What stops this woman from writing sequels herself instead of spewing retarded lore on twitter

I'm really anticipating some underground genius to write a postmodern metafictional fanfiction of Harry Potter or Twilight though I know it'll never happen

Even if it did.. what do you think are the chances of it seeing the light of day?

In my fantasy it's discovered by some wayward Yea Forumsfag scavenging for gems and it gains an ironic-turned-sincere following for it's prosaic beauty and psychological depth. In all honesty it would probably be lost in the sewers of some fanfic site, I just got the idea reading about that super smash bros fanfic that's longer than In Search of Lost Time.

>SeConDeD wiThOut ReSerVatiOn *smug face*
You’re saying a lot but without saying anything. Baseless blithering. What “untapped demographic” do you imagine she “hit the bullseye” of? And how was it the “right place, right time” to do so? You’ll notice you never specified. Because in fact you don’t have an answer for either. You’re a masturbatory wiseacre.
It’s really not that complicated. It’s very simply an excellent and imaginative series for children looking to escape. The characters are interesting and their relationships, especially between the main three, are moving and relatable.
I’m sure there are books with similar ideas that you in all your erudition can reference. I’m sure you’ve read better literature. I’m sure you rarely leave your own head for your heart or anything that isn’t conducive to intellectual posturing. There are many others here like you. It doesn’t change that Harry Potter is quality children’s fiction and that if you didn’t grow up on it, you missed out.

>made the 4th a literal set-piece book,
what's a set-piece book?

lmao complete bullshit, what on earth
and stop samefagging cringy retard

>lmao complete bullshit, what on earth
Great argument.

A book where the characters/plot take a back seat to locations. HP4 does it a lot, which is why she puts the tournament thing in at all.

They're replacing her with a mulatto girl

what did you think of the movie (as a movie rather than an adaptation)?

I'm biased because I was actually in it as an extra, so it ruined it for me to "see behind the curtain", so to speak. I can only go by the previous films, and the 3rd one fucked the tone royally.

vegan transexual democrat noncisgender mulatto person*

>It even went to show just how bad her writing is that when she tried to publish different books under a pseudonym, nobody wanted it and told her to take writing classes.
Source?

it’s not like every idea is worth an argument. nothing you said is true or intelligent. but as an example
>Her downfall was that she had maybe enough content for two books. Then she fucked the 3rd with a time travel plot when it wasn't necessary, made the 4th a literal set-piece book, then just went all out with a last minute attempt to go in one direction with the plot for the rest of them. She was riding a hype train, so it didn't matter how bad they were or how little actually happened, they just had to have her name on it and be Harry Potter.

i’m sure your angle is that rowling was lying when she said she had it mostly plotted out from the start, but the series reflects it. there are plenty of easter eggs and details in the earlier books that gain narrative significance later. and most people would tell you that the books got better as they went on, definitely not worse. this is all baseless and aggro for no reason. and it’s just a nugget from the bigger pile of shit.

>It even went to show just how bad her writing is that when she tried to publish different books under a pseudonym, nobody wanted it and told her to take writing classes.
Even if this is true that isn't necessarily a point against her. Publishers are incredibly biased against small-name authors. I bet even some esteemed literary authors would go through the same experience.

Took 2 seconds on Google.
bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35899243

faggot

>hit the zeitgeist nerve of the time
But you realize it's at the heat of every author's success? I remember reading a short lecture by an historian of literature who said the main reason Shakespeare came to be regarded as the icon of genius in the 18th and 19th century was because he was there at the right time. And he still considered him the greatest writer in history, but according to his knowledge of literary reception there was little doubt that a couple decades earlier Shakespeare might have gone relatively unnoticed in the continent.

I didn't bother reading passed the second sentence. If all you're going to do is throw a tantrum, don't bother.

It doesn’t even matter, there’s a difference between writing for adults and writing for children. Nobody is saying she’s Jane Austen. She wrote a quality children’s series, nothing more. But contrarian pseuds will do what they do.

