New HP

[Anonymous No.5271848]

Excited for the new Harry Potter universe movie?

[Anonymous No.5271861]

>that british mug

inbreeding is fun

[Anonymous No.5271903]

>>5271861
Do you really want to go there, America?
Do you really?

[Anonymous No.5271917]

What you mean OP? Is there a new book?

[Anonymous No.5271925]

>>5271861
STOP PROPAGATING THIS MYTH YOU FUCKING FAT FAGGOT

[Anonymous No.5271931]

>>5271848
I bought that book when I was a kid and I didn't even read Harry Potter
It's a pretty decent book, like a monster encyclopedia

[Anonymous No.5271936]

>>5271917
J.K. Rowling wrote a book in 2001 called "Fantastic animals and where to find them" and now it's being made into a movie

[Anonymous No.5271944]

>>5271925
>PROPAGATING

[Anonymous No.5271957]

>>5271848
no, prequels/sequels are always shit

captcha: kind tutpol

[Anonymous No.5271972]

>>5271931
Same here. I also thought it was Ok. I still remember that one monster which was some kind of piece of Cloth that devoured people on their sleep, and the tale of the first guy who survived an encounter with it.

[Anonymous No.5271976]

>>5271848
Fanatic Beats and Where to Find Them

[Anonymous No.5271980]

>>5271976
dunno, in an addict ward?

[Anonymous No.5272006]

Is it similar to this?

[Anonymous No.5272007]

>>5271848
Feggit

[Anonymous No.5272032]

>>5271848
I remember buying this as a kid, during the whole Harry Potter fever. Then I also bought Borges' "Book of Imaginary Beings', thinking it had something to do with Harry Potter. Couldn't understand a thing. 10 years later I was cleaning my attic and came across my childhood books and thought "What the fuck is Borges doing here, did I read Borges as a kid?". Now I know why.

[Anonymous No.5272052]

>>5271957
It's neither of those though. Unrelated to the plot of the main series entirely, though something makes me think Luna Lovegood is going to have some sort of cameo in the movie.

[Anonymous No.5272071]

ONE TRICK WONDER RETURNS TO SAFE FRANCHISE SO SHE CAN BUY NEW BOAT

[Anonymous No.5272095]

>>5272071
>one trick wonder
>has three #1 best-selling books completely unrelated to the harry potter franchise

Looks like someone is jealous.

[Anonymous No.5272104]

>>5272095
>m-muh male pen-name

such an old cunt still believes in these follies

[Anonymous No.5272110]

>>5272095
Well, I'm sure the major reason those non-HP books got popular was because it was written by the 14th most popular author

[Anonymous No.5272118]

>>5272104
Casual Vacancy was published under her real name and it was a #1 bestseller too.

She used a pen-name for her book after that cause she wanted to get unbiased feedback on her writing.

[Anonymous No.5272120]

>>5272006
I don't think Rowling is so hermetic.

[Anonymous No.5272126]

>>5272110
You're probably right, but the point still stands that she isn't just a one-trick pony.

It's like calling a musician with one really well-known single a "one hit wonder" when they've consistently put out multiple popular albums.

[Anonymous No.5272144]

>>5272126
Oh yeah, of course!

[Anonymous No.5272151]

>>5272144
Not sure if sarcasm or not but if it is then your jealously is hilarious.

[Anonymous No.5272155]

>>5272151
Nononono I like JK Rowling!

[Anonymous No.5272170]

>>5271848
I remember these books.

Interesting idea to flesh out the books the kids actually use but it's a task that's a bit unrealistic. Because no fucking way that little leaflet would be used as a textbook.

[Anonymous No.5272177]

>>5272151
how can you be jealous of someone you don't even know. that doesn't make any sense. accusing someone of jealousy of a distant celebrity is just about the stupidest thing you can do. They might as well be jealous of money or Patrick Bateman. you have a limited vocabulary or something. whats your angle here? do you mean to say that you admire jk rowling and thus have some perverted duty to defend her on 4chan, from the perfidious jealousy of anons? do you really find it "hilarious"? are you laughing? why is jk Rowling even being discussed on /lit/?

