/lit/ - Literature

It's a quick read, might as well if you don't have anything better to read.

I like the series. It gets more mature in content with each book, probably to remain interesting to the people who read the series as they grow. You get to see the world become more oppressive and dark. Also, I appreciated the fact that the moral being reinforced wasn't the trite "good vs. evil, totalitarian vs. freedom." Instead, it's "the right thing to do vs. the easy thing to do," so a lot of characters that helped the protagonists end up working against the protagonists, but they are't really villains.

It isn't a literary masterpiece, but it's pretty good.

Just pick up a better book maybe some Jorge Luis Borges

Don't worry, Harry Potter picks up a lot in book 4.

>>453292
no it doesnt, it gets even boringer

Do it OP, its a nice read and the world as it distorts intrigues your imagination. Better than the films.

>>453738
No it isn't and no it doesn't

Sure, read them, they're good books and it won't take you that long.

>>453760
Agreed.

Waste of time

>>453758

Opinion with no evidence to support as of why.

Before you contribute to an opinion be sure to have some validated reasons other than NO DON'T THINK SO.

>>453767

Name a book of fiction that is not a waste of time. Fiction is meant for mere entertainment and that is it, unless of course you like walking away with a new approach in thinking. That is not for fiction to do though.
If you didn't get any satisfaction from reading it fair enough.

Harry Potter books are a waste of time. I read the last one and it was: a wedding, a 400 page camping trip, and than a really shitty climax where Voldermort slips on a banana peel and kills himself. It consists entirely of teenage gossip, melodramatic angst, and a really shitty allegory for the Holocaust.

These books are shit and so are the people who read them.

I watched the first 5 movies then read the last two books. I tried to read the others but its litterally as fun as watching paint dry

Yeah, read it. Maybe not literary works of art, but nevertheless, a fun, engaging story with mostly likable characters. Give it a shot.

>a fun, engaging story with mostly likable characters.

What the fuck is wrong with you? All of the plots are contrived and stupid, opting to make no sense and showcase Voldermort's stupidity and ineptness at being evil. Harry fails to solve a single mystery. And the characters are all ridiculous caricatures of good or evil taken so such extremes it feels like Rowling is literally pounding your head against a rock to make you remember who's the hero and who's the villain.

I think they're a waste of time, but it depends on what you're looking for. There's nothing really unique or clever about them; they're just a mix of stuff taken from better fantasy with heaping helpings of deux ex machina thrown in (every fucking problem in the books is solved this way...). If you're looking for something mindless, go for it.

>>453832
U mad

Also U didn't read the books.

>>453833

and by "deux" i mean "deus". oops.

>>453800
The people are shit who have read it, didn't you read it though?

I have to agree in some parts though, he is not a good villain. If he were the books would have stopped at the 1st one.

The wedding was to show light in utter darkness, it showed how the characters were stubborn and were barely effected by their surroundings. please sir elaborate on how you would have written the book in a more engaging manor?

>>453840
I read the first one and the last one. They were shit. I think Rowling actually got worse as she wrote more.

>>453844
>elaborate on how you would have written the book in a more engaging manor?

Really, the biggest difference I would've done was rely a lot less on dialog and narrative summery. Heavy reliance on both are staples of really poor literature, like Anita Blake, Twilight, or Goosebumps books. I would've done some world building, revamped the magic system so there was actually a system to it, and instead of having one million pointless throw away characters focused more on a few well rounded characters with flaws. I also would have made Harry make at least ONE moral decision, and I wouldn't hand every fucking solution to every fucking problem to him while he sat on his hands being a worthless dumbass. I would downplay the childish focus on "good vs evil," and focus on a theme that would enlighten a reader, like "the corrupting influence of policing the world."

But if Harry Potter was written like that nobody would like it because it would be smart.

>>453861
>Really, the biggest difference I would've done was rely a lot less on dialog and narrative summery.

So, in other words, you take out dialogue in a book ABOUT TEENAGERS. Yeah, that makes sense. Even then, dialogue was needed to push the story forward. A bunch of cryptic hints would have done nothing to enthuse the reader to continue reading.

>Heavy reliance on both are staples of really poor literature, like Anita Blake, Twilight, or Goosebumps books.

Hurray, you've compared Harry Potter to Twilight. Good job, you've reached the same level as the average troll on the internet.

>I would've done some world building, revamped the magic system so there was actually a system to it, and instead of having one million pointless throw away characters focused more on a few well rounded characters with flaws.

