lit/21918501.txt

-----
--- 21918501
Modern children's classic or literary junk food?
--- 21918504
My kids only read the Bible and play Dwarf Fortress and Alpha Centauri
--- 21918510
Inherently antisemitic and functions to steer kids to the alt right pipeline

Fuck TERFS, some witches have wands
--- 21918575
>>21918510
Is that what you're going to scream at the child's face when they bring you the book?
--- 21918590
I probably wouldn’t pick it to read to my children of my own volition because I don’t think it’s particularly exceptional children’s lit but it’s not so bad that I would like refuse to let them read it on their own
--- 21918595
>>21918590
Yeah. I'm not gonna read a 2,500 page series to anybody. Fuck that.
--- 21918609
>>21918501 (OP)
>Harry Potter is a literary classic that will be loved by generations!
>one generation later 
>only millennial women in their 30s care about Harry Potter still
--- 21918616
>>21918609
Millennial women will be children for generations
--- 21918620
>>21918501 (OP)
I tried reading harry potter as a kid and it bored me to death. You zoomers have no idea how ostracizing it was to grow up having no knowledge of or interest in that franchise.
--- 21918629
Why do zoomers pretend to have lived through this series' heyday when at the same time, a) (they didn't), and b) their generation is the one mainly screaming and pissing and shitting their pants over JKR's (ostensible) transphobia? Is Gen Z just completely irredeemable? I'm confused why they pretend to care so much tho
--- 21918638
>>21918620
Even as a kid when I was more or less fond of the books I never understood why the fuck it specifically was such a huge deal. Like I remember being a child and hearing about people camping outside of like Borders or Barnes and Noble or whatever for the Deathly Hallows and even at my young age I didn’t think the books were special enough to warrant that kind of thing.
--- 21918650
>>21918620
You must’ve just been super autistic, back then these books were the most exciting thing for kids of that generation.

>>21918629
Because the books were and are still popular as fuck and they were releasing the movies as Zoomers were growing up, and also conzoomers are more able to separate work from author than most retards on here are.
--- 21918699
>>21918501 (OP)
I'd read many books to them including all of the HP ones
--- 21919474
>>21918501 (OP)
Even if it is literary junk food, who cares. Forcing your taste onto your kid doesn't work. Even if you succeed, you create a miserable kid who can't relate to his peers. 

"Hey bro, have you seen the new Minions movie? The peepee poopoo is off the charts, bro!"
"No... I find peepee poopoo to be in bad taste" 
"Whatever, loser. Eat shit."
--- 21919501
>>21918650

I'm 30, I was 5 when the first book came out, 15 when it was over. The oldest Gen 7 would have been 10 when it was all over. So no, they weren't really part of it. I'm not a fan of the books but it was never a gen 7 thing, unless they were some keen reader I guess.
--- 21919590
>>21918595
You can read one or two of them per year, and gradually transition into letting the kids read them on their own as they get older. That's how my mom did it.
--- 21919639
I wouldn't really read long ass book series to my kids.
If you ever been around kids, especially young kids, they love hearing the same stories over and over and over and over again.

I am not reading H.P. a zillion times.

