I took it as “you’ll fuck up what he’s working on by saying it looks like something that it wasn’t going to be but now that you mention it fuck now they can’t unsee it and the whole feeling for the piece is fucked if I finish it now”
I always hate whenever someone criticizes a work of art and then there’s some smoothbrain response to the criticism that essentially says “just let people enjoy things.” This happens a lot with contemporary film and television. How about you let people engage with something and critically think about it, even if the things they have to say are mostly negative. If you like something, great. Another person not liking something doesn’t mean you suddenly aren’t allowed to like it, either.
A lot of the times I feel that response comes from the person who likes a thing having not really critically examined something in the first place. What can seem like obvious flaws to someone who is examining the thing can be completely overlooked by someone just enjoying it.
When another person starts coming out with “x is trash because y” it actually can rob them of that joy. Now they ARE thinking about those things. What was once a no-strings fun thing is now riddled with flaws.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with examining something critically, or just enjoying something without a critical eye. I’m just trying to understand the legitimacy of both sides.
This basically puts the onus for another’s enjoyment on everyone except for the individual enjoying the thing, though. Which I’m not saying is categorically wrong in all cases. If you have a child/niece/nephew/etc. who really enjoys, say, Harry Potter, and you go “well, J.K. Rowling is a transphobic neoliberal and Harry Potter is a story about only fighting against fascism and bigotry when it actively threatens dominant, existing modes of power.” In that case, you are actively robbing enjoyment of something from someone who should be engaging with things uncritically. If you say it to an adult, who should have already developed that degree of literacy, and they complain about having their fun ruined, then they’re basically asking to be infantilized.
If anything, it’s an overly generous reading of a work whose themes and characterization come across as remarkably shallow when examined by anyone with even a hint of genuine critical literacy. I guess the main takeaway is “read another book.”
And I guess the reason you read the whole thing is…that it was so awful? Be honest with yourself.
It’s certainly not without its faults. (One thing I NEVER see mentioned is the excessive fatshaming, I guess there’s not room for more than one narrative at a time.) It is, however, a book written for children and teenagers. And for what it is, the plots and themes ask more of, and give more back to, young readers than so much of the other drivel that is readily available to them. I know this, since I read to my own children and teenagers every day, and buy them books to read for themselves. There is a reason the Potter books are still as popular as ever.
If we’re being honest, the real issue is that Rowling is now le diable du jour, which means everything she ever did is now material for our daily two minutes of hate. The books have to be completely without merit as well because it’s just not possible to hold even mildly conflicting views simultaneously.
And I guess the reason you read the whole thing is…that it was so awful? Be honest with yourself.
I guess the reason I read it is because I was a child and enjoyed detective fiction, which is all Harry Potter effectively is: detective stories with wizards. I read a lot of stuff as a kid that wasn’t very good in retrospect. I also read a shitload of Hardy Boys, and most Hardy Boys novels are fucking awful. Something being entertaining to you when you’re a kid that you can acknowledge was shit when you’re an adult is a normal part of growing up. I’m sure you’ll get there yourself, someday. Or maybe your ability to parse literature will suffer from arrested development. Who can say?
It is, however, a book written for children and teenagers. And for what it is, the plots and themes ask more of, and give more back to, young readers than so much of the other drivel that is readily available to them.
The argument that something should be considered good because there exists other things which can be considered significantly worse is not a very good framework for arguing for the quality of a work of fiction. This is classic “damning by faint praise.”
I know this, since I read to my own children and teenagers every day, and buy them books to read for themselves
The foundational premise of this argument is that you know something to be true because you perceive it to be so. This is like me saying that I know I’m a good cook because I cook every day and enjoy the food that I make for myself. It ignores the obvious possibility that your personal standards for what you are doing are simply garbage.
If we’re being honest, the real issue is that Rowling is now le diable du jour, which means everything she ever did is now material for our daily two minutes of hate. The books have to be completely without merit as well because it’s just not possible to hold even mildly conflicting views simultaneously.
