I think people liked it because the early books are kinda evocative of something really whimsical and Dahl-esque. The house system, the castle, the owls, etc. it has a very flushed out initial setting that you (especially as a little kid with limited capacity to critically analyze it) can imagine fitting into and that adds a lot of character to what's happening.

It struggles as it goes on because it becomes more and more clear that JK is not capable of critical analysis either and that all the evocative stuff is going to basically amount to nothing. She never really builds on top of any of the foundations she sets down, she would rather bring up a new evocative thing instead. Quidditch is a great example: it sucks, the rules are insane, you cannot understand the stakes and it's impossible to care about, but she never really does anything with the funny premise that the wizards are all bent out of shape over something so silly.

A huge issue with this is that Rowling is, at her core, an uncritical Br*tish person who is not capable of recognizing the problems with the tropes she trafficked in or the very obvious subtext to the world she created: the wizards ARE a supremacist closed society that subjugates every sapient magical being to wizards, that have no regard for the well-being of other humans, and are committed to defending a clearly dysfunctional status quo that Rowling cannot countenance any criticism of. So as the books go on they become less whimsical and more horrific without her noticing. The book series literally ends with the protagonist wondering whether the chattel slave he inherited will bring him food, and you are not supposed to think that says anything negative about Harry.

I think she also succumbed to movie brain, a lot of stuff aligns more with the movie depictions of things over time, and her writing also starts to seem like she's writing with an eye to how a movie would look. Given her weakness as a writer pivoting into a different craft she is even worse at was a bad idea.

Edit: the TL;DR is that the strength of the series' world building is almost entirely evocative imagery and tropes that are easy to imagine fitting in with. Which is to say you can imagine buying and filling your room with Harry Potter objects because you have a clear idea what that would mean.

See you in ninety days I guess comrade. Don't let them bully you out. Welcome aboard!

Idaho is a very beautiful place, it's a shame Chuds have completely dominated it.

-I dunno if it's everywhere or local to the midwestern city I live in but they've quietly gotten rid of all the school busses, so now every school zone in this relatively large city has enormous lines that choke every road in and out of every school in the city twice a day for two hours. It's a massive inconvenience to the entire city that's been justified as a 'cost savings' when in reality it's just throwing that cost onto everyone else in a less efficient way.

-Low hanging fruit but Harry Potter. There's a lot of anti-Rowling sentiment these days that tries to separate her from the world she created but it's very obvious that all the nasty shit about her made it into the series. Obviously around here people don't generally like the books but the general public has not seriously read them since they were children and thinks they're awesome.

The function of a ratchet is to make an object go in one direction more easily. Democrats fulfill a function in propeling the country rightward. This was arguably not true 80 years ago but post-Reagan they are part of a process of rightward movement. Voting for and legitimizing them is moving the country right and making things worse.

Right, isolating the US is good for everyone else, the more tied to us they are the more leverage we have over them and the worse we can hurt them if they don't do the evil things we expect of them. Weakening the US is critical to the freedom and dignity of humanity.

Well now I'm confused. I guess you meant it was an impressive clown show?

Yeah like, this is the best they've got? Pathetic.

The people who are willing to split up a community over their electoral politics are not likely to be won over, you should probably not expect to be able to save all of them. That said don't blame yourself, they are the ones who can't take the grill pill and just be normal around their friends.

Your MAGA friends bizarrely sound like the more conciliatory part of the group, it sounds from your description that they understand things are tense and are trying to avoid stirring the pot.

You don't think there's a portion of the group that would be amenable to instituting rules for hanging out/chatting to just not bring up politics? I feel like the "no religion no politics" canard is common for a reason, a lot of people understand it's volatile and are willing to avoid the topics to preserve their relationships.

Because to be clear, you're not failing the revolution by not having an argument with them about neoliberalism, nor would you be spearheading it by owning them with facts and logic. But a group of friends who care about each other and are willing to work together to defend their common interests can be valuable, especially if things keep getting worse.

Not of course that you should tolerate everything. Maybe this is too wishy washy to be helpful as advice but you have all the context to make the judgment call I think.

Paid to lose. These people hate you, I hope that's very clear to everyone.

Yeah we have a local game store that does this sort of thing too. I don't personally avail myself of it because I have other social things I do that connect me to people but it's a nice resource to have I imagine.

Pathfinder with friends from the area, I host a couple ttrpgs with relatives/college buds too. Partner and I also play a few board games together when we have time and go to a local board game night about once a month.

For two people, Splendor and Sagrada are great games that don't take very long, good for when you get a little bit of time. Obviously ttrpgs are hours long commitments, not the sort of thing you can easily do on a whim, and planning often falls through.

I can say, personally and perhaps anecdotally, that a lot of the problems I experience are in contexts where I feel crowded and in competition with other people. At least in Amerikkka most people spend a significant part of their lives trapped in an enormous steel line surrounded by too many cars unable to go anywhere, waiting in lines for limited quantities of necessary goods, and fighting to have space to yourself in the decreasing number of public spaces available without having to pay to enter.

I know better than to blame the people around me for these conditions, but I think a lot of people tie those frustrated feelings to the people around them instead of to the systems that create the jams.

I'm not saying this fully accounts for it, but I think people get a strong vibe that things would go smoother without all these people around.

First Christmas the kiddo was self aware for. Pretty excited for it, made some food before I had to leave for the night shift. Nothing much going on here though, it makes me think they drafted everyone out of spite rather than need. Kinda irritating.

Whenever I find out about the next movie Disney is doing it feels like they're just dabbing on their fans. I quit following this shit years ago and have adblocked my life pretty thoroughly so I don't usually know what's going on, but every time I get a glimpse I feel vindicated for checking out.

I live in the US. I laugh and ask them how much control they believe they have over this government. No one ever has a good response to that. Then you just shrug and say "I guess maybe we can't judge if a system is a democracy based on how much it resembles ours then.''

Malcolm X's biography/autobiography is pretty good, written largely in collaboration with him, although I cant remember the exact nature of Haley's involvement. I was more lib when I read it but I think it probably holds up.

I thought the Poppy War was pretty bad. Killed my motivation to read anything else from her.

There's a much better candidate for the comparison: Saruman, the guy whose whole deal was resisting Sauron by adopting all of his means.

Look, everyone is saying Saruman is just as bad as Sauron, but here's the thing:

Yes he is moving towards Sauron strategically on specific issues, but these issues are important to his base and he has to throw them a bone.

Yes he is illegally killing Rohan civilians, but nobody claimed the defense of the regions west of his Stone Circle system would be painless.

Yes his armies look and foreign policy look eerily similar to Sauron's, but he promises he's trying to stop him actually.

You purists in the Shire keep saying it's not necessary to destroy the whole forest of Fangorn but he got the endorsement of Lurtz, so he clearly knows more about politics than you do.

Anyone serious understands that resisting Sauron means voting for Saruman.

Lol, imagine going to this length to figure out a way to vote how you want without changing the preordained outcome by just making your decision. No, in real democracies you have to engage in the political equivalent of a suicide pact in order to not feel guilty about voting for what you like.