Liking Harry Potter does not make you a child or an idiot.

Posted on | by Erik

Today the third installment of the Harry Potter film franchise is released nation wide. Nine tenths of the critics are raving about it- with dissenting views coming from places like “The Arizona Daily Star.” I think that it is now timely to point out to those few remaining people who think that there is something wrong with Harry Potter that they ought to give it a rest.

No, this story is not the most intellectual thing you will ever read or see, you are not going to impress that girl at the coffee shop by reading Harry Potter spine up (but lets face it, you weren’t going to impress her with Wittgenstein either). Since when does entertainment always have to be enlightening?

Harry potter is to literature what Outkast is to music, or Friends is to television.

It is not the most profound thing available, but it is a well-crafted story with interesting characters. It is amusing, lighthearted, with a decent amount of suspense.

What J. K. Rowling is creating is essentially the perfect piece of pop art. Like that silly song that makes you tap your foot subconsciously, these stories suck you in before you realize what has happened.
online pharmacy symbicort best drugstore for you

That said, if you have ever watched reality TV, or watch any situational comedies, get rid of your presence and go see this movie.

17 thoughts on “Liking Harry Potter does not make you a child or an idiot.”

  • Dave says:

    Now, I've never read the books, but I saw the first 2 movies and thought they sucked an ungodly amount of ass. I went to see the third film because my girlfriend loves Harry Potter enough to write a dissertation on it.

    It's fucking awesome. It's just a damn shame they didn't get a halfway-decent director for the other movies, because it's kind of plain where any fault with those lies. So if you didn't like the first 2 films, go see this one anyway. If you don't like it, flame me. That's what the internet's for.

    I'm thinking of modifying my language for the next time I describe this movie, given that I work in the kids department of a bookstore.

  • Erik says:

    They books are good. They are not intellectual by any means, but who ever said that entertainment had to be? Fitzgerald or Hemingway were rock stars of their time, not great thinkers. It was only in retrospect that what was pop entertainment became something to think about.

    Now don't get me wrong. I don't think that 70 years from now Rowling will necessarily be viewed in the same light as Hemingway, but rather that there is nothing wrong with reading something just because you find it entertaining.

    I also am inclined to agree. Despite owning both on DVD, the first two movies were subpar. However, aside from directing problems, the first two stories just weren't as well written as the rest of the series. The third book was where I think J. K. Rowling actually figured out how to write.

  • Dave says:

    It's just a shame Cuaron only stuck around for the one movie. He even managed to make Hermione seem a little more deep than just an insufferable little bitch.

    Have you read His Dark Materials? It's about to adapted into a movie. By the guy who directed the American Pie movies. I vomited blood when I read that.

  • Ed says:

    I have a problem with this statement – "there is nothing wrong with reading something just because you find it entertaining" – inasmuch as one could make this same argument for The Rock's autobiography or 99 cent romance novels. And you will have a very difficult time convincing me that there's nothing wrong with reading those things.

  • Dave says:

    The people that read those sorts of things tend to wear adult nappies, so who are we to judge?

  • Erik says:

    Come on now Ed. It is all about the word entertaining. My point was simply that I don't need to be intellectually stimulated to be entertained. I would not however find "The Rock's" biography entertaining. There is a limit where the idiocy becomes too great. However if you are the sort of person who finds these things to be entertaining…by all means you should be reading it. The point was not that you should like something no matter how stupid it is, but rather if the pop song is well written and catchy listen to it and don't be ashamed you are tapping your foot. The same thing goes for Harry Potter. The stories (at least the later books) are well done.

  • Dave says:

    I'm at a point in my life where I'm exceptionally poor. This resolves itself, at least partly, by my reading of a lot of 'classic literature', most of which can be picked up for about $2. I feel vaguely educated by this, but I'm not particularly enjoying the reading. I wouldn't say I read particularly dumb books for the most part, but just feeling that somehow I've bettered myself, expanded my horizons isn't too satisfying.

    My long and rambling point is that reading for pleasure is fine. I think somehow reading has taken up this holy position in our soceity where it's purpose is to pass on knowledge, and nothing else. Which is a crock of shit, quite frankly.

    It seems that smart kids enjoy Harry Potter, but they're well enough written that adults enjoy them too. I don't think when any of us were younger there was any series of books that was as much a part of the public conciousness as these are. There's a certain temptation to rail against anything popular. But there are enough smart people to make something popular as there are retards to ensure the continued popularity of something like NASCAR.

    There's currently a strange desire to look for the next big thing amongst childrens literature. The fact is, the vast majority of it is of no interest to adults. That Harry Potter is, and on such a level, is indicitive of the quality of the writing. Nothing acheives that sort of level of prominence through luck or marketing. If you want to be pretentious, kids literature such as His Dark Materials can introduce children to Dante or Milton. It may do the same for adults. But at the end of the day, it's still entertaining, even if you read it simply as a story.

  • kat says:

    mr. potter's movies have gone from 2d to 3d with this last one. i really want to live there now…except that the actors are getting the age differentiation of the 90210 cast.

    as for books, it was finishing all the potter books that made me actually read the whole ring trilogy. now i'm plowing through the name of the rose and wonder what sea turtles have to do with the apocalypse. anybody?

  • Kendra says:

    While Pip was a bit of a whiner, he was also a scrappy Victorian kid. Both he and David could probably kick Harry's ass, provided they had eaten their gruel that morning.

  • Liz says:

    Harry has magic, not to mention Hagrid, Dumbledore, and (until quite recently) an alleged serial killer. David has pluck, free internal discourse, and Betsey Trotwood.

    Harry wins, hands down.

  • Sam says:

    But who can take down Ragged Dick? Not only does he have pluck, he also has an honest face and a good work ethic.

    In my world, that beats magic any day.

  • Ed says:

    Alright erik I just saw this film. With three die-hard harry potter fans. And we were all in agreement that it was one of the worst fucking things we've ever seen.

    I'll buy the argument that everyone is entitled to a guilty pleasure of some sort but I'm going to have to seriously question your sanity if you're going to contend that this was, on its own, a good movie.

    I can't immediately think of which specific toy commercials I've seen that have better acting performances than this movie, but they are numerous. There is no merit to this movie that could not also be applied to Spy Kids 2 or any other children's movie that a mentally developed adult would have a hard time sitting through.

  • Janey says:

    In light of the fact that I will actually admit that I enjoy J K Rowling's writings, I agree with Erik. I've read the books and the Prizoner was the best. The movie was the worst. The director sucks and so does the kid who plays Potter. Keep the other 2 kids get rid of the new Dumbledore and get a new director. This is a fantasy for entertainment not a treatise on the occult………………

Comments are closed.