Harry Potter; The Controversy

[Negative_Null They/Them]

Rowling did good with Snape. The fandom on the other hand...

[Orlion Blight he/him]

3 hours ago, Dunkum said:

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.

I think here we have a vehicle to discuss redemption and expiation; how they relate to each, do they relate, how they contrast &c.

One could make the argument Snape did redeem himself, but that redemption does not mean that his wrongs were expiated. People should not forget that he was a terrible person that did terrible things; his sacrifices for the greater good do not turn him into a saint.

[Negative_Null They/Them]

2 minutes ago, Orlion the Platypus said:

I think here we have a vehicle to discuss redemption and expiation; how they relate to each, do they relate, how they contrast &c.

One could make the argument Snape did redeem himself, but that redemption does not mean that his wrongs were expiated. People should not forget that he was a terrible person that did terrible things; his sacrifices for the greater good do not turn him into a saint.

This is my main problem with the fandom is that Snape is either treated as the best or worst character in the series. I think both are wrong. He's not a villain, but he never really does anything heroic. He's just a guy who keeps making bad choices

[Orlion Blight he/him]

24 minutes ago, Negative_Null said:

This is my main problem with the fandom is that Snape is either treated as the best or worst character in the series. I think both are wrong. He's not a villain, but he never really does anything heroic. He's just a guy who keeps making bad choices

It's unfortunately how are culture works. Redemption tends to be coded in a Christian context, which means redemption equals expiation. That means if Snape (or Darth Vader) are redeemed, it must mean in the end they are good people and their terrible deeds (including child murder and genocide for Darth Vader) are magically forgiven! If you don't think their evil deeds are forgiven, then they must not be redeemed and died as terrible people! 

You can see that, especially in Snape's case, this idea of redemption = expiation does not work, which is why I would separate the two concepts. Snape can gain redemption to a certain degree, but at a certain point you can not gain expiation for certain actions (for example, it doesn't matter what Darth Vader does for redemption, he'll always be a child murderer).

[Toaster Retribution he/him]

Late to the party, but I just wanna throw in that the fact that people still, ten years after the final book, are still debating wether or not Snape was a good guy, means that he is an incredibly well-written character. I personally really like him, not necessarily as a person, but defenitely as a character. Writing-wise, he is Rowling at her best.

[Condensation she/her]

Yes, Snape is one of the greatest characters in Harry Potter.

[Chasmgoat he/him]

I think that harry potter is a good fantasy book for starting to get into reading. However, I have much to say against the world-building and the magic system, such as there not being much world-building and the magic system is awful. (seriously why is there even magic? why do some people have magic? Why are the wizards hiding if they are so much better? How does the magic work?). I enjoyed it, and now I do not enjoy it. I cannot say I hate it since I once loved it, but I do hate it when people say they love the magic system and stuff like that...

basically, Harry Potter is overrated. If I ask someone in my school when the last time they read a book for fun, they would say something like they read harry potter in 5th grade and they all say that is the best book series (some say Percy Jackson)  and no one ever listens when I recommend books. I just want a person I can see who will read good books, specifically Sanderson's, and talk to them about it. Is that so hard!!!

summary of all that: Harry Potter is a good child book and not a good adult book.

If I was ranting, sorry. I do not want to seem super upset. It is against the moral code of chasmgoats to display negative emotions.

[Condensation she/her]

59 minutes ago, Chasmgoat said:

I think that harry potter is a good fantasy book for starting to get into reading. However, I have much to say against the world-building and the magic system, such as there not being much world-building and the magic system is awful. (seriously why is there even magic? why do some people have magic? Why are the wizards hiding if they are so much better? How does the magic work?). I enjoyed it, and now I do not enjoy it. I cannot say I hate it since I once loved it, but I do hate it when people say they love the magic system and stuff like that...

basically, Harry Potter is overrated. If I ask someone in my school when the last time they read a book for fun, they would say something like they read harry potter in 5th grade and they all say that is the best book series (some say Percy Jackson)  and no one ever listens when I recommend books. I just want a person I can see who will read good books, specifically Sanderson's, and talk to them about it. Is that so hard!!!

summary of all that: Harry Potter is a good child book and not a good adult book.

