but I 'm a huge fan of the films (except the second to last one). Such imagination - truly a 'I wish I'd thought of that' feeling always comes over me. I think she's touched with genius too, and I never use that word lightly.

I'm not sure I will ever read the books though.

I had a high old time on my recent visit to Harry Potter World in Florida. I couldn't be in the state and not visit, and it was well worth it.

The characters and stories will live forever. A true classic.

don't make a lick of sense though.

And if you can imagine a generation of young children now prepared to pick up 600-700 page real actual BOOKs without misgivings then thats a measure of her success.

Some of it is really good - she is very good at the evocation of children actually being in genuine danger, from real evil not just the sort of Halloween slasher panto favoured by Hollywood.

I have quibbles - there are often digressions that could have done with editing. Some of the plotting - while always imaginative - is just too creaky. Some of it isn't that original (some reworking thee public school story of the early 20th century)but nothing leaps out at out you. But I really think my daughters and I were so lucky to have these books - and the anticipation of the next one - while they were growing up with reading.

PS I was genuinely thrilled to discover through these boards that Hogwarts was the name of one of the rival schools to St Custards.

I've read all the books several times: I'm a big re-reader anyway and HP are comfort food in a big way. Unlike 5C I don't like the films all that much, because like any film-of-the-book far too many things just aren't what's in my head (Dumbledore being the biggest example: perfect when Richard Harris, jarringly off when it's Gambon). Also, so much of the books' action takes place in Harry's head, examining his thoughts, seeing it all from his perspective. She really inhabits him, despite not writing in the first person. That's totally absent from the films and Harry has no depth as a result.

It's great kids' literature, and like all great kids' literature is brilliant for adults too. I take great pleasure in ignoring the snobs on this one.

I have a nephew and niece who grew up with the books and films and I'm surprised at how much Harry Potter still means to them as adults. My guess is that Harry Potter will continue to mean a lot to that generation as it gets older.

I'm old enough to remember a lot of talk in the 90s about how children were never going to read books again because of video games. Expert after expert would tell us that children were never going to develop a love for reading because there were so many things competing for their attention. Then Philip Pullman's Northern Lights book was a success, followed by the Harry Potter phenomenon.

I hear she's richer than Croesus. I reckon she deserves it.

I first read these books aloud to my son as they were published. He cried when Sirius died, and he completely fell apart when Dumbledore died. They are very much a part of his childhood and he's reread them probably 3 or 4 times. Same goes with his friends. One of his friends was so attached to these books that he was actually crushed when he turned 11 and didn't get a letter from Hogwarts. The poor kid actually said, "That's when I knew there was no magic in this world." Awww. (He's 17 now and has turned into a cool young man.)

So I'll always be attached to these books for those memories. But I've also read them all on my own again and completely enjoyed them every time. "Comfort food," as Bob calls them above, is a great description. They've got some literary heft to them but they're not a chore to read; they're a pleasure.

He comes back as Dumbledore the White. Or something.

http://www.travelswithlipo.com/

You'd have to agree, the similarities are pretty striking.

.... how old are you ?

Well, maybe not every minute of the big fat one that goes on too long, but pretty much all of it. The thing that really impressed me was the way the characters, the plot, and the writing all age together; the first book is plotted and written for a bright 11 year old (or younger) to enjoy, with a dramatis personae to match, and by the time we get to the Horcrux capers and the battlefield climax, it's all got a bit A level in comparison. Brilliant piece of sustained writing, just superb fun.

Now I wouldn't normally read kids' books but, in my defence, I read them all in German, as they have become the de facto books to read when you're learning a language.
(Of course I have now picked up a completely useless pile of vocabulary that includes Zauberstab (magic wand) and Unsichtbarumhang (invisibility cloak).)

But, yes, I agree they're very well written, the characters are well developed and the plots are well thought out. But I do have a few gripes:

1. As has been pointed out, the rules of Quidditch make no sense at all. Rowling has obviously no understanding of sport; the team is playing one game, while the seeker (i.e. Harry) is playing another game entirely. The whole structure of the game exists to give Harry heroic things to do and win games single-handed
2. Harry saves the day at the end of every book, but at the start of the next one he's back with the Dursley's, only to go back to Hogwarts where he's treated with suspicion and all his heroics from the previous term forgotten
3. Draco Malfoy is a rubbish school bully.

