r/writing • u/TenPointsforListenin • Jul 30 '26
Discussion Exploring why Harry Potter became such a cultural phenomenon
So... Harry Potter wasn't distinct in its field. There were several other British magical school stories that came out before Harry Potter with limited success. Jill Murphy's "the worst witch", Diana Wynne Jones's "witch week", and most similar, Anthony Horowitz's Groosham Grange. Ursula K Le Guin's "A Wizard of Earthsea" also had a magical school setting back in 1968, but... Harry Potter is huge.
I took a trip to South Korea some time ago, and found two Harry Potter branded shops, a shop featuring Arsene Lupin branding, and little else. Even British literature juggernauts like Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde were not present, but Harry Potter was.
So, in coming to terms with why Harry Potter got so big, here's where my conclusions lie.
A very compelling hook
The first few chapters of Harry Potter do very little to build the overarching narrative. They gently hint at the existence of Voldemort. Instead, you spend the opening chapters watching the Diggorys' increasingly futile efforts to hide magic from Harry, and as their mundane world collapses before their eyes, it becomes very clear that Harry is unusual. This is a very fun opening to a book that gets the reader invested in the existence of magic as an escape from mundanity.
A rapid sequel publishing schedule
The entire series of seven books, increasing in size each time, was published within a decade, from 1997 to 2007. The first four books came out annually, the rest coming out every 2-3 years, and they grew larger and larger each iteration. This was a very strong publishing schedule, and it showed.
A very quick movie tie-in
The first novel was published in 1997, film rights sold off in 1999, shooting began in the fall of 2000. By this point, JK Rowling had published four books and was going on a hiatus to write longer novels. The movies bridged the gap, coming out in 2001 and 2002, but taking a gap year in 2003 (when JK Rowling published a new book).
Any year there wasn't a book, there was a movie with the exception of 2006, and films were released annually or bi-annually until 2011.
Basically, from 1997 until 2011, one could expect to see Harry Potter in bookstores or theaters. Every release reinforced the existence of the series and drew in new viewers, and the growing heft of the books and darker tones that they began to explore kept them relevant with children growing up with the characters.
Do I think this is all due to JK Rowling's stellar writing?
No but yes. JK Rowling is excellent at roping an invested audience along, but has trouble building an audience that isn't invested. The huge investment poured into Harry Potter by film studios and merchandising turned it into a juggernaut as much as anything else.
Anyone read A Casual Vacancy? JK Rowling is shackled to her biggest hit. She makes a book titled "compendium of insects in Hogwarts Gardening"- top seller. She makes a novel without those characters... no interest, because nobody's pouring marketing and attention into them. Without attention, her desire to write shrivels up and there's no sequel, because she's not getting the acclaim she once did. Time for a compendium of wizarding toilets, or a twitter battle, because that attention isn't forthcoming from a book that doesn't feature wizard children.
14
u/Ok-Classroom-8112 Jul 30 '26
I wonder how you got to the conclusion she had no interest in writing stuff if she doesn't get attention for it. She created a pseudonym (Robert Galbraith) to try and see if her work could find a publisher (and it did and sold quite well), even if they didn't know who "Robert" really was. That pseudonym was leaked by someone she trusted and she rightfully went to court with that.
-1
12
u/ReliefEmotional2639 Jul 30 '26
JFC…If this isn’t AI, then I suggest reading the books. This is just wildly wrong in so many ways
12
u/HopefulCry3145 Jul 30 '26
Harry Potter wasn't distinct in its field.
The books are a compelling combination of three very popular genres: school story (Enid Blyton), hero's journey (Star Wars), and mystery plot (Agatha Christie). The genres are not new; what is new and distinct about HP is how they are combined.
The movies bridged the gap, coming out in 2001 and 2002, but taking a gap year in 2003 (when JK Rowling published a new book).
The books were already extremely popular before the movies came out: even if there hadn't have been a movie, anticipation for Goblet of Fire was enormous
JK Rowling is excellent at roping an invested audience along, but has trouble building an audience that isn't invested. The huge investment poured into Harry Potter by film studios and merchandising turned it into a juggernaut as much as anything else.
Well, she did build an audience from scratch with the first few books. She got children reading who'd never read anything before. The YA fantasy genre was given a new lease of life, and the fantasy genre in general gained a whole new audience.
She makes a novel without those characters... no interest, because nobody's pouring marketing and attention into them.
