Quote from MajorMarmot

Based on your outlook, I find it hard to believe that you would look to see if they had it, so I think you don't actually know and are just saying something in a vague attempt to prove a point.

Now, that's just plain rude. I did look for Shakespeare in the library, actually I was looking for an English classic, but the only thing I got was Ivanhoe.

I didn't go there to buy Harry Potter, you know, but that was practically the only thing in english they had all the time.

And art is published to enjoy it, the reason for it's creation might be to let the human soul express itself, and it is known that certain art pieces are hidden for years because the authors don't wish to share them to the world, but if the authors publish them, they do so because they thing that it might be enjoyable to other people.

When I need some depth in my literature, I prefer philosophy.

And I ask you. Is Shakespeare your favorite author? Or you just defend him to be on the safe side (Critics do love him)?

Sorry, I suppose I was a bit rude- I'll apologize for that.

As to whether or not Shakespeare is my favorite author, I will honestly answer that he isn't. He is clearly one of the best writers, pretty much overall, but that doesn't mean that he is my favorite.

If I have to pick a favorite author, it would either be Dante or Murasaki. But my favorites tend to be more oriented towards that which I feel has more philosophical meaning for me, rather than overall writing quality. I still enjoy plenty of modern books that I would consider trashy in terms of their literary quality, but that doesn't mean I think they should be considered good literature in any way,shape, or form.

[img]http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt122/Wthuh/CrenshiSig.jpg[/img]
Reviews of my Work:
You are kind of boring - Blackorion
Congratulations! Ur an asshole! - tokyo_homi
**Your awesome!!! **- Cherelle_Ashley
NightSwan also said that she wanted to peg me, once, but I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or a threat...

Quote from Layhe

Hmm, can we really see Rowling as a great/good/bad writer if she wrote only one series? I mean, from what I've heard she has plans for new books. Maybe if we'll read more of her books we will be able to be more objective on this matter? Because judging her from 7 books about the same character, from which the two last volumes sucked royally, can we really say something about her style of writing?

Think of it this way.

The complete works of William Shakespeare, hard cover from RSC, 2576 pages. This includes a lot of material about the literature and not just what he wrote.

The boxed Harry Potter set. 3407 pages...

I think it can be considered a pretty fair comparison. 🙂

Quote from Sosseres

Quote from Layhe

Hmm, can we really see Rowling as a great/good/bad writer if she wrote only one series? I mean, from what I've heard she has plans for new books. Maybe if we'll read more of her books we will be able to be more objective on this matter? Because judging her from 7 books about the same character, from which the two last volumes sucked royally, can we really say something about her style of writing?

Think of it this way.

The complete works of William Shakespeare, hard cover from RSC, 2576 pages. This includes a lot of material about the literature and not just what he wrote.

The boxed Harry Potter set. 3407 pages...

I think it can be considered a pretty fair comparison. 🙂

Oh, so now we're comparing based on how many pages? Are you sure you wanna do that? cause i know a few series that have a lot more than 3500 pages

[url=http://fah-web.stanford.edu/teamstats/team79419.html][/url]

Quote from Sosseres

Think of it this way.

The complete works of William Shakespeare, hard cover from RSC, 2576 pages. This includes a lot of material about the literature and not just what he wrote.

The boxed Harry Potter set. 3407 pages...

I think it can be considered a pretty fair comparison. 🙂

But Shakespeare didn't have the same characters for his all plays, now did he? He used different characters and different plot lines, while Rowling went with one plot line for seven books.

Current avatar features Badou from Dogs.

Actually, my favorite author isn't JK Rowling aether......I don't even like her that much.....but I believe that there is value in the fact that a lot of people love her, and is not right that people bash her because she might be overrated or because critics don't consider her work art.

My favorite author is Alexandre Dumas, and I just love The Count of Monte Cristo, and he, in his time, was in the exact same position we see JK Rowling right now.

He was having a huge success serializing The Three Musketeers and Monte Cristo, he was printed in several languages when his novels weren't even finished, and we're talking about 1850, but the critics hated his guts, and they still criticize him for having plain characters and lack of depth.

That's probably why I defend JK Rowling.

[img]http://www.freewebs.com/majormarmot/hypnosis%2Dss.gif[/img]
THIS POST DOES NOT EXIST......IT'S ALL IN YOUR IMAGINATION

Shakespeare appealed to people of all ages, class, and time. writers in Hollywood samples from shakespeare and creates films that appeal to everyone. people rather watch then to read complex language. Rowling created the potter series and there are plenty of people that wasn't feeling it. but i bet u could find the most ignorant person and he'd heard of "to be or not to be".

"Hip-hop was set out in the dark. They used to do it out in the park"

Quote from MajorMarmot

Actually, my favorite author isn't JK Rowling aether......I don't even like her that much.....but I believe that there is value in the fact that a lot of people love her, and is not right that people bash her because she might be overrated or because critics don't consider her work art.

