ITT: You've read one, you've read them all

A series of unfortunate events

This
Read em as they came in elementary and middle school.

the repetitiveness is the whole charm of it

>The language in the first book is clearly directed at young children and as the other books get published you can easily see the evolution in her writing style

Hardly. Her subject matter became more "mature," but her writing style remained just as amateurish and stilted as it ever was.

Wheel of Time and Mein Kampf/Redwall

whatever you say boss

t. hasn't read anything beyond siddhartha

hesse is one of the best examples of an author that develops and transforms his initial ideas over the course of a career

but no one on Veeky Forums made it past siddharmeme and steppenmeme

Same here, bro.

Le médecin volant.

Literally his firsf farce and, imho also his greatest work.

Chronicles of Narnia
Any fictitious Rand book
Any self help book

Any of Dan Brown books. He literally writes with a formula and just plugs in plot specifics.

I wanted to make a new thread about this but I figure this one will do:

What exactly is the problem with "genre fiction?"

I disagree with including Narnia. Each book has a unique tone and setting when compared to the others, with the exception of Prince Caspian and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

Opened this thread to post him

It's the My Little Pony of books

Part of the reason why he's my favorite writer.

lurk more

>her writing style remained just as amateurish and stilted as it ever was.

I will never understand this meme. Yeah every sentence isn't a fucking poem but J.K. Rowling's prose is pretty much perfect for mass audience publications. It's simple, straightforwards, but also describes everything perfectly and intuitively. Her words flow through you so naturally that you forget you're reading a book. imo anyone who wants to write popular fiction should study Rowling's prose. It's the golden union of accessible, digestible, palatable and substantial.

1337, nice

Tropes out the ass

they like to feel intellectually superior

i read the first 4

then saw all the movies.

sure, the movies cut and changed things and went at a fast pace, but can i just say how much better the movies are?

they arent perfect,but the music, atmosphere and acting really sends this home. the actual writing, the actual plot, is pretty bad. the only things harry potter does great is world-building, characters, and those characters' interactions. which all really come out on the screen better than in words

Good job on proving his point.

That's pretty much 80 to 90% of the fanbase. I still have a nostalgic soft spot for HP because I had a lonely childhood, so growing up as the books came out was a lot like growing up (generally being the same age, also) with Harry and the other characters themselves, and therefore they became my own best friends. Escapism at its most fundamental.

Not whom you replied to, but Ive only read the first two, and the first one in my opinion (which as I understand wasnt actually written until near the end, so it's more of a prequel) was much better than the LionWitchWardrobe

Idk, the most impressive thing about Wheel of Time was the character development.

What's happening is part of a phenomenon I wrote about a couple of years ago when I was asked to comment on Rowling. 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.

Wew lad. Let me give an emulation on her dialogue scenes (emulated because I can't fucking remember where to find this particular scene I'm basing this on):

"You, Dean Thomas," Lupin said, pointing at Dean Thomas.
"Yes, professor?" said Dean Thomas.

Or

"Yeah right," he said sarcastically.

I don't think I need to explain why either of these examples (even tho they're botched and out of context) are bad.

Nothing wrong with it on a cosmic level, it's just mindless and superficial. 90% of the reason people read genre, whether or not they realize it, is because of escapism.

everyone realizes this. dont be so stupid. whats wrong with escapism anyway?

It's not healthy.

Getting angry over narrative changes is for autistic superficial faggots. As long as the spirit of the novel and its themes and "statements" translate well, then it doesn't fucking matter. Think about the differences between the Shining film and book. The narratives were slightly different, but one was more psychological while the other was supernatural.

Again, nothing cosmically wrong. It's absolutely fine when you've worked a long hard day or you're poor and your mom is a drunk or you suffer from crippling mediocrity: escapism is great. HOWEVER, it's when people confuse superficial stuff--that which has nothing beyond, between, within, or any other preposition total just entertainment--as being "good", as in valuable and tasteful and intelligent, with "entertaining" that we 1337 fags get butthurt.

Veeky Forums - where children's books are criticized for being directed at children

There are good children's books. HP is not.

go to bed bloom, the wind an the willows isnt good

Based Bloom. I remember when that came out. They'll eventually realize he was right... but then it'll be too late.

I think you're making a mistake here that genre fiction is only escapism.

Or, does a book with the trappings of genre fiction that makes a serious statement, no longer genre fiction?

Ive read my share of Hesse but I disagree. Everyone has its own philosophical spin to it and setting which makes it seem different.

All his books feel like the same universe but I am not complaining because he is my favorite writer for creating those dreamlike atmospheres

THEY WERE ALL THE SAME OVER AND OVER AGAIN

Chuck Palahniuk

The first book had different lore than the sequels tho.

I guess someone's gotta post it.

NOOOO
He wrote one good book the rest are shit so all but one are the same

That's not F Scott Fitzgerald.

...

But I read literature for escapism as well desu

he's actually the complete opposite

Any child with half a brain could tell J.K. Rowling's writing grew up with the series. Fuck goddamn how does Veeky Forums manage to be wrong about even something as easy as Harry Potter

Which?

Better be A Farewell To Arms

>he says, posting on Veeky Forums

If you wanted an answer furnished by someone who isn't retarded, here goes: Generally, genre fiction isn't well written. The selective factors that choose successful genre fic authors are world-building and plot-creation. This is fine, but the problem with these types of books are that you don't gain anything from them. You briefly escape into a different world, but when you come back into the real world nothing's changed.

People read literary fiction for a combination of escapist pleasure and the hopes that they will gain something from it. The hopes are that I will have gained knowledge, wisdom, intelligence, perspective and in general will be a slightly better person with every literary book I have read.

I would say every hell circle of the divine comedy.
>we see people going trough some torture
>some historical figure appears in front of Dante
>you know who i am?
>Dante begins to feel bad for the people
>Vergil tells him to man the fuck up
>Dante passes out
>Rinse and repeat.
i just couldn't finish the book, it was bored to death by the time some angels grabbed dante and left him on the purgatory.

Idk the most impressive thing about me in kampf was character development

Why in God's name would I read any Harry Potter drivel?

Because the appeal of genre fiction is usually the novelty of the setting, and not the quality of the writing.

The last 2 books mix things up a little
3 was the most bullshit one

Joyce
Pynchon
Stephen King

ITT: Lovecraft, the thread