Unpopular Opinions

[peacheslatour]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I do like the character arc of Neville Longbottom.  In book one, he's the kid who everyone overlooks and thinks "what is he doing here?" because he appears to be the worst student and awkward to boot.  Harry only defends Neville against Draco because Neville is a Gryffindor.  Neville grows as a wizard at Hogwarts where he is free of the cloud of his parents and has encouraging instructors not named Severus Snape.  Then you get to Order of the Phoenix, and Harry (and the reader) sees how sad Neville's life is.  That scene in St. Mungo's is heartbreaking.  Also heartbreaking is the 180 Neville's grandmother does at the end of that book when Neville is no longer the disappointment she previously thought.  But through it all, Neville is brave and loyal becoming a leader in Dumbledore's Army and instrumental in the Battle of Hogwarts.  

I felt like I had a really good sense of Sirius Black.

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

But through it all, Neville is brave and loyal becoming a leader in Dumbledore's Army and instrumental in the Battle of Hogwarts.  

Neville was easily my favorite character in the series. I always wished he was the main character because I actually didn't care much for Harry. Harry was okay but he suffered from heroitis. I usually get sick of the "hero" of a story because most writers are too afraid to make them flawed, or think it's super cool to make them too flawed. Either way, they never seem quite real. 

 

 

23 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

I felt like I had a really good sense of Sirius Black.

My UO for Harry Potter is I loathed Sirius Black. From the moment he showed up he just rubbed he the wrong way. 

[kathyk24]

51 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Neville was easily my favorite character in the series. I always wished he was the main character because I actually didn't care much for Harry. Harry was okay but he suffered from heroitis. I usually get sick of the "hero" of a story because most writers are too afraid to make them flawed, or think it's super cool to make them too flawed. Either way, they never seem quite real. 

 

 

My UO for Harry Potter is I loathed Sirius Black. From the moment he showed up he just rubbed he the wrong way. 

Sirius is my favorite character after Harry. I sympathize with him being in jail for a crime he didn't commit. His parents are just as awful as the Dursleys. I can't believe that Bellatrix is accepted in the family and Sirius isn't.

[Spartan Girl]

I’m going to add my two cents and say that HP had plenty of good character arcs. Neville was already mentioned. Dumbledore turned out to be a more complex and flawed character than just the Mentor Trope. Then there was, you know, the title character: Harry went through so much and had to grow up fast. Ron, Hermione, Sirius, Remus, Hagrid, Luna…

I’m starting to feel like it’s an UO just to still love Harry Potter, regardless of JKR. Sure, it’s flawed and some things are problematic in hindsight, but there’s still so much good.

[scarynikki12]

54 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

I’m starting to feel like it’s an UO just to still love Harry Potter, regardless of JKR. Sure, it’s flawed and some things are problematic in hindsight, but there’s still so much good.

That's where I am. I still love the Potter even though I now despise her.

[Haleth]

13 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

Neville was easily my favorite character in the series. I always wished he was the main character because I actually didn't care much for Harry.

I had hoped Rowling was going to pull the ultimate twist and have Neville be the subject of the chosen one prophesy.  Of course that was never going to happen.

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, Haleth said:

I had hoped Rowling was going to pull the ultimate twist and have Neville be the subject of the chosen one prophesy.  Of course that was never going to happen.

Well, in a way, he was. He was the one that slayed Nagini, destroying the last Horcrux, and mortalizing Voldemort.

[JustHereForFood]

21 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

Who? (and please do not say Snape, he's such a shallow, badly written character; not to mention a crap spy who only did anything through plot amour)

Harry for the start, obviously. There was a lot to like, even though the title character is often not my favorite in stories like this with multiple characters. But since the books were written from his POV, we got a good idea what he is like and I never felt like his storyarc was more about plot than character. Sure, there was that "chosen one" plot, but I liked how that was written to be not that important in the end.

I also loved Hermione and though I never much cared for Neville, he had a good development, as others have already said. It was a bit more complicated with adult characters, because the books were written from Harry's POV and he often had no idea about the more interesting stuff that must have been going on. That would be my one regret, that we never got more insight into some of the Order business, and we have to rely on fanfiction for that (some of it very good). But I still think that Lupin, Snape (yes, I'm saying it 😜), or Dumbledore had good character development. With Dumbledore, I don't need to see more, because there was already enough backstory in the last book and it makes sense that for Harry, he was this slightly mystical person that he thought he knew all about and then realized he didn't. But I would have loved to see more about Lupin, Snape and also McGonagall, who we didn't get to know that well.