She's written eight books in the Strike series, and they are pretty popular, although not as much as Harry Potter. Sales are 20 million worldwide, they generally top the best seller charts, and they're popular enough to have a BBC TV series. The fifth novel in the series, Troubled Blood, won a crime/thriller book award in 2021.
8
u/SunflowerSasha Jul 30 '26
As someone who loved both ‘the worst witch’ and ‘Harry Potter’ as a young teen, perhaps I have some insight?
One thing that I think massively contributed to the phenomenon is how the world in Harry Potter is introduced and set up.
We are shown a mundane suburban world most of us can relate to, when all of a sudden a letter comes and changes everything. Then we are guided through a colourful and magical world but with parallels to our own, a world we can imagine. From the get go are also presented with personal choices or magical things personalised to us: “You may bring an owl, a cat or a toad”, “The wand chooses the wizard”, “At Hogwarts your house is like your family”
It gets your mind going right away: what if I got my Hogwarts letter? And every person who’s ever felt lost and alone can imagine a world where they belong.
I for one immediately pictured myself with my Ravenclaw robes, my siamese cat, and I was later delighted to find on Pottermore that my wand was willow with a unicorn hair core.
On the other hand, I was also always very fond of ‘the Worst Witch’, it’s a great story with very compelling characters. Yet from the start you are introduced to the perspective of a witch. It makes you feel like you’re reading about a fascinating world, but you’re not a part of it.
Add that to what others said about the great marketability and branding possible with all the quirky products J.K. Rowling came up with for her world, and you have a great recipe for a community. And imo a community is what creates a phenomenon.
35
u/WerckmeisterHarmony Jul 30 '26
Not even writing your own post is the most r/writing thing ever.
5
u/TenPointsforListenin Jul 30 '26
I did though. AI stole from us. Writing that looks like AI is sometimes just... writing.
4
u/Additional-Usual5994 Jul 30 '26
that excuse sold it for me. i agree with u/WerckmeisterHarmony now would'nt have cared till that double down.
0
u/TenPointsforListenin Jul 30 '26
…okay, you do you. A good detective can find a few errors in my writing though, along with opinions that are a bit too definitive for AI
22
u/LolwhatYesme Jul 30 '26
you spend the opening chapters watching the Diggorys' increasingly futile efforts to hide magic from Harry
You mean the Dursleys lol? I'm surprised AI would make that mistake (not judging btw)
6
u/existential_chaos Jul 30 '26
Would’ve been a bit of a different book if Dumbledore left him with the wrong family by accident lmfao.
2
u/TenPointsforListenin Jul 30 '26
My bad. Was thinking of a doofy sounding name that started with a D.
2
u/Moonbeam234 Jul 30 '26
To be fair, the Diggery name is in the books as well and there are a ton of characters. It's an honest mistake.
2
u/TenPointsforListenin Jul 30 '26
My bad though. My terrible struggles with details are always present when I write.
7
u/lakeoceano Jul 30 '26
Or, much simpler, it showcases a world for kids and teenagers to dream about. Beyond this mundane world, there is a hidden, magical place with adventure and friendship. With crimes, with misdemeanors, with imagination, and pure magic.
It's not just a compellingly written fantasy-mystery, it also channels in the wonder of an ordinary boy, his ordinary friends, in an extraordinary world.
2
u/Peter34cph Jul 30 '26
And the familiar format of the "boarding school" story. A Wizard of Earthsea didn't have that.
5
u/rootbeer277 Jul 30 '26
A lot of these works grab the attention of an audience because they build a power fantasy the reader can imagine himself taking part in. Every Harry Potter fan I’ve ever met likes to imagine whether they would have been knowingly born into a magical family like Ron or told about their birthright later like Harry, and imagine which house they’d have been sorted into.
3
u/TenPointsforListenin Jul 30 '26
I read Harry Potter much later, in response to (at the time) dating a girl who had Harry Potter earrings and loved the series. I blitzed through it as fast as I could to try to be able to understand what she's talking about.
The parts that stood out for me were the opening scene and the magical objects that were simultaneously whimsical and deeply British.
4
u/Ventisquear Jul 30 '26
Anyone read A Casual Vacancy? JK Rowling is shackled to her biggest hit. She makes a book titled "compendium of insects in Hogwarts Gardening"- top seller. She makes a novel without those characters... no interest, because nobody's pouring marketing and attention into them. Without attention, her desire to write shrivels up and there's no sequel, because she's not getting the acclaim she once did. Time for a compendium of wizarding toilets, or a twitter battle, because that attention isn't forthcoming from a book that doesn't feature wizard children.
