Harry Potter books


Segue Myles
 Share

Recommended Posts

7. Azkaban- I don't know why it has its amazing moments but it doesn't really work for me with rereads.

 

6. Chamber- I love this book! So many important elements of later books take root here, horcruxes, Ron/Hermione (see how he defends her when she is petrified, whilst Harry sits back), Hagrid's past, Tom Riddle...excellent. Should be higher. Masterpiece.

 

5. Stone- Masterpiece, gorgeous book, as great as The Hobbit with even more depth and delightful characters. With one book the world fell in love!

 

4. Goblet- Pretty flawless, one of my favourites to read over and over.

 

3. Hallows- Again, deserves to be higher. The best book plotwise, this really isn't light reading. Needs firm focus and a lot of emotional investment.

 

2. Prince- one of the most comedic, and Dark, books in the series. The teen drama is at its peek, and it is delightful!

 

1. Phoenix- Umbridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Havent read any of the books. Only seen the movies.

 

Your countries editions have some gorgeous artwork!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author has accomplished the impossible. Each book builds to a crescendo that is really unmatched IMO. She has creative her own self-contained universe a la Tolkien. Endless river of wonder. Ranking them is pointless because of the way the series perfectly adds momentum and urgency with each book. I was reading them in real time. Each release was a moment of huge anticipation in which I was NEVER let down. Each book leapfrogged the one before.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author has accomplished the impossible. Each book builds to a crescendo that is really unmatched IMO. She has creative her own self-contained universe a la Tolkien. Endless river of wonder. Ranking them is pointless because of the way the series perfectly adds momentum and urgency with each book. I was reading them in real time. Each release was a moment of huge anticipation in which I was NEVER let down. Each book leapfrogged the one before.

 

Tolkien seems cooler to like, and in many ways he is easier to praise. But Rowling created a more intriguing world, and used many cliches in such a way she made them her own.

 

More humour, easier to relate to characters,and unlike Tolkien, I never find myself wishing the plot would get a move on.

 

I was wrong to try and rank these books. I already dod a complete 180 on Azkaban!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author has accomplished the impossible. Each book builds to a crescendo that is really unmatched IMO. She has creative her own self-contained universe a la Tolkien. Endless river of wonder. Ranking them is pointless because of the way the series perfectly adds momentum and urgency with each book. I was reading them in real time. Each release was a moment of huge anticipation in which I was NEVER let down. Each book leapfrogged the one before.

 

Tolkien seems cooler to like, and in many ways he is easier to

He is the tree, Rowling is his acorn. Tolkien is the grandfather of fantasy literature. All others just follow the playbook.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tolkien would not necessarily have agreed, and he wouldn't have been impressed by authors who mainly used his work as their source.

 

Back to JK Rowling: it's hard to rank the books because they are subtly graded. This isn't evident in the films, and I didn't notice this in the books till I started reading them in another language. The language gets steadily more complex over the first three books, the sentences get longer, and the relationships mature. However I don't think she managed to sustain this development right to the end and parts of the final book are really not that good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think J.K. Rowling owes more to T.H . White, Elizabeth Goudge and CS. Lewis than Tolkien. I know she loved Rings, but overall her fantasy style is not really all that comparable, it is more "conventional" in many ways. Not that I mean that as a bad thing. Tolkien is a master, but no way do I think she and him are comparable beyond the genre.

 

The influence is there, but Tolkien might have been offended by the comparison (after all, he Ripped Narnia to shreds, and he was great friends with C.S. Lewis!).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think J.K. Rowling owes more to T.H . White, Elizabeth Goudge and CS. Lewis than Tolkien. I know she loved Rings, but overall her fantasy style is not really all that comparable, it is more "conventional" in many ways. Not that I mean that as a bad thing. Tolkien is a master, but no way do I think she and him are comparable beyond the genre.

 

The influence is there, but Tolkien might have been offended by the comparison (after all, he Ripped Narnia to shreds, and he was great friends with C.S. Lewis!).

