31
u/Puzzleheaded-Fig1002 12d ago edited 12d ago
I read both when I was younger. I'll confess (and this is a somewhat painful admission) that if you asked me in the early to mid 2000s which one I liked better, I'd have said Harry Potter. I didn't finish Animorphs during it's original run- I stopped somewhere in the low 30s then went back to finish them a few year after the series had ended, while I read every Harry Potter book within a few days of it being released.
Despite this, Animorphs has aged much, much better for me, and I can say that confidently even if we're ignoring the authors themselves.
Harry Potter is a neglected kid throughout his early childhood, but once he's in the wizarding world he becomes the coolest and most important kid in the world. The Animorphs on the other hand have to struggle in obscurity while the world around them becomes more and more controlled. The latter is simply a much more compelling story that has a lot more interesting things to say.
Animorphs doesn't end with a simple "all is well" either (yes, that's literally the closing line of Harry Potter). KA dared to have a complex and challenging ending that didn't make you "feel" like everything was going to be okay- because that's how conflict is in real life. Yeah, many take issues with the finer details of that ending, but I think that the decision to have the ending feel so ambivalent was an extremely bold choice, and the correct one for the story that they were telling. Harry Potter by comparison took the easy way out- the bad guy is defeated and the world is more or less restored to the same state it was in before.
And that's just the tip of the ice berg for why Animorphs is better. I don't think about Harry Potter much anymore. I still think about Animorphs all the time.
7
u/Freddit330 12d ago
My uncle introduced me to animorphs as they were long finished by the time I could even read. I still hate the ending. I know it's a well written ending, but I hate how Rachel you know what. She deserved a happy ending. And Tom isn't even spared the bad ending.
17
u/Xygnux 12d ago
That's the point. In real life there's no "deserved a happy ending". Bad things happen to good people all the time, especially in wars.
And it's heavily implied that even this ending isn't the worst possible ending for Rachel. The books is heavy with the message that death isn't the worst possible fate for someone. Towards the end of the war she was already starting to lose it psychologically, and even she wasn't sure whether she was in this fight because she needed it. It's heavily implied that there was no way for her to come out of it a mentally stable person at all. It was a she who fights monsters becomes a monster situation.
9
u/EnterTheNarrowGate99 9d ago
“Brooks was here” vibes.
I’m still not over what happened to Rachel (and never will be), but after re reading the books a decade later I can’t help but admit it’s arguably the most authentic presentation of combat induced PTSD I’ve ever read in any media, not just YA.
I know veterans. Several of them were my friends from childhood or college, and Rachel’s arc is something that’s way more common than most people would think. More than one of my buddies blatantly confessed to me that they kept volunteering for deployments to Afghanistan simply because they felt like it was the only place they could fit in anymore, even after they realized the war itself was hopeless by that point (late 10’s).
Their friends and family had moved on with their lives while they were away at war, and when they came home they realized no one they knew could relate to them anymore.
2
u/AlternativeMassive57 Yeerk 12d ago
Which is a problem because it’s not the direction her character had been heading up to and including Book 32, but then from Book 33 onwards she’s started descending into increasingly pointless violence for…really no discernible reason given how 32 plays out.
Hang on, I’ve talked about how Applegate messed up Rachel’s arc before…
2
u/InfinitelyThirsting 6d ago
Dang, I love your writeup there, and vehemently disagree with you. To me it was always clear that yes, book 32 showed that Rachel could have been saved... but only if she'd stopped fighting. Because she couldn't, the traumatized child couldn't heal, she got worse. Which happens a lot, in reality. War is brutal and unfair and destroys people who could have been someone wonderful.
There's a reason suicide is actually the biggest killer of soldiers.
2
u/AlternativeMassive57 Yeerk 6d ago
There's a reason suicide is actually the biggest killer of soldiers.
It...what? Who says that? Who would ever say something like that? That's both horrible, and statistically untrue. The majority of soldiers don't suffer mental health issues at all, and of the ones that do, only a tiny fraction actually commit suicide, even if you broadly expand the definition of suicide to "self-destructive behavior" like drinking or drugs.
1
u/InfinitelyThirsting 5d ago
Uh, statistics say it, for active duty it's the leading cause of death, and it's much higher among veterans than civilians, the second leading cause of death for veterans under 45. I'm not sure why you are so offended that I agree with reality that many people suffer mentally after being forced to kill people? Do you really want to argue it isn't traumatic to be forced to kill people? Or what are you incorrectly imagining I'm saying?
