Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Harry Potter sucks! Why is it successful? I'm confused

 

Harry Potter sucks. I mean, there is nothing special or interesting about Harry Potter at all. The story is cliched. And the characters have no depth or charisma. They are empty and hollow. The films are not engaging at all.

Anyone else confused about its success?

There are many better books out there, but this one has all this success?! That's insane.

Even "The Neverending Story" and "The Wizard of Oz" are far better stories than Harry Potter. They at least have meaning and symbolism behind them.

I saw all the Harry Potter films and they just seemed like CGI displays without any story or point. I tried reading the book once but after the first page, it seemed too boring to continue.

I wonder if the media hypes mediocre books like this for conspiratorial reasons? Sometimes they hype about something that sucks for no reason.

I also never understood what was so good about the Lord of the Rings films either. I never read the books, but the films look like a bunch of CGI video game battles. Nothing deep or profound. It seemed like a lot of fuss over one little ring.

Btw, I saw the Hobbit film when I was little. Is that story and the Lord of the Rings story the same thing? What's the difference?

51 comments:

  1. I'm ashamed to belong in the same race as you.

    "I tried reading the book once but after the first page, it seemed too boring to continue."

    And that's exactly why you think Harry Potter sucks. The directors and the producers of the movies expect the audience of the movies to have read the books or have some knowledge of the story plot and the characters. The characters in the book has unbelievable depth and back story, the plot is no way predictable and leave you wondering what's going to happen next and the story is not cliched! It's the only book in the world with the twist like Harry Potter has.

    Just because you have the patience of a 5 year old doesn't mean we all have. You know why Harry Potter is successful? Because millions of people actually bothered to read more than one page of the book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a problem. Which it to say you just don't get it because you didn't read the book how to make a book into a good movie is that you don't need to read the book to get it why would you keep an inter audience out of it just because they didn't read a 400 page piece of shit book written by a shitty writer.

      Delete
    2. You're a fucking dickhead prick I hope you die in hell you chinese shit head. Ching Chang Chong. There are 8 books which are all fucking shit. Go tell that old bitch J.K. Rowling to write a better book series than Harry Potter, then talk to me, you fucking bastard! You're tapped if you like Harry Potter!

      Delete
    3. You're a fucking dickhead if you like Harry Potter. There are 8 books and they are all shit. You fucking chinese shit. Go back to china. J.K.Rowling is a shit author, tell her write a good book series and then talk to me. You fucking shithead. Sort out your eyes you disabled shit. I hope you die in hell you bastard!

      Delete
    4. You're a fucking dickhead if you like Harry Potter. There are 8 books and they are all shit. You fucking chinese shit. Go back to china. J.K.Rowling is a shit author, tell her write a good book series and then talk to me. You fucking shithead. Sort out your eyes you disabled shit. I hope you die in hell you bastard!

      Delete
    5. Patrick Yu is a faggot who likes shit books by shit writers. Cunt.

      Delete
  2. The Harry Potter series comprises some of the worst-written, most unimaginative, cliched, contrived and DULL books ever written. They were popular because they were a FAD. J.K. Rowling caught lightning in a bottle. You can bet she'll never write anything else that will be anywhere near as popular again. Not because her earlier works were good, but again, they were a FAD, like pet rocks and Troll dolls. Her books have no literary merit. I cringe at some of the stupid ideas in them (swinging gnomes over your head and pitching them into the neighbor's yard? People riding on brooms? Doesn't it, um, chafe a bit? Campaigning for house-elf rights? HERMIONE FALLING IN LOVE WITH RON???) The Potter books are some of the most unmagical books about magic I've ever read. I have never been able to reread ANY of them; once you know what happens, the prose is too stilted and clunky to suffer through again. By contrast, I've reread The Hobbit and The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe many times; their prose is so rich, full of imagery and unforgettable phrases, that I can never get enough of them.

    The only good thing I can see about the Potter books is that perhaps, after reading them, kids will seek out more fantasy works, and stumble upon better books.