[Anonymous No.5272183]

>>5272170
It's a magic school, I'm sure they could figure out something. Maybe the Undetectable Extension Charm.

[Anonymous No.5272204]

>release dates: 2016, 2018, 2020

Holy fuck how are we so far into the century already?

[Anonymous No.5272219]

>>5272177
Because she's an author, we discuss books here on /lit/ in case you didn't know.

All this jealousy though. Someone's mad that they're never going to get published.

[Anonymous No.5272228]

>>5272204
The Marvel movie schedule is even crazier

[Anonymous No.5272249]

>>5272219
she's an author of children's books...not that /lit/ is above discussing them, but there isn't even the pretense of discussing them here. this is just idle shitposting. as for jealousy, if it pleases you to think so, sure. I don't know why you would identify with Rowling, a woman you don't even know. personal affection is nearly as far fetche as jealousy in this case. and what's with the ending of sentences with "though?" is this new? I'm hearing it more and more, and I can't say I like it. I'm not the same guy I hope you realize

[Anonymous No.5272273]

>>5272095
Aren't women the biggest group of readers? Doesn't that mean that the male names of authors appeal to women? She says she abbreviates her name because she was afraid that young boys wouldn't read the books.


Young boys tend to not read in general.

[Anonymous No.5272279]

>>5272249
She's written three adult novels, and even if she hadn't children's books are still books and thus are on-topic on /lit/.

If you don't like it feel free to leave.

[Anonymous No.5272316]

>>5272273
Her publisher made her abbreviate it when she published Philosopher's Stone cause they thought little boys wouldn't want to read a book written by a woman.

That's kind of irrelevant at this point though cause I'm pretty sure almost everyone in the world is well aware that she is, in fact, female.

[Anonymous No.5272342]

>>5272279
I dont understand what your sort are doing on /lit/? like is a genuine apologetics for discussion of children's literature? or do you just feel the need to clumsily bat back replies until my energy wears down? It seems like you hardly read or understood my last post: your reply is almost standalone. like "well she rights books so neener neener." like youre proud of the fact that this read is superficially on topic, if not in actuality, which see my previous reply. I'm indifferent to rowling. I read the Harry potter books as a kid and I thought they were just fine. is is just general Rowling discussion which is idiotic. shitposting. like tao Lin or dfw reads but without the redeeming injokey irony. are you literally jk Rowling? why are you so invested in your technical right to discuss her, yet at the same time tell an indifferent like me to fuck off more or less, for questioning the worth of the thread?

[Anonymous No.5272351]

>>5272342
>like is a genuine apologetics for discussion of children's literature?

She's written three adult books.

Either way, children's books aren't off-topic on /lit/ and if people want to discuss them there's nothing you can do about it. All you're doing right now is shitposting.

[Anonymous No.5272373]

>>5272342
Anon really could be JK
A famous person hates you! I don't know if that's an honour or a tragedy

[Anonymous No.5272377]

>>5272342
>>5272373
>samefag responding to his own posts

sad

[Anonymous No.5272402]

>>5272351
See this is interesting because it's more or less an exact repeptition of your previous reply...I'm beginning to doubt you're actually interested in engaging with me honestly. Going back to your tenuous right to post about jk Rowling because she has, in point of fact, written some books. But nothing like that is being discussed itt, much less between us. and no doubt I'm shitposting, but my contention is a read like this is more or less an invitation to shitpost. youre shitposting as well, by virtue of egging me on with your inanities about "topic." as if niggling about topic isn't off topic. do you just pick the earliest thing in my replies you can conceivably object to and stop reading there or what? youre ignoring the gestalt. if accusing me of shitpositng was the ace up your sleeve, maybe this I should get the last word, because you aren't going anywhere

[Anonymous No.5272420]

>>5272377
obivous samefaggot

[Anonymous No.5272427]

Is it worth reading? Is it fun?

Also, when is this bitch gonna write more book for the HP universe already?

