[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 131 KB, 951x488, cute couple.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5847185 No.5847185 [Reply] [Original]

>HB: I spend a good part of my life in bookstores – I give readings there when a new book of mine has come out, I go there to read or simply to browse. But the question is what do these immense mountains of books consist of? You know, child, my electronic mailbox overflowing with daily mesages from Potterites who still cannot forgive me for the article I published in Wall Street Journal more than a year ago, entitled "Can 35 Million Harry Potter Fans Be Wrong? – Yes!" These people claim that Harry Potter does great things for their children. I think they are deceiving themselves. I read the first book in the Potter series, the one that's supposed to be the best. I was shocked. Every sentence there is a string of cliches, there are no characters – any one of them could be anyone else, they speak in each other's voice, so one gets confused as to who is who.
>IL: Yet the defenders of Harry Potter claim that these books get their children to read.

>HB: But they don't! Their eyes simply scan the page. Then they turn to the next page. Their minds are deadened by cliches. Nothing is required of them, absolutely nothing. Nothing happens to them. They are invited to avoid reality, to avoid the world and they are not invited to look inward, into themselves. But of course it is an exercise in futility to try to oppose Harry Potter.


>Byatt - Ms. Rowling's magic world has no place for the numinous. It is written for people whose imaginative lives are confined to TV cartoons, and the exaggerated (more exciting, not threatening) mirror-worlds of soaps, reality TV and celebrity gossip. Its values, and everything in it, are, as Gatsby said of his own world when the light had gone out of his dream, ''only personal.'' Nobody is trying to save or destroy anything beyond Harry Potter and his friends and family.

Your hatred (and love of course) for the series, fans, the people being quoted and Rowling aside

Are Bloom and Byatt correct?

>> No.5847265

I wonder if anyone here has read Byatt, and what they would recommend from her, if anything

>> No.5847482

harry potter got me into pynchon and joyce

>> No.5847489

>>5847265

Would definitely recommend Possession by her.

>> No.5847493

>>5847482
The internet got me into Pynchon and Joyce, which is probably worse

>> No.5847499

Harry Bloom and the Western Canon

>> No.5847500

No, they're not correct. What J.K. Rowling did was absolutely amazing.

>> No.5847504

>>5847500
why. did she climb mt everst

>> No.5847505

>>5847493
/lit/ got me into Pynchon and Joyce

There is not a thing I would regret.

>> No.5847508

>>5847505
I was into Pynchon and Joyce before /lit/ even existed.....

>> No.5847515

>>5847504
Well, she single-handedly increased literacy for starters, so... Bloom is just a retard shitting on about Shakespeare.

>> No.5847534

>>5847515
How much did the percentage of people who knew how to read go up after her books were published?

>> No.5847547

>>5847534
Ask a less impossible-to-answer question.

>> No.5847559

>>5847547
That question is not impossible to answer, there are many scientists working on that very subject

>> No.5847566

>>5847559
It's basically impossible to answer, anon. I should have said she hugely increased literacy, too, actually.

>> No.5847570

>>5847566
It sounds like you don't have any evidence for that claim.

>> No.5847576

>>5847570
When you get people to read, you increase literacy, anon. Are you going to deny that she increased literacy - that she would have had a huge affect on literacy?

>> No.5847590

>>5847576
That's not true if all or most of the people who read her books already knew how to read in the first place, and didn't learn how just in order to read her books (I personally doubt many did this).

>> No.5847604

>>5847590
Increasing literacy doesn't mean teaching a person to read from scratch, anon. Oh, but I suppose Harold Bloom would have us read kids Shakespeare at bed time, get them interested in reading that way?

>> No.5847613

>>5847604
He probably would do that. IN fact, he probably did do that with his own son.

>> No.5847624

>>5847515
Just because she got kids to read, doesn't mean they are truly "literate," much in the same way that just because someone's into classical music, if they're just enjoying it for the "catchy tunes," they obviously aren't truly listening to it. Harold Bloom is correct. They aren't truly reading, they're just looking at words and imagining a bad fantasy movie in their heads.

>> No.5847629

They're salty as fuck. HP wasn't introspective literature trying to make a point about society or the human condition or any shit like that, but it wasn't trying to be. It was just basic fiction that wanted to tell a fun and interesting tale. And it was inspired. I can understand ripping on generic fantasy stories written without passion, but JK wrote that shit like she had a vision from God.