(Yes, I know there's Pottermore, but by that time I had moved on and could not care enough for some additional information that might or might not be canon.)

[Ohiopirate02]

21 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

Harry for the start, obviously. There was a lot to like, even though the title character is often not my favorite in stories like this with multiple characters. But since the books were written from his POV, we got a good idea what he is like and I never felt like his storyarc was more about plot than character. Sure, there was that "chosen one" plot, but I liked how that was written to be not that important in the end.

I also loved Hermione and though I never much cared for Neville, he had a good development, as others have already said. It was a bit more complicated with adult characters, because the books were written from Harry's POV and he often had no idea about the more interesting stuff that must have been going on. That would be my one regret, that we never got more insight into some of the Order business, and we have to rely on fanfiction for that (some of it very good). But I still think that Lupin, Snape (yes, I'm saying it 😜), or Dumbledore had good character development. With Dumbledore, I don't need to see more, because there was already enough backstory in the last book and it makes sense that for Harry, he was this slightly mystical person that he thought he knew all about and then realized he didn't. But I would have loved to see more about Lupin, Snape and also McGonagall, who we didn't get to know that well.

(Yes, I know there's Pottermore, but by that time I had moved on and could not care enough for some additional information that might or might not be canon.)

I also think Snape is a well-written character.  My only complaint is JK's insistence that he is a hero.  He's not.  He is messy and complicated.  He is a person who did a few heroic things but also did some super shitty things.  IMHO, whatever heroic deeds he did in the books do not outweigh the shitty things he did.  I really don't see what Snape did in the last two books are being any different than what Narcissa Malfoy does.  Both of them defy Voldemort because Voldemort threatened their loved ones, not because either finally sees the light and repents their previous actions.  

[Spartan Girl]

50 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I also think Snape is a well-written character.  My only complaint is JK's insistence that he is a hero.  He's not.  He is messy and complicated.  He is a person who did a few heroic things but also did some super shitty things.  IMHO, whatever heroic deeds he did in the books do not outweigh the shitty things he did.  I really don't see what Snape did in the last two books are being any different than what Narcissa Malfoy does.  Both of them defy Voldemort because Voldemort threatened their loved ones, not because either finally sees the light and repents their previous actions.  

In fairness, I think JKR did point out that people shouldn’t romanticize Snape and Malfoy too much—that Snape was still a bully, regardless of how much good he did.

[Grrarrggh]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I also think Snape is a well-written character.  My only complaint is JK's insistence that he is a hero.  He's not.  He is messy and complicated.  

Complicated? Seriously? He's about as straight forward as a stick. Too many readers seem to think anyone not nice is complicated and interesting. They're not, especially not Snape. He's a cruel, obsessive. And a bad spy on top of it all! Not a single HP character surprised me. Not a one. 

[DearEvette]

49 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

In fairness, I think JKR did point out that people shouldn’t romanticize Snape and Malfoy too much—that Snape was still a bully, regardless of how much good he did.

If she meant this, then she really shouldn't have written that epilogue where the words "the bravest man I ever knew" went from her pen to Harry's mouth regarding Snape.  If he was romanticized she was the first one to throw him the flowers, tbh.

But then again, a lot of times things she says contradicts the actual text.

[proserpina65]

On 2/1/2022 at 1:49 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

I also think Snape is a well-written character.  My only complaint is JK's insistence that he is a hero.  He's not.  He is messy and complicated.  He is a person who did a few heroic things but also did some super shitty things.  IMHO, whatever heroic deeds he did in the books do not outweigh the shitty things he did.  I really don't see what Snape did in the last two books are being any different than what Narcissa Malfoy does.  Both of them defy Voldemort because Voldemort threatened their loved ones, not because either finally sees the light and repents their previous actions.  

I've always thought Snape was a complicated and interesting character.  Not necessarily an admirable one, mind you, but a well-written one.

 

23 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

He's a cruel, obsessive.

Yes, but that doesn't make him a bad character to read about, just a bad person.

