I have never found another fantasy series as satisfying as HP. It's probably my most reread series. Do you think it is the best ever? Is it better than the likes of LOTR, Wheel of time, Asoiaf, Stormlight, Dresden Files, Mistborn etc?

 

No.



...


It's a completely subjective question and as such there is no such thing as a "best fantasy series."

 

It is the only fantasy series I've ever liked. Because of that, I have a feeling that it might slot into a slightly different sub-genre than your standard fantasy.

 

For me, yes. Not because I think JKR has the best writing style (she doesn't) or because I think the characters are the most complex or realistic (they're not) or because the plot is the most clever or satisfying (it isn't), but because it is the fictional universe which most satisfies the core promise of the genre: it is a fantasy.

Out of all the fantasy fiction I have read, the Harry Potter universe is far and away the universe I would most want to live in.

A big part of this is the magic. It's easily the most useful of any fantasy series, a consequence of (a) its general utility for making day to day tasks easier or unnecessary and (b) the fact that it is costless, other than the investment of time required to master it. HP magic is a free lunch, and that is rare even in the fantasy space.

But on top of the general usefulness of HP magic, it is still essentially magical and feels so. The whimsy and charm of the HP universe is unique and no other writer has come close to JKR in creating a world that feels so immediately, tangibly magical while simultaneously grounded in everyday relatable experience.

Another part of it is the demythologisation. The HP universe is one without gods and deities, demons, multiverses, dimensions, apocalypses, etc. Although the soul exists, it is a largely unspiritual magical universe. This makes it very human in its stakes and conflicts. This is both relatable and reassuring. You can be fairly sure, in the HP universe, that you can finish your breakfast without a galaxy-eating entity coming along and consuming the Milky Way.

It's not just the magic of course - it's also the society. The wizarding world (or at least, wizarding Britain) has a certain aesthetic which appeals greatly to me. A world of lamps and fires rather than electric lights. A world of letters rather than emails. A world of records rather than streaming. A world of orchards and ponds and growing your own vegetables and long family dinners. It's the wet dream of an environmentalist.

And because of magic, you can have all these things without the draw-backs that you would have in real life. Setting up and cleaning a fire is as quick as flicking a light switch. You can travel anywhere, instantly. Papers can be organised, copied, etc. with a flick of a wand as easily as on any Word Processor. It's a world of physical, tangible stuff but with all the conveniences of digital stuff.

 

It's certainly the best fantasy series to write fanfic about, at the very least

 

Well yes, but actually no.

 

Best fantasy world? absolutely.
Best story? if you complete rewrite books 6 & 7 it have the potential to have place in the top.

 

Hard no from me. If we're talking influence-- Tolkiens wins by a landslide.

But HP is pretty perfect for fanfiction IMHO. Lots of plot holes to fill in, minor characters to develop, magic, lore and world building to expand upon-- but with an established setting and characters that are very enjoyable even if you do diverge greatly from canon.

 

It's certainly the one that has influenced my reading habits the most, and I really like coming back to the Harry Potter world every once in a while, and emerging myself in it again. Mostly this engagement comes through fanfiction though at this point, so there's that. While it may very well be the uiverse I like the most, I hardly think the plotting and character work is up to snuff of this title of "best Fantasy series." I would probably point more towards something like "Lightbringer", which fucking slaps like a sick hip hop beat!

 

Totally subjective. My absolute favorite (if we count superheroes as fantasy and not just classic fantasies) I'd have to go with Worm... a bit too Grimdark at times, but definitely one of the best fantasy stories I've ever read and my favorite to read over and over.

I don't know that I'd call HP the best fantasy ever written, especially if we count only the story itself. But the setting is amazing!

I never get tired of exploring it, both the canon material, the movies, the ton of fanfics, the good, the great and the terrible ones, the canon compliant ones and the ones that break and reinvent all the rules. HP is just an infinite source of entertainment lol.

 

For me it's a pretty hard no. The Harry Potter series creates a great world, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it does nearly enough things right to be labeled as "the best". It's plot goes off the rails in the later stages leading to a rather messy ending that detracts from the series as a whole. There are a ton of characters that I find annoying and aspects that I wish were explored deeper (hence why HP fanfiction is so appealing to me).

I suppose a large portion of my issues with it also traces back to my own preferences and preconceptions. For me, a key aspect of fantasy is that it's built around action. Harry Potter has action, but it's more of an aside, like the shootout you might find at the end of a murder mystery where the combat itself is clearly not the author's focus. Rowling has no interest in fight scenes, and it shows. That's always knocked it down a few pegs in my my rankings of fantasy series.

