Explain Harry Potter to me

[trancejeremy]

I actually haven't seen the movies. I strongly dislike that annoying kid who plays Harry Potter. (I always picture him as a young Eric Idle, though perhaps in part because he did the voice for Rincewind for the Discworld games).

But the books are good. I think it's popular because Harry is basically a fairly normal kid with a really lousy stepfamily. Most people can either relate to him (being more or less ordinary). And then it turns out he's not just ordinary, but has amazing magical powers. Which I think most people would like.


Original? No. It's basically Sabrina the Teen Aged Witch with a gender reversal. Or Wendy the good witch. Whichever came first. (one is from Archie comics, the other from Richie-Rich)

 

[John Crichton]

I didn't get into the Harry Potter craze at the ground floor. At first he reminded me of a watered-down Tim Hunter (The Books of Magic), so I never got around to reading the books (books are a tad expensive in these tropical parts). When the movies came out, I opted to see them, and expected to like them, since the books were such a hit. But the first two movies struck me cold. This week I borrowed Prisoner of Azkaban DVD from a friend and watched it. Everyone told me it was the best of all three. But alas, I could not get engaged in it.

What is it about Harry Potter that is so brilliant? The character isn't a hero, he barely does anything in his own movies. If justice were to be done, they should rename the series 'Hermione Granger', 'cause she's the one with not only the skills and wits, but also with the initiative to do something. She has the ideas and generally outshines Harry in all three movies.

So, what am I missing here?

(Sidenote: the hippogriff was very cool, but the werewolf looked like a shaved, starving gnoll)

I was not blown away by the movies, either.

I just got into HP over the summer and found that I REALLY enjoyed the books. There are 2 key reasons why they are better books than just a good or fun read: the characters and Hogwarts. All the leads are fleshed out very well and have personalities that you can either sympathize with, dislike or any other range of emotions. They aren't "real" but they are certainly entertaining in that universe and really suck you in and allow you to view the wizarding world through their eyes.

And I cannot say enough about Hogwarts. The teachers that reside there are just part of the charm. The first book gives a nice view of things but I was really impressed about how each book adds to the mystery and allure of the place. There aren't many fantasy places that I'd actually want to visit (think about it, I bet you wouldn't want to go to many of them) but Hogwarts is one. The Defense of the Dark Arts and Voldemort connections are fun and seem natural but the place is just alive and great to read about. It's actually one of the things I did really like about the movies: the look. I thought it looked like a Hogwarts could.

I won't comment on the supporting cast like Dumbledore, Snape and the like but I consider them all part of the Hogwarts charm. And yeah, you have to have a little kid in you to enjoy the books but that's ok. We all do, whether we let him out at all is another question. Essentially, they are books that anyone can understand, read and enjoy on some level. Hence the massive popularity.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Why is Harry Potter so popular?

Because it's a kid book, yet is both fun, accessible and exciting.

Kid books have just gotten terribly bad in later years. When they stopped being about
stories and became soulless overcensored parenting tools. Of course kids don't read
when they don't have anything to read!

 

[WayneLigon]

I've liked all the books and I thought the movies to date have been excellent.

I think the books are well-written and really not just for kids or young adults; I think they're entertaining to a high degree and can really be enjoyed by all ages equally well because there's something in there for everyone. They have some very memorable characters, and the hints of the adult 'Wizarding World' show some nice and consistant world building going on behind the scenes.

One thing I like is that Harry has faults. Him being a 'chosen one' could have easily led to a series about a kid who does everything better than everyone else to the point of not really even needing a supporting cast. Harry has some flaws, some significant ones, and he doesn't overcome them easily; he's really just starting to come to grips with certain things even now, which is really believable in a young boy. Going back and re-reading the books, you can see him grow up. Harry changes over time, as do all his supporting cast. They change and react in pretty realistic ways to the increasingly tragic events of the storyline.

Harry needs his supporting cast and they need him; he's the driving force behind most of what they do but they each feed on the other.

Klaus, I'd suggest trying to get them from the library if they're too expensive to buy. They really are some excellent books.

 

[Ranger REG]

I don't think they are brilliant by kids standards either. They are better the the TSR/WotC books though.

Well, I don't think TSR novels are aimed at kids, unless you deemed anyone under 20 "kids."

 

[Klaus]

Thanks to everyone for the responses.

I don't doubt that the books are better than the movies, as this is usually the case. My question was about the character of Harry himself. I don't mind the main hero not being the best in everything (or even most things), but Harry just seems to have too much... apathy.

 

[Bront]

Well, part of why many parents like the books is they can see the changes in Harry, and they do follow how many normal boys his age would progress, both mentaly, emotionaly, and perhaps physicaly.

His Apathy becomes more angst as he grows older, and be becomes a bit of a troubled child. He tries to do more on his own, and begins to trust a bit less, particularly authority as he grows.

I origionaly liked all the movies, particularly the 3rd movie, till I read the books. Now I like them, but I think the second is the best, and the 3rd is bad, but that's only from the omitions.

What I've been impressed with, not knowing if it's intentional or not, is how things that happened far in the past often are having implications 2-3 books down. Like a casual comment by Dumbledor in the 4th book became an important point in the 5th and 6th.

However it realy is a personal thing. Much like any other movie or series, it will captivate some, and not others.

To me, it widens my imagination, to think all those "what if" dreams I had as a kid had come true, and this is a series that explores exactly that.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't doubt that the books are better than the movies, as this is usually the case. My question was about the character of Harry himself. I don't mind the main hero not being the best in everything (or even most things), but Harry just seems to have too much... apathy.

I didn't find him so in the books. In the movies, so far, he seems to be floating from one encounter to the next; very reactive.

In the books I never really got that vibe. He actually has some character in the books.

And of course, that's more true in the later books than the earlier ones, as well.

 

[Ranger REG]

I don't doubt that the books are better than the movies, as this is usually the case. My question was about the character of Harry himself. I don't mind the main hero not being the best in everything (or even most things), but Harry just seems to have too much... apathy.

His parents are murdered. He lives with spiteful and resentful relatives, and his only enjoyment is when school is starting. He also has a reputation that precedes him and some say a destiny to fulfill. That's a lot of baggage on a kid, wizard or not.

Are you saying he should get over it?

 

[Crothian]

I don't doubt that the books are better than the movies, as this is usually the case. My question was about the character of Harry himself. I don't mind the main hero not being the best in everything (or even most things), but Harry just seems to have too much... apathy.

The books are very differnet. There is just so much more in the books that they relaly don't translate all that well to the movies. They leave things out of course and explain things that in the book are just done better.