They are excellent reading tools that appeal to unhappy and lonely children. I learned to read on them and I was a lonely autist so the story appealed to me. By the end it was something I wanted to see to the end and that I look back on fondly.
Because I was eight years old and already nearly blind, thought it was cool someone who wore the same ridiculous glasses could do magic
I devoured these books for all these reasons. >mentally ill father sobering up and becoming well >mother working two or three jobs to keep the family together >lived in shitty part of town, next to the oil refinery, full of stray pitbulls and hispanics who liked to start trouble with whitey >lots of time at home alone >Harry Potter (and Drizzt Do’Urden) brought me into worlds that weren’t shitty, stinky industrial towns full of sad people >mom saw the magic it brought me and always took the time off to bring me to the midnight releases >things got better, eventually
As if only American children like escapism. Isn't it Tolkien who, as a fricking adult, still believed that fairies were literally real, and wrote a the handbook on turning escapism into religion; The Lord of the Rings? What was he again? It wasn't American....Oh, right, a euro.
They are excellent reading tools that appeal to unhappy and lonely children. I learned to read on them and I was a lonely autist so the story appealed to me. By the end it was something I wanted to see to the end and that I look back on fondly.
For a lot of people, they're among the few books they've ever read. Hence, they cling to them as its their only life raft in the sea of popular culture. Same thing with Star Wars fanatics. You'd be surprised how many of them have never watched the LOTR or Star Trek, let alone read any sci-fi novels.
I'm re-reading them at 31. I loved them as a child—I attended the midnight releases from the fourth book onwards—but didn't finish the seventh book for no particular reason (perhaps I thought I was getting too old for Harry Potter at that point). Obviously they're not the best books I've ever read, but I can easily see why I enjoyed them so much when I was younger. I've read hundreds of 'serious' books over the years, but they're still providing some enjoyable escapism even at my advanced age.
>but didn't finish the seventh book for no particular reason (perhaps I thought I was getting too old for Harry Potter at that point)
It's just really bad. I remember forcing myself into speed reading it. Nothing happens for too long, then everything happens, and you really don't care at that point. Six was start of the downfall, while seven is just outright trash. The final battle that she did at the end with every single character that ever appeared in the book, is just pure cringe. First four are brilliant, though, with Goblet of Fire being one of the true highlights of fantasy literature. Next one is ok as well, but starts loosing childish appeal. At the same time Rowling was not keen on turning the series into young adult series with sex and hormones, so it stays something in between.
You could try her Cormoran Strikes novels. They're mixed bag as well. Ranging from badly written, but intriguing first novel, truly fantastic Troubled Blood, and a few duds in between.
7th was set almost all outside of the school and was way too serious for what it was intended to be, read more like an edgy fanfic than something that belongs to the series
sure hp tried to take on serious themes in a more or elss successful way but they were still in the background of the setting or some kind of character specific subplot rather than the core thing
it also doesnt help that the final confrontation was essentially a screaming contest that was resolved in a nonsensical way
I think what he is implying, is that adults are very much manbabies who are still obsessed with childish things like harry potter. I have met many women with harry potter tattoos. My post here explains this obsession in more detail
Women appreciate Harry Potter for two distinct reasons:
1. Its aesthetics are reminiscient of peak white culture (therefore peak world culture), in that it is a boarding school setting therefore the kids must either have wealthy parents, or, in this case, some unique disposition (magical abilities) which sets them apart from "le other [girls / proles / muggles). The setting itself is absolutely peak white culture, in a cold rural setting within an ancient castle, whose professor speak in RP accents etc. Consider that both Emma Watson an ~~*Daniel Radcliffe*~~ were both privately educated at similar IRL schools, and therefore fit their respective roles perfectly (with state-schooled Rupert fitting his role as the Oliver-esque poorgay). It's life on easymode essentially, with no worries about money throughout ones childhood or adolescent, and a guaranteed job at the end. Balls, gowns, ancient portraits, all make for the upper class environment girls love because it affords them a sense of superiority and distinction from their peers (plus a choice of equally upper class guys).
2. The fighting in Harry Potter is not done by hands or traditional weaponry, something very unique in fiction. Even Star Wars has lightsabers and laser guns, both advanced versions of swords and rifles (masculine). Instead Hermione can use her nerdiness to battle her enemies (using her academic knowledge and bookishness) and even if she is forced into combat, it isn't as if she has to adopt the nu-feminist idea that "gurls are just as strong as boys hehe!" as seen in many modern movies where some "badass" dyke karate kills ten guys twice her size. Instead she can muster all her repressed energy (which is abundant in nerdy girls) and use it to create a force which shoots from her wand (which satisfies her penis envy) to overwhelm the inner force of her enemies.
