Harry Potter is horrible?

[Anonymous No.3061882]

Literary critics also attacked the Potter series. Harold Bloom, a Yale literature professor, accused the books of “making no demands” on its readers and “dumbing down” the children’s literature tradition of J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. He claimed, “Rowling’s mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing.”

>Are you a Potter fan?

>Does the success of the Potter books mean anything?

[Anonymous No.3061887]

Bloom thinks Blood Meridian is the best novel of the 20th century. He obviously isn't sane any longer, if he ever was.

[Anonymous No.3061888]

>>3061887

Harry Potter still sucks, though.

[Anonymous No.3061891]

>>3061882
I don't really see how Lord of the Rings is any better than Harry Potter.

[Anonymous No.3061892]

I'm in a class where we're studying the meta narrative in literature and we spent 1.5 weeks on the Deathly Hallows. Shit is filled with Christian motifs and it references Greek myth extensively. It's not bad literature if you read it for more than the prose quality.

[Anonymous No.3061893]

>>3061891

What I don't understand is that Bloom considers The Lord of the Rings to be children's literature.

[Anonymous No.3061894]

it isn't horrible. it's not great. it reaches "good" sometimes.

narnia, prydain, and the dark is rising, are all better.

[Anonymous No.3061903]

>>3061893
Because it's children's literature?
There's really not much substance to Lord of the Rings. The characters are flat and boring, the plot is uninspired, really all he has is the world he created.

[Anonymous No.3061906]

>>3061882
>children’s literature tradition of J.R.R. Tolkien
subtle.

[Anonymous No.3061909]

>>3061894
>dark is rising
Damn! That's the first time I've heard that mentioned ever.
I remember reading those back when I was a kid. I read them all even though I didn't particularly enjoy them, and didn't remember anything about them afterwards.
Pretty mediocre, overall.

[Anonymous No.3061910]

>>3061903
>what is prose?

[Anonymous No.3061913]

>>3061910
The prose is also pretty flat, boring, and uninspired.

[Anonymous No.3061914]

JKs looking pretty good, would fuck.

[Anonymous No.3061920]

>>3061906
It was intended for children. Is that a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.3061942]

>>3061894

I picked up The Grey King and Silver on the Tree at a library book sale after seeing some award stamped on the cover. I'm missing the first 3 books.

Over Sea, Under Stone
The Dark Is Rising
Greenwitch


Apparently a film version was made named The Seeker. It strayed from the source material and bombed.

[Anonymous No.3061944]

I agree with this, except that CS Lewis is really no better.

[Anonymous No.3061951]

Lord of the Rings is in no way children's literature. The Hobbit is children's literature. As for Lord of the Ring's, a smart kid of about 11+ can probably read it and digest a fair portion of it, but just as much will leaving them blinking, dumbfounded, and I doubt if they'll get very much enjoyment out of it. Tolkien's prose is dense. Sometimes to good effect (then we call it "rich"), but often to bad.

[Anonymous No.3061969]

>>3061951

There are no characters under the age of 13 in LotR that would appeal to children the say way Harry Potter would.

[Anonymous No.3061971]

>>3061969
What are hobbits again

[Anonymous No.3061976]

>>3061909
i have to admit i didn't like the final book, silver on the tree, but i thought the grey king rightfully won a newberry and i still love the dark is rising. everyone few years i'll nostalgia and read the dark is rising at christmas time. the other two books are good adventures.

>>3061942
i heard the director didn't read the book. wtf. i didn't bother to watch it.


the welsh mythos are a nice change of pace and they're definitely a step up from rowling's recycled plots and plot devices. i got pretty sick of rowling advancing the plot by having harry spying on everyone.

[Anonymous No.3061978]

>>3061971

The hobbits are all like 50, technically. And even at surface-level, they're all dudes in like their early 20's.

[Anonymous No.3062011]

>>3061951
Maybe most kids these days wouldn't get the prose. Bookish kids still will, I think. Back in the day of course there wasn't really anything apart from adult literature and children's lit, and they were miles apart. Getting sense out of an adult narrative was just something you did once you moved past the kiddie shit. Now kids spend decades digesting pap, of course most of them can't handle anything more complex. Which isn't to say that LOTR is All That, but it's certainly dense and unfriendly prose relative to The Hobbit.

