Terry Pratchett doesn't like JK Rowling

[Wayside]

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]

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]

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):

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]

over an extended period of time,

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

 

[WizarDru]

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]

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]

D.K. Chesterton...

Doesn't she make cigarettes?

 

[Desdichado]

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]

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]

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).