And this is why people read Harry Potter and other actually engaging books instead of some old bullshit

Are you trying to say that everyone who read old literature study it in college?

>Manchild
Autist with no imagination detected
Funny dialogues, interesting plots, Rowling isn't afraid to let characters die...

This list perfectly describes The Frogs, though.

I mean, put some more effort in your bait, but this isn't true at all.

>if I disagree with it it's bait
Are you seriously implying characters didn't die in Harry Potter?

It's too obvious, family.
Literally none of the main cast dies, not even Draco.

Harry himself died at one point lol
>Mad Eye Moodie
>Fred
>Hedwig
>Snape
>fucking Dumbledore
Keep it coming, lel
Also, Draco was never that important

He didn't die though.
>who
>who
>who
>father figure
>father figure
Wow, *clapping emoji*

>Characters die
WEW. In most serialized media main characters die as frequently as they do in Harry Potter. Game of Thrones, House of Cards, fucking Lord of the Rings. It may have been edgy to do in a book for children, but by the end of it she knew her audience included probably as many adults as children.

If you didn't even know the first three characters, this board might not be for you after all.

Not giving a shit about a children's book is probably better for this board.

No i know them, my point that they were fucking unimportant, which is also true for the father figures aswell

HP characters are two-dimensional at best, experience linear growth and none of them ever actually have their morals tested.
The world building is really shitty once you realize that the vast, VAST majority of 'lore' Rowling came up with was just carbon copied from European folklore just like most other high fantasy writing in the wake of LOTR. In fact it's even shallower than shit like Skyrim because it only ever shows you what's right in front of the protag's eyes. Really lazy development in general.

>children's book
You're just embarrassing yourself at this point

Surely you really got him there, right?

Are you seriously calling Dumbledore unimportant? He was constantly supporting Harry and the others.
So she had some inspirations, so what? Doesn't make it shallow in my opinion. If anything, she took the folklore as a foundation and built upon it, which is pretty impressive

He was definitely unimportant.

It's alright man. Not everyone has the intellect and reading comprehension to read something other than a children's book or a light novel for young adults. Don't feel shame for that. But leave this board because it's not for you.

Am i allowede to read the monogatari series, though?

The Potter/classics dichotomy is illusory. It's fine to resent your peers and booktubers, I suppose, but it's still god tier YA. You should be embarrassed if Rowling's politics dictate your analysis.

>in my opinion
which is shit
>it's pretty impressive
No it's not. Others did it much better and she is not even in the average.

I mean, he wasn't part of the main cast, but he still played an integral role imo, especially at the end.
I'm not stupid, okay? I just don't understand why people always shit on the franchise. What should I read in your opinion then? I'm open for suggestions.

>b-but it was derivative

Sure. But don't be a weeaboo faggot about it.

>If anything, she took the folklore as a foundation and built upon it, which is pretty impressive
What did she "build?" Even the names of the spells were just ripped from other sources.
And that's not even beginning to mention that the books themselves aren't literature even in the casual sense, as they produce no intellectual discussion. There is no deep theme behind HP, no greater question of humanity asked nor answered, and certainly no purpose behind (at least the second half of) the series other than to make money.

The new Voldemort film looks sick - Has the potential to be as good as, if not better than the Harry Potter series. Lets hope they don't fuck this up.

But it's good though right

Well considering your tastes John Greene and Eragon are right around the corner.

B-b-but good vs evil!

Does every book have to be "deep" to be consideree good? I'm not sure, honestly. And the spells for example are latin words, that's not stealing or anything.
I don't like them. What do you read?Huh

>What should I read in your opinion then? I'm open for suggestions.
You can read whatever you like, just don't equate young adult novels with literature in terms of quality, depth, or worthiness. HP was created for people not at their intellectual peak (ie teens and preteens) and, more specifically, to sell as many copies as possible.
There are entire libraries full of books that were created for adults at their intellectual peaks and to discuss actually deep subjects beyond "being a teen is weird" which is what 85% of YAN are about.

If you like the fantasy and worldbuilding start with The Hobbit, which is the ur-fantasy novel for a reason. If it's too thick and you just want a "smart" book to start out your foray away from YAN and into literature, then start with The Awakening by Chopin.

Oh god this is what I hate the most about HP. Everything is so black against white. The only attempt Rowling ever made to not make her characters complete chariactures was Snape and even then she never tried to work it into the plot, she just said "He wasn't actually evil guys!" near the end and then fucking killed him so she didn't have to actually write how intricate that transition would have to be to be well written. And then she gets praised as a genius writer for not letting readers see it coming, when the only reason that's true is because she didn't decide it was going to happen until book six.

Thank you a lot, now I understand where you're coming from I think. I'll check out those two books then.

Moby Dick

>actually complaining that Harry Potter "copies" folklore
Are you fucking serious? That's the whole point of the Wizarding World in the HP universe, everything magic-related in folk tales is a corruption of something that actually exists, it's why magic is so ridiculous and illogical.

