Who finds the success of Harry Potter depressing? [Archive]

wolfman

07-17-2009, 02:10 AM

Well along with the current theme of threads I'll ask mine.

I will make no bones about it, I hate the series and I resent everything about it. It is truly shitty writing and horrible storytelling. I have loved Fantasy authors for years. I defended David Eddings saying that he was a good writer for the 15-17 mindset. The Belgariad is a well told series without Tolkeinien sophistication. And people cannot forgive his childishness. But people said it was bad because it did not have adult sophistication as a theme.

But somehow those some people defend Rowlings. That is not Fantasy, that is pure masturbation. There is no story beyond. Kid is oppressed, kid finds a secret power, kid faces powerful enemies but a deus ex machina saves him. The first goddamn book, how does he defeat the bad guy? He cowers on the floor and the badguy dissolves because his mommy loved him.
That is crap that is not writing, that is not typing, that is self-stimulation. I would like to say it is Judy Blume crap, but Judy Blume is actually very good writing for the intended readers, it is near genius in subtlety. Harry Potter is written to the same demographic but written badly. It is a bad bad children's book. And then several more books follow the scum stream.

And that is so far below the insult it is to the quality Fantasy authors. People trample children to give that hack more millions because it is a cultural phenomenon. And pretend that because they are reading that it is good. Kinda like pretending that microwave Eggs Hollandaise is better than learning to cook Huevos Chorizo Ranchero because it costs more.

For examples of good epic Fantasy, rather than throwing my personal opinions down this looks like a good list.
http://www.bestfantasybooks.com/best-fantasy-series.php

I like how he refers Harry Potter in the bottom 'For reasons he won't mention' gee I wonder if he got tired of the teeny brigade fighting for their favorite just like they did for Justin Guarini, so he threw it in there.

Wendell Wagner

07-17-2009, 02:17 AM

I don't think that that list you link to is particularly good. However, I agree that the Harry Potter series is overrated. It's not bad, but I agree that it's not as great as it's claimed to be. It would be better to compare it with other children's (and young adult's) fantasy series, rather than with books written for adults. I think that if I were to rate the Harry Potter books against all the other children's (and young adult's) fantasy series written in English over the past century and a half, the Harry Potter books might barely rate in the top twenty.

Sleeps With Butterflies

07-17-2009, 02:20 AM

I know this may be really hard for you to comprehend, but stay with me....

Just because *you* don't like something doesn't mean it isn't good. I'm not saying that everything that is popular is automatically good, but I think you've lost touch with reality if you believe that millions and millions of people are pretending they think it's good.

See, we all have things things called opinions. These opinions are unique to us as individuals. I would not lie to you. Some people think some things are good while other people think those same things are bad. Really, honest and true.

I promise you that it doesn't make you smarter that you don't like things just because they're popular. I also promise that even if you dislike it for your very own opinion (those things I mentioned earlier), you're still not edgier and smarter and more urbane than everyone else. They just like it and you don't.

I'm glad we had this talk.

Cisco

07-17-2009, 02:30 AM

I don't hate it like the OP but I am extremely underwhelmed by Harry Potter. I read the 1st book and saw the first 3 or 4 movies and I really think there is just nothing there for me. I find it almost completely uninteresting. Though the 2nd half of whichever movie featured the time-travelling was pretty good. IME you have to either be below a certain age (twenty----threeish?) or be one of those people who is really proud of being a nerd to like it.

Mosier

07-17-2009, 02:31 AM

CyclopticXander

07-17-2009, 02:46 AM

There's this misconception that those of us who enjoy Harry Potter are depriving ourselves of fantasy that is just SOOOO much better. This is arrogant. I'm sure you have a huge list of fantasy novels that are so much more well received by whatever nerdy book club you are a member of, but really that's not for me. I don't read a lot of fiction but I like HP books because they are easily accessible, and (surprise!) I actually think that they are well written. So sue me.

I'm no fantasy aficionado like you, but it is fun to enjoy something with my girlfriend who I can't get to watch five minutes of LOTR with me. As she describes it, she doesn't like "epic" stuff. Now HP is still pretty epic to me, but there's obviously some appeal there that people with differing tastes can enjoy.

It sounds like you feel about HP about how I feel about the Twilight books. They seem pretty silly to me, but do I care that hordes of people are really enjoying them? Nope. Let them have fun. I could sit on my pedestal and point all the Twilight fans toward "real" vampire fiction, like say my favorite TV show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". But that wouldn't make me many friends.

Feel free to keep looking down your nose at those of us who enjoy inferior books. In the meantime my girlfriend and I will continue to enjoy the books and the movies and never even consider reading the books you like. Cheers.

Zebra

07-17-2009, 02:53 AM

I know this may be really hard for you to comprehend, but stay with me....

Just because *you* don't like something doesn't mean it isn't good. I'm not saying that everything that is popular is automatically good, but I think you've lost touch with reality if you believe that millions and millions of people are pretending they think it's good.

He gave reasons as to why the writing is sub-par. Like say how the use of Deus Ex Machina is considered by most people to be lazy writing. Like bringing in an army of ghosts to save your ass at the last second. So it is not just that he doesn't care for it so it sucks. He mention how he does not care for Judy Bloom but he says it is good work.

What bothers me is that the movies are also very mediocre and yet many people I know went to see the new one at midnight? WTH? Has the world gone mad?

CyclopticXander

07-17-2009, 03:02 AM

What bothers me is that the movies are also very mediocre and yet many people I know went to see the new one at midnight? WTH? Has the world gone mad?

Dude, it's fun to go to a movie you like with a group of people who are as enthusiastic about it as you are. Also the movies are generally very well received critically in addition to being huge commercial successes.

I suspect a little bit of jealousy that some of the "real" fantasy franchises can't generate the same excitement and fan base than HP can, but you can be that if something you liked became massively popular you'd be first in line for the midnight show.

If you don't like it that's fine, but I just hate this "why is something I don't like so popular" attitude. Of all the stupid things people do in large groups you are going to complain about an innocent franchise that people have fun with? Even if there are better fantasy books and movies I'm just not seeing the evil here.

Sleeps With Butterflies

07-17-2009, 03:02 AM

He gave reasons as to why the writing is sub-par. Like say how the use of Deus Ex Machina is considered by most people to be lazy writing. Like bringing in an army of ghosts to save your ass at the last second. So it is not just that he doesn't care for it so it sucks. He mention how he does not care for Judy Bloom but he says it is good work.

What bothers me is that the movies are also very mediocre and yet many people I know went to see the new one at midnight? WTH? Has the world gone mad?

But he assumes that because *he* thinks it sucks, everyone else is merely pretending to like it. I know it isn't a popular notion on this board to think this, but it is possible for YOU to think that something isn't good yet that isn't the definitive word on the subject. I cannot comprehend why someone would like Tom Waits and I think that he sucks, but I'm not going to dismiss him as an artist and think that everyone else who says they like him is just fooling themselves and lying. That's absolutely absurd.

Zebra

07-17-2009, 03:38 AM

Dude, it's fun to go to a movie you like with a group of people who are as enthusiastic about it as you are. Also the movies are generally very well received critically in addition to being huge commercial successes.

I suspect a little bit of jealousy that some of the "real" fantasy franchises can't generate the same excitement and fan base than HP can, but you can be that if something you liked became massively popular you'd be first in line for the midnight show.

If you don't like it that's fine, but I just hate this "why is something I don't like so popular" attitude. Of all the stupid things people do in large groups you are going to complain about an innocent franchise that people have fun with? Even if there are better fantasy books and movies I'm just not seeing the evil here.

No you suspect wrong. What 'real fantasy' franchises did I say were better films?

Actually, I worked in the film industry for a long time. I have seen many films that were terrible gross a lot of money. It is pretty normal. I mean terrible film by something that nobody, 20 years later, would ever think to watch this movie. Time is the best test for any art. (IMHO) But I've never seen anyone do it six times in a row.

Sleeps, did you not read in the OP and in my post the example of the OP, not LIKING Judy Bloom novels, but saying they were good novels.

Here is another example.
I personally don't "like" The Godfather. I just don't like it. It is an incredible film. Very well made. Great acting, directing. well everything. I still don't like it. But I do say that is is a high quality film. I even watch it occasionally because it is so well made.

Both the OP and I can distinguish the idea of 'liking' something and the works inherent quality.