It's the ideal female-friendly story.
These same people now in their 30's and 40's that laughed at the religious hatred of harry potter in the 1990's for devil bullshit have become so mind broken by Rowling when she said men can't be women, that they themselves are now religious fanatics. It's like pottery it rhymes.
>adults are very much manbabies who are still obsessed with childish things like harry potter.
I have not observed this at all. I'm not surprised fanatics exist, but there are always fanatics about anything popular and few things were more popular than Harry Potter.
Adulthood is about responsibility. If you're a childless virgin in your 30s living with your parents, you're a manbaby to me no matter what books you pretend to have read on IQfy. If you're a father who maintains an ordered home and is loved and respected by his wife and children, I couldn't care less what books you want to read and analyze in your spare time.
Verification not required.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>I couldn't care less what books you want to read and analyze in your spare time
I care.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Because you're a loser with no life that can only derive some self respect by being a judgmental little bastard.
Pathetic people like you should be ostracized from society. And we will do so.
10 months ago
Anonymous
Damn you sure are mad lol
enjoy your moronic children's books the day of the rope will come for booklets
I only read the first two and they are good children's book.
Despite what some on /lit think not everyone reads the Illiad at 8.
But for me as a kid it was The Edge Chronicles.
Women appreciate Harry Potter for two distinct reasons:
1. Its aesthetics are reminiscient of peak white culture (therefore peak world culture), in that it is a boarding school setting therefore the kids must either have wealthy parents, or, in this case, some unique disposition (magical abilities) which sets them apart from "le other [girls / proles / muggles). The setting itself is absolutely peak white culture, in a cold rural setting within an ancient castle, whose professor speak in RP accents etc. Consider that both Emma Watson an ~~*Daniel Radcliffe*~~ were both privately educated at similar IRL schools, and therefore fit their respective roles perfectly (with state-schooled Rupert fitting his role as the Oliver-esque poorgay). It's life on easymode essentially, with no worries about money throughout ones childhood or adolescent, and a guaranteed job at the end. Balls, gowns, ancient portraits, all make for the upper class environment girls love because it affords them a sense of superiority and distinction from their peers (plus a choice of equally upper class guys).
2. The fighting in Harry Potter is not done by hands or traditional weaponry, something very unique in fiction. Even Star Wars has lightsabers and laser guns, both advanced versions of swords and rifles (masculine). Instead Hermione can use her nerdiness to battle her enemies (using her academic knowledge and bookishness) and even if she is forced into combat, it isn't as if she has to adopt the nu-feminist idea that "gurls are just as strong as boys hehe!" as seen in many modern movies where some "badass" dyke karate kills ten guys twice her size. Instead she can muster all her repressed energy (which is abundant in nerdy girls) and use it to create a force which shoots from her wand (which satisfies her penis envy) to overwhelm the inner force of her enemies.
Never got it either, especially when lord of the rings was around, even 12 years old me knew Gandalf was cooler than Dumbledore. I think this guy
makes a nice point for why girls liked it, but I can only assume the boys who did were also very effeminate bullied kids or something.
Why, are you legitamently moronic? all the reasons are right in your face and easy to understand you utter buffon.
Simple enough for children and the widest audience to read
Has simple and relatable characters
fantastic elements to elicit wonder
a digestable developing story structure that promotes engagement
Right thing at the right time during the YA boom
You would have to be stupider than a harry Potter fan to not get its popularity.
Because no one wants to admit they don’t have 1/1,000,000 of the creativity it takes to spawn and entire universe of rich characters that practically write themselves onto the page
We devoured it because it was good, retrospect doesn’t change that.
Even if you think it’s trash that’s fine, it’s still an entire body of work that was wildly successful, for all the right reasons.
It’s okay to admit that and still not like it lol, they’re not mutually exclusive
my autistic ass liked the underlying order and structured progression of it all. Each book covered exactly one school year, Hogwarts lasts seven years, ergo the series amounts to exactly seven books. In the first book they learn easy and weak spells, in the later books they learn harder more impactful ones, and their new subjects give them further insight into the world they inhabit. I never cared much for the characters or the overarching plot, for me they were more side-events that are really just opportunities for them to showcast what they learned in school. First and foremost I was always more into the Harry Potter video games, the RPGs on the gameboy.
I never gave a single shit about Harry Potter until I met my gf four years ago and she made me sit through the movies.
