# Terry Pratchett doesn't like JK Rowling



## reveal (Aug 1, 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4732385.stm

Jealousy?  :\


----------



## demiurge1138 (Aug 1, 2005)

From the sound of things, he sounds more piqued by her disparaging the fantasy genre than jealous. Pratchett has praised J.K. Rowling's writing before; I assume he's bitter about her getting credit for revitalizing a genre she's apparently disdainful of.

Still, the article doesn't have much detail, so it's hard figure out what's really going on.

Demiurge out.


----------



## Krug (Aug 1, 2005)

Pratchett's reply can be read here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1715263,00.html


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 1, 2005)

He's angry about a little comment from Ms. Rowling???  :\ 

Shrugs.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 1, 2005)

Its not really a little comment when she gets so much attention. People will just believe her word to be gospel. I don't see any jealousy at all. And, really, I agree with him. Rowling's getting attention more because her books were the right thing at the right time, not because they're the best things ever written. Its not that she's a bad writer, but she shouldn't be seen as some wonderful person who singlehandedly saved the Fantasy genre.

...and I'm also slightly confused as to how she could possibly not think she was writing fantasy.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 1, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> People will just believe her word to be gospel.



Not me.




			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> ...and I'm also slightly confused as to how she could possibly not think she was writing fantasy.



Probably the same way Tolkien felt his _Lord of the Rings_ is not a typical fantasy fiction story but a sorely needed mythology for England.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Aug 1, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Not me.




I didn't say you.  In fact, I wouldn't really put anyone on these boards as that kind of person. However, those that don't have the knowledge of fantasy/etc that we do are much, much more likely to fall into that. I've seen it many, many times in far too many book stores.



> Probably the same way Tolkien felt his _Lord of the Rings_ is not a typical fantasy fiction story but a sorely needed mythology for England.




Except that Tolkien is a special case when it comes to anything. His fantasy WASN'T typical at all. Rowling's writings are much less inovative than anything Tolkien did...and I don't see anyway to compare the two. Heck, I can't see anyway to compare Tolkien to anyone else at all.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 1, 2005)

Or possibly mocking her for _pretending_ that she did not know she was writing fantasy novels... sort of like pretending that you you didn't know you were telling 'knock knock' jokes, despite the fact that you start off with 'knock knock'.

I don't quite buy her bit there either. 

The Auld Grump, who will take a new Pratchett over a J. K. Rowling any day of the week, and twice on Sundays... then read the new Rowling.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Aug 1, 2005)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> The Auld Grump, who will take a new Pratchett over a J. K. Rowling any day of the week, and twice on Sundays... then read the new Rowling.




Bah. I'd drop 'em both for a new Tolkien.

And then read all three anyways


----------



## Wayside (Aug 1, 2005)

I don't like J. K. Rowling either. She'd better watch herself. I've got the death sentence in 12 systems.

Seriously, she's kidding herself if she thinks she's subverting anything. Potter is the same old cliches distilled to a pallatable consistency. Nothing wrong with liking it, but it's far from revolutionary.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Aug 1, 2005)

He doesn't seem jelous, more like agitated at the fact that he and other authors have been doing inovative things and get no where near he level of recognition Potter does (not that Potter is inovative).  And I completely agree (maybe I'm biased I'm a big Pratchett fan).  If I were to walk up to someone on the street and list the names of ten big fantasy authors (other than Rowling) I doubt any of the names would be recognized most of the time.  But I bet most people would recognize Jk Rowling.

Rowling's books do get much more credit than they deserve, I enjoy them and I just started reading the latest one (thats right just started I had another book I wanted to read first) but I do not believe that they are even among my top twenty favorite books.

And I also cannot see what other genre Rowling's books would be in other than fantasy, seriously what else could they be in?  I'd like to know what this comment of hers was response to, maybe we're taking it out of context.


----------



## Rackhir (Aug 1, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> ... I've got the death sentence in 12 systems.




So what other systems other than D&D?


----------



## thatdarncat (Aug 1, 2005)

*throws a snowball at Rackhir*

So who's your 10 authors?


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 1, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> I don't like J. K. Rowling either. She'd better watch herself. I've got the death sentence in 12 systems.
> 
> Seriously, she's kidding herself if she thinks she's subverting anything. Potter is the same old cliches distilled to a pallatable consistency. Nothing wrong with liking it, but it's far from revolutionary.



Revolutionary, perhaps not but very entertaining - most certainly.

And I haven't read the whole serious yet but I'd hardly call what I've read so far cliched.


----------



## Ambrus (Aug 1, 2005)

I'm still utterly mistified by Potter's mass appeal. There have been plenty of good fantasy books that have been both accessible to children and adults. What made this one a HUGE worldwide phenomenon while others weren't? Why does an english boy who discovers that magic is real inspire so many people who usually have no interest in fantasy books?


----------



## Jdvn1 (Aug 1, 2005)

I had a professor who called Harry Potter the literary phenomenon of the century.

I may have had an A in her class, but I dropped right after that.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 1, 2005)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> I'm still utterly mistified by Potter's mass appeal. There have been plenty of good fantasy books that have been both accessible to children and adults. What made this one a HUGE worldwide phenomenon while others weren't? Why does an english boy who discovers that magic is real inspire so many people who usually have no interest in fantasy books?



Beats me. You'll have to ask the first of many _HP_ readers, "what is it about this very thick book (about 400 pages) that they wanted to read about a boy wizard going to magic school?"

But as long as children are turning away from that gawd-awful purple dinosaur and his nerve-grating  "I Love You" song, I'm okay with that. I wonder if this is like when the _Lord of the Rings_ and _Hobbit_ first hit the bookstores? Or when it gain a rise in popularity during the 60's and 70's? After all, Led Zeppelin wrote a few songs inspired by the stories, and John Lennon & Paul McCartney of the Beatles wanted to acquire film rights.


----------



## wingsandsword (Aug 1, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> I had a professor who called Harry Potter the literary phenomenon of the century.
> 
> I may have had an A in her class, but I dropped right after that.



Well, for the 21st century it might be so far.  It's a very young century 

If nothing else, JK Rowling has done more for childrens literacy than anybody in the last 50 years.  She's gotten kids anxiously reading books in an age of 500 channels, the internet, PS2 & XBox, and DVD's.  Even if her attitudes about her genre (and RPG's, if other accounts are accurate) are questionable, she's done a lot of good.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Aug 1, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Well, for the 21st century it might be so far.  It's a very young century



 That is all.


			
				wingandsword said:
			
		

> If nothing else, JK Rowling has done more for childrens literacy than anybody in the last 50 years.



I've heard this before, but haven't seen any evidence to back it up. Has our literacy rate gone up?


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 1, 2005)

They aren't bad books, but I've never understood what's so revolutionary about them. Basically they are a teen boarding school book (which is something of a genre for young adult books) combined with Sabrina, the teen aged witch (who is probably going on 50 or 60).  Combined with the Stephen King principle that a really really long book will apparently sell lots and lots.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Aug 1, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> I had a professor who called Harry Potter the literary phenomenon of the century.
> 
> I may have had an A in her class, but I dropped right after that.



They _are_ the literary phenomenon of the century.  She sold some 30+ million copies of book six in the first _24 hours_!  The series isn't the greatest literary _accomplishment_ of the century, but as a phenomenon--as an unexplainable, amazing event--it's pretty hard to top.

As far as what J.K. Rowling might see her books as, if not fantasy, I'd imagine she might well consider her works Fiction.  Consider Anne Rice's novels.  They have vampires, magic (or at least supernatural powers,) witches, etc.  But they're clearly not fantasy.  They're set against a modern backdrop, with modern trappings despite the fantastical elements of the story.

The same could be said of Harry Potter.  Although Rowling certainly invokes more fantastical elements than Rice does, her story does still present itself in the modern era, in the "real world" (altered fantastically, of course,) and with various versions of modern, real-world institutions, such as the British Parliament, the court system, and most prominently the british educational system.

Now, a case can certainly be made that _Harry Potter_ is a fantasy series.  But I don't think Rowling is necessarily crazy to believe her series fits in the Fiction section more than the Fantasy section.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Aug 1, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> They _are_ the literary phenomenon of the century.  She sold some 30+ million copies of book six in the first _24 hours_!  The series isn't the greatest literary _accomplishment_ of the century, but as a phenomenon--as an unexplainable, amazing event--it's pretty hard to top.



