kronisk
- 0 Posts
- 13 Comments
Something being entertaining to you when you’re a kid that you can acknowledge was shit when you’re an adult is a normal part of growing up.
Sure, I remember my twenties well enough. And then the next stage in growing up is forgiving your younger self and understanding that books can be good in different ways, and that some books are brilliant for kids and teenagers. Good detective fiction can also be brilliant for what it is. You’re nearly there yourself in your original comment. No one is comparing Harry Potter to Gravity’s Rainbow or Wuthering Heights here.
The argument that something should be considered good because there exists other things which can be considered significantly worse is not a very good framework for arguing for the quality of a work of fiction. This is classic “damning by faint praise.”
I’m surprised you didn’t link to Wikipedia…but that’s not really the argument here. The point is one of context and being reasonable, and that in the field of young adult fiction, they stand out. Would I say they’re the best childrens books? No. And if you had been more reasonable - not called them “shit” perhaps - it would have been a different story. And I see you skirt the issue, but the reason people go on and on about the failings of Harry Potter these days is very obvious, and it has little to do with literary value.
The foundational premise of this argument is that you know something to be true because you perceive it to be so. This is like me saying that I know I’m a good cook because I cook every day and enjoy the food that I make for myself.
Or like you saying “her books are simple, accessible, designed for mass appeal, relatively thematically shallow…” Of course it’s my assessment, grounded in experience. I’m not going to do a close reading of the series in this format, I’m sorry. But I don’t really see that level of effort from you, either. (And “accessible” is a weird thing to criticize in a work geared towards children, btw…)
because she did what J. J. Abrams does with every single t.v. show he’s ever made and allude to an elaborate set of mysteries that actively drove fan engagement via wild speculation about the future of the series between novels.
Rowling delivered in the end though, which is what JJ never does and why he should be banned from ever making TV again. I don’t see how the comparison is valid, readers may have been disappointed but there were answers and genuine surprises there.
And I guess the reason you read the whole thing is…that it was so awful? Be honest with yourself.
It’s certainly not without its faults. (One thing I NEVER see mentioned is the excessive fatshaming, I guess there’s not room for more than one narrative at a time.) It is, however, a book written for children and teenagers. And for what it is, the plots and themes ask more of, and give more back to, young readers than so much of the other drivel that is readily available to them. I know this, since I read to my own children and teenagers every day, and buy them books to read for themselves. There is a reason the Potter books are still as popular as ever.
If we’re being honest, the real issue is that Rowling is now le diable du jour, which means everything she ever did is now material for our daily two minutes of hate. The books have to be completely without merit as well because it’s just not possible to hold even mildly conflicting views simultaneously.
Kids are extremely good at learning new things, and on average, old people are not. Whatever explanation to this state of things you prefer, and there’s obviously exceptions, this is just how it is.
Plus it’s an incredibly one-sided and myopic reading of the work that even a child can easily see through.
No, you can still listen to Bathory as well.
This is great, keep em coming please.
This thread unfolded a bit like this sketch
Gallagher truly is a genius
deleted by creator
Tbh, most of Heathcliff with Heathcliff is just as absurd and actually really funny as they are. I have to thank you for making me realise just how good the strip is these days though. But I’d rather just read the original.
deleted by creator
Well, the interesting thing about that quote is that Socrates was completely correct. People used to be able to recall long epic poems from memory, not just one, but an entire book shelf’s worth of information. This ability was lost among people in general. However people, and society, adapted.
Although the argument you and a lot of other people seems to be making is the equivalent of saying “well, I’ve had cancer before, and the doctor said it was serious then, but I survived - so it’s going to fine this time as well”. I don’t think it holds up.