[Anonymous No.5272430]

>>5272402
>"ugh these disgusting plebs talking about a children's book author on /lit/, they're making me feel insecure about my perceived maturity"
>but anon she's not even a children's book author she also has multiple popular adult books
>"I'm ignoring that SHUT up i'm still going to call her a children's book author lalalalala get this children's book filth off /lit/ I don't like it"

[Anonymous No.5272459]

>>5272427
>Is it worth reading? Is it fun?

Doesn't even have a plot, it was just written to flesh out the universe and give descriptions of all the magical creatures that populate it. I read it when I was young so I don't remember it very clearly but I remember thinking it was interesting and funny. She also wrote one about Quidditch and another that's a collection of wizard fairy tales.

Supposedly she drafted up a plot for these movies to be based on though and the first one is going to take place in 1920's New York.

>Also, when is this bitch gonna write more book for the HP universe already?

Probably never, the only thing she could do is write some more sequels but she said that she regrets ending the series the way she did and pairing certain characters together, so I doubt she'll want to do that.

[Anonymous No.5272496]

>>5272430
im really set of distressed by how much you're reading into my posts. or misreading. if you want to know the truth, I do think reading children's books as an adult is sort of puerile yes, but this is the first time I've expressed that in this thread. that you're devolving into bitter green texts doesn't exactly dissuade me from this opinion. you are sort of stupid, or at least very defensive, guarded. "perceived maturity" what. and calling my posts bait, which if they are you taken it tremendously, is a pretty lazy recourse. I mean she is a children's book author, right, nothing wrong with that. She has had her forays into clever modern adult pulp but still principally she is the woman who wrote Harry potter. I have neglected to bring up that the OP is about another kids book rowling has written, not because I havent noticed, but because I don't care. My response was originally to your behavior as a poster, individually. which I found to be distasteful. "lol jealous" or whatever you were doing. doesn't even make sense. you have seriously misconstrued my posts if you think the particulars of rowlings oeuvre is important. honeslty I'm a little embarrassed for you: I think you might be a kid

[Anonymous No.5272520]

>>5272496
>"why is jk Rowling even being discussed on /lit/?"
>because she's an author
>"she's an author of children's books..."

Sorry that /lit/ is discussing an author you feel like you're above, if you don't like it feel free to fuck off and find somewhere else to talk about books.

[Anonymous No.5272559]

>>5271861
I think she's pretty attractive.

I've been trying to find an article on classical myths she wrote as an undergrad.

[Anonymous No.5272567]

>>5272520
I really think at this point you really are working the exhaustion angle. if all the content you are gleaning from my fairly cordial replies (excluding last) is that I think I'm somehow above jk Rowling, you are seriously missing my point.
>feel free to fuck off
the hostilty. like your actually taking me just asking you questions personally. I'm trying to get to the bottom of your ethos as a defender of discussing jk Rowling on /lit/ (not her books mind you, but more her as a media entity) and you keep shooting me down with these reductive and I think deliberate misrepresentations. I already said I'm indifferent to rowling. I can hardly feel above her when I haven't read any of her adult ficition. I mean she's not literature, or very interesting in my opinion, but I'm not some arbiter of quality on this board, nor do I claim to be. but where is the actual substance of this thread? the alleged discussion? there isn't any, or very little, and that's really what makes this thread bad. an invitation to shitpost. I mean I am curious as to why anyone would want to talk about her on /lit/ given the elitism (perhaps nostalgia?) but it wasn't meant as a hostile or dismissive question. but my persistent topic has been your personal investment in jk Rowling, in defending her. Is it just an exercise in antagonism? Or d you relate to her in sme way or what. Obviously you aren't comfortable discussing it, analyzing it

[Anonymous No.5272575]

>>5272567

I can see you angrily typing as fast as you possibly can, and I know you get some sort of endorphin rush or enjoyment from writing your replies the way you do. So many spelling errors for someone who most likely considers themselves smart and better than everybody else.

