Can I be negative about Harry Potter for a minute?

Question

I don't believe I've heard anyone criticize the book before. All my friend love it and I think people are too scared to talk negatively about it, but I have a bone to pick and I was wondering if anyone else feels similarly.
I've seen a few of the movies (and parts of all the ones I haven't watched all the way through) and I finally read the first book of the series. So I feel as though I have a bit of room to say that it's not that great.

Just a few points to support my stance:
Her formula is threadbare. Potter goes to school. Potter finds conflict with Draco. Potter discovers mystery concering Voldemort. Potter solves mystery and comes face to face with Voldemort (alone). They fight. Potter lives. Most people cheer. Some don't trust him. The End.
It feels eerily familiar to any teen mystery novel. Hardy Boys? Nancy Drew? Scooby Doo minus the dog?

She's not inventing anything new in the magical world. Even the three headed dog (Cerberus?) who is lulled to sleep by music (common myth of beats) is cliche. Not to mention the giant, enchanted castle to wander around in, forbidden forests, Centaurs, and a well understood antagonist named Draco from the house of Slytherin (hmmm...snake? how subtle, Rowling).

And honestly, people, I thought we were getting tired these stories of kids outsmarting the adults. What kind of brilliant adult sorcerers make a series of spells to protect something that are nothing but simple puzzles that 3 (meddling) 11yearolds can figure out? "Let's protect the stone with our magic! But instead of making it impossible for anyone to get through (even though we're accredited as being the safest place in the world) let's just make it a series of games and puzzles...like catching the right key on a broom stick and playing a giant game of chess! ok ok, we'll throw in a stolen greek-mythology dog (ironically named "fluffy" because that's funny and oh so original. haha) and a giant plant that first year students know about and can ward off on their own. Brilliant! No wonder we're the best in the world!"

*sigh*
One last comment for Rowling:
Don't put the solution to your mystery on the front cover! "Gee, Hagard, What's in the brown bag? What is the dog guarding? Oh wait, 'Harry Potter and the SORCERER'S STONE.'"
Mystery solved. Done!

Anyway, I'm wanting to hear opinions. Does anyone feel the same way I do? If you love the book (God knows, the world does) how do you overlook these things? It's like Cliche heaven crammed into 300 pages. This is what has people going bonkers?

Answer 1

Ahhh a question that challenges me. I'm excited.

I'll just briefly premise this by saying i first read HP when I was 9. Harry Potter opened up the world of reading for me. I became obsessed with books because of Harry Potter. I hold Harry Potter responsible for the fact that I grew to love english - and then history - what I'm at university studying now. You can say that the books are "crap" but the indirect effect it's had on me and so many others is phenomenal. You can't deny or disregard that.



You're stating that the formula is threadbare and unoriginal. Which is fair enough in some ways - on the surface it does seem overdone. But you've got to think, there's a reason it's overdone. Kids love reading about things they're familiar with. As different as his life is, we can relate to Harry. He goes to school, has an enemy, has homework, has friends, has a favourite teacher and a least favourite teacher. It sounds like your normal kids day. But throw in magic and a evil villain who's out to kill you and you've got what most kids WISH their life was like. But that's explaining why it's so popular among kids, not its literary merits. From reading that it does sound very bland. But you're skipping over the "magic" (pun completely intended) of Harry Potter. The plot is fairly original, although I have no doubt you'll argue this. Not too many books mix fantasy and reality and even fewer in the present-time reality. The plot is very complex, particularly as the series progresses. You rarely find redundant details in a HP book. And the subplots alone could be made into a novel. They're captivating and intriguing. Feel free to dispute this, I'll take you on ;)

I'll address now you're saying that the maze to the philosophers stone was far too simple. I've heard this argued amongst Harry Potter fans before and the answer inevitably leads to Dumbledore. Somehow Harry managed to find everything he needed to know in order to get to the stone. And apparently under the blind eye of Dumbledore. I've heard many a theory that Dumbledore intentionally lead Harry to the stone in order to test him or mature him. And you may say that's sick for an old man to risk a boys life, and I agree. I'm completely undecided of Dumbledore's "manipulation" throughout the series.





