Reviews Literature / Harry Potter

Hoo boy, is this review going to be ever controversial. Honestly, there should be a Rule Of Cautious Reviewing Judgment.

I'm not much for debating, but I'd be interested in hearing more of the reasons why you don't like it. You haven't explained how the characters are stereotypes, how the magical society doesn't make any sense, and how the relationships are handled poorly. You're saying these things without explaining how.

I do know, however, that your last statement is wrong. Plenty of people over 17 thoroughly enjoy the books. I know several in Real Life. That's all I'll say.

^What he said. I know 400 words is a very restricting limit but, honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Elaborate, please.

Yes, quite a few people from all age categories enjoy the series. It's just that I grew up with it and then grew out of it and saw all the holes, if all seven books are given to a child at once then they will enjoy them much more. I think that Rowling should have written the series for an age group, not a generation.

The magical society makes little sense in quite a few ways, actually.

I rambled in the comments section of another review how our technology should not be able to exist in the Wizard part of reality not even because "technology can't work in Hogwarts"(so they enchanted every single flushable toilet? Really? And yes, I am obsessed about flushable loos) but because so much of the 'technology' that they use all comes from more or less the same period in history and that means that it got brought into the community all together and there is no way in hell that the elites would stand for it. I think in the second book there was some talk that only recently has there been open mingling among the Wizards and Muggles marriage-wise.

I don't buy how the standards of decency work, in the forth book they run around in swim-trunks, which in theory should cause mass hysteria. Same goes for why women actually have the same employment opportunities as men, because you see what really pushed women rights in the 20th century is WWII and Wizards couldn't give a hoot about that not to mention that they don't have factories which needed workforce.

As for stereotypes, for one Rowling has an obsession of giving single women cats. Ahah! you say silently, but Hermione has a cat! She doesn't, that ginger thing is part something else and noted to be much smarter than any cat. From my point of view Rowling has some sort of irrational dislike for single women above the age of, say, 30. Mcgonnagall, and this irks me to no end, is a strong no-nonsense lady, highly intelligent and successful but several times in the books she is made fun of because she decided that she had better things to do than to spew out children, she is associated with a cat. The first thing we learn about Mrs Figg (or whatsherface, the neighbour) is that she is highly unlikeable and has cats (she is a widow or divorced so in a way she is single). Umbridge is obsessed with cats. The only thing between Snape in the later books and a protest-causing spinster stereotypes is the absence of a cat and his disused penis. (Don't worry kids, there's more)

Rowling also has an obsession with One True Love, all of from school. Surely I'm not the only one who noticed that she paired everyone off like rabbits? There is the thing that if you're One True Love did not blossom in school then possibly something nasty will happen to you, Remus-Tonks, Fleur-Weasley and Dumbledore-Griswold spring to mind.

Yes, am a jaded bastard.

What's wrong with women and cats? You go on about it for so long, it must mean something to you.

Ok, those reasons are pretty bad.

I won't call them bad, I'll just refrain from calling them reasons at all because it's not the story that doesn't make sense, it's your spin on it. How you came to see it from such a weird perspective, I just don't understand. Hermione's cat, that was stated to be a cat, is not, in fact, a cat? wat? All your gripes with the technology dissonance can easily be explained by putting a minute or two of thought into them. Look at it this way - if you were at a Q&A session with Rowling and asked her about why Wizard elites don't like Muggle tech but tolerate flushable toilets, she could easily say that the plumbing is driven by magic and those don't count as tech. She could just as well say that the prejudice against technology only arose with the advent of electronics. Neither of those answers would contradict any part of the story that has been established. Honestly though, this is an incredibly minor oversight on her part and, for some reason, you attach a lot of significance to it. So much so that, to you, the whole universe she created doesn't make sense, in large part, because of that oversight. She may not have bothered to delve into epxlaining that because she thought that the readers common sense would be enough to devise a plausible answer, should they actually take issue with this, but most likely she just didn't notice while writing(I certainly didn't notice when reading and I don't care now that you pointed it out). And show me even one quote from the books that makes fun of Mc Gonagall for being single, or even makes fun of her at all.

