I love the HP book precisely because they are not complex. I would not say the fantasy genre is hard to get into, unless you somehow read Ursula LeGuin as your first but most people go for The Lord of the Rings as a first "serious" fantasy read. LOTR isn't very complex at all and at the first reading, unless you have a little background on Tolkien, you miss on a lot of his points.
As far as the genre itself goes, does it really matter how serious it is? Why would you even expect it to be anything but childish in the first place? Fairy-tales are childish and for kids but you don't expect them to be serious (not these days at least, I don't wanna get into the Grimm brothers now).
Also, your categorization on people that love H.P. is plain silly.
Lord of the Rings is, however, far better written than Harry Potter is and was far more original for its time. Honestly I don't think LotR holds up that well anymore, but that's besides the point. Again, I have nothing against people that love Harry Potter. I feel like I have to repeat that over and over. The OP was questioning the validity of Harry Potter's popularity and whether it was a mass marketing manipulation or not, which they believe is the case because the books aren't very good nor very original. I'm just explaining that it blew up in popularity precisely because it's simplistic and very derivative of all other fantasy that came before and contains practically every fantasy trope that has ever existed. This is true of lots of super popular things, whether it's a fairy tale for children or a BDSM erotica novel for adults (I think you know the one). The more popular something is, the more likely it is that it's just an "entry point," into a niche that has already existed for a long time but wasn't palatable to the general public until somebody wrote a boiled down, oversimplified version of it. If you find that offensive don't get mad at me, I have absolutely nothing to do with it, I was just countering the OP's nonsense with the truth.
Also, my categorization is not silly, because it comes from my life. I said, and I quote, "most people I know." I also still fail to see how people are taking offense to it. Is there something wrong with somebody reading Harry Potter, loving it, but then moving on to Brandon Sanderson, Neil Gaiman, Pratchett, Patricia A. McKillip, V.E. Schwab, or the Thursday Next series? Ya know, things that scratch that exact same itch but don't have terrible prose and plot holes, have a more complex plot, more complex characters, and that actually attempt to invert or avoid tropes so that their work doesn't just come across as completely generic? What's wrong with that? I'm not talking about James Joyce here when I say "deeper," I'm just saying, "better written and more original than Harry Potter."
Edited by davidh219, 08 July 2016 - 11:01 PM.