User Log On
User Directory

Member Map
What's New?
Fruvous Dot Com

Welcome, guest!
Create an account for a personalized experience,
or log on if you have one.

Poll: How Many Harry Potter Books have you read?

0 22 (29%)
1 2 (3%)
2 0 (0%)
3 1 (1%)
4 1 (1%)
5 42 (55%)
6 [I tend to exaggerate] 8 (11%)
   Discussion: How Many Harry Potter Books have you read?
iPauley · 16 years, 1 month ago
I've seen all the movies released so far, but I have not yet read any books.

Sorry, not enough time to read much lately, and I'm already working on The Sum Of All Fears. Next on my to-read list is The Ultimate Hitchhikers Guide, composed of all 5 in the Hitchhikers series, plus a 6th story.

-- Pauley
Talcott · 16 years, 1 month ago
Five main books + Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them + Quidditch Through the Ages = Seven.
K-Lyn Back · 16 years, 1 month ago
+ The WIzard Behind Harry Potter (a bio of JK Rowling) = eight
sheryls Back · 16 years, 1 month ago
for me it's "The Magical World of Harry Potter" (reference guide) = 8 :P
lawrence Back · 16 years, 1 month ago
yeah, that's a good point.

plus, I count the original British versions and the American translations as distinct books, so I've read.... 12? :)
Rachel Marie aka RAI Back · 16 years, 1 month ago
Same here!
Gordondon son of Ethelred · 16 years, 1 month ago
I'm guessing that not many people will answer 2, 3, or 4. Most will be either 0 or 5.
Kris 'engaged' Bedient · 16 years, 1 month ago
I've read all of the main books but seen none of the movies. Which makes me wonder somehting. I refuse to see a movie until I've read the book at least once. When LOTR came out I re-read those books first.

So, who here is a "book first", and who doesn't really care?
Andrea Krause Back · 16 years, 1 month ago
I don't really care. Particularly because sometimes I see good movies made out of books I didn't particularly enjoy. I think at a certain level they're two different entities and you don't HAVE to experience the book to like or dislike the movie.
Talcott Back · 16 years, 1 month ago
I agree.
If I want to read a book, and see that a movie is comming out, I'll read first. Most of the time, but definitly not all of it, the book is better, and I'd rather have any twists come in book form.

The Lord of the Rings movies would be a good example, though, of movies which I enjoy much more than the books.

As Andrea said, there are also cases where they are completly different things. Take Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Willy Wonka. Two good things, both by Roald Dahl, but they have little in common.

Even with the Harry Potter books, the best of the movies (the third one), is the one which least clossly follows the book. It leaves out a lot of (what I consider) important background, but as a movie, it is better for it.

Gordondon son of Ethelred Back · 16 years, 1 month ago
I read the HP books first but as I was thinking about it now I remembered that I used to prefer seeing the film first and I liked my reasoning. The books is usually better and virtually always have more details so if I read the book first I get disappointed at the film but if I see the film first I discover new things when I read the book.
Andrea Krause Back · 16 years, 1 month ago
The only problem there is if you hate the movie and then subsequently don't read the book you may miss out on a good book that was just asstastically butchered. :)
Gordondon son of Ethelred Back · 16 years, 1 month ago
That's what reviews and word of mouth are for.

goovie is married! · 16 years, 1 month ago
Gordondon son of Ethelred Back · 16 years, 1 month ago
She had an editor for the last two? I think greenpeace needs to have a word with her, forests of trees are being sacrificed for all those needless pages.
Bender Back · 16 years, 1 month ago
don't forget baby seals for the binding.
elfy, teacher of many Back · 16 years ago
good point. The Ents might want to talk with her too.
meh Back · 16 years ago
Or the Lorax.

*has sudden horrible images of an LOTR/Dr. Seuss crossover fic*
goovie is married! Back · 16 years ago
*snork* the only way ootp could have been longer would've been if it been told by an ent. :P
lawrence Back · 16 years ago
looks like you might be out of luck. is listing it as being 672 pages.

so either she didn't get an editor, or she did and there's just a lot more actual story this time.

You must first create an account to post.

©1999-2020 · Acceptable Use
Website for Creative Commons Music?