digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Stephen King: The last word on Harry Potter

ew.com — Now that the dust has settled on ''Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,'' Stephen King reflects on why no review did it justice, and whether kids (and their grown-ups) will ever read the same way again...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • nreynolds, on 10/22/2007, -13/+86The epilogue was desert? At best it was a fortune cookie. The last 200 pages of D.H., however, were some of the best hamburgers I've ever read....
    • fisj139, on 10/22/2007, -7/+7Eh?
    • smackywentz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21I thought the epilogue was lacking as well. I'm glad Stephen King got the last word on this, and I'm glad his last word was what it was. Way better than some pretentious ***** talking about how Harry Potter is this or that...
      • RobotBuddha, on 10/10/2007, -14/+3After the dark tower series, he's officially had his ability to comment on either endings or epilogues revoked. Or at least he should have.
        • lazyrussian, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Could you have thought of a better ending to the dark tower? DT is my favorite series. The ending followed the natural course of the book. It did catch me by surprise (well almost), but after thinking about it for a while, I cam to the conclusion that it was the only way to end it.

          Anyway, as JKR's DH, the last 200 pages were amazing. The ending was nothing spectacular - actually it kind of bored me and IMO it could have ended in a better way. I think she tried to appease a lot of people with her ending. The epilogue of the book was unnecessary and leaves no room for the imagination.
          • RobotBuddha, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1"Could you have thought of a better ending to the dark tower?"

            Better than a magic pencil, antagonist being written off in a couple lines along with a main character, and what might have been the most lampooned of all stock endings, the "Hah hah, it never actually happened now!"? Yes.
          • lazyrussian, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I'll try to right this without spoiling the Dark Tower ending - hey it took me 6 months to slug through in college - I would have hated it if my roommate spoiled it for me.

            The ending represents Roland's journey as a penultimate situation. Did you not see that in the last few lines of the book, Roland had an object with him that was not mentioned to be in his possession at any other point - actually it said that it was missing on numerous occasions. This object, well the lack of having this object in his possession, initially put Roland into this situation/quest for the Dark Tower.

            God this is so hard to write without spoiling the ending....
    • snarkleclackers, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16dessert*
      • nreynolds, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12dang. whatever, i thought what I wrote was pretty dumb anyways.
    • hervethekid, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8He was calling Deathly Hollows the epilogue of the series (being the last book). The entire book was the dessert. I agree though, the epilogue sucked ass.

      That being said, this was a wonderful article, Stephen King is amazing.
    • NeoCortex, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Fortune cookie? Only if it ends with:
      "Hermione."...in bed
    • Peavey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I thought the epilogue was perfect. While I would have loved an in-depth explanation of everything that happened, the end of the book isn't really the right forum for that. Another series or books or what she did, interviews and Q&As, are the right forum. The epilogue was meant to be more of a glimpse through the fog to tie up the necessary loose ends. Hence the fog obscuring the characters saw.
    • ckSubs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The book didn't need an epilogue. It needed another chapter after the final battle, the "getting back on the Hogwarts Express" chapter found in every other book. A cool down chapter. The Epilogue was simply 10 pages of name dropping, no resolution at all, and it read like a bad fan fiction.
  • onetimer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+48Those illustrations are ***** creepy
    • strategy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Yeah, the fandom people can get out of hand.
    • noobeffect, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12They make HP look like a sweaty child predator in the middle of a day care center.
  • SpeakerCity, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5Was I the only one that felt cheated at the end of The Dark Tower? Rolande Deschain was way more badass than Harry, but I think Rowling wrote the superior series.
    • navitatl, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3No way, dude. The Dark Tower series is FAR superior to the Harry Potter series. It's like Harry Potter for men.
    • joel8x, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I loved the way it ended - as cheesy as some may take it, it had to be that way from the minute he wrote the first line.
    • nottanner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I began reading the Dark Tower series this summer and halfway through the fourth book I stopped reading it. I felt like I was drudging through so much to get to the points where I was really interested.

      I just lost interest in other words. I probably will pick up the series again someday.
      • navitatl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4The fourth book does turn into a slightly drudging experience. But when you get to Wolves of the Calla, you'll be interested again.
  • yelofnivek, on 10/10/2007, -29/+9i'd like -10 diggs please.
  • caBoss, on 10/10/2007, -2/+55digg for mentioning RL Stine
  • Majorkerina, on 10/10/2007, -13/+34Fair but I still think Stephen King could've been a little tougher on her mistakes from Goblet on out. The big thing that always bugged me was that the magical world never thinks of muggle solutions, like seen worst with the camping-out section in the last book.

    Seriously...why didn't Voldemort just use a handgun on Harry all this time? Or the good guys visa versa with a sniper rifle on Voldemort? Yeah yeah sure...it's a fantasy story but when you blend reality with fantasy worlds you need to acknowledge both and not just when it's convenient or it winds up very convoluted like "he cast of the spell of Unasscapability!" only expressed in Latin or something.
    • robster113, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4suspension of disbelief! Story would not work if everything was 100% believable. This is a "kids" book and "kids" can more easily forget and imagine new worlds.
      • Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I thought one of the main points of the article was that it WASN'T a kid's book, not anymore.
      • XxERMxX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Books shouldn't be regaurded as "kids" or "adults" books. The Harry Potter series was very entertaining. Why don't you also complain that spiderman could never shoot web out of his wrist.
    • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19That's like asking why the average cave man didn't take a branch and string it into a bow to hunt. At the time most wizards would have never seen or heard much about guns.

