The answer to this is probably the same boring answer that so often explains great successes: it wasn't something structurally novel about the Harry Potter books, but simply that Rowling did a great job writing them.
-
-
Also: Randomness. There must be hundreds of novels better than Harry Potter series that never made it big.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Some popularity factors * Simple language - ideal bedtime reading * Detective novel structure (book = mystery) * Magic - who wouldn't want to receive a letter from Hogwarts? * Series - finished one --> anticipate the next * Movie adaptation while books are still being published
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Very good point Paul. I went to a boarding school in England and people are very curious to find out about the traditions and mystery surrounding them.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
functional creativity- things you can relate too vs extreme creativity that is way out there
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Structurally the Harry Potter series is innovative: combining the Bildungsroman genre with the Manichaean good v evil plot. The Narnia series was a thin prototype with an overt religious agenda. Rowling a better writer and entertainer.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Boarding school story meets magic, plus ‘ordinary child’ to empathize with, plus the lost prince/chosen one myth. Lots of mythic boxes being checked.
-
Plus Christie-type detective/mystery narratives
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.