#but he serves the interests of the bourgeoisie (walrus)

[seriousbrat]

sometimes i think some of the bad takes i see around here abt hp as a whole comes from ppl not understanding genre conventions and the target audience of the series (which, at least for the first few books, were kids and pre-teens). ppl be analysing "plot holes" and "flaws" without taking this into consideration, when that would answer 95% of their concerns

I agree with this! It sometimes feels like people expect some kind of deeply elaborate political treatise with Tolkien-level worldbuilding out of HP and it's like.... it was never going to be that, it wasn't supposed to be that, and it shouldn't be that. It's a kids book about a magic school and it's supposed to be whimsical and nonsensical at times. I don't see people going around being like "the worldbuilding in Alice in Wonderland makes no sense!!! Why did the author not consider the sociopolitical ramifications of the walrus and the carpenter gaslighting the oysters??" I mean I'm def exaggerating with that example lmao, but still.

Sure, there are some issues with the writing, but they're generally minor and imo a lot of what people consider to be flaws are either fully explained or really just.... purposefully silly. For instance iirc JKR has said she purposefully designed Quidditch to make no sense. It's not a world that is supposed to make complete sense. Like where is ur sense of whimsy guys.

And it's not that we shouldn't discuss Harry Potter in a more analytical sense or that there's nothing to talk about. That we're all here talking about it proves that there's plenty to talk about-- and I think it can be fun, interesting, and worthwhile to discuss. But it's unreasonable imo to expect some sort of brutally accurate depiction of fascism, for instance, in a kid's book about magic. If you want that there's plenty of historical fiction for adults that explicitly analyses the realities of fascism. There's even historical fiction for kids/YA that deals with the topic, but you'll notice they probably won't delve into the precise political mechanisms of fascism either lmao, but rather focus on portraying a lived experience. Because relating to an experience is a mechanism that a younger audience can use to understand complex topics.

Another is metaphor. Literature for kids and teens, particularly fantasy, deals heavily in metaphor and allusion to get a point across, but it has to be in a way that is understandable and relatable for a younger audience. Like Voldemort is a bald snake man with no nose, he's already a bit silly and unrealistic so why is the rest of it expected to be a super serious gritty analysis of fascism. How would that be something approachable for kids. Personally I think the metaphor is VERY obvious in Harry Potter lol but anyway

Kids aren't stupid, I'm not saying they should be condescended to either. But you wouldn't expect an 11 year old to read For Whom the Bell Tolls or something. And in general I don't think Harry Potter does treat kids as stupid-- especially given the fact that apparently fully grown adults cannot grasp basic concepts presented in those books lol. Such as an extremely obvious metaphor.