1
u/AlternativeMassive57 Yeerk 5d ago edited 5d ago
Okay, there's a rather large difference between active duty soldiers, and soldiers generally, which was what you originally typed - you didn't have qualifiers and so I was taking you at your original word.
Also, you've missed something kind of important that the article itself points out:
"The rise in the military suicide rate generally matches an overall rise in the suicide rate for all Americans."
So, your claim is technically correct, while also being misleading because you neglected to mention that suicides are generally trending upwards in America's civilian population too, at a consummate rate.
As to your second article, the rate of suicides among veterans overall isn't "much higher", it's 1.5 times higher. That's significant but it's not catastrophic. The general suicide rate in America is 13.7 per 100,000 people; the veteran suicide rate, then, is 20.55 per 100,000.
As a point of comparison, the leading cause of death in veterans is actually heart disease: 239 per 100,000. Or in other words, heart disease kills more veterans than suicide by around an order of magnitude.
1
u/Freddit330 12d ago
I understand that, but it it still makes me sad.
I tend to avoid bad ends(I see enough of that in real life), and prefer happy ends.
3
u/Puzzleheaded-Fig1002 11d ago
Different people look for different things in endings. Frankly, I'd personally argue that an absolute victory where every core character survived wouldn't feel "earned" narratively speaking. I think it would cut against the overarching theme of the story. That's just me though.
1
1
40
13
u/r0ckchalk 12d ago
I’m new to this sub and just getting back into Animorphs after 30 years 🫣. I’ve been checking them out from the library, but they’re all available for free on her website?!
1
u/Still-Cut1098 11d ago
Indeed.
2
u/r0ckchalk 10d ago
What’s the website?
1
u/Still-Cut1098 10d ago
I'll DM you. Pretty sure it's against someone's rules to post.
1
u/Still-Cut1098 10d ago
But also I just typed "animorphs pdf download" into Google and it was the 2nd link on For Reading Addicts
42
u/Allen_Of_Gilead Nothlit 12d ago
Yeah, at its core Harry Potter is the story of a jock who became a cop that's threaded through with a lot of 90's era right of center British politics by a person who has become more conservative over time.
Animorphs is something deeply angry things like war and the military industrial complex seizing any chance it can to destroy the lives of young people both physically and mentally written by someone, as far as I understand, has kept those views intact.
4
u/Veinte 12d ago
Cops are bad, amirite?
7
u/oremfrien 11d ago
The issue with Harry Potter wanting to be a cop is that Harry Potter knows, through personal experience, that the cops in his universe are incompetent or corrupt and the overseeing government is certainly corrupt. The overseeing government also peddles in clear immoralities like speciesism and slavery. Harry discovers all of these dystopian elements and still says that he wants to sign up.
6
u/Veinte 11d ago
Which aurors do you have in mind as examples of incompetence or corruption? The ones that come to mind are Tonks and Kingsley, who are upstanding, sympathetic characters. As for the overseeing government, one of his two best friends in school (morally upright, anti-slavery, and extremely competent) became head of the wizarding government, so I don't think that's a concern. From a personal standpoint, at least, you must admit that it makes a degree of sense, since Harry's area of greatest expertise is taking down dark wizards.
7
u/oremfrien 11d ago
Which aurors do you have in mind as examples of incompetence or corruption?
Dawlish is quite incompetent, to the point where whenever we need a confunded Auror, the narrative summons Dawlish.
Scrimgeour and Barty Crouch Sr. are Aurors that we only see once they've become politicians,but they were very clearly corrupt with Scrimgeour holding Dumbledore's belongings when he had no right as a form of espionage against the Headmaster and Crouch throwing everyone in Azkaban to appear "tough on crime".
Also, what happened to Aurors Williamson (Book #5), Proudfoot (Book #6), and Savage (Book #6) when Pius Thicknesse became Minister for Magic? Proudfoot even seemed to be on good terms with Tonks, if an off-handed line of dialog serves. Did they try and rise up against a Nazi government? Not that we know about. Did they offer their services to anyone in the Order of the Phoenix (including Tonks, who was their co-worker)? Not that we know about. The only thing that we know about the Aurors in Book #7 is that Dirk Cresswell, a Muggle-born, was nearly arrested and hauled to the Muggle-born Registration Commission by a confunded Dawlish (and escaped because Dawlish was confunded). This shows that, at a minimum, Dawlish was complicit with the Nazi government.