Attached: 1373661724837.gif (245x285, 916K)

lmao first you’re mad that I didn’t have muh argument, then I gave you one and now you conveniently won’t read it? k, we both know what a dumbass blowhard you are at this point, we can leave it at that.

I for one would love to read a Cervantes-like take-down of contemporary YA with the "empowered girl" protagonist ultimately realizing she's being milked for easy cash and giving her author the middle finger.

You still have no argument. When you've decided to stop acting like a child, we can talk. Until then, you've got nothing.

And here we see an intelligent response from a worthwhile lifeform.

>I'm biased because I was actually in it as an extra
You were an extra in Goblet of Fire? Nice. You don't see that everyday here.
>I can only go by the previous films, and the 3rd one fucked the tone royally.
You think? I never read the books but that's perhaps my favourite film of them all. It feels more natural, instead of artificial. Everything is dirty, Harry uses normal teenager clothes, there's a palpable dark presence that premeates the story, etc. Don't you think the 1st one should have been darker? Did they fuck the tone of the novel?

Says a guy who can't use search engines.

Attached: 1376934779574.gif (447x260, 2.14M)

I literally and objectively did, and even moreso than you in the first place. You’re a coping bitch with nothing to say.

Attached: 1367669368502.gif (230x175, 1.94M)

Yeah that wasn’t me retard, that’s why I responded to him as well. Keep flouting your low IQ though, the twitter-tier gifs really nail it home.

gross. stop. we don’t do this vacuous shit here.

>IMO, Harry Potter isn’t even that good, and what’s more, Rowling probably barely knows English. Have you read Lolita? I myself have read Lolita. I know more than 564 words and that’s just until tomorrow.

Attached: 7663D6F2-5A6D-49C4-9D40-BB0147A5F45C.jpg (711x1023, 75K)

>stereotypes that don't exist

>seething at the accuracy

Nah, you just shitpost.

Attached: 1333991627159.gif (325x203, 780K)

the school kid that reads Lolita? come on

The first was fine as it was. It needed to be light, which was what the first book was like, too. The second showed how to do a darker one. The third just turned it into a joke and started veering off from what was established. I could break it down scene by scene where the problems are. The only good bits were Sirius and Lupin, but they couldn't save the rest of the film.

the childish pseud actually, but not surprised it whooshed you

not them but the other guy has a shit argument and shit taste. I read the books before the hype took over and the later books are not better: they are when the hype took over. most of the kids who were the right age to tolerate the first two books (alongside things like blyton and babysitters club and general YA) by the third book were bored. a new wave of fans came at that point, both of those slightly younger who could still appreciate the first two, and of adults who also went mad for dan brown because of his "scholarship". the people who hung on for books 4+ are literally retarded to the point the famous five going on holiday is probably an incisive and relevant discussion on the class and gender system they perceive to hold power in the world in their eyes which ought to be the source of public policy.

You can have these opinions if you want, but they’re still baseless, if I were more virginal and reddit I’d demand stats. But it’s not even necessary, it’s clear that you’re stretching to explain away a highly successful children’s series, of all things, that you have a disproportionate contempt for. Surely you must see that, if you’re white enough to be objective and be honest with yourself. It almost seems Freudian, like you have some childhood unpleasantness connected with Harry Potter.
I’m not saying that success is the arbiter of quality, either. We all know Dan Brown and James Patterson aren’t good writers, and the fact that so many people read them is cause for genocide. That’s not what makes HP great. It’s the depth and appeal of the atmosphere, the moving and relatable (like I said earlier) relationships, the realistic morality which is so rare in children’s books (for instance rebelling against unfair authority), and ultimately the immersive aesthetic of the whole Hogwarts “experience”. This is why it’s successful and why it’s a classic.

