Harry Potter

Don't give me this bullshit about prose that mirrors psychosis. Yes it's a story for a younger demog. but none the less it is entertaining and verily enjoyable plot

I mean.. They're a series of Kids to young adult books, that speak particularly well with people who grew up around the same time they were released (I was born 1990 meaning the first came out when I was 7, and the last when I was 17, pretty perfect). They are pretty entertaining for what they are, Rowling pretty much becomes a better writing over the course of these books and all in all I would say they are a bit above average for what you usually get in contemporary kids/YA sections.
Are they literary, flawless masterpieces? No. Does that mean they're not worth reading? No.
Of course you can hold these to impossibly high standards and then say they fail to reach these but why would you? Depending on which one you're reading they're aimed at 6 to 13 year olds.

If anyone over 20 is opening a Harry Potter book thinking "This Series of kids books is probably going to be as ground breaking as Ulysses, as timeless as Shakespeare and as thought provoking as the Brothers Karamazov" he's a fucking retard. They're light entertainment. And for that, they're pretty decent.

I don't care if you read recreationally, but I'd be nice if you were aware enough to admit that what you're reading isn't exactly the work of literary genius.
Never said that. If you like the book, fine. Personally, I found it incredibly boring as a child and don't care to revisit it. The book's only a meme because people acted like it was the second coming of Christ, when it's just the same rote genre fiction trash.

Everything is retroped you idiot, plot and setting is what changes. The same elements of characters are tossed and stretched, the only thing that makes this story for kids is because the characters WERE kids, then they got older. The barometer for quality is immersion, captivity, and execution. "I don't like it" is not a base for an argument you dumb duck

You have no idea what the fuck genius means. Doing what you can't do doesn't make anyone a genius it makes them an admant opportunist with perseverance or passion, fuck off, goin to bed I'll reply tomorro

Bottom line, "I don't like it" is the only base for any critique.
Setting wasn't new, all it was before I dropped it was a collection of short stories loosely tied together, it was a book for kids because it was trash, and kids tolerate trash. I found it's prose a bit jarring, and plot-line and setting boring, and I'm not even sure what she was trying to "execute."
Did you mean to say fuck?

exceptional intellectual or creative power or other natural ability
does that satisfy you?
I'm a piss writer. My writing is piss. I couldn't write Harry Potter.
I'm not sure whether you actually read my post, because your response makes no sense to me. I made no indication of muddying the definition of genius, merely stated that J.K. Rowling was not one. Has does that even approach providing a definition of the word genius? I'm not sure what I said that garnered this response. Sorry.

>that states that Harry Potter isn't literature
it's a book. It's literature. it just isn't very good literature

Where is it?

Where's the pasta?

Why didn't the "wizards" just cast themselves out of the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises? Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.
Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.
>a-at least the books were good though
"No!" The writing is 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. 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.

The manner of execution, structure writing etc. Harry is more or less a brave every man with specific gifts, his intention is not outstanding eccentric philosophy but a vehicle for vicarious reading, it's an adventure characters story. Guaranteed there could be further analysis but I'm not the type to do that. It has unique characters and a textured world enough to dive in and get familiar. Preference at its base is what you said but there are grounds for having a good opinion and a shyte opinion, there is an objective method to come to a conclusion

She created a whole world that people immersed and became enamored to the point of milking it dry, it's a lovely story for the sake of characters and journey and setting and not for the sake of exploitable qualities like sex. Genius is not a real term, it's bullshit. All these geniuses at one point people thought were deranged or literally mentally retarded. Humans all very with different capacities to hold information at any given moment but what they produce with that ability is what truly makes something remarkable. If anything she falls under that category. There are people who have the ability to hold vast quantities of informatjon but waste it on frivolous activities and some with barely any capacity but all the drive and make something unto themselves through drive. Even the expectionally capable people have to work extremely hard to reach a mental dexterity or come to a solution for their problems becuase there is no known solution beforehand, it's trial and error and repetitive experimentation, Genius is a measure of drive if anything, there's no such fucking thing as easy Work, but no wants to hear this shit becuase its not mystical or glamorous, it's the laziness and leeching nature of society to attribute greatness to something unattainable for the average person

Norm.macdonald disagrees with you

youtu.be/kG7xj76_-dY

Wtf kind of commentary is that? So what she doesn't expound on character philosophy when he goes for a walk it artistic license, plus some people don't want to hear sham philosophy pseuds, people want to be fed, they want plot, give people an engageable character and unique plot and setting and you have a winner. I'm an idealist with my own foundations I live by, sometimes reading mumbo jumbo thinking of characters, it turns me off, I need to see the characters character, his reaction to happenings, all understanding is visual, period, fuckin faggot

>falling for the pasta
Fuckin newfag.

i dont give a fuck if its spaghetti bolognese, its fuckin vapid

kek