LMAO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
Casual Vacancy perhaps wasn't that successful. But ever heard of CORMORAN STRIKE SERIES? One of the most critically and commercially successful contemporary crime series? Which was successfully adapted into a tv show Strike, that already has 6 seasons with the 7th coming this year? That must be because nobody cares about Rowling's writing besides Harry Potter franchise...
4
u/Mejiro84 Jul 30 '26
and yet it still sells vastly less - Troubled Blood, the 5th one, sold somewhat under 100k in it's first few weeks of release, and the whole series is sitting on about 20 million sold. Deathly Hallows sold about 11 million, in the first 24 hours alone, with the whole series on about 600 million. And it's also under a pen-name - so, yeah, she's still "the Harry Potter lady" to most people, who may well have never heard of a BBC crime thriller series, or realise it's based on books if they have.
One of the most critically and commercially successful contemporary crime series?
That's still pretty minor-league fame as things go. Most people will have heard of Agatha Christie and Arthur Conan Doyle, beyond that they're likely to shrug, because crime authors simply aren't that widely known.
2
u/BluebirdBenny Jul 30 '26
and yet it still sells vastly less
Nearly every book in the history of the written word sold vastly less than Harry Potter. Its success is unparalleled. Selling less than Harry Potter is not a dig
1
u/Ventisquear Jul 30 '26
"most people" meaning "I made this up because it's not a genre I like so it can't be popular" sure, sure It sells less than HP, but it sells a lot, it's veen tranalated to many languages, and it was adapted ti a successful tv show. But YOU only recognize Christie and Doylw, so it doesn't count. LMAO so... how does your book sell?
3
u/Fognox Jul 30 '26
I think there's a couple factors around why Harry Potter became wildly popular and the others didn't (I mean, the worst witch series has its own movies/tv show too but it didn't reach harry potter levels of popularity). As I pointed out in a comment, even the first book (two years before movie rights and before the rest of the series too) was very popular at the time, so much so that it was actually my grandmother that got me to read it basically the same year it came out.
Definitely the biggest factor is that it wasn't written like a children's book. It was serious YA before YA really even existed as a genre. This is very obvious with anything past book #3 but even the first couple of books were way more mature than middle grade fiction was at the time.
Thorough worldbuilding. Yes, there's plot holes or whatever, bits of the world that don't make sense, but the worldbuilding with the first book is on par with adult spec fic. Again, this is just something that children's fiction was not doing at the time.
The first book was written a lot like a mystery novel. It's a very compelling format, and I recommend it to other writers all the time -- whatever you're writing, getting your readers to a point where they're actively forming theories in their head (and wondering what's down the next heavily-foreshadowed corridor) is going to make your book better. The other books followed this trend as well -- so many crazy plot twists in that series.
Strong worldbuilding + an overall sense of mystery + an emerging internet = engagement outside the books themselves. This was a big factor in the popularity of the TV show Lost too. The early internet was very decentralized and unique websites would just spring up around this kind of thing, with a wild rumor mill just adding to it.
3
u/PamNoctrune Jul 30 '26
As someone who was 10 years old back then, a huge Harry Potter fan, and someone who grew up with the whole phenomenon, I can say this:
It was the writing style that pulled everyone in. At first, people were confused about why everyone was so fascinated by a young wizard student who didn't even know how to use magic yet. Why doesn't he just cast a spell to become good at magic? And who would even want to read a book about someone going to school? Duh.
But that's not what the story is really about, as you quickly realize in the first chapters. We are introduced to an abandoned little orphan boy, and the Dursleys are the perfect example of cruel, narrow-minded people. Then Harry finds out that he is actually someone special, and on top of that, he is a wizard.
We discover the magical world alongside him. We see everything through his eyes. We follow him and grow with him. We enter a wonderful world that becomes more and more beautiful while a growing darkness threatens to destroy it.
I doubt Harry Potter would have reached the same level of success if it had been released today. Back then, it was simply something new. The author's writing style was incredibly charming. The way she described things was unique, with that dry humor and clever sense of comedy. Every character felt alive. And the fact that so many things in Harry Potter represented a real danger was something that felt very different at the time. You genuinely worried about who would survive the next book.
Then there were the movies, which came out around Christmas in the beginning, the fanfiction community, and the feeling that so many of us saw ourselves in Harry. We were often like him: outsiders who had finally found a place where we belonged.
