Is the 'Harry Potter' series overrated?

I wouldn't say it's completely overrated, it is a genuinely good story in my opinion, and I generally hate YA fiction (there is a LOT of bad shlock there). Granted, I also grew up with it. For what it is, it's really great, and Rowling does a good job with putting small details in there that actually do matter to the plot later in the story and she makes some really charming characters (I LOVE Luna). She does it much better in The Cuckoo's Calling, though she has had experience to make it better. That said, yes, there are better books out there (one of my favorite YA fiction series is Escape From Furnace). For a book that was written by someone who had no experience in writing, it really is good. Harry Potter was up there with Animorphs and Dracula when I was younger. Honestly, I like Potter better than anything Tolkien wrote (I can't stand Tolkien).

 

Oh man, I used to read the crap out of Animorphs and Goosebumps when I was in grade school. I'd skip recess to stay inside the classroom to read.

 

^Then you get older and realize that at several points, Jake is trying literally hold his own intestines in.

 

I've never read the complete series and from the very onset, disliked it. It may have more to do with teenage rebellion and my general dislike of fantasy fiction, but in any case, I was not a part of the throng of people throwing themselves at HP. I only read one book from the series (The Goblet of Fire) because my friend, an avid fan of HP, insisted I had no right to dislike a series without having read a book from it. Arguably, the read was enjoyable; the characters were warm, interesting and engaging, the story arcs were exciting and at times, unexpected. This is, of course, nearly 5-6 years ago--and even so, I deduced at the time that it deserved an 8.0/10, not for its storyline but its ability to draw in the reader. I could see why it had a passionate following, with its warm and creative characters, and a friendly, storyteller's tone. I wouldn't debate its literary value because really, it was written for children and teenagers, and to expect it to mirror Shakespearean finesse is simply naive.

As an adult, I find more faults with it now, and perhaps the most pressing is the evil predilection of Slytherin and the hero prophecy for Gryffindor--alright, I know, at some point Draco Malfoy realized he wasn't all bad, but from the movies it seemed more of a oh-snap-Harry-Potter-is-winning-let's-join-him than genuine redemption. It's almost as if the author was screaming that once a Slytherin, always a Slytherin or whatever. I would compare the storyline to that of Avatar: The Last Airbender at this point--while that is a whole commentary in itself, Zuko's redemption, from being the core villian in the first season, to his metamorphosis in the second season, only to amount to betrayal...and eventual, true, redemption--was perhaps the most creative and finely executed plot line of the show. When I compare Draco's feeble quality, it's no match.

I also agree with some of the earlier posters (@Lemex), like, wizards seem to be awful lot unproductive in every dimension of life other than magic (which too, is debatable). They seem to have added nothing to culture and heritage, and while I somehow would like to agree that muggles should not learn about wizards, I'm not sure how that cliched rule helps anyone. At all. And is really Harry so clueless about the magical world somewhere till midway of the series? Hopeless much?

 

I honestly thought it was stirred up that way to boost the reading. A lot of books are like that, and it should be said that she did help encourage children to read, which is always a good thing.

I agree 100%. If the creators of Avatar were writing this book, Draco would've started his redemption arc in the fifth book, and after a series of slip-ups, Draco's a full-blown hero by the seventh. But nope, he, like all Slytherins, are spineless cowards who run to the winning side at the last minute. Because, y'know, ambitious people are evil, spineless cowards. There was so much that could've been done for Draco's character, and she blew it.

I agree with everything here but the last sentence. The reason is two-fold:

(1) For the first half of the series, Harry served as a link between the reader and the universe. His cluelessness about the wizarding world enabled the readers to learn more about it from his eyes; helps them to not feel so alone when everyone else is all, "How can you bloody not know about Askaban, you mental imp?" Point is, if he doesn't know, we don't know, and we expect him to ask about it. If he knew about it, we would learn either through his narration, his thoughts, or through his dialogue with other characters.

(2) He spent 11 years living in the closet of his abusive aunt and uncle, then before he knows it, he's thrown into this new, strange world he's never seen before, a world that is different than the world he had left. Of course he's going to be clueless and naïve; I doubt Aunt Petunia ever sat him down and said, "Now, Harry, before you go to Hogwarts in a few years, I feel it's time I teach you a few things about that place. Here, I've made some spreadsheets for us to go over so it won't be such a huge shock for you. <to herself> I hope I got this right, Lily..." I don't fault Harry for not knowing the basic facts about a world he was never part of for the first decade of his life, a world his aunt and uncle made damned sure he never knew about.

 

Good point about ambition over there. I feel media and literature does a bang-up job of painting ambition as a monstrous force, even though, really, is it that simple?

Would that be so bad though, learning it through his recollections and thoughts? In a YA book, I suppose that's not the most engaging plot device, but it would definitely be more believable and give more depth to Harry Potter, who seems to have absolutely no idea what the gobbledygook is going on and yet, he's the chosen miracle-maker. I feel a more balanced approach to intimate the reader with the magical world would've been wiser; instead of making one feel it's a remake of Dora the Explorer at points. XD

Your point is most valid; no one expects him to know much of anything in the very start anyhow, perhaps well into the second book. Which brings me to another feature I was a bit confused about (seeing I didn't actually read the whole series)--Hermoine was muggle-born, so I'm presuming her parents had no knowledge of the wizarding world until the owl came in--I suppose she reviewed everything pertinent before coming to Hogwarts the first time, but even so, she is creepily knowledgeable. I guess that's more nitpicking than a plot loophole, but thought I'd just say it.

 

It's basically stated that Hermione read anything she could get her hands on when she first entered the wizarding world.