So it is NOT a matter of us equating 'I don't like' with "that is of low quality". Please stop throwing that accusation around.

It's not jealousy, at least not on my part. I'm not a huge fantasy fan. I don't dislike it particularly either.

I do think that HP is popular because it is 'lite' fantasy. It's not hard core enough to turn some people off and it is 'fantasy enough' for some or most fantasy fans to enjoy. Sometimes this does not work. Baz Lurhman staged Madam Butterfly in a populist style a while back. (not long after Moulin Rouge) It was too opera for the non-opera people and too pop for the opera fans and so it didn't stay around too long. So that is a tough line to walk.

Time will tell about the books and films. It almost always does.

Sleeps With Butterflies

07-17-2009, 03:43 AM

Sleeps, did you not read in the OP and in my post the example of the OP, not LIKING Judy Bloom novels, but saying they were good novels

Do you keep missing where I question why a sane person would believe that millions and millions of people would PRETEND to like something after seemingly arriving at that notion because *they* think something is terribly written? Either the OP has a loose grip on reality or an ego the size of a continent.

I get that he gave reasons why he thinks it sucks. I get where he can admit that he's not a fan of Judy Blume but understands her success. What I can't understand is why he feels he is qualified to decide for everyone else in the world whether or not ANY book is terrible or not based on HIS OPINIONS.

I honestly don't know how to break it down any more than that.

cmkeller

07-17-2009, 03:50 AM

But somehow those some people defend Rowlings. That is not Fantasy, that is pure masturbation. There is no story beyond. Kid is oppressed, kid finds a secret power, kid faces powerful enemies but a deus ex machina saves him. The first goddamn book, how does he defeat the bad guy? He cowers on the floor and the badguy dissolves because his mommy loved him.

Sorry, your oversimplification obscures two important plot points here - and I'll stick to merely the first book rather than pointing out the fact that the magical power of love is an overriding theme throughout the series -

1) He and the readers may not know just why Voldemort died in the attempt to kill him, but it is clear from the very beginning of the book that there is SOMETHING about Harry that Voldemort cannot co-exist with. The fact that this mechanism - however ill-defined in the first book - is instrumental in the climax of the story is not a deus ex machina, it is an already-revealed property of the character.

2) His aim in the first book is not to kill Voldemort (whom he doesn't even know is the villain at the time) but to save the Sorcerer's Stone from the thief who's trying to take it. The fact that he is pure-hearted enough to obtain the stone (although ironically, the stone would have been safer if he wasn't, since Dumbledore's hiding mechanism would have kept it out of Quirrel's/Voldemort's hands) courageous enough to not give up the stone even in the face of what appears to be mortal danger is what made him the hero of the book.

Is this incredibly sophisticated? Perhaps not. But sincerity and courage have been part of the Western heroic ideal for centuries, so why shouldn't such character traits make Harry Potter popular? As for Rowling's writing, the first book contains an engaging mystery adventure to which the readers are essentially given all the clues and challenged to put it together (that is, with Quirrell as the answer, not Voldemort, whose return comes out of left field), complete with a red herring (Snape). Standard literary devices, to be sure, but does Rowling genuinely use them badly?

Lynn Bodoni

07-17-2009, 03:50 AM

There are hallmarks of great writing, some which are applicable to all writing, and some which only apply to certain genres. There are also indications that a book is poorly plotted and is generally not well-written, and again some of these apply to all writing, and some only to specific genres.

Any story that uses a deus ex machina is very probably badly written. Either the problem should have been rewritten, or the solution, or both. Pulling a god or godlike being out of the author's ass is simply not fair to the reader. The story might very well have some excellent parts in it, but the story, as a whole, has to hang together. The solution must be something that is reasonable, or logical, and it must be something that's indicated before it appears. In mysteries, authors who claim, in the last chapter, that the victim was killed by some obscure South American poison that nobody knows of, and none of the characters had any South American connections, are rightly denounced. In fantasy stories, characters who suddenly can perform magic beyond their normal capabilities without any explanation are also regarded as an author's way of writing herself out of the corner she'd written herself into.

The Harry Potter franchise has some very likable aspects. This doesn't alter the fact that Rowling is a poor writer. The Trials and Tribulations of Harry At Home are so over the top that it just defies all logic. If Rowling had allowed Harry's aunt to show a little bit of affection, even if she was ashamed of Harry's magical heritage, that would have been far more believable. And Harry is a natural at the school sport, without really having to earn his ability. If he'd had some small skill, and had tried out for the team but failed the first year, it would have been a much better story. Piers Anthony had some wonderful ideas and plots, but couldn't write his way out of a paper bag at least 20 years ago, when I gave up trying to read his books. Just because a book is fantasy doesn't give it a pass from meeting the normal storytelling requirements.

I don't think that the list mentioned in the OP is a particularly good list of epic fantasy. There are some really great series mentioned, and some crappy series, too.

Busy Scissors

07-17-2009, 04:01 AM

Appreciate the OP, but have to say I don't find the HP success to be particularly depressing because the books succeeded on their own terms. What I mean is that JK Rowling pitched the first one into a publisher who took a chance on it and it turned out that people liked it. Sort of a natural success.

This seems a different model of success to other artists in music, film, tv etc where giant media conglomerates shove millions of dollars behind formulaic mediocrity, advertise it out the ass in n dimensions until people are just forced to submit. I guess you could argue that this is what HP has become, but it didn't start like this at all.

It would be nice if all the kids were reading quality books like a Wizard of Earthsea, but I'm not losing sleep over it. Reminds me of seeing a critic on TV saying that all of Britain's social problems could be solved if everyone would just read Middlemarch.

That linked list of fantasy books in the OP is a bit iffy - some stinkers on there.

congodwarf

07-17-2009, 05:47 AM

Please excuse me if someone already said this. It's too late in my day to read long posts about whether or not the writing is quality.

Yes, I have read all the HP books. Yes, I enjoyed them. Yes, I agree that the writing quality isn't the best.

But, they are books. Kids read them. Adults read them. My 80 year old grandfather has read them.

I can't find anything depressing about the success of something which gets such a vast group of people interested in reading. I know quite a few people who hadn't read a book in years, until the HP books became popular. My ex-boyfriend hadn't read a book since high school (other than textbooks). His mother, sister, and I finally convinced him to just give them a try. He read the first 4 books in one weekend. He cut a vacation short so he could be home when our preorder of the 5th book arrived in the mail. The Harry Potter books opened him up to reading again and because of that, I got him reading Redwall and Discworld books also.

So, absolutely not. It's not depressing at all. It's wonderful.

Now, if only I could get my lazy-ass nephews to pick up a damn book and put down the friggen video games. Grrrr.

The Seventh Deadly Finn

07-17-2009, 05:56 AM

It's unfortunate, in a way, that the term "fantasy" is already in use for the genre involving magical swords wielded by guys with names like "Thrantorg the Bold," because it would be an even better name for the genre perfected by Rowling in the HP series. As it is, the term "wish-fulfillment fiction" (or perhaps "directed daydream") is the best I can come up with.

I think that the reason these books are so popular is because they don't try to express any particular idea, or reveal any particular truth. They don't try to depict the world, or the human soul, or whatever it is that other books try to be about. They are just a straight-up wish-fulfillment fantasy about being the most important person in an enormously engaging world.

Check it out: Someone mentioned that it would be more reasonable if Harry had had to work a bit to be good at quidditch. Well, it certainly would have been more realistic, but do you really want realism in a daydream? How often does a kid's (or grownup's) fantasy of hitting a home run in the World Series include a detailed imagining of long hours of weight training and batting practice prior to the big moment?

By the way, I love these books. But they are absolutely crack cocaine for the imagination. It's little wonder they're so popular. You can say that it's not good for us to read such daydreamy tripe, and perhaps you're right. But the subject matter is exactly what kids fantasize about before they grow up and learn to fantasize about money, power and sex. Harry Potter is basically Penthouse Forum for the prepubescent. And even though it's the mental equivalent of eating straight cake frosting, I for one find it somewhat life-affirming to discover that plenty of adults are still capable of finding such innocent daydreams compelling.

Der Trihs

07-17-2009, 06:05 AM

I can't find anything depressing about the success of something which gets such a vast group of people interested in reading. That's pretty much my attitude, although I wouldn't say "anything". I'd be a little depressed if it was The Adventures Of Harry Potter In The KKK or something of the sort that was so popular. :D

But as it is, it's harmless entertainment that's drawn a lot of people into reading more.