You're saying the beasts are unoriginal. Have you read the entire series? Here's a list of creatures in the HP world http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Fantastic_Beasts_and_Where_to_Find_Them_(fictional)

As you can see the list is fairly large. Each one of those creatures has a classification and a description of its abilities in JKR's world. Many many of them are entirely original. Many are hybrids of those in mythology. I don't think that's a bad thing - I think it adds depth to the series and just shows the work JKR put in when writing it. She obviously put in a fair bit of research. The fact that you're saying Smeyer is more creative than Rowling just made me vomit everywhere. Sparkly vampires? Smeyer is constantly criticized because her vampires are completely unlike "vampires" and it's argued because they diverge so completely they're not even vampires. Maybe that's not a bad thing. Maybe that's showing her spectacular 'creative flair'. Or maybe it's just, to paraphrase Smeyer "it's my world I can do what i like". JKR respects mythology which is clearly shown in her books. It's another link between the real world and Harry's. There's also her use of names - for example Argus Filch, Alastor Moody etc. I think it adds depth to the series and if anything is a show to her creativity.



The complexity of the world JKR has created should also be mentioned. It's the reason that people like me can obsess so completely. There is SO much. We have a complete history of the wizarding world. That alone is complex and interesting. We have goblin rebellions, wizarding wars, witch burnings etc. etc. There's the history of Quidditch, the teams of quidditch, the 700 rules of quidditch. We have the magic of different countries, the jobs within the magical world, magical currency, means of transport, wand lore, blood lines, I could go on forever. Basically the wizarding world is COMPLEX. JKR has created a different world that we can immerse ourselves in a second.



The characters are fantastic as well. Now I'm sure you'll disagree but I find them so relatable. They have real flaws and there's not a Mary Sue in sight (maybe Twilight should take a leaf out of HP's book). My favourite character personally is Remus Lupin - a man who is so intrinsically good but also flawed. That's the thing with HP there are so many characters who seem so minor, but have such rich personalities and stories. People's favourite characters range from Ron and Hermione to Snape to Dumbledore to Hagrid to Dobby to Neville. The characters are 3D. Look at Snape. Such a complicated past, yet I don't think that justifies his actions. He's such a multifaceted character. The fact that his love perseveres through the years is a testament to his true personality I think and an example for all.



The themes and morals in the series are exemplary as well. Despite all the adversity he's forced to overcome, Harry remains a good person. The main theme of the series is love versus hate. Harry's ability to love saved him from death. It's a perfect example for the kids who are reading it and continues to inspire me to be a better person. And I'm not wanking on here. Seriously.



Now my favourite part of the series - I've been saving this 'til last. The foreshadowing! The 'gleam of triumph' in Dumbledore's eyes in Goblet of Fire is just a foreshadow of what happens right at the end of Deathly Hallows. And even simpler ones. I'm currently reading Azkaban and when Lupin confronts a boggart he see's a 'silvery orb' - we don't discover to the end of the book that it's a full moon. Sirius Black is mentioned in the first chapter of the first book but doesn't come in again 'til the eponymous third book. That's what kept the fans speculating. What was the significance of Harry's eyes? Will Harry get with Hermione or Ginny? Was Dumbledore's "please" a beg for Snape to kill him or a beg for life? You cannot deny that the books are an amazing example of mystery.



I'm an adult (I just scrape in there) and i still love Harry Potter. The characters are rich and developed, the plot intriguing, the world complex. I love the foreshadowing and the obvious research JKR has put into the books. Just my 2 cents

Answer 2

I agree that the first book was not 'amazing'. However, you have to remember that Rowling started writing for a younger audience. And as that audience grew, she wrote the books in more of way they would appreciate.



I read the entire series this year, and found that the first two weren't all that exceptional, but the series gets a lot better. Near the end of the fourth book it stops being about "Potter goes to school", but rather about the magical world trying to fight evil. The later books in the series are absolutely worth reading! They're incredible!

Answer 3

I only skimmed through it - but the title thing.

It's not like it's bad. When you first read the book - you don't know what the sorcerer's stone could be. You just know it's vital or the author fails at naming their books.



You don't know how they'll use it. You don't know how they obtain it.

etc...