Heh. Good point, but I don't think that's what she meant.


			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> As far as what J.K. Rowling might see her books as, if not fantasy, I'd imagine she might well consider her works Fiction.



"Rowling says that she didn’t realise that the first Potter book was fantasy until after it was published." That implies to me that Rowling now realizes that the books are fantasy.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Aug 1, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> "Rowling says that she didn’t realise that the first Potter book was fantasy until after it was published." That implies to me that Rowling now realizes that the books are fantasy.



Sure.  I think they're fantasy too.  I'm just speculating on what she may have been thinking as she was writing the books.  That she'd write a nice little work of Fiction, a story set in a very much british school...only with a touch of magic.

And then she finished the book and, reflecting upon the finished work, realized that she'd quite gotten carried away with the fantasy elements in the work, and crossed the threshold into full-fledged fantasy.

My point was only that she isn't insane for having originally thought they weren't Fantasy.  I'm not arguing that they _aren't_ Fantasy.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Aug 1, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Sure.  I think they're fantasy too.  I'm just speculating on what she may have been thinking as she was writing the books.  That she'd write a nice little work of Fiction, a story set in a very much british school...only with a touch of magic.



Oh, sorry, the present-tense confused me.


----------



## Wayside (Aug 1, 2005)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Revolutionary, perhaps not but very entertaining - most certainly.
> 
> And I haven't read the whole serious yet but I'd hardly call what I've read so far cliched.



Well whether they're entertaining or not depends on who you ask. Ultimately there are a lot more people in the world who will never read the Potter books than people who will. Personally I couldn't get through the first book, but that's not the fault of the story, just the writer (the writing simply isn't up to snuff, but then very little published writing is). I like the story fine, and have enjoyed all of the movies so far. I fail to see what is particularly non-cliche about them, though. Occasionally I hear a song on the radio I like, too, but I don't confuse the fact that I like the song with its not being cliche. Usually the cliche (as in predictable, superficial) stuff is what attracts the biggest audiences. This isn't especially a criticism of Potter, since these elements are to some degree present in all writing, but if I'm giving an assesment of literary merit and not my own personal taste, I have to say that Potter just doesn't have it.


----------



## Tonguez (Aug 1, 2005)

Its all about mass media - I doubt that HP VII would have sold _some 30+ million copies of book six in the first 24 hours! _ without the month(s) of buildup in the media stirring things up.

Personally I know that without the media (and the movie) I would never have bothered to read the first book. I've only read Book 1 and really wasn't interested enough to read any of the others


----------



## ddvmor (Aug 1, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> I had a professor who called Harry Potter the literary phenomenon of the century.




The _marketing_ phenomenon of the century, perhaps!


----------



## LiKral (Aug 1, 2005)

When I was a kid in the eighties I loved books like Harry Potter, and I read a great deal of them. The 'magical school story' was a huge cliche even then. I have always been surprised that everyone seems to think that J K Rowling is so original. As a child I was jaded with that sort of thing by the age of ten.
I think the reason Rowling got so popular is actually because her books are so obvious, not because they are even slightly subversive. From the sound of it, she has not read much fantasy, so she is pretty much on a level with her audience who have not read much fantasy. This means that she does not make assumptions like authors who are already fantasy fans do. 
For instance, Pratchett's "Lords and Ladies" makes way more sense if you know a bit about how nasty fairies really are in the old stories. Surprisingly few 'muggles' actually know anything about fairy lore. When I was in the Brownies (an organisation like the Girl Scouts for the under-tens), our little groups were named after mythological fairies. I started out in the "Red Caps" group and moved to the "Kelpies". I was an obnoxious little geek even then, so I thought it was hugely funny that we were named after horrible little sprites who dyed their caps in the blood of their enemies, and evil water-horses that murdered travellers. But no-one else, not even the adult leaders knew what I meant. Rowling's house elves are the nice, cuddly things familiar from "The Elves and the Shoemaker." Everyone has heard that story. There is no cultural barrier.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 1, 2005)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> My point was only that she isn't insane for having originally thought they weren't Fantasy.




Dude, the main characters were and are _wizards_.  They use the good old classic magic wand!  The only way you can not call that fantasy is by not knowing what fantasy is.  So, perhaps she isn't insane, but then she's ignorant.

And, by the way, Rice is fantasy, too - her various books about undead fit nicely into the "contemporary" or "urban" fantasy sub-genre, which is quite large.


----------



## Henry (Aug 1, 2005)

My personal favorite quote from Pratchett in the article:

_"I'm not the world's greatest expert... But I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds, jumping chocolate frogs, owl mail, magic food, ghosts, broomsticks and spells would have given her a clue."_

In other words, what's her point in making her statement? Maybe she never THOUGHT to categorize her bed-time stories for her kid in any certain way until it was being published? That's different from "not knowing or realizing they're fantasy stories until after they're a hit."

And I have to agree with Ankh-Morporkh Guard, her "subversion" doesn't have a leg to stand on - she was in the right place at the right time with a good story, that used the existing fantasy tropes to good effect.


----------



## PaulKemp (Aug 1, 2005)

If I remember correctly, it was not Rowling but the Time interviewer who claimed that Rowling's fiction was subversive, revolutionary, or some other inappilcable adjective, and that before Rowling fantasy consisted of staid, conservative narratives, maidens dancing to greensleeves, or somesuch.     

Rowling did, however, say that she wasn't aware she was writing fantasy, which, as Pratchett points out, sounds a wee silly.


----------



## reveal (Aug 1, 2005)

Here is the Time article in question: http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1083935,00.html

And, yes, it is the author of the article that implies that, pre-Rowling, the genre was a certain way and she "broke the mold" for lack of a better term.



			
				Time Article said:
			
		

> It wasn't until after Sorcerer's Stone was published that it even occurred to her that she had written one. "That's the honest truth," she says. "You know, the unicorns were in there. There was the castle, God knows. But I really had not thought that that's what I was doing. And I think maybe the reason that it didn't occur to me is that I'm not a huge fan of fantasy."






			
				JK Rowling said:
			
		

> "I was trying to subvert the genre," Rowling explains bluntly. "Harry goes off into this magical world, and is it any better than the world he's left? Only because he meets nicer people. Magic does not make his world better significantly. The relationships make his world better. Magic in many ways complicates his life."




Huh? That's odd because in one breath she says she didn't know she was writing fantasy and, in another, she says she was trying to subvert the genre. If she was trying to subvert it, then how could she not have known? Eh.

Regardless, I think she has a point. I remember reading an article from a person who wrote scary books aimed at kids (I don't remember who it was but they were very popular). The author said he/she would give the stories to his/her kids to read while they were writing them. The kids were very helpful because they would tell the author "The kids wouldn't do this" or "This is right on the money." A lot of authors who write children as the main characters tend to dumb it down because they think kids can't handle it. Harry Potter, on the other hand, is written at a level that is appealing to both kids and adults because it doesn't talk down to either side. It's simply an engaging story about what happens when a kid learns he can cast spells. All kids want to do that; I know I did. It's also an engaging story, which most adults like.


----------



## delericho (Aug 1, 2005)

Ambrus said:
			
		

> I'm still utterly mistified by Potter's mass appeal.




How about this: the books are easy reads, and really quite enjoyable. She writes directly to the experience of her target audience, in that she writes about going to school, having good friends and hated enemies, teachers you hate and teachers you like, _and_ she plays into the wish-fulfilment fantasies of the same kids (who would _really like_ to be able to do magic, encounter unicorns and griffins, and so forth).

As for the continuing appeal of the books, she's managed the neat trick of gradually upping the maturity and complexity of her books as the series has gone on, so that they age with the target audience (this may make for some problems for parents in years to come, when their kids are ready for books 1&2, but quite some way from 4-7).

Additionally, she has two things going for her: the Harry Potter story seems to be a retelling of the same Hero's Journey that is found in Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and elsewhere. It's a story that has repeatedly proven to be extremely powerful.

Secondly, as regards the mass appeal of the books: once something reaches a certain level of popularity, it feeds into itself. If every kid in school has read, and is talking about, Harry Potter, you don't want to be the one kid who hasn't read them.