      Besides, who is to say that a gun could kill HP or Voldemort in any case.
      • navitatl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Huh? Aren't the HP books set in modern times? Surely they've heard of guns.
        Or maybe I need to re-read those books.
        • VeganG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I think you do need to re-read those books. Half the time wizards encountered Muggle objects, they were amazed and perplexed by them.
          • Majorkerina, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5But we have Hermione who has Muggle parents and yet even then, she doesn't have this knowledge.
      • yifes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You'd think the Mudbloods would take up guns, seening how they know about guns and are the ones being repressed by Voldy.
    • Aticper, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14From a strictly realistic standpoint, I agree with you. However, from a similarly realistic standpoint, transfiguration doesn't make sense because the energy requirements to dissasemble atoms would be prohibative.

      At any rate, it makes sense from a literary perspective - there was a very definite wall between the muggle world and the wizarding world for most of the story, with a few bleed-throughs (the muggle cafe, for example). The wall was embodied literally in the back of the leaky cauldron.

      The two worlds were almost entirely kept separate, and the fantasy world was much more colorful and richly detailed than it's muggle counterpart. The places where the two mingled were used carefully, and to dramatic effect. A world in which modern and magical weapons and settings merged freely is for a different kind of story entirely -- no less a worthy story, but not the one that JKR was aiming for.
      • Majorkerina, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I know, it's magic, but plenty of fantasy stories allow for guns (particularly in RPGs like Final Fantasy), although they tend to make them severely-underpowered as a balance.

        Granted it's not the largest logical hole in the series but from book 4 or 5 on, it makes a lot less sense to me why "all measures" can't be used against Voldemort. I think JKR ultimately limited herself by the struggle she set up between Voldemort and Harry. Note I vastly favor the third book over all the others.
      • Peavey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"A world in which modern and magical weapons and settings merged freely is for a different kind of story entirely -- no less a worthy story, but not the one that JKR was aiming for."

        Ditto.
    • Kronos6948, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Because Voldemort is the Dr. Evil of all Wizardom. That would make you Scott Evil.
    • eean, on 10/10/2007, -0/+35Um, a lazily-cast protego could protect a wizard from something like a bullet. Physical magic has always been the easiest to accomplish in HP (one of the first things they learn in charms is how to make stuff fly). Also its pretty clear the whole time that wizards are all very ignorant of muggle things, and in the case of Voldemort, he would have far too much pride for it.

      And yea, I totally "entered the world" and suspend disbelief so these thoughts never have occurred to me.
      • Majorkerina, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7There is a limit between suspension of disbelief and "the author is just dragging this out and inventing hard-to-swallow reasons why not"

        It's like ---
        "I cast the Death Spell LV 5!"
        "I have Block cast. It bounces back and kills you!"
        "But I already cast Rebound so it bounces back and gets you."
        "Nuh uh. I had Negate Rebound in effect, so your rebound does work!"
        "Well, I have the Cloak of Un-Negatability equipped!"
        "I have a Cloak Disarming Charm. Your cloak wasn't equipped when the spell rebounded on you!"
        "I had two and you can only disarm one at a time!"
        "Nuh uh!"
        "Is so!"
        "So's your mom!"
        "Shut up!"

        And so forth...actually that's not far off from how Voldemort is defeated. A spell-casting technicality.
        • DaSuHouSe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dude Voldemort is defeated because his wand recognizes Harry as its true master. End of story. Read the book once more.
        • Vardogr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0And how that happens is exactly what the parent is talking about - it really seems like a technicality. I had to reread the paragraph where it happens several times because I was like "Huh?"
        • CaptainZipTie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0If Harry was the true master of the wand, then why wasn't the mastery of the wand taken by Voldemort when he "defeated" him the first time. If something as simple as disarming the wizard with the mastery is enough to change hands, then surely sending someone to a death state is more than enough.
    • caBoss, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Harry or Voldemort could just use a shield charm ("protego"). And they would know it was coming because of the connection between them.
    • clak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11You know what, Muggle solutions did enter into some of the books. Remember when Mr. Weasley's healer at St. Mungo's tried to dress up his snake bites with stitches and the stitches dissolved? I think Rowling was trying to make a point that Muggle medicine, technology, etc, would be of little use in the Wizarding world. Bullets could probably be blocked by magic.
    • joel8x, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11The author is from England. There are no guns there ;)
    • ChrisRonin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0But the kids ARE that smart!
      http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/140341
    • jupufo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7It would be very easy to use a handgun against Harry, but you are forgetting that Voldemort would consider himself above such "filthy" muggle artifacts. Since he viewed non-magic folk as pretty much sub-human, he would never dream to lower himself to that level. Magic would always be the only answer to him.
    • brotherfranciz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yeah, sure way to end a novel - just give Voldemort a gun! That is probably the most childish thing I have ever read...