Nigger shut up. This is the finest Burmese pet trading site on the internet

>explain away a highly successful children’s series, of all things, that you have a disproportionate contempt for. S
I think hype adequately covers it. I think distain is pushing it: I'd have to distain blyton and rl stine for much the same reasons, when I don't because they have their time and place. however, both of those authors can sustain interest without exterior hype, and often with exterior distain, something rowling failed to do for the same age group with her later books. a lot of the reason for that is because when kids want junk books they want them to be 200 pages, while retarded adults are the ones who feel going longer adds value to the junk (see brown). they mistake it for depth and atmosphere while even kids in her supposed target range will drop it for goosebumps #327 if they want depth or atmosphere of moving and relatable relations. finally, saying realistic morality is rare in children's books is retarded as fuck because that's been normal since plutarch.

>if I were more virginal and reddit I’d demand stats
So demand them.

Lmao remember when Voldemort's name was an anagram of "I am Lord Voldemort"? Fucking retarded lmao

Attached: 6r9wq6a58dz01.jpg (675x1200, 148K)

Harry Potter needs to end. It was what it was in the time it was in but now that’s over. Epic adventures aren’t meant to continue on, ad infintium. It ultimately falls back to the basic structure of the Heroes Journey as outlined in Joseph Campbell’s 1949 novel “hero with a 1000 faces”. In the arc of the hero, the ultimate evil is defeated and the hero retires or goes away as there are no more tasks left to complete. I’m my opinion, this is why people aren’t happy with Star Wars movies these days. We’ve already followed luke skywalker on his journey and after Return of the Jedi, his hero arc is concluded. Making MORE doesn’t make it better. In the western world, the Heroes Journey is the hidden arc our big sagas and epics adhere to to tell a grand tale. But when the arc is finished, the story is OVER. Harry Potter and any subsequent stories about his kids are cut off at the knees by the very simple rules laid out by the author that “Voldemort is the worst, most evil thing ever and if we could just kill the noseless son of a bitch, everything else is gonna be tiddies and blowjays.” And in the last book harry killed him, so the world is safe and all is well. After that kind of arc, you can’t just fire it back up with a new “big bad” (Voldemort or not) and expect it to have the same gravity and weight. It doesn’t work that way. Let the fanfiction writers flail and gnash their teeth in the gravel of mediocrity and bad imitation. It’s what they deserve for not knowing any better. There are ways to get around this just for a little while but JK didn’t have the forethought to plant the seeds for the proverbial crops she may have hoped to harvest down the road.

Attached: F637AB3A-6C07-43ED-A003-CF1D136FD590.jpg (1868x1051, 241K)

The point of lore updates is just to keep people talking and the value of the brand up. Bad publicity doesn't exist.

Which is kinda given with HP given how flat the characters are but how whimsy the world is. If one would transfer them into a story completely in the real world and adjust all the plot related shit; it would have never become relevant.

What are you even on? The third movie was by far the best in pretty much every regard.

>keep the value of the brand up

JK Rowling: errbody gay and Dobby got a 10 inch dick

Your first two lines sound like foam-at-the-mouth screeching so I'll disregard them except to tell you to calm down, Potterfag.
>What “untapped demographic”
Young adults who apparently ate it up at THAT time since there are various examples of orphan boy-wizards-that-go-to-magic-school before. One even have the red-haired boy and brilliant girl as friends, and many other tropes. Or are you going to say that the previous people with the same idea didn't have the literary genius and the brilliance of style required to enchant children?
> And how was it the “right place, right time” to do so?
In art, you can only determine that with hindsight. Publishers always try to guess the trend but it's not an accurate science, so they throw everything and see what sticks. That's how you determine it was the right place and time and not the ass-tonguing reasons based on taste that you present later "excellent" "imaginative". I can almost smell the onions on your breath as you gape your mouth wide and stay frozen in that pose.
Everything else in your post is not worth replying to, since it's more passive-aggresive screeching.
You need to really toned down the armchair psychology, and the exaggerations, Mr. "Cause for genocide". It does your argument disservice.
>. That’s not what makes HP great. It’s the depth and appeal of the atmosphere, the moving and relatable (like I said earlier) relationships, the realistic morality which is so rare in children’s books (for instance rebelling against unfair authority), and ultimately the immersive aesthetic of the whole Hogwarts “experience”. This is why it’s successful and why it’s a classic.
All of which can be applied to best-sellers before it. Like Dr. Seuss, right? Or Good Night Moon.
Listen, you have no actual logical argument to make, except your taste, which from what I'm gathering is heavily tinged by nostalgia. That's fine, just don't try to make a credible argument supporting the success of HP based on actual artistic merit.
>a couple decades earlier Shakespeare might have gone relatively unnoticed in the continent.
Based on what? Maybe if I read the short lecture I could see his point better.
But when applying his argument to other immortals, it sounds wrong on its face. Would Homer have gone unnoticed a few centuries later, or earlier, or Dante or many examples of writers who have survived the ages because of their brilliance.
They are timeless because the themes they tackle and the way to do it is forever relevant. Rowling isn't. She didn't hit on some fundamental human truth (unless you want to go the "everything is fundamental" route), nor expressed them in a way that would echo through the ages.