 

I remember when I first started reading the Harry Potter books I kept thinking how much of a rip off they were of The Hobbit and LOTR's. All the spells were really obvious..etc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading these books to my son, and I find them dreadful to read aloud. I remember reading the first book by myself after hearing about all the hype, and I thought the writing was terrible, partly because of the adverbs, which are almost always amateur moves.

 

"Harry, what are you doing?" asked Ron, quizzically.

"I don't know," replied Harry, doubtfully.

"I don't think you should do that," said Hermione, nervously. Etc.

 

The prose I found very wooden, and some of the story points were hard to take as well - the strange social stratification of the school (the Hufflepuffs seem so obviously to be destined to be laborers, Slytherins the corrupt politicians, etc.), the way Harry gets rewarded for breaking rules (being given a spot on the team and a new expensive broom even though he's disobeyed a teacher's order; Dumbledore even fixes the house competition at the end), the whole Scooby-Doo misdirection cliche (the nervous, stammering professor hiding an awful secret - and he would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for them meddling kids), almost-impossible to believe situations (such as one scene in which Hermione, without being noticed, bursts through a stand of spectators, knocks down a professor, and sets fire to another professor's robes) . . . and then there's Quidditch, a weird intramural sport in which the action of one talented/lucky player, achieving a goal which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the game itself, can result in victory, no matter how well the opposing team has played.

 

I think there are some good things about the novel - I like how it takes us away from technology, for one thing. Also, I'm a sucker for Indiana Jones-style puzzles. The theme of friendship is important (although the way that Ron and Harry finally become friends with Hermione is a bit odd: they insult her, she runs away weeping, and they save her from a troll: instant friendship from that point on).

 

It's an update of Cinderella, with all the right ingredients - and I'm guessing that those familiar elements (proven ingredients) are part of the reason that millions of people love the stories. I just wish that Rowling had more craft as a writer. I hoped that she would improve in her writing; in some ways she did, but the following novels seem mostly to be scenes of overwhelming action cut against excruciatingly long conversations.

 

I can't believe we've finally got to the last novel. I find my son isn't asking for a chapter every night like he used to. I'd love to see an abridged version - the good bits version. We could just watch the movie, but, you know, bonding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading these books to my son, and I find them dreadful to read aloud. I remember reading the first book by myself after hearing about all the hype, and I thought the writing was terrible, partly because of the adverbs, which are almost always amateur moves.

 

"Harry, what are you doing?" asked Ron, quizzically.

"I don't know," replied Harry, doubtfully.

"I don't think you should do that," said Hermione, nervously. Etc.

 

The prose I found very wooden, and some of the story points were hard to take as well - the strange social stratification of the school (the Hufflepuffs seem so obviously to be destined to be laborers, Slytherins the corrupt politicians, etc.), the way Harry gets rewarded for breaking rules (being given a spot on the team and a new expensive broom even though he's disobeyed a teacher's order; Dumbledore even fixes the house competition at the end), the whole Scooby-Doo misdirection cliche (the nervous, stammering professor hiding an awful secret - and he would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for them meddling kids), almost-impossible to believe situations (such as one scene in which Hermione, without being noticed, bursts through a stand of spectators, knocks down a professor, and sets fire to another professor's robes) . . . and then there's Quidditch, a weird intramural sport in which the action of one talented/lucky player, achieving a goal which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the game itself, can result in victory, no matter how well the opposing team has played.

 

I think there are some good things about the novel - I like how it takes us away from technology, for one thing. Also, I'm a sucker for Indiana Jones-style puzzles. The theme of friendship is important (although the way that Ron and Harry finally become friends with Hermione is a bit odd: they insult her, she runs away weeping, and they save her from a troll: instant friendship from that point on).