They made me feel nostalgic for something that I didn't empirically experience as a child. I'm English, so it was ingrained into my cultural identity for a time whether I liked it or not. Next to LotR, it's by far the most quintessentially British fantasy fictional setting. I miss the era surrounding Harry Potter, because to me it reflected a more innocent period in my life.
I haven't read more than two pages of any of the books and I likely never will. If they're as 'comfy' as the movies then I can understand the appeal - it's a really quaint, nice universe to delve into, one that I definitely took for granted. I still wouldn't call myself a fan though.
If you happen to go for the books, first one that you'll read will drive you in and force you into reading more, and they get progressively better. Good mindless fun. Can't compare to the films, I never watched one.
>until I met my gf four years ago and she made me sit through the movies. They made me feel nostalgic for something that I didn't empirically experience as a child.
You sound easily manipulatable. What are your politics?
I'm English, so it was ingrained into my cultural identity for a time whether I liked it or not. Next to LotR, it's by far the most quintessentially British fantasy fictional setting.
I think this is basically it. I know people here will call me a chud or a /misc/cel for saying this, but Harry Potter is an idealized version of Britain that's rural, middle class, and, yes, overwhelmingly White. No series about non-White children in a graffiti-filled inner-city environnent would have done nearly as well because, as
[...]
[...]
I devoured these books for all these reasons. >mentally ill father sobering up and becoming well >mother working two or three jobs to keep the family together >lived in shitty part of town, next to the oil refinery, full of stray pitbulls and hispanics who liked to start trouble with whitey >lots of time at home alone >Harry Potter (and Drizzt Do’Urden) brought me into worlds that weren’t shitty, stinky industrial towns full of sad people >mom saw the magic it brought me and always took the time off to bring me to the midnight releases >things got better, eventually
indicates, that's what people want to escape from, not where they want to escape to. Obviously Harry Potter and his friends face danger, but it's the kind of danger that can be overcome by the Power of Friendship. No one at Hogwarts is in danger of being raped by a failed asylum seeker the government have failed to deport; no one's in danger of having his or her broomstick stolen by gypsies or of being mugged by 'inner-city youths'. Obviously this isn't at the forefront of most people's minds when they read Harry Potter, but I think it's a big factor in its popularity, and in the popularity of many series set in historical or fantasy settings.
I’ll give you a hint, Santa is just Satan with his name mixed up. Woman writes a story about a boy who kills Jesus, becomes richest author to ever live.
Unhappy, abused, American children like escapism. Who knew.
Is there any country that does not abuse children?
the Vatican?
Roman Catholics are noted child molesters
Yeah, but how many children live in the country Vatican City?
Too lazy to find an accurate number myself. Enough to keep the Pope happy, though
The answer is there are no children citizens except those on a temporary basis as the children of diplomats.
No official children yes, but countless numbers of them in the rape dungeons. The Vatican was perhaps the worst answer you could’ve given.
Take ur meds
shill
netherlands
I devoured these books for all these reasons.
>mentally ill father sobering up and becoming well
>mother working two or three jobs to keep the family together
>lived in shitty part of town, next to the oil refinery, full of stray pitbulls and hispanics who liked to start trouble with whitey
>lots of time at home alone
>Harry Potter (and Drizzt Do’Urden) brought me into worlds that weren’t shitty, stinky industrial towns full of sad people
>mom saw the magic it brought me and always took the time off to bring me to the midnight releases
>things got better, eventually
Obsessed.
As if only American children like escapism. Isn't it Tolkien who, as a fricking adult, still believed that fairies were literally real, and wrote a the handbook on turning escapism into religion; The Lord of the Rings? What was he again? It wasn't American....Oh, right, a euro.
Anglos aren‘t real Euros
They were popular in Great Britain first.
Yeah, but who gives a frick what the inbred islanders think?
and canadian.
probably not.
They are excellent reading tools that appeal to unhappy and lonely children. I learned to read on them and I was a lonely autist so the story appealed to me. By the end it was something I wanted to see to the end and that I look back on fondly.
I'm genuinely confused why some children's fantasy books live rent free in your head.
Because they're very charming and good
Because I was eight years old and already nearly blind, thought it was cool someone who wore the same ridiculous glasses could do magic
Ever since this shit, everything is a series now.
For me, it was Percy Jackson.
What's confusing about them is how people in their 30s and 40s still latch to them.
It's something fond from childhood. Most who do that connect it to a feeling of innocence they can remember but no longer possess.
There's an abysmal difference between being fond of something from your childhood and being a manchild, millennials are the later.
For a lot of people, they're among the few books they've ever read. Hence, they cling to them as its their only life raft in the sea of popular culture. Same thing with Star Wars fanatics. You'd be surprised how many of them have never watched the LOTR or Star Trek, let alone read any sci-fi novels.
