/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21908548]

When did you grow out of your hating Harry Potter phase and come to appreciate the series for its genuine literary merit?

[Anonymous No.21908553]

I never hated it. I liked it when I was a kid, I put down childish things when I became an adult, not because they are bad, but because I’m an adult. I love HP in the same way I love Roald Dahl: because of the joy the books gave me as a kid, and the joy the authors give me now as adults (Rowling for making trannies seethe and Dahl for his antisemitism).

[Anonymous No.21908564]

>>21908553
Kek, you are not an adult yet pal.

[Anonymous No.21908579]

>>21908553
Antisemitism is believing what your ancestors said about Jews instead of what Jews said about you ancestors! Hahah, am I right fellow kek boys? Antisemitism is funny and good and we should all attack our local synagogues because they are replacing white people with Black men, it is only natural for us to hate and spread hate about Jews online!!!

Fucking kill yourself incel.

[Anonymous No.21908642]

>>21908548
Never. In casual conversation though, I do, occasionally, have to surpress a reference to ASOIAF though.

[Anonymous No.21908646]

>>21908548
>When did you grow out of your hating Harry Potter phase and come to appreciate the series for its genuine literary merit?
When Rowling turned into the trannies' arch enemy.

[Anonymous No.21908656]

>>21908579
Schizo tranny hitler spammer

[Anonymous No.21908741]

>>21908548

[Anonymous No.21908756]

>>21908548
It was the prequel to the much better fanfic HPMoR

[Anonymous No.21908859]

>>21908741
Zoomers really are obsessed with Harry Potter and will never become adults.

[Anonymous No.21909303]

Finally reading the books and after 2, I'm really unimpressed.

[Anonymous No.21909313]

>>21908548
Harry potter doesnt have any literary merit. It has some comfy merit and cultural relevancy but it is incredibly artless. Book 5 is maybe the most serious attempt at actually doing something, with the mind infection, the government meddling, the underground paramilitary group, all that weird stuff in the department of mysteries. Definitely the most kino book, but it's still pretty lackluster lets be real. The way she writes is just like anti art

[Anonymous No.21909547]

>>21908548
Recently, but I'm not sure if I want to get into it again. I like the witty parts, but I'm dreading the convoluted story, simplistic morals and romance subplots.

[Anonymous No.21909553]

>>21909313
Could you give an example of a sentence that you consider to be anti-art?

[Anonymous No.21909564]

>>21909553
>The zoo director himself made Aunt Petunia a cup of strong, sweet tea while he apologized over and over again. Piers and Dudley could only gibber. As far as Harry had seen, the snake hadn’t done anything except snap playfully at their heels as it passed, but by the time they were all back in Uncle Vernon’s car, Dudley was telling them how it had nearly bitten off his leg, while Piers was swearing it had tried to squeeze him to death. But worst of all, for Harry at least, was Piers calming down enough to say, “Harry was talking to it, weren’t you, Harry?”

It's like chat gpt wrote it

[Anonymous No.21909639]

>>21908548
After the head injury.

[Anonymous No.21909653]

>>21909564
That seems like normal prose to me. I've seen some horrid written shit so I don't see how this is anti-art

[Anonymous No.21909660]

>>21909564
>as far as
>but worst of all
That is some very lazy writing

[Anonymous No.21909663]

>>21909653
It's not horrid, it's even mildly pleasant. There is just no artistry to it. There is no poetry or musicality or imagery or anything. In book 7 she seemed to try a little bit at certain points

[Anonymous No.21909751]

>>21909303
I happen to be in a similar position. I read Philosopher's Stone about a decade ago, however I remember being somewhat fond of it. Chamber was just grating, like it was written with a younger audience in mind, and while it's been a bit too long for me to draw direct parallels; I felt like there wasn't enough separating the two books.

[Anonymous No.21910506]

>>21909313
>>21909553
>>21909653
>>21909660
>>21909751
COUNTERPOINT:

>Slowly, very slowly, he sat up, and as he did so he felt more alive, and more aware of his own living body than ever before. Why had he never appreciated what a miracle he was, brain and nerve and bounding heart? It would all be gone...or at least, he would be gone from it. His breath came slow and deep, and his mouth and throat were completely dry, but so were his eyes.