These are all minor things (and a clear case of Overthinking on my part) but they pile up and since Rowling decided that this is not going to be a simple children's story then these turn into a snowball, the more serious the subject the more serious the criticism, is it not? Especially because she is famous for talking about how she had it all planned out from the start and seeing how much she tries to create a complete world.

Mcgonagall is being giggled at regularly during the first four book, in the forth I believe she is talking about the ball and using the expression 'let one's hair down' the class all stares at her (maybe even erupts in laughter though I doubt they'd go that far, my memory is faulty) in her presence, this is the deputy headmistress and just generally a woman not to cross.

@Tera Chimera: single women and cats is an unfortunate stereotype (an old one, but even now mad cat-lady is basically a trope even though the chances of a pensioner having something small like a terrier are the same) yes I know witches and cats is maybe what Rowling was going for but men aren't really that much into cats in this world.

No, Mc Gonnagal isn't being giggled at, other than that one occasion where she teaches Ron to dance. Also, I fail to see what that hair letting idiom has to do with anything.

@gerjan I have to disagree with you that Rowling was making fun of single women with cats. Firstly, Mc Gonagal doesn't own a cat, she can just turns into one. And no one ever mocks her or any of the other women for being single. When I think of Mc Gonagal, I think of her as a strict teacher but one who is fair and cares about her students. Not, "She's single and a crazy cat lady." And while Mrs. Figg at first seems like an unpleasant person who only loves cats, you have to keep in mind that she was only being mean to Harry because if the Dursleys had thought he was enjoying himself over there, she wouldn't have been able to watch him. Also, since she's MRS. Figg she was married at one point or is still married. She also apologized to Harry for being hard on him in the fifth book.

Umbridge does like cats, but I think that the main thing you're supposed to take away from her character is that she's psychotic and shows that you don't have to be a Death Eater to be a bad person. Her single status and love of cats are really background traits. You also failed to mention that Filch who is a man, and single, also loves cats. Mrs. Norris seems to be the only thing he loves. Filch is very unpleasant and cruel but he does get some sympathy when you find out that he's a Squibb. It must suck to come from a family who all have magical powers and not have them yourself.

With that, you get two nice people who like cats vs. two unpleasant people who like cats. And when you add Hermione in, that number of nice people who like cats goes up to three. I don't think Rowling was really trying to invoke the stereotype that all older women who love cats are crazy. It could be possible that she was trying to subvert it by showing nice older women who like cats (except for Umbridge).

As for women having equal rights to men; I don't think it's too unrealistic since the Wizarding Community does adopt some Muggle technology and ideas. Plus, gender inequality and class inequality showed right up when people invented agriculture. Since Wizards have magic, growing food is easier for them, they probably didn't ever need to have 98% of the population making food. There are still rich and poor Wizards, but there doesn't seem to be as much segregation attached to it as we have. (Translation: All magical folk go to the same school, regardless of family income.) Also, in there is a Wizarding Card you can get in the Chamber of Secrets videogame that has the first female Prime Minister who held office in the mid-1800s. I'm not sure how canon this is, but it does seem indicate that women in the Wizarding community got rights before Muggle women. It also seems that Wizards don't really care about race either; only how "pure" your blood is.

I think you're wrong about the One True Love obsession from school. Bad things don't just happen to people who meet the person they loved after school. Keep in mind that horrible things happen to people who met their one true love when they were in school together. Mr. and Mrs. Weasley met at Hogwarts and their son Fred died. Mrs. Weasley's two brother were killed by Death Eaters in the First Wizarding War. Lily and James also met at Hogwarts and were implied to be dating near the end of their schooling and they died. On top of that, they died because their friend who they loved and trusted betrayed them. Harry meets Ginny while at school and consider how many awful things happened to him. I'd also call Hermione getting tortured by Bellatrix very unpleasant too. There was also what happened to Snape too. I really don't think Rowling is trying to tell people to stick with their high school or college sweetheart or bad things will happen to them at all.

I can get how you might like a series less as you get older, but many of the things you focus on are rather nit-picky and don't hold up too well if you look at them closely.