Also, lol at Byatt quoting Gatsby instead of just making the point without tipping her literary fedora.

>> No.5847632

>"I read the first book in the Potter series, the one that's supposed to be the best."

This is completely unqualified. Who made this claim to you? The only objective superlative statement a person could make about the first book is that it is the shortest.

>> No.5847641

>>5847629
You seem quite salty yourself

Is them "attacking" Harry Potter an attack on you?

>> No.5847646

>>5847624
No he isn't, he's a shit-for-brains pretentious retard. Harry Potter is actually so beautifully filled with humanity, its characters so real, it's just breathtaking. I'm still getting bits of it years and years down the line, it's almost one of my oldest friends. Harold Bloom is a child begrudging other children a kindness. And for what? To read Shakespeare butcher his entire cast of characters? Marvelous.

>> No.5847655

>>5847629
Actually, in a lot of ways Harry Potter is deeply introspective and has very clear purpose.

>> No.5847662

>>5847629
Congrats on making what may be the funniest post I've ever seen about this. Definitely better tahnt hat Paradise fag

>> No.5847666

>>5847646
Not fair. Rowling is also famous for killing off her popular characters

>> No.5847675

>>5847500
oh look. Paradise finally found a book he can talk about

>> No.5847689

>>5847666
Nice trips :s
Rowling's killing her characters was just the plain reality of things, though, which she tried to trump with other themes. Shakespeare literally just kills people for the laugh. The themes of his stories are 'everybody dies!' 'irreparable madness!' etc. Good books to get children literate to read, in fairness.

>> No.5847693

There is no point of even appraising genre fiction by the same standards that we hold literary fiction to. They have entirely separate objectives and audiences.

>> No.5847695

>>5847675
I'm nearly the only one on this site who actually talks about books lmfao.

>> No.5847698

>>5847689
you may be the dumbest tripfag we've ever had on /lit/. just shut up and stop embarrassing yourself

>> No.5847700

>>5847689
I think you're just interpreting their works in a way that will suit your argument, Paradise.

>> No.5847703
File: 273 KB, 960x895, 1418174803893.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5847703

I like to read YA books.

>> No.5847709

>>5847698
What's wrong with that post, retard? Make an actual point and stop crying your delusion at me like it means something.

>> No.5847712

Just move the argument over to another media.

>IL: Yet the defenders of Call of Duty claim that these video games get their children to play.

>IL: Yet the defenders of Twilight claim that these movies get their children to watch.

The argument is completely valid.

>> No.5847719

>>5847700
No, no I'm not dude. King Lear is about it all being irreparable madness, then we die. Romeo and Juliet die over a misunderstanding which is love. These are the correct interpretations.

>> No.5847734

>mother claims her son read HP and became a more frequent reader
>NO THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE HP IS SHIT SO IT ABSOLUTELY CAN'T HAVE HAPPENED
H.B. sounds like a slobbering retard, why would anyone pay attention to him?

>> No.5847739

>>5847719
That is actually a facile reduction of two complex and multifaceted works, I think?

>> No.5847744

I think so, I still have a hard time focusing on a book. Harry Potter requires minimal focus, perfect for an over-televised age. If I read something more difficult, and my mind wanders unintentionally, when I come back to my book I'm totally lost.

>> No.5847749

>>5847734
yes, he's definitely the retarded one, when you are the one attributing things to him that he did not say

>> No.5847756

>>5847739
Not really, no. He makes an argument, I suppose. And then J.K. Rowling actually makes a counterargument.

>> No.5847762

>>5847756
I have to say I find that reading strained and unconvincing

>> No.5847766

>>5847762
Well, it's correct. So...

>> No.5847772

Or I suppose kids should be reading Lolita rather than Shakespeare?

>> No.5847781

>>5847749
>their eyes scan the page
>then they turn to the next page
>implying not reading
Did the definition change to include "deep introspection and philosophy" while I wasn't looking?

>> No.5847787

J.K. Rowling is literally humanity's champion.

>> No.5847798

>>5847787
Uh.. I think your'e confusing her with Ronald Reagan, Paradise.

>> No.5847804

>>5847798
Is that the McDonald's clown?

>> No.5847811

>>5847804
Uh, no, he's only the greatest leader of the greatest nation on Earth, and a very talented actor to boot.