Why must you denigrate other for pursuing what makes them happy?
I'm re-reading them at 31. I loved them as a child—I attended the midnight releases from the fourth book onwards—but didn't finish the seventh book for no particular reason (perhaps I thought I was getting too old for Harry Potter at that point). Obviously they're not the best books I've ever read, but I can easily see why I enjoyed them so much when I was younger. I've read hundreds of 'serious' books over the years, but they're still providing some enjoyable escapism even at my advanced age.
>but didn't finish the seventh book for no particular reason (perhaps I thought I was getting too old for Harry Potter at that point)
It's just really bad. I remember forcing myself into speed reading it. Nothing happens for too long, then everything happens, and you really don't care at that point. Six was start of the downfall, while seven is just outright trash. The final battle that she did at the end with every single character that ever appeared in the book, is just pure cringe. First four are brilliant, though, with Goblet of Fire being one of the true highlights of fantasy literature. Next one is ok as well, but starts loosing childish appeal. At the same time Rowling was not keen on turning the series into young adult series with sex and hormones, so it stays something in between.
You could try her Cormoran Strikes novels. They're mixed bag as well. Ranging from badly written, but intriguing first novel, truly fantastic Troubled Blood, and a few duds in between.
7th was set almost all outside of the school and was way too serious for what it was intended to be, read more like an edgy fanfic than something that belongs to the series
sure hp tried to take on serious themes in a more or elss successful way but they were still in the background of the setting or some kind of character specific subplot rather than the core thing
it also doesnt help that the final confrontation was essentially a screaming contest that was resolved in a nonsensical way
What do you mean "latch on?"
Maybe you're confused because your thoughts on the matter are so vague you cannot even articulate them properly.
I think what he is implying, is that adults are very much manbabies who are still obsessed with childish things like harry potter. I have met many women with harry potter tattoos. My post here explains this obsession in more detail
These same people now in their 30's and 40's that laughed at the religious hatred of harry potter in the 1990's for devil bullshit have become so mind broken by Rowling when she said men can't be women, that they themselves are now religious fanatics. It's like pottery it rhymes.
>adults are very much manbabies who are still obsessed with childish things like harry potter.
I have not observed this at all. I'm not surprised fanatics exist, but there are always fanatics about anything popular and few things were more popular than Harry Potter.
Adulthood is about responsibility. If you're a childless virgin in your 30s living with your parents, you're a manbaby to me no matter what books you pretend to have read on IQfy. If you're a father who maintains an ordered home and is loved and respected by his wife and children, I couldn't care less what books you want to read and analyze in your spare time.
Verification not required.
>I couldn't care less what books you want to read and analyze in your spare time
I care.
Because you're a loser with no life that can only derive some self respect by being a judgmental little bastard.
Pathetic people like you should be ostracized from society. And we will do so.
Damn you sure are mad lol
enjoy your moronic children's books
the day of the rope will come for booklets
Hear Hear.
In all seriousness it got boosted to international success via an advertising push by Scholastic and compounded from there
I only read the first two and they are good children's book.
Despite what some on /lit think not everyone reads the Illiad at 8.
But for me as a kid it was The Edge Chronicles.
Girls
Are you like 60IQ? You might not like it, but being confused as to why this series has become popular is good indicator that you're moronic
freemasons promoting magic to kids
Women appreciate Harry Potter for two distinct reasons:
1. Its aesthetics are reminiscient of peak white culture (therefore peak world culture), in that it is a boarding school setting therefore the kids must either have wealthy parents, or, in this case, some unique disposition (magical abilities) which sets them apart from "le other [girls / proles / muggles). The setting itself is absolutely peak white culture, in a cold rural setting within an ancient castle, whose professor speak in RP accents etc. Consider that both Emma Watson an ~~*Daniel Radcliffe*~~ were both privately educated at similar IRL schools, and therefore fit their respective roles perfectly (with state-schooled Rupert fitting his role as the Oliver-esque poorgay). It's life on easymode essentially, with no worries about money throughout ones childhood or adolescent, and a guaranteed job at the end. Balls, gowns, ancient portraits, all make for the upper class environment girls love because it affords them a sense of superiority and distinction from their peers (plus a choice of equally upper class guys).