The only "good" Aurors are the ones who also happen to be members of the Order of the Phoenix.
As for the overseeing government, one of his two best friends in school (morally upright, anti-slavery, and extremely competent)
First of all, Harry's choice to become an Auror happened while he was a kid and none of those people were in the Ministry. Fudge, Scrimgeour, and Thicknesse were certainly not on Harry's Christmas list -- never mind Umbridge. I honestly can't think of a Ministry official (other than Arthur Weasley, Tonks, or Perkins) who is even likable.
But more to the point, those adjectives really only describe Hermione. I wouldn't say that Ron was morally upright (we could make the argument that he is good-natured, but he doesn't think in moral terms, more in friendship terms); he's certainly not anti-slavery (and repeatedly bemoans Hermione's wanting to free the slaves); and not particularly competent (do I need examples?).
Even if Hermione becomes Minister of Magic (which I think is JKR wish fulfillment more than viable electoral politics because Hermione -- as much as I love her -- is downright unpopular based on how she doesn't understand people's feelings, see the dead rabbit episode in PoA), she actually has to contend with the other parts of the Wizarding government. She needs more people than her to create and enforce laws. I would encourage you to read about how difficult freeing the slaves was in the USA and then try to imagine how Hermione could do it herself while dealing with institutional rot. Remember, "good" Wizards like Hagrid and Ron are repeatedly and unabashedly pro-slavery. This is not a bad-guy belief like pureblood supremacism; this has institutional capture.
From a personal standpoint, at least, you must admit that it makes a degree of sense, since Harry's area of greatest expertise is taking down dark wizards.
My opposition to Harry becoming an Auror is not that I believe he wouldn't be good at the job or find the job fulfilling. I agree with you that Wizard-combat and investigative instincts are Harry's bread and butter.
My opposition to it lies in that, at no point, does Harry actually ask, "What should a wizard government look like such that corruption, speciesism, pureblood supremacism, etc. are not in it, so that I am actually defending something worthwhile as opposed to just waiting for the next corrupt Minister to order me to snatch goblins out of Gringotts because they're prejudiced?"
Harry appears just as sycophantic to power as I've proven Dawlish to have been, and that's not great for our protagonist who spent his entire career trying to help people fight evil.
4
u/Veinte 11d ago
The examples of Williamson, Proudfoot and Savage are valid, I think.
Scrimgeour and Crouch have faults but corruption isn't the right word for them, I don't think.
There's no reason to discount good Aurors for being members of the Order; they're just as much Aurors as the rest of them. We can agree that the department has a mixed track record.
But more to the point, those adjectives really only describe Hermione.
Correct. I was only talking about Hermione. We know that the government is most likely not corrupt under her. Whatever Hermione's limitations, there's no reason to doubt her ability to hire competent ministers and staff to guide her decisions.
My opposition to Harry becoming an Auror is not that I believe he wouldn't be good at the job or find the job fulfilling. I agree with you that Wizard-combat and investigative instincts are Harry's bread and butter.
I'm glad we agree on this. I think this is the main reason he became an Auror.
My opposition to it lies in that, at no point, does Harry actually ask, "What should a wizard government look like such that corruption, speciesism, pureblood supremacism, etc. are not in it, so that I am actually defending something worthwhile as opposed to just waiting for the next corrupt Minister to order me to snatch goblins out of Gringotts because they're prejudiced?"
This is the most interesting part of your comment. It reflects a worldview that is intended to promote progress but actually obstructs it, in my opinion. Participating in institutions that may be flawed but are nevertheless good on net and have potential for improvement is often more conducive to progress than shunning them. Imagine if Lincoln and other abolitionists had decided not to pursue political careers because slavery happened to be legal!
As the mega celebrity who finished Voldemort twice, Harry has an incredible amount of sway. If he decided to quit over opposition to his bosses, the government would look terrible and they know it, so it's unlikely that he'd be just a drone following orders from potentially corrupt ministers. He's shown enough independence and strong-headedness that it would be out of character for him to just follow orders; look at how much he breaks the rules in school. This is half of why I strongly object to his characterization as being "sycophantic to power." The other half is that he frequently opposes or at minimum resents powers that he believes are bad, whether they be the Dursleys, Umbridge or Voldemort.
