Reading/Book Pet Peeves

[Redwing]

I am such a Potter-phile that I very rarely criticise something in the books.  The movies, though, are another story.  I hated the way the did the final battle in Deathly Hallows.  Everything about it was wrong.

This is why I never see a movie of a book I loved - except of course To Kill a Mockingbird.

I loved the books. Loved the movies. Had to separate them as totally different things about movie three. They were, and will always be, two loosely related but wholly separate forms of entertainment.

Have to clarify that for the most part, I loved the movies, too.  But that final battle was extremely disappointing to me.  I didn't like Harry and Voldemort falling off the precipice and spinning around as they did.  In particular it irritates me that no one was in the courtyard with Harry and Voldemort at the end.  That made it seem, I don't know the word I want, perhaps anti-climactic, that the rest of them didn't seem the end.  That and the Malfoy's running from the castle.

And I agree, the film of To Kill a Mockingbird was the best adaptation of a book I've ever seen.

[Piratelvr1121]

I love the books and the movies of Harry Potter, and I did like most of part 2 of Deathly Hallows, but that one bit with Harry and Voldemort really irritated the snot out of me. 

And now I know why Voldemort's demise bugged me.  It seemed anticlimatic for him to just dissolve into ashes.   I was expecting him to die the way other people did when "Avada kedavra" was cast.  Also, Bellatrix LeStrange's death...again, dissolving into flakes. Why?

[Redwing]

And now I know why Voldemort's demise bugged me.  It seemed anticlimatic for him to just dissolve into ashes.   I was expecting him to die the way other people did when "Avada kedavra" was cast.  Also, Bellatrix LeStrange's death...again, dissolving into flakes. Why?

Exactly!

[Piratelvr1121]

I'm re-reading Half Blood Prince again because the last time we watched the movie DH, who hasn't read any of the books, was perplexed as to why Harry was not disciplined at all or even reprimanded for casting Septusumpra on Malfoy and was allowed to wander freely about the castle grounds. 

I couldn't remember what really happened, so I'm re-reading.

Now I think I need to re-read Deathly Hallows, or at least the end of it, to refresh myself on how  Bellatrix and Voldmort actually died.

[Redwing]

I'm re-reading Half Blood Prince again because the last time we watched the movie DH, who hasn't read any of the books, was perplexed as to why Harry was not disciplined at all or even reprimanded for casting Septusumpra on Malfoy and was allowed to wander freely about the castle grounds. 

I couldn't remember what really happened, so I'm re-reading.

Now I think I need to re-read Deathly Hallows, or at least the end of it, to refresh myself on how  Bellatrix and Voldmort actually died.

You don't even want to know how many times I've read the whole series.  My daughter, too. 

[Kariachi]

I can't watch the HP movies. At all. I'm a nitpicker, a lover of the books, and I just can't stand the inaccuracies. I will spend days ranting about them. It started fine, but at movie three it started going downhill fast. Thankfully my family realized this about movie six and stop forcing me to see them with them.

On the other hand, The Hobbit is all but my Bible and I am in love with 'An Unexpected Journey'. There were changes yes, but really I feel like they expanded the narrative from great to 'Holy Hedgemuffins!'

Although I did have trouble with the end, but that was just because my dad missed it and I had to try and explain where they were left off to someone whose only seen the cartoon movie.

[ica171]

Well, they *became* twins, but in the early scripts of what became episode IV, Luke was stated to be 20, Leia 16.  I saw Star Wars the first time in '77, and there is *no way* that I believe that the whole arc of stories was in George's mind at that time.

On Harry Potter, I can believe that she had a pretty good idea of the final confrontation between Harry & Voldemort, but not so much the "how to get there" from book 1.

I belive that she had the main story in her mind, and probably most of the main plot points. Having heard a lot of writers talk about how they write, I do believe that there are those who do have very clear, long term plans, just as there are others who don't write in that way. 
I went to a talk by Rowling a couple of weeks ago - she mentione dthat she has no intention of writing other Potter books - she deliberately tied up the loose ends and wanted a firm, happy ending ("I know not everyone liked the epilogue, but I wanted to be clear that it had ended. My Characters, My rules")  She mentioned that she didn't think prequels were generally successful so she didn't see her self doing those.

She did mention she is currently working on a (non-Potter) children's story although it's in the very early stages.
I agree that the later books could have used some firm editing.

Pantsers (as in, fly by the seat of your pants) vs. plotters. I think there must be a hybrid of the two as well.

[Jocelyn]

Pantsers (as in, fly by the seat of your pants) vs. plotters. I think there must be a hybrid of the two as well.

