Why do you like Harry Potter?

[Roc]

For eons this question will be debated: What makes Harry Potter so famous? Is it the idea, the storytelling, or perhaps the intriguing characters? I know I love the feel of reading the Potter series, the freedom and the majesty the children have, infinite possibilities. They can tamper with magic at the flick of a wand and make wondrous things occur, and that is fascinating to read about.

Most of all I love the ideas of every novel. Rowling has not bored me yet; she always brings something fresh with every new novel (I hope the new one is just as good as the Potter books).

Why do you like Potter?

 

[Steerpike]

The ideas were done by others prior to Rowling, though she put a great many of them together and into an engaging series of stories. For me, the characters carried the series.

 

[Sheilawisz]

The Harry Potter story is brilliant, its world is fascinating and the characters are wonderful, but the true reason behind the series' unbelievable success is simply J.K. Rowling's talent as a storyteller. She takes the readers away from the real world and plunges them deep into her own universe, which is the job that we all as Fantasy writers should seek to accomplish =)

 

[David]

Harry Potter was the first series that I actually became engaged in. Reading the books actually created the perfect transition into reading adult fiction, and I would actually classify the last couple of books as adult fiction anyway! But the books are easy to read, easy to fathom, and characters that I really liked. I think that's the core reason I liked it- I liked the characters, I liked the world!

 

[Zero Angel]

I wish I could tell you, because I have plenty of negatives to say about the series.

At the end of the day though, I still find myself glad it exists.

 

[Finchbearer]

The other day I remembered my love of reading The Worst Witch by Jill Murphy, and had the realisation that this must have somewhat inspired JK Rowling with her Harry Potter series.

In The Worst Witch we meet Mildred Hubble who attends Miss Cackles Academy for Witches, who ends up in a kind of trio of friends, Ethel Hallow and Maud Moonshine…much like Harry, Ron and Hermione. There are so many other similarities. Mildred is born to two non magic parents and discovers her hidden talents along the way.

It’s a shame it never got the production team or money pooled into it to make it more of a franchise like the Wizarding World.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Harry Potter was a unicorn. A once in a generation thing, that managed to somehow catch the public imagination by being the right story at the right time. Just like The Da Vinci Code or 50 Shades of Grey were. You can study them in detail and point at all the things they did right, but that will leave you with an inconclusive and unsatisfying explanation.

I think the main magic of Harry Potter was the fact that it was a series where the first 3-4 parts were accessible to all ages, and that at the same time the books grew with their audience. This meant that each book could build on the success of those before it by selling to existing readers and new readers, leading to an exponential growth.

This isn't common among childrens books at all. Most childrens books series target a specific age bracket. They're for 9-12 or 12-14 or whatever. The first HP book is 9-12, the second is probably 10-13, the third is 11-14 and so on. In a time when releasing just 1 book per year was the norm, this made this incredibly powerful. Just consider, by the fourth book, the target age range was effectively 9-14, which is very rare for children's books. And where most audiences would have grown out of a series in four years time, the HP readers grew with the books.

Yes, there's the author's voice and style and the world and the characters and all that. But plenty of authors have that. Few have the above.

 

[LittleOwlbear]

I loved it back then and still have nostalgic feelings for the movies (not the books tho).
The movies were really well-made and gave Hogwarts and certain spells and magic a very fantastical feel to them.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I don't. A nice, short answer. At 10 to 12 I might have liked it. By 16, I would've thought it was stupid. I get the appeal for kids, but that's as far as I can go. It's better than 50 Shades and Twilight! I'll give Potter that much credit, heh heh.

 

[Malik]

I have never read it, nor seen the films. I've been meaning to get around to it, but I've never had the time.

 

[Finchbearer]

They came out when I was ten - so they were age appropriate for me to read at the time. Would I read them now? No. I think the films were very good also for the time, but even the first few films are now showing their age.

 

[pmmg]

I did not really care for HP myself, and my reasons are numerous.

I don't have a strong opinion on Mrs Rowling's actual writing ability. I am sure my editor brain would find stuff to pick on.

I will say, I did admire the sense of imagination displayed in this work, from pictures that magically moved, to jelly beans that tasted like puke, and a 1000 little nick knack magic accoutrements that made the world interesting no matter what was going on. I also admire Mrs. Rowling's ability to spit it all out, and on a steady schedule. And her personal story of rags to riches was a tale by itself as well.

I think, however, we are already running into a generation that is inclined to say Harry Potter who? Cant be bothered to get off my cell phone enough to read it or watch the movies.

 

[Nighty_Knight]

They were fun and creative stories. I was entertained and enjoyed reading them and watching the movies.

