Has anyone here read ALL of Harry Potter? What would you rate it?

I read it as a teen. It was pretty entertaining and I understand why it was so successful.

Tried re-reading it a few years back and I couldn't help but notice the marxist/social justice messages people complained about on its release. Rowling's recent antics, 'Hermione is black now!', merely serve to confirm that.

Nothing wrong with a philosophical novel but when you're preaching a philosophy directly responsible for the deaths of over a hundred million people since its inception, to children, I must question your moral standing.

Amen

I read It all when I was 7, except for the last one which I never read because I outgrew it by age 9.
I would rate it a 7 or 8 out of 10 back then. Now? 6 as a childrens book, 0 as adult literature. Its written badly, and meant for kids, but tumblr adults like it for some reason

I must have missed the part where the wizards demanded that the workers seize the means of production.

>Marxism is an exclusively economic theory

It's 2016, user.

I got all 7 books for christmas when i was (i think) 12, happily tore through the first 6 then got bored halfway through Deathly Hallows. year or two later I tried again and the same thing happened. haven't made a serious attempt to get through them since, but I think I'll get Deathly Hallows more now so maybe i'll try again soon
>What would you rate it?
7/10. some parts are magnificent and some parts are trash that includes the community, but overall it's cool

I wish I could remember anything at all about the Dursley's beyond them being mean to Harry to make a joke about them being bourgeois.

The wizarding world™ is post-scarcity. The means of production has already been seized yet poverty is still romanticised. Marxism doesn't end with the seizure of the means of production.

Do Marxists romanticize poverty? lol

>le cultural marxism meme

Call it neoliberal identity politics

1. cool childrens book

2. cool childrens book

3. cool childrens book, this is where it started transitioning into YA, but its still great, plus professor Lupin

4. YA, the whole tournament thing was meh and Voldemort´s plan was stupid

5. YA, romance starts to creep in, my biggest complaint is margaret tatcher, I fucking hate that character, Sirius never 4get

6. YA. shit goes down, Dumbledore never 5get

7. YA, Fred and Lupin never 4get

>Do Marxists romanticize poverty?

Of course. Marxist writings are littered with tales of oppression of the pure and faithful poor by the evil and incompetent rich. The Dursleys are a prime example of this.

>oppression of the pure and faithful poor by the evil and incompetent rich. The Dursleys are a prime example of this.
The Dursleys were staunchly lower middle class, the Potters were rich af.

Which works?

this tbqh
Modern "marxists" believe in a system where everything is shared and everybody is happy, realistic marxists would use a system as outlined here:
youtube.com/watch?v=DiG0LomEptE

Handing property and means of production to the government has nothing to do with attacking strength and loving weakness, the core of SJW and neoliberal ideologies, as well as the core of slave morality.
Under marxism, the SJWs who did not work would be forced to work, their gender studies degrees would be recycled into paper upon which schoolbooks would be made, to be handed to government paid teachers, to give to future government paid kids. The SJWs would go off to the mine/gulag/farm, and would whine and cry to have capitalism back.
So no, cultural marxism has nothing to do with marxism.

I remember my teacher in FUCKING 12th GRADE played this game in which we answered questions and she passed out beads to the the winners, and called it capitalism, then distributed the beads evenly and called it communism, and then explained why it would never work because in a communist country garbagemen and surgeons were paid the same amount. She should have been gulaged for being a shit teacher and not reading anything about the subjects she taught.
>tldr;
People hate or love communism for the wrong reasons. Most people dont even know what it is.

Indeed. Yet Harry Potter is presented as being proletarian while the Dursleys, as the bourgeoisie, oppress him. The romanticization of the Weaslys' poverty is also apparent when Harry first visits them.

British dole dependants have been conditioned to hate the middle class. It's no surprise that the first book's publication coincides with Labour (a Brisith socialist party) coming into power.