If we’re being honest, her books are simple, accessible, designed for mass appeal, relatively thematically shallow, and were at the time of their initial publication outrageously overhyped because she did what J. J. Abrams does with every single t.v. show he’s ever made and allude to an elaborate set of mysteries that actively drove fan engagement via wild speculation about the future of the series between novels. To add to this, the average American reads so little that for many of them, the novels were the only major series of fiction they’d ever voluntarily read, so there was a period of time on the internet where every piece of fantasy fiction in any medium got immediately compared to Harry Potter. This is admittedly not Harry Potter’s or Rowling’s fault, but it was fucking annoying and served to drive negative sentiment for the series.
Something being entertaining to you when you’re a kid that you can acknowledge was shit when you’re an adult is a normal part of growing up.
Sure, I remember my twenties well enough. And then the next stage in growing up is forgiving your younger self and understanding that books can be good in different ways, and that some books are brilliant for kids and teenagers. Good detective fiction can also be brilliant for what it is. You’re nearly there yourself in your original comment. No one is comparing Harry Potter to Gravity’s Rainbow or Wuthering Heights here.
The argument that something should be considered good because there exists other things which can be considered significantly worse is not a very good framework for arguing for the quality of a work of fiction. This is classic “damning by faint praise.”
I’m surprised you didn’t link to Wikipedia…but that’s not really the argument here. The point is one of context and being reasonable, and that in the field of young adult fiction, they stand out. Would I say they’re the best childrens books? No. And if you had been more reasonable - not called them “shit” perhaps - it would have been a different story. And I see you skirt the issue, but the reason people go on and on about the failings of Harry Potter these days is very obvious, and it has little to do with literary value.
The foundational premise of this argument is that you know something to be true because you perceive it to be so. This is like me saying that I know I’m a good cook because I cook every day and enjoy the food that I make for myself.
Or like you saying “her books are simple, accessible, designed for mass appeal, relatively thematically shallow…” Of course it’s my assessment, grounded in experience. I’m not going to do a close reading of the series in this format, I’m sorry. But I don’t really see that level of effort from you, either. (And “accessible” is a weird thing to criticize in a work geared towards children, btw…)
because she did what J. J. Abrams does with every single t.v. show he’s ever made and allude to an elaborate set of mysteries that actively drove fan engagement via wild speculation about the future of the series between novels.
Rowling delivered in the end though, which is what JJ never does and why he should be banned from ever making TV again. I don’t see how the comparison is valid, readers may have been disappointed but there were answers and genuine surprises there.
Realistically, I don’t expect people to just deny expressing criticisms. What I’m asking for is to read the room, and understand that it IS a legitimate concern for some people. If someone actively expresses that they don’t want to hear the criticism, you’re crossing from simple chatting to actively ruining something for someone.
Yes, how dare someone try to engage with the artist. Art is for looking at, going “hmm that’s nice” and then never talking about it again.
I took it as “you’ll fuck up what he’s working on by saying it looks like something that it wasn’t going to be but now that you mention it fuck now they can’t unsee it and the whole feeling for the piece is fucked if I finish it now”
I always hate whenever someone criticizes a work of art and then there’s some smoothbrain response to the criticism that essentially says “just let people enjoy things.” This happens a lot with contemporary film and television. How about you let people engage with something and critically think about it, even if the things they have to say are mostly negative. If you like something, great. Another person not liking something doesn’t mean you suddenly aren’t allowed to like it, either.
A lot of the times I feel that response comes from the person who likes a thing having not really critically examined something in the first place. What can seem like obvious flaws to someone who is examining the thing can be completely overlooked by someone just enjoying it.
When another person starts coming out with “x is trash because y” it actually can rob them of that joy. Now they ARE thinking about those things. What was once a no-strings fun thing is now riddled with flaws.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with examining something critically, or just enjoying something without a critical eye. I’m just trying to understand the legitimacy of both sides.
This basically puts the onus for another’s enjoyment on everyone except for the individual enjoying the thing, though. Which I’m not saying is categorically wrong in all cases. If you have a child/niece/nephew/etc. who really enjoys, say, Harry Potter, and you go “well, J.K. Rowling is a transphobic neoliberal and Harry Potter is a story about only fighting against fascism and bigotry when it actively threatens dominant, existing modes of power.” In that case, you are actively robbing enjoyment of something from someone who should be engaging with things uncritically. If you say it to an adult, who should have already developed that degree of literacy, and they complain about having their fun ruined, then they’re basically asking to be infantilized.