>> No.5847813

>>5847629
>but JK wrote that shit like she had a vision from God.

she probably did
not from God but from a spirit

iirc the day she started writing the first book she experienced something supernatural

>> No.5847817

>>5847813
WHy not from God. Is she (or are you) an atheist..?

>> No.5847840

>>5847817
She's a Christian (which I forgive her :3).

>> No.5847849

>>5847840
Why. Are you a Jew (PLEASE give me another reason to hate you)

>> No.5847856

>>5847849
No, but I fancy Christianity to be a bit dated sometimes.

>> No.5847862

>>5847856
What do you believe in

>> No.5847863

>>5847862
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRYNYb30nxU

>> No.5847870

So, the issue here is whether children reading "more" as a result of the passion spurred by Harry Potter can be seen as a benefit, or whether in that they simply go on to consomme strung-together consumerist garbage, as opposed to "valuable" literature?

Which, if you actually pay the fuck attention, has absolutely nothing to do with Harry Potter itself, but the pattern of behavior it, arguably, elicits in children who, in their blind infatuation, will spurn all other (i.e. "higher") literature in favor of something that can get their jollies off.

>> No.5847875

>>5847781
Why not play the game yourself? Invent your own definition of "reading" and use it to assert that Harold Bloom has never truly "read" a single book by your definition? And as he's so poorly read his opinion may be dismissed out of hand.

>> No.5847888

>>5847875
elitists need to figure out more elite way of being elitist cause that's just dumb

>> No.5847892

>>5847576
Do you even know what literacy means?

>> No.5847903

>>5847892
Take your pettiness somewhere else, mate. I'm not interested.

>> No.5847935

>>5847489
This thread got me recommended a new book so I guess it wasn't a total waste

>> No.5847998

Harry Potter "got me into reading" in a kid, and I started reading stuff for grown ups at around 14, not the good stuff, just genre fiction and Bestsellers. However, it was not Harry Potter that got me reading, it was my parents making an effort even though they themselves never read much. Harry Potter does not foster an interest in books, it primarily fosters an interest in Harry Potter.
If your 8 year old kid has no interest in reading, the fault is not with the tv, not with the playstation, not with his friends or his school, its with you; you have failed him as a parent. The widespread obsession with Harry Potter is no longer about the books, its about the movies, the stardom, the fantasy of being the 11 year old who gets a) a letter to Hogwarts b) _chosen_ to be a star. People will act like they love the books but what kind of content dominates HP fan culture? Interviews with Radcliffe and Watson.

Also, the more I read of Bloom the harder it becomes to take him seriously.

>> No.5848034

>>5847875
I think I'll come up with a new definition for "writing" instead, that way I can claim that Bloom has never written anything, which ought to be much more satisfying.

>> No.5850037

Yes.

>> No.5850041

>>5847185
Yes

>> No.5850050

>>5847265
Damn, I had remembered reading something by her, or recognizing her name from something when the thread first cropped up but it took me until now to remember it. I read her "Little Black Book of Stories", in particular I read it for one story called "The Thing in the Forest". It was damn good, I'd recommend it. She's a good writer. Sort of an almost Gothic Horror vibe going on.

>> No.5850056

>>5847185
Sounds like they're being polemical, attention-seeking dickheads, Harry Potter is terrific for what it is, which is fiction for young people. They're critiques about it being simplistic and cliched could be leveled at almost any book meant for that age group.

>> No.5850064

>>5847500
Dropped like a fat girl holding onto a rope swing, fuck

>> No.5850075

>>5847766
you are one silly cunt m8

>> No.5850083

>>5850056
They're obviously being inflammatory but they do present a point many people surely feel is uncomfortable — if your kids read nothing but Goosebumps and Harry Potter until they are 15 and then graduate to nothing or The Hunger Games or whatever that is not "good enough". There is no real point in raising a generation of schlocky, sappy readers. You may as well cultivate your child's taste in television.

>> No.5850089

Back when Harry Potter started to become famous in Germany (end of the 90s, early 2000) people who said these books are shit always heard a similar argument: "This gets all these kids into reading, imagine the future with kids so literate!! We'll have a patrician society!"

About 15 years later, all of these kids are adults now, and again no-one reads books. So I guess Bloom's right.

