I haven't read any of his stuff, only the shitty quotes ("If people were rain I'd be drizzle and she'd be a hurricane"), but from what I can tell, he's just like every other shitty YA author. Why is there so much hate specifically directed towards him? Is it because he's also on yt?
it's because c/lit/s have probably come into contact with girls who read his stuff and see it as somehow "outsider literature" and therefore intellectual. it must be grating. twilight or the hunger games doesn't have that tinge to it. the perks of being a wallflower does. perhaps now you understand.
The whole YA genre is engineered by the publishing industry to cash in on a thriving demographic who suddenly have a lot of money and get to make their own consumer choices.
>b-b-but he allows teenagers to see different ideas and helps them to cope with their struggling identities
Sure, but in the shallowest way possible. Instead of dealing with actual problems he just throws in cancer and suicide, and makes already edgy teenagers even deep*edgier. He sells kids what they want, which is to feel oppressed, lacking in what they feel the world owes them, and deeply misunderstood. Green just spews out this dreamy, paper-thin tripe which is then bought by the movie business to cash in on a vulnerable audience.
Green has no respect for either suicide or cancer. Cancer in Green is quirky, because his cancer is not the kind that makes you shit blood and throw up every time you eat. It's cancer for cheap effect. Green's sob-fest about cancer framed in this "we're so deep and quirky" mindset means that whatever sentiment his story ever had is immediately devalued as soon as he set one of his bony fingers to the keyboard.
In fact, having a "genre" for young adult lit is part of the problem to begin with. To look at literature through the lens of "genre" is miguided when one should instead look at it in terms of originality and sincerity. There are books written about teenagers that are good, but looking for some central theme running through them all is pointless. Trying to extrapolate a whole genre from this is even more pointless, and it exists only to cater to a specific market demographic. Confining oneself to a YA "genre" is precisely that: to confine oneself, in this case to a specific emotional or intellectual state that isn't developed yet.
It is largely attributed to his popular YouTube show "Crash Course," were perceived biases in his descriptions of historical narrative tend to demonize western culture's influence on historical events.
> If people were air masses I'd be an occluded front and she'd be an warm-core tropical cyclone.
> If people were nuclear power plant accidents I'd be The Mile Island and she'd be Chernobyl.
> If people were pathogens I'd be Herpes simplex and she'd be Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
Nah man you only dislike his work because it's popular. It's well bought because of how good it is. You just don't understand it. You're a hipster. You don't really "read" the books you talk about.
>Implying I'll fall for this bait. Nice try buddy.
I don't get the hate for YA literature either.
My sister for example, who is twelve years old read this book called 'the perks of being a wallflower' and subsequently got into contact with The Smiths and Salinger, because apparently they are mentioned in the book.
Yea, I figured that's what he meant, but I think I disagree. While it's probably better to read trash than reading nothing at all,
I don't think reading Harry Potter will interest people in Plato. A pretty extreme exemple I'll admit, but say the following happens.
> Some guy reads YA fiction
> A good author/book is referenced
> Reader is interested in said book/author because it's mentionned in a book he likes and thus he thinks he will enjoy it
> He reads said book
> Unable to appreciate it to its just value because his only point of reference is YA fiction
> Could end up believing something stupid, like thinking the book is on a level of worth equal to his YA fiction, or perhaps even lower then that
I'm not gonna say John Green is "objectively bad", whatever that means. I'm not even going to say he's a mediocre writer. What I will do is point out the two kinds of producers of culture.
There are those interested in discovering some sort of truth, or offering a true and realistic message, a moral that applies to the real world or a description of the world as an inherently amoral place. Such people would fit quite snugly in categories like 'philosophers' and 'artists'. Contemplative is another word. These people have often gone through a lot, they've struggled, they've tested their own value system and those of others. They've done their dues and they understand the human condition enough to make something that is honest and open about it.
Then there are those interested in selling a fantasy, possibly to make a quick buck, possibly because they are naive enough to believe in the fantasy. These are marketing types and pornographers, generally speaking, but even an author like Tolkien fits into this category in some respect since his books were effectively "Why Catholicism is Right and True: The Metaphor". Did Tolkien's works have complexity and depth? Yes, he invented fucking languages, he thought long and hard about what 'sounds good' and what 'sounds evil', the only problem is we've since discovered it's merely what 'sounds familiar' and what 'sounds different'.