I am going to read them reasonable length fairy tales and short stories that only take a hour or so to recount at most. 
By the time they are prime Harry Potter age they should be strong enough readers to read it themselves.
--- 21919648
Why the fuck would you read novels to your kids? You should read fairy tales and shoort books with illustrations and such things. Is that why so many people can't read, because dumb parents are reading to them until they're 15?
--- 21919668
>>21918501 (OP)
I didn't read it to my kids seeing as millennials turned out worse for it. Absolutely mindbroken generation. Though I guess now that the craze is over, it's safe to gift it to your little hatchlings. It's key to get your kids interested in concepts, not franchises.
--- 21919671
>>21919474
who's talking about kids reading this. Real, aged adults still read this garbage like they never emotionally or mentally matured. That's the tragedy of the harry potter books. Raise your kids to grow up
--- 21919725
>>21919671
What a load of meaningless crap. 
>>21919648
Not true. It improves their vocabularies and eases them into the concept of reading books. Kids with parents who read for them are more likely to read books themselves in the future.
--- 21919781
>>21919668
>millennials turned out worse for it
Actually it's all Spongebob's fault. 
And Mario. 
And Lady Gaga. 
And Eminem.
--- 21919786
>>21918501 (OP)
--- 21919810
>>21919725
Reading harry potter as an adult is tantamount to watching anime or being a furry
--- 21919823
>>21919810
I didn't say anything about reading Harry Potter as an adult, nor did I say anything about anime and furries.
--- 21919832
>>21918501 (OP)
Literal satanic propaganda. Amorth said that this series, among other things like yoga and meditation was bringing more people to the father of lies than anything else.
--- 21919837
>>21918504
STOP! AUTISM IS ALREADY RISING! WE DO NOT NEED ANYMORE AUTISM IN THIS WORLD.
--- 21919868
>>21918501 (OP)
Literary junk food, and even that is being generous. 

>>21919648
Agreed.
The characterization of HP as children's literature is rubbish. It's more 'mature' than people belief in its content (violence in Bk 3 onward; Bk4 filled with sexual innuendo etc.) and it's values are completely distorted. For instance, Harry uses a torturing spell (one of the three forbidden spells) on 'the bad guys' in Bk 5, and uses the spell again in the later books more effectively. Can you imagine any other children's book protagonist breaking the law to commit torture? Let alone getting away with it without consequences? 

>>21919725
Rowling's vocabulary is inconsistent. Her sentence structure and general vocabulary are very simplistic, but, on occasion, she produces a Dickensian length grammatical horror punctuated by Britishisms or relatively obscure words; I wouldn't expect the vast majority of children to know what 'chintz' means. She has no care for words or sentences. She simply wrote.

>>21919832
The first book and seventh book are guilty of 'Satanic' aspects more than the others in the series. While the appeal of 'witchcraft and wizardry' is a problem, the books themselves are relatively harmless; it is the era that amplifies what is worse.
Nevertheless, I'd happily chuck all of Rowling's books into the fire. 

Luckily, Harry Potter will be forgotten in less than a hundred years. It will only be a(n embarrassing) marker of our era.
--- 21919954
>>21919868
>The characterization of HP as children's literature is rubbish
It's common knowledge that it starts as children's literature and later becomes more oriented at young adults
--- 21919983
>>21918575
If a child brings you this book then you've already failed as a parent
--- 21921258
>>21918501 (OP)
Yeah, it would be a good start
--- 21921287
>>21919868
>nooooo you can't just attempt to use crucio on the death eaters after they killed your godfather 
>nooooooo it's illegal what kind of fantasy protagonist would break the law :*(
--- 21921303
My mom was a fan but she never pushed the books on me.
If I wanted to watch the movies of anything that was based on a book, I had to read the book first, no matter what it was. So I did and it grew on me. I wouldn't call myself a fan, but if my kids ever ask me to read/buy it for them, I won't refuse them.
--- 21921563
I'm going to read them one chapter per night until we're done. I don't care if it's low art, I don't care if it supposedly is pozzed, it's the supreme comfy entertainment from my childhood, and I'd like my kids to have that in their lives too.
--- 21922302
>>21918501 (OP)