Shalmanese

07-17-2009, 06:15 AM

astorian

07-17-2009, 06:22 AM

Like say how the use of Deus Ex Machina is considered by most people to be lazy writing. Like bringing in an army of ghosts to save your ass at the last second.

I know. That's awful.

REAL fantasy geniuses, like JRR Tolkien, would NEVER have an army of ghosts come to the aid of Aragorn in the climactic battle in "Return of the King." And if he did, fantasy nerds would throw the book down in disgust and never read it again.

Okay, bad example. But the point is...

Der Trihs

07-17-2009, 06:29 AM

I know. That's awful.

REAL fantasy geniuses, like JRR Tolkien, would NEVER have an army of ghosts come to the aid of Aragorn in the climactic battle in "Return of the King." And if he did, fantasy nerds would throw the book down in disgust and never read it again.

Okay, bad example. But the point is...I know what you meant, but it IS a bad example because that is from the movie not the book. He used the ghosts to defeat the "Corsairs of Umbar" and take their ships; the ghosts were gone when Aragorn arrived at the main battle.

Electric Warrior

07-17-2009, 06:35 AM

I've been thinking about this for a while, because I have a lot of issues with Rowling's writing. I think it's very clear they are her first foray into writing novels, and they have a lot of the hallmarks of first novels. In addition to the deus ex machina deal, there's also the fact that a lot of the plot only works out because the vast majority of characters are either clueless, incompetent, or spineless. And how a Killing Curse exists but still hasn't been used in very obvious cases; similarly, how a truth serum exists but hasn't been used to determine which prisoners in Azkaban are actually guilty of their crimes -- it appears that the judicial system in this world is still based on witnesses and a jury. I could go on.

But here's the thing Rowling did do. She created a fantasy world that doesn't just mirror every other fantasy world that came before it. She puts in clever jokes. She creates characters who resonate with readers. And as previous posters have said, she creates a fulfillment for many people's fantasies. I think I only stopped enjoying these books when I realized that becoming a part of their magical world didn't interest me anymore.

Smeghead

07-17-2009, 06:41 AM

I'm sorry, but if you're going to pull out David Eddings as a counterexample of someone who's done fantasy far better than JK Rowling, then we're going to just have to shake hands and go our separate ways.

Gyrate

07-17-2009, 06:44 AM

as someone who read a lot of fantasy when he was younger, I can attest that I was sucked into HP from the very first book. At the time, I happened to pull a copy off the shelf at a friend's house, without knowing anything about the series, and was utterly engrossed.

For all it's flaws, to me it still remains a compelling book.Same here.

I had dismissed the HP phenomenon as so much hype until around the time that the third book came out. I was in a bookstore and picked up the first book to leaf through it and read the first chapter. Before I knew it, I'd read five chapters and said "Crap. I'm going to have to buy this."

No, it's not great literature. It's fundamentally a children's book. It's not deep, it's not meaningful, it doesn't break new and radical ground. The language is not particularly eloquent and the plot does have noticeable holes at time. But it's still a good read.

Don't like the movies though.

mr. jp

07-17-2009, 06:47 AM

I know. That's awful.

REAL fantasy geniuses, like JRR Tolkien, would NEVER have an army of ghosts come to the aid of Aragorn in the climactic battle in "Return of the King." And if he did, fantasy nerds would throw the book down in disgust and never read it again.

Okay, bad example. But the point is...

Yeah, that was awfully bad writing. Peter Jackson is a hack screenwriter.

Dangerosa

07-17-2009, 06:54 AM

I find the success of Harry Potter inspiring. Same with Twilight. Doesn't mean that these are great pieces of literature that will be read by generations (I suspect Potter wouldn't be nearly so popular had she gotten past the first few books when it hit popularity - the middle books are particularly lousy). But think about the circumstances of these being written, published, and becoming popular.

Rowling and Meyers write readable books. They've proven themselves to be readable because millions of people have read them and enjoyed them. And that is a huge purpose of books. And I'm glad that both of them have become wealthy and successful doing it. They could have become something completely useless like stockbrokers.

I'm a literature snob. My favorite books are A.S. Byatt's Possession, To Kill A Mockingbird, and Pride and Prejudice. E.M. Forester wrote novels that read like poetry, Margaret Atwood still does. Salman Rushdie spins incredible tales. But those books and authors aren't approachable (To Kill a Mockingbird is) for a lot of people. The Potter books have been read by millions of people who aren't readers. Some of them have gone on to find other books they've enjoyed - and maybe some of those will eventually read something that has won a Booker or Pulitzer.

chrisk

07-17-2009, 07:22 AM

Okay, I skimmed over a lot to avoid spoiling myself, but I just wanted to put myself on record as a longtime Potter indifferent who has recently been converted to a moderate fan. ;)

I asked for a few HP books on my birthday/christmas lists just out of curiosity and not knowing what else to ask for - and got #1 from my sister's family and #2 from my brother's pen-pal at the time. Didn't really touch them for over a year.

In January, when going to England, I packed both, and browsed most of #1 and read the first few chapters of #2 during that trip and in the months following. Didn't really invest in them or see that much interesting, though a few bits were charming.

When I went into the hospital in June, I brought #1 with me to read in the emergency waiting room, and finished it before I was examined. ( ;) ) Reading it through in order, I was pretty much won over - no, it's not amazing writing or the best fantasy adventure I've ever read, but it's a fun little piece of escapism. Asked for #2 after I'd had my surgery and was admitted to recovery, and read through it as well, with the same overall opinion - yes, there are some flaws in the writing, but in the end I liked reading it.

I'll probably look for #3 the next time I happen to be in a book store, but I'm not really eager to read the whole series as soon as I possibly can. It'll be interesting to see Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Ginny grow up and face some new adventures, though. :)

mr. jp

07-17-2009, 07:23 AM

My main problem with the Harry Potter books are that they don't work so well for my logical mind. I don't think this means that they are "bad."

- Quidditch doesn't make any damn sense. Capturing the snitch is all that matters. The other players must feel like idiots, if they ever paused to think.

- So many things that are not used to their full potential. Truth serum, Elder Wand, transformation potions, Dumbledore, a gorram Time machine, etc.

- The interplay with students from the house Slytherin / people there is war against was totally weird, especially in the last book.

Khadaji

07-17-2009, 07:26 AM

Any "best of" list that has The Wheel of Time (Robert Jordan) on it disqualifies itself as valid. Especially since it put Rothfuss lower on the list. And Donaldson's work is equally boring. Hell, most of the list is mediocre at best.

I think Potter is an OK franchise, formulaic definitely, but it was aimed at children and overall wasn't too bad. I would not call it great lit, but nor would I call most of the books on the list referenced great lit.

In the end, each to their own.

crowmanyclouds

07-17-2009, 07:29 AM

... It would be nice if all the kids were reading quality books like a Wizard of Earthsea, but I'm not losing sleep over it. ...That's what depresses me about the success of HP!

My first impression* was "this is just a poorly rewritten WoE, Sparrowhawk's School Days: The Long and Tedious Version". While I've enjoyed the films, that still sticks in my craw.

To add injury to the insult there's the SciFi Syfy channel's Earthsea, which might be the only exposure some get to the Earthsea Cycle and Ursula K. Le Guin in general.

That there must be some number of folks who's;
love of HP leads them to the belief that they're fans of Fantasy as a genre :dubious:,
only exposure to UKLG (whoever the hell she is :rolleyes:) is Earthsea :(,
can, seemingly to them, reasonably come the conclusion that UKLG is a hack writer that unsuccessfully tried to rip off JKR and HP would lose me some sleep ... if I actually ever slept.

CMC fnord!
* I haven't read any of the books, though JKR did get my money as I've bought the whole series for me Mom, but I have seen the movies.

Just Some Guy

07-17-2009, 08:00 AM

They're terrible books on any measurement other than popularity but I don't find it "depressing". I can understand perfectly why some can tolerate it's numerous faults; there's a fairly significant portion of the population who are hooked far more by concept than execution. The concepts don't even have to combine well; they just have to be there. So a series that throws out ideas in massive piles of infodumping is going to catch them. I know that if I had encountered the books when I was twelve I would have loved them but I've changed.