      I don't think you understand the books, for example, take a look at Mr. Weasley's fascination with "muggle" artifacts - don't you notice the rest of his family seem to think he is wasting his time on such crap? My point being that the magical world think the muggle world is useless. But I guess you could argue that - like the flying car and Hagrid's flying motorcycle - you could easily modify a gun with some magic, like shooting out Avada Kedavra curses... but then that is really up to J.K. Rowling and her plotline.
    • SohailKhanifar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why didn't Dumbledore just cut off his arm? Stop the poison from spreading eh?
  • seanthebond, on 10/10/2007, -7/+75I read the whole thing waiting for a quote from Stephen King.. Then I realized he wrote the damn thing..
    • Thorpe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16"By Stephen King" right before the first paragraph starts. :|
  • spicoli77, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3King just sucks at his endings...
    • RobotBuddha, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6It was amusing seeing him complain about the absurdity of spoilers. I think it rather got to the heart of how he sees a story differently than most readers. To him, ending irrelevant cherry on top. To almost everyone else, the ending is the drink of water to clear the pallet at the meals finish.
      • navitatl, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6He has a Trafalmadorian view when it comes to storytelling.
    • yaveznodo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He sucks mightily at endings. Ever since the Stand you can expect a bad ending from him. His straight ahead thrillers seem more cohesive like Misery and Dolores Claiborne, but his Horror/Supernatural novels have terrible endings, barring a few exceptions.
  • tumoas, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3*SPOILERS*
  • Buckiller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23I saw an excerpt of this on mugglenet... but the entire article was awesome.

    This is how a book/series review should be.
  • clak, on 10/10/2007, -13/+2You know, I like the book, let me just preface my criticism by saying that, but I thought the Battle of Hogwarts was way too boring. I just couldn't accept the fact that Harry was sneaking around the castle looking for clues and staring into pensieves when people are outside dying for him. I thought that was a major crime. Even when he was part of the fighting, he was under the invisibility cloak like a coward. In fact, Harry spent 60 percent of the novel hiding under the invisibility cloak, when he should have been in front leading, like a real hero.

    And then there was that lame fight between Harry and Voldemort at the end, where Voldemort patiently allows Harry to recite every detail and plot point in the book, before engaging him in a two second duel. The spell back fires on Voldemort so that Harry doesn't actually have to kill him. I mean, come on! If anyone deserved a good killing it was Voldemort.
    • mayorjimmy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Sometimes, the audience has earned the right to SEE the hero thrust the sword into the villain's heart. Which they clearly were robbed of in this.
    • VeganG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Battle of Hogwarts, boring? I thought it was one of the most exciting battles ever described.
    • brotherfranciz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@ clak - You see, that was the beauty of this book (my favourite by far...), let me explain:

      In regards to the Invisibility Cloak - it was one of the 3 Deathly Hallows, which forms a powerful reference to the "hero" of the series.

      In regards to Harry not killing Voldemort - have you not noticed throughout the books that it is not about killing but more about love? I guess to put it in very very simple terms (J.K. Rowling please forgive me...) good vs. evil is equivalent to love vs. killing, the good side i.e the Order of the Phoenix members never use the Unforgivable Curses (or other Dark Magic) but the evil side i.e. Death Eaters do; Phoenix Order members value friendship/love but Death Eaters value killing and serving only the Dark Lord.
  • apersaud, on 10/10/2007, -0/+27The funniest (and my favorite) quote from the article: "but of course John the Baptist never got the same press as Jesus either."

    Additionally, I have found new respect for Stephen King after reading this article.
  • jun2san, on 10/10/2007, -5/+27Here's my question. And maybe I missed it while reading the book.
    How the hell did Dumbledore beat Grindelwald in a duel if Grindelwald had possession of the elder wand which supposedly has the power to beat anybody in a duel??
    • Jacob, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2grindelwald allowed dumbledore to win.
    • joel8x, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Obviously people can be beaten since it has passed down through generations by its owners getting killed.
      • AreTooDeTo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1i feel like a major nerd saying this but the owners were killed without the use of magic most likely, like the first person who possessed the wand, who was drunk and had his throat slit after he passed out.
      • mrkmrk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, R2 is right. They don't have to be killed in a duel--merely killed at all, or disarmed, etc.
    • clak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17No this idea was covered during that 10 minute long exposition scene before Harry's final duel with Voldemort. The only way a wizard can harness the power of someone else's wand is if they win it fair and square during a duel. Since Grindelwald stole the Elder wand and didn't actually fight anyone for it, the wand was not effective for hm. The same thing happened when Voldemort took the wand from Dumbledore's dead body or something. You know, the wand crap was the most boring part of the book, so I might be wrong.
      • NumberFour, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Yeah but Voldemort killed Snape, who had killed Dumbledore and was the true owner of the Elder Wand, so Voldemort was able to harness the entire power of the wand by the time he dueled Harry.
        • Peaco19, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Snape was never the true owner of the Elder Wand... Draco was...
          • LocoMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Yep.. that was all covered before that fight.

            Voldemort killed Snape thinking he was the true owner... but Snape killed Dumbledore only because he asked for it, the actual spell that defeated him was Draco's spell before Snape came in, so even if Draco never had the wand, he was the true owner until Harry defeated him and took his wand, and in turn getting ownership of the elder wand as well.

