My 2c tho, the Harry Potter novels legitimately suck. This has been my opinion of them since I was in 8th grade when the first one came out. At the time I described Sorcerer’s / Philosopher’s Stone as a failed attempt at ripping off Roald Dahl (British author who wrote mean-spirited children’s books that stereotyped characters with funny-sounding names based on their physical descriptions). I was frequently urged to and attempted to give the books a second chance, never got more than 20 pages back into any of them before I put them down in exasperation because to me they always felt very petty and derivative. I was not very surprised when JK started to peel off her mask to the public.
Children have less reading comprehension, wizards and magic are cool to kids, and nostalgia appears to be my generation’s (millennials) lead poisoning.
Okay, so why specifically that series among the many other wizards and magic series? I think Rowling is a piece of shit as any sane person should, but let’s not warp reality. The books may not be your cup of tea and of course they’re not perfect, but they’re definitely good books, otherwise they wouldn’t have gained the popularity they did.
I generally finish books I start. I read about 50 pages into the first HP and the writing was so shitty I just put it down. I just figured it was something popular with the kids at the time and left it at that.
Maybe your criteria for what makes a good story is not very widespread. I know the books have issues, but once again, they wouldn’t have become as popular as they did if they weren’t good.
I said absolutely nothing about the story, only the crappy writing. And as an aside, I honestly hope you don’t equate popularity with goodness or quality.
I don’t equate those, but seeing as in art there is no objective way to measure goodness or quality, it’s a pretty good indicator. It’s hard for me to dismiss something with that level of success as being bad. Seems disingenuous.
I took a course decades ago when I was at University working towards my BA in English Literature. It was titled “The Canon”. Basically, how do we decide what books are “good” enough to be included in a literary canon. After months of discussion, research, justification using criteria such as critical acclaim, popularity, longevity (popularity over time), etc., it pretty much came down to whatever you, or the little group you are working with, agrees on. As you say. Like a particular food, I may not like something while you may like it, we would both be right. That said, Rowling’s writing, for me, was absolutely awful. But again, someone with a different background, expectations, or whatever may have not noticed the poor and repetitive prose, and instead just liked it. Fair enough. I’ve read that the books became better written as she chugged along, but I never found out. I do know that I like some things even though I can understand why some people may think are pretty bad. Hell, I grew up on punk rock in the late '70s and early to mid '80s and, with some notable exceptions, they weren’t the best musicians. I still loved, and continue to love, a lot of that music. When I worked at a book store back in the early '90s when book stores were still a thing, it became pretty clear that good writing isn’t in any way a requirement for a book to become a best seller.
Because they became a cultural phenomenon and were lots of kids first novels. If youve never read anything else youre not going to see the massive flaws.
Well, you just replied to the question “why are they popular?” with “because they became popular”. Okay, so why did they become popular? Because despite the flaws they definitely have, they’re simply good stories with good world building that suck people in (not just kids btw, plenty of people got into them as adults).
Older guy told me he read Dahl (Matilda?) to his grandkid & passed the lesson that you gotta be careful who you trust… are his works viewed negatively?
I don’t think universally. Similar to Rowling, his stuff is beloved and can certainly still be enjoyed but contains some totally wack bits. Even as a kid I picked up on how mean-spirited his writing was. But I think that’s also what makes it interesting to some people, it’s got this macabe Grimm’s quality to it.
My 2c tho, the Harry Potter novels legitimately suck. This has been my opinion of them since I was in 8th grade when the first one came out. At the time I described Sorcerer’s / Philosopher’s Stone as a failed attempt at ripping off Roald Dahl (British author who wrote mean-spirited children’s books that stereotyped characters with funny-sounding names based on their physical descriptions). I was frequently urged to and attempted to give the books a second chance, never got more than 20 pages back into any of them before I put them down in exasperation because to me they always felt very petty and derivative. I was not very surprised when JK started to peel off her mask to the public.
Abolitionism is literally a running gag; the idea that someone might want it.
The stories aren’t good.
Why do you think they’re so popular then?
Children have less reading comprehension, wizards and magic are cool to kids, and nostalgia appears to be my generation’s (millennials) lead poisoning.
Okay, so why specifically that series among the many other wizards and magic series? I think Rowling is a piece of shit as any sane person should, but let’s not warp reality. The books may not be your cup of tea and of course they’re not perfect, but they’re definitely good books, otherwise they wouldn’t have gained the popularity they did.
I generally finish books I start. I read about 50 pages into the first HP and the writing was so shitty I just put it down. I just figured it was something popular with the kids at the time and left it at that.
Maybe your criteria for what makes a good story is not very widespread. I know the books have issues, but once again, they wouldn’t have become as popular as they did if they weren’t good.
I said absolutely nothing about the story, only the crappy writing. And as an aside, I honestly hope you don’t equate popularity with goodness or quality.
I don’t equate those, but seeing as in art there is no objective way to measure goodness or quality, it’s a pretty good indicator. It’s hard for me to dismiss something with that level of success as being bad. Seems disingenuous.
I took a course decades ago when I was at University working towards my BA in English Literature. It was titled “The Canon”. Basically, how do we decide what books are “good” enough to be included in a literary canon. After months of discussion, research, justification using criteria such as critical acclaim, popularity, longevity (popularity over time), etc., it pretty much came down to whatever you, or the little group you are working with, agrees on. As you say. Like a particular food, I may not like something while you may like it, we would both be right. That said, Rowling’s writing, for me, was absolutely awful. But again, someone with a different background, expectations, or whatever may have not noticed the poor and repetitive prose, and instead just liked it. Fair enough. I’ve read that the books became better written as she chugged along, but I never found out. I do know that I like some things even though I can understand why some people may think are pretty bad. Hell, I grew up on punk rock in the late '70s and early to mid '80s and, with some notable exceptions, they weren’t the best musicians. I still loved, and continue to love, a lot of that music. When I worked at a book store back in the early '90s when book stores were still a thing, it became pretty clear that good writing isn’t in any way a requirement for a book to become a best seller.
Not everyone’s experience mirrors mine? 🤷
Looks like that 🤷
Because they became a cultural phenomenon and were lots of kids first novels. If youve never read anything else youre not going to see the massive flaws.
Well, you just replied to the question “why are they popular?” with “because they became popular”. Okay, so why did they become popular? Because despite the flaws they definitely have, they’re simply good stories with good world building that suck people in (not just kids btw, plenty of people got into them as adults).
Older guy told me he read Dahl (Matilda?) to his grandkid & passed the lesson that you gotta be careful who you trust… are his works viewed negatively?
I don’t think universally. Similar to Rowling, his stuff is beloved and can certainly still be enjoyed but contains some totally wack bits. Even as a kid I picked up on how mean-spirited his writing was. But I think that’s also what makes it interesting to some people, it’s got this macabe Grimm’s quality to it.