Oh, and that list is populated by terrible books as well. The Wheel of Time? That would be birdcage liner only you'd need an ostrich for it.

GuanoLad

07-17-2009, 08:05 AM

They may not be great literature, but they are entertaining. And that's good enough for me.

You can't predict what's going to be the next big phenomenon, but when it happens, it's indiscriminate and not worth analysing, because it will only make your brain leak out of your ears.

c.f. Twilight, Pokemon, Tellytubbies

Dangerosa

07-17-2009, 08:39 AM

Any "best of" list that has The Wheel of Time (Robert Jordan) on it disqualifies itself as valid. Especially since it put Rothfuss lower on the list. And Donaldson's work is equally boring. Hell, most of the list is mediocre at best.

I admit that as a literature snob who has slogged through a lot of classics - wonderful ones (Tolstoy) and horrible ones (Hardy) - the very idea that someone dis'es Rowling and holds up Jordan as an example of good simply makes me giggle.

"I don't understand the popularity of McDonalds and find it depressing - if you want a really good piece of beef, eat at Burger King!"

Dinsdale

07-17-2009, 08:40 AM

I think that the reason these books are so popular is because they don't try to express any particular idea, or reveal any particular truth. They don't try to depict the world, or the human soul, or whatever it is that other books try to be about. They are just a straight-up wish-fulfillment fantasy about being the most important person in an enormously engaging world.

I think this is a very acute observation. It seems a good percentage of the folk who dislike HP the most present themselves as great lovers of fantasy. Seems to me that some element of their criticism of HP reflects resentment that their favorite works are not more successful, or that HP is not something it never intended to be.

I never thought HP was a work for the ages. I enjoyed the first 3-4 books, but only skimmed the first couple. And I thought the first couple of films totally sucked, such that I never got into the later ones. But I thought the books worked pretty well as escapist, well-plotted, quick reads. I got the impression that after the success of the first couple, JK may have taken herself a bit too seriously, to the detriment of the last couple of books. But that is just my opinion.

And at some level, whether JK Rowling or Dan Brown, I kinda have to appreciate anyone that can increase the number of people who read - even if they aren't reading what I personally would consider excellent books.

Anaamika

07-17-2009, 08:42 AM

There will always be the divide between people who think that movies, art, books, should say something, be meaningful, stand up on their own merit, and those of us who think that entertaining is good enough. Sure I read "The Left Hand of Darkness". Sure, I tried Wheel of Time - that is crap and I am surprised it's on the list. Eddings? Sexist mysgonistic fool - in my eyes anyway. (Women are allowed to be complete and utter bitches or cute little pixies and neither have much depth to them.) Yet I have read most of his books.

I agree with everyone who said it's nice to see kids reading. It's nice to see kids walking around with fat books under their arms. I hate to sound all old but I'm so tired of seeing nothing but a PSP in every kid's hands and that disgusted phrase "I hate reading".

All that being said, no, Potter is not deep literature.

Dinsdale

07-17-2009, 08:42 AM

I admit that as a literature snob who has slogged through a lot of classics - wonderful ones (Tolstoy) and horrible ones (Hardy) . . .

Ouch - you pierce me to the quick! Not a big fan of Tess, but Far from the Madding Crowed and The Mayor of Casterbridge are on my short lists of best evers. And having recently waded through a mediocre translation of War and Peace - I am leery of proclaiming the merit of anything that is so heavily dependent on being filtered through a translator.

Antigen

07-17-2009, 08:46 AM

I can't really get riled up about its not being fabulous writing. It's not, but who cares?

I resisted the Harry Potter bandwagon for a very long time - all of the books were out before I finally caved in to peer pressure (my sister-in-law) and agreed to read the first one. Just the first one. And you know what? It was a neat story. I liked the characters. And so of course I needed to keep reading to see what happens to them. Yes, the plot can be a little contrived and the minor characters are caricatures to a certain extent, but it's written for children, and I think it's great for its audience.

Like a previous poster said, it's a daydream, a fantasy world. Little boy who thinks nobody loves him finds out he's a wizard and is destined to save the world. Every kid (hell, probably every adult) wants a magic wand, so I can see why these books are as popular as they are.

salinqmind

07-17-2009, 08:48 AM

The same arguments have been made for: The Beatles; Barry Manilow; the whole disco era; too many movies to mention, but Gone With the Wind comes to mind; "reality" shows on TV (Survivor, Real Housewives, Man vs. Wild). This applies to food and drink as well (Coors light, sugary breakfast cereals, chili in a can!). Anything "popular" with the masses (and particularly women) is derided and sneered at as being inferior to a "better" product. ("Why are you reading a dumb chick lit book? You should be reading works by the great philosophers!" "Why are you eating Captain Crunch? You should be eating unsweetened granola!" "Why are you watching Adult Swim? You should be watching PBS." "Why are you going to that horrible Harry Potter movie? Don't you know Roger Ebert gave that documentary on Swiss goatherders 4 thumbs up???") There's always someone to sneer at the poor taste of the masses. NOT arguing with that, we kind of know there are better, higher, finer pasttimes in life. But we go with what we are offered, we go see what's there, we eat the cereal advertised on TV....I haven't read Harry Potter, but I love the movies, just to look at if nothing else. I think they're very well done and I enjoy them. It takes a LOT to get me into a movie theater, it has to be something BIG, and I might just go see Half Blood Prince because it fits my definition of BIG. So? It's my time and money, thanks for your opinions, stay home and read your much better literature and feel superior. It's a free country.

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

Jettboy

07-17-2009, 08:48 AM

I find it laughable to get so overwrought over a series of children's books. This isn't Moliere, or Proust, or E.M. Forster; this is a series of kiddie fantasy stories about a boy wizard fighting 'evil', and largely adult, forces. Why not just have a meltdown about the communist messages in Thomas the Tank Engine or the lack of emotional integrity in Dora the Explorer?

Dangerosa

07-17-2009, 08:59 AM

Ouch - you pierce me to the quick! Not a big fan of Tess, but Far from the Madding Crowed and The Mayor of Casterbridge are on my short lists of best evers. And having recently waded through a mediocre translation of War and Peace - I am leery of proclaiming the merit of anything that is so heavily dependent on being filtered through a translator.

Russian History minor. And the soft spot is Anna Karenina - not War and Peace.

And I've only read the wrist slittable Tess and Jude - so perhaps I should read something .... did Hardy write anything lighter?

don't ask

07-17-2009, 09:01 AM

Losers, mostly.

Dinsdale

07-17-2009, 09:07 AM

And I've only read the wrist slittable Tess and Jude - so perhaps I should read something .... did Hardy write anything lighter?

My 2 least fave of his.

Far from the Madding Crowd is on my shortlist of all time faves. And The Mayor of Casterbridge has to have one of the best starting premises of all time. If you like Austen or Bronte, you should like them.

Tho not nice things happen in both, they are WAY "lighter" than the 2 you had the misfortune (IMO) to read first.

Dangerosa

07-17-2009, 09:17 AM

My 2 least fave of his.

Far from the Madding Crowd is on my shortlist of all time faves. And The Mayor of Casterbridge has to have one of the best starting premises of all time. If you like Austen or Bronte, you should like them.

Tho not nice things happen in both, they are WAY "lighter" than the 2 you had the misfortune (IMO) to read first.

Love Austen, not a Bronte fan. But I'll give more Hardy a try. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Henry James.

Vihaga

07-17-2009, 09:24 AM

Not me.

I just can't get depressed about the success of any books that can bridge the gap between voracious readers and people who normally won't read for pleasure (like my sister). So what if it's not great literature? They're kids books! To me, the characters are reasonably engaging, the world is fascinating, and, most importantly, they've brought books back into the spotlight of popular culture. Before the Harry Potter series came out, it was rare that I saw "normal" (read: non-bookish) people discussing a book with the expectation that most people in the conversation were familiar with it. Nor did I see them rushing to the bookstore on release day to get a copy of a new book, as though it were an anticipated movie or a favorite developer's new video game.

Even if the Harry Potter books aren't what you would have people read, isn't it great to see them reading something?

Pleonast

07-17-2009, 09:32 AM

Just because a book is fantasy doesn't give it a pass from meeting the normal storytelling requirements.I think this is part of the disconnect. There are no "storytelling requirements" other than the reader wanting to read what the writer wrote.

I read the first Harry Potter book when it was first released in the US. I liked reading it and it left me wanting to read more of that story. That it makes it successful for me. It's that simple.