            Really hope someone that hasn't read the book isn't reading that article or these comments, though.. :)
        • thisoneisunique, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yeah, NumberFour, I think you should reread the stuff Harry explains to Voldemort in the end. Did you skip that part? :-/
        • CaptainZipTie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0But Voldemort "killed" Harry. Doesn't that make him the Master?
      • thisoneisunique, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ohhh, no! :( I thought the wandlore stuff was incredible... if I was a witch in my last year of Hogwarts, I think I'd go into wandlore afterwards ;)
    • RMoore08, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Dumbledore's a stud. He does what he wants
    • DataPath, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1It was merely a very powerful wand. Through the years, legends built up around it about it being unbeatable, but the reality was just that it was very powerful.
      • Buckiller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2howd harry repair his wand with it?

        It is the boomstick or whatever..
    • NumberFour, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Yeah like Clak said, Grindelwald never was able to harness the power of it because he stole it from Gregorovich, and never won it fairly. That doesn't explain how Dumbledore was able to master the wand though, since he never defeated Gregorovich.
      • Kopiok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My guess is it's one of those continuity errors that Mr. King spoke of. Not a very large one, at that, and the sequence was confusing anyway.
        • fakeyfakerson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Defeat is a very ambiguous word. it doesnt necessarily have to mean killed, but simply defeated to the point where they could no longer duel, which is how dumbledore won.
      • Promantarius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It could be that you only have to defeat the person that possesses the wand, as opposed to the true owner, to become the next true owner. Sounds slightly dodgy, but it is magic after all :)
    • WaltDismal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Dumbledore was the Chuck Norris of the magic world. He only had to sneeze and his opponent would be outclassed. Look at the evidence: Chuck Norris wears a hat; Dumbledore wore a hat; Chuck Norris has facial hair; Dumbledore had facial hair. Chuck Norris is a Texas Ranger; Dumbledore is a ... er.. wait.. can I try this again?
    • Scagli3tti, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"...supposedly has the power to beat anybody in a duel?"

      This is a false pretense. As the book explained, the fairytale of the deathly hallows and the items themselves were different things. Just as the invisibility cloak does not quite provide complete imperviousness and the resurrection stone does not truly resurrect its targets, so to does the elder wand fail to live up to the mythical powers described in the fairytale (although it's still a kickass wand).
  • kurtwinter, on 10/10/2007, -9/+11Does anyone think that Harry Potter series will be considered benchmark works in the field of literature in 20 years? 50? 100? While very entertaining, with diverse and numerous plot lines, are these the works that will define a generation? Or are they simply highly derivative works that represent the modern state of society vis a vis fantasy?
    • KanedaMGM, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23That's deep. Are you a second year English major?
    • joel8x, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yes, it will be like Lord of the Rings in that the magical world is a timeless one and there are no pop references to lock it down to any time period.
    • Darthypoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9They're better (read less preachy with more interesting characters) than the Narnia books, and those have managed to last.
    • izzybr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I would say you are more of an unpublished 'author' than a second year english major. however you should realize that many authors have gone unappreciated in their time. and even if she doesn't turn out to be the defining author of a generation, a lot of people have read her books, and that has to count for something
    • Halatia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You have to remember that this was originally intended as children's literature. And while the characters did grow and change (an aspect of the series that should be applauded from a sheer realism standpoint), at it's heart, the Harry Potter series is a tale about a boy facing the real world (or at least his real world) for the first time. And keeping this in mind, think of the recurring themes: bigotry (Nazi-style), racism (both blatant in say how Lucius Malfoy treats his house elf and subtle in how Ron Weasley isn't hurting an elf but isn't willing to go out of his way to help one, either), and sacrifice. For some kids who choose Harry Potter as their first real attempt at reading an extended, convoluted series, it will also be their first exposure to such themes. We teach each generation through what we support, what we teach. Give a child Harry Potter, and (s)he's introduced to heavy, truthful fears and triumphs of the world around them. And in that way, these books are brilliant.
  • Lambent, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Wow, King really seems to have it in for R.L. Stine. Not that I disagree with him; Rowling is the better author. But I did grow up reading Stine (and K.A. Applegate) so I have a bit of a soft spot for him.

