>>7589917 I went to the Yale University bookstore and bought and read a copy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." I suffered a great deal in the process. The writing was 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. A nine-year-old might feel quite pleased with the writing in the Harry Potter books. A typical page in these books will consist of several descriptions of the way people speak. "...said Snape maliciously," "... said Harry furiously", " ... he said glumly", "... said Hermione severely", "... said Ron indignantly", " ... said Hermione loftily". Do I need to explain why that is such second-rate writing? If I do, then that means you're one of the many adults who don't have a problem with the retreat into infantilism that your willing immersion in the Potter books represents. I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by 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.
>>7589955 I read in another thread that there are no fans of HP that also think the writing quality is shit. But I'm one of those people. I'll admit that if I had never read HP growing up, I definitely wouldn't like it now. What anon said about it being a special part of your heart is true, it's very nostalgic to me. It still makes me cry sometimes. But I've long since broadened my perspective on literature, and my taste. Though I can't help but love the series.
What Bloom said, on the other hand, is bullshit, at least in my case. The bit where HP trains you to read only YA. That definitely never happened with me. I feel really uncomfortable when I even look at a cover. I have really broad tastes. I like clever shit like The Sound and the Fury and Infinite Jest, and maybe Lolita. For some reason I like proust. I also like some genre stuff still, like a bit of King and Terry Brooks. I've been reading a lot of literary stuff lately, though, and my taste has just been adapting to that almost accidentally. It's all a matter of not letting yourself get too comfortable with something. If that makes any sense to you. So maybe it's true for a lot of people that they're in a sort of inertia of YA, but think about the fact these people may not have had much of a disposition in the first place.
>>7590091 He is factually incorrect though. I remember we had this same argument in another thread, and an anon actually went into the first chapter of the book. The phrase "stretched his legs" is used once, on the first page. Bloom was talking shit
>>7590125 I read HP while growing up and wouldn't say it teaches you to only read YA. There is a larger narrative unlike most YA books. I primarily read books on history and mythology as a child so I did enjoy HP in a way other children may have not though.
>>7590252 I'm saying I've learned how to separate my tastes between pure entertainment and stuff that actually matters. I let myself enjoy different sorts of things, because there's no real danger in it.
And Christ, /lit/ says go back to reddit more than /b/ does, holy shit.
Philosopher's Stone is the weakest book in the series. If you want to explain to adults who didn't grow up with the series what the appeal of the series to adults is, Philosopher's Stone is likely not going to convince them of anything. Harry Potter really comes into its own, and yes it's still a children's series, with Chamber of Secrets. The second book adds a lot more of what people like about the series than the first book.
I read them as an adult and they're good for YA but I rank them lower than Prydain, the Dark is Rising, and the Narnia series. My main issues are that Harry is angsty and whiny, unattractive traits, and Rowling overuses overhearing information instead of coming up with new ways to move the plot forward.
I remember I worked at a summer camp a few years back and we had to send a few campers home because their "Harry Potter Religion" was getting out of hand.
Every night they would demand to leave the cabin and they would take a copy of the sorcerers stone and place it on an alter they made, leaving it there overnight. Then they would dance around it while chanting spells or something. We had to shut it down when we found they were cutting their fingers to smear their blood across the pages.
I think it's worth noting that Harry Potter isn't ONLY criticized by the pretentious racist teenagers on /lit/ who worship Harold Bloom.
>Le Guin has claimed that she doesn't feel Rowling "ripped her off", but that she felt that Rowling's books were overpraised for supposed originality, and that Rowling "could have been more gracious about her predecessors. >My incredulity was at the critics who found the first book wonderfully original. >She has many virtues, but originality isn't one of them. >That hurt."
I like Harry Potter, but it's been criticized by people within the fantasy genre. "It's just for kids, so any criticism is completely irrelevant" is the worst argument ever and Harry Potter fans need to abandon it.
>>7589917 The first four books are entertaining and great for children and younger teenagers.
However, while the last three books have their moments, it seems like Rowling ran out of good ideas or something. Once Voldemort is back, it's all just random deaths and darkness. It's obvious she changed the story due to its success to spare the main characters. The solutions stop being about cleverness and friendship and more about people just blindly reacting or whatever.
I feel like, when the hype is removed, the last book is especially bad. The movies are worse. Dobby died? Good, he was an annoying character. But because the fanbase is moronic somehow they forgive the fact that he was the Jar Jar Binks of the second book, and make his death so emotional that its the fucking climax of the "Deathly Hallows: Part 1" film adoption.
Anyone who says "its fine for kids" grew up on Cartoon Network and other forms of retardation. Do you think any of your favorite writers grew up on YA garbage? Even kids books from years ago -- Treasure Island, Lord of the Flies, Alice in Wonderland -- all have literary merit. In fact, by the time a kid is grown up enough to possibly read Harry Potter on their own, assuming you were a good parent and tutored your child yourself and didn't just drop them off at some public school to be raped, they should be able to read To Kill a Mockingbird or Frankenstein.
>>7589917 Harry is a pretty shitty protagonist. He's a really good wizard and athlete, but when he's not angsty he doesn't have a personality. That's a pretty big flaw. Very shitty support too - Hermoine is just a British Lisa Simpson and Ron is nothing. Fuck Dumbledore too, le benevolent master wizard with a big beard is so overdone.
The snape twist really fucked my shit up as a kid though. Shining moment of the books. Being an edgy kid he seemed to symbolize everything I hated. Going through 5 books with that and then it all turning around really blew my mind and changed my perspective on things.
The fucking pleb apologists here. You spend more energy playing devils advocate for no reason other than satisfying some misguided sense of self-righteousness, the audience being a mob of faceless anons over the internet, no less. Fighting pretentiousness is the new pretentiousness. Go read a book you fucking faggot.
>>7593869 >except for the part where he killed his sister and raised Harry like a pig for the slaughter And yet Rowling continually defended(through Harry) Dumbledore and his actions. No matter how big a hypocritical piece of shit he was he continued to be "the good guy"
Not to mention, Harry is the biggest cuck on the planet desu
Everyone is pidgeonholed but instead of overcoming these barriers Rowling only reinforces them.
And Voldemort? What an awful character. He and Dumbledore should have both been written as morally grey characters instead of this unrealistic Light vs Dark, people are born either good or evil Harry, and don't you forget it. Everyone deserves second chances, except for mean old Tom.
If it's written for children it's not a very good "lesson." If it's written for adults it's a terrible piece of literature.
>>7589917 >>7589917 professor quidditch was my favorite professor i didnt not expect to see voldermort behind his head after he taught harry how 2 defend himself against the dark arts that mustve been weird lmao
>>7594675 Rowling described Dumbledore as Machiavellian and said he was supposed to be questionable, I don't know where she defended him. Dumbledore is the most "Slytherin" character in the series, he manipulates everyone to get his ends, doesn't have a problem with abusing children and risking their lives for far-fetched plans and his whole benevolent persona is a scam. He's by far the most interesting to analyze.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.