/lit/ - Literature

>>10043460
This is a very interesting phenomenon. Often they take it to be the case that when someone speaks to them it must be an argument, ignorant of the other persons non-participation in any kind of argument they are confused by the commentary. And once again take it as an ego-boost by telling themselves that the other person just isn't as smart as they are.

It's indicative of the hostile way in which they approach, and perceive, the world. They imagine hostilities are happening where there are none, that exchanges are hostile when they are not, and that anyone who doesn't meet their aggression must implicitly be submitting to it. This is a very dismal view of the world, and I regret that 4chan is anonymous so I can't find out more of the lives of these people and maybe discover why they are like this.

How was school for you, anon?

Okay, listen up you plebs trying to act patrician and you patricians acting like god damned plebs. Here is why what Bloom says is all correct but he is still wrong.

First, I'd like to point out that Bloom admits to only having read the first book, and erroneously assumes that it is the best. Apparently he is making that assumption out of a generalization of the fantasy/YA genre: that he first book is always the best.

Let's ignore that Rowling gets objectively better at writing as the series goes on, and lets ignore that Bloom is ignorant enough to pass judgement on an entire series based on the first book, and focus on Bloom's criticism. He is right that the series is filled with cliches and boring characters. He is also right that there is absolutely no merit whatsoever in the series. It has no impact outside its fictitious walls.

But could children be reading something better? Has Bloom presented any worthwhile alternatives? The only YA novel I can think of that has "real" characters facing real problems is the Bartimaeous trilogy, and I doubt Bloom has taken note of it.

What Harry Potter has accomplished, though, is instilling wonder and a sense of fascination in the minds of our generation. Fascination, to be specific, with reading. I read HP as a kid. I fucking loved it. And immediately after I was done reading whichever new book of Harry Potter had just come out, I started looking for new books, hell, I remember consciously looking for books that would top Harry Potter.

Harry Potter lead to Gulliver's Travels; Gulliver's Travels lead to Robinson Crusoe and the Count of Monte Cristo and Huckleberry Finn and LOTR; and ultimately I find myself a 22 year old who is more well read than probably 99% of the general population.

Did Harry Potter start it? No. I liked reading before then. But Harry Potter showed me what is possible with fiction. To create an entire world with characters that I knew and loved and a struggle that I cared about as much as the characters.

Would I still be the lit loving patrician I am today if not for Harry Potter? I don't know. Maybe. But Bloom's assertion that kid's should be reading something of literary merit really bugs me. Was he ever even a kid? I imagine a 6-year old with that same fucking mopey 60-year old face.

But I digress. Point is: Harry Potter doesn't just get kids reading; it teaches kids how to love books. And that, in this day and age, is a truly invaluable lesson.

lmao tripfags are just self-destructing all over the place. First Tallis telling us he's gonna beat us up over Nietzsche now Feminister going full empowered womyn. I sense the beginning of a new era, /lit/

>>4985366
Alright buddy. But in 5-10 years you'll look back and realize exactly how much you sacrificed for your pseudo-principles and laziness.