    But Rowling is still the most overrated and overpaid author in history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EXACTLY!!!, Harry Potter sucks shit, FUCK IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    2. you try and write a good book, come up with a ORGANAL STORY! bet that be very easy. j.k rowling made be paid very well! I think her life has been very hard on her before she wrote harry potter, she enjoyed writing and that what she did her hobbie in her life struggle. I don't think there anything wrong not liking the book or the movie because you are aloud. I find these book amazing I cant read the lord of the ring as I find I hard to read but I like the plot but im reading the hobbit, very good back! i also don't think jo rowling overrated she has helped many people start reading(as you have said that it will lead children to seek out more fantasy work and stumble upon better-maybe) i find the books fun to read even at 16 i feel close to the books and the movies !

      Delete
    3. Actually, JK Rowling's "Harry Potter" is completely unoriginal. She stole so many of "her ideas" from classic works. She even stole the name "Harry Potter" from the 1980's movie "Troll", whose main character is a user of magic with the name of "Harry Potter" and a very old (much older than "Harry Potter", mind you) children's book "Larry Potter and his friend Lily". She stole so much of "her" plot from so many other classic works, such as "The Looking Glass" (the sequel to "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland") and many, many others. How she didn't lose a lawsuit; I don't know. I apologize if I burst your bubble, I'm just stating the facts.

      Delete
    4. She's safe from a lawsuit cause Warner Bros can buy everyone off wiht their Plagiarism and shit. Fuck all of them - and that sad pathetic old cretin Patrick Yu who is such a mentally challenged wanker he can only ever say the same thing. Cunt.

      Delete
  3. I've actually read them and I don't like them. They're not as bad as you said, but the fact that wherever I turn, there's some crazy ass HP fan shoving the book, or the movie or Pottermore into my face, it makes me want to hunt down every last copy of the book and burn it. I can't STAND it now because of those goddamned fans.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Personally, I love Harry Potter, and saying you hate it right after reading page 1 of the first book is just pathetic. If you had read the books, you would have known all of the struggles and backgrounds of each character, and how they interacted. How they moved and formed relationships so real, that people loved them like family. I grew up with the books, and I love each of the characters dearly, they have depth and meaning, that's something you can't put into a movie. The plot is more than just a plot, it gives hope. I know that sounds a little weird, but Rowling captured something in those books that inspired millions of people to be just a little be better, and believe that even if there is less good than evil the world, that it is better to do right in the face of adversary. Rowling captured life in her books, something not very many authors can. Not to mention that Rowling intertwines beautiful, descriptive writing and unique and original ideas. She makes it so you can dive in between the pages and words, and fight alongside all the beloved characters.

    I don't want to criticize people who don't like it, everyone has their opinions; but it really is just ridiculous to state that Harry Potter is unoriginal and boring; because if it was; why is half the world obsessed with it?

    p.s. I don't know what you are smoking, but the LOR films are one of the best. The graphics are blissfully amazing, and the characters are believable, no offense, but you just don't have the intelectual to understand it I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  5. how about, read aleast three chapters of the first book, then see if you like it. Not trying to be rude but you're a dimwit. Harry potter is about facing your fears and being loyal, it's unpredictable. One time I kept reading the harry potter book untill i fell asleep! it's so adictive.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Harry Potter is the most boring thing ever

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. if u dont like it the fuck off
      oh and your calling yourself "anonymous" shows u r a coward

      Delete
    2. fuck you ella, and btw HP is complete shit!!!!

      Delete
  7. Indeed. If you google it you will find a lot of people agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Let me explain lord of the rings to you, because you seem clueless. Basically there are these rings of power made to be given to three races, elves, men, and dwarves. Then this evil guy, Sauron, makes a ring in a giant volcano called Mount Doom and it has inscribed on it, "One ring to rule them all." When he is killed in battle, his life essence goes into the ring. The ring gets passed on and this hobbit Bilbo finds it in a cave. Years later he gives it to his nephew and the nephew Frodo has to destroy it. Him, along with his allies Sam, Merry, Pippin, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli, Elrond, Boromir,and Gandalf the Grey form the Fellowship to destroy the ring. The Hobbit is about Bilbo going on the adventure to take back a Dwarven city from the dragon Smaug. He steals the ring from the creature Golum and goes off with it.
    P.S. you're a fucked up person who has no sense of reason. honestly, I got bored the first time i tried to read harry potter. but then everyone told me I should so I got through the first chapter and i was hooked. you might try it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what does this have to do with lord of the rings? That's it better?