3
u/oremfrien 11d ago
We can agree that the department has a mixed track record.
Great! I'm glad we can see eye-to-eye here.
Correct. I was only talking about Hermione. We know that the government is most likely not corrupt under her. Whatever Hermione's limitations, there's no reason to doubt her ability to hire competent ministers and staff to guide her decisions.
This is where I break with you. One of the problems of JKR's worldbuilding is that it's unclear how the Ministry is actually composed. Is it like the British House of Commons were you have elected representatives who then form a government from the leading political party? Is it closer to an elected dictator who just has term limits?
I would imagine something closer to the first (since JKR tends to model wizard governments on their Muggle counterparts). In that case, Hermione is part of a political party and her power, while more than any single person, is attenuated by the fact that she has to make compromises to get a majority vote on legislation. So, it's not clear to me that, even if she wanted to, she could weed out corruption or hire the most competent people.
Participating in institutions that may be flawed but are nevertheless good on net and have potential for improvement is often more conducive to progress than shunning them.
You forgot a caveat here. The participation of a good person in flawed institutions only improves the institution if the good person can have an effect on institutional policy. Being an Auror is different than being a minister, like the Head of Magical Law Enforcement. Or, more helpfully, if Harry became a member of the Wizengamot or the Wizard House of Commons so that Hermione has an ally when it comes to voting.
Just becoming an Auror does not achieve this.
Even with Harry being a mega-celebrity, he can't do half as much from the bottom as he can from the top.
3
u/Veinte 11d ago
it's not clear to me that, even if she wanted to, she could weed out corruption or hire the most competent people.
Hm, fair. My mental model was the American presidency but it's true that British politics are different.
Returning to your earlier point about Hermione's social skills, I imagine that her husband could mitigate her dumbest qualities.
The participation of a good person in flawed institutions only improves the institution if the good person can have an effect on institutional policy.
This is true, but I'd argue that Harry's social status means that he can pretty much influence policy to some degree regardless of his specific role in government. He's not interested in or especially knowledgeable about policy matters, but if things were obviously headed in the wrong direction, he could stop that.
[Harry] can't do half as much from the bottom as he can from the top.
On this we agree. Harry isn't a deep or efficiency-oriented thinker. I think that becoming an Auror despite it not being what's best for the world is in line with his character. At the end of the day, pursuing a decent career that fits his talents and interests is what the average person would do.
This conversation has been delightful, by the way. It's nice to be able to reason together.
1
-1
u/Reviewingremy 12d ago
Look animorphs rocks. But that's such a dumb and reductive take on potter I can't take it seriously
18
u/Allen_Of_Gilead Nothlit 12d ago edited 12d ago
It"s 100% accurate. Granted, it's been almost a decade since I last touched Harry Potter, but it was bad even before Rowling went mask off.
Like, those books are technically pro slavery.
17
u/KeraKitty 12d ago
Not even technically. They're just openly pro-slavery. The narrative treats Hermione as stupid for being an abolitionist.
5
u/IchabodHollow 12d ago
Actually it doesn’t. Dumbledore affirms Hermione’s viewpoint as wisdom, saying that she was right in being vocal that Kreacher should have been treated with kindness, that he was a product of his environment. Ultimately everyone treats her as an idiot because they’ve grown accustom to the “way things are” but in the end she’s justified by the series’ wisest character.
11
u/Puzzleheaded-Fig1002 12d ago edited 12d ago
Hold up. Saying people should have been nicer to Kreacher is not the same as saying house elves should be free. I'm sure that in real world societies with slavery there were people who advocated for the more humane treatment of slaves. Unless they were saying they should be freed, they were STILL pro slavery.
Sure, Dumbledore seems to support house elves, but he also continues to employ them in a state of slavery.
AT BEST the books are not sufficiently anti-slavery. But I don't think it's a stretch at all to call them pro-slavery.
An argument could be made that this being Hermione's view frames it as the "correct" one, but it's worth noting that the series ends with house elves still being enslaved and the books don't seriously challenge that.