Dinsdale

07-17-2009, 09:36 AM

Love Austen, not a Bronte fan.

Yeah, I realized I should have specified my preference for Charlotte (Jane Eyre). Wife lurves Wuthering Heights. Me, not so much.

Marley23

07-17-2009, 09:47 AM

Another thumbs-up for what thetruewheel said about the reason for the popularity of the books. I've read the first few and seen some of the movies; I don't plan to continue with either. They're not great writing, but Rowling made up an interesting world, and that drew in a lot of readers. She entertains people and the work isn't as bad as the OP says, so what's to be depressed about?

Tolkien also made up an interesting world and I don't think his writing is particularly amazing either. He did avoid one pitfall Rowling fell into, which was making up a world that was fun and engaging at first and then became increasingly portentous, heavy and stifling.

Bridget Burke

07-17-2009, 09:51 AM

That list of Best Fantasy Books sucks! (Sorry, I tried & rejected more polite options.) Why isn't Tolkien #1? Why did whoever created the list include so many hacks? Points for including Greg Keyes; and there are a couple of others I'll check out.

I read Harry Potter & The Philosopher's Stone (Canadian edition--screw that "Sorcerer's Stone") but bogged down in #2. May take up the series later, since I understand it grows more complex. But I'm not the target audience--nor do I share a home with members of the target audience. (I also came to Narnia too late--although I enjoyed Lewis's Space Trilogy in high school.)

Harry Potter seems like a pretty good series that was well-marketed. Its amazing success is fascinating; the people who love it really do love it. The Potter books are displayed in bookstores among a ton of other fantasies--encouraging kids to read more. (Not that I ever had to be encouraged to read.)

Harry Potter doesn't depress me at all. Twilight does....

Dangerosa

07-17-2009, 10:01 AM

Tolkien also made up an interesting world and I don't think his writing is particularly amazing either. He did avoid one pitfall Rowling fell into, which was making up a world that was fun and engaging at first and then became increasingly portentous, heavy and stifling.

Simillarion?

Shodan

07-17-2009, 10:03 AM

To each his own. I hope you find a series that gives you as much enjoyment as Harry Potter does to me.

Regards,
Shodan

E-Sabbath

07-17-2009, 10:09 AM

Harry Potter belongs firmly in the long British tradition of Boy's Adventure novels.
Other examples would be, say, Swallows and Amazons, Narnia, most of Edward Eager's works... and... most _especially_, Good Omens, in part.

That's the reason Potter and Books of Magic are so similar. They're incarnations of a fairly specific genre, about a boy, his companions, and wandering about in early teenhood.

Marley23

07-17-2009, 10:11 AM

Simillarion?
I haven't read it. So maybe he did that, too.

shiftless

07-17-2009, 10:13 AM

It's unfortunate, in a way, that the term "fantasy" is already in use for the genre involving magical swords wielded by guys with names like "Thrantorg the Bold," because it would be an even better name for the genre perfected by Rowling in the HP series. As it is, the term "wish-fulfillment fiction" (or perhaps "directed daydream") is the best I can come up with.

Well put. I think of this style as "orphan fantasy". The story of a kid in terrible consequences overcoming adversity and, as an added bonus, finding out he is actually of some sort of noble birth. As I read the first couple of HP books I had a strong feeling that I had read the books before. This is a common theme - Tarzan and Cinderella both, for example. Yeah, Rowlings used a lot of well worn material to create HP - English boarding school, check - Poor abused orphan kid finding family, check - Big reveal that kid is not just ordinary, check.

But, Rowlings added an interesting twist to these old, well worn ideas. She created a ton of interesting characters (I say too many in fact) and populated a very rich world with them and she made all this accessible to people of all ages. Great literature - maybe not but then Harry Potter isn't trying to take the OP's James Joyce collection away either.

John DiFool

07-17-2009, 10:16 AM

That's what depresses me about the success of HP!

My first impression* was "this is just a poorly rewritten WoE, Sparrowhawk's School Days: The Long and Tedious Version". While I've enjoyed the films, that still sticks in my craw.

To add injury to the insult there's the SciFi Syfy channel's Earthsea, which might be the only exposure some get to the Earthsea Cycle and Ursula K. Le Guin in general.

I find the success of the movies depressing, in a way (this also includes the success of the LOTR trilogy). I was hoping, after these two fantasy series made such a huge impression and drew in scads of profits, that we'd see some of the more hardcore classics successfully adapted into films. 6 years after ROTK, 8 years after the first HP film, and what do we have? 2 Narnia films of moderate creative and financial success (at best), with the 3rd film unlikely to see the light of day; 1 His Dark Materials film which pretty much tanked, with no followup; an excreble TV adaptation of Earthsea; and, stuck firmly in development hell, an Elric (http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showthread.php?t=11241) movie. At one point there were rumors of an Amber film or films, but nothing seems to have come of that. Conan looks like it will be made, and it might be better than the Arnie vehicles of the 80's-no guarantees tho. As a whole it's a rather unimpressive body of output, if you ask me.

DesertDog

07-17-2009, 10:19 AM

Gorsnak

07-17-2009, 10:22 AM

Simillarion?

The stories that became the Silmarillion were written first. Tolkien's world started out portentous, heavy, and stifling. The light-hearted kids stories came later.

ZipperJJ

07-17-2009, 10:27 AM

eleanorigby

07-17-2009, 10:48 AM

I didn't read past this post, but I am replying to the general tone of the thread, not meaning to single Lynn out here.

There are hallmarks of great writing, some which are applicable to all writing, and some which only apply to certain genres. There are also indications that a book is poorly plotted and is generally not well-written, and again some of these apply to all writing, and some only to specific genres.

Well said, and I agree.

Any story that uses a deus ex machina is very probably badly written. Either the problem should have been rewritten, or the solution, or both. Pulling a god or godlike being out of the author's ass is simply not fair to the reader. The story might very well have some excellent parts in it, but the story, as a whole, has to hang together. The solution must be something that is reasonable, or logical, and it must be something that's indicated before it appears. In mysteries, authors who claim, in the last chapter, that the victim was killed by some obscure South American poison that nobody knows of, and none of the characters had any South American connections, are rightly denounced. In fantasy stories, characters who suddenly can perform magic beyond their normal capabilities without any explanation are also regarded as an author's way of writing herself out of the corner she'd written herself into.

Again, I agree--but I don't recall Harry using magic beyond his abilities in Book One (or any of the books). :confused:

But keep in mind the grandaddy of all fantasy, Tolkien, also used a deus ex machina, aka the Eagles. They show up in every one of his Hobbit focused books to save the day. I have never been able to get past page 17 of The Silmarillon, so I dunno 'bout that one...

The Harry Potter franchise has some very likable aspects. This doesn't alter the fact that Rowling is a poor writer.

I agree, but will say that IMO, Rowling is an average writer. She repeats herself and summarizes plots too much, she loves adverbs and she has never learned to fully show instead of tell. BUT--IMO, what she lacked was an editor with balls. Much of what she wrote could have been cut, changed or tweaked to the betterment of the books. That said, her tale is a sturdy one. She has a good ear for dialogue and comedy.

The Trials and Tribulations of Harry At Home are so over the top that it just defies all logic. If Rowling had allowed Harry's aunt to show a little bit of affection, even if she was ashamed of Harry's magical heritage, that would have been far more believable.

Here we part ways drastically. Charlie of Chocolate Factory fame's home life was also waaaay over the top, as are most of Roald Dahl's character's families or relations. The-kid-mistreated-and-misunderstood-at-home basis is a common one.
I completely agree that Rowling needed to show Petunia as more conflicted instead of as a cartoon character to make the tension and substory more authentic, but must argue that the tradition is quite venerable.

And Harry is a natural at the school sport, without really having to earn his ability. If he'd had some small skill, and had tried out for the team but failed the first year, it would have been a much better story.

Rowling does give us this, finally, in book 7 wherein Harry finally learns control after Dobby's death Too little, too late, perhaps, but it is there.

Just because a book is fantasy doesn't give it a pass from meeting the normal storytelling requirements.

Absolutely.
But much of what is said here is opinion. I don't find HP to be Great Literature, but I do find them to be fun reads. Do I reread them? No. I reread them just prior to a film coming out. But I'm 47, not 12. IMO, Rowling has Meyers beat hands down in terms of talent--that's not saying much, but I can understand the popularity of HP more so than the popularity of the Twilight series.

