Terry Pratchett doesn't like JK Rowling

[mojo1701]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

(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,

(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]

(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]

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]

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]

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.