[Anonymous No.21910561]

>>21908548
I only like the 3rd and the 6th ones, because they were more character driven. That isn't to say that they're any good, but I remember liking those much more than the others when I was a kid. Same with the movies

Rowling would've been better off writing slice of life set in the school, instead of the garbage YA plot she had constructed.

[Anonymous No.21911071]

>>21910561
>the garbage YA plot she had constructed
Could you elaborate? Personally I have mixed feelings about the plot.

[Anonymous No.21911082]

>>21908548
I read these including about half of Deathly Hallows or so (dropped it out of boredom). I legitimately do not remember a single detail from any of these books. All my knowledge of Harry Potter are from the movies.

[Anonymous No.21911089]

>>21909663
There's humor to it and it says something about the characters. I don't see why it should also be beautiful on top of those things.

[Anonymous No.21911116]

>>21911071
NTA, she does a good mystery but it's the SAME mystery with the same hero's journey structure tied to the terms in every book. Uh oh, it's halloween, time for something to happen. Which teacher is evil and which one is a red herring this time? It has a bad case of hurry up and wait for the key piece of information a few weeks before the term ends, every book. 3 and 6 break from it by progression being character driven and less formulaic.

I agree with Jo in that she wrote herself into a corner with the whole Hogwarts structure and it would have been better as a sprawling adventure out in the world. The vignettes and forays outside the school are some of her best scenes. Except for 7, that book is a chore with some occasionally good scenes that are all character driven instead of by the demands of the YA plot structure.

[Anonymous No.21911148]

>>21911116
Did Rowling really say that? She could've broken away from hogwards halfway through the series. Either it took her way too long to come to the realization, or she stuck with hogwards because she already had the entire plot thought out.

[Anonymous No.21911168]

>>21911148
She mentioned some of it in, I believe the Heyman interview, that she had a problem and Hogwarts was the solution but wasn't entirely happy with it as it made it difficult to get away from Hogwarts. My own guess given years of other interviews is that she had everything through 4 loosely plotted but wasn't expecting 7 books until 2 got a contract and she had to scramble to get everything together and revise huge portions of everything. Her worldbuilding answering technical questions about magical secrecy in book 2 kinda fucked her. 1 is practically ancient and heavily revised so it's hard to draw conclusions from, but anons think the style and world of 1 and 2 reflect a very different direction than what the books took

[Anonymous No.21911179]

>>21908553
Your reason is pretentious, you can dig deeper.

[Anonymous No.21911181]

>>21908859
Zoomers gaf about HP? I thought it was a millennial thing.

[Anonymous No.21911187]

>>21909564
>it's like chat gpt
nice thread, baiting shill

[Anonymous No.21911366]

>>21908548
When trannies started hating it.

[Anonymous No.21911371]

>>21908548
i liked the franchising surrounding the books as a kid.

[Anonymous No.21911375]

>>21911366
rent free

[Anonymous No.21911766]

>>21911071
Anytime Voldemort is involved, it takes a nosedive. He is a retarded ass villain. Also, she makes the world ancient, but the villain is relatively modern, which makes it feel like less of a threat, existentially. I get that wasn't the point, but it still makes him a shitty villain.

At least in the 6th one, you get a backstory. But I think HP would have benefitted more as a character driven story, slice-of-life.

And yeah, the criticism of Voldemort never being able to take a high school is absolutely valid.

[Anonymous No.21911800]

>>21911766
I agree about voldemort. JK writes politcs around him but he's just an unpersuasive noseless creep. The movement is an obvious metaphor for nazism but voldemort's character is almost the opposite of hitler.
However I don't get what you mean with this:
>the villain is relatively modern

[Anonymous No.21911832]

>>21911800
I mean to say she made that school like a thousand years old, and Nicholas Flamel was an in universe character, would have been much cooler to have the villain be some ancient force, instead of some creep from 50 years ago

[Anonymous No.21911842]

>>21911366
One honest poster, better than the bulk pretending it‘s not adolescent millennial brain rot just because it‘s on the outs with the current thing.