If I was ranting, sorry. I do not want to seem super upset. It is against the moral code of chasmgoats to display negative emotions.

EXACTLY AND YES.

[Dunkum he/him]

Having recently completed my HP reread I will say this:

1. Harry is just constantly wrong, and it kind of annoys me.  I mentioned it a couple months ago but his constant suspicion of Snape is reasonable in books 1 and 7, but pretty much unreasonable the rest of the time, yet he still maintains it.  also, pretty sure he and ron would have failed out in their first year without Hermione there to help them, so why do they insist on being the ones to face everything, instead of leaving it to their much much more competent teachers.

2. the writing does tend to get better as we go.  and book 7 in particular, highlighting the similarities between Tom Riddle and Harry and using that to help Harry, and the audience, understand Voldemort, and to find the Horcruxes - that is some solid writing, credit where it is due.

3. Snape's writing also gets better as we go.  hes a remorselessly terrible person, for the most part, but he is also still fighting for the good guys, whcih makes him interesting.

4. so much of the worldbuilding and magic system are completely non=sensical.  it gets to be grating after a while.  though again, the worst examples of this tend to be earlier on.

[Condensation she/her]

13 minutes ago, Dunkum said:

Having recently completed my HP reread I will say this:

1. Harry is just constantly wrong, and it kind of annoys me.  I mentioned it a couple months ago but his constant suspicion of Snape is reasonable in books 1 and 7, but pretty much unreasonable the rest of the time, yet he still maintains it.  also, pretty sure he and ron would have failed out in their first year without Hermione there to help them, so why do they insist on being the ones to face everything, instead of leaving it to their much much more competent teachers.

2. the writing does tend to get better as we go.  and book 7 in particular, highlighting the similarities between Tom Riddle and Harry and using that to help Harry, and the audience, understand Voldemort, and to find the Horcruxes - that is some solid writing, credit where it is due.

3. Snape's writing also gets better as we go.  hes a remorselessly terrible person, for the most part, but he is also still fighting for the good guys, whcih makes him interesting.

4. so much of the worldbuilding and magic system are completely non=sensical.  it gets to be grating after a while.  though again, the worst examples of this tend to be earlier on.

I agree, but I think that Harry isn't constantly wrong, he's just consistently wrong.

[Eluvianii he/him]

In defense of the magic system, yes, it doesn't make sense, but it doesn't need to. Brandon himself has addressed this. He thought magic needed consistent rules but later came to the conclusion that it depended on the story. 

Magic in Harry Potter has rules when the plot needs it and it doesn't when it only needs some fun or amazement. 

I kinda feel like Brandon has spoiled us a little bit. Since he created (I think he was the first one at least) the separation between hard magic and soft magic, it's like the general consensus is that only hard magic is good and worth reading, but there's plenty of soft magic still being written and it works just fine. 

[Orlion Blight he/him]

Like I've said before in other corners: the best part of Harry Potter are the explanations that fans give it.

Take Snape, for example. He is a very generic tropey bad-guy-who-is-really-a-good-guy whose entire character development in the series can be summarized in two words: teenage angst. 

That's his entire motivation for everything. If it weren't for the fans, he would never be considered a good character. 

Well, also Alan Rickman helps quite a bit, but we are focusing on the books here. 

[Condensation she/her]

Yes. Alan Rickman.

[Toaster Retribution he/him]

On 2020-10-07 at 7:15 AM, Eluvianii said:

the general consensus is that only hard magic is good and worth reading, but there's plenty of soft magic still being written and it works just fine.

I´d argue that this is the general consensus on the Shard, not necessarily in the wider sci-fi/fantasy community. But I agree: both have their charm. Just look at Lord of the Rings. The magic system is incredibly soft (I honestly still have no clue as to what Gandalf can and can't do, or how) but they are still praised as the foundation of the fantasy genre.

[Snorkel]

On 08/10/2020 at 5:55 PM, Orlion the Platypus said:

That's his entire motivation for everything. If it weren't for the fans, he would never be considered a good character. 

