Terry Pratchett doesn't like JK Rowling

[Lord Pendragon]

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]

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.

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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

The marketing phenomenon of the century, perhaps!

 

[LiKral]

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]

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]

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.