[Anonymous No.21912914]

>>21908548
I literally just got done reading The Deathly Hallows and came on /lit/ to see if there was a HP thread up lmao.
Anyway, JK Rowling's writing improves massively over the course of the series - the first and seventh book is night and day.
Each book piles more and more strain on the world she's created, it becomes less plausible the larger it gets, but it's still good fun.
Having read all 7 books over the last 2 weeks, that's my ultimate conclusion: I don't care if it's not great literature, it's just fun to read.

[Anonymous No.21912985]

>>21911842
And honestly it’s barely on the outs. Every retard I know that spent their entire life moralizing about how you can’t read “problematic” authors suddenly decided that you can actually separate the art from the artist when that mentality was about to effect the series they built their identity around. And even ignoring that I would say most normalfags just don’t really care and still like the books guilt-free.

[Anonymous No.21913111]

>>21912985
>built their identity around
People don't honestly do this, do they? I mean, not when it comes to HP.

[Anonymous No.21913206]

>>21912914
Does the writing improve because she becomes a better writer, or does it improve because the target audience gets older?

[Anonymous No.21913224]

>>21912985
Isn't it also a factor that Rowling's twitter comments were incredibly tame?

[Anonymous No.21913290]

>>21913111
I’m being a little hyperbolic but there are certainly plenty of people who never really moved on from reading Harry Potter and that still cherish it as some rich cultural well to derive opinions about serious matters from. See all the comparisons between Trump, Putin, etc and Voldemort.

[Anonymous No.21913648]

>>21908548
I always liked it and still do.

[Anonymous No.21913656]

>>21909564
There's nothing wrong with this at all, and the entire section of book 1 leading u to Hagrid informing him that he's a wizard is a masterwork.

[Anonymous No.21913662]

>>21908642
>ASOIAF
>no one is singing

[Anonymous No.21913663]

>>21909663
You are the opposite of correct. Your word selection in this post displays how much you understand about "prose."
>It's not horrid, it's even mildly pleasant
Fag
>there is just no artistry
Yes there is, fag
>there is no poetry or musicality or imagery
Jesus christ I actually hope you kill yourself what an amazingly retarded person you must be concerning every topic, subject, area of life, etc

[Anonymous No.21913667]

>>21911116
>I agree with Jo in that she wrote herself into a corner with the whole Hogwarts structure and it would have been better as a sprawling adventure out in the world.
No... no it would not have been

Hp threads on lit really are an acid test for which anons are just complete fucking retards. Anyone who says the word prose is usually a complete fucking faggot retard. In fact, I doubt there are any exceptions to this.

[Anonymous No.21913671]

>>21911766
I love HP but Voldemort is the weakest part of the entire series. He's just a moron the whole time, and the way he's defeated is very stupid.

[Anonymous No.21913672]

I never really hated Harry Potter and I don't get why it causes such strong polarizing reactions (the book itself, not JK Rowling tranny culture war shit). It was always just a kind of goofy fun kids' book. Maybe just because so many of the kids who read it never went on to read anything more advanced, so it inadvertently ended up having an outsized influence on millennials' consciousness?

[Anonymous No.21913758]

>>21913663
mellow out man

[Anonymous No.21913768]

>>21913758
I can't, that type of person really gets my goat. Rowling rendered her world very well, and her characters and dialogue on their own are miles beyond anything the average lit poster could come up with.

[Anonymous No.21913774]

>>21913672
I guess the extreme popularity provokes extreme counterreactions. The books aren't as stupid as Twilight or 50 Shades, but quite a few people love pretending they're above the ''midwits''. It's the ultimate display of arrogance.

[Anonymous No.21913777]

>>21913768
Fair enough. You did mellow out though, so thanks for that.

[Anonymous No.21913780]

>>21913777
I... did not

[Anonymous No.21913794]

>>21908548
Never hated it, just grew out of it into indifference.
Rereading a bit of it I don't appreciate it for genuine literary merit.
It's good but not great. But it was good with a MASSIVE advertising campaign so it was a legendary success.

[Anonymous No.21913804]

>>21908548
I've never really hated it, I've just always thought it was nothing special. There are certainly better children's books out there.

