In message <9agk93hkfblkqtdrud22r9j79jldf7m36h@
4ax.com>, Baz
yahoo.co.uk> writes>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 09:07:01 +0100, Geep
nospam.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:>>
>>What age, does the team think, is ideal for an introduction to Harry
>>Potter?
>
>I think six might be a bit young but there were six year olds at the
>movie last night so what do I know. My youngest read the first book at
>about 8 IIRC. What I'd do is buy the first book and try reading it to
>him. If he gets bored and seems not into it, put it aside for a bit
>longer.
That is a good idea, with one flaw - it means I have to read it, which
may be a problem :-)
We do have one of the books around here somewhere, but neither of us
could get in to it. Dunno why. I should try reading it to James,
though. I just thought he may find a film easier, at first. This whole
business of choosing the right books and films is a nightmare, not to
mention YouTube, which he loves. You would think that was fairly
harmless, when all he wants to do is watch bits of Cars [1], or Thomas.
That was fine, until he found a Thomas parody, all about the Fat
Cunt-troller ...
[1] Why he watches Cars on YouTube when he has the DVD I fail to
understand.
>
>I lurve Doctor Who. I'm a Dr Newbie though. I think it's David Tennant
>that has me hooked . If they switch Drs on me again I might loose
>interest ;-)
>
I watched, prepared to hate it, cos I was brought up on the
original(s), but I must admit that David Tennant is excellent in the
role. I'm really enjoying it. I didn't see any of the Rose episodes,
but have seen the most recent series - Series Two?
--
Geep