>I remember my teacher in FUCKING 12th GRADE played this game in which we answered questions and she passed out beads to the the winners, and called it capitalism, then distributed the beads evenly and called it communism, and then explained why it would never work because in a communist country garbagemen and surgeons were paid the same amount.

She's right though.

True. Society would break down so much faster without garbage-men than surgeons.

The difference is, of course, that becoming a surgeon requires significantly more innate talent, effort and investment. The current system, as socialized as it is, still sees fit to reward surgeons for this investment. Under communism it would not. Assuming a communist system, which by definition lacks tangible incentive, could be capable of producing surgeons in significant quantity in the first place.

Fuck no. In communism the government gives you a salary based upon the importance of your job, how good a job you do, and how much you had to train to get that job.
Nobody was equal in soviet russia.
It was still a shit place to live though.

Soviet Russia was state capitalism though, right? Riiight?

Tip top kek
Calling Rowling's philosophy "marxist" is glorification. She just stuck together simplistic feel-good messages, while the world was made up instinctively and on the fly (which resulted in a mess). Looking for anything deep in those books is a waste of time.

Oh yeah, when something does not work out, it has to go against my ideology, and if it does work, it is due to my ideology.
Soviet russia failed because it had shit leaders.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
Communism relies on a government angel. Anarcho capitalism on a human angel. Democracy fails anyway.
In the end, fuck it, smoke weed every day, drink like crazy, read good books, and go shoot people in Afghanistan not because you hate them, but because its fun to shoot them.
At first I felt bad for not feeling bad, now I just feel good. I cannot affect government, and government barely affects me.

True. Though her socialist Labourite influence is clear and apparent in the ways I've described.

Though you must admit that it can affect you very badly. At any point the state could permafuck you because of your choice in smoking herb. Or it could introduce mandatory metalworking programs to farmers and kill off half the population. Or it could send its gendarmes into your house and murder you straight up.

yeah. if only we could come up with some sort of system where garbage men are paid enough to live comfortably (since society needs them) but still allow for the more complex and difficult career of Surgeon to pay more. would this system be communism or capitalism?

>unironically thinking Labour is socialist

top fucking kek

>Unironically believing it is not

Evan Blair's Labour was red as fuck when you got right down to it. It was under Blair that more than half of all people were on the public paycheque. It was under Blair/Brown that median public sector pay rose above that of the private sector. It was under Blair/Brown that whole segments of industry were artificially subsidized (siezed) when they failed.

Now the Labour party leader is a literal communist the likes of which Sanders victims can only dream of as they drift off to the sound of the Internationale on repeat.

Let us not forget that Rowling was writing these books before New Labour™ was even a thing. Writing them as she and her parents sat suckling on the government's teat.

Well if their wages were determined by the market value of their labour (i.e. through supply and demand) then it would be capitalism. If their wages were determined by some dude in a far away government office it would be communism.

the conflation of marxism with identity politics is LITERALLY a corporate elite ploy to keep disillusioned white males away from marx. congrats on being ideologically cucked by the very jews you rail against.

>laments identity politics
>the bad guys are not the ruling class, but 'the Jews'

wew

i was merely using the vernacular of /pol/ to make a point but i guess i should have used scare quotes

They suck. And I mean that even as literature for children. It just came out at the right time and did that class system with the houses. Literally every book did that since and they were successful as fuck too.

I read them all like 10 years ago and i honestly can't remember a thing that happens book 5 onwards. not going to bother re reading though

J.K. Rowling really knows her audience. Kids love roleplaying / having favorites (school houses, wand)
It's the perfect YA book. Deals with friends, bullies, home life, school
above all it comes off as completely genuine and warm

it's the same person you dipshit

I remember when Veeky Forums wasn't this stupid. I mean it was always stupid, but god damn. What the fuck happened.

/pol/ is the new /b/. Newfriends discover Veeky Forums through /pol/ and spread their ideology once they venture out to the other boards.

That's a good thing.

>responding to trips
are you stupid?