[Anonymous No.21913805]

>>21913794
>but it was good with a MASSIVE advertising campaign
You mean enthusiastic word of mouth from actual readers?
>THE LATER BOOKS WERE ADVERTISED
Ya because the first few were so amazing the publishers realized they were going to make a few billion dollars off of selling them and merchandising them, because they were so good

The fact that a person in the world can believe Harry Potter was successful knly because of its marketing campaign makes me want to kill everyone on the planet and then kms myself

[Anonymous No.21913812]

>>21913805
Kill yourself then, if you somehow have trouble believing that popular shit can be bad or at least unexceptional then you're a retard.

[Anonymous No.21913815]

>>21913804
Such as?

[Anonymous No.21913817]

>>21913812
lol, it's amazing the telephone game you play with people who simply don't have good reading comprehension! Somehow my
>harry potter was not successful because of it's marketing campaign
Became
>everything that's popular is good and exceptional
That's magic worthy of Harry himself! You're truly gifted at transfiguration anon!

[Anonymous No.21913818]

>>21913812
>shamelessly moves the goalpost

[Anonymous No.21913834]

The first 2 books or so were absolutely kino.
You need to understand that it was a book written by a probably conservative mother from the UK, still a somewhat white nation back then. It was something comfortable and familiar for children and parents.

Rowling saw the extreme degeneracy that was building up on the world after the early 2000's and decided to take an instance.

Honestly, she should just leave modernity altogether and live the rest of her life as a great conservative recluse.

[Anonymous No.21913844]

BIG problems with Harry Potter that RUIN the series
>quidditch is fucking retarded. The Snitch is worth 15 goals and decides every single match except that one at the world cup where Krum inexplicably loses the game for his team (no professional player would ever voluntarily end the game at a loss to avoid "losing more" in a final event of a world cup... and why were the teams such a mismatch anyway... totally fucking retarded)
>literally any muggle born college intern would perform better at Arthur Weasleys job than he does, as he doesn't seem to understand anything at all about Muggles despite specializing in them for several decades and curriculum concerning them being readily available at Hogwarts
>the marauders becoming Animaguses at the age of 14 including Peter Pettigrew makes no fucking sense whatsoever when very very few witches or wizards ever achieve this. I don't care how much of a boner every single character has for Sirius and James they are both MASSIVE FAGGOT RETARDS
Unreadable trash/10

[Anonymous No.21913847]

>>21913844
Supposedly she intentionally made the rules of quidditch retarded to piss off her husband

[Anonymous No.21913851]

>>21913844
Oh ya and the time turner existing for a 13 year old to do homework and then never being mentioned again except for jk to put some throwaway plot hole fix where they literally destroy all of them in existence while at the ministry

Totally retarded

[Anonymous No.21913855]

>>21913851
And the whole plan in The Goblet of Fire to teleport Harry Potter by making him win a year long tournament (and it still almost fails).

[Anonymous No.21913857]

>>21913847
>be me, Oliver Wood
>Okay guys new strategy this year... the slytherin team is pretty good so, Fred, George you're going to be keepers
>(in unison) But Oliver, we're beaters!
>I know but that's a totally useless role. Just fly in front of the net. We have 3 nets so we're going to use 3 keepers. This way it's more or less impossible for the other team to score
>Alicia spinnet, Angelina Johnson, Katie bell or whatever the fuck all your names are and HARRY POTTER are all seekers now
>let's go out there and win that cup (after playing 3 games)

[Anonymous No.21913861]

>>21913855
Goblet of Fire is a pretty much perfect book in genre and Barty Crouch Jr is BY FAR the best villain ever in the HP universe. I won't hear a single word against it...

[Anonymous No.21913864]

>>21913844
The rules around wand ownership were also retarded and I find it weird that she would throw some bullshit like that in that was very transparently developed at the last second. Horcruxes also feel needlessly videogame-y.

[Anonymous No.21913865]

>>21913855
>almost fails
Uhhh... anon?

[Anonymous No.21913870]

>>21913865
Didn't Cedric almost win?

[Anonymous No.21913871]

>>21913805
You can look up the marketing strategy of the books.
I sat through lectures about it as a example of a ideal advertising campaign.
Other examples during the lecture were how mountain dew successfully built a association between the brand and gaming culture in the early 00s. And how this relationship caused a increase in sales that matched the increase in the popularity of videogames.

Like it or not but advertising is a huge factor in the degree of success a product has. The quality of the product isn't irrelevant, but it's also not the primary factor.

