𓁟 host1.bitchan.one

𓀐 @gF*3Rt?N: How good are the later Harry Potter books really? In terms of prose and worldbuilding. I know that the early books are comfy and whimsical children's books (or supposedly so, I have never read them) but what about the ones that are aimed at the older reader as they grew?

Don’t expect much in way of prose. I’m sure the worldbuilding is pretty solid though.

⧖expiring ~21d0/3 kept1w ago

𓀐 @qFk8*P5T

⏱ 1w 👍 0

⬆ upvote 0

[⇥] sort oldest ⏱

⬆[⏱]₿⚠

👍👎✔

𓀐↩⛓⚠

[⇥] flip, oldest first

filter [-]
𓀐 @9UfN_Eqc: Solid is the one thing HP world building is definitely NOT. Creative, fanciful, funny, and elaborate? Sure. But it's not solid.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0

𓀐 @_*5nWmAV: the worlds building is stupid. her writing is shit. she took standard magic bildingsroman, added "BLIMEY" and "BRILLIANT", grabbed basic shit from everywhere, dusted it lightly with racist tropes, and then went deep into overdrive on the "harry is a good sacrifice boy" a lot of those are no brainers, structurewise, and the cheap ass "DIAGONALLY" jokes worked to get normies into the fantasy door. but shes not good. shes a good rag and bone man.+

⬆ upvote 0↩ reply 0