Harry Potter; The Controversy

[Snorkel]

Harry Potter didn't bother me very much in that respect.  There were a couple of moments, but most of the time I thought Rowling had explained his reasoning sufficiently to make his decisions understandable.

 

The Snape thing - well in the books it was more understandable because the man was constantly just awful to Harry, and not played by the amazing Alan Rickman in the books.  But Hermione does keep calling him out on it at least.

[FantasyFanatic he/him]

On 4/22/2020 at 7:12 PM, Orlion the Platypus said:

So. Here's what you need to know before answering this question: it's a series for children.

Um, I kinda am a kid.

[Frustration]

On 4/18/2020 at 10:09 PM, Snakenaps said:

Is Harry Potter the best fantasy book out there? To some people out there, yes, to others, no. Is it near and dear to my own heart? Absolutely, 110%

I believe that the most important thing to remember about Harry Potter is that it is a children's/YA book. Yes, it has an extremely 'soft' magic system, yes, there are inconsistencies. But, for a child, Harry Potter is a wonderful world for children to escape into, with lovable characters, a school that every child wishes that they could attend, and a sparkling world filled with magic. 

Is this an actual attack on the books? Because there is nothing inherently wrong with soft magic.

[Snakenaps she/her]

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

Is this an actual attack on the books? Because there is nothing inherently wrong with soft magic.

No, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a soft magic system! In fact, one of the main reasons I love Harry Potter is because of its soft magic system. It lends the world such a beautiful sense of wonder. The magic in the world seems so alive because there is little it cannot do. Sentient cars, talking paintings, crazy Christmas crackers, the list goes on and on. 

One of the many reasons, though, that I find that people tend to fault Harry Potter because its magic system can be easily broken (such as the time turners, especially in The Cursed Child, which I treat as fanfiction). For instance, if one gets used to the hard magic systems of, say, Mistborn, then the nearly unlimited magic system of Harry Potter can seem like cheating.

I personally think that soft magic systems have their time and their place, and the Wizarding World of Harry Potter is definitely one of them. If Harry Potter had a hard magic system, then I feel like much of the joy and wonderment that makes Harry Potter so much fun would lost. But, hey, that's just my opinion.

[Dunkum he/him]

1 hour ago, Snakenaps said:

No, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a soft magic system! In fact, one of the main reasons I love Harry Potter is because of its soft magic system. It lends the world such a beautiful sense of wonder. The magic in the world seems so alive because there is little it cannot do. Sentient cars, talking paintings, crazy Christmas crackers, the list goes on and on. 

One of the many reasons, though, that I find that people tend to fault Harry Potter because its magic system can be easily broken (such as the time turners, especially in The Cursed Child, which I treat as fanfiction). For instance, if one gets used to the hard magic systems of, say, Mistborn, then the nearly unlimited magic system of Harry Potter can seem like cheating.

I personally think that soft magic systems have their time and their place, and the Wizarding World of Harry Potter is definitely one of them. If Harry Potter had a hard magic system, then I feel like much of the joy and wonderment that makes Harry Potter so much fun would lost. But, hey, that's just my opinion.

a while back Brandon actually did a set of posts on how he thinks about magic systems.  i forget the name, but it was something like Brandon Sandersons laws of magic.  anyway, one of the things he discusses in one of them is the differences between harder and softer magic systems, and part of what he says about it is like a soft magic system has very few rules or at least very few explained and established rules, but as a result, if you use it in your story to solve a problem, then it almost feels like cheating, and it isn't as satisfying.  with a hard magic system, on the other hand, the rules are well established, so as long as your solutions dont break the rules, then it ends up being a more satisfying solution for the readers.  Harry Potter sort of walks the line between these because, on the one hand, there are clearly fairly few hard and fast rules in the system, and experienced users like voldemort and dumbledore can basically do whatever they want, but on the other hand, our main characters are children who are still learning, so for all intents and purposes their use of the magic is extremely limited to the handful of spells that theyve learned.