Has anyone here ever read all of the Dorothy and Oz series? Trust me, they're not Great Literature either, but the one book and the movie captured the public's imagination and has become a classic. Frank Baum was no Lewis Carroll (but then Carroll's work so unique and, let's be honest, odd, that it really is in a class by itself). Rowling is no Nesbitt, to be sure, but she is perhaps a modern version of Nesbitt.

As much as I dislike having to admit it, most people today do not enjoy stately paragraphs or literary allusions wending their way through their books. Rowling (again MO) took a Victorian tradition (of which Tolkien may have been the last gasp) of spinning a tale and modernized it. You may not like the end result, but she has proven that people are still hungry for stories, but want them in form they can easily relate to.

I don't think that the list mentioned in the OP is a particularly good list of epic fantasy. There are some really great series mentioned, and some crappy series, too.

Confession time: I read the EarthSea series a ways back, to see what all the fuss was about. I can only say that perhaps I read them at the wrong time in my life. If I had read them as a teen, I would probably have loved them. As it was, I found the characters wooden, the plot slow and the writing pompous.

I use LeGuin as an example of how writing can be perceived depending on the reader. LeGuin is a better writer than Rowling, no question (her sci-fi being better than EarthSea, IMO) but it left me cold.

I am also of the opinion that HP hit the world at a precise time and that its amazing popularity is partially explained by this: without the internet and its instantaneous connections, I have to wonder if the HP phenomenon would exist. I think it would still be popular, but even I, an advocate for Harry et al, don't understand its accolades. I'm glad to be along for the ride, though.

jacquilynne

07-17-2009, 11:12 AM

I agree on the Deus Ex Machina front -- plot-wise, the Harry Pottery books leave a lot to be desired.

On the world-building front, however, they are quite wonderful. It's exciting and engaging to imagine that there just might be a world like that hidden within our world. And for kids who don't feel like they quite fit in in their own world, the idea that they might actually belong in this other, more magical world, where instead of being an undersized victim of bullies and circumstances, they are an incredibly powerful celebrity, well, what's not to love about that?

TheMadHun

07-17-2009, 11:17 AM

It's terrible writing. There's a threat, then a fix, then a threat, then a fix. Not connected.

Oh look, it's a dragon. The bird says take that mirror to defeat him. It does. Ok, next monster...

It's all disconnected threats, like levels on an early Donkey Kong game.

Gangster Octopus

07-17-2009, 11:20 AM

CircleofWillis

07-17-2009, 11:32 AM

I don't find it any more depressing than I find the success of the Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus or Nerds Rope and Warheads to be depressing...meaning not at all.

HP is not marketed to my demographic (not to say that adults can't enjoy it, it's just aimed at a different age group) My children all love HP and have read all the books and seen all the movies (a ritual is that we attend the midnight premieres of the movies, the kids in their robes).. .

Anything that encourages the kids of today to read vs. playing video games, I'm all for, whether it be shit or not...

AuntiePam

07-17-2009, 11:35 AM

So, what I really don't get is why Dan Brown's stuff is so loathed here (on the SDMB) and HP stuff is so revered. Both have crap stories, both are tremendously popular, yet not liking Brown's stuff is the norm and not liking HP is odd.

Good question! It's not just here, it's on every board I've ever seen where these books come up in discussion.

Maybe it's because the Potter books are written for children (expectations are lower?), or because they're fantasy.. But I don't understand it either.

Voyager

07-17-2009, 11:39 AM

I think a lot of what makes people enjoy fantasy is how well the environment resonates with them. For HP. clearly the school setting and the entire well realized wizarding world worked. It worked better for me than Middle Earth. You got to give her some credit for not stocking her books with borcs and gobbits and jelves, like most of the other fantasy that seemed to be out there.

That trumps bad writing. Hell, Tolkien changed points of view sometimes three times in one paragraph. I guess those caught up in the world and the story never notice, just like the kids racing through 800 pages of a HP book never notice. In the last three books she became edit proof; all of them could have been trimmed by about 200 pages with great benefit. It's amazing the movies are as good as they are, since the poor screenwriter had to toss out big gobs of plot to make it fit. I just finally saw Order of the Phoenix, and I think it would be incomprehensible to someone not familiar with the book.

I don't quite get the charge of deux ex machina - certainly not for Harry having survived. This is a sin in that it resolves a plot without the author having the ability to resolve it based on the situation and the ability of the characters. Harry surviving doesn't end the plot - it begins it. Much of the plot is understanding why Harry survived. and as mentioned the power of friendship and love runs through all the books. Gandalf returning from the dead is a much better example than this.

Anduril

07-17-2009, 11:41 AM

It's like being hooked on a particular soap opera. It's not the paragon of artistic sophistication, but when people are hooked, people are hooked and success follows.

Bryan Ekers

07-17-2009, 11:44 AM

I find a fad interest in books, even if not of the highest literary merit, by default far more encouraging than an fad interest in the latest Pokemon ripoff.

Birdmonster

07-17-2009, 11:45 AM

mswas

07-17-2009, 12:10 PM

I haven't read the books so I don't know what the prose is like, but as far as plot goes Eddings isn't even in the same league as Rowling. I'm not saying that Rowling is a great author only that Eddings was a truly abysmal one.

Frylock

07-17-2009, 12:55 PM

I know. That's awful.

REAL fantasy geniuses, like JRR Tolkien, would NEVER have an army of ghosts come to the aid of Aragorn in the climactic battle in "Return of the King." And if he did, fantasy nerds would throw the book down in disgust and never read it again.

Okay, bad example. But the point is...

Exactly what I was thinking when I read that comment about an "army of ghosts". :p

I have a terrible memory. Could someone remind me what the Deus Ex Machina (<--pluralize) to be found in the Harry Potter series are?

Birdmonster

07-17-2009, 12:58 PM

Exactly what I was thinking when I read that comment about an "army of ghosts". :p

I have a terrible memory. Could someone remind me what the Deus Ex Machina (<--pluralize) to be found in the Harry Potter series are?
First one that springs to mind is Fawkes literally flying in to save Harry's ass.

Chimera

07-17-2009, 12:59 PM

Well, one clear way that HP departs from previous Grand British Stories is that in HP, Harry is not secretly a nobleman. Hell, even Robin Hood was an Earl of something in some versions.

Dangerosa

07-17-2009, 01:08 PM

I'm not a fan of HP, nor am I a fan of fantasy (which is one reason why I didn't "get" HP). But I did read the first book and I found the writing to be pretty tough on my eyes. It doesn't bother me that the writing is "beneath" me because, after all, they're children's books.

I do find it weird that so many adults are into it, since the writing is so bad.

BUT...

I read The DaVinci Code, and I enjoyed it. Yes the writing was bad but it was a good story. It never occurred to me that any of it was factual so I didn't get caught up in all that mess. I also read Angels and Demons and it was fun.

So, what I really don't get is why Dan Brown's stuff is so loathed here (on the SDMB) and HP stuff is so revered. Both have crap stories, both are tremendously popular, yet not liking Brown's stuff is the norm and not liking HP is odd.

To me, the weakest parts of literature are not when it departs from reality by creating a new world with new rules - and I'm even willing to put up with those rules not being consistent if the world is new. Or when it adheres to reality by writing a story believable in this world - its when the worlds collide. Harry Potter does that with the wizard/muggle world interaction - and if there was much more of it, I'd probably throw the books away in disgust. But Dan Brown was doing it about every third page. I can't read Phillippa Gregory (The Other Bolyen Girl) for the same reason. I end up shouting at the book "that isn't the way it works!" or "that isn't what happened!" It pulls me out of the story in a jarring and unpleasant way.

But then, I don't revere the HP stuff - I just thought they were a good one time read.

David Eddings on the other hand, I reread every couple of years. Its a guilty vice that I am utterly ashamed of. Yeah, they are lousy, derivative, predictable, not terribly well written - but the are like that caramel and chocolate covered popcorn - its stale, and you know it isn't any good for you, but somehow your hand keeps going for the bowl. I'm far too ashamed to recommend them to anyone other than someone looking for a fantasy popcorn read.

