Anyone else confused as to why Harry Potter is successful?

Post by **Winston** » May 4th, 2010, 9:19 am

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.

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?

Enishi · Post by **Enishi** » May 4th, 2010, 9:37 am

Rowling did actually draw on some interesting symbolism and mythology when writing the book, but yeah, the main story isn't particularly deep (cept for Snape's character. I loved that dude). It's more so just a fun story, which especially for kids, is a very good thing. Personally I didn't like the "oh nos racism!" generic leftist themes.

Lord of the Rings simple?! I know it can seem like that from the movies, or on first glance, but if you read about it on wikipedia or in other various source/history books, you will realize just how detailed the history and themes in Tolkien's universe actually are.

Think Different · Post by **Think Different** » May 4th, 2010, 2:24 pm

I agree that HP is over the top stuff for kids with short attention spans. I have to politely disagree about the LoTR, however. Those books are classics and the movies very well done. The reason the LoTR stories have lasted so long are precisely due to the depth and many layers of commentary and allegory. Narnia is the same way. CS Lewis and Tolkien take a decidedly Judeo-Christian moral ethic and imbue their stories with it, and that alone probably sets some people off. That's fine. Fantasy, like Sci-Fi (e.g. Star Trek was always moralizing about something) may not be for everyone's taste. I think that in today's f'ed up world people instinctively look for plain and simple truths: men are gallant and daring and women are beautiful and caring. Good vs. Evil, etc. etc. Simple themes for crappy times. It gives people some escapism, when the rest of the world is anything but predictable.

momopi · Post by **momopi** » May 4th, 2010, 4:32 pm

Harry Potter books were written to target children ages 9-12 group, not old farts like us. The Hobbie was also written as a children's book. But Lord of the Rings was not, it was mostly written during WW2 and you have to take the external environment at the time into consideration.

You may or may not like the books, but Lord of the Rings basically defined "high fantasy" genera during the 20th century. The fantasy races of elf, dwarf, and hobbit would find their way into Dungeons and Dragons and its vast franchise of books (i.e. Dragonlance Saga). Over the past decade this fandom moved to the digital realm and today we have WoW online.