Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
I was just listening to Radio 1, and they mentioned that JK Rowling was giving a teaser reading of the new book soon. Then, I checked Amazon, and saw that Harry Potter V is slated for release on June 21, 2003. Seems to me that this long of a delay may hurt sales. I mean, I enjoyed the first 4, but I got over my desire for the 5th book to come out about a year ago. Thoughts?
Comments
it will sell well, the movies , especially the second one, are terribly disappointingthough
the books are good man
Within 3 days, I'd bought the first four books on CD.
However, the director of the HP movies could learn a hella lot from Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings adaptations. The HP movies suck compared to the Jim Dale audio versions.
I highly recommend that everyone get the audio versions, even if you've read the books. They are great.
The second Harry Potter movie was better than the first, it's good news to read that someone else will be directing the third. Very good news if it is indeed true.
However the serie will not continue for ever, if my memory is good she will stop after the 6th book (unless she change her mind).
<strong>Kids are in fact much less literate than they were six decades ago.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd be very very interested to hear an argument supporting that claim.
<strong>
"The Hobbit was published in 1937, when the London publishers George Allen & Unwin printed it on the glowing recommendation of Rayner Unwin, the ten-year-old son of the chairman, Stanley Unwin. Rayner was paid one shilling to read and report on the book and stated that it: ' ? should appeal to all children between the ages of 5 and 9.'"
How many children between the ages of five and nine could (or would be compelled to) read The Hobbit these days? I read it when I was about nine and I was extremely accelerated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The son of a famous editor, is not the best sample to evaluate the level of cutural litterature of this aera. However i have not any clue if what you said is wrong or not, the point out is that this example is not a serious and scientifical proof of your point of vue.
<strong>
Wow. the last one was no slouch. I don't believe there's been a popular kids' book that was more than 900 pages before. I really respect what Rowling is doing to encourage kids to read.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's why I can never forgive word processors. Modern books are so undeservingly thick. There's definitely less thought per page that goes into current offerings, and then you find yourself in a position where you don't want to read the whole page, which seems to me as against the point of reading a book.
<strong>How many children between the ages of five and nine could (or would be compelled to) read The Hobbit these days? I read it when I was about nine and I was extremely accelerated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I read The Hobbit at the age of 10, and Fellowship Of The Ring at the age of 11. The hobbit was borring, and definately not a childrens book. FotR was even worse on those matters.
Here is the proof ye requested up there a few posts ago.
(Isssued by the Central Bureau of International Officialness)
In a shock random sampling of all contemporary children it was conclusively proved beyond all doubt that in every single case and without exception that each and every one of them was completely devoid of innate vocabularic skills and entirely dependent on artifical literary stimulants, whether reading or writing. The statistics tell their own irrefutable story:
Metaphorazene - usage up by 100%
Oxymorox - ditto
Hyperbolum - Same increase
Imaginol - Even more.
Not to mention sytactinide, punctuatinum and linguanol. All washed down with Groovade to enhance the effect.
There ye have it. What Laurie Lee wid hae made of it we can but wonder.
<strong>How many children between the ages of five and nine could (or would be compelled to) read The Hobbit these days? I read it when I was about nine and I was extremely accelerated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
At that time children didn't have much else to occupy them. I think it's odd that you choose to assume that kids can't read any more simply because they choose to play video games instead.
My nephew Luke is half-way through FotR, he's 6. And math is his main strength so far.
I just don't buy any argument that says kids of "the past" were smarter in some way than kids today. It's just silly romanticism.
MacO:
As usual I have no idea what you're saying, but I love you anyway. Big Hugs!
Come to Texas and we'll ride around on horses, yell at cows and eat giant steaks. Bring powerdoc (he wants catfish), it'll be fantastic.
<strong>
My nephew Luke is half-way through FotR, he's 6. And math is his main strength so far.
I just don't buy any argument that says kids of "the past" were smarter in some way than kids today. It's just silly romanticism.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly. I read LOTR when I was 10 and it was not 6 decades ago... Only a little more than 1. And it's not real hard to read. Sure the story get confusing because so much is going on, but this is no Proust. Kids today are not less smart or whatever. Maybe they're simply have less motivation, they see no reason to read.
I, for one, don't read as much as I would like. I study so much that in my free time I don't even want to approach a book.
I agree with that completely.