My favorite author is Alexandre Dumas, and I just love The Count of Monte Cristo, and he, in his time, was in the exact same position we see JK Rowling right now.

He was having a huge success serializing The Three Musketeers and Monte Cristo, he was printed in several languages when his novels weren't even finished, and we're talking about 1850, but the critics hated his guts, and they still criticize him for having plain characters and lack of depth.

That's probably why I defend JK Rowling.

I think The Count of Monte Cristo is significantly better written than Harry Potter (which is a large case for its endurance), but that certainly is a valid comparison.

But, as I said before, I think the amount of enjoyment you get out of a book (which typically indicates whether or not it is a person's favorite, although it varies by the case) is not the same thing as the overall quality of the writing. I don't think someone with the writing quality of JK Rowling can ever be considered to be as important to literature or as meaningful as that of Shakespeare's, regardless of how many people enjoy her books.

[img]http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt122/Wthuh/CrenshiSig.jpg[/img]
Reviews of my Work:
You are kind of boring - Blackorion
Congratulations! Ur an asshole! - tokyo_homi
**Your awesome!!! **- Cherelle_Ashley
NightSwan also said that she wanted to peg me, once, but I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or a threat...

Quote from Sosseres

Think of it this way.

The complete works of William Shakespeare, hard cover from RSC, 2576 pages. This includes a lot of material about the literature and not just what he wrote.

The boxed Harry Potter set. 3407 pages...

If you are making a comparison based on quantity, word count would be better than page count as typeset, spacing, and font size can drastically affect the page count. It is quite likely that those 2576 pages contain more content than the 3407 pages of Harry Potter.

Ultimately the measure of quantity should be distilled down beyond the pages or even the words to the quantity and variety of ideas conveyed through the work, in which case those 2576 pages dwarf those 3407 pages in comparison.

"V chelovecheskom nevezhestve ves'ma uteshitel'no schitat' vsjo to za vzdor chevo ne znaesh'" iz pesy Nedorosl' - D I Fonvizin

Firstly, there are no just comparison, since Rowling target were adolescent readers, and it doesn´t have much influence in let´s say 25years old+ readers (i personally had read HP, and it was entertaining, but i had read much better books). There are good authors out there that have written great books, and personally i think each author deserve their own fame and recognition, comparison doesn´t do any good. Rowling books were popular and sold well, but if you consider her to be a great writer, read more, read Poe, read Lovecraft, read Asimov, and read enough authors so you can say "I have read many books of different authors and so i say J.K.Rowling books are great".

This week's favorites:

• Golden Kamui

ççççççç[Ô.Ô] tsutopodus© will eat your manga and steal your cats!

The two of them are incomparable , different eras and all . JKR will probably never match up to him. And dont call me a hater coz i did like the harry potter books and i still dont think shes good enuff.

In terms of popularity? Yes, she's comparable.

In terms of writing skill? Shakespeare kicks her butt many times over. Her books were fairly entertaining but they had parts which could've been better. The last few books were dreadful and you could see a huge slump in terms of writing quality: everyone was out out of character, events were predictably maneuvered in order to reach the ending she'd set in stone. In short, there were many mistakes which even novice novellists are cautioned to avoid. You go to some of the writing forums like WritingForums, Writing.com, etc. and this is what all the accomplished writers will tell you.

There're many writers whose ability is far better and as far as I know, they're good literature(aye) but excellent stuff? No. I feel they've been overhyped and thus, many bought into it and desperately justify their dismay with self-assurances.

Oh, and it's advertising and PR which helped sell them, not her writing ability.

Being what some consider [or not - I just made this term up myself] a "young author", I can feel a bit for Rowling. =P

I don't think Rowling expected all that much success from Harry Potter. Didn't she just do it for...fun or something cause the idea just "came" to her? That's what I read.

It's a bit unfair to compare her to Shakespeare - it's unfair to compare ANY author to Shakespeare.

I mean, srsly. >_>

Quote from Dubby

Being what some consider [or not - I just made this term up myself] a "young author", I can feel a bit for Rowling. =P

I don't think Rowling expected all that much success from Harry Potter. Didn't she just do it for...fun or something cause the idea just "came" to her? That's what I read.

It's a bit unfair to compare her to Shakespeare - it's unfair to compare ANY author to Shakespeare.

I mean, srsly. >_>

for real though. it's like comparing jfk to george washington

Listen here
Livin just to keep from dyin
[img]http://imagegen.last.fm/TheDarkTen/recenttracks/imgooley.gif[/img]

Harry Potter is enjoyable, I really think it was well done but the writing is not "technically" great. By that I mean that it is kind of a fluff book. Something I read when I don't want to think.

So while it is a good book, and a children's classic it is not equal to shakespeare. It's the old apple to orange thing. They may both be fruit but they can't be compared directly to each other as they are written not only in different styles and genre but for different audiences with different subject matter.

"Tu es responsable pour toujours de ce que tu as approvoise." Le Renard en "The Little Prince" Antoine de St. Exupery.