>mfw /lit/ is STILL salty that Harry Potter is one of the

>>9691793

Just because of the movies. If it weren't for the movies the series would be forgotten and buried.

>>9691796
but the movies became successful based on the popularity of the books

>>9691796
How does it feel to be so underage?

>>9691793

How do you feel about it, oh saltless one?

>>9692069

I remember when the first Harry Potter book came out and it was gaining traction, it wasn't a household name the way it is now but it was getting there, movies only solidified it and brought in the awful fanbase it has now.

I hate her with every fiber of my being, but I'll admit JK Rowling is one fine ass older lady

>>9692097
>first book in the series isn't as popular as when there is a whole series

wow how'd you figure out that one

>>9692057

No, the success of the series in general has everything to do with timing. As familial relations fell and more parents dumped their kids in front of a TV or the internet, I'd venture to say kids found solace in escaping reality to a world so immersive as that of Hogwarts and Harry Potter. Herein lies the problem with OP's post - I'm not mad about it's being successful, I'm mad why it's successful.

>>9692121
Source or proof? Otherwise you're just gesticulating theories wildly.

>>9692130

>t. doesn't leave the house

There is no reason to hate Potter outside of Rowling being terrible. Anything else reads like sour grapes from people who got bullied by Potterheads desu. If you didn't have at least a bit of fun reading those books then I dunno about you.

>>9692148
Your theory isn't that convincing desu. Not that anon btw

>>9692148
You are a big fan of the Cum Hoc fallacy, aren't you?

>>9692111

It was still popular due to word of mouth but not popular, popular.

The tumblrinas really are butthurt we don't care about their fantasy series, aren't they?

>>9692333
Can you provide proof?

>>9692333
>>9692121
>>9692097
>>9691796
After asking for proof which no one can provide, I looked it up myself and you can all shut the fuck up.

>July 8, 2000: The fourth book, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, is published in both the U.K. and the U.S. with a record-setting combined first printing of more than five million copies. It's the first time the books are released at the same time in both countries, and on a Saturday, so children can get the 734-page book and devour it without skipping school.

The first movie came out in 2001 so movies weren't a factor yet.

>>9692359
Doesn't matter, the books wouldn't be so huge if it weren't for the movies. Average people don't care about books so the only way for them to care about books is if they watch the movies first. Just the simple truth, brah. Harry Potter became a le I'm nerdy XD thing among normalfags thanks to the movies

>>9692381
You are officially retarded. That isn't what the argument is. No one is arguing that the movies did not help its popularity, they're saying the movies are what made it popular in the first place, which is factually incorrect.

Look past your hate boner and see objective facts, you morons.

>>9692388
It still doesn't change the fact it became popular because it's watered down trash meant for children, dummy.

>>9692393
Non sequitur

It was a creative tale, its not a masterpiece of literature but it is what it is.

>>9692381
There were lines at every major bookstore across the United States when each Potter book got released (at midnight). I'm not the anon you're arguing with but you're engaging in some unconvincing revisionist history.

>>9691793
Who?

File: 1420583820678.gif (66KB, 699x800px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 699x800px

It was successful because it was pushed on kids hard

I remember being in primary school when the first film come out and we had a school trip to go see. Since when do schools have a fucking school trip to go watch a film at the cinema?

>>9692810
Again with the revisionist history. It was popular and successful before the films.

>>9692815
Yes, it was popular, but nowhere near the phenomenon it became, there is a difference

>>9692832
okay? no one is arguing that. You guys have a problem with following an argument or claim.

Claim: It was successful because it was pushed on kids hard.
Evidence: Had a field trip to a film.

Your claim is false, as it was already successful before the films, thus the films being pushed on kids was not the reason for its success.

No one is arguing that the movies did not make it more popular, so why does this keep being brought up? We all understand that.

>>9691796

Book fairs all shilled HP pretty hard when it came out, plus it won a shit tonne of childrens book awards before it was even released to the public. there was a huge market for HP because the previous generation of scholastic titles were drying up (goosebumps, animoirphs etc)

Okay. Let me settle this once and for all.
Yes, HP is wildly successful.
Yes, it was wildly successful before the movies.
Yes, the movies helped catapult HP's fame to another level.

EVERYTHING OP says is true. However. Success does not equate to good. HP is not good.

If anything, its success should inculcate misanthropy for the masses.

Why did it become famous? Different question, for a different time.

>>9692884
Thank you this is exactly what I've been saying the whole fucking time with no one listening, just plugging their ears to believe this weird narrative that they've thought up.

File: fdf.png (38KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 900x900px

>>9692912
>>9692884

Hitler was a big guy.

I am only salty when it directly interferes with my life. My roommates watch HP marathons every weekend on whatever shitty channel plays them. I am not exaggerating when I say they've seen each movie 20 times.

I'm all for letting people enjoy what they want, but when my Facebook feed gets clogged up with HP memes and nostalgia, not to mention the videos that play automatically without me clicking on them they way they do on Facebook, I want to throw my laptop into the ocean.

>>9692854

Jesus Christ, this. Were any of you even in elementary school in the late 90s/early 2000s?

>>9692982
No they're still in it now apparently

>>9692967
UPDATE: THEY'RE WATCHING IT RIGHT FUCKING NOW

For proof, it's on a channel called Freeform. Whatever the hell that is

File: 1498369190565.png (1MB, 1007x1294px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1007x1294px

>>9692985
I don't understand how people can watch/read the same story over and over again. My sister even prides herself in knowing useless trivia about Harry Potter.

>>9692982

Last poll put the average age of this board around 21.

>>9692985
Grab a knife from the kitchen. I'll tell you what to do afterwards.

>>9692985
Free form is what abc family turned into after they became less family and more gaybc

>>9692990
Agreed. Though I'm not innocent of that myself. I used to watch Seinfeld ALL of the time. I can quote too many funny lines, know exactly what's going to happen, etc. Weening myself off of it which is nice, as the whole postmodern-cynical-no-character-development is, in the end, pointless no matter how funny.

What do y'all think about comedy in that sense? Where it is still entertaining even if watching it over and over. I would say there is a middle ground, where you can watch it casually while eating or relaxing, but to continually repeat the postmodern "Generation Me" entertainment does nothing for the self

mmm... no, sweetie, it just sucks.

>>9692990
HP might be that many pages but the font is a different size you know.

>>9692992
Okay I'm holding sharpest one. What do?

>>9691793
I love how the books are bout a non special bullied boy who learns to be stronger and face life without the need of turning into a special snowflake. It made me feel better about myself and realise I don't need to be special neither my family to love myself.

>>9692990
Schopenhauer truly was a fucking retard
How am I supposed to know a book is bad if I don't read it?

>>9691793
>franchise
That sums it all up.

>>9692990

My old roommate watched The Office on repeat for several years. People forget even normies can be autistic.

File: 1479434760732.jpg (18KB, 583x328px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 583x328px

Half of the series's success can be attributed to the charming English atmosphere, architecture and so on...

Despite what rowling says about her own series, Harry Potter is deeply influenced and supported by elements of traditional Western (English) culture. Not that the series is good as a result of that ; it's bad even by the standard of children books.

It's however ironic that Rowling is backpedaling and going against precisely what made her books a worldwide success by cucking herself with identity politics (not that she wasn't cucked before).

REALLY makes you think

File: IMG_2678.png (54KB, 253x189px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 253x189px

>>9691793
The owl is dead. Bury it. Consider this mercy.

>>9691793
https://youtu.be/W9S5-EB8dR8