John Green definitely fits in the latter category, but without any of the depth or complexity as Tolkien. His books are cheap, tacky, romance novels veiled in false depth. "Did you know there are an infinity of infinities?" He said, as if the concept of "infinity" is inherently meaningful. In a book like, say, Slaughterhouse Five we're treated to a story about a good, educated, hard-working man who marries a fatty and becomes a prisoner. In The Fault in Our Stars a defective girl meets her prince charming and it's, like, so totally cute and romantic.
>There are those interested in discovering some sort of truth, or offering a true and realistic message, a moral that applies to the real world or a description of the world as an inherently amoral place.
>he doesn't read for the prose
Exactly what happened to me. I'm sure I can be accused of following /lit/ trends on certain topics, but I hated John Green long before he became a household name on the internet because I knew a girl who was obsessed with his shit and would read long excerpts and show off his videos.
>John Green is the richest and most popular shitty YA author
>literature does not exist in a vacuum
>writers as such have a definite social function exactly proportioned to their ability as writers
>if a nations literature declines, the nation atrophies and decays.
The man of understanding can no more sit quiet and resigned while his country lets it's literature decay, and lets good writing meet with contempt, than a good doctor could sit quiet and contented while some ignorant child was infecting itself with tuberculosis under the impression that it was merely eating jam tarts ~ Ezra Pound
We all have a connection with Rowling though. Her books were obviously only meant to be small time. She didn't write them for the billion dollars she has today.
John Green wrote for nothing but money. That makes him worse.
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.
But when I wrote that in a newspaper, I was denounced. I was told that children would now read only J.K. Rowling, and I was asked whether that wasn't, after all, better than reading nothing at all? If Rowling was what it took to make them pick up a book, wasn't that a good thing?
It is not. "Harry Potter" will not lead our children on to Kipling's "Just So Stories" or his "Jungle Book." It will not lead them to Thurber's "Thirteen Clocks" or Kenneth Grahame's "Wind in the Willows" or Lewis Carroll's "Alice."
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.
Our society and our literature and our culture are being dumbed down, and the causes are very complex. I'm 73 years old. In a lifetime of teaching English, I've seen the study of literature debased. There's very little authentic study of the humanities remaining. My research assistant came to me two years ago saying she'd been in a seminar in which the teacher spent two hours saying that Walt Whitman was a racist. This isn't even good nonsense. It's insufferable.
Yes, old Bloomer is correct. Harry Potter is not a fine work of literature, nor is it very creative. That doesn't make it worse than John Green, who might have been able to have some writing chops if he didn't sell out to the teenagers he spent his entire youth not banging.
>he reads for only one thing
This is like saying
>he watches movies only for the cinematography
Prose without purpose is meaningless, just as a beautiful movie without purpose is meaningless.
So you think you can talk shit about reddit all day? That your racism, sexism, homophobia and intolerance will be accepted?
We redditors don't tolerant intolerance - and my katana isn't just for show.
Well done, you got a reaction from the bad boys of reddit. That's what you wanted, right? Now we've decided we're taking over.
You've sensed it already, haven't you? The memes becoming better and better the responses more hilarious - that's us, pushing you out. When you say something intolerant about minorities or women and get called out like the bigots you are - that's us, taking your board.
You have no idea to the extent of fear which you should be feeling now you have drawn reddit on you. Your zombie Jew fairytale can't protect you now. This board is ours and all discussion will be as intelligent as on reddit.
You think I'm giving you an empty threat? Believe that. But the 'internet hate machine' already seems a lot more tolerant and forgiving then it's reputation. The 'hackers on steroids' have been outsmarted by the kind and souls of reddit.
You have lost your board.
Track my IP if you want to 'hackers' but I am smart enough to use the university library computer - and I'm even in incognito mode for added security.
Sent with true euphoria,
An enlightened redditor.
PS - DFW belongs to us.
I was forced to watch one of his crash course videos he made on globalization, this was for my cultural anthropology class.
I was a bit disappointed, but it did say it was a crash course, so I did not expect depth.