 

It's an update of Cinderella, with all the right ingredients - and I'm guessing that those familiar elements (proven ingredients) are part of the reason that millions of people love the stories. I just wish that Rowling had more craft as a writer. I hoped that she would improve in her writing; in some ways she did, but the following novels seem mostly to be scenes of overwhelming action cut against excruciatingly long conversations.

 

I can't believe we've finally got to the last novel. I find my son isn't asking for a chapter every night like he used to. I'd love to see an abridged version - the good bits version. We could just watch the movie, but, you know, bonding.

 

 

She definitely ripped off a lot of elements from other stories, and it was obvious that she was learning to write with the first couple of books, but she did get better, and the stories got better and more mature. If you're still reading them out loud, I can understand why he wouldn't want to hear them as much. They're not as juvenile as the first few books. IMO, the story is rather dark for young kids.

Edited by EagleMoon
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading these books to my son, and I find them dreadful to read aloud. I remember reading the first book by myself after hearing about all the hype, and I thought the writing was terrible, partly because of the adverbs, which are almost always amateur moves.

 

"Harry, what are you doing?" asked Ron, quizzically.

"I don't know," replied Harry, doubtfully.

"I don't think you should do that," said Hermione, nervously. Etc.

 

The prose I found very wooden, and some of the story points were hard to take as well - the strange social stratification of the school (the Hufflepuffs seem so obviously to be destined to be laborers, Slytherins the corrupt politicians, etc.), the way Harry gets rewarded for breaking rules (being given a spot on the team and a new expensive broom even though he's disobeyed a teacher's order; Dumbledore even fixes the house competition at the end), the whole Scooby-Doo misdirection cliche (the nervous, stammering professor hiding an awful secret - and he would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for them meddling kids), almost-impossible to believe situations (such as one scene in which Hermione, without being noticed, bursts through a stand of spectators, knocks down a professor, and sets fire to another professor's robes) . . . and then there's Quidditch, a weird intramural sport in which the action of one talented/lucky player, achieving a goal which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the game itself, can result in victory, no matter how well the opposing team has played.

 

I think there are some good things about the novel - I like how it takes us away from technology, for one thing. Also, I'm a sucker for Indiana Jones-style puzzles. The theme of friendship is important (although the way that Ron and Harry finally become friends with Hermione is a bit odd: they insult her, she runs away weeping, and they save her from a troll: instant friendship from that point on).

 

It's an update of Cinderella, with all the right ingredients - and I'm guessing that those familiar elements (proven ingredients) are part of the reason that millions of people love the stories. I just wish that Rowling had more craft as a writer. I hoped that she would improve in her writing; in some ways she did, but the following novels seem mostly to be scenes of overwhelming action cut against excruciatingly long conversations.

 

I can't believe we've finally got to the last novel. I find my son isn't asking for a chapter every night like he used to. I'd love to see an abridged version - the good bits version. We could just watch the movie, but, you know, bonding.

 

 

She definitely ripped off a lot of elements from other stories, and it was obvious that she was learning to write with the first couple of books, but she did get better, and the stories got better and more mature. If you're still reading them out loud, I can understand why he wouldn't want to hear them as much. They're not as juvenile as the first few books. IMO, the story is rather dark for young kids.

 

Yeeeeaahhh . . . maybe. It's not the scary bits that are the problem. We're just looking at each other and going . . . is something going to happen soon? Deathly Hallows started out promising, with folks being chased by bad guys. But then they reached the Weasley's place and . . . there's pages and pages of characters being pissy with each other, and then H, H, & R are given a bunch of chores to do, and there's a wedding to plan, and books to be sorted, and we're both wondering how many pages it's going to be before something happens.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been reading these books to my son, and I find them dreadful to read aloud. I remember reading the first book by myself after hearing about all the hype, and I thought the writing was terrible, partly because of the adverbs, which are almost always amateur moves.

 

"Harry, what are you doing?" asked Ron, quizzically.

"I don't know," replied Harry, doubtfully.

"I don't think you should do that," said Hermione, nervously. Etc.