[JustHereForFood]

On 2/1/2022 at 8:42 PM, Spartan Girl said:

In fairness, I think JKR did point out that people shouldn’t romanticize Snape and Malfoy too much—that Snape was still a bully, regardless of how much good he did.

I believe she specifically said he was not a hero, but an antihero.

[Grrarrggh]

2 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

I've always thought Snape was a complicated and interesting character.  Not necessarily an admirable one, mind you, but a well-written one.

 

Yes, but that doesn't make him a bad character to read about, just a bad person.

It makes him a boring person to read about, as all fully bad or fully good people are. And no, saving Harry's life a few times does not make him good. Harry was only "saved" by plot devices, not character buildup. As I said, I think too many people are almost hypnotised into believing if someone is given the label "anti-hero" they're automatically interesting. Snape was one of the most boring, sloppily written characters in the series. Kreacher was 10x more complicated. 

[Ohiopirate02]

8 minutes ago, Grrarrggh said:

It makes him a boring person to read about, as all fully bad or fully good people are. And no, saving Harry's life a few times does not make him good. Harry was only "saved" by plot devices, not character buildup. As I said, I think too many people are almost hypnotised into believing if someone is given the label "anti-hero" they're automatically interesting. Snape was one of the most boring, sloppily written characters in the series. Kreacher was 10x more complicated. 

You don't like the character, that's fine and why we are posting on these boards.  But is it possible for you to state your opinion without insulting your fellow posters?  

[kathyk24]

On 2/1/2022 at 1:49 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:

I also think Snape is a well-written character.  My only complaint is JK's insistence that he is a hero.  He's not.  He is messy and complicated.  He is a person who did a few heroic things but also did some super shitty things.  IMHO, whatever heroic deeds he did in the books do not outweigh the shitty things he did.  I really don't see what Snape did in the last two books are being any different than what Narcissa Malfoy does.  Both of them defy Voldemort because Voldemort threatened their loved ones, not because either finally sees the light and repents their previous actions.  

Snape never repented his last words to Harry were look at not I'm sorry. I wanted to know more about Lily. How did she start out hating James and Sirius to marrying one and treating the other like family? I wish we had met Hermione's parents. I would have liked Harry to spend time with a muggle family that wasn't afraid of magic. I was part of a HP fan group on Yahoo and they were horrified that Hermione erased her parents memory in Deathly Hallows. I thought this was smart since the Ministry of Magic was corrupt.

[JustHereForFood]

26 minutes ago, kathyk24 said:

Snape never repented his last words to Harry were look at not I'm sorry. I wanted to know more about Lily. How did she start out hating James and Sirius to marrying one and treating the other like family? I wish we had met Hermione's parents. I would have liked Harry to spend time with a muggle family that wasn't afraid of magic. I was part of a HP fan group on Yahoo and they were horrified that Hermione erased her parents memory in Deathly Hallows. I thought this was smart since the Ministry of Magic was corrupt.

I agree that muggles were mistreated by JKR.

[Spartan Girl]

22 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

I agree that muggles were mistreated by JKR.

With the exception of Jacob in FB. He’s one of the better parts of those movies.

Okay, to get back on the forums topic, here’s another UO: I never really got into Percy Jackson. It’s weird because I LOVE Greek mythology and you’d think the series would be right up my alley. That being said, I’m happy for the fandom getting excited about the Disney+ series and I might give it a watch.

[peacheslatour]

4 hours ago, kathyk24 said:

Snape never repented his last words to Harry were look at not I'm sorry. I wanted to know more about Lily. How did she start out hating James and Sirius to marrying one and treating the other like family? I wish we had met Hermione's parents. I would have liked Harry to spend time with a muggle family that wasn't afraid of magic. I was part of a HP fan group on Yahoo and they were horrified that Hermione erased her parents memory in Deathly Hallows. I thought this was smart since the Ministry of Magic was corrupt.

Plausible deniability?

[Minneapple]

I thought Snape was a wonderfully complex character. Yes he was a hero. He was also a bullying jackass. The two apparently are not mutually exclusive. 

Re: Hermione wiping her parents’ memories was absolutely horrifying. But it showed the lengths she was willing to go to to end Voldemort and his supporters. She was the muggleborn and so had a lot at stake in the outcome of the war.