>> No.5850124
File: 10 KB, 250x250, pepe15.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5850124

>>5850089
I read Harry Potter growing up and now I read Dante and Milton. Joke's on you, faggot.

>> No.5850137

>>5850124
yet here you are, storing pepe memes on your harddrive

>> No.5850138

>>5850075
No, that's you, m8.

>> No.5850139
File: 3 KB, 125x125, pepe11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5850139

>>5850137
problem?

>> No.5850142

>>5847505

but how did you get into /lit/?

this is a good discussion. do bad/silly books do a good thing in that they get people to start reading (and start caring about reading?). or is it only a facile change? that although people are performing the ACTIVITY of reading, they are not, as bloom suggests, actually engaging their intellect?

>> No.5850146

>>5847734
>a more frequent reader
>most likely moved on to The Hunger Games, Twilight, and Charlotte's Web

Oh good, he's moving on to more shit.

>> No.5850150

>>5847185
>Your hatred (and love of course) for the series, fans, the people being quoted and Rowling aside
Why on earth would anyone feel hatred for these books? Is this board really that demented?

>> No.5850158

>>5847712

false equivalence. television and video games are popular by orders of magnitude more than books are. the stakes are much different, which is the entire basis of this argument.

>> No.5850165

>>5850142
/lit/ likes to attack any children's novels
even though harry potter is, for what it is, well written, /lit/ will attack it because it isn't a postmodern Russian masterpiece.
as for the OP, I'd say they're right, but they're being unfair about "the characters having the same voice" when that definitely isn't true. Not only that, but who the hell told them book 1 was the best? characters aren't fleshed out and everything's just being introduced. best book is book 4 or book 6.

>> No.5850171

>>5850165
good children novels are godly, alice in wonderland, through the looking glass, narnia series

harry potter is just meh

>> No.5850174

>>5850171
ur just meh

>> No.5850180

>>5850171
>>5850174
Battle of the titanic minds

>> No.5850183

>>5847576
Yes, Harry potter doesn't increase literacy.

Reading is worthless in and of itself, reading crap is only touted as a good thing when it precedes good reading

>> No.5850184

>>5850171
>>5850171
see, this is whhat i'm talking about. don't get me wrong, I love alice, but what makes narnia better than harry potter? harry potter is filled to the fucking brim with extraneous details that matter, the whole series plays out like magical sherlock holmes, and you have so many minute details that it feels like a living breathing world. Okay, the characters on the whole are not the best. But it's a children's book. The focus isn't on the characters, but the world they find themselves in. Really the only criticism I can find against HP is that Rowling just writes up things that help the story (see the time turner in book 3) and then drops them altogether.

>> No.5850194

>>5847655
>putting Harry potter and deep in te same sentence without them being exclusive

Worst tripfag ever

>> No.5850196

Yes and no.
Harry Potter is a best seller, which is pretty much the equivalent of the fast-food hamburguers of literature.

It is a great snack, many kids will be into it whether because of it's fame, or because they get interested on what's gonna happen next. They are not gonna get too much nutrition out of it, they will not question themselves because of the interesting messages of the book; but in the end it is a book, and if they enjoyed reading it, then they will want more; they will keep reading until they read book seven, then they will move on and read other best-sellers, and then maybe, with a bit of luck, they will begin to read more interesting and fulfilling literature.

So following that idea, J.K. Rowling did a good job on writting an entry tier work for kids to get into reading.

>> No.5850198

>>5850184
The time turner thing was a cute little 'I am a Strange Loop'-type device, I thought - a paradox to think over, calling to mind the absurdity of time and being.

>> No.5850201

>>5850184

it's too simplistic, narnia has a strong morale principle and some good philosophy behind it behind it while harry potter it's just some adventures

>> No.5850204

>>5850194
Are you retards ever going to stop with your hit and run pettiness?

>> No.5850211

>>5850201
No it isn't. Pretty much the whole story of Harry Potter is power vs. love, taken from a sensible and deterministic look at things.

>> No.5850217

>>5850196
This was a terrible analogy. I think HP stimulates young people's minds far more than you think.

>> No.5850218

I could pull neat little bits out of Harry Potter all day, to be quite honest. The characters are the most fascinating part of it - as real as you'll get in any book.

>> No.5850223

She's also very fond of her mind games, which is fun.