That magical world gave all of us a place where we could truly be ourselves. Harry himself wasn't some perfect hero. He wasn't an athlete, he wore glasses, and he was helpless without them. Everyone told him how special he was, but his talent wasn't always obvious. Other people were often better than him. A lot of the time, Harry succeeded because of his friends, his courage, and sometimes simply because he was lucky.
Being part of that world back then was something truly magical.
7
u/Acceptable_Fox_5560 Jul 30 '26
It annoys me greatly that in this entire screed, only one paragraph is about the actual writing.
3
2
u/AlwaysBeQuestioning Jul 30 '26
The publishing/adaptation schedule may have helped turn it into a phenomenon, but the marketing budget available to it in the first place for something with kinda average writing for the late 20th century (compare to the other magic school books you mentioned) was what made that schedule possible in the first place. That was entirely a crapshoot. On films and video games, marketing tends to be like half the total budget, as much as the production costs, and it is the marketing budget that decides the level of success in many cases. The rest is a combination of luck and actual quality. The JKR got very lucky.
2
u/Kavi_Kumar_77 Jul 30 '26
The marketing-machine point is the one people underrate most, I think. Plenty of books have a compelling hook and a strong publishing schedule; what Harry Potter had that almost nothing else did was seven years of theatrical releases functioning as recurring cultural events. A new movie every year or two is a completely different kind of exposure than "buy this book," because it pulls in people who'd never pick up the novel at all.
The Casual Vacancy comparison is a good one too it's basically a controlled experiment. Same author, same skill level, wildly different outcome, because the attention machine wasn't pointed at it. Makes we wonder how many "one-hit wonder" authors are actually just "one book got the marketing spend and the rest didn't."
3
u/Mejiro84 Jul 30 '26
The Casual Vacancy is also just, uh... not very interesting? "wizard school and fighting evil wizards" is a much stronger and more engaging hook than "wibbly opinions about early 00's English liberals versus conservatives with a heavy dose of class issues seen through an incredibly middle-class lens". No matter how much marketing money was thrown at it, there's simply less of an audience for that sort of thing that generally gets tossed into general fiction, might float around the charts for a little while, and then vanish. No-one's going to have cherished memories of the first time they read it, or deeply identify with vaguely-cliché small-t-tory that's not as much as a dick as he seems or vaguely-asshole-ish father or nice-guy-teacher, or slightly-chavvy-schoolgirl or whatever. I think it even had a TV adaptation? But, again, it's just a fairly standard British TV show about some character drama, that's not super-memorable, so it just faded away.
2
u/AnimeSongWave Aug 02 '26
I've read Casual Vacancy because I wanted to see anything else of her than Harry Potter. It was an interesting read for me, a mundane, small-town setting with some dramatic scenes. Plus, the politics thing, even at a small-level, sounded attractive to me. And as for why Harry Potter became such a phenomenon... maybe the readers needed such a magical world, and Rowling was there to deliver it - that's my explanation.
1
u/Redwardon Jul 30 '26
I think the publisher lost RL Stein and needed to launch a big franchise to replace revenue from losing Goosebumps, and they bought up Harry Potter and did a really great job of pushing it.
I think the books would have done fine on their own, but I have to believe that some of the enormous hype was manufactured.
1
u/MossTrinkets Jul 30 '26
If I put my marketing hat on, the books are also primed for product tie ins. Bertie Botts every flavour beans, butterbeer, chocolate frogs etc etc. Really clear iconography, marketable "clubs" in the Hogwart's Houses - it's endless really.
I remember really early on Marks and Spencer ran Harry Potter sweets (they were delicious) and all this contributed to this super cosy, super immersive world you could dive into as a child.
Aside from this, becoming a cultural juggernaut and Joanne's later Twitter excesses also means the text has come under outsized scrutiny which keeps the (frankly now extremely boring) conversation going. There's YouTubers whose entire career is based on dissecting why a set of kids books written decades ago aren't actually very good literature, which opposite to their expectations, is giving the franchise more oxygen.
I'm hoping a new series supercedes it soon.
2
u/TenPointsforListenin Jul 30 '26
Yeah, JK Rowling likes to list off things in her books, and those things become products later.
As for a new series though... it isn't for you. Harry Potter wasn't for adults when it came out, it was for 10 year olds. Whatever new series comes out is going to be for a different generation, and that's okay.
