I think I figured it out. I was just taking a shit, thinking about people who treat YA literature as if it's on par with actual literature and how there is no argument against "It's just your opinion." Of course you could talk about the superior prose, story and skill etc but that doesn't really mean much. The thing is, a book like Harry Potter has no substance or soul. I mean, when Nabokov wrote Lolita, or Kafka wrote The Trial or any other example, they saw something they just had to capture. That's the mark of a truly great artist, they saw something in the world, and it incaptivated them and forced them to depict it. Like the beauty of Mona Lisa or, being more literary, the nature of humanity in Moby Dick. For Harry Potter this isn't there, it's a nice enough story but has no soul. This is all very wishy washy, but I needed to write it down before I forget. Chances are it's all sentimental gibberish. Have a photo of my cat.
Cute cat.
My "opus magnus" or whatever they call it feels like a thing I need to capture, so thanks for making me realise how I felt about it. Ofc I already loved it, but now I know why.
>>7708453
>The thing is, a book like Harry Potter has no substance or soul. I mean, when Nabokov wrote Lolita, or Kafka wrote The Trial or any other example, they saw something they just had to capture. That's the mark of a truly great artist, they saw something in the world
>le artist must communicate something about the society meme
>>7708453
Not really, it just has to be good with a considerable degree of depth. Of all of the YA series lit could use for this type of comparison Harry Potter makes the least sense. As the series goes on its depth increases greatly, it somehow sidesteps PC bullshit, and JK Rowling studied the classics and makes ample reference to them throughout.
No they're not patrician(they're constrained by having to be readable by 12-17 year olds), but they're about as patrician as YA can possibly go.
>>7708599
He never said that. He said they wanted to capture something. Even something as simple as a mundane scene with no meaning can have soul to it.
None of this YA lit even tries to capture anything.
>>7708586
Thanks, he's very dear to me. I hope your novel is everything you want it to be.
>>7708599
It's not necessarily about society, it can be but doesn't have to be. For Zdzislaw Beksiński it was about capturing the horrors the haunted him in his sleep. Pic related.
>>7708611
What do you mean by depth in this context exactly?
>>7708617
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I'm glad you were able to put it into so fewer words
>>7708453
>>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
>>7709467
Surely novels like Stoner, Crime and Punishment, and No Longer Human had much more of an emotional impact on you?
>>7709495
As a whole yes, Crime and Punishment wrecked me in that sense, but I mean just the gravitas of the emotions I felt. The books you mention deliberately pull you through the dirt, you expect it.
It's like being ganged up on by a gang of black dudes in a dark alleyway, vs your father suddenly molesting you when you hit puberty.
One of them is bad, but you walked into it, knowing full well that chances were you'd be fucked, while the other is a comfort zone, a loving figure you grew up with who suddenly rapes you because you've matured a little.
>>7708453
Would The Shining count as a book that has a soul/captures something? I think it does because even though King wrote it in order to make a scary book, he "accidentally" let his inner struggle with alcoholism and family spill into the book.
>>7708599
>If I call it a meme I've debunked it
good meme
>>7709540
Yeah that makes sense. Good for you, having emotions and not having your head stuck up your arse