Answer 4

I'm not implying that you're not inclined to your own opinion, and I agree, that the movies are weak. I also agree that Sorcerer's Stone was probably not the best. As they go on, the plot changes, and becomes much stronger and more developed. However, I don't think that after reading merely one of her books, you can honestly be able to say they aren't that great. No first book is the best. It takes time to get your plot, characters and everthing just right, which I think Rowling did and awesome job of as time went on. I encourage you, FINISH the series. You don't have to admit that they are your favorite series; They aren't everybody's, but at last finish them. I can assure you that you won't be disappointed by the ending. They are extremely well-written and engaging if you let them be.

Answer 5

Every point you made is completely valid and you have every right to feel that way, but I still love the books. :) You're really good at criticizing it though. Have you ever considered reviewing books for a living?

Answer 6

well, good for you to stress those points out. it's natural..



but try reading the other 6 books.the 1st or 2nd might be the worst..duh, Rowling was just starting then... i liked the series..



yes, it might be mediocre to follow an 'already-made' plot.. she changed that a bit..haha!



what i was after for was the real story behind everything.. it eve surpried me to know that snape was at th good side andi never imagined that before..



just don't bother the 1st book, u can throw that if u like.. not that it'sreally important with regards to the next books..





u have ur opinion, i have mine..



and i quite agree of the fluffly and the 'guarding-of-the-stone' thing.. haha. i bet she missed that, big time. =)



and abt the children reading it..oh let them read.. they'd forget about everything and deal with puppy love eventually.. they'll learn twitter and myspace and u'll be happy to know they'd COMPLETELY forgot abt any book they've read.. teens nowadays prefer to do something exciting than read a book.. duh. (but not me)..so just let them read





but things lke this, or this 'cliche' ur talking abt brought Rowling billions of readers.. so it might be a good thing for her and her publishers right?

readers may have noticed this but needed not to voice it out since it's basically against th WORLD.. but good for u, congratulations.





nice review.. i want to read the twilight one ( i might bash!).. and the next 6 review for the next 6 HP books that u'v got to put ur opinions on..



GOOD LUCK.

Answer 7

Harry Potter is so popular there had too be 1 person not to like it...

I guess but you havent read the whole series.

The 1st book I think is sapposed to be for children but i like it anyways they get more mature like umm

the 3rd and up... but they are all my favorites...

u have to read them all

Answer 8

The first book seems unoriginal, or at least at first glance. The rest of the series weaves this intricate plot, really, and it is pretty original. And then you read the last book and you look back to the first one and you are like, "Wow... I never even realized that this book was so complicated." It's hard to believe that she planned so many things in advance when writing...



And I'm actually surprised that so many people like it where you live. It's the opposite here... you become like, an outcast if you like it.

Answer 9

don't judge the series on the first book, because as harry matures, so does Rowling's style.



but anyway, you cannot seriously call the harry potter series bad. even if you consider the basic plot line to be 'done', you are not taking into consideration the extremely creative twists Rowling puts in throughout all the books. you should really keep reading them because they only get better, especially the last two. rowling develops the characters completely, you get to know them intimately.



the point about the guarding of the philosopher's stone: the teachers never expected students to attempt to steal the stone. the tasks would have baffled many adult wizards because they would have over-thought them. harry has a real talent at quidditch, which is why he could get the key. hermione is highly intellegent and had only recently been taught about devil's snare, which was not one of the harder tasks anyway, and i expect older wizards or witches wouldn't have any idea what it was, the same as now we may learn things in biology which we will completely forget as we grow up. the chess game was won because ron is a keen player, having more spare time to play it unlike, again, older wizards or witches, and the type to try to steal the stone probably wouldn't be bothered about it. the potions task was a matter of logic, and this seems to be Rowling stating that children can be more logical than adults, that as we grow up our opinions and lateral thinking become distorted. the actual attaining of the stone was both an intensely complex and equally simple bit of magic: you had to have no bad intent in order to get the stone, something no wizard attempting to steal the stone would be able to get past.



i don't think Rowling was attempting to be clever when she named the house of Slytherin, but instead was playing on the myth of serpents being 'evil'. she is after all, telling a story set in a mythical world, and i don't understand your point about centaurs etc, do you expect Rowling to make up mythical creatures? i don't see the problem in playing on the well known ones. setting hogwarts in an enchanted castle may be an obvious choice but that doesn't make it a bad one. what do you expect, a modern school, in a city? that doesn't fit in with the world or the story at all.



