Why harry potter sucks

Rowling is living out her own fantasies through Hermione, who is clearly herself. All the Hogwarts rules Rowling sets for criteria are obviously set up to be broken by the end of the series. Not only that, she breaks rules set by more esteemed authors.

Harry almost dies fifty thousand times, but someone always saves him. This is boring. Lily is too perfect and has no flaws either. Even dead mothers should have flaws besides having a baby with a jerk. Rowling portrays weak men as failures, effeminate, and generally lacking the attributes of true masculinity, playing into stereotypes that both feminists and masculist alike have benn fighting against for years.

Lack of interesting character development. Ginny is a useless, whining, doll that suddenly has become the idol for girls everywhere. People say that Harry Potter is better than everything in the world. Guess what? Harry is extremely possessive, border-line abusive, and boring as anything. Harry reflects upon herself through the entire novel to tell important plot developments. Her wizards play Quidditch. Enough said. There is too much face touching.

We read the entire series just to laugh at the stupidity of it. Quidditch was just a disgrace. Try as hard as you can. You'll always be the second smartest wizard or witch, absolute best case scenario. I'm just extremely jealous that it doesn't exist in real life, and even if it DID exist, I would never get in because I'm a lowly Muggle.

Warner Bros. Here's why: The commute sucks. And if you're Slythern? The characters are mostly fine. But there are far more recognizably-bad books that also have well-developed characters you form a bond with. Writing relatable characters is an important part of good writing, but it's not the only part of good writing. Another part of good writing is to have characters interact with their world in ways that imply they understand their own universe. I realize the stairs are magical.

I was never questioning the means of locomotion, as if I was confused on whether they ran on steam or electricity. I use the stairs only as a simple and readily available example of how the story, which begins as a whimsical fantasy, is later crippled in its attempts to mature due to how it opens.

Why do the stairs move? As you said: "everything about Hogwarts is magical, mystical and whimsical" This makes sense in the first book, because it's a book written for ten-year-olds. The purpose of the entire first half of Book 1 is to delight the readers with images of a magical school. Nothing makes sense because it's not supposed to. The later books, like Book 7 as you mention, do want to make sense, and try to introduce laws of magic and explain why the wizarding world is as it is.

They want to paint a world, different from ours, but one real enough we could step into it. So, within the context of Book 7, where there are laws of magic, where Dumbledore accidentally killed his own sister in a wizard duel, where Voldemort was the abandoned child of a rich muggle and wretched hateful witch mother born out of a love charm, where people are being tortured to death in cellars, where wizards can fracture their souls with murder and store the pieces in magical objects, where Neville Longbottoms' parents are locked inside of an insane asylum after the terrible results of a torture curse, and where also mystical, magical, whimsical stairs at the fanciful magical school, why did the headmasters in charge of building Hogwarts decide to waste a single breath of effort to enchant the stairs so that they randomly move around, doing nothing more than inconveniencing the students and making all the first-years become terribly lost and late to class?

I understand they move by magic, and that it's whimsical. Why did the guy who built the school decide to use his magic powers to make students tardy to class? What was his though process? I admit the stairs point isn't the strongest point. This particular post is the one that comes up when people search for Harry Potter criticism, but I think I've made much stronger criticisms in other posts.

So here's another, stronger criticism: why are there so many ways for wizards to get around? A wizard can take a magical train, fly on a broom, instantly teleport with flu powder, instantly teleport with a port key, take the magical bus, or instantly teleport by Aparating. There are three distinct ways to instantly teleport to anywhere on the planet And also a train to carry them to and from school?

And also they have to learn to ride brooms? The reason these all exist in the same society can only be explained in terms of the author not planning out how it would affect her world that already included a magical train, flu powder, and a knight bus, if also every adult wizard was capable of instantly teleporting to anywhere in the world using only his or her mind.

Each form of transportation is introduced for the "magical whimsy" effect; but now we have a universe where wizards would lay railroad tracks hundreds of miles across England, wasting resources and potentially exposing the wizard children to Muggle eyes, when they can also instantly teleport all the students to Hogsmeade by saying a word and throwing a pinch of powder.

In summary: yes, it's whimsical magic, and it hobbles the later books when they attempt to mature beyond the original audience. What the heck is wrong with these comments, now i just want to forget harry potter.

In one corner we have the toxic harry potter fans, who give no argument and just cuss a bunch,In another cornenrw have people who are trolling and dislike the series, which i was on, but now I am seeing everyone in this debate is toxic :.

That's exactly what bothers me so much about these books. The "whimsical" magic isn't just illogical and silly, it's also a crutch. Just one lazy plot device after another. Example: when Harry and Ron get blocked from entering the train platform, do they wait for Ron's parents to notice and come back to help them?

I remember thinking, what the hell is wrong with these kids? Why would they do that? Answer: the car was needed later in the book to rescue them from the spiders. It's like she wrote herself into a corner and went back and hastily added in the train station sequence. The series is rife with that sort of thing. I also find the writing style annoying. She uses this really repetitive dialogue structure: "blah blah" said X [adverb], and her choice of adverbs is really odd, e.

Also, when the dialog is a question, she almost never used the word "asked", it's always "said". Is that a British thing? And I have no qualms with anyone who simply dislikes them. You can criticize all of them for many legitimate reasons, such as pointless, convoluted side plots and deus ex machina.

The cast is fantastic and ages well with the movie. The sets and effects provide some remarkable eye candy, especially with the wizard duels. The soundtrack is iconic, which the movie gets full credit for. And many of the performances are well above average. The movies are perhaps the worst kind of literary adaptation, i. This is idiotic hyperbole. The worst kind of literary adaptation is when you subvert the message of the books and make the source material seem worse.

We can agree that the movies mostly play it safe and just try to get the story out, not addressing what a truly good film this story could be. This means that the movies are not adaptations, but mere dramatizations of key plot elements from the books.

The majority of everything you say either makes no sense or just comes off as intentionally idiotic. The pace is too quick, the tone too dark, and the story too complex for most of the movies to work as actual dramas. Important stuff and unimportant stuff whizzes by without any sense of majesty or portent.

Finally, some fair criticisms that I actually, sort of agree with. But these problems are why the movies are not masterpieces. Is Harry Potter still enchanting and wonderful? For a short while at the beginning, yes. For the first two films, I had no complaints, and found them to be dramatic and fun and dazzling.

The series contains many flashes of adventure and fantasy that captured the world like no other fantasy novel. Eventually, though, the Harry Potter series climbed up its own ass and set up camp. Or just say hey on Twitter!

Well this was hilariously fun to read! The article outraged me, for some reason, but your comments were spot on and humorous. You were not allowed to read Harry Potter as a child? Reading the first book, I can clearly see why so many people love them.

Spoiler alert: it only works if your of wizard descent. This was a good article, I must say, although I do fall into the former group of Harry Potter haters. Also, it must be said that I am never the one to initiate the conversation because frankly, I hate it when someone asks me my opinion on the book series.

But my point here is that Witney was at least right in some respect about one thing: Potterheads always, and I mean ALWAYS go on the attack when we non-fans voice our own opinion. Especially when the tone of the story remains light for most of the time, thanks to the humor, the marvelous performances and the world in which the story is set.

It gets dark near book 4 because Voldemort sorry if I offended anybody You-Know-Who comes back at the end of Goblet of Fire which is my least favorite.

As a fellow Harry Potter fan, I fully agree with everything Jon said. I myself prefer the books to the movies, but not for the reasons that Whitney mentioned. The flow is right, you moron.