Why are all her post Harry Potter books so bad and unmemorable...

hmm also true I suppose

There wouldn't be a distinction between children and adult literature if children books didn't exist, and to an extension young adult books wouldn't exist either, which is something that would be favorable on this board. But that's beyond rational objectivity. Whether children's books are necessary is another discussion entirely.

>The Deathly Hallows.
>Bad and unmemorable.

Pick one.

>she was supposed to be the next great writer
Huh? The NYT and other best-seller book lists created separate YA lists just to get her off their top slots, since for years nobody else could get a #1/2/3 book. She does some things quite well, sucks at other things, and her attempts at being Ian Rankin are pretty pedestrian, but she isn't terrible, and she isn't great. She's just a decent genre writer who hit a great moment of publicity, like George Martin.

>op asks about her POST-HP books
>almost everyone assumes he's just talking about HP, they don't even know about her other books
Sad desu. How many did she write after Deathly Hallows, anyway? Two, three?

My parents bought me the first 4 books around 2001 or so. They made me read the first one and I told them it was a terrible, boring book and I refused to read any of the other ones.

The Casual Vacancy (27 September 2012)

Cormoran Strike series
The Cuckoo's Calling (as Robert Galbraith) (18 April 2013)
The Silkworm (as Robert Galbraith) (19 June 2014)
Career of Evil (as Robert Galbraith) (20 October 2015)

She's been putting out a book every year after her 5-year post-Potter hiatus.

So why are they so bad? She created the most iconic book series and characters and her follow ups ain't shit.

i personally really liked a casual vacancy.

never touched the robert gabraith stuff though, does anyone know if its worth checking out?

While I've never gone back and re-read the series, I would assume it's kinda like the movies - you sort of had to grow up with them. Part of the reason why the series could grip so many and keep the fans over the years it released, was because the characters, and the tone of the story, grew with the reader.

Again, don't remember if it's like that with the books, because I literally haven't read the Philosopher's Stone since back when it was newly released, but there is an enormous difference between the first and the last movie. First book is kids being kids, everything is wonderful and magical, logic is entirely sidelined in favor of whimsical scenes and fantastic experiences for the child characters. The great happy ending is when the bad guy is defeated by the crafty youngsters, and exams and homework is cancelled for the rest of the year as a celebration. Something kids can really connect with and would love for themselves. Simple stuff.

Last movie has death, sex, jealousy, all that jazz. Lots and lots and lots of death. Everything is doomed, nazis are everywhere, and characters we love sacrifice themself.

It's the main reason I think Harry Potter, despite being a huge phenomenon, will actually fade into the background the further we get from it's initial release. Unless you, as a reader, plan ahead(or have parents plan for you) so you can start reading at the right age but hold long breaks in between each book, you'll sooner or later start reading material that isn't for you at all.

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.

>implying her harrysdottir books aren't also shit

Terrible Book
Terrible Ending
Read only for completionism

Roldy Poldy Bloomaloomboom

The only people I've met who actually enjoy Harry Potter are dumbass women who consider The Hunger Games and Divergent top tier literature.

Even as a kid I could recognize how bad the series is. I was reading Lord of the Rings at the age when everybody was talking about HP.

Shit books good tits

Harry Potter is OK, but I really think that she's going to end up diluting the impact of her work if she keeps pandering to the fans and doing this "sure, dumbledore was gay, sure, hermoine was black" shit to endear herself to people. It's kind of like that thing that happens when a painter doesn't know when to stop adding touches and ruins their work. Just my opinion.

Harry Potter gets a lot fucking creepier if you take her 'Dumbledore was gay!' retcon seriously.
>old gay man goes out on his way to pull endless favors for some young boy
Just what would be his fucking intent?

to stop the darkest wizard of all time of course. and to make sure that voldermort was the one who killed harry at the right time so he wouldnt die himself. that is, assuming he knew all of this. harry was important anyway, the only one who survived the killing curse. people thought he would be the next voldy.

Turning Potter into next (((you know who))) would be the only correct choice, but she has no balls to do that.