 

The prose I found very wooden, and some of the story points were hard to take as well - the strange social stratification of the school (the Hufflepuffs seem so obviously to be destined to be laborers, Slytherins the corrupt politicians, etc.), the way Harry gets rewarded for breaking rules (being given a spot on the team and a new expensive broom even though he's disobeyed a teacher's order; Dumbledore even fixes the house competition at the end), the whole Scooby-Doo misdirection cliche (the nervous, stammering professor hiding an awful secret - and he would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for them meddling kids), almost-impossible to believe situations (such as one scene in which Hermione, without being noticed, bursts through a stand of spectators, knocks down a professor, and sets fire to another professor's robes) . . . and then there's Quidditch, a weird intramural sport in which the action of one talented/lucky player, achieving a goal which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the game itself, can result in victory, no matter how well the opposing team has played.

 

I think there are some good things about the novel - I like how it takes us away from technology, for one thing. Also, I'm a sucker for Indiana Jones-style puzzles. The theme of friendship is important (although the way that Ron and Harry finally become friends with Hermione is a bit odd: they insult her, she runs away weeping, and they save her from a troll: instant friendship from that point on).

 

It's an update of Cinderella, with all the right ingredients - and I'm guessing that those familiar elements (proven ingredients) are part of the reason that millions of people love the stories. I just wish that Rowling had more craft as a writer. I hoped that she would improve in her writing; in some ways she did, but the following novels seem mostly to be scenes of overwhelming action cut against excruciatingly long conversations.

 

I can't believe we've finally got to the last novel. I find my son isn't asking for a chapter every night like he used to. I'd love to see an abridged version - the good bits version. We could just watch the movie, but, you know, bonding.

 

 

She definitely ripped off a lot of elements from other stories, and it was obvious that she was learning to write with the first couple of books, but she did get better, and the stories got better and more mature. If you're still reading them out loud, I can understand why he wouldn't want to hear them as much. They're not as juvenile as the first few books. IMO, the story is rather dark for young kids.

 

Yeeeeaahhh . . . maybe. It's not the scary bits that are the problem. We're just looking at each other and going . . . is something going to happen soon? Deathly Hallows started out promising, with folks being chased by bad guys. But then they reached the Weasley's place and . . . there's pages and pages of characters being pissy with each other, and then H, H, & R are given a bunch of chores to do, and there's a wedding to plan, and books to be sorted, and we're both wondering how many pages it's going to be before something happens.

 

Those aren't things happening? Nah, I get what you mean. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She definitely ripped off a lot of elements from other stories, and it was obvious that she was learning to write with the first couple of books, but she did get better, and the stories got better and more mature. If you're still reading them out loud, I can understand why he wouldn't want to hear them as much. They're not as juvenile as the first few books. IMO, the story is rather dark for young kids.

 

Yeeeeaahhh . . . maybe. It's not the scary bits that are the problem. We're just looking at each other and going . . . is something going to happen soon? Deathly Hallows started out promising, with folks being chased by bad guys. But then they reached the Weasley's place and . . . there's pages and pages of characters being pissy with each other, and then H, H, & R are given a bunch of chores to do, and there's a wedding to plan, and books to be sorted, and we're both wondering how many pages it's going to be before something happens.

 

Those aren't things happening? Nah, I get what you mean. :)

 

Okay, I will say she's got us intrigued with this "the opening is the close" thing . . . just read that bit tonight.

Edited by toymaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest listening to the audio book versions by Jim Dale, he does a fabulous job with voice characterizations, love the accents. In fact, Dale is the reason I listen to audios now, when they are done right they are totally entertaining.

 

I read all the Potter books at least 3 times before I started listening to the audios so I loved them for the story lines first and foremost. Second love British humour, she just made them so funny I couldn't help wishing they were real people so I could hang out with them. I didn't into the series until right before Goblet. Phoenix was the book I and my hubby stood in line for right at midnight when it went on sale. From then on we bought two copies so we each could go home and tear into them.