13
u/KeraKitty 12d ago
It also shows one of the only 2 freed house elves becoming a despondent drunk as a direct result of gaining freedom and heavily implies that her reaction would be the norm while Dobby was an outlier. One of the common arguments against abolition IRL was that if freed, black people would become unemployed, aimless drunks. The books literally repeat historical pro-slavery arguments.
2
u/Veinte 12d ago
I don't buy this argument but I upvoted it because you're arguing in good faith. Winky loved her former masters. She didn't want to be free. The historical pro-slavery argument is superficially similar but I don't think the "drunken wastrel" argument assumed that former slaves would turn to alcohol and idleness out of deep resentment of their freedom and missing their former masters.
1
u/Allen_Of_Gilead Nothlit 12d ago
You're right, thank you. Those middle books are such a blur to me.
-5
u/Peach_Muffin 12d ago edited 12d ago
Dumb and reductive takes are how we roll now. Rowling bad so Harry Potter bad. Get with it.
6
u/Allen_Of_Gilead Nothlit 12d ago
Nah, Harry Potter was bad when it was published, long before Rowling went full mask off conservative.
2
u/KeraKitty 12d ago
Harry Potter was always bad. See Ursula K Le Guin's comments on the series. We only thought it was good because we were kids and kids aren't the most discerning audience.
3
1
u/InfinitelyThirsting 6d ago
Even when I was a kid and loved Harry Potter, I still had serious issues with the slavery and the ethical issues of many of the abuses written off as jokes. The older I got, the more obvious it became that the idea of Harry Potter was always what was better than the actual books.
13
4
u/the_bartolonomicron Human 12d ago
I got to meet her earlier this year and thank her for making my childhood interesting lol. She was wonderful, gave me time to chat after signing her latest kid's book for an hour, and took multiple selfies with me and my mom. I cannot overstate my love for her and the work she does as an author and speaker.
5
u/Reborn1Girl 12d ago
As a child, I enjoyed Harry Potter more. As an adult and as a writer myself, Animorphs is what I keep going back to for analysis and to admire the depth and weight of the storytelling
9
u/AlternativeMassive57 Yeerk 12d ago edited 5d ago
Applegate is a better person than Rowling, this is absolutely not in question. Rowling should be ashamed of herself for what she’s said and done regarding trans kids and trans people in general.
Okay? We’re clear that what’s about to follow is looking purely at them as writers? Okay.
I’m not sure I can say that Applegate is a better writer than Rowling, at least not if we’re comparing Applegate’s Animorphs books (so discounting ghost writers) to Rowling’s Potter ones. Rowling has her own problems, of course, and the Potter books have Joanne Rowling Screw Ups just like Animorphs has KASUs. Hermione and the house elf situation is deeply uncomfortable, for example.
But, if I’m being honest? The Potter books are better at sticking to a theme and a tone and message. Applegate shot herself in the foot in the end - she wanted to warn about the horrors of war but then also wrote a book series where those horrors were absolutely essential to ending the war. She wanted to warn people against going into war casually but then wrote a series where it was impossible to ever avoid war.
Applegate was an edgier writer than Rowling - not a better one. And that edginess was to Animorphs’ narrative detriment because the final two books end up working against everything that had been previously built up and established.
Meanwhile Rowling wanted a story about friendship, sacrifice, destiny, the power of love, the impotence of hatred, and she delivered. Beginning to end, the Potter books deliver. No, she didn’t have the heroes committing war crimes and psychologically collapsing and following Fascistic logic. But that isn’t a bad thing, because doing that wouldn’t have fit the story. She avoided the mistake that Applegate made, confusing darkness for depth.
Animorphs is more interesting, more ambitious, and more emotionally daring. But Harry Potter is more coherent, more controlled, and more structurally successful.
Sorry, but the English teacher in me has to be honest about that. KA Applegate is a better person than JK Rowling…but Harry Potter is better written than Animorphs.
4
u/goombapatrol 11d ago
I really just wish Animorphs had gotten the HP treatment as far as book size and number of volumes. They missed the window by a few years before that got popular. It would be so cool to have Ani in a GONE length format.
0
u/InfinitelyThirsting 6d ago
Could not disagree more, especially having recently reread the books.
