Nobody cares if people like or dislike books. I've read plenty of incredibly popular books that I hated. The difference is I didn't try to say they were poorly written slop to excuse me not liking them. I just said I didn't like them.
Edit: Also, the morality issues within Harry Potter are much more glaring than any sloppy writing. I mean, Dumbledore is a sociopath when taken as a whole, but not a lot of people who bitch about the folksy writing bring that part up.
That is kinda sloppy writing, characters act like cartoons, giant plot holes constantly appear and are never mentioned again, the school within the wizarding world becoming the centre of the wizarding world, spell recycling etc.
The world that once seemed big turned out to be very very small. And for me (and not just me) that got very frustrating. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is not full of inconsistencies and shortcuts, and the reason for not liking it being those.
Take Patronus - super advanced and difficult spell used to defend against dementors. Fast forward, all students know it and are using the little spirit animals to pass message to each other, in a world full of magical communication. OR take quiddich, the snitch is basically an instant win with the point system for the rest of the players being so low its borderline pointless (as the game was made for harry to win it in book 1 and be the hero).
The book I did like was the half-blood prince, that one had new things, was creative, and had a much more consistent storyline. But overall I found them frustrating due to massive 'why dont they just' moments etc. And dont get me started on the Time turner...
Not really a fan tbh. I agree there were plotholes, but I didn't hate the books, and I think overfocus on plotholes is a flaw in geek reviewing. What's more important is how plotholes or any other flaws undermine the plot, or other aspects of the work. I think other flaws in Rowling's work are more relevant but I don't think that kills the magic.
Plot holes can be devestating (in certain ways). There are minor what if style ones (nit picking), and there are major ones that are a contrivance (i.e. character doesnt do 'A' because otherwise story would end). THe contrivances if obvious can ruin a movie pretty quickly as they undermine the fantasy world being build.
For me in fantasy you can make the impossible happen, but those new rules you make must be followed. You undermine those rules and the world unravels. A good example is the sheer inconsistency in star wars under new management.
I swear to god my biggest pet peeve is that eagles Tolkien thing...which isn't a plot hole in the first place. It's not my fault you have to be a Tolkien lore expert to know why.
Edit2: Not to mention that flying in the air would be INCREDIBLY FUCKING VISIBLE TO THE BIG GOD DAMN EYE that could roast the eagles at incredible range if they tried that shit.
This is something thought through, the obvious 'why don't they' actually has a reason why. The consistent rules of the world Tolkien built make using the eagles a very, very bad idea.
