What did the 7th best-selling author of all time mean by this?

>whom

I wish I had lived in a major city at the time, midnight camp outs for day one releases sound like a lot of fun.

There are millions of adults for whom the Harry Potter series functions as a religious text, many of those adults are in positions of power.

There can't be that many frogfaggots in the world

yeah I always thought potter was for girls lmao

>if it weren't for the movies

Harry Potter was already a massive phenomenon before the movies my dude.

What it means is that she lurks..

J.K. Rowling is a sellout whore who channelled boys from reading to video games because she favors whopping checks to lifelong readership. If she has any appreciation for the written word, she will immediately rescind the rights of all non-literary endeavors of the Harry Potter franchise and begin apologizing to all of the potential readers turned internet/video game addicts.

Watching and reading Harry Potter in my formative years, I idolized Draco because he's the best looking male character in the first three movies. He influenced me through my fondness for his looks. I learned how to be scared and doubtful of myself which I've only recently overcome.

They tell me that it's good for me, working out almost every day and watching what I eat, but I don't even care. Elliot Rodger, a guy molded by feminist media driven by creators like Rowling, came to me in a dream and told me to waste her with a sledgehammer and pocketknife. My 3rd grade teacher told my 9 year old self that girls are better than boys - I blame her for my misogyny. She castrated me on the edge of manhood; never recovered, still a virgin. Fuck feminism, and fuck Rowling.

Don't know what you're talking about my dude. I was born in 1997 and kids talked specifically about the books constantly back in elementary.

Who cares. Those people are functional morons; stable therefore harmless. No radical ever shot up the workplace in the name of Harry P.

This post is beautiful

Thanks

Love how this election exposed her for the red Tory she is

Well, ferbie was huge too at one point. No one can say for certain if the movies turned the franchise into such a prominent cultural force of nature, but they certainly didn't hurt its prospects for transcending fad status.

>Those people are functional morons;
t. NEET

Never change, Veeky Forums!

What are you talking about? People who read Harry Potter as adults are stupid. Children's entertainment is well received by them because they're less perceptive (i.e. duller) than non-Harry Potter reading adults.

>those people are functional morons; stable therefore harmless

That's precisely what makes them so dangerous. They are Eichmanns in training.

>my face
tumblr-coked fangirl or faggot, whatever the hell you are, get the fuck out.

They act only as affected by an outside force. They're neutral with a capacity for being dangerous and non-dangerous.

Who are you quoting

Whenever someone begins arguing about 'so-and-so sold X number of books' or 'look how influential this is, it sold y number of copies' I remember one little fact.
The book (not the series!) Flowers in the Attic sold at least 40 million copies.
That is 4 times more sales than Catch-22.
And 1/2 the sales of The Da Vinci Code.
The Harry Potter series 'sells well'?
So what?

>not the series!

You're cute

It's pasta newfag

>Not recognizing the influence of classical Saxon and Finnish tales upon plot structure and Victorian novels upon dialog

Their literary taste reflects their mental strength; they are far too weak to ever do anything but bleat at that which they do not understand.

What weirds me out is I am old enough I missed the entire thing and my kids are homeschooled, so they read the Aeneid, etc.
Have Millennials read any other book, ever?

They may not be as "intellectual" as you, because let's face it, they are functional in society and therefore pretty busy with their lives while you're a NEET living with mommy and daddy and contemplating "what did Joyce mean when he killed himself? Hmmm...."

>They are Eichmanns in training.
this

No dude, some people are just less perceptive to information and stimuli. They are literally dull as most information directed their way is lost. It's impossible for them to understand Innuendo and sarcasm because they lack the capacity of intellect necessary to not be considered "stupid."

She misused "whom". I want to cry.

what happened to numbers 2 to 13
I MUST KNOW

And that's the part that's most concerning

wow dude his book had influences o_0

>Victorian novels were generally good

tip kok my jude

How must it feel knowing that the only reason people still remember you is one of the dullest franchises 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.

I always kind of thought that it was more the target audience and marketing that made the series what it was.

You could probably throw up any bullshit plot and characters on screen, target and market at the same people at the exact same point in time and it would have been a success.

>1/14
>14/14

You can't make this shit up

>Finnish tales
Which ones?

he probably means the kalevala