[proserpina65]

19 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

It makes him a boring person to read about, as all fully bad or fully good people are. And no, saving Harry's life a few times does not make him good. Harry was only "saved" by plot devices, not character buildup. As I said, I think too many people are almost hypnotised into believing if someone is given the label "anti-hero" they're automatically interesting. Snape was one of the most boring, sloppily written characters in the series. Kreacher was 10x more complicated. 

This is where I disagree with you.  Snape wasn't fully bad, although he was nowhere near good, either.  He had layers to his character.  I found him extremely interesting.

And I have never said he was a good person, just a good character.  Those are different things.

We get it.  You don't like the character, but some of us do.  Like as in we found him entertaining to read about.  Which is sometimes all I want.

12 hours ago, Minneapple said:

Re: Hermione wiping her parents’ memories was absolutely horrifying. But it showed the lengths she was willing to go to to end Voldemort and his supporters. She was the muggleborn and so had a lot at stake in the outcome of the war.

Absolutely.  It was something she did to protect them and it clearly hurt her to do it.

[DearEvette]

I hated Snape.  And still do.  That said, I do think he was an interestingly written character who, if JKR had was as skilled at character crafting as she was at story crafting, he could have been a truly great character.

She gave him a great personal conflict.  He was dedicated to Dumbledore and clearly on the side to take down Voldy.  He had his orders and he carried them out.  But when it came to Harry he did everything he was asked to do and no more.  He could have stopped there with making sure Harry didn't die and treated him indifferently, but there were times when he was needlessly cruel to Harry.  Later you understand his attitude toward Harry a bit.  Harry was the child of the one he loved (so he'd do anything for her)  but Harry was also the child of the man he loathed more than anything (so he'd merrily throw that man's kid down an oubliette).  And it seemed that while he had thrown his lot in with taking down Voldy for Lily, Snape couldn't let go Harry being James' kid too so he seemingly took the opportunity to take out some of his thwarted resentment on Harry.  Again, I think this is a great conflict and tension for the character.

The problem for me is that so much of these layers of Snape we learn are presented so late in the story.  They feel like 11th hour revelations that were easily tacked on  to explain all sorts of stuff -- a pull the curtain 'a ha' reveal.  That works fine as an exciting plot moment, but sucks for character progression. I think if she had strewn even the tiniest seeds of decency in some of Snape's interaction with Harry throughout or even if we had learned much earlier about Snape's relationship with Lily, or heck given us some deeper look at Snape himself other than just him tormenting Harry then learning the fullness of of his role in Dumbledore's plans would have felt more like a reward and not a surprise, imo.

[killer.noona]

On 1/8/2022 at 6:32 PM, Spartan Girl said:

My UO Harry Potter opinion: I liked that Harry and Ginny ended up together. The movies didn’t give them or Ginny’s character a fair shot. You can accuse her of being a Cool Girl Trope but I loved the fact that she turned out not to be the shy little wallflower that she was around Harry in the first four books.

There is an artist on Tumblr who really sells Hinny. Her account is blvnk-art.

I loved BookGinny and the movies really removed the shine from her character.

[peacheslatour]

13 hours ago, killer.noona said:

There is an artist on Tumblr who really sells Hinny. Her account is blvnk-art.

I loved BookGinny and the movies really removed the shine from her character.

For me the actors that played Ginny and Lily just looked too much alike. It was creepy.

 

[Mabinogia]

Wow. I never saw them side by side like that, but Ginny could totally have been teen Lily. Well, they do say we end up marrying our parents so it kind of makes sense. lol

[Vanderboom]

Unpopular Anne of Green Gables opinion: Walter Blythe is my least favorite of the Blythe children. He had all of Anne's ethereal imagination but none of her more down-to-earth qualities, such as a sense of humor.

[truthaboutluv]

On 2/16/2022 at 12:33 PM, peacheslatour said:

For me the actors that played Ginny and Lily just looked too much alike. It was creepy.

 

I always took that as the film writers/producers choosing to show what was obvious in the book but none of the characters would come right out and say. That Harry went full Oedipus Complex in his choice of wife. 