You should take a chill-pill :^)

[Anonymous No.5272597]

>>5272567
>pls let me make off-topic shitposts in this thread and stop telling me to fuck off pls ;_:

[Anonymous No.5272616]

>>5272575
im honestly just writing it as it comes to me. Keyboard is damaged and I'm not really interested in proof reading. But why do you think that this is about arrogance? I'm not angry so much as incredulous at your refusal to engage. To me your green text parodies seem much more aggressive than anything I've written. I mean I thought you were scraping the bottom of the barrel by calling me a shitposter, but now my spelling? Like I haven't noticed that I'm not spelling well...I just have no idea what your thought process is. Self contradictory insults. Senseless lashing out and non sequiturs. Endorphin rush? Not exactly, but maybe there is a kind of masochism here, you may be right. And saying that I most likely think I'm better than "everybody else." like a total retreat from actual insults. weird hypotheticals. again the self contradiction. but if you want to reply to my questions I'm still interested

[Anonymous No.5272625]

>>5272597
haha, I don't need permission to shitpost

[Anonymous No.5272626]

>>5272616
>implying all the people responding to you are even the same person

lol

[Anonymous No.5272687]

>>5272427
I wish her adult books weren't so boring , I tried reading her first crime novel and gave up halfway through since it was so tedious.

Still it was a huge improvement over A Casual Vacancy.

[Anonymous No.5272696]

>>5272626
yes but I'm enjoying myself

[Anonymous No.5275216]

>>5271848
I had a dream a few nights ago that J.K had released news that she was planning on writing a prequel to the first book and book that carry's on from the end of the 7th book.

I was so excited, then I woke up and realized it wasn't true.

[Anonymous No.5275229]

>>5272071
Why does it always have to be about money with non rowling fans? She can't just love writing about the series. She LOVED the harry potter series, she loved writing it. She is rich as fuck and gives loads to charity. She isn't obsessed with money.

It just sucks seeing that nobody can trust that people do things out of passion, it always has to be because they want more money,

[Anonymous No.5275240]

>>5272249
>I don't know why you would identify with Rowling, a woman you don't even know.

I find it sad that you haven't experienced identifying with an artist. You make it sound like it's an odd and not common thing. It's actually VERY common.

[Anonymous No.5275265]

>>5271848
I thought the title of that book was "Fantastic beats & where to find them"

[Anonymous No.5275329]

>>5271936
And how are they supposed to turn it into a movie?

[Anonymous No.5275375]

>write kid franchise
>massive success due to excellent movie adaptation
>"prove" you can write adult lit
>it fails horribly
>go back to writing franchise so they can make a movie again

[Anonymous No.5275383]

>>5272118
It was still generally considered a piece of garbage. Rowling is just so popular she can publish a piece of toilet paper she used to wipe her ass and it will still be a #1 bestseller

[Anonymous No.5275962]

>>5275375
>it fails horribly

No it didn't, she's written three other books that were all #1 bestsellers.

[Anonymous No.5275977]

>>5275383
>It was still generally considered a piece of garbage.

Most of the critical reviews were very positive, the negative reviews for the most part just said they didn't like it because it wasn't Harry Potter.

[Anonymous No.5275980]

>>5271972
I remember it. Also remember a kind of aquatic sponge monster that would bite peoples toes when they went into the sea.

[Anonymous No.5276011]

>>5275375
The movies are ass and Harry Potter was massively popular before the movies came out.

[Anonymous No.5276060]

Its funny Im a mathematician normalfag I guess, Im not god level but I know plenty of mathematicians who are.
So Im on this table packed of goat mathematicians, the true forgers of tomorrows cience and suddenly harry potter pops up in the conversation and Im all like "yeah that were books that felt that were just made for the sake of making you proud you read a long book amirite?" as i finish to say that everybody is giving me a death stare. "but it has a much deeper meaning than that, anon" turns out harry potter is super kult litterature in elite math circles.
To be fair the books a kinda fun to read, so I dont blame them

[Anonymous No.5276103]

>>5276060
>published by scholastic
>much deeper meaning

[Anonymous No.5276107]

>>5271925
Not him but I thought it was true. That's the only explanation for why both British and Asian people have really fucked up teeth right?