JoKer Rofling may have wrote the first book
but what ghost writers wrote the other books?
--- 21922359
>>21919590
Yeah, no. My kids will be read lots of picture books and then it's up to them.
--- 21922447
>>21922302
Considering that it got bought by Scholastic (the guys behind Goosebumps and a few other choose your own adventure books) and that it got bought by WB shortly after; this shit was writen by the hack troon writers currently working at DC.
--- 21922805
>>21919983
Oh no, not a world filled with magic and wonder teaching a child to be curious and discover their own path, to see past wealth and status, and overcome adversity by placing trust in quality people. The child might as well be boofing fentanyl.
--- 21922888
>>21922805
How will hp haters ever recover
--- 21924191
>>21922805
Bump just for this post.
--- 21924220
>>21922805
>see past wealth and status
>protagonist is one of the most known and well-regarded mages with a bank full of gold.
Sorry?
--- 21924245
>>21922805
you mean a book about how you're the specialest special guy and any minute now someone will knock on your door to tell you you were secretly the most important person in the world this whole time, and also a millionaire? the kind of dishonest revisionism you're practicing would work better if we didn't already have a whole generation of kids raised on these books who are in fact fucking terrible and barely functional people. do the millennials typically "see past wealth and status," you think? are they known to "discover their own path"? do they "place trust in quality people"?
--- 21924248
>>21924220
Who were the protagonists closest friends, anon? I also remember a certain defense against the dark arts teacher in year two. What was his relationship like with the protagonist?
--- 21924254
>>21924245
You think millennials have wealth and status? That's a funny joke. Also Harry wasn't the specialest boy to ever live. It could have easily been Neville. Read the flicking books if you're going to screech out opinions about them
--- 21924301
>>21924254
>You think millennials have wealth and status? That's a funny joke.
that's not what i wrote and it's irrelevant what they "have" because your argument was about perception. i repeat the question: do millennials typically "see past wealth and status"? do millennials typically "discover their own path"? do millennials typically "place trust in quality people"? these are the most popular books in the world so if they really develop these qualities in their readers then it should be easy to demonstrate. since the release of the first book, have young people become more individualistic, or less? more resistant to the superficial, or less? better judges of character, or worse? i remind you, a whole generation was absolutely obsessed with these stories. is that what they learned from them?
--- 21924316
>>21924301
Okay, let's unpack that. How the fuck do you see past something you haven't experienced? Also, the books aren't the only thing that happened in the past 30 years. Internet took society by storm and it too had an impact on the population. It's retarded for you to Fee-fi-fo-fum into the thread to judge the book's influence in a vacuum. It show one-dimensional thinking.
--- 21924324
>>21918629
I'm a Zoomer and every single film was released in theaters throughout my whole childhood. I simply don't understand this angry autistic obsession people like you have with needing to have Zoomers NOT enjoy or experience the same things you did. Is it because you're afraid you're like them? Why? Are you literally retarded?
--- 21924327
>>21918501 (OP)
no it's satanic
--- 21924388
>>21918501 (OP)
The first two books are okay, quality-wise.
The first one got translated into Latin and Ancient Greek even, so it's has its uses as an easy and more-or-less entertaining bilingual reading material.

The rest of the books are disappointing shit, though.
--- 21924391
>>21924316
>Okay, let's unpack that. How the fuck do you see past something you haven't experienced?
to teach you lessons about what you might have not personally experienced is the whole point of a book. how can you claim harry potter teaches positive things to children if you don't believe in teaching without direct experience? you're just saying random shit.

>Also, the books aren't the only thing that happened in the past 30 years. Internet took society by storm and it too had an impact on the population. It's retarded for you to Fee-fi-fo-fum into the thread to judge the book's influence in a vacuum. It show one-dimensional thinking.
okay so let's try to reduce these extra "dimensions:" how do people relate to harry potter stories when they refer to them specifically, such as when they compare public figures to voldemort or whatever? do you find that this is done in such a way that it facilitates "finding your own path," looking past the surface to judge character accurately and so on? or does it facilitate groupthink and superficial judgement?