It didn't hurt that the books were attacked for the 'Satanic elements', of course.   

Edit: Pressed 'submit' far too soon.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 1, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Huh? That's odd because in one breath she says she didn't know she was writing fantasy and, in another, she says she was trying to subvert the genre. If she was trying to subvert it, then how could she not have known? Eh.




She may not have been referring to the fantasy genre. She may have been thinking along the lines of "kids with hard lives discover something special/magical and everything is spiffy from there on" genre. That would certainly seem to fit the rest of her quoted comments better than general fantasy. She also might have just been thinking of the genre of juvenile fiction rather than fantasy.

I'm willing to take her at her word when she says she wasn't thinking of it as fantasy as she was writing _Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone_. I can believe she wasn't consciously pigeon-holing it into a particular genre of fiction. Again, she was probably thinking of it more along the lines of juvenile fiction, which isn't as often sub-divided when you go to the bookstore or library as adult fiction is.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 1, 2005)

Eh, I think both sides of this "argument" are based on a sentence or two taken out of context.  There's a difference between "fantasy" and "the fantasy genre" and I imagine Rowlings is not very familiar with the latter and where it's been recently and I take her statement at face value when she claims not to have thought she was writing in the latter.  

My response to all this?  Much ado about nothing.


----------



## mafisto (Aug 1, 2005)

I'm with JD on this - it's much ado about nothing.

The Potter books are extremely well written, accessible and entertaining.  If they're not your thing that's fine, but her novels stand up to the hype.  I've read hundreds of fantasy novels - including the 'classics' - and Rowling's books certainly stand tall among them.  And, as I recall, the first book wasn't wildly popular because of a menacing Marketing Machine, but rather by word of mouth.  _People like the series because they like the series_ - it's not any more complicated than that.

As for Pratchett... as a fantasy-genre-subverting kind of guy, he's entitled to his opinion.  Perhaps Rowling was being stupid, or messing with the interviewer, or making a very valid opinion that had been truncated to a single sentence.  Whatever the cause, Pratchett has expressed no ill will for Rowling in the past, even when being asked bluntly.  A single statement of criticism does not indicate dislike.


----------



## F5 (Aug 1, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> ...She also might have just been thinking of the genre of juvenile fiction rather than fantasy...she was probably thinking of it more along the lines of juvenile fiction, which isn't as often sub-divided when you go to the bookstore or library as adult fiction is.




-DingDingDing!   I think that's it exactly.  She went into it with the mindset of "I'm writing a kid's book".  What _genre_ of kid's book it fit into didn't even get considered; children's literature WAS the genre.

Keep in mind that this was JK Rowling's first outing into the children's literature field, and was looking at it from a layperson's standpoint.  And the average man-on-the-street just thinks of children's literature as children's literature, whatever it happens to be "about".  

I think Harry Potter's biggest contribution to the field (and no, Rowling wasn't the first writer to do this by any means, but was the one that made the most people today notice) was to remind the mainstream audience that juvenile fiction doesn't have to talk down to its' readers.


----------



## PaulKemp (Aug 1, 2005)

It's no more or less  "much ado about nothing" than is virtually every other thread on ENWorld. 

I found the article interesting because it made me wonder if people who read little fantasy (which would include no one reading this post) thought about the genre in the same way as did the interviewer -- namely, that it's conservative, idealized, and romanticized.  If so, I regard that as unfortunate.  The genre has much more breadth than that.  Some fantasy *is* conservative and idealized, but lots of fantasy (IMO, the best of it) is not  -- Mieville, Martin, Cook, Stover, and Moorcock are a few names that come to mind.  I also found puzzling the interviewer's claim that the HP stories do not "buy into the basic cliches of the genre."  Of course they do, and there isn't anything wrong with that.  But to claim otherwise is silly.  

Now, I liked the single HP book I read, so this is neither a knock on Rowling or fans of the series.  I write fantasy novels, so I'm pleased as punch that a fantasy series is doing this well.  I was just disappointed by the interviewer's sweeping statement, which IMO evidenced a good deal of ignorance of the genre.


----------



## reveal (Aug 1, 2005)

Here's a question: Have the sales of fantasy novels increased since the HP books became popular? Are people who didn't read fantasy prior to HP suddenly grabbing books they had never heard of because they like the genre?


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Aug 1, 2005)

I heard Pratchett and Rowling got into a knife fight on Tower Bridge that had to be broken up by a group of Red Dwarf fans who happened to be in the area.

Actually, where does Rowling make her comments about fantasy?


----------



## reveal (Aug 1, 2005)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> Actually, where does Rowling make her comments about fantasy?




In the Time article I linked to in post #32 above.


----------



## PaulKemp (Aug 1, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Here's a question: Have the sales of fantasy novels increased since the HP books became popular? Are people who didn't read fantasy prior to HP suddenly grabbing books they had never heard of because they like the genre?




They have increased markedly if you include the Potter books in the "fantasy novels" category.    

Seriously, that's a good question and I doubt anyone knows the answer.  Still, it seems reasonable to think that at least *some* HP fans who otherwise would not bother with a fantasy title might leapfrog from HP into other fantasy titles.  It happened that way for me -- elementary school teacher recommended The Hobbit, I found I enjoyed tripping the light fantastic, and moved on to Moorcock, Leiber, et al.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 1, 2005)

PaulKemp said:
			
		

> It's no more or less  "much ado about nothing" than is virtually every other thread on ENWorld. [...] I was just disappointed by the interviewer's sweeping statement, which IMO evidenced a good deal of ignorance of the genre.



Well, that's why I think it's much ado about nothing.  Fantasy fans are feeling slighted when the comments, placed in context, probably are not any more insulting than Rowlings saying she doesn't much like the fantasy genre, or at least her impression of what it is (which seems to be an ignorant--or at least outdated--impression.)

So she doesn't like that type of traditional fantasy.  Whoop-de-doo.  Neither do a lot of people.  That's no skin off my back, even though I do like a great deal of it.  Although, frankly, I agree with Rowlings in one respect; I took her comments on "subverting the fantasy genre" as taking some elements of the fantasy genre and doing something non-traditional with them.  It was a bit of a too-grand claim to say she's doing something really unique there--I think authors have been "subverting" traditional fantasy conventions for decades, but a lot of my favorite stuff is just that type of "subverted fantasy" rather than cliched, traditional fantasy.

Again, all her comments indicate, in context, IMO, is that she's not very aware of where the fantasy genre is in general these days and she's not a big fan of fantasy cliches, so she's using fantasy elements in non-cliched ways.  The fact that she thinks that she's doing something really unique or unusual just betrays her ignorance of the genre, not any type of malicious agenda against it.


----------



## reveal (Aug 1, 2005)

PaulKemp said:
			
		

> Seriously, that's a ood question and doubt anyone knows the answer.  Still, it seems reasonable to think that at least *some* HP fans who otherwise would not bother with a fantasy title might leapfrog from HP into other fantasy titles.  It happened that way for me -- elementary school teacher recommended The Hobbit, I found I enjoyed tripping the light fantastic, and moved on to Moorcock, Leiber, et al.




I don't think it's that ood of a question. 

I've heard people say that JKR has pushed fantasy to the forefront of literature and has helped the cause of literacy amongst children. But is that really how it is? True, a lot of kids read her books but has that evolved into the same children picking up some non-HP fantasy books? If so, and I'm sure some have, how has that translated into sales of these books? I'm just curious.


----------



## PaulKemp (Aug 1, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> I don't think it's that ood of a question.
> 
> I've heard people say that JKR has pushed fantasy to the forefront of literature and has helped the cause of literacy amongst children. But is that really how it is? True, a lot of kids read her books but has that evolved into the same children picking up some non-HP fantasy books? If so, and I'm sure some have, how has that translated into sales of these books? I'm just curious.




All right, you!    

All my books were published after the HP phenomenon was well under way, so I don't have any personal before and after data.  Too, all my novels are set in the Forgotten Realms anyway, which is a bit of a sub-category of a sub-genre of a genre, and I doubt too many HP fans go directly from HP to FR.  No doubt some go from HP to D&D though, which might eventually lead them to the FR setting, which might eventually lead them to the novels.  

All those eventuallys make me sad.