[Anonymous No.3062025]

>>3061913
>I'm going to say the same 3 things about books I hate because of their popularity.

[Anonymous No.3062043]

>>3061913
> uninspired
At what point does one determine when prose is "inspired" or not?

[Anonymous No.3062057]

Why does every discussion about Harry Potter have to involve a comparison to LotR? They're not even in the same genre.

[Anonymous No.3062058]

>>3062043

If a piece of literature is divinely inspired and written down by human authors it is easy to determine if the prose is "inspired".

>>The BIBLE
which is the basis for the Harry Potter stories.
>>3061892

[Anonymous No.3062345]

>>3061903
>There's really not much substance to Lord of the Rings. The characters are flat and boring, the plot is uninspired, really all he has is the world he created.

> Can't unto literature and subtext.

[Anonymous No.3062352]

Hey, at least kids are reading...

[Anonymous No.3062359]

Attacking children's literature? How cliche and uninspired.

[Anonymous No.3062361]

>>3061893
He never said that in that quote we got here. i'd assume he's talking about the Hobbit, Roverandom, that kind of shit.

[Anonymous No.3062371]

>>3061903
>There's really not much substance to Lord of the Rings. The characters are flat and boring, the plot is uninspired, really all he has is the world he created.

categorically wrong but who's counting?

[Anonymous No.3062378]

>>3062371
You mean that Lord of the Rings is not a book subject to the categories of analysis of depth of character, inspiration of plot and quality of setting?

Because I think you just denied that Lord of the Rings was susceptible to critique. You do realise we live in an age of Universal critique where instead of actually solving problems all that bourgeois politics can do is endlessly traverse the Real of its own implicit negation, because the substantive negation of politics is the politics of human liberation in the form of the working class, therefore leaving critique purposeless in relation to the perfection of the liberal enlightenment individual and thus necessitated in every situation as it has lost its proper object of attachment AND SO ON AND SO ON.

[Anonymous No.3062382]

>>3062378
Good Post Dude

fuck this, i'm going to bed

no more pointlessly struggling against the tyranny of dreaming for me. once more i stop denying the physical constraints of fatigue and submit myself to the endless tedium of waiting to fall asleep, of sleeping, of dreaming, of awaking again. god i hate this. but it's still better than reading this shit on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.3062403]

>>3062378
>You mean that Lord of the Rings is not a book subject to the categories of analysis of depth of character, inspiration of plot and quality of setting?

No. I've told you already: you can't unto subtext. It's OK, though, there are still many books suitable for you, to be read at a lower level.

[Anonymous No.3062413]

>>3062403
>LOTR subtext

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.3062415]

>>3062403
Please, do go and misuse the term "categorically wrong," again.

[Anonymous No.3062421]

>>3062403
>implying LOTR is a difficult book
>implying LOTR isn't just War And Peace but without the gripping protagonists and clearly defined antagonists

[Anonymous No.3062479]

1. It's christfag propaganda.
2. The writing is consistently mediocre.
3. Harry is the worst "hero" in all literature.

[Anonymous No.3062484]

I preferred the Abhorsen Trilogy when I was a kid. pls rape my face.

[Anonymous No.3062500]

>>3061887
When did he say that? I thought it was one of his favourite *American* novels.

[Anonymous No.3062501]

>>3062479
1. It's christfag propaganda.

Harry potter is a metaphor for cannabis: Wizards are smokers who get to experience the magic. Muggles are straight-edge kids who are ignorant of the magic. A wand is obviously a spliff, and Dumbledore is Tommy Chong.

[Anonymous No.3062547]

>>3061976
One of these days I'll have to reread that series. I know I read it as a kid, owned the books and everything, but for some reason all I can remember about it is that I think I found it depressing.

That and A Wrinkle In Time.

[Anonymous No.3062565]

>>3062421
>implying LOTR is a difficult book

It's not. It just doesn't fit into either the two cliche molds that are acceptable to a modern reader of fiction:
- "plot-driven, 'relatable' characters"
- "I read literature for the prose"

>implying LOTR isn't just War And Peace

It's not. Read 'Leaf by Niggle' or something -- it's short and beats you over the head with the themes that 'LotR' does better and more subtly.