Plus it’s an incredibly one-sided and myopic reading of the work that even a child can easily see through.
If anything, it’s an overly generous reading of a work whose themes and characterization come across as remarkably shallow when examined by anyone with even a hint of genuine critical literacy. I guess the main takeaway is “read another book.”
And I guess the reason you read the whole thing is…that it was so awful? Be honest with yourself.
It’s certainly not without its faults. (One thing I NEVER see mentioned is the excessive fatshaming, I guess there’s not room for more than one narrative at a time.) It is, however, a book written for children and teenagers. And for what it is, the plots and themes ask more of, and give more back to, young readers than so much of the other drivel that is readily available to them. I know this, since I read to my own children and teenagers every day, and buy them books to read for themselves. There is a reason the Potter books are still as popular as ever.
If we’re being honest, the real issue is that Rowling is now le diable du jour, which means everything she ever did is now material for our daily two minutes of hate. The books have to be completely without merit as well because it’s just not possible to hold even mildly conflicting views simultaneously.
I guess the reason I read it is because I was a child and enjoyed detective fiction, which is all Harry Potter effectively is: detective stories with wizards. I read a lot of stuff as a kid that wasn’t very good in retrospect. I also read a shitload of Hardy Boys, and most Hardy Boys novels are fucking awful. Something being entertaining to you when you’re a kid that you can acknowledge was shit when you’re an adult is a normal part of growing up. I’m sure you’ll get there yourself, someday. Or maybe your ability to parse literature will suffer from arrested development. Who can say?
The argument that something should be considered good because there exists other things which can be considered significantly worse is not a very good framework for arguing for the quality of a work of fiction. This is classic “damning by faint praise.”
The foundational premise of this argument is that you know something to be true because you perceive it to be so. This is like me saying that I know I’m a good cook because I cook every day and enjoy the food that I make for myself. It ignores the obvious possibility that your personal standards for what you are doing are simply garbage.
If we’re being honest, her books are simple, accessible, designed for mass appeal, relatively thematically shallow, and were at the time of their initial publication outrageously overhyped because she did what J. J. Abrams does with every single t.v. show he’s ever made and allude to an elaborate set of mysteries that actively drove fan engagement via wild speculation about the future of the series between novels. To add to this, the average American reads so little that for many of them, the novels were the only major series of fiction they’d ever voluntarily read, so there was a period of time on the internet where every piece of fantasy fiction in any medium got immediately compared to Harry Potter. This is admittedly not Harry Potter’s or Rowling’s fault, but it was fucking annoying and served to drive negative sentiment for the series.
Sure, I remember my twenties well enough. And then the next stage in growing up is forgiving your younger self and understanding that books can be good in different ways, and that some books are brilliant for kids and teenagers. Good detective fiction can also be brilliant for what it is. You’re nearly there yourself in your original comment. No one is comparing Harry Potter to Gravity’s Rainbow or Wuthering Heights here.
I’m surprised you didn’t link to Wikipedia…but that’s not really the argument here. The point is one of context and being reasonable, and that in the field of young adult fiction, they stand out. Would I say they’re the best childrens books? No. And if you had been more reasonable - not called them “shit” perhaps - it would have been a different story. And I see you skirt the issue, but the reason people go on and on about the failings of Harry Potter these days is very obvious, and it has little to do with literary value.
Or like you saying “her books are simple, accessible, designed for mass appeal, relatively thematically shallow…” Of course it’s my assessment, grounded in experience. I’m not going to do a close reading of the series in this format, I’m sorry. But I don’t really see that level of effort from you, either. (And “accessible” is a weird thing to criticize in a work geared towards children, btw…)
Rowling delivered in the end though, which is what JJ never does and why he should be banned from ever making TV again. I don’t see how the comparison is valid, readers may have been disappointed but there were answers and genuine surprises there.
Realistically, I don’t expect people to just deny expressing criticisms. What I’m asking for is to read the room, and understand that it IS a legitimate concern for some people. If someone actively expresses that they don’t want to hear the criticism, you’re crossing from simple chatting to actively ruining something for someone.
“oh, it’s a preformance piece, neat”