----------



## Kapture (Aug 1, 2005)

The author of the Time article was fatuous and rather nasty. Come on, Lewis a Death Eater? It doesn't matter how churchy he is (and I'm fairly un-churchy myself), I think he took an interesting and proactive stance both in how he wrote about people, and belief, and in how he thought about the value of imagination in children. 

Pratchet is a fantasy author, hangs out at cons, knows the fans. More importantly, knows many of the authors. I think I heard him say at a reading that he didn't sell the movie rights to his books because he's rich enough as is. I don't think his objection to the Time article is about insecurity. It's about Rowling's insincerity, which is really glaring, and her interviewers total lack of a grasp on the genre which he is criticizing. I can only imagine that he finds it vaguely annoying that a lot of good writers are ignored by the press when they fawn over one writer who's a gauranteed attention getter.

Rowling is pretty conflicted about her work. I personally think that's because she's had a very atypical career for a fantasy writer, or a writer in general. Not many real people, or real writers, have her kind of rags to riches career: three books and bang, straight to the top of the charts. As she's quoted at the end of the time article (and I'm paraphrasing): I could write something horrible after Harry, and people would still buy it.  It doesn't surprise me that she fusses about the genre lable. Like it or not, genre is a qualitative judgement for a lot of people. If she's not sure her work is her best, I suspect she's even more leery of other people dismissing it with the "wrong" lable.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Aug 1, 2005)

Rowling is a blowhard and I think Pratchett is right on the money with his comments about her. I'll take Stephen King's The Dark Tower Trilogy over her Harry Potter books any day of the week and twice on Sunday, and I won't even bother with the next Harry Potter movie, let alone taint my brain by reading her tripe.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Aug 1, 2005)

(G.C. points wand at WhisperFoot)

*Stupefy*


----------



## sniffles (Aug 1, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> I had a professor who called Harry Potter the literary phenomenon of the century.
> 
> I may have had an A in her class, but I dropped right after that.




Well, your professor had a point. Not that it's the phenomenon of the century (which century? and I hate that kind of claim anyway), but that it is a phenomenon. Which, despite the usual usage, does not necessarily mean a good thing.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 1, 2005)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> (G.C. points wand at WhisperFoot)
> 
> *Stupefy*



Like THAT would make it any different.   

I'm sorry but I'm not taking sides on this one. Terry Pratchett can say what he wants to say about JK Rowling and Ms. Rowling can say what she wants to say about not knowing much about the fantasy genre as much as we enthusiastic fantasy fans know aside from fairy tales (even I personally do not consider them fantasy despite having witches & dwarves in the _Snow White_ story).

If you guys want to duke it out, go ahead. But I get to punch the winners. Hehehe.


----------



## reveal (Aug 1, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Like THAT would make it any different.
> 
> I'm sorry but I'm not taking sides on this one. Terry Pratchett can say what he wants to say about JK Rowling and Ms. Rowling can say what she wants to say about not knowing much about the fantasy genre as much as we enthusiastic fantasy fans know aside from fairy tales (even I personally do not consider them fantasy despite having witches & dwarves in the _Snow White_ story).
> 
> If you guys want to duke it out, go ahead. But I get to punch the winners. Hehehe.




SLUG BUG ROWLING!


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 1, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Although, frankly, I agree with Rowlings in one respect; I took her comments on "subverting the fantasy genre" as taking some elements of the fantasy genre and doing something non-traditional with them.  It was a bit of a too-grand claim to say she's doing something really unique there--I think authors have been "subverting" traditional fantasy conventions for decades, but a lot of my favorite stuff is just that type of "subverted fantasy" rather than cliched, traditional fantasy.





Really she's not doing anything particularly innovative: Susan Cooper's _Dark Is Rising_ series hit the "kids with unusual hidden magical powers save the world" storyline a long time ago (even complete with a Dumbledore precursor and a chosen one). The only really original thing Rowling has done is marry the "English boarding school mystery" book with some highly cliched fantasy elements.

Not that I don't enjoy her stuff, I've read all of them, and enjoyed them all, but calling them original in any significant way is just silly. Saying that they "subverted" the genre is ludicrous.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 1, 2005)

Yep, that's exactly what I was trying to say too.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Aug 1, 2005)

This thread got me thinking about fantasy books I've read lately and beyond the Potter books, some Moorecock, and some Glen Cook I haven't really read anything.  Too many random novel selections where I get a hundred pages into it and realize that since I've read LotR I can pretty much skip the rest of this?  I think that was why I love the Black Company books so much.  They were almost the anti-Tolkien.


----------



## grimslade (Aug 1, 2005)

*Pratchett vs Rowling Two authors enter: one may leave*

The is a non argument. Rowling is not a fantasy luminary. She is an author who wrote some stories she thought would be interesting to kids. The stories are amazingly popular and Rowling is not much different than she was when she was writing in a coffee shop. She is much richer  but I don't think she has read more fantasy in the intervening years. She seems a bit out of her depth with interviews. 
  The problem isn't JK Rowling. It's the asinine reporters who only read the sleeves of HP books for their sense of Fantasy. Rowling is a straw man, er, woman. THe press at large thinks Fantasy is a bunch of cliched, fairy stories. Heaven forbid a novel is critically praised and be a fantasy. They immediately reclassify it as literature exploring fantastic elements. It happened most recently with Dr. Strange and Mr. Norrell.
All this venom for JK Rowling should be pointed at the mainstream press and book reviewers.  A little research and a little broader genre reading would go a long way.

Grim


----------



## Zappo (Aug 2, 2005)

*shrug*

I have no "venom" at Rowling, and I'm quite positive that Pratchett hasn't either. However, she did say a few things about the fantasy genre that aren't true - namely, that it was stuck into "an idealised, romanticised, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves". This would have deserved a counter-argument by itself, since it is an opinion with a rather weak basis in reality but which carries a lot of weight because of who said it.

The fact that Rowling presents herself as the savior of fantasy, while at the same time trying to distance herself from the genre, is even more irritating. As a whole, her comments simply had to be addressed.


----------



## reveal (Aug 2, 2005)

Zappo said:
			
		

> I have no "venom" at Rowling, and I'm quite positive that Pratchett hasn't either. However, she did say a few things about the fantasy genre that aren't true - namely, that it was stuck into "an idealised, romanticised, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves". This would have deserved a counter-argument by itself, since it is an opinion with a rather weak basis in reality but which carries a lot of weight because of who said it.
> 
> The fact that Rowling presents herself as the savior of fantasy, while at the same time trying to distance herself from the genre, is even more irritating. As a whole, her comments simply had to be addressed.




But she didn't actually say that. The author of article was the one who said "_t looks backward to an idealized, romanticized, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves."

In fact, the only thing that Rowling is quoted as saying about the fantasy genre was the "subvert the genre" comment. Everything else about the fantasy genre was written by the author and not as a quote from Rowling._


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 2, 2005)

Artists. 

I'll read/appreciate their art.  But I've learned to let the art speak for itself -- and pay precious little attention to what the artist says about it.  I could care less why/how/what for Tolkein/Pratchett/Rowling writes or means -- its what the writing means _to me_ that matters.  The artist is to close to his/her work to have any sense of perspective on it.


----------



## ssampier (Aug 2, 2005)

Seems somewhat silly to me... isn't the point of literature starting to write one story and end up writing another?


----------



## Hammerhead (Aug 2, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> But she didn't actually say that. The author of article was the one who said "_t looks backward to an idealized, romanticized, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves."
> 
> In fact, the only thing that Rowling is quoted as saying about the fantasy genre was the "subvert the genre" comment. Everything else about the fantasy genre was written by the author and not as a quote from Rowling._



_

I read a lot of books, particularily scifi or fantasy, and I am unable to think of a single fantasy book I've read that was published less than thirty years ago that is remotely described as an idealized, romanticized, pseudofeudal world. King, Martin, Keyes, Gaiman, Brust, Cook, all to name a few. The author of that Time article could write everything he knows about the fantasy genre on the back of a postage stamp using a crayon.