In which, of course, the key word is my. Like multiple people have said before me, best is a subjective measure with such a loaded question, so no one is ever going to be unequivocally right no matter if they answer yes or no.

 

No lol

 

An absolute 'no' from me. The plethora of plot holes in Rowling's books makes any reverence of her work laughable for me. They impart an absolute stamp of failure to the Harry Potter series.

Of your other examples I've only read LOTR and the Dresden Files, both of which are easily, in my opinion, of greater value and depth than Harry Potter. Taure said that a big reason why he likes HP above all others is because of the 'costlessness' of the magic. I see this as one of its greatest drawbacks. Just as it's easy for a HP character to solve everything with a swish and a flick it was just as easy for Rowling to explain away plot flaws with a wave of the hands or fingers crossed that the readers wouldn't see them. LOTR and the Dresden Files are to HP like high school and university are to kindergarten ... you have to *think* about what you're doing, actions have consequences, and actions require effort. In HP Harry got to the finish line based on luck, other characters' actions and the ease of Rowling's magic.

Another contemporary peer of HP would be the 'Young Wizards' series by Diane Duane. It's a much more direct competitor of HP, being aimed squarely at the same readership, its protagonists children maturing book by book. (I'm pretty sure the series started long before HP.)

Where Rowling's magic is 'costless' it is entirely effort (or, rather, 'energy') based in Young Wizards. Where Harry, Hermione & Co. don't have to know a thing about magic to use it - just a costless swish and flick with a couple of mumbo-jumbo words - Duane's wizards have to sit down and learn how to do it. After you've read a book or two from Young Wizards - or Dresden - and seen how their authors have put such effort into building their magical mechanics you can't help but look at HP again and wonder how in blazes Rowling got away with being so lazy. I guess her young audience didn't know enough to wonder at how all the magic worked.

Rowling's books - well, the first five of the seven IMO - were nice light fantasy fare for kids, pitched at contemporary westerners by being set in the 'real world', read well and were published at a pace which helped propel them into their mega success. But, devoid of all the hoop-la, a decade or more divorced from the marketing stampede, I don't think they have nearly the density of content and thought of some of the other series you mention.

 

Did you forget the part of HP where almost every book featured Harry or someone else having to master some spell or aspect of magic? Patronus in POA, Summoning in GOF, occlumency and dueling in OOTP, nonverbal casting in HBP, wandlore in DH.

 

Exactly!
Sure JK don't go in depth into the mechanic aspects of magic (probably 'cause while interesting for some - like me - it does nothing to really push the story forward), but there is a lot more to magic than waving one's wand while screaming some gibberish.
It's always weird to me when in some fics they have the MC learn to do things like accio on command wandlessly before even going to Hogwarts. That's something Harry learned in his 4th year and he had to freaking work on it a lot.

I'm not gonna say HP is the best piece of fiction ever, far from it IMO, but the magic system is definitely not a detriment to that! Quite the opposite for me, in fact.

 

Fair enough; I did to some extent.

Because Rowling has her characters huffing and puffing to 'learn' a system of magic that simply doesn't exist in any substance in her books. It's like my taking 48 hours to learn how to clap my hands really loud. We're told there was a lot of effort involved ... "Brad huffed and puffed, sweat dripped down his face, he went without sleep for two days" ... but we're not told enough about Rowling's magic to know why it took so much effort to master what looks to be such a simple task.

That "don't ask, just accept it" effect of Rowling's lazy writing pervades the series. Not for the patronus - you're right on that one. My recollection is that Rowling gave us enough 'substance' in PoA to be convinced that it required fortitude and concentration beyond the norm (even if it could be summarised tritely as "think happy thoughts").

But why did Harry take - a full day? - to learn to Summon? We have no idea. Rowling doesn't have one either.

Occlumency? He never learned it. And Snape's 'lessons' were entirely unsatisfying to me as a reader. Just like Harry, I couldn't discern what substance there was to this particular bit of magic. (Actually, I think Harry is on my side in this discussion!)

Dueling? Again, just learning the words and swishing the wand. Harry's somewhat unique contribution was to learn how to dodge really well while swishing-and-flicking.