Ogre

07-17-2009, 01:34 PM

The OP hasn't read the books, has he? If he had, he would know that, beneath the superficial "chosen one faces a threat, kills monster, etc." fantasy standard, there's a very complex storyline that works on many different levels - growing up, maturing, dealing with adolescence, losing friends, losing loved ones, underhanded politics and death. Not only that, but the superficial stuff is a lot deeper than you're giving it credit for. He does NOT defeat his main enemy at the end of every book. He loses sometimes, and Voldemort grows ever more powerful until the very end.

There's a lot more complexity and darkness than you would realize just by reading the first book.

WordMan

07-17-2009, 01:35 PM

So - where are we?

- JK Rowling has some weaknesses in her writing - most posters seem to agree with this. Sleeps with Butterflies - while the tone of the OP is a bit dismissive and I agree with you that YMMV in all art, I agree with posters that use of easy-out plot twists can be commented on from a quality-of-writing standpoint...the OP doesn't need to toss out the whole work, but comments about the basic technical quality of the writing are okay to assert...

- But the world she created is pretty cool

- And the stories are fine for the escapist lit that they are

- And the whole freakin' world read a little bit more because of the HP books

So it is depressing that Rowling appears to be the one who captured lightning in a bottle and got over-the-top famous with a set of books that aren't Mozart perfect in their construction? If you want to go there, that's cool - as has been said, that's a personal taste thing. I look at it as: anything that folks enjoy and gets them reading is a good thing...

Zsofia

07-17-2009, 01:38 PM

I do have to say, yes, the Harry Potter books are not by any stretch of the imagination the best of youth fantasy books. They're also not by a long, far shot the worst, and I think it's absolutely hilarious that as proof a list is waved around where the number three selection is the Wheel of Time. I mean, really? Sword of Truth just too stupid these days to suggest without laughing? The pseudo-Tolkien books like Wheel of Time are a damned sight more harmful to a much maligned genre than a little Boy's Adventure.

ETA - I do have some sympathy for the argument that kids who read Harry Potter often aren't then getting to read some of the really good stuff, but that's the fault of parents, teachers, librarians, etc. "If you like Harry Potter, give Redwall a try!" Sweet zombie Jesus, let's not. What the hell happened to "... give Lloyd Alexander a try!" "Give Tamora Pierce a try!" "Give Jane Yolen a try!"

Airk

07-17-2009, 02:03 PM

Simillarion?

Kinda unfair to blame him for something that was published after his death, wouldn't you say? The Silmarillion is his son taking a bunch of notes, scribbles, half formed manuscripts and the like, and fitting it together as best he could. It's certainly -not- a finished product in the sense the author would have intended.

Risha

07-17-2009, 02:09 PM

Most of the important stuff has already been covered, but I feel that Rowling's improvements as a writer deserves a mention.

I'm in the odd position of considering myself a fan but not liking the actual books. After struggling through books one through three, I accepted that I would never like her writing, decided to never buy any of the books again, and allowed myself to enjoy the movies and overall universe.

I eventually caved and bought book 7 the day it came out, and grimly prepared to plow through it. While it still wasn't great literature - what a stunning improvement! I actually enjoyed reading the whole massive thing! While she always held onto the basic structure of the aforementioned Boy's Adventure novels, she had added real maturity and decent plotting as an underlayment to the already good characters and worldbuilding. The end of book 7 could still be considered a deus ex machina of sorts, depending on how you interpret it. But it made sense in the context of the story, and in the end, many (most?) of the previous deus ex machinas had been properly explained.

Airk

07-17-2009, 02:45 PM

Responding to what I felt was an over-the-top OP, I'll say this:

I like Potter. They're fun, addictive, and at times very clever (especially once you move into books four through seven). The thing that I think seperates it from the pack is the characterization: you're not getting these black and white, Tolkien-style Good Guys and Bad Guys (my gripe about LOTR), you're getting characters who, to me, seem genuine and real. Plotwise, the first three books are kind of Scooby-Do-ish and, yeah, there's a lot of Deus Ex Machina, and those are valid gripes. But the characters in the series are really well developed, grow as the story moves towards its conclusion, and, in the end, feel more like Roald Dahl characters than cardboard stand-ins for "Good" and "Evil."

Okay. I almost got through this thread without slamming my head into a desk and screaming "NO, YOU'RE WRONG!" but I draw the line here. "genuine and real"? More like "incompetant and incomprehensible." I fail to see how any of the characters in the Harry Potter books could have functioned in anything that resembles life outside the books. They're cardboard standouts for tropes instead "Look at the bumbling headmaster!" "Look at this guy! He's MEAN!" etc. And they're ALL incapable of doing anything on their own. The only person who can -do- anything in the books is Harry and most of the time he "does" it by "being Harry Potter". Maybe she fixed these issues by book 6, but by that point, the series was already well underway. What baffles me is how the series even had enough popularity to merit a sequel to the first book, which is, by most people's admission, far and away (or at least, distinctly) the worst one.

Anyway, I'm torn on the issue. It's great that these books have kids reading and all, but I don't understand at all what makes these books -work-. Even on the grossest level of fantasy fulfillment, there are better childrens' books out there. We're not talking about intricate freaking allegory and delicately turned prose that offers a cunning insight into the human condition. No one should be expected to care about that in a children's novel. We're talking about adventures! Great, -well- -told- stories that do everything right. J.K. Rowling is -not- a good storyteller. She manages, but she's thoroughly mediocre at it. There's no reason why someone with similar themes and better storytelling abilities shouldn't have gotten this break.

Birdmonster

07-17-2009, 03:14 PM

Okay. I almost got through this thread without slamming my head into a desk and screaming "NO, YOU'RE WRONG!" but I draw the line here. "genuine and real"? More like "incompetant and incomprehensible." I fail to see how any of the characters in the Harry Potter books could have functioned in anything that resembles life outside the books. They're cardboard standouts for tropes instead "Look at the bumbling headmaster!" "Look at this guy! He's MEAN!" etc. And they're ALL incapable of doing anything on their own. The only person who can -do- anything in the books is Harry and most of the time he "does" it by "being Harry Potter". Maybe she fixed these issues by book 6, but by that point, the series was already well underway. What baffles me is how the series even had enough popularity to merit a sequel to the first book, which is, by most people's admission, far and away (or at least, distinctly) the worst one.

Anyway, I'm torn on the issue. It's great that these books have kids reading and all, but I don't understand at all what makes these books -work-. Even on the grossest level of fantasy fulfillment, there are better childrens' books out there. We're not talking about intricate freaking allegory and delicately turned prose that offers a cunning insight into the human condition. No one should be expected to care about that in a children's novel. We're talking about adventures! Great, -well- -told- stories that do everything right. J.K. Rowling is -not- a good storyteller. She manages, but she's thoroughly mediocre at it. There's no reason why someone with similar themes and better storytelling abilities shouldn't have gotten this break.
There's some weird bitterness in this thread, I must say. I'm curious if any of the serious haterade drinkers made it to book seven. Yes? No? I know you can't account for taste, but you also can't claim she's "thoroughly mediocre" and that her characters are merely "tropes" as if it's an indisputable fact.

In fact, to dispute:

Snape and Dumbledore were anything but tropes. They were conflicted characters (Snape with the unrequited love for Harry's mother, Dumbledore with his thirst for power gone awry) who both took interesting, non-generic turns in the later books. If you're finding fault because JKR's characters aren't The Most Original Ever, you're missing the point. Order of the Phoenix, I thought, did a great job capturing Harry's pissy phase as he was left out of the loop in regards to major plot developments. I felt it was a very believable, very teenage kind of feeling.

As for "incompetant and incomprehesible," I don't really know what to say. We're not talking about LOST here (though I do thoroughly enjoy that show). A teenager seeking refuge with his friends when his homelife is tortuous?! INCOMPREHENSIBLE! Children rebelling against a Nurse Ratchett-esque Headmistress? INCOMPETANT AND INCOMPREHESIBLE!

All I'm saying is, okay, so you don't like the books. Fine. But it's not like it's hackish. It's fun, intricate (again, have you read them all?) and an adventure story I found loveable and clever.

As far as "fail[ing] to see how any of the characters in the Harry Potter books could have functioned in anything that resembles life outside the books," I wonder if you remember what it was like to be a kid. You think Harry and Ron and Hermione and, hell, ALL the kids in those books weren't pretty average pre-teen and teens? Really?