Honestly the hate for him is just a reaction to the great praise for him that's completely overwhelming. Ever since a Fault in Our Stars and the subsequent movie came out John Green is some kind of "literature" now in late high school-early college aged kids' minds. There's this depth that people constantly refer to that isn't there.
There's a place for YA books, and its in the hands of YA readers, aged about 10-16ish. Just like there's a place for pop music and easy listen music. It's when the pop and easy listen music gets branded as something profound that it incurs some kind of hate. That's what's happening to John Green right now, the emotional core of his book is getting misinterpreted as some kind of deep literary complexity, but it isn't.
I mean, that's really the story of John Green in all of his pursuits, he appeals to laymen with some kind of false complexity or depth, the laymen and fans push what he says as the truth and his videos and books as substitutes for actual professional material.
Fucking hell I'm in uni and still after three years of taking history classes someone quotes or directly lifts one of John Green's arguments from his videos. It's just so incredibly frustrating. All the "haha the renaissance don't real" and "the mongols were the best at everything and totally humanistic guys!"
His books cater to an audience that is really only reading a novel for the lukewarm feels, and want to feel good without much effort. He isn't a terrible writer, just terribly boring, who happens to be the sort that incessantly panders to squealing teenagers and squealing teenagers only.
What disgusts me personally about YA is that the term should refer to persons aged 18 to 22 or something. Legal adults who are still rather young, college aged. The works in the demographic are, however, written as though for a 12-year-old. Unfortunately, those 18-to-22-year-olds are mistakingly reading these works, taking the term 'young adult' at face value, and end up wasting their time reading children's lit passing itself off as acceptable reading material for a grown person. And the worst part is society just lets it happen, and it's considered perfectly fine for a college junior to read middle schooler books but I am weird for disregarding them and preferring Ulysses at my age of 21 years
Specifically because we don't talk about YA on here because it's not literature, yet you cunts want to keep talking about him. No one brings up the other YA authors incessantly.
fuck the fuck off. This is the only answer.
while I agree whole-heartedly, I don't think it's THAT deep man. YA readers read for personal enjoyment, not gain. My younger sister reads the same amount of YA as she does classic Russian lit, which she is currently studying. Genre's don't need to be homogenised, they're not exclusive.
But I do read a lot of light novels nowadays. That's the Japanese equivalent of YA, although obviously they differ in many thing. I don't pretend there's anything profound in most of them, just some quick fun and light exercise in Japanese.
Reading pic related now, Nejimaki Seirei Senki: Tenkyou no Alderamin volume 1. I believe the first and second volumes are even fan-translated to English by someone.
Everything that I already knew about the period, but with unfunny youtube humor.
But it was not as inaccurate as To The Distant Observer, so it get a pass.
i feel like juan verde made it acceptable for grown adults to read children's books by making his teenage characters incredibly pretentious and verbose, which retards think makes the book sophisticated or intellectual or some shit.
>She didn't write them for the billion dollars
She even went on benefits to write them. She wrote them for money, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. She basically got paid to write them and then got paid for them.
She and John Green are horrible writers.
I agree as most people do: Young Adult literature is DEFINED by it BEING bad. There are books or literature that young adults can find accessible, or that they might empathize with. And then there's "YA fiction". Its almost like an artificial genre of pulp-fiction shite.
I think that he's authentic, and I think he has some respectable ways of thinking, but i can understand why he's hated. At least he's not egotistical about it.
You make it sound like John Green is at home laughing at people who buy his book.
I don't think that is true, I think he is a master of self delusion and truly believes that the stuff he is write is "good" for teens.
I don't know if that makes it better or worse.
Well since he doesn't his work is actually harmful. That is a teenager that never read John Green might stumble upon someone worth his salt. While the YA slurping gutter-head is just going to be content with his slime and never move on.
Why the hell would a YA author want his reader to graduate to higher works? He needs the cash and the best way to do that is to monopolize their interest. YA readers rarely go onto read real books they read more YA trash.
