▲ 1206 ▼ rule away Rowling (piefed.cdn.blahaj.zone) submitted 1 year ago by dandelion@piefed.blahaj.zone to c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone 278 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 1 year ago (2 children) Shitty people can make good art. Death of the author. Just never give them money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 26 points 1 year ago* (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 year ago* Abolitionism is literally a running gag; the idea that someone might want it. The stories aren't good. permalink fedilink source parent [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) Why do you think they're so popular then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] RedSeries@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 year ago (1 child) Children have less reading comprehension, wizards and magic are cool to kids, and nostalgia appears to be my generation's (millennials) lead poisoning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] chocosoldier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 8 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] emeralddawn45@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago 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). permalink fedilink source parent [–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Not everyone's experience mirrors mine? 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Looks like that 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent [–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] MBM@lemmings.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Death of the author People here keep using the term as basically a synonym of "separating art from artist" but I always thought death of the author was a different thing. Analyzing the meaning of a book while ignoring what the author says they meant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago It is the latter, kind of It's also (i think) separating it from the context of the author and their life/identity (so, for example, m&m using the n word being different from some other rapper doing the same). So functions well as shorthand for the former. Or in the case of an author like rowling, as a wish. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 26 points 1 year ago* (3 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 year ago* Abolitionism is literally a running gag; the idea that someone might want it. The stories aren't good. permalink fedilink source parent [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) Why do you think they're so popular then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] RedSeries@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 year ago (1 child) Children have less reading comprehension, wizards and magic are cool to kids, and nostalgia appears to be my generation's (millennials) lead poisoning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] chocosoldier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 8 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] emeralddawn45@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago 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). permalink fedilink source parent [–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Not everyone's experience mirrors mine? 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Looks like that 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent [–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 year ago* Abolitionism is literally a running gag; the idea that someone might want it. The stories aren't good. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] moriquende@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (3 children) Why do you think they're so popular then? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] RedSeries@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 year ago (1 child) Children have less reading comprehension, wizards and magic are cool to kids, and nostalgia appears to be my generation's (millennials) lead poisoning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] chocosoldier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 8 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] emeralddawn45@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago 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). permalink fedilink source parent [–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Not everyone's experience mirrors mine? 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Looks like that 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RedSeries@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 1 year ago (1 child) Children have less reading comprehension, wizards and magic are cool to kids, and nostalgia appears to be my generation's (millennials) lead poisoning. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] chocosoldier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 8 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] moriquende@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] chocosoldier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 8 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] chocosoldier@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 8 months ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] emeralddawn45@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago 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). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] moriquende@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago 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). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Not everyone's experience mirrors mine? 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] moriquende@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago Looks like that 🤷 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MBM@lemmings.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Death of the author People here keep using the term as basically a synonym of "separating art from artist" but I always thought death of the author was a different thing. Analyzing the meaning of a book while ignoring what the author says they meant. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago It is the latter, kind of It's also (i think) separating it from the context of the author and their life/identity (so, for example, m&m using the n word being different from some other rapper doing the same). So functions well as shorthand for the former. Or in the case of an author like rowling, as a wish. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago It is the latter, kind of It's also (i think) separating it from the context of the author and their life/identity (so, for example, m&m using the n word being different from some other rapper doing the same). So functions well as shorthand for the former. Or in the case of an author like rowling, as a wish. permalink fedilink source parent