huffingtonpost.com— Quite simply, if this idiotic rule banning kid's books from the charts had been in effect before Harry Potter, there might never have been Harry Potter in the first place
Jul 21, 2007View in Crawl 4
I didn't know that. I would have liked to know that. So right there is an example of the bestseller list not doing its job. I think the fact that the Left Behind series would be top for ages and ages might make people think about the country they live in a little more.
I would have agreed with you when I read the first book when I was like 11. but now im 21 and have read them all. I don't feel it is a childrens book at all. I know that when I see a 7 year old picking up the latest book they probally won't fully comprehend it. The series has matured alot throughout the years (like me and harry lol). The movies (didnt like em at all) however, were defiantly made for the younger crowd because its much easier for them to pick up. I believe it IS GREAT literature simply because it appeals to such a wide spectrum of people and therefore deserves its rightful spot(although I couldent care less). I thought books were for entertainment. If I wanted to be educated by reading I'd spend my free time reading my biology book.
If that the case than any book read by an adult is an adult book. I read Tom Clancy's Without Remorse (great book) when I was 11, does that make it a childrens book (killing pimps in alleys with homemade silencers)?
To be fair, Harry Potter does suck, and its publicity is completely unwarranted. The only reason it does well is because the media covers it so heavily, not because the books are actually very good, original, or well-written.
murderdroidJul 23, 2007
Wait, Rowling didn't read the first chapter to a group of 11 year old contest winners?
sunshineyellowJul 23, 2007
I didn't know that. I would have liked to know that. So right there is an example of the bestseller list not doing its job. I think the fact that the Left Behind series would be top for ages and ages might make people think about the country they live in a little more.
sunshineyellowJul 23, 2007
Just stop. Anyone who actually cared is finished reading the book already and this just makes you look even dumber.
sunshineyellowJul 23, 2007
Hmm, I suppose you're right. But they purport to be a legit list. We can only complain about the deception we know about, you know?
sekhuiJul 29, 2007
thanks for duping my post, f**k you digg.
mattgianisAug 9, 2007
I would have agreed with you when I read the first book when I was like 11. but now im 21 and have read them all. I don't feel it is a childrens book at all. I know that when I see a 7 year old picking up the latest book they probally won't fully comprehend it. The series has matured alot throughout the years (like me and harry lol). The movies (didnt like em at all) however, were defiantly made for the younger crowd because its much easier for them to pick up. I believe it IS GREAT literature simply because it appeals to such a wide spectrum of people and therefore deserves its rightful spot(although I couldent care less). I thought books were for entertainment. If I wanted to be educated by reading I'd spend my free time reading my biology book.
mattgianisAug 9, 2007
If that the case than any book read by an adult is an adult book. I read Tom Clancy's Without Remorse (great book) when I was 11, does that make it a childrens book (killing pimps in alleys with homemade silencers)?
cleoqkazooMar 25, 2008
Because genicide is quite childish. Yes I completely understand your logic.
catlikeApr 28, 2008
Warning:pedantic tactics!
titaniumdragonSep 9, 2008
To be fair, Harry Potter does suck, and its publicity is completely unwarranted. The only reason it does well is because the media covers it so heavily, not because the books are actually very good, original, or well-written.