>>7678146 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.
>>7678113 Not that guy, but Illuminatus is great if you've exhausted Pynchon's catalogue and want something similar. Also takes influence from Catch-22 and Vonnegut's shit, but of course on /lit/ we aren't allowed to like the latter
>>7678060 Italian here. It was really mediocre. >Eco keeps filling his prose with incredibly archaic words (I don't know if they were lost in the english translation but in italian it's ridiculous). I'm talking 19th century italian words that NO ONE uses anymore. Never seen them in another book. >His characters are incoherent as fuck (the young monk falls in love with a girl, knows she's innocent but does nothing when they execute her and then doesn't think about her even once for the rest of the novel). >The plot is retarded. Blind monk wants to keep people from reading a book. There is only ONE copy of it. Instead of burning it, he enacts incredibly convoluted plots to kill everyone that gets too close to the book. For FORTY years. Only when he's found out, does he finally burn the book. Well, maybe doing it 40 years earlier would have been easier? Shit novel. Shit, arrogant author. Both worthless.
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.