What readers think of Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix, plus links to write your own review.

I cant stand the Harry Potter books. What is so great about them. The characters are stuck in bxes. Fred and George must make practical jokes, Harry must save the day just in time, Hermoine knowing the anser to every question. The books just get boring after a while and are not worth reading

I loved the first three books. Four took too much time recapping for the new audiences she was attracting. The "new" portion of the story was okay but disappointing compared to the others. This last one I found to be terrible. The entire book was focused on just getting into school and a few days of it. The terrible treatment he endured just went on and on with no purpose. Finally, and I do mean finally, at the end of the book there finally was a plot! Way too long of a book to tell you nothing. I was disappointed enough in the last two I have no interest in the remaining two should she ever decide to put them out. I am very confused by the high ratings others are giving this book. I have to wonder if we read the same one?

This book was the worst ever because the plot is dumb and loads of people die, it never explains what the order of the pheonix is!!!
i dont recommend this book there were no good characters and i dont even know who most of them are, the book is only worth bieng in the trash

I agree with Sarah, it was a bit of a clishe. 13 yrs.

After reading the first two Harry Potter books, I was, as so many others (please excuse the pun) enchanted by the offbeat and whimsical story. I couldn't wait to rip into the next one.
After the third book, I was forced to mildly raise an eyebrow over the Time Turner; a veritable Pandora's Box of plot absurdity. I shrugged it off and waited.
After reading "Goblet of Fire" I was a bit disappointed. Well, more than a bit disappointed. The story was rendered absolute garbage by an ending that made little (if any) sense. I didn't know quite what to make of this... I thought, "Well, I absolutely loved the first two books, tolerated the third and abhorred the fourth. I know that this is directly related to the quality of each individual book so that would indicate a trend. Namely, a downward trend. Yikes. Let's hope she can right the ship."
So I waited.
And waited.
And waited some more.
I finally managed to get a hold of the new Harry Potter book and found that the downward trend had blossomed into a full death spiral. Now, after the two previous books, I was pretty-much expecting Rowling to prominently incorporate some nutty gimick to move the plot along and, boy, I did not go home disappointed. Time travel, morphing worm hole and now mind control.

If I remember her comments about the problems with time travel correctly, this mind thingy probably made Davina throw her hands up in exasperation.

Shameless plot devices and logical inconsistencies aside, "Phoenix" was sub-par in every possible catagory. The pacing was herky-jerky, staggering and reeling between long-winded descriptions of the unimportant and sequences of rushed action like Ted Kennedy on St. Patty's Day. It went off on some very strange tangents and I haven't a clue as to what they were for. Granted, it might have served SOME purpose (perhaps some merchandising angle) but as far as I could tell, it certainly wasn't to forward this bi-polar tale.
What really ruined things for me was the direction Rowling decided to take with Harry's personality. Now I know that some may argue that this angst is a perfectly normal symptom of "Teenage-itis" and is, therefore, part of a realistic development but I would ask, "When is turning a three-dimensional character into a two-dimensional caricature of an adolescent a REALISTIC thing?" As I see things, you have good moods and you have bad moods. You laugh a bit. You cry a bit. You yell a bit. You... Well, you get the point. Anyway, becomming a teenager does make you angrier but certainly doesn't turn you into someone who forsakes all other modes of behavior. Unless, of course, it's accompanied by black depression and/or some very destructive behavior. I think this is a massive oversimplification of a complex, confusing time in life and given that many of her readers are themselves going through this stage, should have been treated with much, much more care.
Hmm.. Or perhaps the problem is perspective; that Rowling has forgotten what it was like to be that age. The way I figure it, the only people to whom it would appear that a teenager is ALWAYS angry is their parents. Maybe it's as simple as that?

This is getting way too long so I'll sum up: The quality of the stories are getting progressively worse, the plot devices are growing exponantially in their absurdity and the ploy of killing off inconsequential characters to manufacture drama was already used up in the fourth book. These facts combined with interviews that hint that the author feels "Phoenix" was her magnum opus and that she fancies herself a mixture of Roald Dahl and H.G. Wells leave me with a very bleak outlook on the furture of the Harry Potter franchise.

