[ 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: 229 KB, 737x643, 1384969232802.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7068758 No.7068758 [Reply] [Original]

is this accurate?

>> No.7068765

>/lit/ being overly critical about children's novels

seems accurate

>> No.7068768

>>7068758
Books for children would suffice.

>> No.7068798

I will FUCK any child who reads Harry Potter. I will FUCK him until he's DEAD. NO MORE PLEBEIANS!! NO MORE FUCKING PLEBEIANS NOT EVEN CHILDREN

>> No.7068818

pretty much yea
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1530857

>> No.7068932

my kids could be reading worse shit than an 'overcoming adversity' story (over sexualized vampire shit or babby's first ennui John Green)

but you really should get shot if you're reading the books past 18 and posting pictures of them like collectors items on instagram (#books #lovebooks #reading)

>> No.7068938

I read all those books and cried when I finished the deathly hallows

>> No.7068953

The books got objectively worse when it got more grimdark for older audiences.

>> No.7069029

>black and white morals

It's certainly better than Game of Thrones style "moral ambiguity."

>> No.7069234

>>7069029
is there any pleasing you plebs

>> No.7069313

Harry Potter is literally brain poison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w9t0vJKBQ8

>> No.7069319

>>7068758
They are children's books, jesus fuck.

>> No.7069326

well i did read the first four that were out at the time when i was in fifth grade. i really liked it at the time but had lost interest during that long gap between the fourth and the fifth.

>> No.7069343

>>7068768
/thread

>> No.7069449

>>7069319
And?

>> No.7069610
File: 20 KB, 500x333, happy bday.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7069610

>>7068758
>fifth-grade* prose
>was written for fifth-graders

>> No.7069623
File: 195 KB, 495x723, darwin6c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7069623

>>7068758
Are you looking for easy-reading magic school novels with relatable characters and a "good-defeats-evil" motif? Harry Potter is perfect.

Imagine if LotR was watered down and then moved to Hogwarts.

>> No.7069628

>>7068765
>>7068768
>>7069319
>>7069343
>>7069610
Hilarious how whenever you criticize a children's book everyone always gets extremely butthurt and conveniently forgets that they were written by a fucking adult who takes them extremely seriously and tries to make them something more than Dick and Jane. If that's all they were, then no one would bother criticizing.

>> No.7069640

Maybe. They're nothing special, even for children s books. But they did captivate an entire generation. And they're better than Twilight - even if Meyer steals from some of the best novels ever.

I love them, personally. They made me love reading. Hell, I go back and re-read them every few years.

>> No.7069644

>>7068758
Only if you're reviewing Harry Potter like it was written for adults. Which it wasn't. Because it was written for children. Damn man, it's not hard to understand.

>> No.7069651
File: 37 KB, 600x600, 1415859788075.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7069651

>>7069628

God forbid someone take pride in their work. Of course they were written by an adult, you think children make legos and toy cars and children's books themselves in some factory together?

>> No.7069664

>>7069628
I am glad I am at least not this autistic

>> No.7070803

>>7069628
haha

>> No.7070804

>>7068758
Harry Potter is written for children and I feel like the books are good for what they are, they don't pretend to be high literature or anything.

I think the series fell off with the later novels though

>> No.7070821

>>7069623
>implying LotR is deeper than HP
It's just more boring and takes itself too seriously, it's not in any way better or more interesting.

>> No.7070826

>>7068758
Harry Potter was my very first book
Escapism helped me a lot as a kid
What is wrong with reading Harry Potter ?

>> No.7070932

>>7069651
made me chuckle pretty good.

>> No.7070945

>>7068758
I agree but I don't give a shit what kids read. Totally judging all the huge Harry Potter fans around my college though.

>> No.7072181

>>7068758
I can't really respect the opinion of anyone who says "dumb-dumbs" unironically.

>> No.7072209

>>7069029
Game of Thrones doesn't have morals tho?

>> No.7072238

No. They're awesome.