>blindly hating our glorious tripfriends
are you a blatant newfriend trying to consolidate his in-group status?

put you're trip back on you worthless attention seeker. no one values your shitposts at all

What's happening is part of a phenomenon I wrote about a couple of years ago when I was asked to comment on Rowling. I went to the Yale University bookstore and bought and read a copy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." I suffered a great deal in the process. The writing was 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.

But when I wrote that in a newspaper, I was denounced. I was told that children would now read only J.K. Rowling, and I was asked whether that wasn't, after all, better than reading nothing at all? If Rowling was what it took to make them pick up a book, wasn't that a good thing?

It is not. "Harry Potter" will not lead our children on to Kipling's "Just So Stories" or his "Jungle Book." It will not lead them to Thurber's "Thirteen Clocks" or Kenneth Grahame's "Wind in the Willows" or Lewis Carroll's "Alice."

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.

Our society and our literature and our culture are being dumbed down, and the causes are very complex. I'm 73 years old. In a lifetime of teaching English, I've seen the study of literature debased. There's very little authentic study of the humanities remaining. My research assistant came to me two years ago saying she'd been in a seminar in which the teacher spent two hours saying that Walt Whitman was a racist. This isn't even good nonsense. It's insufferable.

How would you know eggman talk belongs to /r9k/, hypo crit?

That's because /pol/ was originally made as a containment board for that sort of shit when it used to be on /b/. Now /b/ is mostly porn all day and the occasional 13 year olds shitposting at each other. It's somewhat redundant at this point.

>I'm 73 years old.

Based.

What ever happened to Eggman. He stopped uploading videos

i have
sorcerers stone: C
Chamber of secrets: C
Prizoner of Azkaban: C+
Goblet of fire: B
Order of the Phoenix: B+
Half blood prince: C-
Deathly hollows: F-

I read it for my Marxist literary analysis. I love to compare Harry Potter chapters with the Capital

youtube.com/watch?v=CWQZ-4Wblqg

>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.

Bloomed
The
Fuck
Out

So what could be done to reverse the trend on part of the ordinary individual teacher or student?

wrong
the ranking is as follows:

Azkaban>Goblet>SorcStone>Chamber>OrderofPenis>HalfNiggerPrince>DeathlyHallows

underrated

I'll second this. Doesn't mean it's anywhere near more "adult" novels though.

reread the first book and count how many times she uses the phrase "stretched his legs"

Isn't your fear of marxism a kind of marxism in itself? Marxism makes you believe that jews rule the world (bourgeoisie) and you, the lonely prolitarian can go to /pol/ and unite, to overthrow the jews and in the midst of revolution lay foundation for a state.

>it's all a spook

if you search the kindle or whatever it's like once. Bloom made it all up. He's full of shit.

This.

Most people who oppose cultural marxism are so deluded and unknowing of its meaning, that they themselves act on it.

The biggest cultural marxists are the right-wings.

Oh God, please fuck off, Tory.

Hey I remember that post from the last Harry Potter thread we had

I read them all except book 7, it always drives girls insane

I combed through a pdf of sorceror's stone and could only find one instance where Rowling used "stretched his legs" to represent a character walking.

book 3 is good

book 1 is eh

book 5 have some nice moments but most of it is eh

whole series is eh but really good if you want to make your 8 year old child start reading.

then you give him tolkien at 11 and only afterward you can start ramming philoshit into him and he'll take it like a good goy.

hell, he may even appreciate it, thing that you where unable to do so your whole life and that brought you into this pit of misery that is Veeky Forums

I tried reading the first one when it came out and it was horrible.

This was a bait thread, why did you guys reply? You think anyone gives a fuck about your opinion on the Harry Potter series? Ffs

Right.
>when something is against my ideology it is against my ideology
What a revelation.

Everything is bait user.

I read them all when I was young and reread them all recently.

I thought 1 and 3 were very charming, 4 and 5 were passable, and the rest were incredibly forgettable.