Now people will complain about this shit, write opinion pieces about how she should shut up, make videos and memes about it and talk about HP again. Eventually they'll take a break from rage about the last dumb shit she said and will start going full nostalgia, etc, etc
Gotta keep the shit up in the mind of the public and stay relevant if you want to earn shekels.

ITT: r/books daily discussion

Attached: plebbitor.png (225x225, 4K)

This

So basically Hunger Games but with 4th wall breaks?

Nope. The 3rd marked a downward trend in the films. It started off good at the 1st, peaked at the 2nd, drops to way below both for the 3rd, then keeps dropping.

You liked Philosopher's Stone more than Prisoner of Azkaban? lmao is this bait? PoA is the only good HP movie.

1 and 2 were fine but 3rd was easy the total peak even despite the dumb time turner shit. Specially from direction POV it was very well done and easy stands out to the feel of children's movies of the first and the generic cookie cutter shit from Yates which feels like Marvels paint by numbers style.

i bet if you compiled all her tweets, blog entries and interviews, you'd be able to make a book out of it.
she could call it Harry Potter and the Silmarillion Stones

What is stopping her from spewing pussy juice on my face?

You sound like a potterfag. I was already in my mid-20’s when Harry Potter blew up. So when my girlfriend at the time started going on about a kid going to wizard school I was thinking some Merlin/pointed hat with stars on it shit and never bothered. I saw the movies and those first two were god awful. Anyway, My early reading included Ivanhoe and my dad reading SHO GUN by James Clavell to me and explaining it all. You’ll pardon me if I don’t give two dicks in 2019 what house adults in their 30’s like to think they’d be sorted into according to an online predetermination questionnaire that means absolutely nothing. You can’t be nostalgic for something you’ve never known. If I wasn’t knee deep in whisky, women and art in the early 2000’s maybe I’d have given it a shot but I really couldn’t care less about it so I need you to be ok with that

Attached: 8138A12F-8955-4FBB-B84C-EFF5B6622AE3.jpg (501x523, 38K)

Hey, that's exactly how I feel about soda or cosmetics commercials! Guess they can stop running the shit and wasting billions, because I just don't care about it and neither does anyone else.

>If I wasn’t knee deep in whisky, women and art in the early 2000’s
holy mother of BASED

>most people would tell you that the books got better as they went on, definitely not worse
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAetc.

Anglo women were a mistake.

Corbyn must be stopped

TOUR DE FORCE

>70 year old foids use makeup
God I hate women so much

she's like 50

She looks like the kind of woman who would suck her son's dick

>"baseless!"
>"baseless!"
>give me statistical sources on your opinion harry potter books. reee
>mEmE wRiTiNg
>"aggro"
loving every laugh

Attached: 1556417613389.png (544x535, 491K)

I know that pasta

Same shit
Fuck roasties

bump

she's awful. the movies about newt and grindelwald (fantastic beasts) are better than the main series, specifically because that cunt didn't write them. the characters actually have more character than being cardboard cutouts. it's not high literature but it's good enough to be entertaining for a while.

