was a reason ever offered as to why one of the most important

It's the law.

I don't know but stick around for a slightly edited stale pasta

>>84272573

does muggle law always apply to the wizarding world?!

sorry... Grown ass man trying to get into harry potter here

Petunia promised, and the promise protected the house.

My god, isn't there a better representation of the physical monstruosity of the eternal anglo than OPs pic?

>>84272548
so the cunt who wrote that shit could show her disdain for middle class people

In the books the reason given is that there's power in blood relation and the fact that Harry's mother sacrificed herself meant that harry got some dumb magical defence by living with his aunt

>>84272601

Idk man, I'm american and think left is hot, right seems like a decent enough guy.

Middle is the only one I don't care for

>>84272603

she hersef was middle to lower class when she wrote it you goof.

she jotted down ideas on the napkins she waited tables at

>voldemort killed thousands of people and probably thousands of families
>nobody except harry has a magical super shield that saves them

based fucking rowling

>>84272592
Wizarding world has similar rules for what to do with an orphan in regards to giving him over to his closest able relatives because that's a pretty logical law.

>>84272548
Rule 7 of the community college Roald Dahl writing course: "In order to engender empathy as quickly as possible the young hero must initially be placed into dysfunctional or unfair circumstances so we start to root for their escape."

>>84272548
He was protected from any death eaters still at large.
Why he didn't get moved when he was safe and they found out what utter cunts they were is a different question

>>84272718

lul


>>84272694

fair enough. But you'd think an exception would be made.

OP You also forget:

Harry's parents weren't all that remarkable. the wicards didn't give a fuck about him

>>84272799
So why did Voldemort Horcrux Harry? I've never been clear on that part, how can that be an accidental action?

>>84272686
But his momma loved him :^)

>>84272727
Pretty sure it was in the books. Dumbledore said something like he didn't want Harry to grow up thinking of himself as someone special. And it worked.

Was a reason ever offered as to why so many young wizards suddenly discovered hairspray, a muggle invention, between movies 2 and 3?

>>84272946
it also could be a bit like Percy Jackson where they use the most muggle like people to keep Harry safe from the dangerous of the wizarding world

>>84272991
proofpic please

>>84272686
>nobody else had anyone who tried to save them because they loved him/her

Yea, that doesnt sound very likely. J.K.Hackling should KHS

>>84272671
Several middle to lower class people who hate people in the same class as them and think of themselves as fit for higher classes

>>84273148

it's right in her name : Just Kidding Rowling

'just kidding, I'm rowling on the floor laughing with your parent's money'

>>84272799
>Harry's parents weren't all that remarkable.
His dad was immensely popular in school and had a successful career with many, many friends as did his mother who was also the focus of Snape and why he aided Potter.
>the wicards didn't give a fuck about him
He was "The Boy Who Lived", he gained immediate popularity from book 1 that never waned. Malfoy's entire grudge was his celebrity status. You are fucking retarded.

>>84272865
His "mother's love" created a spell that bound Voldemort to Harry. To create a horcrux you have to kill in the first place.

File: 1458650641431.png (36KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 657x527px

>>84273234
>hmm my shit makes no sense
>let's just say that love did it

>>84273267
Pretty much. I can still feel the disappointment I had reading that garbage. Rowling is a hack so it stands to reason that the books would've never gotten a decent ending.

>>84273234
Harry's parents were basically Chad and Stacy.
Fuck them.

Rowling is the biggest fucking hack on the planet

Never has the idea of Death of the author been so prevalent in anyone

>>84273334
Hi, Snape.

File: 492cd9c43c849e4a09561a4a37851672fa05c185bc94366154e029fd19455781.jpg (1MB, 1623x2886px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1623x2886px

>>84272548
Was a reason ever offered as to why one of the most popular movie franchises in history is also one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises? Seriusly, 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 r-right
"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.

>>84273334
>>84273360

Yeah rowling kind of alienated her fanbase by having the popularity exhibition that was James and Lily.

File: 1453656323224.jpg (1MB, 1588x2862px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1588x2862px

>>84272548
Maybe it's because they're in one of the dullest franchises 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 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.

>>84272718
frankly, this.

Less cynical version would sound like "they were the closest relatives"

>>84272548

Was a decent reason ever put forward as to why this family had to take in a child that put them at risk from a genocidal lunatic? Are they wrong in their beliefs when every contact they have had with the magical world led to their son being attacked or mutilated?

>>84273407
Not only late, but having a terrible, lazy intro?
Armond would be ashamed of you.

>>84272617

Which is contradicted in the final book when Harry gives everyone protection because of his "love" for them

>>84272617
this

>>84272718
Hey, I liked Roald Dahl as a kid!

>>84273474

Yeah because they're decent kid books. But anyone of them involving a child has the unfair circumstances. Charlie was dirt poor, Matilda was ignored by her parents and the girl from the BFG as in an orphanage. What was the deal with James again?

>>84273509
James wanted to lick vaginas, which is represented by the peach

You can tell Rowling was poor because all of her characters had kids really really young

File: sunday.jpg (28KB, 600x654px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x654px

FINE DAY SUNDAY
BEST DAY OF THE WEEK IN MY OPINION

>>84273509
Wasn't James forced to live with his aunts and they were an asshole to him like the Dursleys?

>>84273439

lawyer, I presume

Why didn't Voldemort just shoot harry with a gun or hell even just stab him?

>>84273565

eagles over mord0r, you idiot

>>84272671
Middle class leftists hate their parents more than anything and they see the middle, conservative, white class as representing them. So they hate themselves. Champagne socialists.

File: IMG_3162.jpg (26KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 384x384px

>>84273545
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kUNiQfcCdL8

>FIFE!!