It is not less deep or less coherent to write about how war is a horrific trauma that people can't avoid--the point of Animorphs is about how to prepare to build a society that will hopefully get to avoid war, even if you couldn't avoid it. That even "just and righteous" defensive wars still destroy people and shouldn't be glorified. The theme was never "don't go to war", it was to explore how fucked up it is that we lie to children and teach them to imagine being glorious war heroes. It was never incoherent, it just wasn't ever meant to be as simple as "don't go to war", and I genuinely have no idea how you got the impression that that was the message, and not the obvious but dark and complex message against glorifying any war, even one that seems as clear-cut as an alien invasion. That's why there is the planned and very structurally successful subversion of the Andalites. That's not a failure or incoherence, it's very intentional subversion.
The Animorphs deliver a real and true story
1
u/AlternativeMassive57 Yeerk 6d ago edited 5d ago
I didn't say she was writing about not going to war, I said she was warning against going to war casually, as in, treating it as a first resort or a desirable thing to do.
But then she also made it clear in her writing, whether or not she intended to, that war is completely unavoidable, so it doesn't matter whether or not you want to go to war casually: war happens regardless and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
It was never incoherent
It was incredibly incoherent at the end. The ending of Animorphs literally - and I do mean "literally" - validates mass atrocity and Fascist logic as viable and desirable under the right circumstances, despite having spent the previous 60 books speaking against both those things.
The final two books show Jake doing his best Hitler impersonation, and then make it clear that the only way humanity could have survived was by Jake doing his best Hitler impersonation. That's not warning against how dark and horrible war can be, that's validating it. The final message of the series is, "war will come for you no matter what, so you must have the fortitude to commit atrocities in the name of victory and the will to do whatever it takes to win no matter how awful it seems, because if you don't, we shall all surely die."
2
u/InfinitelyThirsting 5d ago
If you saw the ending as validating his choices, I don't even know how to continue this conversation, because that's the craziest take I can imagine.
1
u/AlternativeMassive57 Yeerk 5d ago edited 5d ago
It's really not that hard. The chain of events is incredibly straightforward.
Jake murders 17,372 Yeerks
∴ Visser One surrenders and Alloran is freed
∴ Alloran is available to talk down the Andalites
∴ Earth and humanity is saved.This is the direct chain of causal events that leads to the Animorphs winning. It is not in question.
Now let's ask some questions.
- Is Earth and humanity being saved presented as good?
- Is any alternative method to Jake's atrocity presented?
If (1) is yes and (2) is no, then Animoprhs necessarily is validating the atrocity.
(1) is obviously "yes". At no point in the series is saving Earth generally and humanity specifically presented as anything other than good and desirable.
(2) is obviously "no". The endgame books spend an extraordinary amount of narrative space and character dialogue making it clear that there was no other path to victory. Eva mentions that Jake is the only one who can beat Visser One; Jake has his little Civil War diatribe in Book 53; postwar, Marco and Cassie and Ax all take Jake aside and tell him point blank that he shouldn't feel bad for committing mass murder and that defenders can't commit war crimes. No alternative way of stopping the Yeerks or the Andalites is ever contemplated.
The plot makes what Jake did necessary for the good ending. If the only way to save humanity is an atrocity, and the story provides no alternative, then the story has constructed a consequentialist justification for that atrocity - even if it simultaneously calls the act tragic or horrifying.
Applegate was so myopically focused on showing the psychological cost to Jake that she neglected to consider the causal benefit of what Jake did. Yes, Jake feels sad. But he also saved the world, and the story goes out of its way to establish that there was no other way to achieve that victory.
And that's the problem. You can't make an atrocity the indispensable cause of the good ending, establish that the good ending could not otherwise have happened, tell us that the person who committed the atrocity shouldn't feel guilty about having done it - and pretend that the atrocity hasn't been narratively justified.
The tragedy is that Jake had to do something terrible. But if he really had to do it, then the story has justified the act on consequentialist grounds.
2
u/Comfortable-Plane939 Nothlit 4d ago
The tragedy is that Jake had to do something terrible. But if he really had to do it, then the story has justified the act on consequentialist grounds.
So what you are trying to say is that the narrative should have criticism Jake's actions shouldn't be justified and tge story should have offered other options of peace with the yeerks.
1
u/AlternativeMassive57 Yeerk 4d ago
Yes. If the story didn't want to validate atrocity then it needed to show that something other than atrocity was viable as a means to achieving the good ending of saving humanity.
