Why did Harry Potter become so popular?

[KindergartenKop]

I'm not a huge fan personally, but I think they're quite well written. I'm not sure they deserve all the hype though. So why did they become so popular?

I remember the books being huge before the films. Dd has started reading them and is obsessed. Has read all within a year and not bothered by the films much.

I don't get it. They get so dark. Although they do have kid humor and the whole magical alternative world that she loves (Still not my thing, but then again i was early 20s when they came out and am even less fantasy orientated now)

The films aren't a patch on the books either - terrible storytelling on the whole, although they look fabulous. They ride on Rowling's coat tails and wouldn't have been nearly so successful if the books hadn't already got a legion of fans.

@TheLeadbetterLife

J K Rowling may not write the best prose, but she is absolutely brilliant at telling thrilling, page turning stories. She also writes characters extremely well. You can instantly see and hear everyone, they leap off the page and you end up really caring what happens to them. She also expresses emotions in a really truthful, relatable way.

Many people can write "better" than she can, in one sense, but few have the gifts she has that make people want to keep reading.

Yes, this! Sums them up perfectly

It did remind me of Enid Blyton fantasy stories mixed with the boarding school ones.

@CareerConcerns1999

Because they got picked up and turned into a movie. The books were low key before the movie. Movie one dropped and boom suddenly everyone wanted to read the books.

There was a long long gap between book 4 and 5, and then subsequent ones. This also creates a hype.

That isn't true. The books were huge. I was working as a bookseller in the early days of HP and whilst the first one took a while to take off, they snowballed in popularity very quickly.

I don't see the fuss myself. Nothing special, nothing new, poorly written.

@Viviennemary

I think the films were amazing. So often films from books are disappointing. I'd say the films were a lot better than the books. But the great actors and big budgets did help a lot.

Noooooooooo. The acting was terrible and they missed the good (and important stuff) out!

@CareerConcerns1999

Because they got picked up and turned into a movie. The books were low key before the movie. Movie one dropped and boom suddenly everyone wanted to read the books.

There was a long long gap between book 4 and 5, and then subsequent ones. This also creates a hype.

That’s not true. When Scholastic bought the US publishing rights to the first book they paid 10 times the average rate for something similar. It was the top of the New York Times bestselling fiction list in 1999, 2 years before the first film came out. It was part of the reason NYT split their list into children’s fiction and adult fiction in 2000. It was very popular before the films came out.

They are great stories.

I agree @Biancadelrioisback, the acting in the films is poor. The kids are mostly rubbish and the adults are phoning it in. They also fail to capture the tone of the books entirely, with the honourable exception of Goblet of Fire, which is the only one I can stand to re-watch.

I love reading but strangely have never read any Harry Potter.
What drew me in was the first movie.
I still don't fancy the books but I could watch the first 3 movies endlessly and I love HP merch.

I grew up reading Harry Potter from about 8 and I still like to read them now at 29. Have seen all the films too but the books will always win. Can't wait to be reading them with ds soon

My son started reading them when he was 11 and he couldn't put them down.

I absolutely get why the boobs are so popular. And I first read them aged 24, because they were the only English books in the tiny bookshop and I was living in Asia. Hooked.

But I don’t know why the films are popular. A lot of stuff in them is pretty poor, despite the amazing actors involved.

Boobs?! Books 😂

I totally also get why boobs are popular too though.

They were great for all ages- particularly teen-20s as they were grown up enough to watch with friends but still had some childish magic. The books weren't great but are fine when you've watched the film. Shit author ruined it though

Because they got picked up and turned into a movie. The books were low key before the movie. Movie one dropped and boom suddenly everyone wanted to read the books.

Bollocks.
I remember dh and I taking turns to read the second book. A chapter each. I also remember teaching a year two class and they were all begging for ERIC reading time. Some of them three to a copy and that was the first book.

The right idea at the right time, combined with luck.

I loved them and have re read them several times as an adult.

I love the stories, the magic, the relationships. It was quite unique at the time. She’s a good writer.

I don't see how the films can be seen as better than the books.
Not the world's best prose but they have a compelling quality in the storytelling imo.

My DS was not keen on teading. I was at a friends house baby sitting and the two boys I was watching were having the first HP book for their book at bedtime. My DS listened too and was riveted. After we went home he got out his older sister's HP books and read them all. He managed to read them all before the last movie was released.

It doesn't matter that they're not Proust-esque levels of writing; they're engaging, good for escapism and, well, just a bit of fun really. It's OK to read books that aren't terribly cerebral (although I would argue Rowling has a nice touch when naming things) or are are considered derivative (usually said with a sneer).

They encouraged so many children to read - and still do. I have two children in my class who have just discovered Harry Potter and are so absorbed in them. I think Rowling kick-started a new wave of writing for children.

Because she created an entire world so vividly. The Harry Potter universe seems as complex and detailed as our own. That's her genius. She isn't the best prose writer and some (not all) of her ideas are derivative but the way she brings that world to life with its spells and games and rules and language is better than anything written for children in decades.

@CareerConcerns1999

Because they got picked up and turned into a movie. The books were low key before the movie. Movie one dropped and boom suddenly everyone wanted to read the books.

There was a long long gap between book 4 and 5, and then subsequent ones. This also creates a hype.

This is not true. The books were ludicrously popular before the films came out.

I was also 10ish when the books were released, they definitely filled a hole in the market, there hadn't been a similar series of books for a while, and having a new one released every year for the first few books really built up the suspense about what happened next.

I did know lots of kids who weren't bothered about them at the time though. (Though I did!) They were never universally loved.

There's always going to be something very appealing about a book that tells a story where some average kid gets plucked out of their normal life and goes on huge adventures. Especially if there's scope for readers to imagine themselves in the story.

I read Harry Potter late, really late, like less than 5 years ago late. And one of the things that struck me about it was how it reminded me of stories like Narnia, The Faraway Tree etc. It had that same feel, this hugely immersive world that you wanted to explore, that had so much potential and felt real despite being so fantastical.

@CareerConcerns1999

Because they got picked up and turned into a movie. The books were low key before the movie. Movie one dropped and boom suddenly everyone wanted to read the books.

This is so, so inaccurate!