 

As far as ranking, I am hesitant to do so because there is so much I like about all of them but if I had to pick, it would be Azkaban. Just love the twists in the story and when Harry sees the stag patronus...always makes me cry.

Edited by Rhyta
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think J.K. Rowling owes more to T.H . White, Elizabeth Goudge and CS. Lewis than Tolkien. I know she loved Rings, but overall her fantasy style is not really all that comparable, it is more "conventional" in many ways. Not that I mean that as a bad thing. Tolkien is a master, but no way do I think she and him are comparable beyond the genre.

 

The influence is there, but Tolkien might have been offended by the comparison (after all, he Ripped Narnia to shreds, and he was great friends with C.S. Lewis!).

 

I remember when I first started reading the Harry Potter books I kept thinking how much of a rip off they were of The Hobbit and LOTR's. All the spells were really obvious..etc.

 

This is interesting! I never picked up on it myself, I honestly don't because as much as I love HP, Rings is like so far ahead when I read it HP is the last thing from my mind.

 

I personally don't know if I feel the same way about the mostly Latin spells. Rowling is quite well read in Latin, so I would call that a coincidence.

 

I do remember thinking Aragog sound a lot like Aragorn, but the characters, one a spider one an elf, are so different I failed to see it as a ripoff, and then I discovered Aragog was a play on the word arachnid. Other than that, only little details here and there (the horcruxes necklace in the last book). But ripped off? That argument goes to most if not all books today, and Harry Potter still feels more like Tom Brown School Days crossed with T.H. White's The Once And Future King. Lord Of The Rings is on another level all together, I prefer HP, but Rings is so far ahead and so much more, well, different (no way are middle earth and the hidden world in HP similar), I just can't see it. But maybe if I asked Rowling this she would correct me and point out the inspiration (after all, she is very modest about her inspiration, she has no shame!).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's worth remembering Tolkien was heavily inspired by Norse mythology just as much as Rowling is by modern literature. I hate the term ripped off, Rowling's gift isn't originality, its her remarkable characters and gripping narrative, something I am not convinced Tolkien had (I honestly find Tolstoy more easy to read than Tolkien).

 

Rowling herself admits to where her inspiration lay for everything, she didn't rip off to make money, in fact she started this series and it was first published when she was very poor, and even then the content was not only uncool, but the publishers initially had little faith it would sell anyway! She wrote the story she wanted to tell, and if you look at the books she enjoyed reading, it is clear she is more inclined to pick up the classics than anything modern, so her books are tinged with an old world view and classic stylings, and her writing is more in line with Conan Doyle or TH White, Susan Cooper or CS Lewis than Tolkien. I think calling her a rip off is uncalled for, as she has never shied away from revealing her inspiration, or from taking her stories into at once familiar (bet ever unpredictable) territory.

 

I enjoy her writing style as well. These books are event driven, they don't need to be heavy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest listening to the audio book versions by Jim Dale, he does a fabulous job with voice characterizations, love the accents. In fact, Dale is the reason I listen to audios now, when they are done right they are totally entertaining.

 

I read all the Potter books at least 3 times before I started listening to the audios so I loved them for the story lines first and foremost. Second love British humour, she just made them so funny I couldn't help wishing they were real people so I could hang out with them. I didn't into the series until right before Goblet. Phoenix was the book I and my hubby stood in line for right at midnight when it went on sale. From then on we bought two copies so we each could go home and tear into them.

 

As far as ranking, I am hesitant to do so because there is so much I like about all of them but if I had to pick, it would be Azkaban. Just love the twists in the story and when Harry sees the stag patronus...always makes me cry.

 

I love when Jim Dale reads things! My kids are older now but when younger we always did books on tape in the car and he was our absolute favorite; there were a couple we played so many times we wore them out! (including during lots of drives in our year in Utah!) My husband heard a feature on NPR one time on how Jim Dale's recordings were the number one sellers of all time in recorded books or something like that. I can easily believe it! :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...