Reasons why I hate Harry Potter

[muldoonthief]

@Thudlow_Boink

Here’s my take on that:

True plot holes, inconsistencies, things that don’t make sense, etc. are weaknesses in any book (or movie), whether it’s for children or adults. They may not be fatal weaknesses if the book has enough else going for it, but they are weaknesses.

But an author isn’t obligated to explain everything in detail. If there exist, or could exist, reasonable explanations for the things that don’t seem to make sense, resolutions to plot holes, it’s not (or at least not always) a weakness if the author leaves out that background in the interest of simplicity, even if that annoys some readers who want to analyze and understand everything. This isn’t entirely a children’s-vs-adults’ issue, but simplicity is a particular virtue in works for children.

Childrens books will also empower child characters way beyond what’s possible in real life, and that’s not a flaw either IMHO. For example, the fight at the end of book 5 in the Ministry of Magic between Harry and a few members of Dumbledore’s army, vs. an equivalent number of Death Eaters. Sure, Harry’s the central character and the Chosen One and the Boy Who Lived and all that, so you expect him to be able to defeat experienced and ruthless adult Death Eaters. But everyone else? After a few months of secret training, they’re able to fight on equal footing against the Death Eaters who want to kill them? What’s the point of 7 years of DaDA at Hogwarts, if a few sessions with Harry is all it takes?

[Sir_T-Cups]

@TroutMan

I could almost get behind behind you on this, except for carrying those sticks between your legs everywhere. Come on, man.

Anecdote tangent: for the tournament described in the linked article, some out-of-town teams were looking for local people to host them, and one posted on the board of the ultimate frisbee league I play in. They were subject to some (mostly) good-natured ribbing. And one person commented, “finally a group of athletes that even ultimate players can heckle.”

Yeah the sticks are obviously the worst part. Another rule that I didn’t mention is that you can’t just grab someones broom from under them, but you often “fall off of it” when you’re in a scrum or diving for the ball anyway.

The worst part is that when we would practice we would do it with PVC pipe since it’s easier/more affordable, but during matches we used legit-looking brooms. The pipe is an even weight all around, so you just run and be done with it. However, when you played with the broom it was heavier in the back where the bristles were, so it threw off your rhythm. Plus, I would constantly kick it when I ran.

@muldoonthief

How did you guys handle the Snitch/Seeker situation? Is what’s described in the article above standard or typical - Snitch is hanging from a guy’s shorts, doesn’t even appear for 18 minutes, and catching it is only worth 30, not 150?

The snitch is a volunteer (usually from another team) and at the beginning of the match he runs wherever the hell he wants to. We would travel to other college’s campus’ so he would run into a building, or (literally) climb a tree. Or, if he’s supplied by the home-team’s college (which was often the case) the asshole would jump on a bike and go god-knows-where. The seekers run all around campus to find him (they usually don’t) and after the 20 or so minutes he comes back on the field.

They do this for a couple reasons. 1. The game would go on for friggen ever if the snitch didn’t come back. and 2. Because it tells the rest of the people on the team that they need to either step it up, or stall for the win.

As for the scoring, it would be unheard of/impossible for a team to score enough points through the hoops to have the snitch be worth that much. In order to make the came more competitive, they have the snitch be worth only 30, because that might push you over the edge to win. Catching him still ends the game as-per the story.

[G0sp3l]

@muldoonthief

Childrens books will also empower child characters way beyond what’s possible in real life, and that’s not a flaw either IMHO. For example, the fight at the end of book 5 in the Ministry of Magic between Harry and a few members of Dumbledore’s army, vs. an equivalent number of Death Eaters. Sure, Harry’s the central character and the Chosen One and the Boy Who Lived and all that, so you expect him to be able to defeat experienced and ruthless adult Death Eaters. But everyone else? After a few months of secret training, they’re able to fight on equal footing against the Death Eaters who want to kill them? What’s the point of 7 years of DaDA at Hogwarts, if a few sessions with Harry is all it takes?

I’m an adult fan of the books. Normally I hate the kids know better than adults tropes but regarding the fight at the ministry I think JKR did a good job. Consider, during Harry’s tenure at Hogwart’s DADA classes were either a joke or theory. Only Mad-Eye/Crouch and Dumbledore’s Army gave them anything practical. Also, the kids got their asses kicked. The kids were getting lucky, the Death-Eaters didn’t take them as a real threat and weren’t trying to kill them. And, IIRC, only Bellatrix was a competent witch. The rest were the magical equivalents of brutes and bullies.