i remind you that you're the one making the claim that the books impact children positively, so when you now say that it's actually impossible to tell what the books have done to millennial children because, like, the world is super complicated and stuff, you're just backing out of your whole argument. but i do think you can tell what books do to people by simply observing how those people talk and think and i find that avid harry potter readers, yourself included, talk and think like fucking retards.
--- 21924423
The worldbuilding was cool but I could not care less about the dumb fuck that is Harry. My children will be reading Narnia and Tolkien. Hell, even The Golden Compass is better than this.
--- 21924426
>>21924391
A lesson is worth fuck all without experience. This is why there are problems to solve after a lesson in school. You're equivocating.
>how do people relate to harry potter stories when they refer to them specifically, such as when they compare public figures to voldemort or whatever? do you find that this is done in such a way that it facilitates "finding your own path," looking past the surface to judge character accurately and so on? or does it facilitate groupthink and superficial judgement?
Cool strawman I just hope when you finally get to see the wizard he'll have two brains to give out. Of course, the solitary example that's given when people compare a public figure to the villain demonstrates groupthink and superficial judgment. Also, the problem isn't that your thinking is too complicated so I don't understand why you're reducing anything. The problem is your thinking is too simple as in you're not considering what effects the internet is causing to influence the behavior you're talking about.
>i remind you that you're the one making the claim that the books impact children positively
Yes.
>when you now say that it's actually impossible to tell what the books have done to millennial children
That's not what I said. I said other things, such as the internet, have a bigger influence than the book. We're not talking about the bible. People who read Moby Dick still obsess about dumb shit. That doesn't mean it's a shit book, just a weaker force than human compulsions. 
>and i find that avid harry potter readers, yourself included, talk and think like fucking retards.
That's adorable. Compared to you I am fucking quantum computer.
--- 21924481
>>21918501 (OP)
Nah. So many other authors and kids stories to tell. Don't need my kid getting hooked to an antisemitic terf.
--- 21924548
>>21924426
>A lesson is worth fuck all without experience. This is why there are problems to solve after a lesson in school. You're equivocating.
so your point is that harry potter WOULD have taught millennials to "see past wealth" except its lessons only work if they are followed by an "experience" of wealth, and the millennials didn't have enough of that? like, you will learn to see past wealth if you read harry potter AND THEN become a millionaire? it would not be a very good teaching tool even if that was true.

>Also, the problem isn't that your thinking is too complicated so I don't understand why you're reducing anything.
i wasn't saying my thinking is complicated, my thinking is simple: that people reveal what books have taught them with their behavior. the "complexity" problem was yours, that the world is too complex to judge the impact of harry potter, so i'm "reducing" the complexity by looking specifically at how people apply the lessons of harry potter in real life. that's not a "strawman," you're using the word wrong, i have not invented a fake scenario of "harry potter reader compares politician to voldemort," this has objectively really happened a million times. on the other hand, your "what if moby dick readers were all out in public being super fucking retarded" is totally fictitious. they aren't. harry potter readers are. that's the actual impact of harry potter on culture and public life. you try to blame it all on the internet, but the internet happened to everyone and if harry potter fandom fostered a culture of considered, individual judgement then it would have been affected less by internet stupidity, not more.
--- 21924627
Alright, you underage faggots. I'll tell about Harry Potter from the perspective of someone who was 11 when the first book became available in the states, and therefore got to "grow up" with the series.

Books 1 and 2 are ok. They're not great, but they're easy to finish, and book 2 is quite a lot better than book 1. Book 3 is when Rowling figured out the longer story she was trying to tell, it was the first book that felt like part of a series rather than a stand alone entry in these character's lives. Books 4 through 7 are of an exponentially increasing quality until the end. 

It's astoundingly important for any non book media and opinions to be completely removed from your own assessment of the book series. The books contain absolutely none of the "controversy" surrounding the IP or the author. 

