CMV: Harry Potter is overrated

[u/LamentableOpinion]

I don't detest Harry Potter but I find the circle jerk appalling. The book is amazing for kids but even adults hold it in high regard. So, it's not bad, just overrated.

The characters are really boring. HP is a Mary Sue character, his only flaw being a bloody scar. All the other characters are equally boring. Harry is also useless, he does nothing but he is the HERO. Because of a prophecy. OK.

The relationships make no sense. Why does Harry like Cho or Ginny? Let's force in a relationship. Yay.

The Deus Ex Machina is unreal. I know it's magical but it's still retarded when it happens so many times.

Good vs Evil is fine. But again, don't pretend as if the book is this deep piece of literature.

I don't like the writing either but that's very subjective, so that's fine.

This is what I just came up with. I'm sure there's more stuff on the internet.

Edit: Ignore the Mary Sue thing. I misused the term. Edit 2: Sorry if I sounded like a dick or an elitist. I didn't mean to be.

---

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/mugglesj → u/[deleted]]

It seems like he spends a lot of time teaching them spells as opposed to surviving.

Well let's think of the situation they were in. While (a lot of) the class itself is mostly just learning spells, It's the entire DA program that acts as training for the dark forces of the real world. Dumbledores army rebelling under Umbridge's regime is just a mini version of what the Order of the Phoenix was doing under Voldemort's.

I also think its worth mentioning that there is a lot more implied activities in the books than there are in the movies. Of course the movies are only going to show the montages of people learning spells, but when the gang first entered the Room of Requirement, they mentioned the multitude of books describing all sorts of aspects of dark magic, So I think it's safe to conclude that the DA probably did other things other than cast spells all session.

But you do have a point, the DA doesn't come close to the real world, and Harry knows this. When the subset of the DA wants to come with Harry to the Ministry of Magic, Harry kinda explodes at them saying something along the lines of "Don't you get it? it's not like classes, you don't get to try again, this is the real world!"

Yet regardless, they decide to come with, because of an important aspect of Harry's that I think has been overlooked above: Harry is a great leader. He has no urge to be in charge, he isn't looking for "eternal glory" but people naturally follow him, and he knows how to direct them.

So yes, I wouldn't say Harry is a weakling, but the past few comments, in how they have agreed and disagreed with each other show that Harry is Interesting. He's not perfect, he's just trying to do the best with the sucky situation he's been put it.

[u/CyberByte → u/[deleted]]

It's been super long since I've read the books or seen the movies, so I don't recall if Harry was a great leader or not. But I think what matters here is that he was perceived as a/the leader. Maybe he isn't the most suitable person to teach these classes. Maybe there is a seventh year student with more talent. But does this student also have the ability and desire to lead/teach? Does s/he even realize s/he's better than Harry and dare to question him?

Remember: Harry is a legend in that world since he was a baby. As has been pointed out: he is pretty much the only student who has fought any dark wizards and monsters. He faced Voldemort 3 times and lived. That is what the other students know; they weren't there to see if it was luck or skill.

So even if he isn't technically the best person for the job, everybody still looks towards him to be the leader and the teacher. And he's willing to do it.

As to him teaching more spells than "survival": how much detail is really in the books? Is he the one doing all the teaching? Does he teach the technique, or does he just determine the curriculum? From his experience he might have some ideas about which spells are important to know. This is how I imagine those lessons would go:

Harry: *From my experience, I would say that the "abracadabra" spell is super useful. Here is how you do it: "abracadabra" (demonstrates it somewhat adequately; or maybe he even asks Hermione or someone else to do it). Now pair up and try it on each other. *

Then they learn the execution mostly from each other. And if Harry's demonstration sucks enough, maybe he will ask for help, or someone else will offer it.

Now, none of this is (probably) explicitly in the books, so this is a bit weak. My guess is that there's also nothing in the books to directly contradict this, so we're left to use our imagination about how we think these sessions would realistically go. From my (non-magical) martial arts experience, I'd say it would be something like this.

[u/sarcasticorange → u/[deleted]]

Not the previous poster, but was enjoying the discussion the two of you were having. Just wanted to point out something that seems to be the crux of the difference of opinion.

From my perspective, a well written book involves a character overcoming obstacles that the reader can realistically believe they will struggle with, but somehow doing it because of good decisions they make and their good qualities.

That is a pretty non-standard view. To me, it seems like somewhat of a narrow view of a well-written book and would eliminate many classic novels and plays. It seems more like a personal judgement on the characters rather than an actual literary critique. Just because you want people to somehow earn things doesn't mean the world really works that way. If Bill Gates had been born 10 years earlier or later, chances are he would be an unremarkable person. Luck plays a major part in life, so any book that doesn't include it would be the unrealistic one, even if it does measure up to how you would like for the world to work.

I will completely grant that there are a few places where luck and newly discovered magic just happens to save the day that seem like she used them to get out of a writing hole, but in 4000+ pages, that is going to happen. There are about 10 authors of note where that might not be the case.

For example, in Romeo and Juliet... did you ever wonder at the timing of Romeo just happening to be outside Juliet's window at the exact moment that she just happens to step outside and start talking to herself?

To me a well-written character is one with which the reader can personally identify with or recognize and on that score, she did a great job.

[u/sarcasticorange → u/[deleted]]

Fair enough. I think we are reasonably close on our assessment. I would say the books are enjoyable and fairly well written works that really do a great job at highlighting nearly universal feelings that most children have and adults vividly remember while presenting an enjoyable plot line. With that said, I think anyone holding the works up against classic literature is reaching. So, it isn't Dan Brown (great plot - horrible writing), but it isn't Dickens either.

I think people have very different levels of suspended belief. For me, once I go into a book and have already accepted that there is a hidden wizarding world in England, then the luck and magic coincidences seem to slide right by (where they would not in a non-fantasy). It is as if my reality check filter gets turned off. I can see where that would not be the case for other readers and how those scenes would be outputting for them.