The careers of most pop stars prove that very well.

[Anonymous No.21913875]

>>21913864
>the rules around wand ownership
Okay this one does actually annoy me. There are moments where Harry and Ron or possibly other students are facing expulsion from hogwarts for some random shit and Snape says he has the power to do this to any slytherin student

What happens when you get expelled from hogwarts? Oh ya, you're never allowed to use magic again which is a bit like being blinded AND deafened, considering how ridiculous what you can do with magic is in the universe
>if you keep doing magic magical detection agents will crash into your house minority report style and take you to a place where evil monsters torture you until you die
O... okay

[Anonymous No.21913884]

>>21913871
Advertising had nothing to do with the initial success of HP. I don't give a fuck about mountain dew you piece of shit
>>21913870
Oh ya... I was more referring to the fact that it did actually fail because Harry lived, but ya, Cedric was going to win

Other problems with the books
>the character Cho Chang in general
>the character Ginny Weasley in general

[Anonymous No.21913892]

>>21913871
harry potter was really only popular because of the franchising.

I remember in elementary school, the teachers would get pissed if we made guns with our hands and shot at each other but they didn't give a shit if we made wands from copy-paper and shouted spells at each other.

[Anonymous No.21913893]

>>21913884
>the character Voldemort in general

[Anonymous No.21913899]

>>21913871
>You can look up the marketing strategy of the books.
>I sat through lectures about it as a example of a ideal advertising campaign.
You did? Maybe you could actually describe it somewhat more than not at all in order to make your point then? Do you think that might be something you could do?

[Anonymous No.21913924]

>>21913834
I read for she.

[Anonymous No.21913964]

>>21913884
>Advertising had nothing to do with the initial success of HP.
You have two options. Actually look it up, or prove what you say is correct.
Otherwise it is you who is the faggot.
>>21913899
I could but since you are being a dick I am not going to bother.
Especially since my shift is about to start.

[Anonymous No.21913977]

>>21913964
>I could provide a single actual example of something that would demonstrate anything i said was true
>but I won't because you disagreed with me

[Anonymous No.21913992]

>>21913977
Y'know, perhaps Scholastic buying it in the most expensive book auction ever would be what is known as a context clue that they were going to blow even more money marketing it.

[Anonymous No.21913997]

>>21913992
At what point did they buy it in the most expensive book auction ever? Before rhe first book came out?

[Anonymous No.21914005]

>>21913997
After it was a minor success in england and around the time the third book was releasing, IIRC. The bongland success was (media hyped for the rags to...decent sales story) organic but everything 5 minutes after the ink dried on the Scholastic deal wasn't.

[Anonymous No.21914016]

>>21908548
Like many great works it succeeded by creating an atmosphere people wanted to be inside of.
The words are secondary.

[Anonymous No.21914029]

>>21914005
So the series were successful enough by book 3 to warrant being purchased in the most expensive auction ever? And how much of that is attributable to advertising? Sounds like the acquirers just knew it would be an appreciating asset because it was so good

[Anonymous No.21914049]

>>21914005
And harry potter is not beloved because of advertising. It's like saying lotr is only popular because it's massively pushed

Maybe it's massively pushed because it's hugely valuable because of how good it is? Same as Star Wars

[Anonymous No.21914052]

>>21913893
>the character Harry Potter in general

[Anonymous No.21914060]

>>21914049
>harry potter
>lord of the rings
>star wars
GO BACK

[Anonymous No.21914061]

>>21914049
I'm not the guy claiming it's only popular from advertising but it's a bit much to suggest that most stuff that ends up becoming massively popular does so out of its high quality.

[Anonymous No.21914062]

>>21914052
lol, I agree

[Anonymous No.21914075]

>>21914029
There are tons of good books that come out every year, on par with HP, that no one reads. WB wanted something to pump into the nascent multimedia concept, owned half the news stations and a third of ISPs through mergers, and 24h network news had nothing better to show than repeats of carefully composed hype for things. You're not making a point here. It was successful, anything could have been.

