What's wrong with this book?
the almost parodistically extensive use of the phrase "stretched his/her legs"
>>7888976
There's nothing wrong with it. Except the sequels and all those horrible cash in similar YA novels that tried to emulate its success.
Why did Americans need the title to be changed to 'sorcerer's stone' from 'philosopher's stone'?
>>7888994
Does this mean Americans call philosophy class, "Sorcery class"?
Nothing; it's charming, memorable, and fun.
it's cute...people seem to forget that this is a children's book and that her prose reflects the children growing up so this is naturally going to be the most primitive
It's actually a great book, and the reason it succeeds is because Rowling had done a lot of research and put a great deal of hard work into working out the backgrounds of her characters (allowing them to flourish in future works and for them to appear familiar to her and therefore 3D in this book), in paying respect to various forms of folklore, myths, literature etc in her naming of characters, places and things (one of the schools, Durmunstrang (para.) is named after the German romantic movement in literature for example) and in establishing a plot that in the space of 200 pages introduces the main characters, the biography of the protagonist, the nature of the magic world and also depicts an entire year in Hogwarts with the class structure, traditions etc all depicted in a way that is entertaining and easy to grasp.
>>7889002
Yes. Can confirm, am American.
>>7889002
Yes I have it after dark arts.
>>7888976
one of several books that trained me and infused reading into my head. I would read these in a few nights, something which I'm incapable of doing now a days, which speaks more of the difficulty of their content, but still, they gave me stamina and made me seek out bigger and better books.
Bloom is a smart motherfucker, but he's wrong about Rowlingand Stephen King
>>7889152
political science?
Good book for kids, but there are better childrens' books out there. Kids today will have more fun watching and discussing the movies.
>>7888976
Nothing.If you're 12.
>>7889209
it's almost as if that's the intended audience
>>7889213
That's my point. But also, I don't think you realize how many nostalgia addled 20-somethings who've never picked up a book in their life after high school gush about it being the pinnacle of literature.
People I deem higher up the social ladder yet less smart than me like it therefore it's bad
>>7889219
Those people were never going to read anyway
>>7888987
that's right.
bloom hated the book because of the use of "stretched his/her legs".
no other reason.
you totally understood his commentary.
good job kiddo.
>Harry Potter: The First One.pdf
>ctrl f: stretched his legs
>666 results
>>7888987
>Ctrl+F "stretched his legs"
>0 results
>Ctrl+ "farts"
>0 results
This book is not for me.
>>7888976
Everything. It was written by a homeless woman with no prospects who decided to write about a mary sue and a witch school. How fucking interesting.
>>7888976
It was too short.
>>7889318
>not knowing what 'Mary sue' means
>>7889355
This is never a legitimate complaint, even in memes.
Anyways, it's written poorly, it might make an okay children's book but I wouldn't expose my daughters to it unless and until I've established that they are too stupid for literature, in which case I will accept that I must commit them to the realm of YAshit and pulpy romance novels to keep them from aspiring to something higher and polluting the well of western civilization as a result.
That is the true purpose of genreshit and pulp, to keep the plebs out of the lands of the patricians. The strong must protect themselves from the week, said Nietzsche. Universal literacy was a mistake, said Nietzsche. They laughed at him. Now look at the state of literature and tell me he wasn't right.
>>7889366
Of course it's a legitimate complaint. I liked the book. I wanted to see more of Hogwarts but it went from cool school stuff to sudden ending.
>>7889360
I agree that strictly speaking he is not a Sue, but he isn't significantly deeper than the rest of the generally one dimensional characters which does not speak well when the books are named after him.
>>7889369
Seeing is done in the mind's eye. If you can't create visions from the blueprint the author has given you, you're stupid or the author is a hack.
Or both.
>>7889379
>HURR DURR I ONLY NEED ONE PAGE AND I CAN LIVE IN MY AUTISM WORLD FOREVER!!!
Nobody gives a shit what special powers you think you have, friendo. Hogwarts was a cool idea, it just wasn't expanded upon enough.
>What's wrong with this book?
The depiction of magic. Rowling underestimated the biggest aspect of the book - the way magic works is rudimentary and incompatible with any bit of logic and reason. You can never, never come up with a reliable and suitable way to explain at any reasonable level how spells and magic work. So you don't think about it, because you're not a dense faggot and you want to enjoy the book. Thus it dumbs children down because it forces them to not think.
>no natural mechanism to stop wizards from completely fucking shit up
>it is never mentioned if casting spells exhausts you for whichever reason
>what is energy and the laws of conversation
>no space traveling wizards
>no natural space magic - no magic manifestation in nature apart of creatures
>no wizards cheesing everything by casting fucking flipendo 10 times a second
>Hermione is allowed to time travel
>Voldemort, the dankest Nazi wizard of our times, is too retarded to beat Potter to death with a stick when spells backfire on him three times
>world of wizards is completely oblivious to science, wizard science is "it's magic, I ain't gonna explain shit", while there are quarks and atoms and cells and the nature of reality to study
I could go on.I still love the books.
>>7889382
Not to take away from your excellent imitiation, but as someone who read the book when he was meant to, as a kid, i've got to say Hogwarts made a pretty big impression on me. Not to say she couldn't have done more, but the way she described elements or places but not a cohesive whole is great for a kid's imagination.
>>7890309
I feel you, but the last point is one I take issue with. I always thought that the idea behind wizards being humourously backwards is that they've done such extensive study into magic. Like yeah quarks are news to them but they know at least a dozen uses for dragon bogies. Why put the effort into nuclear fission if a poor low-level government employee can make a flying invisible car in his shed.
>>7888976
It ushered in the era of teenagers to middle aged adults who unironically read children's and YA instead of real books
>>7890338
>Why put the effort into nuclear fission if a poor low-level government employee can make a flying invisible car in his shed
Because the adventurer that is in every aspiring scientist is indifferent to the nature of his study, be it magical or "technical".
Wizard or muggle scientist, if you look up at the stars, you want to know what makes the universe tick. Looks like if you're born with magical powers, you just don't give a fuck.
I mean can fucking Weasleys count to ten? Why do they avoid teaching their children mathematics? If you dropped Voldemort on a remote island without a wand, would he just eat sand and fucking die? The books are extremely childish in this aspect and that's not wrong, I love it, what's wrong is that Rowling tried pushing it to the "alternate reality" domain and making it look too real.
>>7889152
u mean dark farts? Honhonhonhon
>>7889375
When you read the book with any care, you find a lot of these pretty empty phrases that serve no purpose. I totally believe that after a couple chapters you'd have filled an envelope with tallies of it (as Bloom claims to have done)
Rowling said she loved the idea of black Hermione when epic multiculty colorloving industry casted a negro goddess as mature Granger.
>ginger negro
>>7888976
Like 60% of the book is practically one long prologue and the paper-thin plot itself is crammed within the last 50 pages, carried by convenient coincidences and obscure leaps of logic.
>>7889318
>>7889377
Harry is definitely not a mary sue. In fact, Rowling's obvious fear of him being labeled as such ruins the whole thing when Harry quickly develops into a useless, stubborn, irritable, obnoxious little shit, who only fucks up everything he touches and needs his betters to carry him through everything. And I'd argue he's just as shallow as everyone else.