However, it's clear that Pratchett and Rowling need to settle their differences in a katana death duel atop Big Ben, after laying waste to the surrounding neighborhoods in their thirst for the other's blood._


----------



## MonsterMash (Aug 2, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Beats me. You'll have to ask the first of many _HP_ readers, "what is it about this very thick book (about 400 pages) that they wanted to read about a boy wizard going to magic school?"
> 
> But as long as children are turning away from that gawd-awful purple dinosaur and his nerve-grating  "I Love You" song, I'm okay with that. I wonder if this is like when the _Lord of the Rings_ and _Hobbit_ first hit the bookstores? Or when it gain a rise in popularity during the 60's and 70's? After all, Led Zeppelin wrote a few songs inspired by the stories, and John Lennon & Paul McCartney of the Beatles wanted to acquire film rights.



Bad news - Barney is turning up as Lord Voldemorts real identity in the last book


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 2, 2005)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> However, it's clear that Pratchett and Rowling need to settle their differences in a katana death duel atop Big Ben, after laying waste to the surrounding neighborhoods in their thirst for the other's blood.



Y'know, I totally think I could get behind that idea.  Bravo!


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Aug 2, 2005)

MonsterMash said:
			
		

> Bad news - Barney is turning up as Lord Voldemorts real identity in the last book




(Grumpy Celt screams like a girly-man in stark terror)

[/joking]

I would like to say something in the defense of J.K.R., or at least to ask a non-rhetorical question.

How do you define innovative?

A number of people here have commented that she is not an innovative write. Well, please 

(A) Define what it means to be an innovative writer,  

(B) Explain why she does not qualify

(C) Name some writers who are innovative writers,

No, I do not find her work to be ground breaking. However, I do believe it is well written – at least well written enough to finish reading it.

I forget specifics, but there was a science fiction writer who once said that 90 percent of science fiction was bad, but then 90 percent of everything (including fantasy fiction) is bad. I am inclined to agree.

It is not so much that fantasy fiction is full of “knights and ladies morris-dancing to Greensleeves,*” however much of it is not worth the time to read it or the money to buy the copy of the book. Either the plot is poorly thought out, the characters are poorly developed, the setting is poorly illustrated (in terms of descriptive text, not drawings) or there problems with grammar and spelling, or a combination of one or more of these issues.

(And be honest – how many fantasy fiction stories are set is some pseudo-Middle Ages setting, with some order of knights or warriors, some order of wizards or magic users and pretty people imperiled by dark powers?)

These same problems all appear in traditional** drama, suspense and mystery writing, however the nature of speculative fiction (science fiction and fantasy fiction) tends to make these problems stand out more than it does in a simply story of the bank foreclosing on a farm.

In any event, it is debatable how innovative any writer can truly be considering humanity has been telling stories since we wandered out of the jungle 100,000 odd years ago. We probably stopped having entirely new stories, or anything truly innovative, about the time we domesticated dogs.

However, stories can be well executed in terms of plot, characters, setting, grammar, spelling and pure style. J.K.R. _has_ has managed to accomplish that and that is part of the reason for her commercial success.

Innovative? No, but few are and the weakest of the series (Chamber of Secrets) is still a better read than piles of other books.

* This image strikes me as so funny I hope some comic or humorist does a parody of it.

** I tend to read more non-fiction than fiction these days, and non-fiction has the same problems.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 2, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Jealousy? :\




I doubt it, *I* don't like JK Rowling. I'm not a big huge famous writer but I can certainly see his point of view.


----------



## Mystery Man (Aug 2, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> But as long as children are turning away from that gawd-awful purple dinosaur and his nerve-grating "I Love You" song, I'm okay with that. I wonder if this is like when the _Lord of the Rings_ and _Hobbit_ first hit the bookstores? Or when it gain a rise in popularity during the 60's and 70's? After all, Led Zeppelin wrote a few songs inspired by the stories, and John Lennon & Paul McCartney of the Beatles wanted to acquire film rights.




The fact that adults find him abhorrent should come as no surprise. I had to leave the room or wear headphones with the music blasting to block him out until my children outgrew him. 

Barney is targeted at 3 year olds who absolutely love him.

I can't stand Harry Potter.  But my son, who is *ten* loves him. This also comes as no surprise and is perfectly natural since these books are (or at least were) targeted for children. 

That is why this is an abomination...Academics hold Harry Potter talks



> Light-hearted events include a mock trial of potions master Severus Snape and a Hogwarts-style banquet.



Ok, I can accept that until...


> But those aged under 18 are not able to take part, despite the fact JK Rowling's books are aimed at children.



 **shudder**


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Aug 2, 2005)

Rowling does get children to read, that is true, she gets kids to read her books over and over again.  Most kids whom I've spoken to who are potter fans have read each of the books multiple times (+3).  She doesn't help get kids interested in reading, she helps get kids interested in reading her stuff.  It'd be interesting to do a study to find out how many kids who've read a potter book actually read other things (non-school required things that is).
Maybe I'm just misinformed.

IMO Rowling isn't really helping the fantasty genre or reading in general much.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Aug 2, 2005)

Well, I enjoy reading the Harry Potter books: I find them highly readable and relatively engorssing.  I enjoy the continuity and references to previous books.  I've been reading since "Sorcerer's Stone" first came out, and I'm somewhat amused by the expolsion that happened around the time "Goblet of Fire" came out.

That said, I give JKR credit for getting kids to read.  That, in itself, is a major accomplishment.  And maybe, just maybe, someone who reads Harry Potter might be turned on to other fantasy authors/series, such as "Lord of teh Rings", "Dragonlance Chronicles", even "Wheel of Time"!!  (OK, maybe not that last one.)    

However, do I think think she's the next coming? Or doing anything to "wickedly subvert" the genre?

No.  Offhand I can think of _at least_ a half-dozen authors (both fantasy and non!!!) whose works I like better, and are more original!

Having read/seen quite a number of interviews with JKR, I'll agree that she does seem a little "in over her head" oftentimes.



> Over, it's clear that Pratchett and Rowling need to settle their differences in a katana death duel atop Big Ben, after laying waste to the surrounding neighborhoods in their thirst for the other's blood.




Fight, Fight, Fight!


----------



## Dinkeldog (Aug 2, 2005)

Given that Star Wars is a western, rather than Science Fiction, what genre do you think Harry Potter really is?


----------



## MaxKaladin (Aug 2, 2005)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> (And be honest – how many fantasy fiction stories are set is some pseudo-Middle Ages setting, with some order of knights or warriors, some order of wizards or magic users and pretty people imperiled by dark powers?)



Something that hasn't been addressed is why this is a bad thing.  If people like these sorts of books, why shouldn't people write them?  Why is there a need to change things?


----------



## takyris (Aug 2, 2005)

A large part of the disagreement stems from exactly what Dinkeldog just alluded to -- the fact that some people classify a movie/book/show based on its *content*, while others classify it based on its *theme* or its *conventions* -- so Star Wars, which has lasers and robots and spaceships along with a narrative flow involving a young man finding out that he is a hero of destiny, facing off against a dark lord and losing a mentor as he rescues a princess and becomes a knight, is a science fiction movie to some people, and a fantasy to other people, and a western to Dinkeldog, who might have been talking about Star Trek instead of Star Wars, but might very well have been talking about Star Wars for all I know... 

If you classify fantasy with "has magic in it", then both Rowling and Pratchett are clearly writing fantasy. If you classify fantasy as being a mix of Arthurian myths, European fairy tales, Scandinavian mythology, with a generous daub of the contrasting styles of Tolkien and Howard in there to muddy the waters a bit, resulting in a faux-European setting and a farmboy who becomes both a knight and a wizard and is clever but also pure-hearted, while monsters from several different and often conflicting mythologies wander the landscape, staring at each other in confusion and trying to figure out which kind of elf they're supposed to be... then Rowling is writing something that is clearly different -- while the "young chosen hero comes into his own" plot is still there pretty strongly, the mythological creatures are used much more sparingly than in normal fantasy, and her plot follows a school year rather than wandering all over the landscape to show a sense of wonder. So Rowling could argue that she isn't really writing normal fantasy... and, of course, neither is Pratchett.


----------



## wingsandsword (Aug 2, 2005)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> (And be honest – how many fantasy fiction stories are set is some pseudo-Middle Ages setting, with some order of knights or warriors, some order of wizards or magic users and pretty people imperiled by dark powers?)



How many science fiction stories are set in the far future, with interstellar FTL spacecraft and huge space fleets, a return to some form of nobility and royalty, with rugged colonists and settlers on distant worlds?

