Harry potter is a mary sue

harry potter is a mary sue

prove me wrong. you cant

>makes quddich team with no training
>saves the castle with no magical experience
>only 10 years old

Nobody used that term until the new star wars.

Surely he's a Gary stu

this is why pic related is a better protagonist, also because she's easier on the eyes

I could never stand the movies. Who the fuck wants to go to a school where students get killed and nobody seems to give a shit?

>Incapacitates multiple aurors with a yoyo pterodactyl

doesn't this happen everyday in america?

He is not even that of a good character to be a mary sue in one of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. 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 Atlas Shrugged 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 Christopher Nolan.

You're right, Harry Potter is a mary sue. And in one of the dullest franchises in history. 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.

My god they're breeding

But nobody had died in the school for 50 years and even that was Voldemort's doing.

do you think he's had sex with it?

Well said my friend, in a misguided money grab, J.K Rowling turned a good concept into a murky 3D fest. Each film is 90-130 minutes of unfocused, supernatural-themed sludge... The films are a dreary slog to its easy-to-guess twist. I can't believe they thought it was a good idea that the story had to be stretched out and peppered with a zillion tricks.

As a workout for the brain, reading (or being read) Harry Potter is an activity marginally less testing than watching Neighbours. And that, at least, is vaguely about real life. These are one-dimensional children’s books, Disney cartoons written in words, no more.

We are a country with dramatically declining standards of literacy, increasingly dragged down to the lowest common denominator by the purveyors of all forms of mindless mass entertainment. The success of the Potter books is just another dispiriting proof of the Murdoch-led dumbing down of all our lives, or what Hensher called ‘the infantilisation of adult culture’.

In fact, the failure of author J.K. Rowling’s world is that it is pure cotton candy. Her books are entertaining but the lessons are shallow. Rare lines such as, ‘It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities,’ — are shoehorned painfully into the dialogue. Besides, the chief motivation for most characters in the books, including Harry, appears to be revenge, whether it’s getting back at Lord Voldemort or the school bully. Rowling's prose style, heavy on cliche, makes no demands upon her readers. In an arbitrarily chosen single page–page 4–of the first Harry Potter book, I count seven cliches, all of the ‘stretch his legs’ variety.

Reminder Ron is a fucking lying cunt and a traitor.

It's worse than that, he's poor as well.

>Harry Potter and Insert Any Mysterius Plot Tag

Of course we'd expect anything from him because he is the protagonist of the WHOLE series, we know he defeated the most powerfull evil sorcerer in the world, got parents who were talented wizards and stuff

>saves the castle with no magical experience
>only 10 years old
Fucking what? He doesn't even get to Hogwarts until he's 11 and he never "saves the castle."

ellen degeneres won an oscar?

He would be if you listed his achievements

On the other hand he is basically fucking retarded, and needs other people to constantly save him.

I mean for fucks sake the only reason he "beat" Quirrell was because mummy happene dto put some wierd love magic curse on his hands????
he beat the Basilisk becuase a phoenix randomly knew to fly to where he was to give him a sword, and then blinded the basilisk for him
I don't think he did anything in 3
he was totally useless in 4
he was useless in 5. Technically he fucked everything up
Gandalf did everything in 6
and 7 was just him sitting in a tent waiting for Hermione to do everything

>childrens story is childlike

ok cool bro

Harry Potter is a fucking faggot. This fucking cuck COULD have fucked the ever loving shit out of that chink but this faggot retard went for the fucking potato nigger. God what a piece of shit.

>harry is good at quiditch!
>but why?
>because his father was a great player too of course :^)

women writing sports