I finished the book like ages ago. I came across this site yesterday as I was reading your reviews of book, I found it very interesting and amusing that some readers would rate this book very low for reasons such as: "there are too many characters that I dont know or too many people die", or "there isn't a plot till the end". For those who couldnt follow with all the characters in the book, I susgest them read book 3 and 4 before reading book 5. It is really unfair a comment if you just read one book and the series and comment about that book or the whole series. You're supposed to follow the story line from book 1!!!! You would possibly know who on earth is Moody Mad Eye and who on earth is Sirius - the god father if you didnt read book 3 or 4! Some of the reviews even criticize Hermione and Fred and George; to me they are all very lively and believable characters. Some can say the Hermione seems to know the answer to every question, that is not true!!! She's simply very bright and logical that is all!!! To me all of the books in the series so far are excellent. The latest book, book 5, is a bit long, however, as the story line is so interesting the readers cannot put the book down until he/she is done. I cant wait to get hold of book 6 and endulge myself yet again the magical world of Harry Potter.

Harry Potter is an exciting and Mysterious book. When ever I read these books I want to keep on reading and never stop. Some people believe that Harry Potter books are boring and are to long well if your one of those people you should read one of the books because youll get caught on to it like that, because of its exciting plot with twist and turns. In my review I am focused more on the fifth book more than any of the others. If you have read and finished the fifth book you clearly know that <<edited for plot spoilers>>. Now then again there are always some bad points to a book so one of her weak points was Hagrids Tale. This parts to me was boreing and just not that much excitement even tho I felt sorry for Hagrid I truly feel that this was one of her weak point. This was amazing magical and spectacular.

If she's still browsing the forums, a question for Jenny who writes:

"...from a psychological perspective, J.K. Rowling has taken Harry exactly where he needs to go."

I'm a bit confused by this statement. While I would agree that the angst-riddled path she has chosen take his character down is understadable given the various traumas that have occured in his past, I'm also perplexed at the lack of sophistication with which the issue is handled. Sure, Harry's had a bad run of things but I think that it's important to remember the facts of his situation that was presented at the very beginning of the series. Harry came from a home where neglect, derision, humiliation and other assorted abuses were daily events. Harry probably should have been either a lot angrier, completely withdrawn or exhibited anti-social behavior of some kind. But, no - that's simply not Harry, is it? Regardless of all this, he was still a normal, reletively well-adjusted child who got on quite well with others. This is quite uncommon (closer to well-nigh unbelievable) but makes a bold, unequivocating statement about the kind of person he is and it is prominent throughout the first four books.

So, how is it possible that his mindset that has already survived through so much abuse, suddenly evaporate? I would maintain that such a quick and radical alteration of Harry's personality is unlikely due to his well-documented resiliency and that there is no evidence that a single event preceeding this had caused immediate catastrophic trauma to his psyche.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that it's impossible for Harry to change but I think that a subtle, slow burn over an extended period of time followed by a clearly illustrated breaking point would be a lot more believable.

Oh, and lastly, I don't mean to be offensive but to scoff at people who criticize Tolkien's style just because they themslves cannot write something that exceeds the Lord of the Rings isn't fair and more than a little problematic if you stop and consider the ramifications.

Forgive the messy organization of thought... I'm pretty tired at the moment.

In essence, what you're suggesting is that the value of an opinion should be based strictly on expertise. In this system, any opinion that does not originate from a superior source should be considered worthless which effectively renders 99.99999999999999% of all opinions on every subject at every time as such. This leaves about three people on earth who's comments should actually be taken seriously. But wait! Even that is not certain... By who's authority do these people earn the distinction of expert in a particular discipline? In matters concerning physics, mathematics and NASCAR this really isn't too big a problem but what of fields (like writing or other arts) that are, by their very nature, completely subjective? Okay, now let’s backtrack a bit… Because you have already established the bright line rule that, "If you can't do better, who are you to criticize?" then you must also accept that, in reality, the true implication is, "If you can't do better, everything you say, be it positive or negative bears no weight". As I see it, the situation is very tough now. With the negation of public opinion there are no acceptable means by quantification to determine what is a great work and what is utter spew. This leaves us with only the opinion of the great authors themselves but... um... well... We have no way of knowing who they are, remember?

I think that when evaluating the validity of personal opinion one should focus on how well the statement was defended and not simply tossed aside because of their source.