Well, also Alan Rickman helps quite a bit, but we are focusing on the books here. 

Yeah, I was gonna say. I suspect Alan Rickman is the sole reason there are Snape fans.

[Snorkel]

On 07/10/2020 at 0:18 PM, Chasmgoat said:

If I ask someone in my school when the last time they read a book for fun, they would say something like they read harry potter in 5th grade and they all say that is the best book series (some say Percy Jackson)  and no one ever listens when I recommend books. I just want a person I can see who will read good books, specifically Sanderson's, and talk to them about it. Is that so hard!!!

Yes.  It's a fact of modern life, most people aren't readers, and when they do read they'll just pick something popular and accessible.  I think I was in Primary School when I gave up trying to find people who were reading the same things I was.

[Orlion Blight he/him]

4 hours ago, Snorkel said:

Yeah, I was gonna say. I suspect Alan Rickman is the sole reason there are Snape fans.

Literally occurred to me at the end of the posting. Had to give myself a good smack for almost overlooking that! 

[Condensation she/her]

On 10/10/2020 at 3:28 PM, Snorkel said:

Yes.  It's a fact of modern life, most people aren't readers, and when they do read they'll just pick something popular and accessible.  I think I was in Primary School when I gave up trying to find people who were reading the same things I was.

Exactly! Even now, when I'm in a school where most people read books, the main book is Harry Potter.

[dannnex male]

I HAVE OPINIONS!!!

I think it is definitely subjective based on who you are, but I think it’s predictably subjective. I think people’s opinions on the books are entirely dependent on when they read them, and have almost nothing to do with the actual content of the books. A bold claim, I know. Let me explain: 
 

If you read these books as they were coming out, you almost definitely like them. Especially if you were the same age-ish as the characters as they came out. You grew up with these books, they’re nostalgic. The characters are familiar, the setting, it all still has that small hint of magic. You can recognize the flaws in them now, but it’s easy for you to overlook them in favor of all the memories you have associated with the series. 

If you read the books as a kid, but after they all came out, you probably liked them originally, but now have a sorta ‘eh’ feeling about the series. You read them in mid/late elementary school, and they helped you grow a love of reading. You don’t have the same context as the people who read them as they came out though. It was just a good series that you read as a kid, but now it’s obviously kinda lackluster. You probably group Harry Potter together with other series like the Septimus Heap books, or anything by Brandon Mull. They were okay, but you would be somewhat disappointed going back to them now.

If you read the books as someone older, and as someone who already enjoyed reading, especially if you had already been introduced to Sanderson, you have a rather negative opinion of the books. You have absolutely none of the context that that people who read the books growing up do. The series was new and innovative then. It introduced people to the fantasy genre, and to reading in general. You already like to read, and you’ve already read a lot of fantasy. Harry Potter can’t even hold a candle to the brilliance that is the Cosmere. You can understand why people enjoy them, but you can’t yourself. 

So how did I do? Do you guys agree with my assessment? Keep in mind that I’m completely ignoring the movies as a factor, that can mess with peoples opinions in a ton of different ways. Personally I am in the second category, I liked them as a kid, I reread them a lot, but I wouldn’t like them now. I do still thoroughly enjoy the movies though. But that’s an entirely different topic.  

@Channelknight Fadran As someone with a Ravenclaw symbol as your profile banner, do you have opinions?

[Dunkum he/him]

I'm roughly in your third category there, and that is more or less right.  I did read them as they were coming out, but I was already an avid fantasy reader by that point.  Though I do think you are missing one additional piece which is that there was (and still is, to some degree) a ton of hype surrounding them, and that affects things too.  in my case, it made me dislike them more, arguably more than they deserved.

[Chasmgoat he/him]

I think it was pretty accurate. I was in the second category.

[Channelknight Fadran]

6 hours ago, Danex said:

I HAVE OPINIONS!!!

