>>7672859 What's happening is part of a phenomenon I wrote about a couple of years ago when I was asked to comment on Rowling. 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.
It's a decent story and a fun read that normies and tumbrlinas think is the best book series ever. /lit/ secretly likes it but uses it as an example of books that are "not actually literature." it's kind of like Spongebob: something people grew up with and love but doesnt offer any kind of higher thought to understand. keep in mind that I'm wearing a Ravenclaw hoodie while typing this
>>7672859 I'm kind of torn. Harry Potter is a guilty pleasure for me because it was a big part of my childhood. I have no problem admitting that it's not very good, which is why I call it a guilty pleasure. I guess it's kind of like a film buff turning his brain off and watching a superhero flick. I know it's not good, but it's a quick read for sheer entertainment purposes.
My problem is when people hold it up as a shining example of modern lit. It's YA fiction, which is the biggest meme genre. Personally, I had already read The Hobbit/LotR as a kid before I picked up HP, so I was at least aware that there was better fantasy (which is a consistently shitty genre) out there. I don't know how I feel about kids who start reading HP before they read anything substantial. Maybe they go on to read Twilight because it's more "mature," and their taste in books is shit for the rest of their lives. Maybe they do go on to read Carroll and Kipling like I did, but I don't know if I'd even be aware that HP is pretty much objectively shitty had I not been exposed to Tolkien first, or been influenced by teachers/family members who helped foster an interest in reading from a young age.
That always bothered me though, because I say I'm going to stretch my legs when I'm going for a walk, mostly because if I don't I'll be pestered with questions about why I want to go for a walk, as if going for a walk needs some form of justification. I'm also very European in descent, and I think the phrase comes from Europe originally. So really it's just a common vernacular that some pretentious American git didn't get and gad to cause a fuss about it.
>>7676232 >I say I'm going to stretch my legs when I'm going for a walk, mostly because if I don't I'll be pestered with questions about why I want to go for a walk, as if going for a walk needs some form of justification. I think it's different in the case of an author describing a character going for a walk. The characters aren't telling anyone that they're stretching their legs, it's Rowling describing it. The author certainly doesn't need to justify to the reader why a character is walking somewhere, and if they do 1) they should make that a part of the narrative rather than just say it outright to the reader 2) describing it using the same phrase repeatedly is lazy and shows a lack of creativity.
That's really what the meme quote is getting at. Rowling's writing is really cliché. Even as a kid, long before reading the quote, I noticed that every time a character left a conversation, Rowling described it as the character "turning on [their] heel." This was much more obvious to me while reading than the stretching their legs bit. It's okay to use clichés like this a few times, but when it's the only way you ever describe that action, it's pretty annoying.
Nothing. Just autists who believe all genre fiction is trash and have taken it upon themselves to shitpost about it endlessly instead of doing something productive with their time like writing or reading the stuff that they enjoy.
>>7676587 I think it's a symptom of a larger societal problem. Our generation just refuses to let go of their childhoods. Nostalgia is a bigger marketing tool than anything else right now. That's why that hot garbage Jurassic World killed at the box office.
It used to be understood that superheroes and cartoons were for children. Now we hold up superhero films as the highest form of entertainment. People have deeply emotional reactions to who is directing the latest fucking ninja turtles movie. Awful formulaic trite like Full House is being revived and the hype around it is insane because "muh nostalgia." When Michael Bay makes a movie for a franchise that was created to sell toys, people unironically claim that he RAPED their childhoods. People used to move on from things that entertained them as children to more mature forms of entertainment, but my generation just outright refuses to do this. It's why the most profitable genre of books right now is YA fiction. People don't want to grow up anymore.
>>7677059 How am I wrong? The idea of a Batman movie being discussed and analyzed as the pinnacle of film making, or people having passionate emotional responses to the choice of director for glorified toy commercials would be laughed at a few generations ago.
>>7677051 >Now we hold up superhero films as the highest form of entertainment.
God, you are literally retarded. Take your pseudo-intellectual shit elsewhere. This is the gayest tryhard post I've ever seen. I bet you're sooooo socially alienated that you post here all day. you FUCKING FREAK.
>>7677073 I more just meant the face palm in relation to the "It used to be understood" part when the fucking Simpsons came out in 89 and blew the fuck up. >a few generations ago. Well, yeah sure, a few whole generations ago. >The idea of a Batman movie being discussed and analyzed as the pinnacle of film making This is just that: an idea. Nobody who is not a dumbass is discussing a Batman flick as though it were "the pinnacle of film making"
You've clearly picked up your talking points from arguments you've heard from others, otherwise you would've established which generation you belong to. You implicitly trust we would know which generation you're complaining about despite it being quite vague if you're upset with Gen X, Y or some other generation.
>>7677143 >>7677111 >>7677093 I admit that my posts basically read as an edgy "this generation sucks" shitpost, but I don't think they're entirely wrong. I'm 22 by the way, just to specify.
My point was really that companies are using nostalgia to sell products a lot more now, and my generation has a reluctance to move on from childhood entertainment.
>>7677093 >This is just that: an idea. Nobody who is not a dumbass is discussing a Batman flick as though it were "the pinnacle of film making" Yeah but you hear a lot of people in my generation discussing The Dark Knight like it was fucking citizen kane or something. Sure, among more knowledgeable film critics superhero flicks aren't as highly regarded, but people my age get their movie reviews from YouTube.
>>7677261 >you hear them discussing TDK like it's Citizen Kane Back in 1960, you probably heard them discuss a western like it was L'avventura Back in 1940, you probably heard them discuss a crime drama as if it was Citizen Kane. Get the idea?
>>7672869 Are you sure? I definitely read Harry Potter as a kid and enjoyed it, and while I never read Thirteen Clocks, I did read Wind in the Willows, the Just So Stories, Jungle Book, and Alice. I also had a particularly voracious appetite for those English novels from about 1940 about children and horses, but they were just joyous nonsense.
Surely reading any book within reason is better than sitting and spending those same hours hacking things to death in a video game, though? I definitely had that option as a child, but I chose to read.
(Incidentally, I could not read a lick until I was nine. Before then I was functionally illiterate.)
>>7677458 >Surely reading any book within reason is better than sitting and spending those same hours hacking things to death in a video game, though? That's all a matter of your perspective. I don't believe so. I'd rather a child play an extremely well made game that could inspire creativity than waste time reading a shitty book, unless that book inspired them in some way. Oh, what the fuck, this is all a bunch of bullshit anyways.
>tfw you dropped the series partway through whichever book introduced the Asian chick when you realized Harry was never going to have sex in the series >tfw you had a severe case of yellow fever in grade 5
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 email@example.com with the post's information.