 

On 2/16/2022 at 6:08 PM, Mabinogia said:

Wow. I never saw them side by side like that, but Ginny could totally have been teen Lily. Well, they do say we end up marrying our parents so it kind of makes sense. lol

Problem with that is Harry never knew his parents. All he had were other people's memories and stories about them. So it's not like he even really had his own personal memories and relationship to go off on. Which again fits the superficiality of Harry and Ginny.

Ginny was more so a representation of some ideal partner for Harry versus being a real character - red hair like mommy and she's a Weasley so he gets to be part of their family forever, YEAH!!!

And listen I get it, shippers gonna ship and decades from now some will still claim that that crap was well-written or that there was some true amazing depth in her character that the films robbed viewers of. No, there wasn't. Ginny was the personification of lazy writing.

A wallpaper character, until the author needed her to serve one specific purpose and fit a specific mold. There is no way I'll ever be convinced that that mess was well-written when the entire totality of Harry and Ginny's relationship was about 50+ pages of a 7 book series.

And if some don't like that reality, be mad at J.K. for a being a shit writer when it comes to romance. And judging by her Comoran books, she's STILL a shit writer when it comes to romance. But hey, maybe it's just me because I like my romance with a little more authenticity and less cliché and overused tropes. 

Edited February 21, 2022 by truthaboutluv

[Ohiopirate02]

14 minutes ago, truthaboutluv said:

I always took that as the film writers/producers choosing to show what was obvious in the book but none of the characters would come right out and say. That Harry went full Oedipus Complex in his choice of wife. 

 

Problem with that is Harry never knew his parents. All he had were other people's memories and stories about them. So it's not like he even really had his own personal memories and relationship to go off on. Which again fits the superficiality of Harry and Ginny.

Ginny was more so a representation of some ideal partner for Harry versus being a real character - red hair like mommy and she's a Weasley so he gets to be part of their family forever, YEAH!!!

And listen I get it, shippers gonna ship and decades from now some will still claim that that crap was well-written or that there was some true amazing depth in her character that the films robbed viewers of. No, there wasn't. Ginny was the personification of lazy writing.

A wallpaper character, until the author needed her to serve one specific purpose and fit a specific mold. There is no way I'll ever be convinced that that mess was well-written when the entire totality of Harry and Ginny's relationship was about 50+ pages of a 7 book series.

And if some don't like that reality, be mad at J.K. for a being a shit writer when it comes to romance. And judging by her Comoran books, she's STILL a shit writer when it comes to romance. But hey, maybe it's just me because I like my romance with a little more authenticity and less cliché and overused tropes. 

Ginny and Hermione are both "not like other girls" characters so is Luna.  They all embody different types of the same female archetype.  Hermione is the brainy version, Ginny the cool athletic version, and Luna is the weird girl version.  All of them are "not like other girls" in their own way.  Anyone born female who likes traditional girly things are suspect in JK's world.  Just look at the ending Lavender Brown gets.

Then there's Fleur.  JK does decide to redeem the character in the last book, but that is after Ginny and Molly's atrocious behavior in Half-Blood Prince.  Fleur has to prove herself to the Weasley's before they welcome her.  I do love how Fleur is passive-aggressive right back at Molly and never rolls over.  She knows her worth and is secure in Bill's love.  

[JustHereForFood]

2 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Ginny and Hermione are both "not like other girls" characters so is Luna.  They all embody different types of the same female archetype.  Hermione is the brainy version, Ginny the cool athletic version, and Luna is the weird girl version.  All of them are "not like other girls" in their own way.  Anyone born female who likes traditional girly things are suspect in JK's world.  Just look at the ending Lavender Brown gets.

Then there's Fleur.  JK does decide to redeem the character in the last book, but that is after Ginny and Molly's atrocious behavior in Half-Blood Prince.  Fleur has to prove herself to the Weasley's before they welcome her.  I do love how Fleur is passive-aggressive right back at Molly and never rolls over.  She knows her worth and is secure in Bill's love.  

Oh God, Mrs. Weasley's treatment of Fleur was horrible! She was the typical "No one is good enough for my precious boy" mother that is sadly far too common. I don't think I mentioned enough how much I dislike Mrs. Weasley. And her actions towards Hermione in book 4 were similar, when she thought that she was dating Harry.