      Delete
  9. I tried reading the hp books at 10-11 yrs old. For the 1st one, I got half way. Tried again at 12. Read the 4th book; didn't even put a dent in it. Completely boring and too long.

    They kept cutting scenes in the story and it didn't makes sense to me and you have people claiming they've read these books when they were in 2nd grade. I find that hard to believe. I don't even think any 2nd grader can understand what they read from a book that has no pictures, 1000 pages in length and full of concepts they have not even experienced/learned yet.

    It makes me wonder... If the movies didn't come out, how many Harry Potter books would actually sell?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They made the first movie, after the first three books sold like 40 million copies around the world. A lot of people pretty much knew about the books way before the movies came out.

      Delete
  10. Wow. I'm a Harry Potter fan, yes. It's not the best book out there. But the characters DO have depth. There is a storyline. And what's this? You gave up on HP on the first page?! Are you pulling my leg? And that's why it's boring. Unbelievable. Read 3 chapters at least before you judge any book.

    Harry Potter is very inspirational. It helped people in the darkest of times, gave them hope. It was my childhood. And you just went up here and shoved this at fans' faces. Wow.

    I know we all have opinions, but, your opinion really sucks. Your claims are terrible.

    And Lord of the Rings. The movies have really great CGI. And they do have a plot and a meaning, just read the friggin' book. Maybe you just don't like books. Yeah.

    But next time, try to think about what you type out of your keyboard and into the internet. I cannot believe this article. Terrible, honestly!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Harry Potter books are brilliant. The first chapter of The Sorcerer's Stone was pretty boring and not much action, but once you get into the book you can't stop reading it! You just have to PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER! Skip the first chapter is your eyebrows are about to drop off with boredom, but I can promise you, you will not be able to put it down!

    ReplyDelete
  12. OMG how can you not love the Harry Potter book series?

    You gave it up on the first page!

    If you find a page dull and boring, SKIP IT!!!

    You must NOT like books dude

    Maybe that's why your vocab is POOR and DULL, like Harry Potter (sarcasm) and you are very WEAK and WIMPY, giving up HP on the first stupid PAGE! For god sake there are over 200 pages and you gave up on the first one? THE FIRST ONE?!!


    YOUR OPINION ABSOLUTLEY SUCKS more than the Daily Prophet? Oops, you won't know what the DP is, seeing as you don't read HP!!!!


    GOOD RIDDANCE, BUBBLE GUM CHEWER WACHING TV STUFFING YOUR FACE WITH CRISPS, CHOCOLATE AND CANDY PERSON!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do realize that Harry Potter has extremely basic language....
      btw, there are many books FAR better than HP