the 3rd is the best book akshully. otherwise agreed. that other shit she wrote, for adults, zero interest. hype died like a week after release.
in other words it's money, not merit, that determines popularity. you know the right people you get in. just another realm nepotism has poisoned. we need a good shake-out. i wish self publishing wasn't so fagged up, that could have been the tool to liberate us from the publishing establishment's gatekeeping. instead it's an ocean of open air sewage.

what I want to know is WHY shitheads like dan brown, john green, stephen king, james patterson, etc. get published so prolifically and good shit doesn't get the time of day. what are they doing? are they sucking someone's cock to get their first deal? do they come into the industry with their hand held by a buddy? what? at the most optimistic it might be their style is "easy to digest" for the average shit for brain cafe-reader or that cunt at the office who totes a book to and from work for her lunchbreaks and takes 6 months to read a 200 page YA. if you want to get published, is that who you have to write for? i don't know who the average dumbass consumer with cash in hand is or what they want to read. i don't even think publishers know. when i read agent wishlists they all want "cozies" or "family sagas" and I have never seen some garbage like that actually sell large volumes or receive hype.

what qualities do these cocksuckers have that publishers want to fellate them? what the hell do publishers even want to see? do they themselves even know?

it's got to be just luck. how can a twat like rowling get 50 rejections and go on to be a best seller? that tells me 50 industry professionals have no god damned clue how to do their own job.

You must choose between gatekeeping or sifting through crap, in every field of artistic endeavor.

They get published because they sell well, not because they are good. They are cheap fiction that can be easily consumed and attracts people who do not read literature with an artistic interest. They also do probably have connections.
On the other hand, everyone here on lit seems to be a complete idiot when it comes to publishing "literary fiction". I feel it is because no one here is actually interested in becoming an author and it's just a spur of the moment thing done with the idea of becoming famous and an important figure in the literary world and not because they are genuinely interested in writing. Anyways, the way you try to become published with literary fiction is (this are tips that I have seen good contemporary authors give, although I know you people may not believe said authors exist) you start by publishing your stories or poems in literary magazines, it doesn't matter if it is small, just do it. You can also send your texts to competitions which is one of the easiest ways to be published. After you gather some publications, you can start thinking on sending larger, more ambitious novels, to be published.
Is ot harder to publish this kind of fiction? Yes it is, but even then having your story published in a small literary magazine is not impossible and is an accomplishment in itself. So, instead of whining in lit on how hard it is to be published, you should actually start writing and look at ways of getting your texts published. But it probably doesn't matter anyways because most likely you don't actually desire in a serious way being an author and your writing is probably shit.

Don't be so judgemental. I've written a few short stories. Got rejected so far but they're easy to write compared to novels. It's just discouraging. So it's like any other career, you have to do shitwork to build a resume for someone to give you the time of day, is that it? I can do it, it just pisses me off. They have the first 3 chapters or whatever, you saying whether I have accreditations makes a difference? Read the shit, if it's good ask for more, if not then not, I morally reject the concept that a writer's resume ought to make the difference. But that's moral grandstanding, if that's how it is that's how it is and I'll conform. But do you get what I'm saying at least? The writing ought to speak for itself.

God, I just hate that shit is this way. Submitting to these godforsaken magazines is a pain in the fucking ass.

That's possibly the greatest thing I've ever read. Thanks user, all forms of literature are dead now, I will just read this article for all eternity (that, Wittgenstein's bread with cheese story, and the Dan Brown copypasta)

I understand user, I know it's frustrating but it is possible. I honestly do enjoy writing whatever I write even if it is not for publishing. I'm currently writing a pseudo-critique of a false work from one of my favorite writers and I hope to publish it in a small literary magazine. Sadly, a writer's resume does make it easier to publish your works. Just keep writing for the sake of it and when you are sure of one of your works try to publish it somewhere. If you get published even in a small literary magazine you at least know that your writing is at least decent.
I live in a third world country where trying to do this is, I imagine, harder than in America. But even then I know many people who have done it and I hope to publish some things too in the future (not sure if I want to be a "writer").
On a related note, i'm currently reading the only novel of a Salvadorian poet where the first part concerns two salvadorian writers trying to be published and recognized and the impossibility in a place like El Salvador. This at least helps in knowing you are not alone in this hell that is trying to be published.