I think it is definitely subjective based on who you are, but I think it’s predictably subjective. I think people’s opinions on the books are entirely dependent on when they read them, and have almost nothing to do with the actual content of the books. A bold claim, I know. Let me explain: 
 

If you read these books as they were coming out, you almost definitely like them. Especially if you were the same age-ish as the characters as they came out. You grew up with these books, they’re nostalgic. The characters are familiar, the setting, it all still has that small hint of magic. You can recognize the flaws in them now, but it’s easy for you to overlook them in favor of all the memories you have associated with the series. 

If you read the books as a kid, but after they all came out, you probably liked them originally, but now have a sorta ‘eh’ feeling about the series. You read them in mid/late elementary school, and they helped you grow a love of reading. You don’t have the same context as the people who read them as they came out though. It was just a good series that you read as a kid, but now it’s obviously kinda lackluster. You probably group Harry Potter together with other series like the Septimus Heap books, or anything by Brandon Mull. They were okay, but you would be somewhat disappointed going back to them now.

If you read the books as someone older, and as someone who already enjoyed reading, especially if you had already been introduced to Sanderson, you have a rather negative opinion of the books. You have absolutely none of the context that that people who read the books growing up do. The series was new and innovative then. It introduced people to the fantasy genre, and to reading in general. You already like to read, and you’ve already read a lot of fantasy. Harry Potter can’t even hold a candle to the brilliance that is the Cosmere. You can understand why people enjoy them, but you can’t yourself. 

So how did I do? Do you guys agree with my assessment? Keep in mind that I’m completely ignoring the movies as a factor, that can mess with peoples opinions in a ton of different ways. Personally I am in the second category, I liked them as a kid, I reread them a lot, but I wouldn’t like them now. I do still thoroughly enjoy the movies though. But that’s an entirely different topic.  

@Channelknight Fadran As someone with a Ravenclaw symbol as your profile banner, do you have opinions?

I have all the opinions.

Alright! So, I grew up reading these books. Heck, I was probably only seven or eight when I finished the series. They're nostalgic, which means that I'm biased towards them, but that doesn't mean that the only reason I still love them is because of the nostalgia. Quite the opposite, actually. I can still read back through the books and find something new--obviously, nothing as new as Brandon Sanderson's books, but new nonethless. I have a bit of an advantage on my arguments here, as I'm an aspiring author, and just the sheer amount of foreshadowing in each book is amazing.

However, I'm not what you'd call a Harry Potter fan.

Fadran, you lied to me???? I hear you demand. You have a Ravenclaw banner over your profile picture, and you're NOT A HARRY POTTER FAN???

No, I am not. I am not a Harry Potter fan.

I am a Wizarding World fan.

The most charm in J.K. Rowling's books comes from her world; the Wizarding World. The random jobs in the Ministry of Magic, the secret passageways in Hogwarts, Howlers, Remembrals; WANDLORE, STORM IT. It's so much more than a story at this point; it's a world that you can immerse yourself in with your friends and family without people looking at you like you're a crazy person. You can go back and relive your childhood of waving around a stick and yelling expelliarmus without somebody telling you to 'go grow up, already.'

Spoiler

Scud, that thirteen-second read took me way too long to write....

 

[Dunkum he/him]

5 minutes ago, Channelknight Fadran said:

just the sheer amount of foreshadowing in each book is amazing.

Out of curiosity, can you elaborate on this some? I don't particularly remeber very much foreshadowing, especially in the earlier books.

[Channelknight Fadran]

Just now, Dunkum said:

Out of curiosity, can you elaborate on this some? I don't particularly remeber very much foreshadowing, especially in the earlier books.

It takes an lot of rereads to see it all. I don't think I could list it all in one fell swoop.

[Orlion Blight he/him]

I read them as they came out and I was always critical of them (not as aggressive as I am now, but still critical. I shall explain).

By the second book, I had predicted a good portion of what would end up being the sixth book, even down to saying the events would take place in the sixth book. I have also always pushed against the argument that they encouraged children to read. 

Because they didn't then and do not now. 

Honestly, if it wasn't for the combination of cultural and capitalist forces that it enjoys now, it probably would be like the Chronicles of Narnia now. Not obscure and forgotten, but we wouldn't feel the need to push against it publically.