 

[Suzu]

I began reading Harry Potter when I was roughly twelve and I grew into a teenager with the characters as the books were released. There was connection on being undervalued by parental figures (the Dursleys) which is an easy connection for many in a world prevalent in conceit. There was this void of emotional connection as Harry had no close relationships and then he bonded with two friends. Those friendships stood the test and proved to be rock solid no matter the issues they went through. They always ended up repairing the relationship to greater joys through lifes greatest hardships. Relationship hardships such as pride, envy, and jealousy. They were not the focus or delved into very mentally deep but they were still very real problems for their relationships. Because these relationship problems were spaced out in a truly unique and fantastical world it didn't feel heavy and so just added to the draw. There was a mix of plot driven scenes, the comic relief (which was on a whole other level with magical shenanigans and again relationship fuel with beautiful brotherly love), rivalry (which included repeated defeating of the bully), gaining a sense of community acceptance even though Harry blundered quite a bit up, growth of learning new exciting skills, emotional understanding and handling, the constant new discoveries and mysteries, the new places and characters that lead to highly emotionally charged relationships (especially parental fill ins like Hagrid, Dumbledore, McGonagall and Sirius Black), and to top it all off you got a wonderful heady dose of good prevailing over evil. For all these reasons and probably more I believe Harry Potter has captured such a wide a far reaching fan base.

 

[Jackarandajam]

***fingernails curled like tendrils of vine around it's hands, YOLO t-shirt crisp and deteriorated from the dry-lock of the vault, brand new hit singles Call Me Maybe and Gangham Style bouncing around in its head, the thread emerges with a hiss of stale air, blinking in a sun twelve years older, wondering if it's still "got them moves like Jagger."

Rowling did a number of very clever things with the series.
1. It aged with the audience, i think the first series to ever do that.
2. It genre-mashed fantasy and kids detective stories, but cleverly aged out of the detective side of things and moved into teenage emotional drama in the later books.
3. It re-established the comforts of the fantastical world in every volume and harshly juxtaposed them with the discomforts of the real world....

She started every book with Harry's increasingly difficult life outside of hogwarts, moved to "He might not make it to Hogwarts this time," then at last to wonderful hogwarts but with some ominous, behind-the-scenes, mystery change (this she developed until it took over the last books). Then she introduced the specific books plot, the school challenge.
In every book there is a trip to hogsmead for dazzles and treats, Christmas break, wonderful Christmas presents, at least one new mysterious character, a new trinket, the love and admiration of superiors...
The bad guys are bad, the good guys good.

It was very well crafted.

BUT it was a coming-of-age story, and as much as the fans want to continue to come of age, the story is told, the transition complete. Trying to continue the series isn't working because fans want adult themes, but when they get them feel like something is missing. It is. In the same way that a GoT-style sequel to Chronicles of Narnia would be poorly recieved, the childlike wonder of the original readings is gone and cannot be resurrected by any thitherto discovered craft of storytelling.

Edit: to continue the thought, perhaps ad nauseum, fans were left in their early teenage years as abandoned as Harry was in the real world of the first book, standing at a secret train station void of the secret train, wondering what the hell to do with the real world and its non-magical courses and bachelor's degrees and jobs and difficult relationships and economic problems. They couldn't be muggles, surely... but there they were, a muggle life the only option. Beer didn't taste a thing like butter. Nobody cared that they had solemnly sworn to be up to no good.

It has been strange to watch from an outsiders perspective. I was a few years older than the target audience when the first was released, and didn't get around to reading them until I was in my twenties. The warnings of the dangers of "escapism" in fantasy have always struck me as ridiculous invention and I have never experienced, to my knowledge, any side effects in that vain even after having been a fan of the genre my whole life.

The intensity of the experience, on the other hand, of the generation that fell in step with Harry's adventure, gives me pause.

 

[Prince of Spires]

The intensity of the experience, on the other hand, of the generation that fell in step with Harry's adventure, gives me pause.

I feel it has little to do with fantasy escapism while you grow up, but a lot more with simply belonging to a vocal fandom. It's no different from Beatle-mania or Taylor Swift fans. You belong to a group and identify strongly with it.

I personally think that the biggest problem was that Rowling caught lightning in a bottle. Which is incredibly hard to do once, but almost impossible to do twice. Especially if the first time was a lottery ticket win. Also, I think having a billion pounds in the bank is a very big motivator not to do much hard work, like writing more books and getting them ready for publishing.

 

[bproorda]

Honestly, I don't. JK Rowling had wonderful idea of creating a series you can grow up with. Sadly, I believe she failed. And far far too many readers know Harry Potter and nothing else. It is really said. Her plot, her characters, the relationships, the magic system, the world building, everything is horrible inconsistent, random, and nonsensical.
Yet oddly, there are some Harry Potter fanfics I really enjoy, whatever else she did make a wonderful sandbox for many budding writers.