[Anonymous No.21914076]

>>21914061
>it's a bit much to suggest that most stuff that ends up becoming massively popular does so out of its high quality.
Good thing I never said that then. Something can be popular BECAUSE of its quality without everything popular being of quality. Not that complicated really.
>>21914060
Lotr trilogy or some of the best movies ever made in genre, maybe clearly the best, and the source material created the majority of still-used fantasy tropes to ubiquity. The original Star Wars movies are very good. The score alone is one of the greatest pieces of popular theatre/art to ever exist and anyone denying this is a complete retard

[Anonymous No.21914083]

>>21914075
No anon there are not "tons" of books coming out every year with the same quality, appeal, and audience of Harry Potter: there are 0

[Anonymous No.21914084]

>>21914016
>>21913834
This. People like to be assholes about everything, but the deal is: the stories and atmosphere were good.

Same with all dear pedo George.

[Anonymous No.21914085]

>>21914076
>the source material created the majority of still-used fantasy tropes to ubiquity.
And the wider fantasy genre is largely the worse for it.

[Anonymous No.21914089]

>>21914084
I dont know how much of Star Wars I even want to attribute to George
>score makes the film and is 100% John Williams
>edited perfectly by his wife who won the Oscar
>entire philosophical basis which is so popular as a story comes entirely from Joseph Campbell
>I dont know who designed the props and sets and shit like Vaders suit and All the ship designs but I don't think it was Lucas and all of that was amazing

[Anonymous No.21914093]

>>21914085
Okay well, whatever, this isn't a LOTR thread and I don't really read fantasy and have never actually read them so I don't care to get into it too much. The movies as they exist are, in genre, some of the best ever

[Anonymous No.21914100]

>>21914084
>>21914089
And let's keep in mind what makes star wars great is
>the story
>the look of the films
>the editing
>the music

Lucas's prequel trilogy looks awful, is edited terribly, has a very mediocre shell of a story, and fails in every possible way aside from the music. The Disney trilogy has shit everything but looks (which are only okay) and music of course.

[Anonymous No.21914102]

>>21914093
I'll agree as far as blockbusters go LOTR are probably the best. I still don't really think Star Wars and Harry Potter are anything special. Neither of them are "bad" but I don't think their wide appeal is an indication of substantive merit.

[Anonymous No.21914111]

>>21914102
>the original star wars weren't anything special
These things in star wars are special in a way so significant that they immediately gripped people in such a way that the series can fail to produce anything good since R0TJ and Kotor 2 and still be worth billions as a name
>the costumes
>the ship and location designs
>the music
>the fantasy setting

[Anonymous No.21914113]

.

[Anonymous No.21914117]

Looks like you really don't know how to appreciate old movies. Doing a soul/space/family-opera at that time was something special.

Jk Rowling and George Lucas wrote these things for children and families. No matter how naive and stupid, it resonated with the generation who grew up with them.

[Anonymous No.21914120]

>>21914075
>You're not making a point here. It was successful, anything could have been.
Oh really, anything could have been? Then explain why it was one specific thing and never anything else before or since.

[Anonymous No.21914130]

>>21914117
It resonating with a lot of people doesn't mean anything. Marvel slop resonates with plenty of people, probably more people on average than HP and SW which it's notably worse than.

[Anonymous No.21914639]

>>21914120
Diferent anon here. Let me put it this way. Harry Potter would've been popular, but not "This Popular" without Scholastic and then Hollywood. It's something that got absorbed into Hollywood rather quickly, the book was a little over 4 years old by the time the movie was already in theaters. Basically, the book was popular but for what would seem doable to a newcomer, couple years later there's movie talks and movie begins production, clearly this boosts sales, boosts sales to a book that had been like a year and a half out there in the market, this is what I think anon means by the MASSIVE publicity.
>Oh really, anything could have been? Then explain why it was one specific thing and never anything else before or since.
Twilight comes to mind. Book came out and was kind of popular early on, enough to gather attention from Hollywood, then movie talks and you know the drill...

[Anonymous No.21914657]

>>21914005
>After it was a minor success in england
>media hyped for the rags to...decent sales story
Can you elavorate, I'm actually interested in knowing how sucessful it actually was before being bought by WB. To me it seems like the whole thing happened in a span of like 2 years.