    And yes SpeakerCity, I didn't care much for the ending of The Dark Tower either. All those characters sacrificed along the way, and we end up with THAT? I still love the series though. It's the journey that makes a good story, not what you find at the end- which is the main reason I got so annoyed with the people that flipped to the last page of Deathly Hallows as soon as they got it (Meredith Viera being chief among them, though I've always hated her).
    • Jacob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5wow KA Applegate, I havn't thought of the animorphs books in years those things were great.
    • rainergamer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Animorphs were the only 'childish' books I ever got into as a child, unless you also count the Redwall series. The covers owned.
    • aadnk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I remember Animorphs, yeah. But I got bored at book #30. They basically follow the same style and plot.
    • moocow1452, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Animorphs gets major cred in my book for not in any respect dumbing you down. I am completely serious when I say they pull NO punches. It was what taught me that sometimes you just can't have it both ways and you have to blur the line between moral and unethical tactics if you need to win and live with the consequences for the rest of your life. It's what showed me that things change and you can't be living the glory days forever, and at some point life goes on. It's what told me to respect our veterans, because they have had it a hell of a lot worse than we do and they have seen things that have never been spotted in even our most horrible nightmares. Sure a couple of books are filler, but as a whole they are one of the best long term series I have ever read and should be up there with Harry Potter and His Dark Materials as a 'best of the best' series.
  • carbonfree314, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2I don't feel really comfortable visiting a site called ew.com.
    :(
  • yaveznodo, on 10/10/2007, -20/+4One overblown, egotistical, hack writing about another, wow, what an article. King hasn't written much in the way of a decent novel since he stopped doing blow, and Rowling never wrote anything decent, for kids or adults. You seen the kids reading this stuff on the news, the ones queuing up outside? Are they even real kids? What real pre-13 kid would pick up a thick doorstep of a novel in favor of Gears of War or something like that? King should go back to writing tight, less than a doorstep thrillers, which he's good at (Misery, Carrie, Shining, Dead Zone), and if I never hear of Harry Potter or Rowling again I'll be more than happy.
    • Kurisuku, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Gears of War is boring as *****, hate to break it to ya'.
      • yaveznodo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Agreed, I never finished it, my nephews did though, and it was the first decently violent thing I could think of. Should have put Grand Theft Auto down, or something on the Wii that's more fun than reading a doorstep novel about Wizards and a quaint version of Englishness that is out of the 1940's.
    • avsfan987, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Don't feed the troll.

      I can tell already that you have never read any of the Harry Potter books. You just assume they're bad because the people on ytmnd.com say so.
      • yaveznodo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1True, never read it. It's a kid's book, not really up my street and I'm not a fan of the whole wizard/magic thing anyway. My beef has always been with the way Rowling has been credited with being the 'saviour' of children's reading. Kid's will always read, and a lot of them after 13 stop reading 'teen' books and go straight to Adult novels - thrillers, horror, sci-fi, what have you. Even then the length of some of these Rowling books are ridiculous if they were actually for children, when in fact they're actually for adults after the 2nd book. The kids you see on the TV news are the really sad ones, the ones that a couple of years later WONT be reading Rowling any longer. It's just another craze for them. But the amount of adutls you see on trains when commuting reading these books is astounding. I've never seen a kid with one in real life, but plenty of adults.

        And I used to be a big fan of King, but he has really dissapeared up his own arsehole over the last five years or so. Including himself as a character, WTF? Self-referencing his work in his novels? In every article I've read by him he's always jabbering on about this imagined 'intellectual elite' and saying how story is what matters, and then you pick up one of his tomes and it's a rambling, incoherent, pastiche of everything he's ever done before. I still maintain King is one of the best 'thriller' writers ever, when he does them straight he's fantastic (Claiborne, Misery), and he's not bad as a horror writer either (Shining, Dead Zone, Carrie, Salem's Lot), well, he used to be okay at Horror pre-Insomnia.
    • nigh7dagger, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I bet you're just mad because someone shouted spoilers when you were standing in line.
  • RobotBuddha, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7I loved reading both Stephen King and Rowlings books. The important thing is that they were fun, enjoyable, they made us experience something new.
  • nitrousconsumed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3pretty good read
  • reddevil3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3King's favorite TV show is the astonishing "The Wire", so he's cool in my book.
  • dalesmatrix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Ok, my one Q after reading the DH is where did Neville get the sword in that final battle?
    • hawkspur, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11It came out of the Sorting Hat like it did for Harry in the first book.

      God, I'm lame :(
      • Lockout, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Second book. I'm lamer. :(
      • onewingedangel9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Correct, many people are reading pretty fast in this section because it's intense, but it does say he reaches into the hat and pulls out a sword.
    • notperm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Harry pulled it out of the hat in the second book.

      Even lamer.
  • elint6, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7was never a big Harry Potter fan, but at least she got kids to read. IMO that should count for something.
  • CMaff24, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Dugg for comparing RL Stein to John the Baptist and JK Rowling to Jesus
  • GotMex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10" Still, by the time the Battle of Hogwarts was reaching its climax of clumping giants, cheering portraits, and flying wizards, I almost longed for someone to pull out a good old MAC-10 and start blasting away like Rambo."

    Priceless
  • JoNuggs, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8As much respect as I have for King, I have to say that I was very disappointed with DH.

    SPOILERS AHEAD


    The first 350 pages are so contrived that they actually could be from Robinson Crusoe much like King suggests. Once the war starts things get good and then we're interrupted by Snape going out like a chump, and then we're force fed his redemption when Harry uses the pensieve. The final duel is nothing more than Voldemort and Harry behaving like children playing cops and robbers: "You're gonna die!", "Nuh-uh, you're gonna die!" The elder wand is nothing more than a half-assed version of the one ring, and the epilogue, while my favorite part, left much to be desired. The drama with the Malfoys is left completely untouched, and there is no sense of what Harry, Ginny, Ron and Hermione have done with themselves (other than make like rabbits) in the past 19 years. It seems just like she gave all of the fans exactly what they all wanted. Every possible suggestion was taken into account: Harry dies, but doesn't really, Snape was really a good guy, but his lackluster redemption doesn't absolve him completely, and characters die by the dozens but they're only ancillary characters and make no real impact on the story or the reader. Who cares that Lupin and Tonks die? I never felt particularly invested in them in the first place; Tonks hasn't been around long enough, and I haven't sympathized with Remus since the first books.