>> No.5850229

>>5847903
Stop posting

>> No.5850231

>>5850217
I'm not really sure.
I read HP when I was a kid, and I didn't got stimulated at all.

The biggest message of the book is that if you are a good guy, good things will happen to you.
That is probably the most overused message on media for children.
And while I enjoyed imagining the magical world, I didn't got more stimulation than that. But at least it got me into the habit of reading; so in the end that is the biggest merit that I can give to HP books..

>> No.5850236

>>5850204
>hit and run pettiness?

How is it "hit and run"? Most anons stick around to continue making fun of you.

>> No.5850237

There are so many petty retards on this board, to be quite honest. And you don't even understand the 'patrician' books you read, either, which is laughable.

>> No.5850238

>>5850223
Do you sincerely believe Harry Potter is deep? May I ask how old you are, before I filter you?

>> No.5850243

>>5847998
>muh fealings

Far too many potterfags misunderstand causation

Just because you read Harry potter before good literature doesn't mean Harry potter caused your enjoyment of good literature. All you can say is one preceded another

>inb4 anglo American MUH UNDERSTANDING OF MYSELF IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSES

>> No.5850244

>>5850236
Not one anon has made an argument, you shit-for-brains retard. Are you so deluded that you can't see this? It's a bunch of retards crying at me that they don't like ;---; basically.

>>5850238
Go fuck yourself, retard.

>> No.5850246

>>5850237
Petty for what? For laughing at you for being a retard? Maybe you should go somewhere else if you can't handle it, hmmm?

>> No.5850247 [DELETED] 

This is out of topic, but I am getting an error on 4chan, and it's telling me that it is temporarily off, yet I can still reply to this thread. Is any one else having the same problem?

>> No.5850248

>>5850223
I'm curious, to which mind games are you referring?

>> No.5850249

>>5850246
Explain one instance of me being a retard, anon :)

>> No.5850250

>>5850056
Lol

Aesop's fables is deeper than Harry potter

>> No.5850251

Having read all of the books, both as a youngster and as an adult, I can say with certainty they're right. It's mindless entertainment. Might as well just have your kids watch some TV instead, which is just as mentally stimulating yet more entertaining. I'll have my kids read Dickens, A Series of Unfortunate Events, Roald Dahl, Lewis Carroll, C.S. Lewis, but NOT Rowling.

>> No.5850252

>>5850248
She likes to evoke emotions, or thoughts, then call you on them immediately after - to actually speak to you herself through her work. It's most obvious in the movies. Watch them :)

>> No.5850254

>>5850231
Who even says there has to be a message? I'm not sure something that banal and overused was the main point HP was trying to make.

>I didn't got more stimulation than that.
Well that's just a personal thing then.

>> No.5850255

>>5850249
Every single post you've made since you came to pollute /lit/. I'm not even sure if you're baiting us, or genuinely this stupid.

>> No.5850256
File: 31 KB, 250x250, 1310093477019.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5850256

>>5850251
>having kids

>> No.5850258

>>5850251
lmao. I like how you took the certainty I was talking about from that last thread about analysing books, anon. Being a literary critic isn't for everyone, friend.

>> No.5850259
File: 19 KB, 350x233, japanese-pipe-smoker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5850259

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.

>> No.5850261 [DELETED] 
File: 602 KB, 1844x1874, motel6withonsitearbys.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5850261

BRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABR BRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABR BRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABR

>> No.5850262

>>5850244
>Not one anon has made an argument

That's been the case on this board for a long time, but it still doesn't justify the poor "hit and run" metaphor.

>> No.5850264

>>5850255
Oh, so just more being a crybaby retard :)
How pathetic do you feel to be just shitting nonsense at me? Come on, say something. It'd be awful for your entire life to be a lie. I've interpreted some of Shakespeare's works in this thread - how about that?

>> No.5850265 [DELETED] 
File: 660 KB, 1500x1916, dibitydrugs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5850265

BRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYBRAZEOFGRORYUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRLEUNBANNABRdddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

>> No.5850266

>>5850249
Oh! Oh! I got one! You claimed dementia was just "a continuation of the natural human tendency to forget".

In that single claim you demonstrated both your extreme ignorance in the field of biology and your willingness to pontificate on something you clearly had no fucking clue about

>> No.5850268

>>5850262
I took it from a clip in Family Guy, sorry anon.

