Within literary circles, is J.K. Rowling considered a good (not

Why do you care?

>>8627666
Which ones?

>>8627673
Why do you care why I care?

>>8627677
Because insecure people are annoying.

>>8627675
Any of the significant ones.

File: john green.jpg (38KB, 948x1086px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 948x1086px

Within literary circles, is John Green considered a good (not necessarily great) writer?

I know that DFW had planned to insert him as a character in The Pale King the same way he did himself, it just wasn't fleshed out in a way that was publishable.

>>8627683
Which ones are those? Then I'll help you out with their opinion

>>8627690
Why are you being so difficult? You know exactly what I'm asking.

I'm not asking because I'm trying to get my opinions validated or anything. It's just curiosity.

>>8627666
She is too young to be considered good, and people are too jealous. It will take her death before they respect her. Same with King. It's always the same story

Why do you care what people you know nothing about think about J.K. Rowling?

>>8627666
Read a book.
if it made you feel anything but disgust, it was art
you could then call the author 'good'

or ask strangers online to validate your decisions. don't be a sheep

Her books are entertainment, not art. Full stop.

>>8627894
How do you tell which is which?

>>8627896
You must be new here. Does a book exist only for the plot? Entertainment. Does a book exist to communicate a message or convey feeling in a way that only written word can? Literature.

>>8627896
Entertainment is to keep you on the edge of your seat and art is to exemplify the beauty of the prose or morality of the book. For the record, I don't think entertainment books are inherently bad but JK Rowling is really bad.

>>8627728
They're too pop, and not boogie at all . At their best, they're good and entertaining storytellers. Nothing more, nothing less.

>>8627953

King's work is on the borderline between literature and pop-fiction. His work actually tackles themes with some subtlety. Many of his short stories are out-right literary, even if he is only known for his novels. I can see him being somebody in the Dickens, Bennett, Amis, etc, line, people with workmanlike prose that occasionally transcends its limit. (Dickens breaking totally free of his limit, being hampered mostly by his sentimentality.) I can see his short stories becoming canon later on, especially Different Seasons, which was massively influential on a cultural level. He's also inarguably a major figure in 20th century horror, which gives him a good chance of breaking into the main narrative of our century's writing.

Rowling's books have a sort of charm in their style and setting but they are ultimately platitudes.

>>8628002
I disagree. McCarthy's work is on the borderline between literature and pop. King is not an atrocious writer as /lit/ likes to think (he's a good storyteller and knows how to build tension); however, there is not enough depth in his work to be considered high literature. Many of his books have great moments, but they're ultimately damaged by King himself. Look at IT, for example: it could've been a solid, somewhat subtle coming-of-age story, but it was ruined by King's excessive (and far too obvious) symbolism. That lack of sensibility says a lot about the writer and their intent, and ultimately damages the tone of the story.

He will be remembered as one of the most influential and popular writers of the 20th century, but that's it. Sadly, his biggest contribution to art is The Shining, and that's only because of the film adaptation, which is one of Kubrick's weakest films.

>>8627689
Source?

>>8627953
>They're too pop,
And Shakespeare wasn't?

>>8627894
Later Harry Potter books touch on themes like death, though.

>>8627681
how does that question make them less annoying?

>>8628185
>>8627953
BTFO

>>8627935
so communicating "love conquers everything" would be art?

>>8628205
If it communicates the ignorance of youth and the headstrong feelings about it, yes it would definitely be art. It doesn't have to be something that you agree with to be art.

>>8627883
why would a book making you feel disgusted mean it's not art?

if I read an incredibly in depth torture story about the struggles of a sex slave and felt disgusted many times throughout the book is it a bad book?

>>8628205
if done well and in an interesting way, then it would be good art.

People confuse commonly used themes/ stories that possess them as bad pieces of art. This is not necessarily true. It's just dull if handled poorly since we've seen it done well enough or excellent before.

What's going on with these JKR threads? Someone is mad for her.

>>8628103
There isn't one. Half of this board just loves conflating its golden boy and designated whipping post.

>>8627666
Im on top of the literary circle and I consider her the best writer

The Harry Potter books will still be read in 200 years, so I would argue that she's written a classic. Is she, dare I say it, /ourgirl/? I don't know, but the contrarian fucks on this board would say she isn't. One simply can't deny the impact that Rowling has made on the literary world.

>>8628067
>King is not an atrocious writer as /lit/ likes to think (he's a good storyteller and knows how to build tension); however, there is not enough depth in his work to be considered high literature.
T U R B O P L E B

>>8628002
>His work actually tackles themes with some subtlety.
What on earth is going on here?

A big influence on the view of those authors here is old Harry Bloom. McCarthy is the second coming of Homer and King literally Satan to Bloom.

>>8629451
>The Harry Potter books will still be read in 200 years
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publishers_Weekly_list_of_bestselling_novels_in_the_United_States_in_the_1900s

Yes, popular books great longevity.

>>8628246
its a pretty bad book imho just because it tries so hard

>>8627894
>entertainment can't be art
This retarded meme needs to die already.

I don't think her books are art though.

>>8628879
nice

>>8627728
Stephen King is a shitty writer. I would honestly say Rowling is better than him.

>>8628002
>Amis

I hope you mean Kingsley

>>8628185

Shakespeare didn't write teen fiction for a living.

File: 1337621351794.jpg (163KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 600x600px

>>8627935
>communicate a message
>art

>>8627666
Bob Dylan apparently is, so yeah.

>>8629842
It changed the game, kid. Nothing's going to ever be the same.

No if you mean by people that "matter"

>>8627666

No. Read: http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/24/dumbing_down_american_readers/

>>8630049
He wrote literal pleb fiction

>>8631226
What's dumbing down readers is just as much her being afraid of any subtext and explaining her supposed allegories or whatever like that one about a werewolf guy and HIV as it is her poor writing
Memes aside, you have to agree that even Stephen King is better, if not by very much, and at least he admits to being the fast food of literature and to have been very coked up when writing a lot of his stuff
At least in his stuff sometimes no one knows what the fuck is going on, meanwhile in J. K. Rowling nothing is left open to interpretation while implicitly affirming that an interpretative reading is the way to go, and interpretative readings are for high school lit 101 classes and philistines

>>8630234
They probs said the same about Winston Churchill.

The people who will be read from this period in 200 years are likely to be relatively unknown. They'll probs look at HP and YA shit as quaint and weird, although even as a contemporary I find the HP fandom v strange.