How many crime/mystery stories are set in a big city, with a highly experienced protagonist who has seen it all and is an expert in his field, and typically has a younger and less experienced ally who serves as a literary device to explain everything or provide another generation's perspective?

How many love stories are about a young couple who meets and falls in love at first sight even though they are from completely different backgrounds, even if they don't realize it immediately, but they come to quickly enough, and have to overcome disapproving parents or friends?

Every genre has it's standard forms, the things the audience generally expects.  The pseudo-medieval concept is pretty standard to fantasy, just like space opera is standard to sci-fi.  You can have other types, but it's a well acknowledged main form.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Aug 2, 2005)

MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> Something that hasn't been addressed is why this is a bad thing.  If people like these sorts of books, why shouldn't people write them?  Why is there a need to change things?




I did not assert it was bad, in either a technical nor moral sense. However, the Harry Potter books are set in contemporary times and, in so far as I can tell, the only individual who goes around in armor is one of the ghosts. On that level at least the books are at least breaking with conventions, even if they are not “innovative.”

And obviously enough people like this particular break with convention enough to make the book commercially viable.

That said, this conversation has obviously well passed the point when anyone is remotely listening to each other and everyone is well into the territory of preaching at each other. There is no defensible point to a discussion where everyone only ever talks past each other, no one listens to anyone else and nothing is accomplished and people save vendetta stamps for future use.


----------



## takyris (Aug 2, 2005)

> However, the Harry Potter books are set in contemporary times and, in so far as I can tell, the only individual who goes around in armor is one of the ghosts. On that level at least the books are at least breaking with conventions, even if they are not “innovative.”




Like Emma Bull, Laura Ann Gillman, Charlaine Harris, Tanya Huff... okay, I looked through Amazon for authors I might be forgetting, and there's a "Contemporary" subsetting for fantasy, along with "General", "Alternate History", "Anthologies", "Arthurian", "Epic", "Historical", and "History and Criticism". If it has a subgenre right there on Amazon, it can't be considered innovative in that respect.

So... no. No, she really isn't doing something new, at least in terms of her conventions. What she *is* doing is writing something good enough and engaging enough to pull in people who weren't terribly informed about the contemporary subgenre beforehand. And that's no mean feat, and I thank her for it, because I'd like to see Charlaine Harris get more space on the fantasy shelf than three inches squeezed out between the end of  Goodkind's six-shelf deluge, the brief half-shelf of Hobb, and then the juggernaut of Jordan.

(And like I said: I loved Rowling. Lots of fun to read. I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a hater. I think she deserves all the hype she gets. That said, if she got less hype, I wouldn't say she was getting too little. Her stuff is good and engaging and came along at the right time to fit a good niche, and that's a combination of skill and fortune.)

EDIT: Neil Gaiman, Roger Zelazny, Charles de Lint, Jane Lindskold...


----------



## bodhi (Aug 2, 2005)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> I forget specifics, but there was a science fiction writer who once said that 90 percent of science fiction was bad, but then 90 percent of everything (including fantasy fiction) is bad.




Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.



			
				The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> It is not so much that fantasy fiction is full of “knights and ladies morris-dancing to Greensleeves,*” (snip)
> * This image strikes me as so funny I hope some comic or humorist does a parody of it.




How about the dancing in "A Knight's Tale"?


----------



## jasper (Aug 2, 2005)

I have six of harry potter books and trying to remember any of Terry books I read. Hmmm.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 2, 2005)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> That said, this conversation has obviously well passed the point when anyone is remotely listening to each other and everyone is well into the territory of preaching at each other. There is no defensible point to a discussion where everyone only ever talks past each other, no one listens to anyone else and nothing is accomplished and people save vendetta stamps for future use.



It seems a bit more like people are arguing with each other, yet oddly they're all saying the same thing.


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Aug 2, 2005)

jasper said:
			
		

> I have six of harry potter books and trying to remember any of Terry books I read. Hmmm.



 Do you have a point?


----------



## takyris (Aug 2, 2005)

In retrospect, I should just ditch my thoughtful and considered responses and just shout out that things suck, since that's what people respond to.

Terry Pratchett? More like Terry Hatchet! Because he does a hatchet job on his fiction, because he sucks! Suuuuuuuuuuuucks! Or more like Teri Hatcher, because he's so *desperate*, because he sucks! Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks!

JK Rowling's fiction is ass! Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire? More like Harry Ass and the Ass of Ass! Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks!

IMNSHO, the only people who don't suck at fantasy are Terry Goodkind, Robert Jordan, and whoever wrote the first season of _Dark Angel_, which wasn't fantasy, but if it was, he totally wouldn't suck at it. Everybody else? Suuuuu....ucks!

Seriously, I don't know about the Celt, but I'm having an interesting discussion of how fantasy is categorized and what's happening the various subgenres these days. Apparently, though, I'm having that conversation with myself.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 2, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucks!



Tak, you're never going to have any street cred as an Internet ranter if you can't learn to spell suXX0rz!!!!!!!11


----------



## Staffan (Aug 2, 2005)

jasper said:
			
		

> I have six of harry potter books and trying to remember any of Terry books I read. Hmmm.



If you haven't read any Terry Pratchett, you're *so* missing out. I'd recommend starting with "Guards! Guards!" or "Wyrd Sisters".


----------



## mojo1701 (Aug 2, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Tak, you're never going to have any street cred as an Internet ranter if you can't learn to spell suXX0rz!!!!!!!11




As if street cred as an Internet ranter really comes together.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Aug 2, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> In retrospect, I should just ditch my thoughtful and considered responses...




Well I know SOMEONE who apparently took a few levels in the Mean Old Cranky-Pants prestige class.


----------



## takyris (Aug 2, 2005)

Ah, the irony of noting that the only posts to get responses are, in fact, the parodies of flame-rants.

I'll keep it brief as I repeat, to see if anyone agrees, disagrees, what-have-you:

It depends.

You can define a genre by its content, or by its plot structure and theme, among any other number of ways to define a genre. If you define a genre by its content, then Rowling is obviously writing fantasy, as Pratchett noted ironically. If you define a genre by its plot structure and theme, she's still writing fantasy, in that it's a coming-of-age story, but enough of the plot elements are different in the pacing and structure that it's definitely not normal fantasy. So yeah, she's writing something different from normal epic fantasy... just like Pratchett and a whole lot of other people.

She's not writing Jordan/Martin/Goodkind, and that's laudable whether you like Jordan/Martin/Goodkind or not, because the fantasy world needs variation, but it's hardly unique. What's unique is the combination of skill (writing something that engaged a lot of people) and luck (hitting the market at a time when the market was ready for something just like it), and for that, all I can say is bully for her -- you can't control the luck factor, so all you can do is write the best novel you can and hope for the best.

(Sidenote: You can try to game the system -- "The market is ready for XXXXX", or "XXXXX is selling really well right now", but it doesn't usually work in fiction sales from the writer's viewpoint. By the time you write the novel to capitalize on the market trend, the trend has passed. It can work from the publisher's side, and I see a lot of YA magic novels doing reasonably well because they got a spillover marketing push and little tables at Borders that say "Already finished with Hogwarts? Try these to tide you over", but it doesn't work very well from the side of the guy who's going to write the thing. You just have to write what's in your heart as well as you can.)


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 2, 2005)

takyris said:
			
		

> Ah, the irony of noting that the only posts to get responses are, in fact, the parodies of flame-rants.
> 
> I'll keep it brief as I repeat, to see if anyone agrees, disagrees, what-have-you:



Of course I agree!  I thought that's more or less what I had said in my first post in the thread, i.e. it's her (and the interviewer's) unfamiliarity with the genre that leads them to believe that they're doing something way out there, when in fact the genre is more multifaceted than they give it credit for.  Similarly, it's ludicrous to say that what she writes isn't fantasy except by a very strict (and out of date, IMO) definition of the genre that goes against the grain of common sense. However, since they've both already demonstrated an unfamiliarity with the genre, that's not really that surprising.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 2, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> I don't think it's that ood of a question.
> 
> I've heard people say that JKR has pushed fantasy to the forefront of literature and has helped the cause of literacy amongst children. But is that really how it is? True, a lot of kids read her books but has that evolved into the same children picking up some non-HP fantasy books? If so, and I'm sure some have, how has that translated into sales of these books? I'm just curious.