    While I enjoyed the series, and more power to Rowling if she is responsible for kids discovering reading (I know, I know, everyone is saying it, it's pretty trite at this point), I really think that it went out with a whisper instead of the bang that it should have had.
    • clak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Yeah, I got buried for saying something along the same lines. I was extremely bored by the Battle of Hogwarts and I too, thought the final duel with Voldemort was lame. I mean, Voldemort was standing there allowing Harry to tell the whole plot of the book and then throws one spell at him, which back fires. Come on, Voldemort is one of the most powerful wizards of all time and he goes out fighting a seventeen year old kid who repeats the same spell everytime they meet. "Expellimous!" or whatever that stupid spell is. And during the Battle of Hogwarts, Harry is looking for clues and pensieves and is under the invisibility cloak, while others are dying for him. It just wasn't well written. I do like the series though. It's a lot better than most.
      • Peavey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I don't care if I out myself as a Harry Potter fan, but the whole point of Harry looking for clues was so he could destroy all the Horcruxes and then kill Voldemort. That was the whole point. He had to finish that first and then Voldemort could actually be stopped. From a literary standpoint, I compare the battle of Hogwarts to the final battle in the Return of the King (although Tolkein was by far a better writer). It was one huge diversionary tactic to keep the enemy occupied and not looking at the hero while the hero did what he had to do.
        • clak, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I understand perfectly why Harry was looking for clues, it was still bad writing. If Rowling could have had Harry destroy the last horcrux before the Battle began, Harry could have led the charge against Voldemort's army. It would have been more epic and satisfying. A good hero leads, he doesn't hide and run around and avoid fighting so that bunches of people die. It's going to be extremely boring if they make the movie just like the book.
    • Buckiller, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I somewhat agree... the ending was very anticlimactic for me. The entire series taken as a whole is freakin amazing.

      Ill reread DH soon to see if it got better... cause I read it through the first time rather fast... i think the reason i didnt like it was because it wasnt set at hogwarts... I always liked reading about quidditch matches and such.
    • MCDupree, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"I really think that it went out with a whisper instead of the bang that it should have had."
      I agree, except it was more like a dud firework. It fizzled, popped, made noise, but didn't explode (hence, wasn't such a whisper)
  • txtphile, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Seems like a good place to recommend "On Writing" by Stephen King. Whatever you think about his work, he CLEARLY loves the artform. And the part where he gets hit by the van is funny. (King, not Harry Potter)
    • browwiw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah, that is an awesome book. And his candor concerning his own failings actually makes you cringe. He sticks it to himself pretty good when talks about his days as a coke head and the bad writing he produced during that time:

      "I don't remember writing Cujo. And that's too bad because there are parts of Cujo that I like."
  • acerealo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0And I was hoping that the last word on Harry Potter ended with the book... It's a shame he didn't stay dead.
  • clak, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2You know, I like the book, let me just preface my criticism by saying that, but I thought the Battle of Hogwarts was way too boring. I just couldn't accept the fact that Harry was sneaking around the castle looking for clues and staring into pensieves when people are outside dying for him. I thought that was a major crime. Even when he was part of the fighting, he was under the invisibility cloak like a coward. In fact, Harry spent 60 percent of the novel hiding under the invisibility cloak, when he should have been in front leading, like a real hero.

    And then there was that lame fight between Harry and Voldemort at the end, where Voldemort patiently allows Harry to recite every detail and plot point in the book, before engaging him in a two second duel. The spell back fires on Voldemort so that Harry doesn't actually have to kill him. I mean, come on! If anyone deserved a good killing it was Voldemort.
    • Kopiok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3His struggle is explained. He did not want anyone to fight for him. When they did anyway, he felt it was his duty to end the entire conflict by running around and "looking for clues" about how to kill Voldermort. They weren't fighting and dying so he could lead them into epic battle, they were fighting so that he could search the castle and do everything that was needed. You really missed the point.
    • Yazilliclick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I for one am glad that it was not the typical hero at the front face off. That to me would have been a cop-out literary wise and completely against the entire story of the HP books. The entire series is based off of the weak having to use smarts and bravery to defeat the much more powerful bad guys. It's never about brute force and when it comes down to force the good guys ussually lose or barely scrape by.

      You want bravery? Well Harry did go into the forest alone to face voldemort believing the only way to end this and save his friends was for him to die alone. So yes he showed bravery, he faced what he thought was certain death with his head held high surounded by enemies. Once that turned out differently than he expected and he got some answers he realized what needed to be done and so stayed hidden to complete that. Charging around would have done nothing to win. Perhaps that's a good lesson for most people that sometimes it's best to look for answers and think before you act. It's a lesson that appears many times during the series.
    • mrkmrk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Harry spent 60 percent of the novel hiding under the invisibility cloak, when he should have been in front leading, like a real hero."