>> No.5850271
File: 10 KB, 172x188, koanNANnismobonefranjustoffeedandyer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5850271

>>5850259

u rnt fuccin patrician lmao

>> No.5850273

>>5850252
But this board isn't about movies and the discussion in this thread wasn't about the movies. So I'll ask you more directly, where in the books does she play the mind game of evoking emotions and then call the reader on them immediately after?

>> No.5850274

>>5850266
Wrong, that's not what I said. Go for this thread, though - your precious literature - let's not get bogged down in tedious psychology. I interpreted two of Shakespeare's works above.

>> No.5850278

>>5850258
I have no idea what you're talking about, nor do I have any idea who you are, but I can safely assume, since you've the inflated ego to create a little (what are they called?) trip-name, that you don't know what you're talking about, as that's always been the case with you folks.

>> No.5850280

>>5850273
When Harry is learning to shield his mind with Snape, for one, friend :)

>> No.5850283

>>5850278
lmao

>> No.5850288

>>5850165
There are no russian postmodern masterpieces

>> No.5850291

>>5850280
I'm clearly not as up to date on the books as you are. How about you point out where exactly in the text you see Rowling displaying the skill you previously described?

>> No.5850292

>>5850278
Not always though, take jazzthreadguy on /mu/. That motherfucker knows his jazz.

>> No.5850299

>>5850291
I don't think I will, actually :)
Let this board carry on in its childishness.

How about you read the books again?

>> No.5850301

>>5850146
Infinitely better than never getting into the habit of reading.

>> No.5850304

>>5850274
>I interpreted two of Shakespeare's works above.

>King Lear is about it all being irreparable madness, then we die. Romeo and Juliet die over a misunderstanding which is love.

I don't understand what you're complaining about. If this is the standard you want for the board, we've got uninteresting and suspiciously short "interpretations" of literature in spades.

>> No.5850307

>>5850292
Jazz sucks, though.

>> No.5850314
File: 32 KB, 649x641, 1417758236996.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5850314

>>5850307

>> No.5850315

>>5850304
Short, eh? What a critique! :)
The entire theme of King Lear was irreparable madness. All ills stemmed from a complacency or genuine madness which one was left to feel hopeless against. Cordelia also sort of dies for misunderstanding love btw, though that's only a side act in Lear.

>> No.5850316

>>5850299
Well, you have made a claim, you know. And if you won't substantiate the claim or actually use the text to argue for your point then I have to assume you have no idea what you're talking about. Which is fine, in a way. It's just disappointing that you could create such a devious troll and yet never use what seems to be a pretty clever mind for actual literary discussion, which, I'll remind you, is the point of this board.

>> No.5850325

>>5850316
That doesn't seem the point of this board to me, actually, friend. Were it, I'd divulge. I've given you enough, though. It should be obvious just from the setting I've provided that what I say is there is actually there.

>> No.5850330

ITT: Tripfags getting recked while grasping for straws

>> No.5850334

>>5850330
You are a tiny little nobody, anon :)

>> No.5850338

>>5850315
>Short, eh? What a critique! :)

Well, what do you expect somebody to critique when your "interpretation" is literally adjective-noun, end scene. Brevity is suspicious because there is less to pick apart, less is said, ie the chance for exposure (that you are full of shit) is low.

>The entire theme of King Lear was irreparable madness.

Repeating yourself for no reason to fill up space. Nice middle school technique.

>All ills stemmed from a complacency or genuine madness which one was left to feel hopeless against.

This is your claim, yet where is the supporting argument?

>Cordelia also sort of dies for misunderstanding love btw, though that's only a side act in Lear.

What is Shakespeare's conception of "love" that all of these characters seem to misunderstand and what evidence from his text supports that conception?

Adult mode: You can't use the word "obvious."

>> No.5850341

>>5850338
Oh go away, you stupid little shit.

>> No.5850344

>>5850325
What do you think this board's point is?

I also don't happen to have books on hand. But just stating your opinion and then a place in the book that you think corroborates it does not an argument make. Nor does it prove your interpretation. It's on you, not me, to verify your claims, especially when you are seeking to prove the intent or genius of the author.

>> No.5850352
File: 99 KB, 956x744, tom11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5850352

greatest thread on /lit/ right now

>> No.5850356

>>5850344
You wont wheedle it out of me, friend - and I'm sorry, because you seem not so bad a guy. I've already stated my terms when it comes to expounding on literature.