The books have a soft spot in my heart as I read them as I was growing up, I still occasionally listen to Stephen Fry's readings on my computer, so I can understand how the younger generations of bookworms care for them, they are a good series for 10 year olds and around that age, they aren't meant to be memorable, they are fast paced and easily forgotten but fun. Which I feel is best for children ,something fast and fun

God damn. Well I'm proud. What about you guys?

This guy thinks his opinion isn't shit, just like everyone else, but he's this guy so it's special.

Way to go.

What will he accomplish next?

Suicide hopefully

This triggered because Harry Potter is trash.

Kek

Harry Potter is trash.

The writing is childish.

Harry Potter is genre fiction, its world is the only thing that matters about it. You could write Harry Potters basic story in a regular fiction setting and it would be nearly the same.

But it's an amazing world that is imaginative and fun. (For people who read and have fun reading, not read so they can impress Veeky Forumss girlfriend before they go and fuck on your bed.)

I'm not triggered by what you think about Harry Potter. I'm triggered by you contrarian faggotry, its got a corroding quality that just screams young adult contrarian tryhard.

Go on, show us your novel which is basically about you and your observations in life and how the main character is tragically misunderstood.

I bet you that Even Rowling could stretch her legs past you and your "I'm cool because I don't like things" attitude.

Fuck you, fuck you forever. Grow up or die.

don't forget he wasn't just gay, but was in love with a Nazi and killed his sister, even fucking Snape was disgusted with Dumbledore by the end

I had a literature professor that liked Harry Potter, and her favorite novel was The Stranger. Of course you'll still find some convoluted way to say that she was lying about The Stranger and that the enjoyment of Harry Potter forever taints her taste in literature.

Also the fantasy nerds I grew up with in elementary/middle/high school read both Tolkien and Harry Potter.

i like despite his services to literature and a lifetime spent on the literary lifestyle he still has to buy books even genre fiction

Is HP worth revisiting as an adult? I haven't read any of it ever since Deathly Hallows came out, which was in 2007 I think

it's not worth reading as a child

You haven't met many people, then. Fucking kids. Do you realize you're actually boasting about reading LOTR, as if millions of people haven't read both Tolkien and Rowling? Tell me you were reading Peake or Leiber in your glorious youth, at least.
Pro tip: NOT having read a specific book or author is never something worth being proud of.

>NOT having read a specific book or author is never something worth being proud of.
Shit time management is not a virtue m8m

Yes, I'm sure that those precious hours someone else spent reading Rowling, you spent reading Milton and not Veeky Forums. Give me a break.

I wouldn't get too attached to that "nobody here reads they just spend all their time shitposting" idea of yours.

And while it's sweet of you to have Rowling's back, can you at least see the irony in calling someone "fucking kid" for not viewing "reading every book in the librafy/world" as an aspiration

>this children's book has childish writing
I think that's the point in a series written for 10 year olds

A. Not even remotely what I said. The "you're wasting time reading that trash!" argument is bullshit and always has been, especially regarding kids' books.
B. I called someone a "fucking kid" for claiming that "the only people I've met who actually enjoy Harry Potter are dumbass women who consider The Hunger Games and Divergent top tier literature." The statement is either utter bullshit, or written by someone who knows very very few people.

Reading a bad book can be a great learning experience for those who want to write
You learn what works and what doesnt

That's basically 'cuz HP books were done with the help from the Devil himself since she made a deal with him for the books to be good and famous... So there you go

>harrysdottir
kek

>"the only people I've met who actually enjoy Harry Potter are dumbass women who consider The Hunger Games and Divergent top tier literature."
I can see that maybe being true 2bh. A large part of the fan base are probably now a large part of the fanbase of Minecraft and unless you like make believing you're a wizard and trying to play quidditch you won't meet those. Another large section were adults who wanted reading kids and YA lit to be more of a thing for their demographic (bit of Peter Pan syndrome).

