@dapper.delinquent: Replying to @brebbeck_ JKR is, objectively speaking, not a good author. She has been coasting on boggled lighting for 20 years. #dapperdelinquent #BookTok #authorsoftiktok #writing #jkrowlingisaterf

CobaltLance18 :

also her world building is atrocious. wtf do you mean basically every country in Europe gets a school of its own and the US just gets 1??? like the states are HUGE???

* :

SandTigerShark :

Worst Rick Riordan book is better than the best JK book

rowan击̸♪⋆.✮ :

it’s real irritating how people cling to harry potter for dear life as if it’s this literary masterpiece that’s worth ruining trans people’s lives over 🫩

◟♯ . / 𝖫ꪱᜒ𝗍𝗍౿𐓣 . ! ⚞^. .^⚟ :

genuinely read fanfics better than Harry potter😭💔

AncelineOnline :

Also. Like. A large part of the things that made the books seem charming and inventive to an American audience were just…. How Things Work In England In The 90s.

Bayside Syndicate :

Her world building is terrible. She spent zero time actually thinking about how the use of magic would affect their society, and instead just added magic to stuff. "flying car, weeee!" But brooms are dirt cheap, and wizards can teleport, so why spend tens of thousands of dollars on a magic car? Why is there a slave class when magic can do what they do faster?

Xraabills :

The books are racist and homophobic anyways

Goth Spiced :

I blame Harry Potter for the literacy crisis. why do we have full-grown adults stunted with middle school literacy? idk maybe it's because they stopped reading books after they decided Harry Potter was the end all be all. 😐

Alex - one day away :

i think your point is also proven by the fact alone that she *tried* to publish a book under a pseudonym to prove she could make it just as popular without her name only to end up having to confess it was her because no one ever bought it until they learned it was her.

Hansiboo :

JK Rowling was just unbearably lucky and should have been able to replicate and continue her success better if it was anything else.

James :

but also her politics are dog shit too

readlikelasagna :

Why are people acting as if you can’t objectively critique art? Objective means you are critiquing it without consideration to your personal biases, not that your opinion is infallible. For example: subjectively, My Sister’s Keeper is a bad film because it made me cry and I don’t like sad movies (they often feel exploitative to me). Objectively, My Sister’s Keeper is a bad film because it’s an unfaithful adaptation to the novel. You could absolutely still dispute my objective claim that it’s a bad film, but my reasoning is sound and it isn’t clouded by my personal preferences.

. :

That's what I've been saying! Her world building is bad and contradicts itself every two books, she cannot expand her own world beyond what the books say in a decent way because she creates more contradictions and nonsense like she did when she tried to be a script writer for the Fantastic Beasts movies or every time she answered a question on Twitter and Pottermore, she as one of the most lucrative fantasy authors of the century hasn't done any other work on the genre or the series in 20 years! Or at least not in book format and the other formats she did sucked a lot more than the books and were even more contradictory if that's possible.

Rick :

Harry Potter isn’t ‘objectively bad.’ Simple prose and a few quirks don’t erase strong plotting, worldbuilding, and emotional arcs across 7 books. It tackles grief, found family, prejudice, and moral choice in a way that resonated with millions. You can acknowledge flaws without calling the whole series poorly written or full of major plot holes. The stories have clear merit, that’s why people still love them. Let’s aim for more nuanced literary criticism.

Thomas :

It couldn’t be more subjective!

Jordana Gabriele Per :

why do you guys think there's so much fanfic about it? she left so much plot holes and such a weak worldbuilding that we could basically do whatever we wanted to it and still be somewhat in character.

˚₊‧꒰ა𝔖𝔢𝔳໒꒱ ‧₊˚ :

when I first picked up harry Potter in English I wanted to bash my head against a wall the original text is so bad so bland Wattpad fanfiction written by a twelve year old girl have more flavor the original and the translation are completely different books and the translated version was better with everything

xcyclfimnxf :

she got lucky. over and over. and over

Dex | Anby’s official Husband :

Harry Potter hate?

Michael :

There’s no objective metric for prose, pacing, atmosphere, or world‑building. You can’t call any of those things “objectively bad”. You can dislike the writing, but your opinion isn’t an objective evaluation

John Doe :

soooooo many people dont know the difference between quality (objectibe) and how much you enjoy something (subjective). and how those two things are only a little related.

𝔎𝔦𝔰𝔰𝔢𝔡𝔟𝔶𝔡𝔢𝔞𝔱𝔥 :

Um no objective = factual metrics exact numbers

Grey, the Eldritch Horror :

Further proof she's a bad author: Nobody talks about the book she did under the male pseudonym, and the only reason I even know she did that was because people said it was JK Rowling using a male pen name.

tink :

i liked them as a kid, reread them as an adult with an education and more experience and immediately thought "god this is awful" (long before she went off the deep end i'll add)