I'll keep trying and all, I have nothing else to do in life, it's just frustrating. But I love my novel characters enough to put up with it to help give them life.

such struggle. so much bother.

Good luck, user

you, too. let's all /make it/.

Oh, this should be rich.
Please, tell us why 1997 was so uniquely perfect for the magical school subgenre. Be specific.

Because she is intelligent enough to rest on her laurels, she’s dipped her toe in the water and fully understood that she’s blown her literary load.

Dan Brown
>Prose is an everyman level of campy. Even though his descriptions don't make definitional sense, we all know exactly what he means.
>He does pretty solid research on interesting topics, and then molds that research into fun Bond-esque thrillers.
>Themes center on pop-intellectualism, but remain interesting. Popularity doesn't make something uninteresting.

Woopty fucking doo. LOTR has all the Welsh myths wrapped into one. It's the best story ever told.
Wizard's Hall is boring and doesn't feel magical. Harry Potter is undeniably charming.

>Reddit tard unironically defending HP and asking for sources like as if he were an agent of the Russian intelligence service
This is epic

Attached: 412D4BEC-4D7D-478D-A216-E62723F5D911.jpg (666x579, 61K)

>If I wasn't knee deep in whisky, women and art
Jesus Christ. I can smell the faggot coming through my computer. It's so overpowering I may need to scuttle this rig.

There’s a two-book series called Groosham Grange. The first book is about this kid who is taken from an abusive family to a wizard school. The second book is about a competition did a magic cup, which has secretly been enchanted with dark magic to destroy the wizarding world

>if you’re white enough
Stopped reading there. Racism is not tolerated on 4channel, please see yourself out.

>referring to your consumer electronics as a "rig"
remove beam from eye

I thought 5th, barring its ending was explicitly a throwback to the tone of the first two books, before the radical switch to darkerÜNDedgier in 6th.

I like all the books, the first two do have a sort of mystery and childlike wonder to them that the later ones lack, but she was trying to do something rather difficult, expanding our understanding of the world she was creating through the perspective of a kid growing up. It didn't all work but it is a nice set of children's stories.

LOL

Literally this entire board

>"How the hell is Twilight so popular or 50 shades of grey" or other books that hit it big but have nothing to do with the actual skill or talent of the author.

literally 99% of pop culture

>She wrote a quality children’s series, nothing more

your bar for quality should be higher

Based

>Eva Ibbotson's The Secret of Platform 13 (first published in 1994) features a gateway to a magical world located in King's Cross station in London. The protagonist belongs to the magical world but is raised in the normal world by a rich family who neglect him and treat him as a servant, while their fat and unpleasant biological son is pampered and spoiled.

>the realistic morality which is so rare in children’s books (for instance rebelling against unfair authority)

Attached: 1527620394021.png (143x170, 51K)

That reminds me, I really enjoyed the interview where Umberto Eco called out Dan Brown for being one of the characters in his book, a gullible pseud essentially, when asked about the connection between Focaults Pendulum and Dan Browns secret sect thrillers.

>Barryuto Potter
I'm thinking she knows it's over.

Adolescence of millennials who are particularly primed for the simultaneous satisfaction of a desire to be very special and escape from a conformist world.

Note that these are not unique desires, nor is wizard school a unique idea. But the statistical prevalence is what makes the difference between making a modest living, and accumulating massive success.

You should read witty's letters about socks too.

I read lolita when I was 16

based beyond words
so she just blatantly stole shit from other genrefiction and mashed it together? why are there no lawsuits and no mention of this?

Because you can't copyright a general storyline, for very good reasons.

I hope I don't post gay shit like this online when I'm 40

>not that these are unique desires
Not in the slightest. Harry Potter had nothing to do with 1997, and everything to do with (1) luck, just like every other sleeper hit, and (2) being very charming.

The fantastic beast movies are awful, far worse than the books