I know more than a handful of people who would fit that guy's description, one in particular has a good degree in English Literature (as far as that's possible), teaches English in a high school and I remember used to complain about reading every book during her degree. In particular she really really worked hard to read Ulysses and reckoned she'd gone about it the wrong way (instead you should just open it up on a random page and dip in and out apparently), and then when it turned out Robinson Crusoe and Moby Dick were also real slogs you could only wonder why she choose to do a course in literature (and then teach it).

Vast vast majority of people I know whose taste in literature I respect did not bother with HP, and out of those that did English was a second language in most cases. I have a lot of respect for others who read HP but mostly they don't care for literature in the end.

She was never going to be a great. She wrote a good children's series, whose movie rights then got purchased fairly early on. Once that happened the studios merchandised the books into a "cherished icon" or what have you. I remember most people (in America at least) hadn't even read Harry Potter until the movies started to come out.

I think that's why it's such a shit literacy springboard for kids, because it's too tied into the movies and not actually having to read.

Minecraft? What does some game that wasn't even popular until after the Potter series was long over have to do with anything? Never mind: I'm too old for this conversation.

Super nerd demographic m7.

>I don't see why an adult would read them, let alone reread them
I still read them/listen to the audiobooks from time to time out of nostalgia. Or when I'm trying to fall asleep.

Worst of all 7 books.

>Or when I'm trying to fall asleep.
I'm imagining you as Stephen Fry's young husband and Fry bumbling about awkwardly as you try to fall asleep to his voice

I actually listen to the Jim Hale version.

>I would assume it's kinda like the movies - you sort of had to grow up with them

No, the books are definitely better than the movies. They aren't for adults, but the movies just irk me in ways the books don't. The characters are different in ways that are just off-putting.

What is?

Wut
Even her Harry Potter books are bad and unmemorable.

>Work at bookstore
>Work in kids dept
>Mention I'm not a huge fan of Harry Potter
>Mother looks at me like I just spat in God's eye

>Not even 10 or 11 year old me enjoyed that slop.
I would die to eat jk rowling's pussy and swallow her vaginal discharges

Rowling is a fucking disgrace to the list of great childbook writers like Erich Kästner, Michael Ende, Roald Dahl, Eric Knight etc.

Those who grow up reading Harry Potter will only read godawful horror and vampire stories and detective books at best.

Didnt you recommend her something worthwhile to give her children to read?

Just finished 2666 and am reading through Shelby Foote's narrative on the Civil War, but good try, user.

Stirner.

Cuck.

Reminder that Rowling is a dirty Blairite and should be sent to the gulag by Commissar Corbyn
>mfw reading her Twitter

They're incredible books. They provided so much to my life.

The only thing I really remember fondly about them is Snape, I liked him as a character. Otherwise it was nice childhood stuff but I grew out of it shortly after the books ended, the movies weren't even that good after 4.

Anybody over 12-years-old who's still into Harry Potter is either an emotionally stunted spectrum-artist or a pedophile.

she's a female twit.

or they just like that shit, that's like saying everyone who is into Aquinas is a pseudo intellectual with a holier than thou attitude

Nah man, every adult I've ever known either IRL or online who's been really into Harry Potter has always had something seriously mentally wrong with them.
No exceptions.

Right. All the millions of adults who are Potter fans are all mentally fucked up. Piss off.

you are a shut-in on Veeky Forums. All your friends are like you, at worst.

Can you even call them adults?

I just finished Cuckoo's Calling today and I enjoyed it quite a bit. She nailed the genre while keeping it contemporary and fun.

...

we're talking to one currently user,

its you

It doesn't matter what you call them: they're adults, and having read the best-selling books of our time doesn't say anything about the reader.
Gosh, have I been harshly judged by an anonymous moron who pretends to be a literary critic again? That's the tenth time today: I must go cry into my Hufflepuff scarf.

terrible bait

Harry Potter was likewise bad and unmemorable, except the media told you otherwise.

If they beefed up her other shit, you'd think the cunt infallible.

I don't think Harry Potter is that bad, especially for what it is. Comparing it to classics is absurd and pointless

I also think similarly to GRRM