I've just finished reading Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (Sorcerer's Stone for Americans). What's the big deal with it? It's good enough that I'd maybe buy the sequel if I needed something to read on a plane, but it's nowhere near good enough that I'd actually be hyped for the fucking thing. The good barely outweighs the bad! Am I missing the something in the following list?
The good: >Hagrid is a solid 10/10. The best part of the entire book was that block of chapters where it was nothing but Harry and Hagrid doing shit together. >A lot of the side characters are great, but Hagrid is the only one who we see enough of to come to love. We really could've done with more Peeves, Dumbledore, and McGonagall. >It's a fairly believable school setting. She's nailed the archetypes for the characters. >The author has a talent for writing short scenes. She does in half a page what others would do in half a chapter. It almost makes the book impossible to put down, until the latter chapters, most of the scenes are so short that it's impossible to become bored of them.
The bad: >The first chapter just plain sucks. It's like the author didn't know how to introduce her world. >The main cast is weak, I really don't give a shit about Hermonie or Ron and both Neville and Draco are deliberately annoying. >Qudditch isn't fun to read. >Everything from the dragon pick-up onwards completely breaks suspension of disbelief. How the fuck do you forget an invisibility cloak? Why does McGonagall not realise that her explanation for what happened on that night makes no fucking sense? Why does McGonagall not do anything in response to discovering the major security breach that is Harry clearly knowing too much about the stone? I could go on, but stuff like how silly the puzzles in the corridor are is well-know.
Maybe retarded children. We were reading the Iliad in 5th grade.
Noah Baker
>>Hagrid is a solid 10/10. The best part of the entire book was that block of chapters where it was nothing but Harry and Hagrid doing shit together.
The only part you found appealing was the weird, hairy neckbeard incel who hangs out with children? Please get help OP.
Jayden Reyes
what country?
Mason Gray
this
Adam Rodriguez
based
Tyler Wilson
5th grade is not when you are supposed to start reading.
Logan Lopez
Whether you think that its worth subjecting yourself to a sequel does little to improve the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.
Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.
>a-at least the books were good though "No!" The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."
I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.
Sounds difficult. I'd struggle to even do book 3, never mind 5.
Robert Gonzalez
16 years ago people still had some attention span left
Luke Turner
It was really easy. There weren't any smartphones and social media was still incredibly young. The last book came out the same year as Facebook. The only things I might expect on my phone were a call from my mom about what I wanted from McDonald's or a grainy picture of my high-school GF's vagina taken with a Motorola Razr, neither of which were going to happen often enough to disrupt my streak.
Now it's harder. But zoomers also have ereaders like the kindle which are way more comfortable for extended reading sessions than a book.
Matthew Morales
>you can self insert as Harry >Harry is also really special >he gets bullied and is poor but he's also rich and famous >???
Anthony Lee
This book is clearly not for the autistic and over-analyzing minds like yours. It's a book for children, OP. You think that they even think about anything you just listed? Of course they don't.
Because they almost exclusively consume pop culture. Most of the insufferable Harry Potter, LotR, or GoT fans are secondaries who might not have even read the originals. Imagine if half the 18-35 American population were Type-Moon fans but they'd only ever seen the Deen adaptation and then filled their twitter timeline with gifs of Saber or Rin affecting expressions of disapproval.
Grayson Collins
1, 2 and 3 are good. 4 is alright. 5, 6 and 7 are shit.
Austin Richardson
I think Phoenix might be the most underrated book in the series. I can understand why people hated it on a first read, I did too, Halfblood Prince was okay in some areas but I agree Hallows was shit and felt like the quest for the Horcruxes dragged on too much.
Michael Long
People hated Phoenix? I thought it was fantastic. We finally get to see Harry in a situation where everyone isn't unconditionally sucking his dick at every turn. I think it was the last good book in the series desu.
Carter Jackson
I've read the first two Harry Potter novels, which is enough for me to know it's mediocre even for children's literature
Joseph Thompson
Brave New World is perhaps more interesting a set-up but artistically inferior to 1984. The characters are flat, the writing dull, and very uninteresting at parts.
Daniel Parker
From the early criticisms I remember the year it was released everyone hated how much of a miserable cunt Harry was in it.
liberal white women, whose understanding of politics can be broken down into goodies vs baddies
Eli Martin
The successor to Chavs from the post 08 financial crash and result of Blair's mantra "we're all middle class now.". They aren't really middle class like they aspire to be but they aren't exactly the working class types anymore from their parents or grandparents generation.
William Torres
Congratulations. You just played yourself faggot. Do tell us why you are reading a book for children and about your attempt at analyzing it. >When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King. Might as well hang yourself
Aren't those called JAMS? Where does the word "deanos" come from?
Logan Phillips
She is a very, very pretty lady.
Jayden Cook
What does being an American have to do with this? I remember a lot of British and Japanese fans being quite upset with Phoenix as well.
Aaron Peterson
>Japanese fans They exist?
Jack Nelson
Yeah. Japanese SF geeks read a lot of translated western SF.
Matthew Lee
WTF is that picture?
Thomas Reed
>The Legend of the 10 Elemental Masters in God-Tier. Finally a Yea Forums list I can agree with.
Cooper Hill
I haven't read very much fantasy or ya stuff, just a bit when I was a kid, but Harry Potter felt distinctly different than all the other ones in a hard to identify way.
idk if this is a popular opinion but it seems the books basically decrease steadily in quality after the first 3. The later ones are ok but seem too allegorical
Zachary Sanders
I think it is because every group has that one guy in there friendship circle called Deano or something like that.
Dylan Fisher
Nope, never heard of that.
Ryder Butler
It’s an enjoyable book for children. I remember liking it when I read it in first grade
Adrian Hughes
So why do people make such a big deal about it?
Cameron Baker
Because it became very popular.
Elijah White
A lot of people seem to like it because it is either the book that got them into reading (and by "reading" I mean reading only YA save for the few good books school forced them to read) or because it is quite literally the only novel they ever read
Austin Hill
It's an enjoyable book to read, the majority of people who are disparaging of it only do so because they are insecure and cannot imagine people reading for enjoyment rather than furthering their own intellectual identity.
Juan Jenkins
Kek, you're right. The staff corner of the 90's Japanese porn game that I'm playing at the moment talks about Star Trek.
Sebastian Price
what did he mean by this?
Juan Martin
The janitor might have taken a break from eating hot pockets to delete every post I made today for stating that melanin enriched individuals are intellectually deficient, but his indentured labor will do nothing to improve the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.
Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.
>a-at least the books were good though r-right
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."
I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.