i think you have severely misjudged the book and definitely need to read the rest of the series. the first book is unmistakabley a children's book, but as harry and his fans matured, so did Rowling's style. i was about six when the first book came out, and have grown up with harry. as my taste developed, i could keep reading the series, because they were no longer children's books. the whole series is complex and exciting and a massive achievement.





edit//also, as someone stated, the fact that each task played to each character's advantage was entirely purposeful. i thought it was really well done, how rowling had it tie in like that, without it seeming obvious. throughout the book she gives the hints of their advantages, such as ron's talent at chess but harry being hopeless at it, or harry being excellent at quidditch but hermione being terrible, or hermione being really clever but ron being pretty average. if any one of them had gone alone, they would have failed. they complement each other. they are tied together by fluffy because they all know hagrid. this friendship plus his habit of saying too much was also subtelly worked in. if you think about it, those three are pretty much the only people who could get through all the tasks without cheating (like quirrell did). the tasks also demonstrate their friendship, as ron sacrifices himself, as does hermione.

Answer 10

Uh, no.

Want bad literature filled with cliches? Check out twilight.

Answer 11

I think that it is great that you don't like the HP series not everyone has to like the same thing. I however am a fan or Harry Potter, but it's also entertainment would I rate it as great literature, no. But that's how I over look the repetetiveness of these books. However, HP in paticular follows the same formula as Star Wars, The Lion King, the Chronicles of Narnia and countless other "epics", that being the Hero/Savior story.

1. Comes from Noble Family (Most times does not know it)

2. Attempt is made on childs life or life altering circumstances happen to child

3. Naming and Dedication of a child (there is a prophecy made)

4. During childs youth he/she must leave home and start a Journey (again more often than not to overcome death)

5. Returns home to find things in disorder must set them right

6. Dies a mysterious death or goes through Apotheosis



So it's all entertainment to me.



The thing about the HP series and about Twilight is that no matter how crappy the plot lines are, how unbelieveable the characters are and how over done the basis for each story is, these stories have one big thing going for them; they were able to get kids away from the video games and television and got them to read.



Also, Twilight to me is nothing but a different take on Charlaine Harris' Sookie Stackhouse series. Yes, I like Twilight books to.

Answer 12

1st question - The author had told the complete story of Harry Potter through his school years, so it ended. I have read books by authors who kept writing more books long after the story should have ended, and they went downhill. So it was probably a wise choice. (quality above quantity) 2nd question - The answer depends on the people reading or watching the movies. Personally, I enjoyed both the books and the movies, so I would say yes it is worth it!

Answer 13

Haha I agree. When I was younger and the first book came out I got into it because I was young. Now I'm 19 and it's not as great. I finally saw the 5th movie and I actually couldn't get that into it. After the fourth one, I couldn't pick them back up. I finally gave up on reading anything past that one. Movies will just have to do- even though they aren't that great. Hopefully helena bonham-carter will be in the next one more- I love her.



Twilight- Ha even though the books are terribly written with little character development and detail, I actually kind of got into. No where near the crazy tween fans, but it was an easy, light read and a step back from my favorite- Stephen King. Poor Meyer though, reading Stephen King after twilight completely shows her lack of plots and detail.

Answer 14

Your welcome to pick all the bones you want about anything, as that is an inalienable right. However, please bear in mind that these books are written for children, look at as a child would. They are excellent stories that have encouraged children to read instead of burying themselves in movies and video games. Its not the story that matters but its effect on children of a technological society.

Answer 15

I've seen the movies, and read some of the books.

And I've always thought the story was kind of over-rated.

But I think that the society we live in thrives on these similar plots and even though HP is nearly the same thing we've heard all our lives, people don't recognize it because it has "MAGIC!!!"

AHHH!!

My college has an entire course purely about the Harry Potter series.

Wow.





I'm behind you all the way!

Answer 16

HAHA....you know never thought about that a quite true....Suprised harry didn't grab a gun or Hermione, I mean come ON! she would of thought of grabbing a gun or something and it would of been more effective! ya the puzzles were easy, obvoisley Dumbledore isn't that smart....



Wow coming froma huge HP fan

Answer 17

NO. (this is a violation of Y!A. i think. does this count as ranting?) u cant.



and you spelled Hagrid wrong.

Answer 18

what the person below me said. xD

Answer 19

I don't like HP.

Twilighter here, hun.