On your first paragraph, I've never thought about it that way, but now I can't unsee Ginny and Luna as the Cool Girl and Manic Pixie Dream Girl tandem. Hermione is not that much of a stereotype IMO, though.

[Ohiopirate02]

18 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

On your first paragraph, I've never thought about it that way, but now I can't unsee Ginny and Luna as the Cool Girl and Manic Pixie Dream Girl tandem. Hermione is not that much of a stereotype IMO, though.

I can't get over the whole makeover scene in Goblet of Fire with Hermione.  That really cements it for me when it comes to Joanne and her views on traditional girly activities. I hate the trope of nerd is actually beautiful when she puts in effort because it is always written in a way to pass judgment on the girls who do not find this an effort.  I know the books are written through Harry's perspective, but Joanne could have written it in a way to show Hermione getting ready for the big dance with the rest of the Gryffindor ladies.  Instead we get a scene where everyone is gobsmacked to see her including her roommates.  Joanne has the Gryffindor boys getting ready together, would it have killed her to have the girls do the same?  

I subscribe to the Elle Woods version of feminism where one can revel in girly things while also being smart, driven, caring, etc.  I read these things differently, and I do not like Joanne's views on feminism that seep into her books.  I know she wants to raise her daughter to be serious and make a difference, but one can do that with a full-face of makeup and cute clothes.  It's not an either or proposition.  

 

[truthaboutluv]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I subscribe to the Elle Woods version of feminism where one can revel in girly things while also being smart, driven, caring, etc.  I read these things differently, and I do not like Joanne's views on feminism that seep into her books.  I know she wants to raise her daughter to be serious and make a difference, but one can do that with a full-face of makeup and cute clothes.  It's not an either or proposition.  

I remember at the height of the books' popularity, well before she'd written the last book but the first two films or so were already released, a writer wrote a scathing piece about the series' portrayal of female characters. I wish I could remember it but I can't. It was for one of those popular news style publications like The New Yorker or one of those. 

And J.K. was pissed, responding to the criticism by pointing out how smart Hermione was and how many times she was essentially the brains of the operation and the one keeping Harry alive. But many fired back to that response by pointing out that yes, Hermione was brilliant but at the end of the day, Harry was the hero and the one viewed as the "chosen one." 

What I always found interesting about J.K.'s response is that the criticism called out the series' overall depiction of its female characters and the only comeback J.K. used was Hermione's character. Nothing about Molly, Ginny, McGonagall, etc. That to me was more telling of how she herself viewed her characters. 

And I completely agree about the almost dismissive portrayals at times of Lavender and Parvati. And what always got me about this is that on the one hand, the series browbeat readers over the head with how oh so special Gryffindors supposedly were.

My understanding is that no one that wasn't apparently oh so special went to Gryffindor. Yet at the same time, Lavender and Parvati who were sorted into Gryffindor were treated as some silly, weak girls. But again, I thought Gryffindors were "oh so brave". I guess that only counted when it came to Hermione and superwoman Ginny. 

[Snow Apple]

What do you all think about Cho? In my opinion, JK made her Harry's dream girl until she remembered Ginny/Harry was end game and made Cho less than ideal so we won't like her as much. Yes, she lost her boyfriend and should be emotional, but the way she was written after book 4 was off-putting.

Although one of my favorite scenes was when she offed to bring Harry to the Ravenclaw dorm in the last book, and Ginny was like, no you won't. Luna will go with him. LOL

I admit I haven't read the books in years so may have missed clues from the beginning.

[Ohiopirate02]

3 minutes ago, Snow Apple said:

What do you all think about Cho? In my opinion, JK made her Harry's dream girl until she remembered Ginny/Harry was end game and made Cho less than ideal so we won't like her as much. Yes, she lost her boyfriend and should be emotional, but the way she was written after book 4 was off-putting.

Although one of my favorite scenes was when she offed to bring Harry to the Ravenclaw dorm in the last book, and Ginny was like, no you won't. Luna will go with him. LOL

I admit I haven't read the books in years so may have missed clues from the beginning.

I dislike how Joanne handled Cho and her friends in Order of the Phoenix.  Of course it was Cho's friend who cracked and spilled the beans about Dumbledore's Army.  One of the random Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw boys who participated would never have cracked under the pressure of Umbridge.  Nope, boys would never do that.  I do think Jo decided to make the rat a female character because branding "sneak" in pimples on someone's face would be so much more devastating on a girl than a boy.  Because, you know, girls are so much more vain than boys.  