>Do we really believe tens of millions of people are merely wrong
what a fucking garbage thing to say
the average person believes HUNDREDS of millions of people are wrong about their religion or government or preferred form of sex or what the fuck ever, of fucking course we believe that people who like twilight are aesthetically bankrupt zombies
I had ignored John Green hate until now but goddamn this is the worst fucking thing I've read in a while, what a useless appeal to to lowest common denominator plebbery, 10/10 I mad as hell
>the emotional core of his book is getting misinterpreted as some kind of deep literary complexity, but it isn't.
Basically, that's it in a nutshell. I really dislike John Green because he's so pedantic in his videos and the protagonists of his novels are so precious and "adorably" quirky.
>I can't talk about actual romance or erotica with anyone.
you can talk to me bby ;)
I mean I'll only respond with pretentious sneering how romance is a crypto-fascist spook but you weren't very specific on what sort of talk you wanted
>isn't our disdain FAAAAARRR more misogynistic than anything in the stories?
What does he mean?
I saw this going around Facebook today being touted as evidence of her creativity...
but she wasn't being criticized for being a women.She was being criticized for shitting out literary abominations.
wtf is he even trying to convey ???
>implying every decision you have ever/can ever make is not based solely on subconscious misogyny
Now let's watch him talk about how bad the Nazis were
Cynical. There's a high probability of considerable overlap between fans of JG and Twilight. Fans of Twilight are likely to be offended to the point of not buying JG books over trivial shit like him making fun of it. Hence, the lengthy rebuttal of his own integrity on the part of JG.
Crafty little fucker.
John Greene is the absolute embodiment of Nietzsche's Last Man. I hope this man gets falsely accused of being a pedophile so his insufferable fanbase can harass him until he regrets ever typing one shitty word.
Harry Potter is just literature for kids
I've read it when I was a kid and at the same time I was reading things like Moby Dick and Dostoevsky. I remember the HP series much more fondly.
>I don't think reading Harry Potter will interest people in Plato
It worked for me.
Although the process was not direct.
>Infinite fantasy shit
>"Huh, that was exactly as awesome as I thought it was, let's check out a similar Everyman's"
I fucking hated it though. Mostly because of pic related.
Also my history teacher recommended I read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but I only remembered the Zarathustra bit and ended up confusedly reading about Zoroastrianism.
>It is not. "Harry Potter" will not lead our children on to Kipling's "Just So Stories" or his "Jungle Book." It will not lead them to Thurber's "Thirteen Clocks" or Kenneth Grahame's "Wind in the Willows" or Lewis Carroll's "Alice."
I always find these kind of statements fucking retarded, because exactly what happened to me. It was what first got me into books.
Before then I was convinced they were wastes of time and space that didn't further mankind in any significant way.
And I mean "exactly". It got me into Kipling, and Wind in the Willows (well, let's be honest, seeing as I live right next to the places it's set in I was never not going to read that). And Le Guin, and all the rest.
I also always hated Stephen King. So fuck you, and fuck the guy you copied that from.
He is a half-decent historian, but instead of sticking to what he is kind of good at, he tries a bit of everything and fails, being praised universally.
Reminds me of an overpraised younger sibbling, really.
>I honestly don't think harry potter would've been such a success had it started
Would you read a book only for descriptions of things? Even if the prose is really excellent, there has to be events. Prose is very important, but only one part of the whole.
And you even say that beautiful prose creates enjoyment, but that's extremely limiting. Purpose is created through things other than prose.
Literature is not sculpture.
>Would you read a book only for descriptions of things?
>Even if the prose is really excellent, there has to be events
Description of an event is description of things.
But looking at it, it seems like this argument comes from me misunderstanding you more than anything else. What do you mean by "purpose"?
His crash course series is grossly incomplete. So what? It s for high school kids anyway, they wont manage to pay attention for longer than 15 minutes tops.
Nothing wrong about understanding your audience. I mean, art is not for the audience in the first place, but 1. History is not exactly art but 2. If everybody was a highbrow L´Art-pour-L´Art madman like me, art would have gone extinct millenia ago.
"Hitler was a rare individual who really did change the history" made me cringe though. Everybody knows he was barely an icon.
>His crash course series is grossly incomplete. So what? It s for high school kids anyway, they wont manage to pay attention for longer than 15 minutes tops.
