Depends. The books mature with the audience. I enjoyed the series, however I started reading them when I was eleven. The films do not compare to them, however they are hardly the best books I've read. They were worth the read however.

What other books have you enjoyed? To try and get a clearer picture as to if they're worth it for you.

I tried to read them once, but they're just so poorly written... YA fiction is the worst.

They're alright if you're twelve or enjoy reading books meant for children.

>>1592223
I usually read science fiction shit, I've read most of what's on the /lit/ wiki. Harry Potter is pretty far out of my usual reading.

The books aren't bad. As others have said, they tend to get better as they go along.

Remember, though, that it is written for young adults, and thus its style is exactly what you'd expect a British woman writing for British young adults to be like. Don't expect a great deal of "2deep4u" moments, but it does involve a lot of teenage encountering the magical world moments.

I can't reply objectively because this was the first "real" book I ever read and I literally grew up with the series. It will always have a special place in my heart and it has made me cry like a little bitch at times.

the books are shit. Very one-dimensional and predictable characters. Formulaic story telling. Plot holes. The whole Nazi Germany allegory is so ham-fisted its insulting to read. And for all of its supposed "maturity" all the Harry Potter books just keep cramming this childish belief of "good vs evil" in your face.

>>1592251

Hmm. the problem with harry potter in my opinion, is the first three aren't as good as the others. They're not as mature. Number 6 & 7 are definately 'darker' than the rest too. Anyways, due to this getting into the series as you're older isn't as easy. I would recommend them to most people who can enjoy a good fantasy novel, but don't expect its logic to be foolproof or the plot to be overly mature. There are a few 'lame' moments in them with the whole power of love too..

>>1592319

Good vs evil thing is so true. I prefer morally grey area characters...

>>1592332

It is a childrens book, and as hollow and overused as this defense may be, it still holds true. Don't expect too much out of books intended to please youth.

It's not high quality, but it's fun. Read the first one. If it sucks you in, read the rest. If not, find something you'd enjoy more.

Well it was written for kids, so what conclusions do you expect to reach when you hold it against your usual standards, nay-sayers?

It goes a little grimdark towards the end, and the coolest characters are underused [or perhaps she creates shitty characters and underuse is what makes them cool] but if you want a non-Gaiman light read, they are pretty gosh darn entertaining.

Although what's the thing called where an author feels compelled to make increasingly longer books so the amount of filler increases? Someone should make a name for that.

As for the "X is just an allegory for Y" thing, people have been doing it for years and whether people like it or don't like it seems to arbitrarily assigned to either "It's too obvious," or "that's really clever." Except in the case of popular books such as these where the response is always, "Hurr durr it's shit derpedy derp."

So you missed your chance to really enjoy the books when you aged past fifteen, but the only way to know whether you'll hate them or not is to read them, thus rendering this comment and all above utterly useless and a wanky way to spend a tuesday night.

For kids and young teenagers they are great books but they're not particularly aimed at adults - though that doesn't stop many adults reading them.

I think the books go downhill after book four though. Prisoner of Azkaban was my favourite.

>>1592332

There are plenty of morally grey heroes in Harry Potter- Dumbledore, Sirius, James, Snape, etc. It's pretty devastating for Harry when he finds out that the people he has idolised are not the heroes he thought they were- his father was an arrogant and petty bully in high school, Sirius was the same and remained an impulsive and immature perma-teenage boy when he was supposed to look out for Harry as a father figure, Dumbledore had a dark past and was not above some serious manipulation and scheming. Meanwhile, Snape was a hero.. but he was also a bitter, angry man who took it out on frightened schoolchildren because he wished they had died in someone else's place. However, I did think she messed up with Slytherin- with the number of morally grey heroes, it would have been cool to at least have background examples of Slytherins who have used their resourcefulness and cunning to achieve something good.

i LOVED the first book
mainly because it has the matrix/rabbithole moment
the rest was quite average i have to say

>>1592332
There is no good or evil: only power and those too weak to seek it. -Harry Potter

>>1594082

OK, I've never read the Harry Potter books, or seen the movies (I'm a grown man, and there are far too many other things released and published every year, I just don't have time for kids books, sorry. Not trolling, it's just a fact). But it seems to me that you can tell what kind of character a person is by which house they belong to: "You're a bit shady, so off to Slytherin with you"?

If that's the case, then that's one of the most morally bankrupt examples I've come across in children's literature since the days of Enid Blyton. What Rowling is essentially saying is that some people are evil, are born that way, and can never change. AND WHAT'S MORE YOU CAN TELL WHO THEY ARE WITH MAGIC.

Hogwarts isn't a magical world of illusion, it's a fucking police state.

so, so awful op. it's not possible to read harry potter because there is nothing there to be read.

OP, everyone saying HP is awful in this thread are jaded wanna-be intellectuals who prance around singing about all the classic literature they've read, and whose stony black hearts have lost the enjoyment of simply reading for fun.

Nothing but a bunch of Sycophantic fucks who think they're appeasing some greater power by reading boring books.

