One of these threads

>what's wrong with harry potter? it's an incredible accomplishment in child's literature.
Heidi, Anne of Green Gables, The Secret Garden, The Hobbit, Chronicles of Narnia are some incredible accomplishments in child's literature, Harry Potter is just shit.

i guess it sort of makes sense for /tv/ as said. nobody hypes new books except normies because everybody knows new books are bound to be shit almost always until they are not.

no its about visuals in the head and imagination something you lack you brainleat

What the fuck are you talking about
Explain what those headings mean

We call it imagery around these parts.

put into square as labelled using literature works as example, when good ideas go bad, when good ideas is baad, when good ideas go good, when bad ideas goes good and when bad ideas goes bad
then same with visuals. not very ahrd to figurte out of you are not a dumb stupid and idiot.

Two words.
tongue Uranus

>Harry Potter is just shit.
I loved Harry Potter books as a kid, you probably just "dont like" them becaue they're too mainstream because of the movies

>"No!"

what

Holy fuck, Veeky Forums has reached a new low.

>when something bad goes good

Do you mean when something bad becomes something good or when something bad goes well?

Wtf am I looking at

>when something bad goes bad

>one of these threads
>no one knows what the purpose of the thread is

The idea row is pretty obvious.
You're supposed to put a book which was a good idea but ended up as a bad book in the first column. A book which was a good idea and ended up as a good book belongs in the second column. I think you get the two other columns now.

I have no idea what "visuals" are supposed to be though.

this is literally autism

LMAO, one of the best threads this week by far.

The "visuals" "ideas" parts are the confusing ones

I honestly thought it was referring to the book covers. I'm guess English isn't OPs first language.

What the actual heck?

I doubt this is what the OP intended, it sounds more like that /b/ story about the guy who did something with his sister in the water and nobody understood what he was trying to say happened

What did he mean by this?

OP, are you...are you okay? We're here for you, man. You're among friends.

I've enjoyed this thread.

>when good visuals go bad

meant this for

Is this thread a work of performance art?

OP, to salvage this abortion of a thread, can you please explain clearly, in simple english, what exactly you're trying to say with that picture and those headers?

>good visual go bad
attempt at visual aspect of the novel (cover, prose, sound of words etc) could be good but execution lacks
>good visual go good
all of the above except good
>bad visual go good
the visuals are supposed to be terrible and the author succeeds. example: ash in the Road by cormac mccarthy / many works of DFW
>bad visual go bad
author tries to make good visuals good but fails; thus bad goes bad. (not good go bad because the author's attempt at good is in itself bad)

i dont know why you guys are making fun of me when its supposed to be a simple thread

Guys this really isn't that hard to understand

>text on a page
>good "visuals"
Does that mean you enjoy the fonts or something? Not really a well-defined category since you can change the font on a kindle.

no, the meaning of the words

this thread goes in the when something bad goes good panel

OP, are you a native english speaker? I have never once in my life heard someone say the word "visuals" when talking about literature. I haven't even heard someone describe the image a book makes in your head past kids describing reading.

How can you possible compare that between two people? You can talk about the prose and the style and the aesthetic quality of the book, but the "visuals" depend on how creative a person is and their own real-life visual experience. this thread is insane.

stop bullying op he has autism

a book is a visual object. you see the meaning of words and that is how you read the book. i am not talking about 'imagination' i am talking about VISUALS

I think OP is referring to the general aesthetics of a work. For example, good "visuals" would be something like Blood Meridian, since it has gorgeous prose, and whatnot.

>that /b/ story about the guy who did something with his sister in the water and nobody understood what he was trying to say happened
Why did you have to remind me of this? Just thinking about that makes my head hurt.

Maybe its visual in the strictest sense of the word, but that's not how people talk about art. That's almost like saying music is visual because you use your eyes to look at the album or put a CD in. Paintings, movies, etc are visual because they are images you take in. You might see words in a book but you aren't appreciating the words because of how they look, it's just a way to get an idea across.

You don't "see" the meanings of the words, you can understand them and think about them and think about the scene in your head, but it still isn't a visual. Even if it's a mental visual, it still makes no sense to talk about it like that.

>>bad visual go bad
>author tries to make good visuals good but fails; thus bad goes bad. (not good go bad because the author's attempt at good is in itself bad)

The other three I can wrap my head around but this one makes no sense. Based on your point about "bad visual go good", shouldn't "bad visual go bad" refer to an attempt to create ugliness that fails. That would fulfill both the "bad visual" (the ugliness like your McCarthy example) and the "go bad" (the failure). Instead your example for "bad visual go bad" is an author attempting "good", not attempting "bad".

Also your definition of "good ideas" seems poorly defined. Is a "good idea" in your chart an idea that you personally agree with, or is it about the integration of the idea into the plot, or what? I'm particularly confused about Fahrenheit 451 being a "good idea gone bad" because I'm not sure whether you're saying that book-burning was an okay idea that got out of hand or if you mean that Bradbury had a good message that was delivered poorly.

English probably isn't your first language so I'm not going to openly mock you or anything. That being said, I think you are not quite up to a conversational/fluent level yet. Keep learning.

You got a screencap lying around?

Why is 1984 a bad idea?

"Imagery" is the word you're looking for.

This is probably right. But why separate that from ideas? Why put them on the same graphic? Is this OC?

I was able to find it by googling around

this thread has great visuals

Its a "op reposts something from several months ago that people didn't understand specifically to get the same reaction as it got several months again" novel.

I hate these novel reruns.

Thanks, man, that was pretty funny.

It's kind of bizarre to see an admin personally stepping to tell people to keep it civil. How the times have changed.

wow...this is what people talked like on Veeky Forums in 2008. This is rich history.
In other news, someone should turn this guy's post into a short story and make billions

wow...this is what summer talks like in 2017

>the meaning of the words

>meaning

...

Heh, good post my user, nice deconstruction

underrated

You retarded faggot

what the fuck are you talking about

i am ridiculously well read when it comes to fantasy and the inheritance cycle is in my top 5.

Eragon my have been clunky but it was also the shortest book.

what is makign you angry about that? only put your books in the template.

this shit is very likely used in another board, so please, kind sir, would you do us the favor of going back to it?

Harry potter is good though. JK knew her demographic and catered to them. The books became more mature with their audience.

I feel kinda sad for the OP, he came here with a good intention and no one posted seriously in his thread.

But then, I still don't know what the fuck I'm supposed to do with that image.

neither do i? i guess the shit makes sense for movies, but for books, who reads a book because they think it has a nice premise idea or "visuals" (whatever that is) that then can go good/bad? that's just a gimmick, i guess it may make sense for genre shit but not much for actual books.

>I feel kinda sad for the OP, he came here with a good intention

This OP is stale pasta. Lurk more please.

eragon is my favorite in the series. the other ones were kind of boring imo