To add to casualtystar's thing, yeah, high school sweethearts and whatnot but then you really must consider thatthese kids don't only have angst and hormones to deal with. There's also Tom "Dracula Hitler Voldemort" Riddle and his Second Reich. They didn't have "he was there for me when my mom was in the hospital ", they have "we saved each others asses a lot while fighting for our lives". That might be a bit more powerful bonding than, to use a Mountain Goats quote, twin high-maintenance machines getting along amidst all of the shit you imagine is going against you as a teenager.

About One True Love: Yes, obviously if you survived a war together it's going to create a strong bond but it does all depend on a person, war buddies fall out over the silliest of things so why don't any of the survivors? The naivete in a series that is doing it's best to be gritty really isn't working. Let's not forget that Rowling herself has been married more than once, so her turning away from the possibility that not every school romance lasts forever comes off as hypocritical even. (Yes, wave Death Of The Author all you want but even I, who hasn't been married, know that divorce is an option) At the moment the only truly failed romance is Bella's, both with her husband and with Voldy.

Lily and James HAD to die, otherwise there would be no series, so that doesn't really count as a rebuttal. Snape also has to die because there is no way of giving him a happy ending, he's the posterchild of spinsterdom. (yes, he's the classical spinster, if one changed only his gender the protests would be heard all over the place)

Gender inequality has always gone up and down like waves, after plagues and crusades women got more power and did many of the same jobs as men. My point is that the Wizards are more or less stuck in my mind in either early medieval or (partly) early Victorian times, we aren't really told about etiquette so we have to suppose that rules are more or less as those that were then. If in the fourth book the old wizards refused to wear trousers then surely many kinds of clothes would be considered pornographic and behaviour offensive.

I have admitted that this is a personal opinion (read: Overthinking) and thus is flawed according to someone else's logic but the point I must repeat is this, the series takes itself too seriously and thus it deserves all the nitpicking it can get.

@gerjan If that's the case then I would ask you to define "takes itself too seriously".

"because you see what really pushed women rights in the 20th century is WWII and Wizards couldn't give a hoot about that not to mention that they don't have factories which needed workforce"

You have a very limited understanding of history.

"As for stereotypes, for one Rowling has an obsession of giving single women cats"

Aren't these women all witches? Aren't witches known to have cats, or "familiars"? That may be a stereotype, as you call it. But it's also a stereotype to have wizards use spells, potions, and wands. Nothing wrong with meeting readers' expectations in this manner. Such characters are called archetypes, and they save authors the trouble of wasting time building up, instead of witches and wizards, say, watches and wezards. I don't know why I'm explaining this. It could hardly be more elementary.

"yes I know witches and cats is maybe what Rowling was going for"

I didn't see this before I posted. Let me just add: maybe???

"but men aren't really that much into cats in this world"

The men are wizards, not witches, right? Wizards may commonly have cats, but I've never noticed it before.

If you don't like the single woman cat stereotype, your beef is with the witch myth itself, not Rowling.

"Plus, gender inequality and class inequality showed right up when people invented agriculture"

Class inequality, yes, because servility just doesn't work with hunter-gatherers. You need herders to conquer and farmers to be conquered. But gender inequality goes back all the way. I don't know, there might possibly have come to pass a queen bee phenomenon given our biology. Seems to me, though, that men's strength and hormones plus women's helplessness in pregnancy and early childrearing made patriarchy inevitable. In any case, patriarchy was historically ubiquitous.

By the way, don't give me any guff about matrilineality. All that meant was that brothers and uncles were in charge instead of husbands and fathers.

"Rowling also has an obsession with One True Love, all of from school. Surely I'm not the only one who noticed that she paired everyone off like rabbits?"

Is this because she believed in One True Love, or because series of this length normally all end up being incestuous. People are interested in relationships, and it would be both less meangingful and take too long to invent Johnny Spellcasts for Characters A-X to end up with.

"Lily and James HAD to die, otherwise there would be no series, so that doesn't really count as a rebuttal"

This is the lowest form of criticism. There would still have been a series, it just would have been different. Voldemort could have sealed them up in a bottle or something, whgerein they lived happily, though cramped, while the events of the novels transpired. And that's just off the top of my head.

