What am I in for?

A children's book which you would have done well to enjoy as a child.

The books mature as Harry does, though. I'd actually recommend starting with the 3rd book if you're an oldfag.

Listen to the pot tell the kettle it's taking the books too seriously.

TRIPS O' TRUTH

But
>Book 8
wut?

Name one bad thing about the 5th book. Too long for you?

I didn't like the 7th book because I couldn't stomach Hermione saying the word 'fart'.

>book 8

Attached: file.png (728x1038, 1.38M)

She beats you half to death with dialogue then kills you with anticlimax

"faht"

It suffers from pretty much all of the problems that the books in the HP series normally have. Bland and uninteresting characters, plot holes, mediocre writing being the ones worth mentioning.

I kind of liked the early books as a kid, but I recently tried to re-read the series, and holy mom's old pony was it fucking bad. I quit at chamber of secrets, because it was too embarrassing. When you really think about it, nothing about the plot makes any sense and can't possibly originate from the mind of a functional adult

Kek

"Deh!"

To read the phrase
>stretched his legs
more times than you can count.

chlidren should only read nonfiction. That way they can slowly re-discover the soul as they grow older instead of losing it gradually to materialism like most adults.

Attached: image.jpg (229x220, 38K)

Funny, as a child my dad made me read a dictionary. each evening he'd come from work and id have to report to him the new words ive learned

>chlidren should only read nonfiction
I wouldn't wish such a stipulation on my worst enemy.

book 8 is literally fanfiction which is why it sucks so bad. it wasn't written by rowling

Good stuff but i was dissaointed by the last book. The conclusion i suppose.

Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

a-at least the books were good though

"No!" The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though

"Deh!" The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

>Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.
Sounds like I'm reading an Amazon review.

Attached: c9b.jpg (720x522, 32K)

>I didn't like the 7th book because I couldn't stomach Hermione saying the word 'fart'.
would you rather her have growled BRAAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPP instead

Yes

There's a Chinese character in the third book whose name is Cho Chang

That should tell you about all you need to know

>chinese person with chinese name
wat the fuk

On the back of an envelope