1st: derivative but structurally solid. useful for anybody who wants to know how story functions.
2nd: marries the structure of the 1st book (standard coming-of-age fantasy) to eyrie horror and some backdoor ambition, which is capitalized on in later books.
3rd: adds a third layer of sci-fi time travel caper and starts to get real nitty-gritty with the morality. A perfect blend of dark, difficult narrative and entertainment. If you want to read HP in earnest, start here.
4th book: Blows up the structure to allow for more complicated ideas without sacrificing the pace. Flawed, but a lot of fun.
5th book: the most flawed, most brilliant. If you don't want to read HP but feel like you should read one, make it this one. It's a modern masterpiece of political fantasy, or, a post-modern masterpiece that undermines the escapism power fantasy that made the genre, and these books, so popular in the first place. It's pretty much the only power fantasy written to explore powerlessness, futility and realism.
6th book: Deepens the characters and lore. I mostly like it because I'm trash and love it when teens fuck, but the stuff Rowling does to the Dumbledore figure (see: avuncular wise-man) is creepy and upsetting in the smartest of ways.
7th book: a messy but impressive landing. I wrote one of my better-received essays in Uni about the epilogue, which is awesome and fuck you if you say otherwise - you're dumb.

Her prose is garbage, at least two of the books are overlong, and the world is too big to not have tons of plotholes, loose threads and shitty ideas. It's also big enough to blast rocket ships through the fabric of conventional literature.

Ignore them if you're still exploring an elitism phase - we've all done it. Bitch about its problems, too - it has many. But to say that the morals are black and white or that its success hinges on escapism is just ignorant.

>> No.7072252

>>7068765
They're bad children's novels

>> No.7072301

>>7072238
One might also ignore it because the fandom is obnoxious, or at least unfashionable, and the contrarian impulse is to distance oneself from the things that they like, regardless of the quality in the work. It's hard to be objective when the surface aesthetic has such negative connotations. I can relate to that. There's no point in reading anything if the fluff of it makes you cringe. It's best to wait for the fluff to seem appealing, which usually happens spontaneously and at a distance from fandom; appreciating fluff is what enables you to dig into the deeper portion of a work.

I've been avoiding Pynchon, Foster Wallace and Vonnegut because of the cults that surround each author, even though I full expect to love each one when I'm ready. Also: Dune, which I expect to kind of hate. Similarly, with TV, I had to put aside Better Call Saul, Adventure Time, Steven Universe, Korra and pretty much any acclaimed animated series besides Bojack Horseman. Even Rick & Morty is beginning to sour on me, through no fault of its own. I fucking hate Marvel movies, Doctor Who, Sherlock, True Detective and House of Cards, even though all four are more-or-less fine.

Aesthetics = Ethics, but nobody can really appreciate the latter without first enjoying the former.

>> No.7072346

>>7068758

It's Harry Potter. Not great art. Not challenging. Not the kind of awe-inspiring art that will shatter your worldview and leave you reflecting and pondering.

Then again, Commando with Arnold Schwarzenegger is none of those things either, yet it is still an enjoyable movie. Much like the Harry Potter series are enjoyable books.

>> No.7072362

>>7072238
I'm curious to hear why you like the epilogue. Couldn't stand it and I'm a huge fan of the series

>> No.7072395
File: 85 KB, 1010x1035, 9UZ7Pbv.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7072395

>>7072238
Only permaplebs have an "elitism phase". The rest of us are simply elite.

Extremely facile "analysis", btw. smh

>> No.7072414

>>7072301
It sounds like you have absolutely shit taste, and more fundamentally, you don't even seem to understand what would constitute proper taste. Art is just a dank meme to you, and it is utterly shocking that it appears a so-called "university" granted you a post-graduate degree in the field. Even a bachelors would be too much for the kind of trashpleb that would compose a post like this.

>> No.7072416

>>7072346
Why is it enjoyable?

>> No.7072433

>>7070945
You realize they read it when they were kids, right

>> No.7072440

>>7072433
>refusing to grow up
>2015

If it weren't accompanied by the inevitable failure to recognize or appreciate better art, then perhaps it would be tolerable.

>> No.7072442

>>7068798
ONE OF US
ONE OF US
ONE OF US

>> No.7072452

>>7072440
nostalgia. Same reason people play old video games

>> No.7072461

>>7072209
sure it does. ned was morally upright but it got him killed and all that jazz. so morality and right and wrong are different and confused. more like reality.

>> No.7072483

>>7072452
>living in the past
>2015

The thing about going back to old things you grew up with is that you realize they were shit. It is better to just remember them in passing, not make a lifestyle out of them, as may Potterfags have.