[Anonymous No.21914659]

>>21914639
>Harry Potter wouldn't have been as popular if there weren't movies and such
Undoubtedly true as a large portion of the audience are film-exclusive fans, but these movies are among the highest grossing films ever BECAUSE people were already fans of the story. You have it in reverse saying
>harry potter is really popular because of all the movies
>and the fact that it was promoted
Rather than
>the movies are really popular because they're Harry Potter movies
And
>it was promoted because it was such a smash hit

Twilight is probably second to Harry Potter in terms of genre success and Harry Potter (books) is 4x bigger. And that's comparing the biggest success ever to the 2nd biggest success ever. Anon is saying there exist multiple books every year that could be just as successful as HP if only they received the same marketing. It's not even in the universe of the truth. HP fueled itself like a giant inferno and it's success and reputation isnt a result of gullible people falling for advertising but millions upon millions of young readers genuinely loving the books.

[Anonymous No.21914689]

>>21908548
I read 3 or 4 of the harry potter books when I was a kid and I liked them. Then I tried reading the first book again recently and couldn't put up with it. I think I missed my window to read and enjoy the other books. Oh well.

[Anonymous No.21914706]

>>21914659
>>Harry Potter wouldn't have been as popular if there weren't movies and such
>Undoubtedly true
Glad we agree on that anon.

[Anonymous No.21915067]

>>21908548
i wrote it off until i had kids. after the first time reading it to them we were all blown away. now it's a family favorite

[Anonymous No.21915078]

after the accident

[Anonymous No.21915404]

>>21908548
August 22nd, 2018

[Anonymous No.21915433]

>>21908548
I am a gen x'er and though I was alive when they were coming out had never even heard of the books until the first movie came out. Because of all the hype I was like "wtf is this IP that people are going ape shit over." I did a little research and found out it was a beloved book series so I went to see the movie and was like "wtf is this shit, this movie is dogshit." The first movie was absolutely awful. The second movie improved though it still wasnt something I impressed by. I did see the draw to the Universe though for young people. What kid wouldnt love a magical Universe? Anyhow it wasnt until nearly 20 years later that actually read the first book just because it was laying around somewhere and I picked it up (I will almost anything if I am out of books and there is something around I havent read yet). There was nothing particularly impressive about it that I remember

[Anonymous No.21915438]

>>21915433
I do have to note here however, I was 21 when the first movie came out. It was a kids movie so for someone who was 21 yo it is no surprise I wasnt very impressed with it. The other movies started to gradually get better because they grew into adult themes. Maybe that is the magic of the books, they grew with their audience from adolescence into adulthood. You had to be the right age when they came out however to experience that

[Anonymous No.21915448]

>>21913834
wtf? JK Rowling is one of the most progressive retards on the planet. She helped create and fostered the twitter tranny leftist mobs that now tyrannize every form of media you consume. you are absolutely fucking delusional. They only turned on her after she dared to defy the cult when they came after her scared cow (women) because she is a radical feminist retard

[Anonymous No.21915453]

>genuine literary merit

[Anonymous No.21915466]

>>21915438
The movies peaked at 3 and then gradually got worse except the last one, which was decent

[Anonymous No.21915476]

>>21915448
>tyrannize
I read it as
>trannynize

[Anonymous No.21915518]

>>21914657
Initial print run of 500 library copies, slow sales the first year. An advance of 2,300 Good Boy Points. It won the Smarties book prize and got massive promotion due to that. The second book sold better but "doing well" in Britain is not a very large number even for the size of the market. Scholastic bought the rights for $100,000, which was high for a book series that wasn't even written but not particularly unreasonable considering the size of the American market and already winning or being nominated for a few awards.
>PS 1997
>CS 1998
>PA 1999
The movie deals were signed in late 1999 for $2,000,000 which is high considering, perhaps not for a 4 movie deal. It could have flopped like Percy Jackson and Golden Compass. The first movie came out in 2001.

Tracking down the sales numbers is a pain in the ass unless you go through old interviews and newsreels, my recollection is that it was "Louis Sacher or Lemony Snicket can give a talk at your school without being mobbed" successful and didn't have that big of a following until Azkaban or afterwards. 99-01 was the big media push. Even then, she was still some cunt who could walk down the street in a country that doesn't give a fuck about celebrities and wasn't going to be burned at the stake in Murrica.

