You're a good man, Harry Potter
I'm not trying to be mean to Harry Potter or J.K. Rowling or the legions of fans involved in the entire ordeal. I consider myself one of those fans. I was way into Harry Potter at the time. I went to all the book releases. I had a shirt that said "Hogwarts Quidditch." I've read each book more than 3 times. In fact, much more than three times, but I don't want to say how many because it's embarrassing.
But since most of what I write is about things I dislike, I thought I would mix it up and write about things I…dislike. But things that I dislike about something that I generally love. So it's different.
The thing that bothers me the most about Harry Potter is that, while it is creative and revitalized the love of reading for many children and integrated old mythologies and legends into a coherent story format and many twists and turns that brought joy and peace to the world, sometimes it's just so damn predictable. Before you hate me forever and punch a hole through your computer screen in frustration and angst, hear me out.
Wasn't it obvious that Harry was going to defeat Voldemort? Okay, bad example- that had to happen or the world would implode and the fans would have had J.K.'s head on a stick. But here's the main problem with that ending: what does Harry have to live for now? Nothing. His life's work is over at the age of 17. He's like a child actor. I think that in the "Nineteen years later…" part, Rowling should have had him be a strung-out has-been hanging out with Corey Feldman, maybe having his own reality show and running out of the money he earned from being a spokes person for butterbeer. That's the Harry Potter I want to read about.
Also, did he really have to name his kids James, Lily, and "Albus Severus?" Could he honestly not think of any better names? It's so cliche to name your kids after your parents. (Although, thank God he didn't name them Jamarthur or Mollily, which I'm sure Stephenie Meyer would have named her characters' children. I haven't read the fourth one, but I've heard about good ol' Renesme Carlie, or whatever the hell that abortion of a name is.) I've read fanfiction (as much as I hate to admit it) and one of the main things about the "seventh book" writers is that they ALWAYS name Harry's kids after dead characters. Yes, Harry, we get it. Your parents died. But isn't it kind of morbid to name your children after dead people who you really never even knew? I'm just saying.
Also, was Harry required to become a Christ-figure? He died, was resurrected, gave his life for mankind, was the savior. This could be applied to both Jesus and Harry Potter, as blasphemous as it may sound. And in the final epic battle (fuck you if you haven't read it yet, where have you been? I will give you no spoiler alert, because you do not deserve one) Harry just seemed so confident for some reason, even though the entire time he was kind of a whiny little baby. And then he suddenly turns all Clint Eastwood on us and toys around with Voldemort. The whole appeal about Harry was that he was an everyman, he didn't have anything all that special about him. He had insecurities, he was just as scared and confused as the rest of us are during our teen years. But I guess death and resurrection makes you much more confident in yourself. It's like a movie montage of sports training, only more painful and disturbing. Well maybe not more disturbing.
I might have to continue my complaints at another time, because this just turned out to be about only the seventh book. But don't fear, dear reader, I have complaints about each book in turn. Maybe I'll just work my way backwards, toward the inconsistencies of book one. Please don't kill me, mob of HP FANATICS. I will worship your goddess, J.K., if you spare my life. All hail, etc.