Why Harry Potter books get so much hate?

Don't let JK Rowling's terrible politics distract you from the fact that this is the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though

"No!" The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

Attached: 1473063744424.jpg (1623x2886, 1.27M)

Zoomers don't even know what Harry Potter is.

She ripped the idea off of Ursula LeGuin. Wizard of Earthsea series. Better writing by far too.

JRR Tolkien > JK Rowling

lol Harry Potter has always sucked. JK Rowling took elements from JRR Tolkien & mutt it up. Tolkien was the realist when it comes towards race mixing.

Who fucking cares about literature made in the last fifty years? It's all useless shit, a contrived collection of unscientific banalities written in a nice style to attract gullible white liberals too retarded to understand science.

>well written

Attached: 1513424453345s.jpg (242x208, 5.62K)

thank god, I was worried someone didn't post this.

>Because the books are well written.
If you're 17 years old, yes.

Kanye West?

they corrupt children with socialist propaganda

>Wizard of Earthsea
Le Guin is retarded and a bitch and more left than Rowling too

>"War and Peace" not in "God Tier"

Attached: 1500183449145.jpg (604x604, 27.5K)

Wizard schools are like a staple of fantasy litterature (Tamora Pierce, Brent Weeks, Forgotten Realms, etc.), but yeah Earthsea was perhaps the first to feature it as a main plot device.

Rowling has become a wierd cunt with retconning and gay Dumbledore, but the main plot of the books is pretty nice for childrens' books, and the complexity of characters becomes greater as they grow up and the themes get darker, which is all in all a pretty nice little evolution.

>Books are well written

Hermione has a fucking time machine that they only use once

They use magic for fighting, instead of guns and firearms which are a lot more deadly, accurate, and practical.

Gandalf is totally okay with Snape severely abusing children, and doesn't fire him

Gandalf is totally okay with the Vernons severely abusing Harry, and offers no other alternate accommodation.

Hogwarts has a faction called "Slitherin" which is comprised of literal criminal children that endanger the safety and well being of the rest of the students, and Gandalf is totally okay with it

Draco's dad is a death eater, and literally attempted to murder Harry in Book 2, and gandalf is totally okay with it

In book 4, they host the tri wizard tournament, where they kidnap students and throw them in the lake and force the competitors to save them from drowning, making them fight dragons, and then one of the competitors died and then they act like it was a horrible unpreventable tragedy.

That chart gave me cancer.

>Notes From Underground bad
>Great Gatsby good

Attached: errughugg.jpg (645x729, 31.85K)

>"Dark is deep/good"
Explain this. It's always asserted but never explained.

J k was inspired in the first book. She did a good pop version (only in this book) of great writers like Lewis/Tolkien.

>catch 22
>low tier

Ah, clear bait.

>Faulkner
>High-Tier
You fucked up, son.

Trolololol

Because everyone treats it like its the fucking gospel. The story might be alright but when people make their whole lives revolve around it it becomes rage inducing. Same as game of thrones.

Because midwits who have never read another book constantly cite it as if there was ever meant to be any social commentary in the book at all. It’s just a story for kids. There are literally zero political undertones, so when it’s compared to politics, it’s a Süd-

Because they were written in an MI6 boardroom and not by "J.K." but my a committee of spooks, SAGE