Terry Pratchett doesn't like JK Rowling

[MonsterMash]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[MaxKaladin]

(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]

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.