[Birnam Wood]

On 2/16/2022 at 6:37 PM, Vanderboom said:

Unpopular Anne of Green Gables opinion: Walter Blythe is my least favorite of the Blythe children. He had all of Anne's ethereal imagination but none of her more down-to-earth qualities, such as a sense of humor.

I mean, he was Boy Beth March...

At least he had a personality of sorts? Shirley was a complete cypher.

[JustHereForFood]

6 hours ago, Snow Apple said:

What do you all think about Cho? In my opinion, JK made her Harry's dream girl until she remembered Ginny/Harry was end game and made Cho less than ideal so we won't like her as much. Yes, she lost her boyfriend and should be emotional, but the way she was written after book 4 was off-putting.

Although one of my favorite scenes was when she offed to bring Harry to the Ravenclaw dorm in the last book, and Ginny was like, no you won't. Luna will go with him. LOL

I admit I haven't read the books in years so may have missed clues from the beginning.

Regarding Cho, I found it even back when I was reading the books a bit concerning that despite the lack of characters of color, somehow both Harry and Ginny ended up having the unlucky former gf/bf be a character of color. And if even I notice this, despite being often clueless about racial issues in media, that is not a good sign.

[truthaboutluv]

On 2/22/2022 at 9:50 AM, Snow Apple said:

What do you all think about Cho? In my opinion, JK made her Harry's dream girl until she remembered Ginny/Harry was end game and made Cho less than ideal so we won't like her as much. Yes, she lost her boyfriend and should be emotional, but the way she was written after book 4 was off-putting.

Oh don't even get me started on the assassination of Cho's character. As far as I'm concerned Cho was the girl J.K. tried to force Ginny into being in the latter books. But because she'd already spent so many books writing Ginny as complete wallpaper, the personality shift felt completely fake and forced versus how Cho seemed like an actual person. 

To be clear, it's not like I shipped Harry and Cho and wanted him to end up with her at end of the series. I mean I wouldn't have been bothered if it happened but didn't care one way or the other. I just thought that after actually setting up a nice, and hell, normal first crush for Harry, J.K. went a really lazy asf route to kill it, in preparation for her pre-ordained Harry/Ginny pairing. 

And to my point again of how she's just a shitty romance writer, far from making Cho seem like an awful person, that whole incident just made Harry seem like an emotionally cold and insensitive dick. 

 

On 2/22/2022 at 9:50 AM, Snow Apple said:

Although one of my favorite scenes was when she offed to bring Harry to the Ravenclaw dorm in the last book, and Ginny was like, no you won't. Luna will go with him. LOL

And that was one of the scenes that support my point of the badass J.K. thought she was writing Ginny as, really came off as an annoying and obnoxious twat.

Sure, a whole wizarding war is about to go down with crazy Voldie ready to take out everyone but let's worry more about Harry going off for a few minutes with Cho. Because what, she'll put some spell on him and steal him away? Ugh...

Edited February 23, 2022 by truthaboutluv

[Melgaypet]

On 2/16/2022 at 4:37 PM, Vanderboom said:

Unpopular Anne of Green Gables opinion: Walter Blythe is my least favorite of the Blythe children. He had all of Anne's ethereal imagination but none of her more down-to-earth qualities, such as a sense of humor.

May I sit next to you? Walter got on my nerves. Maybe less because of him, than the worshipful tone the narrative had about him. Other characters were allowed to be ridiculous now and then, but not Walter, who was the Most Special. Ugh. Give me a Jem any day.

Even more annoying was that kid in one of the earlier books - Paul Something - who seemed like a parody of the ethereal, poetical little boy that Montgomery seemed to adore, except she was completely serious.

[Birnam Wood]

On 3/4/2022 at 12:52 PM, Melgaypet said:

Even more annoying was that kid in one of the earlier books - Paul Something - who seemed like a parody of the ethereal, poetical little boy that Montgomery seemed to adore, except she was completely serious.

Paul Irving. And OMG yes.