>> No.7072505

>>7072483
what do you mean when you say make a lifestyle out of it?

>> No.7072508

Wtf why are the only genuinely academic & thoughtful posts written in defense of the books?

They're literally star wars +1000 pages of adverbs. it really shouldn't be hard to critique without looking like a dumbass, and yet, look at /lit/ go

>> No.7072515

>>7072505
BEING a Potterfag to begin with, m8! Being a 25 year old faggot who still reads these books, rewatches the movies, goes to "Potter gatherings", post astonishingly undank Potter memes on social media, wears a wizard's hat, cape, and wand on occasion, participates in "real life quidditch"...

Embarrassing tbh smh

>> No.7072529

>>7072515
i've never seen anything like that irl. i work in a steel mill.

>> No.7072536
File: 27 KB, 400x388, 1373323128545.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7072536

>>7072529
I'm sorry, my proletariat friend. Perhaps you should attend college.

>> No.7072551

>>7072515

>astonishingly undank

i like this

>> No.7072567

There are really only two types of fiction: literary and escapist. Harry Potter falls into the latter category. There's nothing wrong with reading and enjoying the books, but should recognize them for what they are instead of embarrassing yourself like >>7072238.

>> No.7072568

>>7072536
i went to a university for a couple years. i'm glad for it but it's not for me. also, i'm a foreman so i technically oversee proles but i consider myself a pleb. i feel out of place in nice society. i have many relatives that are successful and it's strange to be around them. i do quite well at my job though financially.

>> No.7072589

>>7068758
Voldemort did nothing wrong.

>> No.7072594

>>7072568
Take solace in the fact that your working class inferiority complex has provided you with a compelling narrative and transformed your life into an aesthetic object, thereby transcending differentiations of social status.

>> No.7072609

>>7072589
>Voldemort did nothing wrong.
He failed to kill baby Harry.

>> No.7072618

>>7072589
1994 triwizard was an inside job

>> No.7072625

Ugh.

This thread again?

Do any of you dribbly cunts even care anymore?

>> No.7072630
File: 36 KB, 264x264, feelsgoodman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7072630

>>7072625
Fuck no, the bantermobile is on cruise control niggaaaaaaa

>> No.7072631

>>7072594
>inferiority complex
not at all.
>compelling narrative
i\m just an ordinary person
>transcending differentiations of social status
do you smell your own farts?

i don't like people who think they are better than other people. they almost never are.

>> No.7072644

>lit will spend more time arguing about the literary merit of a memey children's series than actually discussing quality books

Fucking kek lads

>> No.7072655

>>7072644
Cognitive bias: the post

>> No.7072665

>>7072655
There's nothing wrong with Harry Potter. Because I've read Rowling as a youth I've since stepped up and read Stephen King.

>> No.7072689

>>7072665
How did you find this board

>> No.7072716

>>7072301
Just seperate people who like the art from the art itself. Some of the authors and shows you listed are truly great and being unable to experience them because you dislike others who follow them is ridiculous, petty and childish. It's like decrying Kanye's music because you think he's a knob

>> No.7072727

>>7068765
Are you saying we don't need to give a damn about the quality of a book if it was written for children? Cause that's just fucking retarded. It's like feeding your children Happy Meals because 'it's just food for children... they don't care if it's cheap'. Giving children bad books is a fucking crime, -because- they don't realize that they're bad, and they easily become addicted to them.

>> No.7072744

>>7072716
Importantly, some of the art he lists is absolute garbage. He literally is not able to recognize the difference, and is using other people as a barometer for his interests.

>> No.7072751

>>7072744
>importantly

is it though? is it really?

>> No.7072815

Holy shit, I really upset that one guy!

>>7072716
I'm well aware. That's why I included that bit about "expecting to love" certain authors. The point I was trying to elaborate concerns the need to crave the superficial tone of something in order to actually enjoy it, which can be hard to do when that superficial tone reminds you of things that annoy you. I'm actually pretty good at working past it, since I'm such an oppositional dickhead anyway.

That said, I'm never watching House of Cards or Sherlock, I'm probably not watching True Detective, and Guardians of the Galaxy sucked.

Oh, and I not only like Kanye's music, I respect him immensely.