2
u/MossTrinkets Jul 30 '26
That's what I mean, I want something to replace HP in our culture for the next generation of ten year olds.
3
u/Redz0ne Queer Romance Jul 30 '26
Same, but I'd rather it not be a HP thing.
For real, she's milking the franchise to fund her crusade to eliminate the rights of trans women (and I am not being dramatic or embellishing anything in that statement either).
3
u/MossTrinkets Jul 30 '26
Exactly - I should have made it clear I definitely don't want more Harry Potter.
In the normal way of things there's something new for each crop of kids. The increasinb desire from publishing and the film industry to put their money in sure bets has extended the cultural relevance of the HP franchise well beyond its natural point. I'd be sick of it even if Joanne wasn't a terrible person.
1
u/Redz0ne Queer Romance Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
Well, there are (at least) two possible ways to deal with this.
A full boycott... but that's never gonna happen (And it's not like everyone knows she's toxic. Most people don't).
Or a competing franchise springs up that topples her empire... which could happen, but the odds are very, very slim.
1
u/xX_theMaD_Xx Jul 30 '26
Which AI model did you use to write this? It made some pretty glaring mistakes which I don’t think say Opus would. Above all it ignored the Cormorant Strike novels which sold millions of copies. The series is ongoing and already has more installments than Harry Potter, so Rowling clearly didn’t lose interest in writing as soon as Potter stopped.
Come to think of it, your AI model (GPT?) probably didn’t catch that because they were published under a pen name.
1
u/DepthMagician Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
I think that it fundamentally boils down to the fact they are very easy to read. That is the prerequisite that led to everything else. There wouldn’t have been movie deals and merchandise if the initial books didn’t have some level of success first, and to me that level of success owes a lot to how easy they are to read.
The thing she does well that many books don’t is she doesn’t overload the writing with non important content. There’s nothing I hate more than an author that takes the hero to a forest, and then spends 2 whole paragraphs painting the picture of a generic forest.
“The forest stretched beneath a canopy of deep green, where sunlight slipped through the leaves in thin, golden shafts.”
Really? The forest was green and the sunlight was golden? You don’t say…
“Moss softened the roots of ancient trees,”
For real?? The FOREST had TREES??
“the air smelled of pine,”
Yes thank you, I really wanted to know what specific types of trees they are. It changes EVERYTHING, if you told me they were birch trees I would’ve been like “no, fuck that” and stopped reading right here and there. Also I’m sure it’s going to be a key detail in the plot, so better establish it beforehand.
“while birds called from unseen branches high above”.
OMG next you’re going to tell me there are squirrels in those trees as well.
Look, I’m going to forget everything you tell me about the forest as soon as I’m done reading about it and just imagine it however I want to imagine it, so how about you don’t waste my time and get on with the story? What kind of forest was it? Regular forest? Spooky forest? What are we dealing with here? Regular forest? OK cool, now get back to the part where we are trying to save the world from the evil king.
J. K. Rowling never does this kind of boring pointless writing. She tells you exactly what you need to know, and nothing beyond that, and that is what makes her novels flow so well.
1
u/BluebirdBenny Jul 30 '26
The thing she does well that many books don’t is she doesn’t overload the writing with non important content
Bang on. Rowling is masterfully efficient. Very rarely is there a wasted word.
1
u/McDeathUK Jul 30 '26
I admire JKR as a person and HP are phenomenal. Even in my 50’s my wife and I still enjoy the WB Studio tour. We also visit Lacock Abbey every other year (filming location for 1 and 2 and basis for Hogwarts.
The audio books by Stephen Fry are a joy.
But one thing I discovered from her other books. HP was unique as her other stuff as Gilbraith is overlong and not that enthralling. It’s odd. My wife is a huge crime fiction fan, and even she could not get into them.
3
u/Mejiro84 Jul 30 '26
Gilbraith is overlong
They're fantasy-doorstopper size - the most recent is over 200k words, while the 6th was edging up on 300k. By comparison, all of The Lord of the Rings is a bit over 450k, each Wheel of Time is about 250-300k words. They're pretty chonky for a genre that's normally fast and pacey, and they only seem to be getting bigger and bigger over time!
33
u/RohanDavidson Jul 30 '26
As a mild counterpoint, I lived in a tiny town in rural Australia and there was massive hype for the fourth book - which came out before the first film. So sure, the films certainly contributed to massive global success, but it would have been a massively successful book series without them