2. The fighting in Harry Potter is not done by hands or traditional weaponry, something very unique in fiction. Even Star Wars has lightsabers and laser guns, both advanced versions of swords and rifles (masculine). Instead Hermione can use her nerdiness to battle her enemies (using her academic knowledge and bookishness) and even if she is forced into combat, it isn't as if she has to adopt the nu-feminist idea that "gurls are just as strong as boys hehe!" as seen in many modern movies where some "badass" dyke karate kills ten guys twice her size. Instead she can muster all her repressed energy (which is abundant in nerdy girls) and use it to create a force which shoots from her wand (which satisfies her penis envy) to overwhelm the inner force of her enemies.
It's the ideal female-friendly story.
Never got it either, especially when lord of the rings was around, even 12 years old me knew Gandalf was cooler than Dumbledore. I think this guy
makes a nice point for why girls liked it, but I can only assume the boys who did were also very effeminate bullied kids or something.
>that guy who thinks lotr is good
Unbelievably based, and this image is probably a few years old and this woman already has crow's feet and 50% baby fat loss
self inserts
Why, are you legitamently moronic? all the reasons are right in your face and easy to understand you utter buffon.
Simple enough for children and the widest audience to read
Has simple and relatable characters
fantastic elements to elicit wonder
a digestable developing story structure that promotes engagement
Right thing at the right time during the YA boom
You would have to be stupider than a harry Potter fan to not get its popularity.
Because no one wants to admit they don’t have 1/1,000,000 of the creativity it takes to spawn and entire universe of rich characters that practically write themselves onto the page
We devoured it because it was good, retrospect doesn’t change that.
Even if you think it’s trash that’s fine, it’s still an entire body of work that was wildly successful, for all the right reasons.
It’s okay to admit that and still not like it lol, they’re not mutually exclusive
Everyone here is moronic. The actual answer is good marketing.
You mean astroturfing
my autistic ass liked the underlying order and structured progression of it all. Each book covered exactly one school year, Hogwarts lasts seven years, ergo the series amounts to exactly seven books. In the first book they learn easy and weak spells, in the later books they learn harder more impactful ones, and their new subjects give them further insight into the world they inhabit. I never cared much for the characters or the overarching plot, for me they were more side-events that are really just opportunities for them to showcast what they learned in school. First and foremost I was always more into the Harry Potter video games, the RPGs on the gameboy.
I never gave a single shit about Harry Potter until I met my gf four years ago and she made me sit through the movies.
They made me feel nostalgic for something that I didn't empirically experience as a child. I'm English, so it was ingrained into my cultural identity for a time whether I liked it or not. Next to LotR, it's by far the most quintessentially British fantasy fictional setting. I miss the era surrounding Harry Potter, because to me it reflected a more innocent period in my life.
I haven't read more than two pages of any of the books and I likely never will. If they're as 'comfy' as the movies then I can understand the appeal - it's a really quaint, nice universe to delve into, one that I definitely took for granted. I still wouldn't call myself a fan though.
If you happen to go for the books, first one that you'll read will drive you in and force you into reading more, and they get progressively better. Good mindless fun. Can't compare to the films, I never watched one.
>until I met my gf four years ago and she made me sit through the movies. They made me feel nostalgic for something that I didn't empirically experience as a child.
You sound easily manipulatable. What are your politics?
I'm English, so it was ingrained into my cultural identity for a time whether I liked it or not. Next to LotR, it's by far the most quintessentially British fantasy fictional setting.
I think this is basically it. I know people here will call me a chud or a /misc/cel for saying this, but Harry Potter is an idealized version of Britain that's rural, middle class, and, yes, overwhelmingly White. No series about non-White children in a graffiti-filled inner-city environnent would have done nearly as well because, as
indicates, that's what people want to escape from, not where they want to escape to. Obviously Harry Potter and his friends face danger, but it's the kind of danger that can be overcome by the Power of Friendship. No one at Hogwarts is in danger of being raped by a failed asylum seeker the government have failed to deport; no one's in danger of having his or her broomstick stolen by gypsies or of being mugged by 'inner-city youths'. Obviously this isn't at the forefront of most people's minds when they read Harry Potter, but I think it's a big factor in its popularity, and in the popularity of many series set in historical or fantasy settings.
Forgot to highlight the first three lines. It's so over for me.
This is your brain on /misc/
Not an argument.
>Next to LotR, it's by far the most quintessentially British fantasy fictional setting
How would you rank Narnia?
I’ll give you a hint, Santa is just Satan with his name mixed up. Woman writes a story about a boy who kills Jesus, becomes richest author to ever live.
For a kids book they were compelling. Series of Unfortunate Events was my equivalent. They dropped the ball on the movie so it never got as popular.
isn't it obvious? the author sold her soul
most people are not chuds like you are. explains it 100%
because they're good[/sploiler]
It's easy to imagine yourself in the world of Harry Potter, it's good escapism