>Harry does use crucius and imperius more than once in the later books though.
Can you guys give me the passages?
>there are literally three (3) useful spells
>but they're evil and the good guys aren't technically allowed to use them
>they still win tho
Why is HP so fucking garbage?
>>7708074
I think it's is like using chemical weapons in our world.
Why don't you read real literature instead?
>>7708910
Reading HP is better than reading nothing. It's as entry-level as it gets so often it can be a gateway to better books.
>>7708922
Inb4 Bloom
>>7708910
I actually don't read. I hate reading. I only watch movies. That's why I'm asking you people.
>>7708922
>Reading HP is better than reading nothing.
I disagree.
Just because something is entry level does NOT excuse it being shit.
Earthsea is a good example of something that is fantasy, entry level AND good.
>>7708910
I've read all those books, idiot.
>caring about pages
>le i dont have many tiempo amigo xD
>>7708926
Then fuck off to another site, you're not wanted here.
>>7708928
This. It could hardly be considered an introduction to literature, because the complete story is 4k pages long. Even LotR is 4x smaller, and achieves more with less. Ultimately The Hobbit is a better introduction to literature, because although still fantasy, it does not hurt further reading, and is much shorter.
>>7708928
Earthsea is a pretty good starter book. In addition to LeGuin having higher literary merit than Tolkien.
>>7708910
>>7708030
Damnit, /lit/ can hate these books all they want, but seriously, no book, tv or film has ever given me the emotional pull I got from reading the Half-Blood Prince. Dumbledore's death is tragic enough, but the pure mix of hate, sadness and disbelief I felt when the Locket turned out to be a fake is unmatched
>>7708910
Yeah cause those are all short books
>>7708922
Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing.
But when I wrote that in a newspaper, I was denounced. I was told that children would now read only J.K. Rowling, and I was asked whether that wasn't, after all, better than reading nothing at all? If Rowling was what it took to make them pick up a book, wasn't that a good thing?
It is not. "Harry Potter" will not lead our children on to Kipling's "Just So Stories" or his "Jungle Book." It will not lead them to Thurber's "Thirteen Clocks" or Kenneth Grahame's "Wind in the Willows" or Lewis Carroll's "Alice."
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.
Our society and our literature and our culture are being dumbed down, and the causes are very complex. I'm 73 years old. In a lifetime of teaching English, I've seen the study of literature debased. There's very little authentic study of the humanities remaining. My research assistant came to me two years ago saying she'd been in a seminar in which the teacher spent two hours saying that Walt Whitman was a racist. This isn't even good nonsense. It's insufferable.
>>7708910
>what has JK Rowling achieved in one book, let alone seven?
Why is it so common to see people fuck up the use of "let alone" or "never mind"?
>>7709675
Where does this come from?
>>7708030
Uses Crucio against Bellatrix in book 5 and Prof. Carrow in book 7. Uses Imperius against some goblins in book 7.
>>7708074
memory charms are worse than imperius, don't know why they aren't allowed
>>7709887
That's what I was talking about... And he got away with it?
>>7709962
Justified use of extreme force during wartime, anon. Shit happens. I suppose that if Rowling's magical government wasn't mismanaged all to hell he could have been charged with the wizard equivalent of war crimes, but I doubt anyone on the wizengamot would prosecute the hero who killed Wizard Hitler.
>>7708910
what is a bad book? Please enlighten me
>inb4 pleb books
>>7708910
>Heaney translation of Beowulf
Every time lol
You people take this too seriously. As if Harry Potter is poisonous to a young mind. It's absolutely not.
Harry Potter is all plot, with minimal character development. It's not as good as Lord of the Rings and it's not as bad as Twilight, but it's not going to destroy an 11-year-old's mind. There are other books that do that.
>>7708946
>I'll use you when I must
because that is obviously working so well for you
>>7709733
Bloom
>>7710275
Books that are aesthetically poor, books that are intellectually meagre, books full of fluff. HP has its moments but when there's so little wheat dont waste your time separating it from the chaff
>>7710310
Can't you read the thread? Just worked.
>>7709897
they legally sell rape potions in the shops. how is that different form crucius?
>>7708922
Just because she got kids to read, doesn't mean they are truly "literate," much in the same way that just because someone's into classical music, if they're just enjoying it for the "catchy tunes," they obviously aren't truly listening to it. Harold Bloom is correct. They aren't truly reading, they're just looking at words and imagining a bad fantasy movie in their heads.
>>7708030
I went to the Yale University bookstore and bought and read a copy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." I suffered a great deal in the process. The writing was 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.
But when I wrote that in a newspaper, I was denounced. I was told that children would now read only J.K. Rowling, and I was asked whether that wasn't, after all, better than reading nothing at all? If Rowling was what it took to make them pick up a book, wasn't that a good thing?
It is not. "Harry Potter" will not lead our children on to Kipling's "Just So Stories" or his "Jungle Book." It will not lead them to Thurber's "Thirteen Clocks" or Kenneth Grahame's "Wind in the Willows" or Lewis Carroll's "Alice."
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.
Our society and our literature and our culture are being dumbed down, and the causes are very complex. I'm 73 years old. In a lifetime of teaching English, I've seen the study of literature debased. There's very little authentic study of the humanities remaining. My research assistant came to me two years ago saying she'd been in a seminar in which the teacher spent two hours saying that Walt Whitman was a racist. This isn't even good nonsense. It's insufferable.
>>7711126
based bloom
>yfw he'll die this year
>>7711158
>hbwdiylt
y even live
>implying harry potter is for children
>>7710377
kek this guy gets it
>>7708910
>image attempts to impress with intelligence
>thinks page count = word count
Also
>"Stop Liking What I Don't Like" the Infographic
>>7711389
i think the point was more along the lines of harry potter is not literature and so should not be discussed on a literature board
In my opinion Bloom is right about Rowling but wrong about King. The man has at least some talent when he feels like it.
>>7711406
Elitists like you are everything wrong with the literary world
>>7709461
try Monte Cristo
>>7710283
Kek finally someone gets it
Heaney doesn't even know old english.
His metre is so bad: he tries to add alliterations to be authentic, but ends up alliterating all the unstressed syllables.
why is harry potter so boring?
>>7714232
>reading for enjoyment
>reading for plot
>>reading harry potter
I started to read them recently, but then I found a fanfiction where the setting was the same only Harry was a space marine. I ended up reading that instead. Time better spent than the first book and a half.
Bloom was so wrong about Harry Potter being a gateway to shitty literature
There are a ton of people on this board who started with Harry Potter and are now reading good literatureMyself included
>>7708910
The Mahabharata by itself is longer than 4000 pages unless you read an abridged version. It's 10 times the length of the Iliad and Odyssey put together.
>>7714334
no they would have found literature regardless
nearly all normies have never read a book other than harry potter or a self-help book
>>7714356
I'm not saying Harry Potter made them go on to finer literature, I'm saying Harry Potter didn't stop them from doing that.
>>7714465
No, but the fact it took how thousands of pages to move on to something better means you are an inefficient learber and therefore objectively less intelligent than me personally forever
>>7714509
I was reading good lit at the time too bitch
>>7714532
No, The Hunger Games, yes?