And the point of this board, for the most part, seems to be a delusional cunt. Let the anons carry on in their ridiculousness, it'll break their brains eventually :)

>> No.5850357

>>5850256
>>>/reddit/

>> No.5850365

>>5850259
>Has Bloom presented any worthwhile alternatives?
This always comes up and I always have to remind people that yes, he fuckin has. In fact, he has a book specifically fucking for this: http://www.amazon.com/Stories-Poems-Extremely-Intelligent-Children/dp/0684868741/

>> No.5850366

>>5850344
>taking tripfag shitposting this seriously

>> No.5850367

>>5850366
lmao

>> No.5850373

I am quite the devious troll, am I not?

>> No.5850379

>>5850341
I mean, do you genuinely think your "interpretations" rise above a lazy middle schooler rushing to write a book report the night before it's due? Repetition, no supporting arguments, no evidence from the text, etc.

>> No.5850380

>>5850341
lol given up already?

>> No.5850381

>>5850380
My mother always told me not to waste my breath on retards, anon.

>>5850379
It is so fucking obvious, you monkey-brained retard.

>> No.5850382

>>5850373
There is no such thing as real trolling on 4chan. People here get mad at the most stupid, obvious shit

>> No.5850385

>>5850356
Okay, then we will continue as though you had no interpretation to begin with.

Because people act in a certain way on this board does not necessarily make the point of the board moot (ha!). Anonymity causes people to behave in ways that they wouldn't otherwise. Hence /pol/, /r9k/, and /b/. This doesn't make the board beyond saving. Why come here and shitpost when we could have actual interesting conversations, despite the fact that there are some shitty people posting too? Why stand above the fray and laugh like a coward rather than dive into the cave and try to enlighten others with your ideas?

>> No.5850387

>>5850381
>My mother always told me not to waste my breath on retards, anon.
SO many people ITT should take that advcie

>> No.5850390

>>5850373
Only because /lit/ is so naive. I've been known to rage the fuck out on very obvious trolls, I've never responded to you once until now because you are transparent as fuck.
>No I really am very neat and 4deep9u
>Explain anything! Hah! Silly bois

That's your whole shtick. Outside of this shithole or /pol/ (the boards where eveyone bites every bait because they believe they are intelligent enough to "beat" a troll) you would be almost totally ignored.

>> No.5850394

>>5850385
Shield your mind, Harry ;)

And because I don't encourage pettiness, friend.

>> No.5850396

>>5850381
>It is so fucking obvious, you monkey-brained retard.

Did I anticipate this cop-out or what?

>Adult mode: You can't use the word "obvious."

>> No.5850397

>>5850307
No dessert for you, young man.

>> No.5850401

>>5850390
Nah, people fall for this type of shit all over 4chan.

>> No.5850404

>>5850366
You're probably right that this is bad form on my part, but I don't know, is it so wrong to want actual good discussion on this forum? Maybe I'm being overly sincere, but if someone is going to put an interesting suggestion before me then I want to hear it and understand it, rather than be given the shit arguments that I have been.

>> No.5850405

>>5850390
Pftt. You are nowhere near on my level, m8. And nor is the pettiness of your supposed trolls, I am but my character and certain in it.

>> No.5850406

>>5850390
Please don't let this faggot get away with pretending he's a "troll" to save internet face. It's narcissism 101: when the ship sinks, identity goes first.

>> No.5850408

>>5850404
I am sorry to disappoint you, friend. I have told you where it is, though.

>> No.5850411

>>5850406
>faggot
lmao

>> No.5850414

>>5850366
>implying namefags aren't worse than tripfags
They're the retards who need to be noticed yet think they're better than tripfags.

>> No.5850419

>>5850406
Even if he's a torll you can still call him a retard, anon. Just about every troll on 4chan is. Only a couple are genuinely intelligent or funny. This guy's just an attention w hore

>> No.5850421

>>5850419
lmao. I love your small little thoughts sometimes :)

>> No.5850428

>>5850421
Your mother loves my small little dick sometimes.

>> No.5850430

>>5850406
You would have to be a retard to dedicate significant time to actually "trolling". You would also have to be a retard to not realize from your first observance than Paradise is a very, -very- obvious one.

