My friends think Harry Potter is better than LOTR, what does /lit/ think?
kill your friends then kill yourself
>>7730254
/thread
>>7730247
The earthsea books are better, now gtfo
They're both monomyths. It's the same story when you break it down to its base components
Wiki: Joseph Campbell heroes journey.
I'm guilty myself of doing this.
Instead of using horses and wizards I used jetpacks and robots. Same thing really.
Want some top shelf stuff? Read the DUNE series. Frank Herbert drops some gold pill level shit in book 3 with Paul merging with the sand trout. We all should be so imaginative. Without being derivative of this profound transition, I'm taking notes on how to insert something like this in my next series.
>>7730678
please stop with the monomyth meme
>>7730247
What kind of retarded question is that Lotr is obviously betterkill your friends
>>7730687
It's not a meme, jackass.
It's story structure.
>>7730247
What's happening is part of a phenomenon I wrote about a couple of years ago when I was asked to comment on Rowling. 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.
>>7730718
Now this is a meme.
>>7730678
You mean Leto, and also
never read past god emperor
>>7730714
please stop
neither.
>>7730247
Enjoyable read:harry potter wins
Most creative, better piece of art: LOTR
>>7730718
>enter a Harry Potter thread
>you feel it coming
>still chuckle every time its posted
every HP books is dogshit
at least The Fellowship of the Ring is good
>>7730806
it's beautiful
based bloom
>>7730729
Oops, my bad. Thnx
