Harry Potter Thread / Circle Jerk

>>7651190
kys

>>7651198
Kys me you fool.

>>7651190
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.

>>7651218
>still posting this

>>7651230
>posting non-literature content on a literature board

>>7651190

mr. weasley is just precious though, isn't he?

i love his fascination with muggle stuff...

he's like a reverse Faustian character lol

>>7651269
the whole weasley family is great desu, would have loved to learn more about charlie though.

>>7651721
what was the deal with his obsession with Romanian dragons?

what story did he have other than getting mauled?

>>7651190
This isn't even good nonsense. It's insufferable.

>>7651218
Is this "the fact that" of /lit/?

>>7651190
*teleports behind you*
*pulls out signed copy of Harry Potter*
*Well-played, good gentle sir for bringing this fair literature to our board. It is high time that we appreciate the input of our Imgur friends*
*tears up*
*desu kawaii, senpai*

File: 1454049627668.jpg (770KB, 1221x1920px) Image search: [Google]

770KB, 1221x1920px

>Still no grimdark Potter retelling by a competent writer

>>7652159
>retelling
why have a retelling when there could be another story in the established universe
taking the existing story and making it edgy is autistic

>>7652176
Because Rowling's last two books were horrendous piece of shit. And she's been making tweaks to the plot that are essentially slashfiction.

I half half a mind to guess that a good 90% of everyone on this board is a Ravenclaw or would at least claim to be a Ravenclaw

>>7652299
>I half half