Stewart Lee - Harry Potter

From Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle - Episode 1 "Books"

• Category

  People & Blogs

[Oforgoodnessache]

Where can I get Harry Potter and the Crock of Shit - I can't find it on Amazon

[Thunderwolf666]

Upvoted for "supercillious".

[Paul Harrison]

Well if that was my point you would be absolutely right - it would be shit.

Because Shelley never wrote Songs of Innocence and Experience. William Blake did.

But disregarding that point - Lee states that an adult reading any form of children's literature is essentially moronic - yet chooses an author who wrote poems based upon children's literature - this in itself would not be ironic - but the fact that Blake likely researched said children's literature as an adult - meaning he read it - is.

[billdeal]

Bottom line - the idea that it's ironic that Stewart Lee judges Shelley to be worth reading as an adult but not Harry Potter, because Shelley wrote Songs of Innocence and Experience which is about, amongst other things, childhood is shit. I think it's just that, it's shit - no point in digging any deeper, no point in debating it further, just read what you said again and acknowledge that it's obviously shit. It's like saying it's ironic that i'm commenting on youtube because i took a bus once

[Paul Harrison]

My suggestion that the commenter worked on their reading comprehension had little to do with the initial point they made and more to do with the unfounded leaps in logic that they made, which were clearly not based upon what I had written. Hence the suggestion.

In the same way that I never suggested that you should have to respond to any of my propositions - I was merely pointing out the quality of your response - yet strangely you seem convinced that I am proposing a form of address.

[billdeal]

There's not really a lot I can say that hasn't already been said to debunk your original misappropriation of irony, but the "you need to learn to read" line was fresh and interesting so I responded to that. Can you imagine if discussion worked the way you propose it should - that every participant should redundantly address their opponent's first proposition before responding to the most recent? Chaos would quickly follow.

[Paul Harrison]

As oppose to your stunning and well thought out counter argument of "your point is shit", which is so much more then a half-decent response.

[billdeal]

Your point is shit but go ahead and criticize your opponent's reading comprehension in lieu of a half-decent counter-argument

[Jcolinsol]

Harry Potter and the bone dry udders.

[Paul Harrison]

No - I'm saying that it is likely that Blake read them (as I stated in my post - I made no reference to Lee reading Nursery Rhymes, and I'm confused how you came to this conclusion).

I'm pointing out that its ironic that Lee berates people for reading children's literature - then suggests an author who very likely did just that.

This is not a difficult concept - may I suggest you work on your reading comprehension as you seem to be leaping to some rather illogical conclusions.

[nzmccorm]

So what you're saying is that you assume Lee read nursery rhymes for context when reading a text that referenced them and that that's somehow comparable to reading a children's book for its own sake? That makes even less sense. I think that you're just prickling at the fact that his comically exaggerated persona hit a nerve.

[Paul Harrison]

What a beautifully authored response. Its just a terrible shame that it bears no relation with what I posted, as I never suggested that songs of Innocence and Experience were for children. I suggested that as they were based around nursery rhymes it was likely that Blake read them as a reference point as an adult - the reading of children's literature is something that Lee in this video berates others for. So thank you for your slightly verbose and somewhat irrelevant response.