      Delete
  13. YOU CALLING US GODDAMNED FANS? I GIVE YOU THINK UR SO COOL WIERDO

    ReplyDelete
  14. I would read HP books even though I liked it from the movie since I really like magic monsters.etc but I doubt there is one nearby (I just said my troubles not opinion xD)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Harry Potter is bad because the titular character is just about the most uninspired and annoying protagonist in all literature. He is perpetually wide-eyed with amazement, bewildered, confused. Even after ten years or whatever of attending wizard school he is like the new kid in class, completely clueless, despite all his alleged wizard precociousness, and constantly astonished at each new magic thingy like he was born into wizardom yesterday. His character has no arc. He does not grow. He does not change. He has no sense of irony or humor, can't defend himself in an argument, cannot employ sarcasm, let alone the higher forms of arch humor. He regularly gets dissed and abused, and then stands speechless, fuming with anger but completely nonplussed like a witless nincompoop. The best he can do is shout "leave me alone" like a petulant toddler. This would be acceptable if his character was meant to be milk-toasty, but no, he is meant to be a hero-child prodigy. Fine if he is humble but that doesn't mean he should be a nonentity. And fine if he is earnest but that doesn’t mean he has to be naive. The series has some scaffolding of a plot but is basically an endless list of new clever gimmicks about candy and portals and crystal balls and talking objects and whatnot. Witches and warlocks whipping their wands around like wild-west gunslingers would be funny as self-parody but, since it is meant to be very grave and serious, it is therefore just ridiculous. There are masterpieces of literature in the fantasy genre - Tolkien, Ursula Le Guin (the Earthsea trilogy is ten times slimmer and contains ten times the enchantment), C. S. Lewis, William Morris, Mary Stewart, to name just a few. Fantasy is not the problem. Nor is the fact that it is "children's literature" the problem. The Mouse and His Child, Charlotte's Web, The Phantom Tollbooth, Stewart Little, The Wind and the Willows - these are just a few titles in the Children's Lit genre that can be read and appreciated by people of all ages. The problem is that Harry Potter is pedestrian - the writing is stilted, the expository passages are interminable, the socio-political analogies are clumsy and plugged in willy-nilly - the whole thing is clunky and self-conscious. It contains some clever ideas, which are then flogged to death and then some. It has its moments though, and if you added all the moments up, and infused the writing with a bit of elegance or panache, and gave the main character some ... er ... character, it'd make a decent book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do Luke Skywalker, Neo, Arthur Dent, Philip J. Fry, John McClane and Gordon Freeman have in common? They're all audience surrogates and it doesn't make a work bad. There are only so many types of stories like that are only so many types of chairs, writing tools are just part of the craft.

      Delete
    2. I admit, you make several important points here. It's plausible that the protagonist wasn't the reason for HP's mountainous success-wait. Of course it is! The reason the books are so good isn't Harry's flawed personality, or the fact that he is more timid, the sort of nerd who silently seethes when he's bullied. It's not that Rowling didn't make her character in a way that perfectly replicates the depth and personality of a real person, and the person you'd evidently prefer him to be. It's the PLOT, the twists, the intrigue! Harry's past and its relationship with the rest of the plot is amazing.

      Delete
  16. My husband is a harry potter fanatic. I fucking hate the movies and now he wants me to read the books. I'm sorry but I'm not wasting my time reading something that does not interest me at all. Another reason I hate Harry potter is cause there fans are always so butthurt once someone says they don't like the series. People are gonna have opinons, some people love it and some hate it. The end.

    ReplyDelete
  17. wait...whoa...hold on there
    you say you stopped reading after PAGE ONE?!?!?! SO HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY IT'S RUBBISH, THEN?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    ReplyDelete
  18. There are many cases where people are successful for no reason and that can only be attributed to one thing: LUCK. There are talented writers, performers etc. but if they don't have the main ingredient to success, LUCK they will always be losers. And this isn't "whining" it's the truth whether people want to admit it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ok you havent read the books and just watched the movies,and i agree with you the movies suck.There a horrible adaptation,they leave out too much,add in scenes that make no sense,no character development,and have too many plot holes.The books on the other hand are awesome,i feel sorry for people who have just watched the terrible movies.

    ReplyDelete
  20. There is nothing wrong with people enjoying Harry Potter and making Rowling a wealthier billionaire, but for those who are tired of monsters, magic and "muggles", and looking for a group of young protagonists who are much more diverse in several ways, and looking for an underlying story that celebrates the ethic of parents working and sacrificing for their own children in preference to faceless collectives, rather than a simple good versus evil or revenge story, take a look at the beginning of a franchise that offers these alternatives, if you have an open mind to try something new.

    Look up The Order of Right on Amazon, if you dare. My two year old and his thousandaire parents thank you for your support!

    ReplyDelete
  21. FUCK YOU!
    harry Potter is AMAZING!