[Anonymous No.3062779]

>>3062345

>Can't unto
>unto

[Anonymous No.3062801]

I read the Harry Potter series when I was 14 and am glad I did. Before that I hated reading, and English was my worst subject (my first language isn't English so pardon my bad expressions). One of my classmates forced me to read the Potter series together with her, and after being pestered again and again I thought why not, since it was popular and almost every other kid was reading it.

After reading the Harry Potter series, it was as if something unlocked inside me - I figured that reading was actually fun and I wanted to read more. So I went looking for books that were popular or adapted into movies, like Memoirs of a Geisha, The Time Traveller's Wife, The Road, Twilight series, The saga of Darren Shan, Dan Brown's books, The Reader, Q&A (Slumdog Millionaire), etc because they were easy to find. /lit/ will most probably cringe at the titles I mentioned, but for a 14 year old kid at that time who didn't even bother to pick up a book before, it was surely a good sign.

(cont)

[Anonymous No.3062805]

>>3062801
(cont)
I moved on to The Chronicles of Narnia, then The Hobbit, then The Lord of the Rings, and as I became more and more familiar with the more 'olden' writing style, I went to read Alice in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass, Around the World in Eighty Days, A Journey to the Center of the Earth, Frankenstein, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Study in Scarlet, The Sign of Four, Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, Lord of the Flies, etc.

I'm currently not reading any books because I need to focus on revising for my A Levels (I'm 18), but I've got in mind to read more classic fiction or dystopian/ depressing literature after the examinations are over.

>>3062352
>Hey, at least kids are reading...

Exactly! Since many children nowadays don't read, enticing them with fashionable books might get them going and move on to even better books.

>yes I'm a Potter fan

>the success of the Potter books mean a great deal to me - I owe my love of reading to it

[Anonymous No.3062829]

>>3061892
>Academia told me this was a deep book, it must be!

I bet someone could convince you if any book was "good literature" if they taught it to you and you felt they were a legitimate authority.

[Anonymous No.3062845]

>>3061887
No, he thinks A la recherche du temps perdu is the best 20th century novel and Mason & Dixon is the best anglophone 20th century novel.

[Anonymous No.3062846]

>>3062829

Witness the anti-intellectualism of the self-taught man, who thinks that between browsing /lit/ and having skimmed Hume that one time, he now has special insight into life.

[Anonymous No.3062849]

>>3061892
ASOIAF is absolutely packed with classical and historical references too. Doesn't make it "deep".

[Anonymous No.3062853]

>>3061913
Not just bland, but bad. Rowling writes awful sentences. No grasp of syntax, terrible diction, total lack of rhythm.

[Anonymous No.3062855]

>>3062805
it's October, there's plenty of time to read.
You should read the Iliad btw (and drop a subject and take up classics)

[Anonymous No.3062878]

>>3062849
>packed with classical and historical references
Like what? Why?

[Anonymous No.3062882]

>>3062853
Not that I'm disagreeing with you but it's the easiest thing in the world to say someone "writes awful sentences",
give an example.

[Anonymous No.3062895]

>>3062855
Thanks for the recommendation.

In my country we've got 20 days left to the first paper. I regret not taking up Literature last year :\

[Anonymous No.3062896]

Rowling may not be able to write, but at least she can think/.

[Anonymous No.3062899]

>>3062896

>jab at DFW on /lit/

Get a load of this trailblazer right here.

[Anonymous No.3062909]

>>3062895
You said a levels so I thought you were english.
Sorry

[Anonymous No.3062914]

>>3062878
Well we know for a fact that the Iliad, Odyssey and Aeneid were major inspirations, and from the ambiguous morality to the Homeric epithets, the influence is obvious. It's also pretty clear that Martin's motifs of personal transformation and the tragedy of love were taken straight out of Ovid's Metamorphoses. On top of that I've spotted tonnes of allusions to Arthurian legend (particularly Sir Gawain and the Green Knight), the Eddas, The Song of Roland, and Welsh and Irish mythology. As well as the too-obvious-to-mention parallels between Mediaeval British and European history.

[Anonymous No.3062917]

>>3062896
>but at least she can think/.

not really.