"the series takes itself too seriously and thus it deserves all the nitpicking it can get"

You seem stuck on this point. As if it'd be okay to have single women with cats and lifelong high school sweethearts if only this were a kids book. Well, it is a kids book. The author doesn't appear to pretentious to me. So werewolves stand in for gays, centaurs are Native Americans or something, and there's stuff about eugenics. Big deal.

So long as it falls short of the lofty depths of my standard for pretentious literature, "The Catcher in the Rye" and "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius," I'm not willing to let psuedo-seriousness prevent a book from having minor flaws (if they are, in fact, flaws).

Look, everyone and their three-legged-hamster stated that the series grows as does Harry and the readership. Everyone was very keen on the idea at the beginning that the book series would be specifically designed for a generation not an age group but for me it makes it more wobbly. And yes, when I was still a fanboy this was a big thing in the community, apparently Rowling thought that each book would correspond (give or take) to the reader's actual age.

I know that some of you will point out that obviously the book has to be more grown up in it's style by the end because there's a war on, but I disagree. Take book 3, it has a murderer on the loose so there's paranoia and panic; all those things Black allegedly did; Lupin who is feeling once a month horrible agony because of his curse; the book introduces the dementers and they are by far the most frightening thing in the entire series (well, for me) because Voldy's a man, at the end of the day, but hell only knows what those things are. Still, book 3 is in every way a children's book, just because it's meant for a younger audience does not mean that it can't be dark.

I never bothered thinking up if gays stood for centaurs or anything of the sort (I remember being annoyed at the ripe age of thirteen that the centaurs are not drunk and raping people). Who the audience is and what the style is like determines quite a lot in a book, it sets the rules and borders for the suspension of disbelief. Of course JK messed up by giving us too much information outside of her books (like I found out quite a few things because they were said in an interview somewhere, makes me feel like the flick avatar where you need a huge manual), like a little girl who wrote a story (maybe even a fic) and then immediately started drawing all the characters and thinking up family trees even though it will never ever come up in the narration.

On One True Love: What I mean is that it's a bit odd that they all ended up together, couldn't somebody decide 'I have better things to do than to change diapers'? Someone has pointed out that obviously a war will create a strong bond, with which I could never argue, but it can also create bonds with the wrong people, you know, ending up with someone because you went through this together even if you're incompatible and have totally different views, a sort of 'I owe them' mentality so in the end the sensible thing to do would be to get a divorce. I'm not even happy that Luna got married (and that apparently happened to some Mr.Invented-For-This-Purpose).

On Lily's death: Well, a good portion of the books sort of hangs on Lily giving up her life for her son so no, she really did have to die. I can't even imagine how many times 'The Power of love' has been pointed out to us by Dumbledore or someone similar. Yes, we would still have a series, it's just that it would be a different series and maybe I wouldn't be here picking fights over trivial matters.

Ye gods, that was a lot of typing.

I can't help but notice that most of your criticism seems to focus on the Harry Potter universe rather than the stories themselves.

About the cat ladies - Hermione is an Author Avatar of J. K. Rowling. For all we know, Rowling could be an avid cat lover.

I do have one thing to say about the One True Love thing. Most of the people who ended up with each other by the end (Harry + Ginny, Ron + Hermione) had known each other for several years, so I think they could have gotten a good idea of what the other person was like even before the war started. And many other people who were dating in Hogwarts (Draco and Pansy Parkinson, Percy and Penelope Clearwater, Cho Chang and Michael Corner, etc) ended up marrying other people by the end, because they hadn't fought in the war side-by-side like the main characters have. In fact, Rowling made a nod to how normal teenage relationships never really end well by writing about Harry and Cho's relationship. And Ginny and Dean Thomas. And Ron and Lavender.

@tublecane

You really should read some of Jared Diamond's works. While you're right that there may have been some gender inequality in hunter-gather societies because of the fact that women were the ones who got pregnant, gender inequality really took off and became much more severe when agriculture was developed. Women in hunter-gather societies simply did not have as many children as women in agricultural societies because they were more nomadic, so they weren't constantly pregnant. Women in agricultural societies were basically "barefoot and pregnant" since they needed a lot of children to work the fields.