I grew up with and just reread all seven books. Are they horribly complicated? Not really. Are they incredibly deep? Not particularly. Are they spectacularly written, incredibly fun, and can you connect with and feel for the characters? Definitely. Give them a shot.

>>1594170

Enid Blyton is fucking awesome. Fuck my shit.

Watch the movies.

>>1594170

It's a shame, because JKR does specify early on that the Slytherin traits are not intrinsically evil- Harry is nearly sorted into Slytherin, and Dumbledore tells him that resourcefulness, cunning, etc, are not bad traits, it's what you do with them that counts, and that Slytherins can be great wizards and witches. But unfortunately, she never goes through with this theme. Snape is excused as being a closet Gryffindor ("sometimes I think we sort too soon"), and the best examples of Slytherin we have are guys who aren't evil, but aren't admirable either, like Slughorn. At the end during the big fight, every single Slytherin fucks off. Not one stays behind to help defend the school. JKR backpedalled hastily and said they actually went to get reinforcements, but that sounds fairly bullshitty and was clearly written as Slytherins all running away.

She doesn't present the other houses as perfect either, strangely enough. James and Sirius were Gryffindors, and they could be pretty nasty little bullies. Peter Pettigrew was a traitor and Voldemort's servant, and he was a Gryffindor. Dumbledore was most likely a Gryffindor and he was pretty damn Slytherin at times. It's sucky that given the morally grey heroes, JKR didn't throw in just an occasional background mention of Slytherins who aren't petty bullies or Death Eaters. Saying "it's from Harry's point of view" isn't enough IMO when the books showed Harry facing up to the fact that his dad could kind of be a dick and the like.

>>1594182

GTFO troll

>>1594184

Fair enough, and thanks for the answer. I have to say that it doesn't dispose me to wading through the seven books though. I think the problem is that I'm an oldfag, and I was an adult even when the first one came out - with no kids to read it to, I never paid any attention.

>>1594179

>simply reading for fun.

It's a long time since I read anything other than for fun, but my idea of fun isn't necessarily reading children's books. If I want anything in the JKR bubblegum for the brain sort of field, I'll read a Terry Pratchett or something. When I read so-called "serious" literature, I also do that for fun, believe it or not. I've got nothing to prove, and nobody to impress, so when I fancy reading Yeats or Eliot or Pynchon or something, it's because I'm genuinely in the mood, not because I'm going to go out and make sure everyone knows I've read it.

>>1594184
How does Malfoy fit that paradigm then? He wasn't truly evil, simply confused, and in the end turns out not all that bad...he was doing what he had to do to try and save his family. He mourns the loss of his friends, fears evil like most in the other houses, etc. He simply dislikes Harry, and as such is painted the villain.

Then again, we may, you know, BE READING INTO IT TOO MUCH. It's like criticizing the fact that the Cyclops in the Odyssey was a man-eating douche. Just the way it is, there's always a 'bad guy' in any situation.

>>1594189
Good to hear. Let me just add something for your benefit then: the first book is written at a very low level. The books worked great if you read them release-by-release because the writing became more advanced as the children reading them aged with the books. Meaning the first few are really in the lower-middle school range. The final book is more along the lines of 12th grade/first year college reading levels. Average reading levels, mind...which means no trouble for most /lit/ browsers and I assume yourself. That said, I still enjoy them even now.

>>1594194

>Just the way it is, there's always a 'bad guy' in any situation.

I think it's reasonable to expect that a modern author who sells absolute barrowloads of books provides better characterisation than "there's got to be a bad guy"

>>1594199
I was sort-of being facetious. However, that is reality, whether we like it or not. That said, the only truly 'evil' character portrayed was Voldemort himself, who had no redeeming qualities. It must be said however that this was a choice he made himself, not just some 'that's your lot and deal with it' character setup.

>>1594203
I just reread that and it doesn't flow at all. Forgive me, /lit/.

>>1594194

Because the problem isn't "all Slytherins are evil" but that "no Slytherins are good", which yes, is a problem when your series makes an effort to have morally ambiguous characters, lays down themes of house unity.. and then lazily handwaves the entire house full of bullies or psychopaths who are designated as scum at the age of eleven and never disprove this.

Malfoy wasn't outright evil. He was still a prejudiced bully and snob who is never actually redeemed, just becomes a bit sympathetic because he's in too deep and discovers that picking on schoolchildren and breaking the odd nose doesn't mean he has the stomach for genocide, especially when it turns out that he doesn't get special treatment and the bad guy will threaten Malfoy's family to get him to do things. Bawwing because he wanted the perks of being a Death Eater without realising the downside doesn't redeem Malfoy.

i dont think all slytherin are bad.

>>1594306
The snake was pretty phallic.

>>1594321

And phalluses are automatically bad?

Also, just disregard what that twat at >>1594306 says - incoherent shit-tier trolling at best, most of the time simply incoherent, trite or both

>>1594336
No. They're not even inherently phallic.

Also, wands, hats, whore crutches, all phalluses. Dicks everywhere.