Wandlore? Ha. The only rigid bit of magical mechanics Rowling *had* delivered in books 1-6 was "the wand chooses the wizard". In book 7 that was abruptly changed to "the wand chooses the wizard ... unless it doesn't". A tautology that perfectly epitomises the logic failings of HP and Rowling's lazy writing.

I take your point, though. I now see Rowling's depiction of magic as consisting of two layers. The top superficial layer has Rowling competently writing her characters as spending days, effort, learning their magic. Harry does find it all to be a struggle, yes. But why does it take all this energy? Look beneath and ... we have no idea. It's all built on fairy floss (or wand lore that's rendered meaningless). As Budweiser says, Rowling didn't go into any depth as to the mechanics of magic. But he can't then proceed to state that there is "a lot more to magic than waving one's wand while screaming some gibberish" when that's all Rowling shows underneath that superficial layer of effort. Summoning was a perfect case of swish-and-flick; and, if it didn't work, swish-and-flick again. Occlumency even less than that. Dueling - learn to swish-and-flick fast *while dodging*. And wandlore is a logic bomb in HP.

It's no wonder fanfic authors hauled out their microscopes and tried to peer underneath that superficial top layer to discern exactly *why* we're told learning HP magic took such much effort. Because Rowling never showed us why. And that's why HP is neither satisfying nor the 'best fantasy series ever'.

 

I've never read the book you mentioned as potraying magic studies better, but I am absolutely sure I could describe it in a reductionist way that makes it look like shit.

You say this and then the next thing you say is...

A bunch of nonsense.

He did learn it. He mastered occlumency in DH after Dobby's death.

There was also the unimportant bit about how the Elder Wand chooses the wizard and how it chose Malfoy and not Snape and how Voldemort didn't understand it but Harry did and how that totally useless bit of trivia was the crucial advantage that allowed Harry to win the last duel with Voldemort. So yeah. Nothing at all.

Because... it takes effort and time to learn any skill, you absolute genius.

She showed plenty enough to a careful reader. She showed enough that @Taure was able to write a huge googledoc on HP magic theory. Btw Taure, if you can be bothered to link that mammoth doc for brad here...

 

Okay, please tell us why it took Harry a full day to learn how to Summon.

Please tell us why it took months for him to fail to learn Occlumency.

You can't tell us, because Rowling didn't tell us. She didn't show us. She didn't know. Her world is a fantasy world that lacks the necessary substance.

Again, please tell me why it took Harry so long to learn - or fail to learn - those skills.

Yes, it takes effort and time to learn any skill. Commensurately it takes *more* effort and time to learn *harder* skills.

The skills and magic that Rowling wrote suit a fantasy series in 'easy' mode. That's why it is not "the best fantasy series ever".

No, he didn't.

Deathly Hallows, Chapter 33, Snape tells Dumbledore -

And Dumbledore doesn't disagree.

Deathly Hallows, Chapter 12, Harry says -

Sorry, ScottPress - the canon proves that Harry never learned Occlumency.

Ha ha ha! Harry didn't have a clue. Please, please show me where Harry's seizing Malfoy's wand was done with foreknowledge, with planning, with knowledge of Rowling's transitive law of wand mastery, abruptly injected into her last book as an emergency plot device, which no-one had mentioned in the previous six books and which flat-out contradicted the sole bit of 'magical mechanics' that she had bothered to outline in 95% of her series.

The question I'm answering is "Is HP the best fantasy series ever?". No, because Rowling didn't go to the trouble of working out how her fantasy world functioned. And doubly no because your "crucial advantage that allowed Harry to win" was a last-ditch effort by an author who hadn't known what she was doing up to that point. Harry himself didn't have a clue until he was facing Voldemort and his author desperately placed the words in his mouth.

 

I haven't read everything you guys have been saying, nor am I going to pretend to be an expert on cannon and insist Harry mastered Occlumency. But ScottPress very clearly said after Dobby's death. Dobby conks it in chapter 23. You pulled a quote from chapter 12 to disprove him.

I honestly don't have a clue which of you is right, but if you're going to argue your case at least check if your evidence is even slightly applicable.

Side note, I see where you're coming from about Rowling never explicitly describing why learning magic is a challenge, but I'd argue that isn't a necessity. Sure, saying some words and flicking a wand don't sound particularly hard. But riding a bike can be described as just sitting down and spinning the pedals. Nothing about that description is wrong, but as anyone who learned to ride a bike can tell you, it isn't nearly so simple when you first go to put it into practice.