[Anonymous No.3062921]

>>3061951

That's just bull. LotR can and should be read as a kid. Many of my friends read Lotr and enjoyed it when they were 13 or younger. I myself read LotR at seven and Silmarillion when I was eight years old, and those were some of the biggest cornerstones of my childhood.

[Anonymous No.3062937]

Deus Ex Machina: The Book

[Anonymous No.3062942]

>>3062921
By "children's literature" people mean "dumbed down, declawed pulp", which LOTR really isn't.

[Anonymous No.3062977]

>>3062921
i read the hobbit at 12 years old and the stand at 13 probably why i grew up with some weird ideas

[Anonymous No.3062979]

I read The Hobbit as a kid, but I thought The Lord of the Rings was boring. Turns out I was right.

[Anonymous No.3062983]

>>3062896

[Anonymous No.3062992]

>>3061892
Community collage is clearly 2deep4me.

[Anonymous No.3062998]

>>3062845
I'm p. sure he called Ulysses the greatest work of the 20th century.

[Anonymous No.3063013]

>>3062998
Either that or Finnegans Wake, depending on his mood

[Anonymous No.3063020]

>>3063013
He says that 'Finnegans Wake' is Joyce's best book despite the fact that he doesn't enjoy or even understand it, which, to me, is a perfect example of why Bloom is a worthless hack.

[Anonymous No.3063021]

>>3063020
When did he say that he doesn't enjoy or understand it?

[Anonymous No.3063038]

>>3061893
Nigga I read those books in 4th and 5th grade and know other people that did the same. They may be upper children's literature, but still children's literature.

[Anonymous No.3063045]

>>3061978
>>3061969

>I cannot connect with characters unless they are the same age as me or under 13.

[Anonymous No.3063062]

Could anyone point me in the direction of a collection of Bloom's criticism. Struggling to find anything.

Also, does anyone have a pdf of How to Read and Why, by Bloom, I'd appreciate it. Thanks /lit/

[Anonymous No.3063086]

>>3063062
I have a massive collection of critical anthologies he's edited, but he only provides introductions for them, sometimes including a bit of his own criticism. You should be able to find them on libgen.info.

Can't find any of his earlier works, if that's what you want.

[Anonymous No.3063093]

>>3063086
Thanks

[Anonymous No.3063222]

>>3062805
Interesting, your list entirely duplicated my own adolescent-aged reading. I salute, hands-across-the-sea etc etc etc.

[Anonymous No.3063232]

>>3061882

She really did dumb down children's literature. Have you read the Hunger Games? Holy buttfucking shit, man. Rowling's writing is better than it, but she really is what opened the gateway for all of this piss pore writing we have today that is aimed at kids / young adults. Go and read something by Roald Dahl, and you'll see just how far above Harry Potter it is.

[Anonymous No.3063259]

I'm glad I read Harry Potter while I was still younger than 16, because I wouldn't have been interested if I was any older.

I did like the references to Christian lore in the last book, but a lot of it was cliche. Self sacrifice/ Harry Potter is Jeebus. Who saw that coming?!

I didn't see much of a style besides mentioning the color "forget-me-not blue" over 9000 times. But I will admit that I appreciated how the books became more mature as Harry and co. became more mature.

[Anonymous No.3063263]

>>3063232
True. Books aren't just for smart people any more.

[Anonymous No.3063266]

>>3063232
Roald Dahl is the man.

I think I haven't jumped on the Hunger Games bandwagon because I'm old enough to realize how boring the writing is. If I were the same age as I was when I first started reading Harry Potter, I might like.

[Anonymous No.3063303]

>>3063232
>>3063266

See also Lemony Snicket, who's the modern day equivalent.

[Anonymous No.3063813]

>>3063266

>>3063232

Roald Dahl is a hell of a writer.

[Anonymous No.3063827]

>>3063303
I read a few of his Series of Unfortunate events. He can make a great mood.

[Anonymous No.3064670]

>>3063222
Salute to you too, sir trips

[Anonymous No.3064684]

>>3063232
You're saying that JKR is responsible for other writers writing shitty books?

[Anonymous No.3065263]

>>3061893
I read both LOTR and the first three Harry Potters at the age of 13. I was obsessed with LOTR, and remember being pretty into Potter as well.

