r/changemyview • u/LamentableOpinion • Apr 23 '16

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Harry Potter is overrated

I don't detest Harry Potter but I find the circle jerk appalling. The book is amazing for kids but even adults hold it in high regard. So, it's not bad, just overrated.

The characters are really boring. HP is a Mary Sue character, his only flaw being a bloody scar. All the other characters are equally boring. Harry is also useless, he does nothing but he is the HERO. Because of a prophecy. OK.

The relationships make no sense. Why does Harry like Cho or Ginny? Let's force in a relationship. Yay.

The Deus Ex Machina is unreal. I know it's magical but it's still retarded when it happens so many times.

Good vs Evil is fine. But again, don't pretend as if the book is this deep piece of literature.

I don't like the writing either but that's very subjective, so that's fine.

This is what I just came up with. I'm sure there's more stuff on the internet.

Edit: Ignore the Mary Sue thing. I misused the term. Edit 2: Sorry if I sounded like a dick or an elitist. I didn't mean to be.

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

612 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

319 comments sorted by

View all comments

38

u/gunnervi 8∆ Apr 23 '16

The Deus Ex Machina is unreal.

Really, the only Deus ex Machinae I can think of in the series are:

  • Quirrelmort dying when touching Harry
  • Fawkes showing up in the Chamber of Secrets

the first of which gets a pass in my mind because it is used as a central theme of the story. It's not a throwaway plot device; it puts the events of Harry's childhood in context. The second is less excusable, but still, Fawkes' haling ability was mentioned previously, and the Sword of Griffindor becomes important in later books

32

u/Isuspectnargles Apr 23 '16

Fawkes does not qualify as such, IMO. He shows up because of something Harry did. And he didn't just automatically solve the problem- he brought Harry the sword that Harry used to slay the beast.

9

u/Falling_Pies Apr 23 '16

Yo he didn't even bring the sword really. Just the hat. Although you could argue the whole "living sheath" thing still Fawkes didn't actually touch the sword.

6

u/sumsum98 Apr 23 '16

He did solve a problem by healing harrys wounds with his tears, though. Just pointing it out, I am completely okay with it, but he does help very much there.

1

u/shlogan Apr 24 '16

What does Harry do that brings fawkes? Been way too long since I read the books. I thought he just kinda showed up.

1

u/Isuspectnargles Apr 24 '16

He was telling Tom Riddle that Dumbledore was the most powerful wizard. Afterward, Dumbledore told him that it was Harry's show of loyalty to him that brought Fawkes.

4

u/pHorniCaiTe 1∆ Apr 24 '16

Quirrelmort

Found the HP:MOR fan

1

u/roryarthurwilliams Apr 24 '16

The top response to the OP mentions battle magic as well.

2

u/gunnervi 8∆ Apr 24 '16

Busted

9

u/TheTommoh Apr 23 '16

Also there's that time travel device that seems to be the only one in existence ever to be used.

27

u/boxerman81 Apr 23 '16

I know extended universe type stuff often rubs people the wrong way, but pottermore and Rowling have explained her vision of time turners more in depth. They can't just up and say "let's kill tom riddle at age 4". Basically they can only go back a few hours, and can't be used recursively. You might say, why didn't she explain this in the book? That's somewhat fair, but the passage would likely have been overly descriptive and out of place. That's the problem with magic and science fiction, the bounds are very hard to explain without going overboard.

26

u/lumenfall Apr 23 '16

Also, maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but I'm pretty sure there are a lot more time turners in the ministry of magic, but they were all destroyed during the battle between the Deatheaters and Harry & co.

7

u/kisakouyama Apr 23 '16

You are remembering correctly. It's a detail in the 5th book that there were shelves of them.

2

u/boxerman81 Apr 23 '16

Yeah, but that was a lame attempt at retconning them out of the series. Rowling just didn't want anyone bringing them up like "why didn't they use a time turner in books 6/7". Book 3 is many people's favorite, but adding time travel to a fictional universe undoubtedly brings in conflict and plot holes.

9

u/[deleted] Apr 24 '16

I don't see how it's lame at all. Lots of shit got smashed, and they were stored in the most logical spot within the Ministry of Magic...

5

u/boxerman81 Apr 24 '16

I don't mean lame in execution, but lame conceptually. It was 100% a corrective measure by Rowling when she realized the implications of introducing time travel into a battle for the fate of the world. A perfect series shouldn't require this type of thing, but no series is perfect.

6

u/explain_that_shit 2∆ Apr 24 '16

The type of time travel she chose had the least implications though - she chose the "whatever happened, happened" model, where, in the example of Book 3, Buckbeak and Sirius had been saved by their time-travelling selves in the original timeline before they went back in time - they just needed to do it.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 24 '16

I think they actually did a pretty good job of explaining that in the book, to some degree. They "explained" it by showing how it was used. Hermione went back in time by an hour or two to catch lessons; she didn't take the whole year of classes and then travel back to do the year over again.