I know there's the cliche of all the women gathering food and the men hunting in hunter-gatherer societies, but that isn't true. That did happen in some societies, but there were just as many where the men gathered the food and the women hunted. Also, there were plenty of societies were people did a mixture of both things, depending on their individual abilities.

You mentioned men being stronger than women physically, but I think that women being pregnant would have more to do with gender inequality. Men being physically stronger then women is only an average difference between two groups, so individual variations matter more.

If you're interested in the development of agriculture, you might like this article by Jared Diamond here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2100251/Jared-Diamond-The-Worst-Mistake-in-the-History-of-the-Human-Race

@causalitystar:

also we must remember that high mortality among women up to the twentieth century was basically down to risks during pregnancy and childbirth. As far as heart diseases are concerned (and this may be an oldwives tale) women actually are less suspect to the risks (thank menstruation those of you who can).

@Kingcobrasaurus:

Maybe this is just my impression, which is highly likely, but the ones who did not stay together were never really presented to us in the light that this might be The Big One. I mean we all knew that Ron and Hermione would end up the way they did from the moment she ran off to have a cry in the lavvies. Ginny was a creepy stalked from the first moment but it is never shown in a negative way, Draco however is shown to being quite unimpressed by Pansy.

"She decided that this is serious literature, damn it! When it simply isn't."

I don't see how anyone but the author of a book can decide whether or not she's going to write serious literature.

causalitystar -

"While you're right that there may have been some gender inequality in hunter-gather societies...gender inequality really took off and became much more severe when agriculture was developed."

So all you're saying is that it things were more unequal after agriculture. Fine, whatever. Just bear in mind that the sexes never were equal and never could be, outside perhaps a highly artificial community very limited in time and space.

"If you're interested in the development of agriculture, you might like this article by Jared Diamond here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2100251/Jared-Diamond-The-Worst-Mistake-in-the-History-of-the-Human-Race"

This reads like a psuedo-scientific anti-civilization screed to me. I won't deny hunter-gathering people seem happy, and that modern living despite its doo-dads and pleasures is unfilfilling and leads to anomie and blah, blah, blah. Nevermind for the moment whether or not if Kalahari bushmen could write novels they'd be just as whiny and depressed as Sartre's. Happiness isn't everything. Consider, for instance, that left to themselves the simple people of whom Diamond speaks wouldn't be humbled by the revelations of astronomy, biology, or archeology with which the article opens. Because there'd be no astrology, biology, or archeology. Isn't that sad? That is, if you value these things, as apparently Diamond does.

Granted, you get sharp sex and class distinctions, bigger wars, more death and disease, evil governments, slavery, etc. along with archeology. But thems the trade-offs.

"I don't see how anyone but the author of a book can decide whether or not she's going to write serious literature"

Only she can decide if she's going to try to write serious literature. But once it's written, anyone who knows what that is can tell her she failed.

I agree with most of which the reviewer says in the original post (I don't agree with the cat's point though).

Also, Kingcobrasaurus: I'm VERY happy there's no such a thing as a Rule Of Cautious Reviewing Judgment! Only because something is very popular can't it be criticized?

I don't hate Harry Potter. I actually enjoyed at least the 3 first books as I read them. But then it just tries to became a more "mature" story without really becoming one, at the same time that it starts to fail to adress the questions it tries to. So, overall:

1st - 3rd Books: Good 10-15 years old literature, still enjoyable by adults. 9/10

4th Book: Some of the plot-problems and failing to mature the characters start to quick in, but still enjoyable enough. I also believe J.K.H. was somewhat pressured to finish the books faster. Or maybe it was just the size of the books, but the narrative grows less polished. 7/10

5th-6th Book: Stuff grows REALLY out of proportion, the books try to be adult but fail miserably. There are still some good ideas here and there, but overall the story is tiresome and just seem to drag on and on. 5/10

7th: By the last book, the story becomes more "polished" again (seriously, 4-6 could use some rewritings), but at this point the discrepancy between the age the characters are supposed to be and how little character development they had in such time REALLY kills it. 5/10

So, overall, read the 1-4 book if you're 10-15 years old or just enjoy things targeted at this demographic (nothing wrong with that... I do, sometimes). I might recomend the last one just to get to the end of the story, but there are better books out there.