From The Washington Times: "_ The books teach the values of friendship, loyalty and self-reliance, along with many other positive character-building traits. The sale of nearly 7 million books in 24 hours means they have encouraged children to read. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, in its 2004 report card issued this month, showed a 7-point increase in the average reading scale among 9-year-olds. This is a significant jump -- the largest on record since 1971. The Harry Potter book are not solely responsible for the gain, of course. But they surely had a part. If children can find a love for books early on, then there is hope that the habits will continue, and grow. 
 The United States has not conducted a comprehensive survey of the effect of the books on the youth, but the British-based Federation of Children's Book Groups recently released statistics illustrating that 59 percent of British kids think the books have improved their reading skills. Forty-eight percent say the books are why they read more._"

This article in the St. Peterburg Times references that the last book (article is from 2003) had a 'halo effect' on book sales in the kids section, for books like the Thief Lord, the Lemony Snicket series, the Princess Diaries and others. 

In short, there is some evidence to back up the claim that the Harry Potter series has increased reading among young readers.

Now, take a notice of the books that benefit from the 'halo effect'. Not Glen Cook. Not Terry Pratchet. Not Steve Erickson. Not even a book like Eragon, written by someone not that much older than Harry Potter or his readership. No...the benefit went to CHILDREN'S FICTION. That's the genre that Rowling thinks she writing in, I think...a fantasy in the same vein as the Phantom Toolbooth, not Lord of the Rings. She may have benefited the fantasy genre LATER, as her readers matured...but not now.  Are A Series of Unfortunate Events or the Spiderwick books Fantasy?  I wouldn't say so and I suspect Rowling lumps herself in with them, not with Tolkien, Lewis or Eddings.

As for fantasy being stilted...well, yeah, some of it is, from the perspective she's discussing. If you only look at the trappings, then Martin's Song of Ice and Fire is classic fantasy in the 'greensleves' mode; sure the tone is massively different, but she's right in the respect that it's about knights and kings and dragons and quests. Completely wrong in other ways and in execution, but for a quip, I can let that slide. The Assassin series certainly fits that mold, too. LotR is certainly foremost in her mind. The fact of the matter is, to a non-fantasy reader, she's probably expressing the opinion held by a large number of people. 

Is it puff-talk?  Sure.  I just think it's a tempest in a teapot, is all.


----------



## GuardianLurker (Aug 2, 2005)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> (Grumpy Celt screams like a girly-man in stark terror)
> 
> [/joking]
> 
> ...



(A) Someone who adds a new element to the standard lexicon of a genre; someone who effectively creates a new sub-genre by applying and combining existing genre elements in new and consistent ways. 

(B) She has done neither.

(C) 
J.R.R. Tolkien, inventor of the modern fantasy genre
Robert E. Howard, swords-and-sorcery
Robert E. Heinlein, scientific/speculative fiction
Piers Anthony, fantasy satire

A large part of the problem is that Innovative and Good are independent qualities. Pratchett is (IMO) a better writer than Anthony, but Anthony get the nod for being more innovative, since he broke the ground that Pratchett used. It's also true of course, that Innovators come early not late, since there are more untried ideas in the beginning of something.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 2, 2005)

GuardianLurker said:
			
		

> (A) Someone who adds a new element to the standard lexicon of a genre; someone who effectively creates a new sub-genre by applying and combining existing genre elements in new and consistent ways.
> 
> (B) She has done neither.



Oh, I dunno.  British boarding school fiction combined with fantasy is a new way of presenting either genre.

I guess my big question is; why does she have to be innovative?  If she is or isn't either one, that's not really a value judgement of her writing, IMO.


----------



## takyris (Aug 2, 2005)

Very true. I prefer Pratchett to Anthony, and I prefer Rowling to, I don't know, Eddings? (Comparable plot structures, with the world of Eddings shrunk down to Hogwarts and with fewer deadly fights and more Quidditch?)


----------



## jasper (Aug 2, 2005)

Aust Diamondew said:
			
		

> Do you have a point?



my piont is I generally keep all my books.  And I have no Terry on my shelves. So I can't remember whether I read his stuff or read his stuff and said not my cup of tead.


----------



## Wayside (Aug 3, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I guess my big question is; why does she have to be innovative?  If she is or isn't either one, that's not really a value judgement of her writing, IMO.



Because her prose is horrid! Really she doesn't need to be innovative or even a decent craftswoman of the language, as long as people enjoy the stories, and they do. Somebody's got to point out the democratic fallacy though, since chances are we'll end up with yet another Amazon.com poll ridiculously electing some very mediocre writing to "greatest book of the millennium" or whatever it was.


----------



## Digital M@ (Aug 3, 2005)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> I had a professor who called Harry Potter the literary phenomenon of the century.
> 
> I may have had an A in her class, but I dropped right after that.





Your professor was right.  No where did he/she/it (your professor, say it was the best writing of the century, but it is a huge phenomenon and could have an immense and healthy impact on literature as a whole.


I find the books very entertaining, but I enjoy lots of childrens literature.  The story is very straight forward, is filed with logical gaps (quidditch anyone?) and uses many of the same literary devices over and over, but they are still a fun read, which in the end is what they were supossed to be.  Who knows why the populus is so gaga over them.  Probably because of good marketing once the initial popularity was discoverd, but who knows.


----------



## PatrickLawinger (Aug 3, 2005)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> Its all about mass media - I doubt that HP VII would have sold _some 30+ million copies of book six in the first 24 hours! _ without the month(s) of buildup in the media stirring things up.
> 
> Personally I know that without the media (and the movie) I would never have bothered to read the first book. I've only read Book 1 and really wasn't interested enough to read any of the others




First of all, it sold somewhere around 8.5-9 million copies in the first 24 hours between the UK, Canada, and the US. This is still an incredible block-buster, but it is certainly not 30 million copies in 24 hours.

Second, the books are decent. I would not call them literature, but they are a relatively fun read, particularly when it is something you can share and discuss with your children. If I didn't have kids absolutely thrilled by Harry Potter I don't know if I'd be so familiar with the entire series.

Third, the HP books have lead to an increased interest in books by kids in an age of computer games and electronic overload (not increased "literacy"). People have actually spent time and money studying this. I don't think the credit lies entirely with HP, but I do know children whose interest in books does track directly back to the first couple of HP books. 

Finally, I don't think JK Rowling is a great writer, nor that it is all that original an idea or story, but my shelves are full of books that would fall into the same category. The idea that she is "subverting" fantasy or that she didn't recognize HP as "fantasy" is well, silly. I personally think she needs much better editing, but would you want to be the editor that pisses off the author that can sell 9 million books in the opening 24 hours?

Anyway, more fuel for the fire ...

Patrick


----------



## Krug (Aug 3, 2005)

Gaiman gives some perspective into the whole deal.



> Er, dunno. I read the Time article and thought it was astonishingly badly written and worse researched. The bit that puzzled me the most was that I remembered interviews with Ms. Rowling where she loved the Narnia books (it was a few seconds of Googling to find a 1998 Telegraph interview where she says, "Even now, if I was in a room with one of the Narnia books I would pick it up like a shot and re-read it.") as opposed to the Time version of 'Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn't even read all of C.S. Lewis' Narnia novels, which her books get compared to a lot. There's something about Lewis' sentimentality about children that gets on her nerves.'
> 
> The version of the history of "fantasy" that the article's writer paints is utter bollocks, and I assume Terry decided that needed to be said. I didn't see it as a swipe at Ms Rowling, though, but as a swipe against lazy journalists -- but "Pratchett Anger At Shoddy Journalism" is a much less exciting headline than the one the BBC came up with.
> 
> ...


----------



## jasper (Aug 3, 2005)

potter is literature. KIDS literature. Mouse and the motorcycle, Willie Wonka, Oz,  Alice in Wonderland, Winnie the Pooh, 
Beatrix potter, Little House on Prairie, Wind in the willows, Ms frisby and the Rats of Nimh, Cricket in times square, Charlotte’s Web.
Compare some of the titles I mentioned and see how Potter stacks up. He is right in there with the added bonus of  modern language and background details. Ex play stations. Of course twenty years from now your grand kids will be reading the book and ask what is a playstation. So keep your console.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 3, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I guess my big question is; why does she have to be innovative?  If she is or isn't either one, that's not really a value judgement of her writing, IMO.