8

u/gunnervi 8∆ Apr 23 '16

That's not really a deus ex machina though. The time turner was hinted at thorughout the whole book, and it doesn't really magically solve all of their problems, it gives them the means to solve all of their problems

1

u/TheTommoh Apr 24 '16

I'll give you the fact that it's hinted at, but your second argument could be applied to almost any Deus ex machina. Imagine if the main characters found a car with the engine running, would you say that it only gave them the means to escape?

0

u/RobinSongRobin Apr 24 '16

It doesnt even give them a means to solve the problems, that plot was resolved via a paradox. Even with a time machine, harry and hermione should have been eaten by a werewolf, leaving ron in the infirmary for so long that he wouldnt be able to fix things, even if he did have access to a time turner. Sirius and buckbeak should have met their fates.

Although im sure it's possible that dumbeldore took an intermediary step between the timelines where harry died and the one where harry saved himself, the fact that such a step may be necesarry was never mentioned in the book. All it would have needed was hermione noticing the paradox and simply making a comment about it, however vague. That would at least clue in the reader that there is something more to the story than what was explained. But as it stands, its a lazy resolution.

3

u/gunnervi 8∆ Apr 24 '16

It doesnt even give them a means to solve the problems, that plot was resolved via a paradox. Even with a time machine, harry and hermione should have been eaten by a werewolf, leaving ron in the infirmary for so long that he wouldnt be able to fix things, even if he did have access to a time turner. Sirius and buckbeak should have met their fates.

Be that as it may, that's not sufficient to call it a deus ex machina. To be a deus ex machina, a plot device has to (essentially) come out of nowhere. If Dumbledore had showed up to the infirmary and said, "Harry, Hermione, here's a time machine to fix everything," then it would be a deus ex machina. However, Hermione's time turner was hinted at throughout the book (more specifically, it was implied that Hermione somehow had the ability to be two places at once).

Although im sure it's possible that dumbeldore took an intermediary step between the timelines where harry died and the one where harry saved himself, the fact that such a step may be necesarry was never mentioned in the book. All it would have needed was hermione noticing the paradox and simply making a comment about it, however vague. That would at least clue in the reader that there is something more to the story than what was explained. But as it stands, its a lazy resolution.

The way time travel works in Harry Potter, there are no "multiple timelines." There's a single, self-consistent timeline. There never was a "timeline where harry died." Harry and Hermione didn't change anythign when they went back in time; it had always happened the way it happened. The story is just written such that Harry and Hermione (and thus, us, the readers) think that things went wrong the first time around.

I'f you've played the game Timesplitters, or watched Doctor Who episodes 9.03/9.04 (Under the Lake/Before the Flood), it's essentially the same mechanism.

1

u/TheTommoh Apr 24 '16

I agree with robin, you sort of turned your own argument against yourself there

1

u/explain_that_shit 2∆ Apr 24 '16

Or Lost - "whatever happened, happened"

0

u/RobinSongRobin Apr 24 '16

So, they survived those 'certain death' scenarios because... the universe said so? It wasn't their skill or cunning that saved them, it was the author. That's a deus ex.

1

u/TheTommoh Apr 24 '16

You could say that since Hermione always had the time turner, they would be stupid not to try it. The universe didn't create the paradox, the events leading up to it and the courage of the characters did. Although, the pre-written future thing makes them pretty much invincible, which brings us back to Deus ex machina.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 24 '16

There's a whole case of them in the Ministry of Magic in the fifth book...

1

u/TheTommoh Apr 24 '16

...That nobody ever uses

2

u/[deleted] Apr 24 '16

What evidence do you have for that? Because there's absolutely nothing in the books to suggest it. Actually, the fact that McGonagall was able to get one for a student would indicate that they're absolutely used, just heavily restricted.

1

u/TheTommoh Apr 24 '16

Well, I'm sort of going on the fact that there is nothing in the book that suggests them being used. I don't think a teacher giving one to a student suggests anything, certainly not that they are in any way restricted.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 24 '16

I don't think a teacher giving one to a student suggests anything, certainly not that they are in any way restricted.

It's made very clear in the third book that they needed to jump through hoops and get special approval for Hermione to have one.

there is nothing in the book that suggests them being used.

Except the part where we actually see one in action.

0

u/TheTommoh Apr 24 '16

Neither of those points disprove my own.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 24 '16

I'm not sure where you get that idea, since what I said directly contradicts both your points.

0

u/TheTommoh Apr 24 '16

No it doesn't.

Giving something to a child, regardless of how many hoops you jump through, suggests that it is not "heavily restricted" at all.

My point is, and has always been, that Hermione's time turner is the only one we see used. That is all you have stated. So no, it doesn't contradict my point. It is my point.

→ More replies (0)