>>7072744
Out of all the hotties that make you feel so bitter, which one do I remind you of?

>> No.7072845
File: 151 KB, 960x960, das_it_mane.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7072845

>>7072815
Backpedal and ass-cover all damn day m8. You're a pleb and there's nothing you're going to be able to say to change what you are.

>> No.7072866
File: 77 KB, 666x476, firehotmemes_birds.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7072866

>>7072845
Was her name Jessica?

>> No.7072892

>>7072866
You might be a pleb when it comes to meaningful art, but you are a connoisseur of dank memes

>> No.7073002

>>7072301
>Adventure Time, Steven Universe, Korra

jesus christ, how are you not a 12 year old

>> No.7073039

>>7068758
>first 4
>charming, harmless escapism
>last 3
>edgy, overly violent trite

>> No.7073763

And what, exactly, is wrong with escapism? That's what books are for.

>> No.7074305

>>7072744
I really don't think he intended for all those things he 'set aside' due to their fandoms to be interpreted as being perceived by him as being of similar artistic quality.

>> No.7074306

>>7073763
holy fuck where did you come from

>> No.7074315

>>7070821
so you never read lotr. then why discuss about it?

>> No.7074318

Why is it so important to always be reading smart books for smart-smarts? Yeah they're not great work of literary genius. You just wasted time making a worthless image about how they are books for dumb people. So who is smarter in that scenario?

>> No.7074325

>>7072631
No one's going to believe you don't have a inferiority complex if you go around saying shit like
>i don't like people who think they are better than other people. they almost never are.

>> No.7074341

>>7072416
>>7074318
Made me kek tho

>> No.7074354

>>7074315
>...discuss about it...
Is English not your first language?

>> No.7074500

>>7074315
That would be pretty meta, but fuck you - I did read LotR and even liked it when I was younger.

>> No.7074881

Jesus Christ, what is happening to this place? Harry Potter discussions? OP, the title of this board is LITERATURE. J.K. Rowling is a entertainer of commoners, lay folk. She is a perpetrator of crimes against language and art. This stuff is meant to be read by adolescents and children, and even then the offspring of human cattle who do not deserve an education or the chance to speak freely in our society. This is for people below the culture barrier, impossible to save, the kind of idiots who think Louis C.K. is funny. These books train you to be a mindless moron.

There are so many plebeians, so many proles, so many redditors and tumblr kids on 4chan nowadays. I hoped and prayed that they would not infiltrate the precious sanctuary I know to be /lit/, but it has happened. There is only one solution: we need a special moderator for this board, someone who is actually intelligent.

OP, this is /lit/, not just /fiction/ or /books/, or /aspergiantrash/, but /lit/. Tallis has been trying to inform some of you about this, but you are unable to grasp it. I demand help from the owners of this website. Every thread that is not about classical, intelligent, and/or aesthetically superior literature has to go. I demand bans. I demand that all GRRM threads, John Green threads, Philip K. Dick threads, pseudo intellectual high school philosophy homework threads, and genre fiction discussion of ANY kind be deleted on the spot. This is the only way to save this board from the slavering buffoonish virus that is slowly killing it.

This includes your thread, OP. You are an idiot for even discussing these books. I would suggest you a list of classics that might enrich you, perhaps save your future, but you are probably beyond repair. I have reported your disgusting post. I hope you kill yourself.

>> No.7074987

>>7074881
lel cry more pleb

>> No.7075181

I hate how the entire series but the last were like, stuck in the school

and how magic made no sense

or why no one just took a fucking gun

or controlled the MoM

But hey, childrens book. Despite rowling saying that she was writing for young adults since the original readers grew up.

>> No.7075197

>>7075181
>muh eagle ring lotr aspieism

>> No.7075211

>>7075197
eagles literally said that they'll have no part in the war, fuck the movie for not explaining this for the retards

And no Tom Bombadil

>> No.7076050

>>7069029
Literally how? The closest Rowling came to moral ambiguity was Snape

>> No.7077369

>>7074881
literally me in a nutshell tbh

>> No.7078381

This book is shit, ive read the first 3 and you can see how Rowling got out of ideas in no time, and its for manchildren, you can make people really mad because they have nostalgia google, but fuck them, they are cancerous as fuck if they defend this shit unironically.

>> No.7079305

Yes, The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King