I agree that Harry Potter is definitely not a masterpiece or crowning achievement; it's alright and all, but the fanbase simply kills it for me.

Reply to old comment:

Your letting the fanbase kill it for you? Slightly disagree with the two above me and heavily disagree with the reviewer.

I don't think you should ever let the fanbase "kill" anything for you.

Even if the series is overhyped the movies are good at action and special effects. The books are worth something too.

It was good.

I don't think this reviewer has even made complaints big enough to add up.

Personally, I feel they have. I don't think there's too many plot holes (as it's been years since I touched a Harry Potter book, and can barely remember anything outside the bare basics), but the idea of writing for a generation and not an age group - while definitely interesting - really didn't rub too well on my end.

It begins as this small novel with a serious tone regarding Voldemort, with all of these fantastic elements - spells, a giant wizarding bank made of marble and gold, a school of wizards with ghosts and moving portraits and enchanted sets of armor - but by the end of the seventh book, the main trio have robbed that wizarding bank and escaped on the back of a blind dragon, one of the Weasley twins has been murdered, as has a close family friend (Remus) and Hedwig, a token of wonder from the first film/book, has been shot down. Harry's mentor, Dumbledore, killed. Hogwarts, partially destroyed, if not almost fully. I really don't like it. I preferred when the books were dark, but still written optimistically. After a while, it feels like JK tries to top everything with more misery and grief. And yes, I get that there's a "war" going on. I feel very in-the-middle about the Death Eaters, the personal army of a genocidal madman made of pureblood Wizarding families. Hitler had great PR, which is why he had an army. Voldemort is the most reviled modern wizard in the books' history.

The relationships are clumsy. Ginny has a crush on Harry in Book 2, she gets with him in the end. Harry has a fling with Cho Chang which ends poorly, which serves to drive worry and conflict for the Harry/Ginny shippers. Ron has a girlfriend which doesn't last long - to cause tension for the Ron/Hermione shippers, which is canon by the end. Their additional notes (or to put it in accurate terms, their extra comments) mention "the thing that if your One True Love did not blossom in school then possibly something nasty will happen to you" - this is actually pretty accurate. James and Lily met in high school, and were said to be one of the tightest couples anyone had seen before they died. Molly and Arthur Weasley met at Hogwarts too. The couples that met at Hogwarts stayed together, while those formed outside were either torn apart (the aforementioned Tonks-Remus) or fell apart (Chris and Fleur).

The cat thing is the same, though I understand Mcgonagall is meant to represent a witch's familiar. Ms Figgs has a cat and is a lonely widower. Umbridge - alone (for good reason), loves cats. If you really want to go there, Filch could be seen as a genderswapped stereotype of that. It's not common, but it's reoccurring.

My beef mainly lies with how the books got darker as they went along. I preferred the earlier books and films, with Chamber of Secrets being my favorite. I understand why JK Rowling wrote the series how she did, but I feel like it loses its way at some point - which is where I lost interest. I still read all the books.

(and Jesus Christ were some of these responses stupid. Germany had 2 Reichs already, which is why Hitler's aim was to create a third one. And Reichs are stages of government, instead of taking over the government and instilling a new Reich Voldemort would just destroy the Wizarding government and rebuild it completely. Hitler essentially broke down and rebuilt parts of the German government that did not suit the Nazis, while a lot of the Wizarding government is centered around law-keeping and regulation - Voldemort, being ChaoticEvil, would just start clean, with one government - his Death Eaters - RunningTheAsylum. And it would be more efficient then picking out what he liked. And "you complained too much about the universe, rather than the books" - that made my head spin. They mostly spoke about the relationships and that motif of lonely spinsters and cats, and did flesh out their universe claim a bit - but it is a part of the books and fit for criticism. I understand so many of these comments were made 2 years ago, but Jesus Christ they bug the crap out of me.)

This entire review can be entirely explained by two words in it: "Snape fangirl". Once someone declares themselves fangirls/boys (and of a character like that one of all things), things should not be taken seriously anymore.