15 years later I still find LOTR very readable. Not so much Harry Potter. Of course, finding LOTR readable or not is very much down to personal preference, but personally I'm very fond of Tolkien's style. Rowling doesn't really have that distinctive quality to her writing. It's bland as fuck, and when you're no longer quite as fascinated with the magical boy wizard and his school there isn't really anything there to go back to.

So yes, I'd say that they're both children's literature in their own way, but that Tolkien has more staying power.

[Anonymous No.3065524]

>>3062413
Most of the appeal of LOTR for me lies in the effort Tolkein put into his world. He was one of the first writers to go to such length in creating his cultures as to add mythology, alphabets, language and a depth of history to his cultures and races. At the time most of the fantasy elements Tolkein used (many of which he pioneered, some of which remained the mainstay of the fantasy genre for decades) weren't overused cliches back in his day. LOTR might not have epic levels of character depth and development, but in terms of the effect Tolkein had on the imagination...damn good fantasy by one of the fathers of the genre.

[Anonymous No.3065532]

>>3061887
He only feels that Blood Meridian, Underworld, American Pastoral, Sabbaths Theater, Crying of Lot 49, Mason Dixon, and Gravity's Rainbow are the entries to the American Canon in the latter half of the 20th century.

Also, Blood Meridian is amazing, but Bloom likes it because he sees it as damning the American gun culture (says this in interview). So fuck Bloom on blood meridian, I see it as an exploration of man's bestial side and a damn fine western.

[Anonymous No.3065560]

I read Helter Skelter when I was 13, is that children's lit?

LoTR is like Dune and Ender's Game, in that a certain subset of male children enjoy it, but it is not YA fiction. Compare aforementioned titles to something like say, the Redwall series

[Anonymous No.3065565]

>>3061892
Yes, because referencing the Bible and Greek Myths makes a novel good (no one has ever referenced those before, by the way). The Harry Potter series is underwhelming even by teen fiction standards. Mediocre prose, poor world-building, uninspired ideas, cliched plot. The characters are good and that's about it. Stuff like the Bartimaeus trilogy and His Dark Materials are more compelling teen fantasy series in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.3065570]

>>3065565
>poor world building
Now you're just lying.

[Anonymous No.3065587]

>>3065570
The magic system has no consistency and makes no sense. All the mythical stuff is ripped off from other mythologies and stories (phoenixes, elves, unicorns, dragons, etc.) There's nothing original at all. Shit world-building.

[Anonymous No.3065592]

>>3065587
>Magic makes no sense
>Implying it does with authors who you praise for their world-building
>Elements are taken from Western culture
>Who is John Ronald Reuel Tolkien

[Anonymous No.3065603]

>mfw girl I am dating says she loves reading

>oh really? what kind of books do you read?

>harry potter books only, he's the best

>mfw

[Anonymous No.3065608]

>>3065592
The other authors I mentioned have a lot more interesting ideas than Rowling does by far (and are much better writers).Jonathan Stroud actually makes an attempt at explaining the magic system he's laid out and it's pretty cool. Rowling's is just threadbare and dull and ridiculous. And why are you talking about Tolkein? I didn't mention him.

[Anonymous No.3065625]

Probably the best children's literature of the past 50 years. It succeeds where Harry Potter failed in introducing adult themes into adolescent work, without making it too hamfisted. Unlike Rowling, Stroud properly relegates the magical elements to the background and uses them as the basis for human drama. That was one of the main complaints people had about HP--magical techniques are introduced and dropped without mention, often only appearing once to serve as a convenient plot device, and too often the books are just an encyclopedia of wizarding practices.

If you have kids, let them read Harry Potter, but also put this book in their hands. It's just as good as the "classical" children's lit, and more contemporary.

[Anonymous No.3065639]

>>3065560
>a certain subset of male children enjoy it

Really? Tolkien did always have a substantial female fan base, even before the movies. The books might have a pretty skewed male:female ratio character wise, but girls usually have no trouble identifying with male characters.

[Anonymous No.3065650]

>>3065625
I agree with you completely. It's a much more sophisticated series than Harry Potter.

And how great is that ending? The last page of Ptolemy's Gate still moves me today, and it's been a long time since I've read teen fiction.

[Anonymous No.3065665]

>>3065625
read this series when I must have been 12 or so.Loved it

[Anonymous No.3068115]

>>3061887
Blood Meridian is one of the best novels of the 20th century, kiddo.