    ReplyDelete
  22. FUCK YOU!!!
    Harry Potter is AMAZING

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harry Potter is shit you Fucking dumbass! Go and suck your mum's pussy.

      Delete
    2. No, its not. FUCK YOU. Go and suck your mum's pussy

      Delete
  23. I actually read ALL books. Harry Potter is complete shit in one way or the other

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true I read 1 chapter, I fell asleep its Shit

      Delete
    2. Very True, The books are complete trash, and so boring I fell asleep on the second page.

      Delete
  24. litteraly everyone here that dislikes harry potter is a piece of shit

    ReplyDelete
  25. There's nothing wrong with Rowling or the H. Potter books in general, that doesn't fit the same relative strengths and weaknesses that most young person's pop literature has had throughout the decades. My Grandmother had me read, "Jonathan Livingston Seagull", which was apparently the teen pop lit cult book of the 1970's. At first it was kinda droning and thick, then too childlike and corny. But eventually it grew on me. I can totally see how every 15 year old girl in 1975 would have been obsessed with that book. But it was just one book.

    Twilight, House Of Night, H. Potter and many other modern series have the a bad habit of cashing in and making a damn 8 book series out of an idea that at one time, might have been novel, creative and intriguing. Once a pop phenomenon catches on as an outright tsunami of fad, it's pretty hard to explain to newcomers or even established fans why the books/movies may not be as good as advertised. At that point, it's a religion. And religion will always have zealots who defend it to the death.

    The worst thing I can say about Harry Potter isn't even anything specific about the technical or story details that Rowling created. The most annoying aspect of it, is it somehow truly did possess the 'magical' power of transforming nearly every henna tattoo-wearing, Avenged Sevenfold/Fallout Boy-listening, hanging out at Hot Topic for no reason girl I ever knew in high school, into the modern-day twat who now wears zero prescription glasses, claims hipster indie rock, and proudly announces to every person she meets that "OMG I'm such a nerd! I sooo read all the time! I'm totally on that #teamravenclaw shit whoot whoot!" For the reason alone of creating fakeass dork culture-worshipping, pretends to be smart because she reads pop novels, lemming bitches like that, Rowlings has probably earned herself a place in some kind of hell, if not the real one.

    ReplyDelete
  26. There's nothing wrong with Rowling or the H. Potter books in general, that doesn't fit the same relative strengths and weaknesses that most young person's pop literature has had throughout the decades. My Grandmother had me read, "Jonathan Livingston Seagull", which was apparently the teen pop lit cult book of the 1970's. At first it was kinda droning and thick, then too childlike and corny. But eventually it grew on me. I can totally see how every 15 year old girl in 1975 would have been obsessed with that book. But it was just one book.

    Twilight, House Of Night, H. Potter and many other modern series have the a bad habit of cashing in and making a damn 8 book series out of an idea that at one time, might have been novel, creative and intriguing. Once a pop phenomenon catches on as an outright tsunami of fad, it's pretty hard to explain to newcomers or even established fans why the books/movies may not be as good as advertised. At that point, it's a religion. And religion will always have zealots who defend it to the death.

    The worst thing I can say about Harry Potter isn't even anything specific about the technical, characters or story details that Rowling created. The most annoying aspect of it, is it somehow truly did possess the 'magical' powers of transforming nearly every henna tattoo-wearing, Avenged Sevenfold/Fallout Boy-listening, hanging out at Hot Topic for no reason girl I ever knew in high school, into the modern-day twat who now rocks zero prescription glasses, claims hipster indie rock, and proudly announces to every person she meets that "OMG I'm such a nerd! I sooo read all the time! I'm totally on that #teamravenclaw shit yo whoot whoot!"

    For the reason alone of creating fakeass dork culture-worshipping, pretends to be smart because she reads pop novels, lemming bitches like that, Rowling has probably earned herself a place in some kind of hell, if not the real one.

    ReplyDelete

Please do not leave spam or advertising junk on this blog!