That has enough in it to stimulate their imaginations is alright by me. I read them first time around as a grown up after mrs c picked one up. By the end I remember being like a kid again fishing for clues about what might happen next and hassling her to finish so I could read it. It's a pity in some respects that the films have been made because a lot of younger children who have seen them but who aren't old enough to read the books yet will never have the joy of "seeing" the books in their heads. When my girls are old enough to enjoy hearing them I will make sure they haven't seen them first and I will enjoy reading the stories to them. It's a good story, maybe not the greatest literature but that's not a bad thing in my mind.

Did you really like We Need to Talk About Kevin? Because, really, it is just a pot boiler, isn't it? A Mum's Net version of The Omen.

I mean it is an entertaining read, but I can't understand why it is so lauded by the literary critics.

But I tell you what I hate, the term "kids books"

As far as I'm concerned they're books, books, books!

Read them or don't but don't feel embarrassed or the need to justify reading them. If they're well written and they move you then that's that.

Then again I had 8 library tickets by the age of 11 and was the only child allowed to take books out of the adult library at my local.

But my greatest regret was that I was reading them as an adult. Not for any spurious 'kids books' reasons, just because I know that had they been around when I was a kid I would have been obsessed with them beyond any reason. And that would have been brilliant.

Partly because of the routine of reading them to my kids, which was a pleasure and a positive association. Mainly because I was sucked into the whole wizarding world. I love the little details - the puns like Knock-turn Alley. It helps too that JK Rowling would appear to be a genuinely good egg.

By the way the Forbidden Journey ride in The Wizarding World of Harry Potter in Orlando is an astonishing leap forward from all other theme park ride.

...but like Susie, would have LOVED THEM BEYOND ALL REASON if I'd read them as a child.

I do think the last few books needed a prune and an edit, but who was going to argue with Jo Rowling by then?

Films: First one was shocking, second one not so good. Third one best of all. The others are all good (apart from 7a, but it's difficult to see how a great film could have been made from the half of the book where nothing much happens).

EDIT: When I read the first book, I was reminded of Jill Murphy's The Worst Witch but after the initial premise of a special school for wizards, there is no similarity.

read for my own amusement pretty much on release from HP3 onwards, although I claimed they were for my oldest, he didn't read any of them until late last year in a mad burst of interest. So now I'm reading them again to my youngest and still enjoying them, to the point of plowing ahead even when I know he's asleep.

Haven't seen the last 3 or 4 movies yet, but no burning desire to even with the good reviews. They're too abridged for my liking given the sprawl of the books, but I can appreciate 7 hour films are a bit tricky to get made.

All the above pros (and some of the cons) I'd agree with. Felt a bit predictable at times, and when the pre-release hysteria of 'a main character is going to die' it started going a bit Home And Away, but thankfully that didn't last long.

In the mid noughties I had a huge commute to work twice a week, 130 miles or so each way, being in rural Norfolk means that public transport was impossible (it would have been taxi, 3 trains and a 2 mile walk,estimated time 4-5 hours each way depending on connection), so that meant a two and a half hour drive 4 times a week. For a hell of a lot of that time I listened to Stephen Fry reading the Potter books to me. Now I know he's the current sneer target but he made a brilliant job of them and saved me from a Nicky Campbell overdose. The mixture of Fry/Potter for an hour followed by some music was a true sanity saver. I agree that it gets clunky in parts and often resorts to what Terry Pratchett calls the "Your father, the King" style of narrative, but it entertains, it amuses and as many have already pointed out, it got many kids back into reading.

When you consider that they are both kids' books and fantasy tales, it's hardly surprising that some people are a little sniffy about them.

I have to say that when I read the first book I was most unimpressed - it struck me as derivative and very simplistic. The only reason I continued was that I had been given the first 4 as a present, and I didn't feel I could just give up. I'm very glad I did as I thought the subsequent stories were rich, inventive and highly entertaining. It also gave me something I've not really experienced before - genuine excitement at the publication of a new book in a series I'm reading. My only major criticism is the tendency for characters to occasionally turn into Basil Exposition, but it didn't ruin things.

I know they get criticised for being too long, but I can remember as a kid that I didn't want my favourite books to end. Really long new editions of my favourites would have been an amazing thing. I look forward to reading them - and watching the films - with my kids when they're old enough. I think the films are probably this generation's Star Wars.