Book 3 had huge numbers, bigly. It also coincided with the movie deal. It released in July? and the contract was signed in September. The 3 book backlog for binging and the movie hype was where you saw the meteoric rise. Book 4 was when shit went bananas.

So you had the Scholastic deal in 97 and the WB deal in 99. Goblet dropped in 2000. Up to that point, Scholastic was shilling hard through school book fairs, the media was shilling hard because woman and literacy makes a good story, then the numbers got huge. 99-01 was when the brakes failed on the Hogwarts Express. So yeah, 00-01 was the "instant" sensation that started 3 years before. A perfect storm, really.

[Anonymous No.21916076]

>>21908579
lmao @ this seething jew

[Anonymous No.21916802]

I liked them as a kid.
Read the first two when i was 8 or 9 and then read the rest as soon as they got released.

[Anonymous No.21917970]

I went through a few old children's books recently and noticed how humorless some of them were. It helped me appreciate Harry Potter.

[Anonymous No.21918116]

>>21908579
>Antisemitism is believing what your ancestors said about Jews instead of what Jews said about you ancestors! Hahah, am I right fellow kek boys? Antisemitism is funny and good and we should all attack our local synagogues because they are replacing white people with Black men, it is only natural for us to hate and spread hate about Jews online!!!
This but unironically

[Anonymous No.21918173]

>>21908548
this is not something that happens. you grow into laughing at how fucking dumb it is. it's fun schlock. I liked it as a child but if you open to any page it's the most boring slice of life story "about magic" where nothing seems magical at all and you see how mundane the world is even when you can ALAKAFAGGOT anything in or out of existence at the flick of a wrist yet they still have retard bureaucracy bullshit still.

[Anonymous No.21918189]

>>21918173
I've defended Harry Potter a lot but you have a point here.
Are there children's books you do appreciate?

[Anonymous No.21918205]

>>21908548
I hated this shit 20 years ago when conservatards were bitching about it and I still hate it as libtards are bitching about it.

[Anonymous No.21918207]

>>21918189
redwall books are for kids
>What age is Redwall appropriate for?
>Brian Jacques' Redwall series is a much-loved epic fantasy for ages 9+.

[Anonymous No.21918244]

>>21908548
I was the target demographic for the books when they were coming out. I thought they were ok, but nothing to obsess over. My opinion hasn't really changed

[Anonymous No.21918247]

>>21918189
not him but artemis fowl was ok and I am this anon

>>21915433
>>21915438

Also when I was a kid I read HG Wells. idk if that is considered "kids" books but Journey to the center of the earth was the first book I ever read and I loved it

[Anonymous No.21918461]

>>21918173
> where nothing seems magical at all
This has always been my biggest issue with it. Magic is supposed to be imaginative and strange and mysterious, but instead they have a ton of very videogame-style spells with hyper-specific purposes. Having a stun gun Stupefy spell is the worst offender but there’s a ton of them (ie here’s your spell for making people drop shit, here’s your spell that specifically gets used for bogart-repellant and nothing else, here’s your Patronus spell that’s basically just glorified Dementor-repellant, etc).

[Anonymous No.21918543]

>>21909663
>There is just no artistry to it. There is no poetry or musicality or imagery or anything.
This is generally true of the quintessential English novelists which Rowling was influenced by though. It's true of Austen, Dickens, etc. They aren't interested in imagery or poetry, they are interested in plot and character.

[Anonymous No.21918551]

>>21911168
>anons think the style and world of 1 and 2 reflect a very different direction than what the books took
1 & 2, and to a lesser extent 3, have a markedly different character than the rest. They are more Dahl-esque, more winking and whimsical. There's an ever-escalating attempt starting with 4 to upgrade the setting and plot to that of an adult series and it just doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.21918555]

>>21918543
Dickens and Austen focused on plot but they were both pretty good stylists, much better than Rowling. I’ve often thought that reading HP feels like reading a somewhat humorless and stiff interpretation of Dickens.

[Anonymous No.21918562]

>>21908548
When will you grow out of your Harry Potter dick riding phase and appreciate the genuine literary merit of other works?

[Anonymous No.21919406]

>>21918461
This might be why my autistic ass liked it so much