Fuck off, shitstain. Secondary school kids are way more intelligent than you give them credit for. Think back to when you were a kid. Unless you were a retard, you could handle decent history.
Simplification is fucking fine. You need to keep things relatively short, sure. But he sensationalises and just plain gets things wrong. He's a bad historian.
I mean not an empty work. It's really hard to define because I haven't read or experienced enough things in life. I would say that it would have some sort of meaning, however obscured it might be.
Anyway the more that I think about it, one's prose would be fairly unified and through it one would see a point or meaning. It would be possible to write meaningless prose, but I feel that if you were to write just descriptions one could find meaning based on how these things are described.
Apologies for being unclear, I feel like I'm trying to catch the wind in a net.
>Kids then=/=Kids now
I *am* kids now. I'm still in secondary, even if I'm about to leave it. And my brother's very much a kid today.
>Kids then in Europe=//=Kinds in Murica now
Look, I don't know much about American kids, but I'm sure they're bright enough to grasp nuanced, well-researched history.
Besides which, YA fiction is not the fucking be-all-end-all of what kids read.
Stumbled across this thread, voicing my opinion as someone in his TA (17).
I've read Looking For Alaska and The Fault In Our Stars recently and frankly, I do know what is happening in the plot and it is predictable but they're still enjoyable. I found TFIOS to be the lesser, likely because I read LFA first.
I bought/borrowed them because of hype and they have some decent characters (I feel for Van Houten) and moments it's like he thought of phrases and makes characters and stories around them. They were light reads, and not my usual thing, but they were perfectly middling.
Thirteen year old detected.
/lit/ hates pop fiction just as /sci/ hates pop science, because it eases other people into their respective exclusive patrician fields, supposedly incomprehensible by the common man. You, /lit/, are the true "special snowflakes".
Learning is always a curve and Moby Dick is just a point on it. The problem is not where reading begins, but it should be a smooth continuous curve, and bullshit YA literature and Harries Potters help fill it out.
>he thinks people who start with pop fiction 'upgrade' to actual literature
That's like saying people who start with internet falseflagging end up as politicians
garbage in, garbage out.
People hate Green because his books are shit trying to pass off as deep statements about the human experience. Since it's been brought up in this thread, compare Fault in our Stars to Harry Potter. Fault is almost unanimously hated, but Harry Potter is tolerated if not liked, and the reason for this is that Fault is quirky pop shit trying to pass off as depth, whereas Harry Potter is entertaining pop shit that never buries its head up its own butt. Ironically enough, I'd say Harry Potter's ultimately simple statement about death is more universal and far deeper than the trite romance in Fault.
That quote is from Harold Bloom you pleb.
Greek and Norse myth in 3rd grade, if you want to go all the way back even younger, Calvin and Hobbes and the Hobbit.
The people who exclusively read Hank the Cowdog didn't 'naturally progress' along some hypothetical curve of literature, they just went from 'trashy children's books' to 'trashy young adult books.'
Note I read 'pop' literature for entertainment, but it sure as shit isn't Harry Potter that gets credit for sparking an interest in 'real' literature.
You're memeing but you're right desu. The only thing that holds younger people from reading classic literature is antiquated language that they have trouble parsing.
Now that you put it like that, you have a point. That said, I *did* start with Harry Potter, even if I knew all the Egyptian myths before that. Unless you're suggesting you can degrade from one thing to another, then get back up to better literature.
really what I'm saying is that it's not a 'curve' upon which all books rest, more like a tree of branches and multiple trunks
Harry Potter at least is a twig that is attached to the larger branch of some western mythology, which is a branch that leads back to trunks of western history and philosophy, which then lead out to other places. It's not a mighty branch, but it's connected to other concepts.
But stuff like John Green fiction doesn't have a connection to anything else. It doesn't lead you anywhere. It's like a fruit fallen far from the tree. The fruit was once connected to some branch that led somewhere once, but you can't actually follow that connection to get somewhere anymore. If you already know about the tree you can point to where the fruit grew from, but if you don't know about the tree already you just eat the fruit, then move on to the next fruit, never thinking of trees at all. It's the sort of literature that entertains briefly, then rots away, is produced seasonally and doesn't add permanent substance to the tree itself.