[Anonymous No.3068121]

>>3065625
>Stroud
What did Stroud write?

[Anonymous No.3068147]

Thank god shit like this didn't introduce me to literature. I can't even fathom the kind of shit I'd be reading right now.

Holy shit.

[Anonymous No.3068365]

>>3068115
> Blood Meridian is one of the best novels of the 20th century, kiddo...

...if your middlebrow tastes and low upbringing don't allow you to enjoy novels without gratuitous gore porn and pinheaded, pointless symbolism, that is.

[Anonymous No.3068934]

>>3068365
Yawn, bad troll or fuckwit who fails at reading?
You could call literally anything with symbolism "pinheaded, pointless symbolism", but I'd wager it's safe to say you missed the point entire of both it and the violence, and probably the reason for the lack of plot, main character, character development, etc.

[Anonymous No.3069119]

>>3068934
> You could call literally anything with symbolism "pinheaded, pointless symbolism"

No you couldn't.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between shitty, pointless symbolism like in 'Blood Meridian' and quality symbolism tells me you're _exactly_ the kind of mouth-breathing idiot I complained about in the grandparent post.

[Anonymous No.3069166]

>>3069119
Symbolism is over rated. But Blood Meridian is fucking. awesome.

[Anonymous No.3069198]

“Rowling’s mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing.”

So much love that professor Bloom.

[Anonymous No.3069204]

>>3069119
Care to inform us what "quality symbolism" is?

[Anonymous No.3069218]

Bloom's got some of the shittiest taste of any current literary critic. I hold no stock in his opinions.

[Anonymous No.3069335]

>>3061882
>Does the success of the Potter books mean anything.
Other popular books today include the twilight saga, 50 shades of grey and the bible, so no.

[Anonymous No.3069371]

>>3069119
Oh, you're one of those. Intelligent, but not as much as you think you are, and severely lacking in abstract intelligence and intuition, and whose ego disallows you from finding fault within yourself rather than the work you (ineptly) criticize. Dime a dozen.
Yep, BM is gore porn with pretentious symbolism. Durrrrrr.

[Anonymous No.3069372]

>>3062352

I think you'd find that most of these 'kids' haven't read anything besides HP... I'd go as far as to say that many of the kids who've read HP are satisfied that they've read however many fucking books that bint produced and wouldn't feel the need to read more...

if they'd never read any HP, they'd feel like philistines when the subject of reading ever came up, and might go out and read some classics to better themselves...

however, having read six or seven books about wizards, they might feel like they can cross 'read books' off their ToDo lists...

Honestly, a large portion of HP fans don't read anything else... well, maybe shit like twilight or other shitty popular wank.

[Anonymous No.3069377]

>>3069335

[Anonymous No.3070011]

>>3069372
>>3069372

Will their introduction to reading with Harry Potter bloom (blossom?) and continue with other books?

[Anonymous No.3070105]

50 Shades of Grey is popular

/thread

[Anonymous No.3070344]

STEP 1: SELECT A TARGET

STEP 2 – APPROACH AND OPEN

STEP 3 – DEMONSTRATE VALUE

STEP 4 – DISARM THE OBSTACLES

STEP 5 – ISOLATE THE TARGET

STEP 6 – CREATE AN EMOTIONAL CONNECTION

Are you an Average Frustrated Chump (AFC) or have you read The Game?

[Anonymous No.3070367]

>>3063303
Don't compare Lemony Snicket to Dahl

[Anonymous No.3070453]

> Tolkien
> Children's literature
> Academics in charge of analyzing children's literature

[Anonymous No.3070458]

>>3070453
>implying The Hobbit isn't children's literature

[Anonymous No.3070626]

>>3070458
the hobbit is children's literature

the man also wrote some other works, though

[Anonymous No.3071532]

>>3061882
Well of Harry Potter is of course utter shit when compared to the giant intellects of Lewis and Tolkien of Oxford. She is just a hack writing entertaining cliche garbage for kids, and I see nothing wrong with it.

[Anonymous No.3071537]

>>3061903
........

0/10

I agree it is geared to be accessible for younger people, but you are clinically retarded if you believe anything you just wrote.