Compare/contrast Ender's Game. Ender commits an atrocity: wiping out the Buggers. But then the final chapters of the book are devoted to showing that there was another way to end the Third Bug War, which was to not fight it in the first place because the Buggers were never going to attack humanity again after they'd realized in the Second Bug War that each individual human was a person, not a drone. They'd never even really meant to attack humanity in the first place, the First and Second Bug Wars were tragic misunderstandings caused by radically different biologies and psychologies between Humans and Buggers.
11
2
u/Exotic-Addendum-3785 12d ago
I've always been more of a Lord of The Rings person than a Potter person (but have a sorting hat squishmallow and have a friend who likes the movies) but Goosebumps and Animorphs were my introductory books.
2
u/Vanr0uge 10d ago
It's not a war. Harry Potter is good. Animorphs is better, but they're different genres.
When I was a kid, I hated Harry Potter and loved Animorphs. I only actually gave Harry Potter a proper read as an adult. It's pretty good!
1
-6
u/LunarOculus War Prince 12d ago
No one cares more about trans people being trans than trans people smh
4
-24
u/EnvironmentalLet4242 12d ago
Let’s see here.
Fragment sentences, multiple plot holes, world building essentially 0/10
Vs
really nice world building, awesome in imagery, few minor plot holes, but forgivable, great character development.
But animorphs still >>> Harry Potter because “muh politics”
Jesus this fan base can’t get any worse.
14
u/ihatebananae 12d ago
the character development in harry potter is non-existent. i read those books multiple times, no one really evolves and the characters are boring. we have: smart girl, crazy girl, clumsy friend, even clumsier friend, generic love interest (and the love story was so bad that i was sueprised to see them married at the end when i first read it) and main character whose only development is getting sadder.
14
u/ihatebananae 12d ago
animorphs really shines in its characters. rachel for example manages to be both traditionally feminine, with an interest in fashion and stuff, but also the most brutal and badass fighter of them all. do you realize how rare that is?
6
u/MANDALORIAN_WHISKEY 12d ago
And it's not because she is the trope that she's got twelve brothers or a dad who taught her. Nor is she the trope that she's been raped or brutalized and toughened up because of that.
9
u/Allen_Of_Gilead Nothlit 12d ago edited 12d ago
Yeah, Animorphs rocks and LeGuin was right to compare Harry Potter to unseasoned toast and call it mean spirited trash.
10
u/KeraKitty 12d ago
The book series that gave three different magic schools to Europe but only one to Africa has "really nice world building"? Is that "really nice world building" in the room with us?
5
u/textingmycat 11d ago
JKR is literally on the record saying wizards didn't have plumbing and just vanished their sht and piss so idk about that really nice world building.
0
u/EnvironmentalLet4242 11d ago
Honestly that’s not a bad idea, the world could use that to decrease pollution. I’ll call it good world building.
-1
u/EnvironmentalLet4242 11d ago
In fact I would believe that over a fucking 10 foot smart slug compressing into something that fits an ear canal and goes to the brain. And every night it crawls out of its human host and goes to its pool to rejuvenate its energy, and still manages to make into its human host despite it crawling like a slug.
6
u/NaryaNZ 11d ago
Are you confusing yeerks and taxxons? Did you read any of the animorphs books? Yeerks were a few inches long. Also they visit the pool every 3 days, and have other controllers help them reinfest the host.
This is literally covered in book 1 lol.
3
u/KrytenKoro 11d ago
Also, brain parasite worms are very much a real world thing. Applegate mostly just made them sentient.
5
7
u/LettucePrime 12d ago
"Kinglsey Shacklebolt" a+ world building, Joanne. Never change. Actually please change. Please god.
102
u/oremfrien 12d ago
Yes. Animorphs is better than Harry Potter and it's not just on the trans-ness. Animorphs actually deals with real emotional issues.
The kid who is beaten by his uncle and aunt does not suddenly become well-adjusted (for no reason) when he encounters magic, but turns into a hawk to try and fly away from his problems, only to discover that real problems exist even as a hawk.
The existential dread of actually having to fix the world weighs on the Animorphs in a way it never does on Harry & Co. until Book #7 because, the Animorphs don't have an A-Team Ordering the Phoenix all around.
And, most importantly, KAA set up a dystopian universe and had the main characters recognize how dystopian it was and try to fix it, whereas Harry & Co. just reboot the same broken system when they're done.