      If he didn't, he would have been killed as soon as he took it off. With his death, Voldemort would be opposed only by those who he could easily kill, and would have taken over the world. You seem to have failed (and hugely, at that) to realize that Harry's actions were the opposite of cowardly--he was the one who had to find the way to really kill Voldemort, and he was ready to die (and did, for a bit) to kill him. Being "a real hero", as you succinctly put it, would have resulted with the world being taken over by Voldemort.

      Agh. I'm glad that you're not a writer.
    • clak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I understand all your points about his bravery, but what I've been trying to point out is that Rowling really didn't write the battle all that well. Harry's actions are inconsistent with what a hero does in a story. A hero should lead, first and foremost. It would have been better if Harry would have destroyed all the horcruxes before the final battle. Then he could have led the battle and it would have been more epic and satisfying than running around under the invisibility cloak the entire time. That was just lame. How are they going to make a movie based on this book? How are they going to have Harry engaged in all these battle scenes while under the cloak? It's a literary choice that I don't think Rowling gave much thought. It really just doesn't work.
      • rpgamer28, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0But Harry WAS leading; he was the sole inspiration for the entire rebellion, even if he wasn't on the frontlines futilely trying to command his friends in "Dumbledore's Army", which really was created and run on a shoestring... I for one am glad they didn't just choose a stereotypical conclusion with a hero marshaling troops and winning a battle, it was a lot more interesting and consistent with all of the characters' personalities the way it turned out. I just wish the final confrontation with Voldemort had been more exciting... being killed by a spell rebound after a prolonged moralizing speech by our hero isn't exactly the most creative or exciting way to end a battle as big as that one.
    • isamuelson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You're worried on how they're going to make a movie on this? Now THAT'S a lame, cop-out comment if I've ever heard one before! The books were NOT written to become movies. They were written to be read and I for one feel that Harry showed complete bravery. He actually didn't want people to battle, but Professor McGonagol agreed it was necessary in order for Harry to finally defeat Voltermort. Harry walked into the Forbidden Forest alone, ready to die so that everyone else could live. How is that NOT heroic? Hero's are not always the ones that appear on the front-lines and lead everyone to battle. There are FAR more heroes that are never heard of or have done other extraordinary things other than the typical Hollywood, comic-book hero that you seem to think JK Rowling should have done with Harry in DH.

  • Hunterville, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0The Dark Tower series is good through book 4. Just stop there and you'll have left off reading King at the pinnacle of his writing prowess.
    If you're a glutton for punishment read the last 3. You'll see how having your brain rattled by french kissing the grill of a van is not a good refresher course in modern fiction writing.
    • browwiw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, I never really liked King until after he got hit by the van. I think it put a lot of ***** in perspective for him. He's at the top of his game right now.
  • Hunterville, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Dark Towers Books 5-6-7 were utter tripe.
    If you were a fan of the series for as long as I was, which was about 20 years you'd know this.
    It seems only the late comers who picked the series up when it was complete fawn over it, especially the ending trilogy.
    If you didn't wait the 6 years between books 3 and 4 you don't know *****.
    If you only know the revised book 1 you don't know *****.
    19 = Major continuity errors in the series
    99 = Revisions to correct said errors
    ----Spolier------
    The confrontation with the Crimson King = biggest let down ever.
    The walking dude's demise ridiculous.
  • gmule, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Loved the review, although, I have to admit that I found the epilogue disappointing. The HP books were very fun to read. As time progressed they became a way to connect with my son. Approaching it as a way to discuss something we both enjoyed. Which sometimes is hard to come by. "Jo" has helped my family come closer together. Now I feel I can start sharing other authors that I love. One of which is Stephen King. Especially the Dark Tower.
  • Moon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A good review. thanks!
  • gmule, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"Lambent" that is precisely the reason it was a good ending. They all Live On because KA is like a wheel. Nothing else would have worked. I felt it was a stroke of brilliance.
  • Cherubim, on 10/10/2007, -11/+0The Potter books were ghost written by a team of writers. Their is no chance in hell that "J K Rowling" wrote all those books in such a short space of time. The books are designed to corrupt the minds of the young and old with falsehoods about the occult. Rowling herself is nothing but a puppet. Notice how she never gives interviews explaining the books details ? I wonder why ..
  • MCDupree, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I just hope the last two movies are as dark and gory as the books were. But why get my hopes up...
  • chokeaduck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You know, this was a very interesting read. What's sad is that many forget R.L. Stine tried to break into the "adult" market with a book called Superstitions in the mid or late nineties. I remember reading it again a few years ago. Here's the best way to describe it. Imagine a novel length Goosebumps or Fear Street book. Add gratuitous descriptions of violence and sex. Now add obscenities (not that there is anything wrong with any of those being in literature), but I mean, we're talking about what boils down to an R-rated Goosebumps book. And not in a good way. Some things are best left in our childhoods, I think.

    I'd still shell out money for those old Nick shows on DVD though!
  • peterinjapan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1My mon S.K. He don't shiv.
  • misterS, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1King reviewing Rowling is like letting homeless people review 5$-a-night motels..
    being called a "gifted novelist" from someone who dwells on cheap horror and thriller stories for 30 years doesn't mean anything.
    • semeticstallion, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Somebody didn't read more than the headline.

