In defense of Harry Potter and YA

[Anonymous No.16183996]

HP and other YA's are completely fine by themselves. They present characters who are dimensional enough for the general public to relate to them and softcore pseudophilosophical and moral questions, which are interesting and compelling for a light read.

I never got the hate it gets from this board.

It wasn't meant to be a deep and revolutionary series of books, it doesn't present itself as something deep and that takes time to digest. It's a simple, well told and superficial enough book for kids to read and to most adults to not be bored. It's the perfect average book that people should be reading, and I will absolutely give it to my brother once he matures a little.

It can make reading fun for youngs and be a little escapism for adults, it serves it's purpose, it's a book where you can get enjoyment from in a simple way.

For that I think HP is a good saga, it made worldwide success for a reason. It brought happiness to lots of people and has a solid enough fundation in a critic perspective. Never look down to a HP fan thinking they are sub 80 IQ NPC subhumans, they just like to read as anyone from this board.

[Anonymous No.16184006]

>>16183996
>Seething this hard from the YA thread

[Anonymous No.16184011]

Go the fuck back.

[Anonymous No.16184018]

>>16183996
The problem isn't Harry Potter. The problem is literal adults reading this and thinking it's the epitome of literature and never reading anything else.

[Anonymous No.16184074]

>>16184018
Whats the problem then? It's quite obvious that all they want is a bit of lighthearted escapism. For that objective, there is absolutely nothing wrong in saying HP is the epitome of literature. In their context, of this desire of easy and digestable enjoyment, HP is truly a masterpiece.

[Anonymous No.16184126]

>>16183996
No one cares what you read, nigger.
Literally the only fags memeing HP in this board are fags from from reddit and twitter
HP didn't even existed to this board 3 months ago.

[Anonymous No.16184160]

>>16184074
Not that anon but for one to consider HP a masterpiece by itself is a sign that the person is narrow-minded about literature. The problem for me isn't liking Harry Potter, is pretending, as some people do, that classics are boring, unimportant books made to please academics or something like that. I don't really think it's entirely their fault to think that, though: some schools (at least in my country) make kids read uncomprehensible shit at early age which makes such feeling of resentment understandable.

[Anonymous No.16184166]

>>16184160
>that classics are boring, unimportant books made to please academics or something like that.
a lot of them are, there is some truth to it

[Anonymous No.16184183]

I myself get bored with classics easily but I think that has more to do with me being a brainlet that is unable to unsderstand what the author had to say than anything else.

[Anonymous No.16184773]

>>16183996
Harry Potter is fine. However I read the books between ages six and eleven. In saying it's fine, I mean I liked it then. I liked Lemony Snicket and Roald Dahl and C.S. Lewis, I lump the four together because they do similar things. Those are good books for children. I honestly couldn't invest myself in stuff like Animorphs or Warriors at the time. Same with Eragon. Percy Jackson, Hunger Games, etc were bigger after my time. I do prefer Harry Potter to the stuff I just mentioned but in their defense I haven't read that stuff. Then again, just from the plot points they always seemed boring to me. At the very least, for you people on /lit/, how would you rank all the YA books/book series/authors that you've read?

[Anonymous No.16185447]

>>16184166
Name them.

[Anonymous No.16185659]

>>16183996
Nothing in your post convinces me that you've read any of it. For a start, what the fuck happened to the pacing after the end of Prisoner of Azkaban? Why are Rowling's main plots always transparently relying on characters being retarded? In the first four books, how does Ron's character differ significantly from Harry's?

[Anonymous No.16185684]

>>16183996
Go back, we don’t want you here, you don’t belong here. Stop seething because your shitty taste and low standards actually get called out here. These books are for ten year olds, and even then none of them are as good as the best children’s books, there is no part of any Harry Potter book as beautiful as The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn in The Wind In The Willows. This is meant to be somewhere with standards in literature (though that has significantly fallen off during the summer of wuflu), if that upsets you, just leave.

[Anonymous No.16185902]

>>16184773
Based Cave Story fan.
Ballos was a bitch and a half but I finally beat him

[Anonymous No.16185924]

>>16185902
>Getting children to read HP instead of His Dark Materials.
Hmmmm

[Anonymous No.16186229]

>>16183996
No one cares. HP is fine for genre fiction, but beyond the plot there isn’t much else to discuss, as is the case with all genre fiction. It’s not that it’s inherently wrong or bad, it’s just that a literature forum isn’t going to be full of people interested in talking about the plot of this month’s Stephen King novel. ‘Irrelevant’ is a more appropriate term.

[Anonymous No.16186362]

Why do you expect people to understand your random initialism? YA? Young Adult, I'm guessing, but man that was annoying to read.

[Anonymous No.16186382]

>>16186362
If you spent more than 30 seconds on this board you’d know what YA stood for. Thank God summer is nearly over.

[Anonymous No.16186387]

>>16186382
Hey old guy, summer internet hasn't been a thing since the advent of smartphones.

[Anonymous No.16186666]

>>16184773
>How would you rank all the YA author's you've read?
Only YA worth reading is G.A. Henty.

[Anonymous No.16186682]

>>16183996
>it doesn't present itself as something deep and that takes time to digest.
It isn't and wasn't until J.K. Rowling swallowed her own bullshit.

>>16185659
Maybe he only read the first three books where that post actually makes sense, because there is a definite change between 1-3 and 5-7 with 4 kind of being a hybrid of both.
Books 1-3:
>self-contained adventures of a school-aged boy and his friends
>Snape's character still largely intact, kind of a dick but ultimately a good guy who saved Harry's ass from Quirrel's meddling in the first book despite appearances to the contrary
>Voldemort as the recurring villain
Books 5-7:
>a messy serialized story with tons of plot holes
>making Snape a bad guy culminating in killing Dumbledore, culminating in a long-winded explanation
>Voldemort as the end-all villain with Hitler overtones

[Anonymous No.16186868]

>>16183996
>having a reasonable opinion not center on irrational hatred

Get the fuck off this site

[Anonymous No.16187056]

>>16183996
"No!"