Sorry.
I didn't realise JK Rowling saved an entire generation (maybe 2) from a life of illiteracy and book hating.
Apologies all round.

FWIW, anything that turns kids on to reading and books is good, yes.

Anyway, this Dan Brown fellow. His books books are a ripping read too, aren't they?

since I think they get progressively worse as they go on - the first two are very good children's books, but as the series moves on they become very derivative and take bits from Star Wars/LOTR etc (the Pensieve is Galadriel's mirror, the Horcruxes play the same role as the Ring)

That said, "His Dark Materials" suffers in the same way as Northern Lights is a fantastic kids book, but by the last one I got very bored as the didactic message (Religion is bad) takes over the story.

And don't get me started on Narnia - loved them as a child but now? Smug, right-wing, middle-class islampohobia.

But I'll still be happy for little Ms Plugg to read all of them!

The films were fine, but unsurprisingly not a patch on the books.

I wonder if they'd be better served by a really long and faithful TV adaptation, maybe forty plus episodes. Couldn't be done in the near future, as it would be impossible to compete with the best of the film characterisations, most particularly Snape and Hagrid.

are some of the best children's literature ever written.

Derivative yes (complete rip-off of all 'nice oik gets into public school and defeats the bullies' literature from Thomas Hughes onwards)

Quite conservative (Christmas, families, pleasing your teachers, good vs evil, etc, etc)

Plodding passages of description

Some really clunky dialogue

but great characterisation, wonderful subverting of adults' reality and as complete a universe of the imagination as I've encountered since 'Satr Wars'

A pity no one dared edit books 4-7 after the smash hit of the first three. Dreary, over-written, under-plotted and dull, dull, dull!

but really couldn't put them down.

There is definitely a case that says that the books get a bit less good as time goes on. They are certainly less keenly edited. The final book in particular could have done with some serious work on the middle 100 or so pages, though perhaps that was deliberately there to give the reader the same sense of disorienting ennui and hopelessness as the characters at that point ;)

But that is another endearing thing. As the series starts, everything is black/white, good/bad and so it stays really, until book three when the water starts to become a bit murkier and the adult characters start to become more nuanced. If you've invested from the start, this is actually a very clever piece of storytelling and writing, as it builds all of this up in successive, delicate layers. The Dumbledore we see in book seven is certainly a more complex one than the wizard at the start of the series. and Snape is the most complex of them all, possibly

And yes, alright, her prose isn't always as elegant as, say, Pullman's best in HDM (which I also love), but Stephen King wrote about her obvious ability to tell a story, and to keep the reader interested. Pullman has said that he feels a bit uncomfortable writing humorous material in his books because he doesn't think he's that good at it. JK is, though. One of my favourite scenes in the entire series is from Order of The Phoenix, but didn't make it to the film (worse luck, as I though that movie played very fast and loose with its source). It's the scene where Umbridge is observing the careers interview between Harry and McGonagall, ending up in a blazing row between the two adults. It's a hoot.

Even the scene where Ginny first kisses Harry is done so much better in the book, but maybe that's because I'm not overly impressed by Bonnie Wright, who plays her in the movie.

See, I like it. And no guilty pleasure for me. A good story is just a good story; and we all like a rip-roaring story, don't we?

Where did James and Lily get their cash? Eh?

I was hoping soooo much that book seven would reveal that they were bank robbin' wrong 'uns - or something (Anything!), to explain where the heck Harry's incredible wealth came from...

Seriously, JKR has pretty much taken all the main themes of great kid's literature:

Kid with no parents
Who goes to a cool/interesting school
And has a cool gang of friends
And some rubbish enemies of the same age
And gets into comedy scrapes
And has serious, Good v Evil battles with Actually Dangerous Adults
Whilst best mate cracks jokes
And all come of age
Whilst being a bit like you

And she rolled them into a seven book behemoth.

Sure, her writing is clunky and her editors were clearly on holiday for Goblet of Fire and most of the rest of the series, Quidditch is nonsense (and quietly ignored in the final book) and the whole boarding school vibe is, like, well Elitist (man), but...

The basic morality is progressive and children (and adults) do seem to absolutely love it.

Still doesn't explain where the Potter Millions came from, mind. Which will always bug me.

is from an old wizarding family - his mother was from Muggle stock, so I suppose the Potter line (containing the Peverells too, remember) were doubtless Sickled to the max ;)