>Does every book have to be "deep" to be consideree good?
Not exactly. But a book does have to be deep to be considered 'literature,' as the term literature does not (despite common belief) just mean any written work.
It's a very common mistake for those who have never read and analyzed a real piece of literature to believe that the quality of a work depends on how enjoyable it is to read instead of what the reader takes away from it. Good art is by nature transformative, and good literature transforms readers by challenging their worldview and making them reflect on what/who they are and why. Harry Potter does not do that.
This is why I recommend starting with The Awakening. It's fairly easy to understand while still asking serious questions about society and personhood, and it's one of the most well-written novels you'll read in your lifetime (Rowling is legitimately a shit writer, by the way. For fun, count how many times she said "xxxperson said" followed by an adverb. It's ridiculous.)

YA novels without deep themes can certainly be enjoyable and likeable, but they are not literature and comparing them to literature in terms of quality will make them look 'bad'. For example I really enjoyed reading Insignia by S.J. Kincaid, but the book was predictable, simple, cartoonish in its characterizations, and had no lasting effect on my life. For contrast, I was profoundly changed the first time I read As I Lay Dying by Faulkner, because it asked questions that struck close to home for me and called into question the reasons I believed myself to be a good person. This is what literature should do.

>you can get away with being lazy as long as you explain why you're being lazy
That's the same as forgiving Keanu's awful acting in The Matrix by saying "they were going for a typical awkward hacker dude."

HE'S S ROBOT

That depends on your interests. For example, if you really like a specific genre you can go to the library and look for that genre's classics and pick one up. You can try asking for recomendations but at the end of the day pick what catches your eye. That's why I said "no shame" if what picks your eye is young adults/children's books. Just don't pretend that it's something other than a novel for teens, which is tipically somewhat shallow and has easyly recognisable themes and tropes due to it's targeted audience. Those books may be alright for that audience, but they surely are not GOAT in that category. And they surely can't compete with a book like Pride and Prejudice, for example, which can be a book for both adults and young adults alike.

Oh, I honestly did not know that...
Well, I think I now understand why you guys were so pissed, I am sorry about that. I won't make that mistake again. Also, thanks for your recommendation, I will read that novel if it really is as good as you say.
I'm not ashamed but I want to read other books as well. I'll go to the library in a few days again, maybe I'll find something interesting thar isn't YA there.

Despite all the elitist posturing, there's nothing wrong with reading fantasy, and HP is a better choice than most.
The majority of criticism directed at the series revolves around the personality of Rowling herself. Actually why do so many HP haters know all these details about her anyway? You apparently don't give a shit.

You should try some of the genre mainstays such as Dune, Howard's Conan, and obviously Hobbit & LOTR.

Wait, this wasn't an elaborate troll?
But the ellipses

Thank you, one of my friends actually recommended me Dune once. It looks interesting, hopefully my library has it

It's all good user. Sometimes Veeky Forums can seem elitist towards YAN and outsiders because literature is an intellectual pursuit and YA is seen as "stupid," but more often then not YA readers just haven't experienced a good work of literature yet. Good luck with your journey into smart reading.

Heart of Darkness, Dubliners, Mrs. Dalloway, and Old Man and the Sea are also all good starter lit. Dubliners especially if you want to see what good, non-fantasy world building is.

Well, what do you expect from people that read one of the dullest franchises in history. 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.

Thank you. I like fantasy a lot but something realistic can be interesting too I think.
Haha, this reads like a goodreads review.

I assume you're new around here. You should check out the Fantasy/Sci-fi General threads that pop up on this board, if you want to talk about these books.
Most of Veeky Forums has a strong contempt for genre fiction, the authors whom you'll see discussed most often belong in the western canon of literature. It's just the board culture, you get used to it and it's unique compared to most other places.

I hope you enjoy whatever you decide to read. You can find great recommendations on every genre in the Veeky Forums wikia, such as pic related, these are great to orient yourself.

Like they said, go to the Wiki OP. It's on the sticky at the top of the board. Other than contempt for genre fiction, Veeky Forums hates anyone smarter than them, dumber than them, or anyone who supports non-cannon work.

Yes, this is actually my first time visiting this place, lol. I didn't know there is a general for this stuff, that's cool. I'll check it out, along with the other stuff you guys recommended me. Thanks for taking your time replying.
I somehow missed the sticky, sorry.

Out of everything King has written, maker of this list chose It and Pet Sematary? Shit taste. I also disagree with the choices for Barker and Harris.

The Silence of the Lambs is hardly even horror, also it's nowhere near as good or scary as Red Dragon. Books of Blood are alright, but Hellbound Heart is by far his best work.

>Atlas Shrugged in God-Tier and LOTR in Shit-Tier
For what purpose

It's obviously a meme list. The Great Gatsby is above Ulysses and The Sound and the Fury

>god-tier
>atlas shrugged
Holy shit.