[Snakenaps she/her]

2 hours ago, Dunkum said:

a while back Brandon actually did a set of posts on how he thinks about magic systems.  i forget the name, but it was something like Brandon Sandersons laws of magic.  anyway, one of the things he discusses in one of them is the differences between harder and softer magic systems, and part of what he says about it is like a soft magic system has very few rules or at least very few explained and established rules, but as a result, if you use it in your story to solve a problem, then it almost feels like cheating, and it isn't as satisfying.  with a hard magic system, on the other hand, the rules are well established, so as long as your solutions dont break the rules, then it ends up being a more satisfying solution for the readers.  Harry Potter sort of walks the line between these because, on the one hand, there are clearly fairly few hard and fast rules in the system, and experienced users like voldemort and dumbledore can basically do whatever they want, but on the other hand, our main characters are children who are still learning, so for all intents and purposes their use of the magic is extremely limited to the handful of spells that theyve learned.

Correct! When I say a "soft" vs "hard" magic system, I'm referring to Sanderon's First Law: https://www.brandonsanderson.com/sandersons-first-law/

Brandon on Harry Potter's magic system: 

Quote

Most writers are somewhere in the middle between these two extremes. A good example of what I consider to be near the center point would be Rowling’s Harry Potter books. Each of these books outlines various rules, laws, and ideas for the magic of the world. And, in that given book, those laws are rarely violated, and often they are important to the workings of the book’s climax. However, if you look at the setting as a whole, you don’t really ever understand the capabilities of magic. She adds new rules as she adds books, expanding the system, sometimes running into contradictions and conveniently forgetting abilities the characters had in previous novels. These lapses aren’t important to the story, and each single book is generally cohesive.

I think she balances this rather well, actually. In specifics, her magic is hard. In the big picture, her magic is soft. That allows her to use magic as points of conflict resolution, yet maintain a strong sense of wonder in the novels.

Brandon on his own magic systems:

Quote

I consider my own magic systems to be perhaps 80% hard, maybe a bit more. My own paradigm is to develop a complicated magic system which can be explained as simply as possible, but which has a lot of background and ‘behind the scenes’ rules. 

Writing Excuses (a podcast Brandon is a part of) on hard magic systems: https://writingexcuses.com/2019/03/10/14-10-magic-systems/

Writing Excuses on soft magic systems: https://writingexcuses.com/2019/03/17/14-11-magic-without-rules/

[Spren of Kindness she/her]

Late, but I want to contribute.  

When I read Harry Potter, I was a bit biased against it because I had heard so much hype.  That's how I am, if everyone's saying 'this is so good, read/watch it!', I get skeptical.  I kind of dislike the new Spider-man movies because I heard so much 'omg!!!  Tom Holland is so cute!!!', even though the movies are fairly good.

I think that Harry Potter is a good series.  I don't personally care for it because I don't care for urban fantasy, but I know people who really like it, and I enjoy seeing them interact with something that makes them happy.  There are some... choices that I don't like, and some attitudes I've seen in the fandom on my accidental brushes with it that make me sigh, but overall, I think they're an okay read for the audience they are intended for, and can provide a comfort for older readers as well.  Reading something like Harry Potter, which has a simpler plot than some books, can be incredibly relaxing when you need a break from books with more convoluted, tense plots, or just from stress in life.

[Negative_Null They/Them]

I think every author has individual strengths and weaknesses. Brandon writes amazing worlds and characters, Tolkein was unique in his level of worldbuilding depth, Rothfuss has incredible prose, etc. I think Rowling's strength was her characters. I think all the people in the book, even the background characters, were well written and interesting. Half Blood Prince is the first book I ever remember where I was actually invested in a romantic relationship.

The problems I have with the book are everything else. Her plot is inconsistent at best, she foreshadows well but pays it off badly, and her worldbuilding isn't just shallow, it legitimately has a bunch of problems that ruin the book for a lot of people (like house elves or all Slytherins being evil)

[Orlion Blight he/him]

I just think it's kinda funny that this thread was created before the actual controversy! I mean, what are the odds in Vegas on that?