Because in the article, she apparently claims she was trying to "subvert the genre" and the writer of the article claims her take on fantasy is innovative. Whether or not she actually is innovative has no real bearing on the enjoyability of her books, but when someone makes a claim concerning something, then people will scrutinize that claim. In this case, the author of the article (and it seems Rowling) are making a claim concerning the series that is clearly unsupportable, and people are reacting to that.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Aug 3, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Oh, I dunno. British boarding school fiction combined with fantasy is a new way of presenting either genre.
> 
> I guess my big question is; why does she have to be innovative? If she is or isn't either one, that's not really a value judgement of her writing, IMO.



Actually, I don't think Harry Potter is innovative at all in this regard. I read a novel about a kid going to a boarding school to learn wizardry long before I ever heard about Harry Potter.

Actually, there is a really old folk tale called the "School of Salamanca" which is about a boarding school of wizards (though in that tale it is a bit more sinister).


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 3, 2005)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't think Harry Potter is innovative at all in this regard. I read a novel about a kid going to a boarding school to learn wizardry long before I ever heard about Harry Potter.
> 
> Actually, there is a really old folk tale called the "School of Salamanca" which is about a boarding school of wizards (though in that tale it is a bit more sinister).




I'm guessing you don't mean THIS School of Salamanca? 

I've only found one reference to such a tale, in the list of some Italian Folktales...and I tend to wonder if it isn't a mockery of them.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 3, 2005)

It doesn't count if it's never been heard of.  

Besides, I'm not trying to claim that boarding school fantasy is something she literally _invented_, just that it's clearly not common, well-known or cliche, thus it's arguably a bit innovative.

And as I have said several times in this thread, it certainly seems innovative if you don't really know very much about the fantasy genre _except_ the most stodgy of cliche-ridden fantasies, and based on the interview, both Rowlings and the interviewer fall into that category.

I don't know Rowlings needs to be "refuted"--to someone like (probably most of) us who are more familiar with the modern fantasy genre, we can just laugh a bit at their naivety and not worry too much about it.


----------



## ragboy (Aug 3, 2005)

Tonguez said:
			
		

> I've only read Book 1 and really wasn't interested enough to read any of the others




That was my take, as well. I read the first book and didn't find anything new or different. The writing was fairly common (not great), the story was fairly common (complete with the chessboard trap scene), and the characters were slightly more interesting than most fantasy books. I read it and pitched it. However, hearing the book acted/read by Jim Dale is a whole different animal. There's a subtlety of character and even story that, for some reason, didn't translate well on the page. I'm about the read the fifth and sixth books, then listen to them, just to see if this holds.


----------



## ragboy (Aug 3, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Because in the article, she apparently claims she was trying to "subvert the genre" and the writer of the article claims her take on fantasy is innovative. Whether or not she actually is innovative has no real bearing on the enjoyability of her books, but when someone makes a claim concerning something, then people will scrutinize that claim. In this case, the author of the article (and it seems Rowling) are making a claim concerning the series that is clearly unsupportable, and people are reacting to that.




What she innovated was not the genre, but the marketing and sales of the genre. By all accounts, she'll be a billionaire by the time the last book/movie/toy combination is out. That's quite an innovation for a little Victorian boarding school fantasy rip-off.

edit: And that's the measure of 'success' that the media seems attached to in all things, so...


----------



## Wayside (Aug 4, 2005)

jasper said:
			
		

> potter is literature. KIDS literature. Mouse and the motorcycle, Willie Wonka, Oz,  Alice in Wonderland, Winnie the Pooh,
> Beatrix potter, Little House on Prairie, Wind in the willows, Ms frisby and the Rats of Nimh, Cricket in times square, Charlotte’s Web.



I think Potter is a little more mature than some of these things, but what I actually want to respond to is grouping it with _Alice's Adventures in Wonderland_. The Alice books are completely scalable, so sure, kids can read them, but they don't stop paying off for adults either. Dodgson was in Tolkien's league (personally, in terms of literary merit, I'd even rank him ahead of Tolkien), not JKR's.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 4, 2005)

The Grumpy Celt said:
			
		

> Well I know SOMEONE who apparently took a few levels in the Mean Old Cranky-Pants prestige class.




*SIGH* I have maxed out my levels in Mean Old Cranky Pants, and have only one level remaining in Old Fart* to go... I hate these five level prestige classes, there is nothing to look forward to. Why back in _my day_...

The Auld Grump

*This one's real... and comes with a Portable Hole Full of Beer!


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 4, 2005)

ragboy said:
			
		

> What she innovated was not the genre, but the marketing and sales of the genre. By all accounts, she'll be a billionaire by the time the last book/movie/toy combination is out. That's quite an innovation for a little Victorian boarding school fantasy rip-off.
> 
> edit: And that's the measure of 'success' that the media seems attached to in all things, so...




Does her financial success invalidates the work? Interestingly enough, Rowling has apparently scaled back lots of the marketing this time out, having come to the conclusion that she let too much, which detracted from the books.  

Ryan Dancey made an interesting point about D&D's success in another thread that I think has relevance here (if you swap the word book for game and readers for players):



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> Thus, "sales" are not an DETERMINATOR of "quality". Sales are, over an extended period of time, an INDICATOR of quality - they represent a series of decisions made independently by a large number of people that the game is worth investment of limited resources - that it is, in fact, "better" in the opinion of the players, with both intrinsic and external factors fully valued than its competition.


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 4, 2005)

> over an extended period of time,



And this is the part people really _really_ need to take note of.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 4, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> And this is the part people really _really_ need to take note of.




On that note, I think it's safe to say that, 8 years on, that Harry Potter has at least survived the 'fad' phase of it's popularity.  Will it sell as well, 20 years from now?  There's no way to tell.  D.K. Chesterton once was a top-selling author...who reads him today?  How many folks even remember his name, or can name TWO of his books?  Folks here on the boards have a higher chance than the general populace, obviously, given the material involved.


----------



## Orius (Aug 4, 2005)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> However, it's clear that Pratchett and Rowling need to settle their differences in a katana death duel atop Big Ben, after laying waste to the surrounding neighborhoods in their thirst for the other's blood.




There can be only one!


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Aug 4, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> D.K. Chesterton...




Doesn't she make cigarettes?


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 4, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> D.K. Chesterton once was a top-selling author...who reads him today?



I've never even heard of him.  Unless you mean G. K. Chesterton.  I've at least heard of him, although I've never read anything he wrote.


----------



## polt (Aug 14, 2005)

I hate the movies. I belive they range from very boring, to watchable.

I love the books however. I was entertained all the way.


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 15, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I've never even heard of him. Unless you mean G. K. Chesterton. I've at least heard of him, although I've never read anything he wrote.




D'Oh.  Stupid Typo.  Yes, G.K. Chesterton...and other than "The Man Who Would Be Thursday: A Nightmare", most of his work is largely forgotten (though some is still in print).


----------



## Particle_Man (Aug 15, 2005)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> D'Oh.  Stupid Typo.  Yes, G.K. Chesterton...and other than "The Man Who Would Be Thursday: A Nightmare", most of his work is largely forgotten (though some is still in print).




I liked his "Father Brown" detective series.  Father Brown even became a movie starring Sir Alec Guinness!


----------



## WizarDru (Aug 15, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I liked his "Father Brown" detective series. Father Brown even became a movie starring Sir Alec Guinness!




It was a movie in 1937, a movie in 1954 (with Sir Alec) and a BBC TV series in 1976.  (Thank you, IMDB).  But that kind of reinforces my point: once a major author on the level of a Stephen King, now most of his works are barely remembered.  Although, on the flip-side, he IS still remembered, as opposed to some authors of the time who are completely forgotten today.


----------



## Imperialus (Aug 15, 2005)

Innovative is an author like Jasper Fford who has written an alternate history set in 1984 where characters and authors from classic literature such as Jayne Eyre and Othello are treated like sports heros or rock stars, complete with trading cards.  The Crimian war has been going on for almost 200 years, and someone has developed a device that allows people to enter the pages of an orriginal manuscript and kidnap or kill someone in it thereby affecting every other printing of the book in the world.  Jayne Eyre ends up getting kidnapped and held for ransom causing mass panic throughout the world.


----------