      I'd like to dig you down twice for both ignorance and arrogance.
    • ravenpen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Stephen King is a talented writer who crafts entertaining, well-formed tales. Just because he’s a “genre author” doesn’t make his work cheap.

      I’ve read lots of so-called “literary fiction” that wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. If my degree in English taught me anything it was that spewing a bunch of highfalutin, nonsensical, wooly-headed prose into a novel is a great way to get taught at universities who often wouldn’t know quality writing if it bit them in the ass.

      Give me authors who know how to tell a story well without all the pretentious baggage. Writing is a job like any other; it doesn’t give its purveyors any mystical insight or make their opinions more valuable than others. Authors who pad their prose with oblique nonsense deserve to be read by the intellectual nimrods who praise them.

      Frank McCourt won a Pulitzer Prize writing simple, direct prose. I can only hope that future recipients are recognized for the same merits.
  • apcolter, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2If you read Harry Potter as a kid you'll grow up to read Steven King.

    Lewis Carroll>J.K. Rowling
  • firedrillduckie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This was a very good article indeed.

    King is absolutely right. I set aside my laptop and did not open it for two days straight... and I read straight until I was finished.
  • M724, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"Still, by the time the Battle of Hogwarts was reaching its climax of clumping giants, cheering portraits, and flying wizards, I almost longed for someone to pull out a good old MAC-10 and start blasting away like Rambo."

    Weird. I was thinking the exact same thing.
    • crossmr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The same thing as gotmex 8 hours before you?
  • AnimalTaglits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I forgot all about Goosebumps.
  • case42tlc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you liked this review, check out 'Danse Macabre', Kings reflections on the horror genre and good writing in general. It came out in the mid-eighties, you might have to spend some time looking for it.
  • skinflute, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0"And if you think that's a spoiler at this late date, you were never much of a Potter fan to begin with."

    The book's been out less than a month, and he thinks that everyone who wants to read the book has already done so?
  • monka, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I got into Harry Potter about 8-9 years ago, when I was in about 2nd or 3rd grade (age 16 now, almost 17). I followed the Harry Potter stories and grown up with the characters. From "Goblet" on up I would drop everything and do nothing but read until I finished the book. I understand what King means when he mentions the kids growing up with HP. As the books progress and I get older along with the characters, it becomes easier to relate to the real things like teen dating and friendship. I know these characters, and felt like I lost a great friend when Fred died. It's intense, and I definitely agree with King. This has been a once in a lifetime story experience for me, growing up with it and all. I'll never forget the series, and how it grew [with me] from a neat idea of a wizarding world where a sport is played on broomsticks to a story about a boy faced with his own morality, who walks unhesitatingly towards his inevitable -yet necessary for his loved ones' wellbeing- death.
  • revital9, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Sorry, Mr. King, but that book was a total bore and a waste of my time. The magic has died somewhere on the 5th book, and that's all there is to it, IMHO.
    http://hooqs.blogspot.com/2007/07/harry-potter-leak-was-real-book-is.html
  • dragonopolis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0People always whining "why doesn't Voldermort use a gun" or " what about a muggle alternative to the problem"

    Please.... that is like saying why doesn't the mutants in the world of Xmen just use guns on each other rather than waste all their mutant powers trying to "one up" each other.

    The fact is the story isn't about Muggles vs Wizards and Witches but about a very corrupt wizard who did want to make an issue about Muggle born wizards and witches (and perhaps later even Muggles period) and a failing political structure (Ministry of Magic's inability to deal with Voldemort and his followers and the corruption within its own governing body)

    In contrast, The mutants in the Xmen world were not exactly organized in both creation (heritage) and politically. In Harry's world there is a long a respectful heritage and those who created Harry's world new who they were and their powers. Its is this heritage that is being threaten by Voldemort. Matter of Fact, Voldemort and Magneto share very common traits and beliefs as characters - the most driving of these is purity of race (i.e. free from muggle borns - Vodemort and for Magneto it was non-mutants)

    Sure, Rowling could have added another 200 pages to each of her books with examples and characters that would answer all these questions.

    But why? We have the imaginations and smarts to probably draw up our own conclusions as to why Wizards and Witches in Harry Potter's World used Magic instead of Muggle technology to figure out problems to their solutions.

    My take (imagination) on the issue is this:

    From early on in the Book I get the sense that these Magically Powers are Natural but not always controllable. If left untrained could result in a world pretty much like in Xmen - chaotic and exposed to humans. I believe by the time Voldemort actually was strong and organized enough to do anything remotely like "using a gun on Harry", Harry probably had levitation spells down pretty good by then and probably could easy stop the bullets or even change the very nature of the gun itself. So why waste time with foolish muggle technology when a magical wand is much more efficient in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

    So there now. Hope that settles some issues
  • allisonaxe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1the "mac-10" line reminds me of this strip from the fun gaming webcomic "fanboys:" http://fanboys-online.com/index.php?cid=216

    page has accompanying wallpaper. its on my desktop now.
  • ThomasWaite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Much learning does not teach understanding.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.