>> No.5850431

>>5850421
thanks buddeh ;) wanna fuck? :o

>> No.5850437

>>5850430
Wrong :)
What have I done in this thread, so, friend?

>>5850431
No.

>> No.5850440

>>5850437
-2/10 have a terrible life (oh wait...)

>> No.5850451

>>5850440
Run away, little boy :)

>> No.5850457

>>5850451
>Telling someone who is disengaging to "run away"

Kek you clawed one more out of me. U got gud ;)

>> No.5850471

>>5850414
Correction: namefags are the retards who want to be able to say "that wasn't me, it was someone pretending to be me" after they make fools out of themselves.

>> No.5850497

>>5847185
They're right. YA only gets people into reading YA, and the only reason I see that as something laudable--this idea that reading anything is good because at least you're reading--is that I guess you will maintain your language skills somewhat better than someone who only watches TV. Other than that reading YA is only as enriching as watching television.

And yes Harry Potter is definitely a series of poorly written cliches. Of course when you're reading it as a kid you don't realize this but if you reread it as an adult it should be obvious enough to even break through any nostalgia. Perhaps J.K. Rowling's sole accomplishment is assembling existing ideas and cliches into a world that captivates children.

>>5850165
>but they're being unfair about "the characters having the same voice" when that definitely isn't true.
It's definitely true in the first book at least. It's the only one I've reread any time recently but it could be true of the others too.

>> No.5850500

>>5850471
It's more the fun of actually spawning those guys like I had done on /x/ prior my current absolute home run achievement here. Although, the vampire wizard made up for ban evasiom dedication by actually responding to threads I normally would.

>> No.5850549

>>5847590
>thinking of literacy as a binary 'yes or no'
Stop that, anon. People can be better or worse at reading and writing.

>> No.5850567

Just a case of hating something because it is popular nothing more to see here

>> No.5850576

>>5850142
> how did you get into /lit/
I saw Quentins favorite books pictures posted on /v/ and decided to see if /lit/ agreed.

>> No.5850734

>>5850218
Maybe you should read another book...

>> No.5851491

>>5850259
eat shit and die. your entire post is very potteresque: full of cliches.

>Le general population
>le possibility of fiction

You didn't read Bloom's article either, he suggested two books in the article alone.

>> No.5851594

>>5847185
Besides being not entirely correct (any one of the characters could be anyone else? You can't tell apart the voices of Ron and Dumbledore? Hermione and Hagrid? Come on), Bloom's criticism is excessive. The writing is lackluster, true, told mostly in a blandly humorous voice full of derivative whimsy, the unfortunate result of the fairytale-modern Britain mashup. It's an area of a book that, if flawed, could undo the whole work, but only if it has nothing else to stand on. And HP does, at least the first three ones: they're well-done mysteries, they're inventive fantasties, and - the saving grace - they're genuine and insightful about the emotional lives of children.

You need consistently good written on top of that to make a great, but not to make a worthwhile reading experience.

>> No.5851940

Of course they're right. The thing is, people think they're standing on a treestump screaming these things, trying to stop people from reading Harry Potter. No, reporters ask them their opinion and they give the obvious answer: Harry Potter isn't great literature. What do you want well-read people to say? I think McDonald's hamburgers taste great, but I would expect a food critic to be more discerning than I am. The problem is that people think opinions are all equal, when really how much you know about a field gives your opinion more or less weight. If you've read only twelve books in your entire life, you may think your favorite one is extraordinarily powerful, innovative, thoughtful, until you read two hundred more and realize your old favorite is actually, in the grand scheme of things, mediocre. Bloom and Byatt are experts of literature. You don't have to agree with them, but make sure you're not giving you're not overestimating your own expertise when you disagree.

>> No.5852115

I like Harry Potter in the sense that it was a pop culture phenomenon that got a lot of kids reading during a time when its popularity as a hobby was dwindling. However, I feel like Harry Potter has contributed to a lot of my generation's "special snowflake" syndrome or whatever the fuck it's called. Nothing bad really ever happens to Harry Potter, and no problems ever really have to be solved. The whole world and environment in Harry Potter is set up to make Harry this super special, awesome wizard for no reason other than he's the main character. The whole world moves to let Harry Potter when, he never has to move for the world. If that makes any sense.

>> No.5852122

>>5852115
*win, not when. Whoops