And there are authors who start with a plan, then make changes and forget that the changes weren't part of the original plan.
I once told a friend that I had been writing a novel, but I hadn't worked on it in months. She wanted to read it anyway. When she'd finished, she asked me if I'd intended to imply that the main character was gay. I replied with a surprised NO...until I re-read the draft again and realized that yes, I HAD included that scene that raised that possibility. I'd just forgotten about it entirely, as, in the intervening months, I'd come up with a totally different plot line.   
I think Rowling probably had the same experiences...she had an idea where everything was going, but as she thought about it, and wrote it in her head at odd moments, it evolved and she forgot she hadn't planned it to be that way from the very beginning.

[Piratelvr1121]

I do think the Potter movies were very well cast.  They picked great kids to play the students, though the only one that didn't fit my image of the character was Dolores Umbridge. The actress didn't look as toadlike as I imagined, though she was a great actress. 

As for Rowling, I read that the girl that was cast as Luna, Evanna Lynch, shaped how she wrote Luna in the later books.  Though I don't think in that character's instance it was a bad thing but then I adore Luna Lovegood in both books and movies.

[Elfmama]

I went to a talk by Rowling a couple of weeks ago - she mentione dthat she has no intention of writing other Potter books - she deliberately tied up the loose ends and wanted a firm, happy ending ("I know not everyone liked the epilogue, but I wanted to be clear that it had ended. My Characters, My rules")  She mentioned that she didn't think prequels were generally successful so she didn't see her self doing those.

She did mention she is currently working on a (non-Potter) children's story although it's in the very early stages.
I agree that the later books could have used some firm editing.

Once authors get to the point in a writing career where Rowling was in the middle of the series, they can say "NO EDITING" and make it stick. The first book, maybe even up to the third, the editor can say "I'd like to see these changes" and if the author wants to make the sale, she might go along.  If not, she has to have a pretty compelling reason why not.  "I can't cut out the scene where X happens, because it has major consequences in later books of the series."

[KenveeB]

On the other hand, The Hobbit is all but my Bible and I am in love with 'An Unexpected Journey'. There were changes yes, but really I feel like they expanded the narrative from great to 'Holy Hedgemuffins!'

I liked it, because I didn't feel like they so much changed The Hobbit book as included stuff that wasn't in the book because Bilbo didn't see it. So it still feels like the same story, just fresh perspectives.

[Venus193]

Once authors get to the point in a writing career where Rowling was in the middle of the series, they can say "NO EDITING" and make it stick. The first book, maybe even up to the third, the editor can say "I'd like to see these changes" and if the author wants to make the sale, she might go along.  If not, she has to have a pretty compelling reason why not.  "I can't cut out the scene where X happens, because it has major consequences in later books of the series."

I don't know whether she did that or not but I've seen examples of authors who became popular enough so that their publishing houses decide to save money by not editing them because they think their fans will buy the book anyway.  This does nothing positive for the author in the long term.

[Kariachi]

Once authors get to the point in a writing career where Rowling was in the middle of the series, they can say "NO EDITING" and make it stick. The first book, maybe even up to the third, the editor can say "I'd like to see these changes" and if the author wants to make the sale, she might go along.  If not, she has to have a pretty compelling reason why not.  "I can't cut out the scene where X happens, because it has major consequences in later books of the series."

I don't know whether she did that or not but I've seen examples of authors who became popular enough so that their publishing houses decide to save money by not editing them because they think their fans will buy the book anyway.  This does nothing positive for the author in the long term.

Also, it alienates possible new fans. My mom hasn't touched one writer(can't remember who) since she made me read their work. I got two chapters in, put it down, and only picked it up again to point out all the grammar errors she'd missed in her fan-ish fury. Given that that's our worse pet peeve*...


*She's actually recommended that I publish something on Kindle 'cause she can count on me to spread proper grammar and spelling.

[Winterlight]

Once authors get to the point in a writing career where Rowling was in the middle of the series, they can say "NO EDITING" and make it stick. The first book, maybe even up to the third, the editor can say "I'd like to see these changes" and if the author wants to make the sale, she might go along.  If not, she has to have a pretty compelling reason why not.  "I can't cut out the scene where X happens, because it has major consequences in later books of the series."

Anne Rice and Laurell K. Hamilton are both Horrible Warnings for people who believe they can do without a good editor. Along with the perils of falling in love with your characters, but that's a whole other rant.

[Reika]

]Once authors get to the point in a writing career where Rowling was in the middle of the series, they can say "NO EDITING" and make it stick. The first book, maybe even up to the third, the editor can say "I'd like to see these changes" and if the author wants to make the sale, she might go along.  If not, she has to have a pretty compelling reason why not.  "I can't cut out the scene where X happens, because it has major consequences in later books of the series."

I actually stopped reading Stephen King for the longest time because of that. And he was my absolute most favorite author for years. Then I read one of his books, not sure which one now because of how far back that was, and thought to myself, "Wow, I can't believe they actually published this. Did anyone actually read it? It's garbage."

What brought me back to reading his stuff again was when he resumed the Dark Tower series.