Are they really that bad?

Are they really that bad?

Attached: harry-potter-and-the-philosopher-s-stone-3.jpg (353x530, 60K)

they're good as mystery novels ngl, i'll never forget having my mind blown as a kid when they revealed tom riddle was voldemort in chamber of secrets

They're creative and innovative. The world building is godawful though and it's riddled with plot holes but no one seems to give a shit.

They were supremely comfy when I read them in middle school, and watching the movies with my Dad was top tier

They are very creative, and for children's book honestly pretty amazing but pseuds will furiously seeth at them.

They're fun and have an enjoyable atmosphere, not too heavy on plot. A solid listen on audio book if you've got nothing else to listen to while doing a menial task.

The first 3 books are honestly a lot of fun. Shes got a fun sort of childrebs book style that meshes well with the setting. The rest are unfortunately not very good. Harry really is just not a strong enough character to carry them, and the prose gets worse and worse.

Goblet of Fire is the best book though.

Harry becomes unlikable in Order of the Phoenix, the romance in Half-Blood Prince is awful to get through, and Deathly Hallows is rushed as fuck. There are cool ideas in the last 3 books but it's a mixed bag.

yes.
they are children's books for a generation in arrested development.
I wish I had a dollar for every woman my age who has harry potterphernalia. It is disney, it is mcdonalds, it is trash.

They really are, I'll never know what anyone sees in them. They are identical to any other young adult fantasy and they're not even written that well, both in prose and plot. It has to be purely marketing and the film adaption that made them so popular. Never looked into but I would bet big money that Rowling had/has some interesting 'connections', that's the only way it would ever make sense. One of the very few cases where the films are legitimately better.