Revamp the magic system? What is this, a fucking MMORPG? The system they had in place was fine. Random in a few spots (Expelliarmus+Avada Kedavra=wut), but solid nonetheless. Also, the large cast of characters is what made the books so charming and open ended. Honestly there were more than a few minor characters who I wish had their stories fleshed out because they seemed like a very nice break from the core cast.

Cont'd in next post.

>>453861
Fair play to you, after reading all the books I felt that much of the world and magic was missing. The culture seemed to be present in handfuls. There are only a handful of spells present and the protagonist seems to miss entirely the interest of picking up a Greek book and trying random enchantments.
The magic system and world has left allot to the imagination though. Not everyone would agree with you in structuring it. Perhaps this is what you missed, the mystery around the settings.

(Cont'd)
>I also would have made Harry make at least ONE moral decision, and I wouldn't hand every fucking solution to every fucking problem to him while he sat on his hands being a worthless dumbass.

Part of the message these books try to convey is that you don't need to do everything by yourself. This was heavily discussed at the end of book 6 and the beginning of book 7.

>I would downplay the childish focus on "good vs evil," and focus on a theme that would enlighten a reader, like "the corrupting influence of policing the world."

The book is a story about Good vs. Evil. That's the fucking point. If you squint hard enough, you might actually find the political subtext you're looking for, but I don't think the idea of the books was to say "GOVERNMENT IS BAD GRRR!"

>But if Harry Potter was written like that nobody would like it because it would be smart.

Oh false sense of entitlement, where would we be without you?

>>453895
>Cont'd in next post.

I'm not even going to read your next post, because you clearly have nothing intelligent to say.

Thesis: The Harry Potter books are popular, because Harry Potter is a completely incompetent moron, but wins anyway.

1. People like characters who they can identify with.

2. People are generally ignorant, incompetent, moronic fucks. People like winning.

3. Harry Potter is a moron, who would have died about a dozen times to the even more moronic evil dude, were it not for chance or his cohort saving his skin. He also wins at the end.

4. People therefore identify with Harry Potter, and therefore enjoy the books despite the endless plot holes, horrible characters, etc.

Q.E.D.

>>453905
Nice counter-argument.

In summery

The story is enjoyable

Characters are likable

The world leaves much open thinking about how the history of magic came about with handful of hints.

I don't see the problem unless of course you take this into account:

The longer your neckbeard the less enjoyment you will get from the books.

ITT Anons getting butthurt over Harry Potter.

>>453914

The HP series is for people who selectively employ punctuation, and don't know how "summary" is spelled.

>>453913
>you take out dialogue in a book ABOUT TEENAGERS. Yeah, that makes sense.

>Hurray, you've compared Harry Potter to Twilight. Good job, you've reached the same level as the average troll on the internet.

>Revamp the magic system? What is this, a fucking MMORPG?

What am I supposed to argue against? You didn't even make a point.

>>453928
I see SOMEONE didn't read my post besides what he wanted to see. OH U.

>>453933
Maybe if you could stop foaming at the mouth for two fucking seconds you'd have something of significance to say. All your posts amount to are "NUH-UH! NUH-UH!"

The truth of the matter is, heavy reliance on dialog is a mark of an amateur. If you read something other than childrens' books, you'd know this. But instead you say "RELY LESS ON DIALOG? ARE YOU MAD?! YOU TROLL, COMPARING THIS CHILDRENS' BOOK TO OTHER CHILDRENS' BOOKS!"

And as for the magic system, even Eragon can a coherent magic system. Granted, it was plagiarized, but at least it was there, the same cannot be said of Harry Potter.

oh god this argument is fun to read

do continue, please

>>453926
My mistake however did you have any trouble understanding... no?
Grammer Nazi neck beard detected.

I liked them when I was younger, but all the HURR DURR VOLDEMORT shit got boring. I know that was the main plot and all, but it was a boring main plot. Wasn't too fond of the magic system and Quidditch scenes, but overall they were enjoyable.

I picked up Prisoner of Azkaban the other day out of nostalgia, and it's still a good book.

>>453949
lol u mad

>>453987
>lol u argued me into a corner

fix'd

>>453993
Yup, he mad.

Anyway, I could feed the troll some more, but at this point you have yet to prove your points besides reiterating them, which is hardly constructive. Rather than just repeating the same things over and over again, why not try and argue and flesh out your points next time? Oh, wait, that's right, trolls don't work that way.

Good day sir.

>>454003
>why not try and argue and flesh out your points next time?

Because you didn't bother to?

>>454015
I said good day.

my god, Harry Potter should be a banable offense. Keep the Gaia fags out of here.

>>454019