[Frustration]

6 hours ago, Orlion the Platypus said:

I just think it's kinda funny that this thread was created before the actual controversy! I mean, what are the odds in Vegas on that?

Well I mean, it is discussing contraversy, just different contraversy.

[Condensation she/her]

I do not like this book, and my main point that I use to convince people of that is comparing it to Brandon's books, and just saying, Brandon comes up with different worlds, and connections between all his books. HE HAS DIFFERENT CURSE WORDS FOR HIS CHARACTERS and J. K. Rowling can't even create a good Slytherin or create more character complexities for the villains?

[FriarFritz]

I read the first few books, and then lost interest. I gotta say I agree with the Sorting Hat: Harry should have been Slytherin. I think if the story was restructured around that, it'd be something I'd want to read. 

[Snorkel]

5 hours ago, Condensation said:

I do not like this book, and my main point that I use to convince people of that is . . .

But, saying you dislike (or like) something is indisputable, you shouldn't have to convince anyone of your personal tastes.

[Negative_Null They/Them]

*cough cough* shameless plug for Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. It also has a ton of issues but I love the different takes it has on Rowling's world and is an interesting idea for the way the story could have gone *cough cough*

[DramaQueen she/he/neopronouns]

This thread makes me sad. Harry Potter was my first fantasy series, it's what really made me fall in love with reading and fantasy. I read it when I was six and immediately fell in love with it. I've ignored everything that Rowling has been saying and changing lately, and I realize that it has flaws, it's nothing in comparison to Sanderson, but it's my foundation. Just a couple years ago, I was nothing if not the weird Harry Potter fangirl, who would fight anyone who opposed this series or claimed that the movies were better. I no longer argue about this with people, I just wanted to put this here: Harry Potter for me and others is something that almost raised us. Sure, it's not in any way perfect, but it definitely has a part in making me who I am.

[Orlion Blight he/him]

Incomprehensible noises! 

Edited August 1, 2020 by Orlion the Platypus
Thought better of leaving the post

[Negative_Null They/Them]

I still love Harry Potter. I just think it has issues. I like looking at the world and what other stories can be told in it. Rowling only really used a small part of the world so there's a lot left for the imagination of the fanbase (which has its own problems, but so does every fandom)

[Gears]

I don't particularly enjoy Harry Potter because I read it after reading better books without plot holes and inconsistencies. It's a gateway book, but once you've read a better book, you can't go back. I can understand how other people might like it, but I personally don't enjoy it myself. In addition, I possess an extreme distaste for dichotomies and "good" versus "evil".

[FriarFritz]

10 minutes ago, Gears said:

 It's a gateway book

It starts out seeming innocent, with Harry Potter, or The Chronicles of Narnia. Then, before you know it, they're deep in epic fantasy - Tolkien, Rothfuss, Sanderson, or worse. If your child exhibits signs of reading, call 1-800-BOOK-KID to find more resources.

[Negative_Null They/Them]

50 minutes ago, Gears said:

. In addition, I possess an extreme distaste for dichotomies and "good" versus "evil".

That's another point against a lot of classics, so I try not to let it bother me

[Condensation she/her]

Same.

[Dunkum he/him]

it can be done well, but it does get tiring when it seems like so many books fall into that trope.

[Snorkel]

Having that one character who was a big mean jerkbag the entire series . . . on the side of good, while actively being mean to the protagonist the entire time (the movies toned him down quite a lot IMO), I thought that was really good.

[Dunkum he/him]

53 minutes ago, Snorkel said:

Having that one character who was a big mean jerkbag the entire series . . . on the side of good, while actively being mean to the protagonist the entire time (the movies toned him down quite a lot IMO), I thought that was really good.

I think the last book and the epilogue give him entirely too much credit.  He is definitely interesting, and a good chracter, I just don't think the good he did is enough to erase what a complete jerkbag he was.

[Snorkel]

Yup, he was legitimately a horrible person who worked on the side of good.

Not something you see often in the good versus evil tropes, and I appreciated it being there.