Is it a timeless classic? Yes. As a series, it will always be worth the read, and it's quite a good series for young children to start and finish over a year or two.
--- 21924728
>>21924548
>so your point is that harry potter WOULD have taught millennials to "see past wealth" except its lessons only work if they are followed by an "experience" of wealth
Why'd you put experience quotes? You don't believe it to be an experience to be wealthy? And no, not "its lessons" all lessons require experience. Forget millionaires, if only we didn't have two global financial meltdowns at the very beginning and early middle of our employment journeys then perhaps we too would get to experience what it's like to be pretentious and look down on the poors. Correct.
>it would not be a very good teaching tool even if that was true
It's a children's fantasy novel. Judging it by ONLY on the merit of its teaching utility is asinine and only serves the purpose of making your "heh, no wonder you're not a millionaire, you read Harry Potter" point.
> my thinking is simple
I know. That's the problem. It's too simple because behaviors are formed by more than just the book you read. Other facts exist and they matter and to disregard is disingenuous. 
>the "complexity" problem was yours, that the world is too complex to judge the impact of harry potter
It's not TOO complex. It's just MORE complex than a single dimension. Even fucking lines have two points when you graph them. How is this breaking your mind?
>i'm "reducing" the complexity by looking specifically at how people apply the lessons of harry potter in real life. that's not a "strawman i have not invented a fake scenario of "harry potter reader compares politician to voldemort," this has objectively really happened a million times
It is a strawman and I am using it correctly. By setting up an argument with a single point that illustrates your narrative you're claiming that HP fans only extrapolated that one point from the books and no other perspectives exist. That misrepresents reality to create an easy argument for you to win therefore that is a strawman
>on the other hand, your "what if moby dick readers were all out in public being super fucking retarded" is totally fictitious.
You can't possibly be this fucking stupid. The point of the Moby Dick example was to illustrate that forces outside of lessons taught in books exist and sometimes they are stronger than the lessons.
>that's the actual impact of harry potter on culture and public life.
Yeah, in that one example you have. 
>you try to blame it all on the internet
I feel like I talking to a wall. More than one aspect of life shapes a person. Some forces are stronger than others. Why is this information not penetrating the barrier of your skull?
--- 21924772
>>21924388
Could you elaborate? It's the opposite opinion of a lot of people here
--- 21925469
>>21924627
3-5 are the only good books throughout, but 3 gets a miss because of the bullshit time travel plot. Rowling knew it was stupid too, as she never used it again from that point onward.
--- 21925755
>>21925469
Yes, Rowling isn't clever enough to incorporate a clean version of time travel into the story. There's no way to write time travel without having it be an ever present facet of the world that's affecting literally everything all the time. Anything outside of that requires weird asspulls and nonsensical rules.
--- 21925757
>>21918501 (OP)
no. A Series of Unfortunate Events is better
--- 21926107
>>21924245
>ARE PEOPLE PERFECT? 
>NO? 
>WELL FUCK HARRY POTTER THEN! 
The absolute state of Rowling derangement syndrome sufferers
--- 21926112
>>21924316
>Also, the books aren't the only thing that happened in the past 30 years.
Well said the guy you're talking to is a fucking retard for not thinking of this themselves lol
--- 21926117
>>21918620
>tfw memories of being a little edgelord, reading warhammer 40k and Clive Barker novels and calling my mates poofters for being into poofter wizard books for babies
--- 21926122
>>21924388
3 and 4 are better than 1 and 2 although 1 and 2 are very good 

The series changes drastically starting with 5 and 6 is the best there. I don't think any of 5, 6, or 7 are as good as any of 1 through 4 but its also basically a different genre and the majority of fans I think like the later books more.
--- 21926139
>>21924548
Sunlight influences children positively too anon but you don't see people going 
>OH, SO WHAT HAS THE SUN DONE FOR US LATELY? 
When people still have massive flaws. Lots of things are beneficial for children, and Harry Potter books are some of them. This argument you've constructed is incredibly stupid. The Narnia books are still bestsellers but you don't see perfect Pevensie-molded christ-children walking around all the time. That's not how things work.
--- 21926145
>>21924627
Books 1, 2, 3, and 4 are great 
Book 5 is okay 
Book 6 is very good/great
Book 7 is okay plus
--- 21926178
>>21924245
To blame the failures of millenials on harry potter is pure schizophrenia. You might as well blame that one spongebob episode where he's instantly good at art. Go write an essay about how spongebob crippled an entire generation.
--- 21926209
>>21924324
I've noticed this shit on 4chan increase so much over the last two years, its clogged discussion so much. Why the fuck are americans like this? Do people on the ground hate people because they're older or younger over there, or is it a 4chan retardation thing? I've seen it elsewhere online too so I guess not. It just looks so bizzare from the outside.
--- 21926230
>>21918609
has Harry Potter really been forgotten by everyone under the age of 30?