[Vanderboom]

LOL Paul Irving was irritating, but at least he got into fights at school and eventually became interested in soccer. Walter's only personality trait, it seems, was Beautiful Poetic Soul Too Good For This Sinful World. He was more a Victorian archetype than an actual character. Shirley joins Dora Keith in LMM's collection of neglected yet important characters.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I don't know if this is unpopular, but I know it's nails on a chalkboard for me.

Unless it's a historical, I find it beyond irritating when authors have their characters speak in contractions in one line, then the very next, no contractions. Or vice versa. And I'm talking about 21st century fiction. Unless it's to emphasize something like " I will NOT do that" or something similar, the inconsistency of it or just plain not having them speak in contractions, drives me batty. Especially when writing the non-dialogue, there are contractions galore!

[RealHousewife]

I think Danielle Steel is very talented. 

[SusanM]

On 3/4/2022 at 12:52 PM, Melgaypet said:

Maybe less because of him, than the worshipful tone the narrative had about him. Other characters were allowed to be ridiculous now and then, but not Walter, who was the Most Special

I think the character of Walter suffered most because of Anne of Ingleside the book LMM wrote years after she'd killed him off in Rilla of Ingleside.  He wasn't nearly as saintly in Rainbow Valley and in Rilla I think he was just representative of a lot of young men who went off to that war full of noble ideals.  It's one of the things actually that I like best about Rilla of Ingleside, reading about WWI from the immediacy of someone who has just lived through it without the benefit of historical hindsight.

[Ohiopirate02]

8 hours ago, RealHousewife said:

I think Danielle Steel is very talented. 

I have not read her since the 90s, but I remember liking the books (except for The Ring).  She knows her niche, and writes it well.  

[BlackberryJam]

On 3/9/2022 at 1:39 AM, RealHousewife said:

I think Danielle Steel is very talented. 

While I might not always like the stories she's telling, I can't deny that they are fully fleshed out plots with writing at is a comfortable read. That does take talent. 

Writing is difficult. 

[Katy M]

On 3/9/2022 at 1:39 AM, RealHousewife said:

I think Danielle Steel is very talented. 

My dad's favorite author. He almost reads her exclusively.  I like her in more moderation.  I've probably only read about 10 of her books, give or take.  I liked most of them and don't really remember actively disliking any of them.  But, I don't think I could handle them as a steady diet like my dad does.

[CountryGirl]

Some of my favorite books are by Danielle Steel. I'm a bigger fan of her historical fiction, with The Ghost as my favorite. But I also really liked Jewels, Message From Nam, and Zoya. Also, the stories with childhood trauma like The Long Road Home,  Malice, and Star. 

To add to the Greek mythology adaptations UO, I feel like I am supposed to love A Song of Achilles but I have tried (and failed) to get past the first five chapters and it's a slog. Mostly because Patroclus bores me to tears like Achilles could have done so much better. I did like Circe though.

[RealHousewife]

47 minutes ago, CountryGirl said:

Some of my favorite books are by Danielle Steel. I'm a bigger fan of her historical fiction, with The Ghost as my favorite. But I also really liked Jewels, Message From Nam, and Zoya. Also, the stories with childhood trauma like The Long Road Home,  Malice, and Star. 

To add to the Greek mythology adaptations UO, I feel like I am supposed to love A Song of Achilles but I have tried (and failed) to get past the first five chapters and it's a slog. Mostly because Patroclus bores me to tears like Achilles could have done so much better. I did like Circe though.

I absolutely loved Malice and Star. Malice was my first Danielle Steel novel, and Star might be my favorite. Fun fact, Britney Spears once said Star was her favorite book ever. 

[katha]

With the hype regarding "Bridgerton", this whole topic just becomes more obvious IMO.  There are a number of very good romance novel writers that don't get their due because they write in a genre that is associated with a female readership. Like, Mary Balogh, for example, is fantastic at what she does and has produced a very rich and complex tapestry of work over the decades. Yet no one lauds her like they do George R.R. Martin, or Tolkien or le Carre or Stephen King etc. Though they are also genre writers, just in more "respectable" genres for some (sexist) reason....

[dubbel zout]

Stephen King has been very vocal about being labeled as a genre writer with all the stigma goes with it. I think it was around when he published his memoir that a lot of people realized he was a writer to be taken seriously.

Also, he's prolific, and writers get some heat for that. Even Joyce Carol Oates isn't immune.