Airk

07-17-2009, 03:27 PM

Birdmonster

07-17-2009, 03:39 PM

I wouldn't expect them to continue, but then I wouldn't really respect their opinion about the quality of the second half of the series. The first three are pretty formulaic---though fun---but as I noted above, very Scooby-doo-ish. There's a whole lot of unmasking and "I woulda gotten away with it if it wasn't for you pesky kids." But the series changed drastically in books four through seven in a way that I think invalidates the OP completely.

Your amendment is definitely more apt, again, to the beginning books. I don't think you can hate a whole series if you only read half of it. Well, of course you can but as someone who finished the series after only sort of enjoying the first three, it just doesn't carry any water for me personally.

eleanorigby

07-17-2009, 04:29 PM

But the world she created was present in books one through three--book three is complexly plotted, really, so why wouldn't someone keep reading the books, in order to re-enter that world?

I don't see Harry as a trope (except for the obvious Hero one, and if those who are puzzled by the success of these books want to abolish that, we have parted ways considerably). So Harry isn't as tortured as some modern anti-hero. Big deal. he is conflicted enough for a pre-teen and teen, plus he has his difficult home life and the burden of unwanted celebrity to contend with. If he is shown mostly reacting to that, so be it--to me, that is very realistic indeed. What are you all looking for--lengthy exposition about his feelings? Deeply symbolic actions of some kind? Someone said he never failed at anything--that is patently not true. But the series is about what he is (or what he represents to others) more than it is about his journey to maturity. I doubt Rowling started out with that in mind, but she was clever enough to figure it out early on.

I don't see them as cardboard characters at all. The only ones who come across that was are the Dursleys and that is a huge weakness, granted.

I also confess I am completely at a loss to understand the swipe at the Redwall series upthread. They are lovely books and well written, as well as popular with kids. It comes down to tastes are inexplicable, no matter how one would like to think their own are based on solid reasoning and evidence.

As for the rather ridiculous argument that there are more "worthy" authors out there--of course there are! That has been true of every age, every where. Such is the nature of the publishing business.

Lamia

07-17-2009, 05:59 PM

First one that springs to mind is Fawkes literally flying in to save Harry's ass.I would say this is the biggest deus ex machina point in the series, but it's not nearly as bad as it could have been. Fawkes was introduced much earlier in the book, and the healing property of his tears (and IIRC his dislike of snakes) were mentioned at that time. Although Harry could not have defeated the basilisk or even survived the fight without the sudden appearance of Fawkes, Harry was the one who actually killed the monster. He also figured out how to deal with ghost of Tom Riddle on his own. So it's not like Fawkes swooped in and completely saved the day, Harry's action was essential to the resolution of the crisis.

Just Some Guy

07-17-2009, 06:10 PM

I have a terrible memory. Could someone remind me what the Deus Ex Machina (<--pluralize) to be found in the Harry Potter series are?

The entire plot of Goblet of Fire is essentially "Harry has a problem, mopes about it for fifty pages, and then someone shows up at the last minute to hand him a solution."

Except the ending when the solution just hands itself to him.

Lamia

07-17-2009, 06:21 PM

The entire plot of Goblet of Fire is essentially "Harry has a problem, mopes about it for fifty pages, and then someone shows up at the last minute to hand him a solution."For most of Goblet of Fire people were handing solutions to Harry because he was being set up. It's not a deus ex machina for the bad guys to lay a trap for the hero. Near the end of the book the main villain even complains about how Harry missed his subtler hints, forcing the villain to go to extra trouble to make sure Harry would win.

Just Some Guy

07-17-2009, 06:26 PM

For most of Goblet of Fire people were handing solutions to Harry because he was being set up. It's not a deus ex machina for the bad guys to lay a trap for the hero. Near the end of the book the main villain even complains about how Harry missed his subtler hints, forcing the villain to go to extra trouble to make sure Harry would win.

That doesn't make any of it less of a deus ex machina.

Just Some Guy

07-17-2009, 06:34 PM

That doesn't make any of it less of a deus ex machina.

I suppose I should add that this is what I was talking about in my earlier post. Rowling piles on the details that some readers latch onto. So here we have "It was really all a scheme!" dropped as an excuse for the bad writing that fills the book and people who don't think about the plotting or structure nod their heads and accept it. When you pull it apart, however, that scheme doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why go through the elaborate deception under the nose of people who really should know better using innocent pawns who if they just said, "Oh, Harry, this guy asked me to help you!" it would fall apart when the whole thing would have been better served by snatching him once he got off the train. Rig a baggage cart to do the same thing as the cup and you've got the same result with one-tenth the effort or risk.

The real answer, of course, is that Rowling isn't a good writer and so she put deus ex machina after deus ex machina in Goblet of Fire to resolve situations and tried to justify it at the end before dropping another pair of deus ex machinas to resolve the story.

Mrs. Cake

07-17-2009, 07:00 PM

I'll only find it depressing if all the non-reading kids who became huge fans stop reading now that there are no more HP books (supposedly) coming out. Other than that, if HP leads aome of them on to a life-long love of literature, I for one am willing to forgive the series for being dull and unengaging to me.

JKR's writing irritated me and by the end of the third book, I had no desire to pick up book four, but it's not the first book or series I've put down for those reasons. I just figure it's like everyone going ga-ga over a celebrity I don't find interesting or attractive.

Lamia

07-17-2009, 08:23 PM

That doesn't make any of it less of a deus ex machina.Uh, yes, it does. Maybe you don't know what the term deus ex machina means. It isn't any plot point that you find contrived or unlikely. An elaborate scheme intended to lead to the hero's death is pretty much the opposite of a deus ex machina.
I suppose I should add that this is what I was talking about in my earlier post. Rowling piles on the details that some readers latch onto. So here we have "It was really all a scheme!" dropped as an excuse for the bad writing that fills the book and people who don't think about the plotting or structure nod their heads and accept it.Come on. You're seriously claiming that Rowling wrote almost the entire book, realized it was bad, and then made up the final plot twist at the last minute to cover up the story's weaknesses? That's ridiculous.
When you pull it apart, however, that scheme doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why go through the elaborate deception under the nose of people who really should know better using innocent pawns who if they just said, "Oh, Harry, this guy asked me to help you!" it would fall apart when the whole thing would have been better served by snatching him once he got off the train.I don't think you remember the book very well. "Moody" didn't outright ask people to help Harry, he did things like mention gillyweed where Dobby would overhear him. Even if Moody had directly been asking people to help Harry, why would this have made Harry suspicious? Harry might have been concerned about proper sportsmanship, but he respected and trusted Moody. He would have believed that Moody honestly meant to help him.
Rig a baggage cart to do the same thing as the cup and you've got the same result with one-tenth the effort or risk.I think there have been whole threads devoted to discussion of this particular issue, so I'm not going to get into it here. I will, however, point out that Voldemort is the supervillain of the HP universe, and supervillains rarely go for the simplest and most straightforward method of disposing of the hero. Dr. No could have just shot James Bond in the face, but that wouldn't have been much of a movie.
The real answer, of course, is that Rowling isn't a good writer and so she put deus ex machina after deus ex machina in Goblet of Fire to resolve situations and tried to justify it at the end before dropping another pair of deus ex machinas to resolve the story.There are plenty of criticisms that could fairly be made about Goblet of Fire (like the seemingly endless Quidditch Cup sequence), but this is just silly. I'd agree that the business about the wands at the end was rather deus ex machina-y, but the help Harry got in winning the tournament was not. It was a trap! Rowling intended all along for it to be a trap, one that would fool both Harry and the reader. I guess it fooled you a little too well, but it's absurd to suggest that she didn't know what the plot of her own book was all along.

RickJay

07-17-2009, 08:33 PM

Just Some Guy

07-17-2009, 09:28 PM

Uh, yes, it does. Maybe you don't know what the term deus ex machina means. It isn't any plot point that you find contrived or unlikely. An elaborate scheme intended to lead to the hero's death is pretty much the opposite of a deus ex machina.

Hmm... perhaps you should look it up. It means resolving a conflict by having an outside element enter without establishing that element beforehand. You know, like every conflict in Goblet of Fire.

It doesn't matter if after 600 pages that she says, "Ha! It was all a scheme!" It's about narrative structure. A good writer could have still said, "Ha! It was all a scheme!" at the end and resolved the conflicts without resorting to deus ex machina to resolve the middle plot points. Just having a character notice that it's awfully convenient that solutions keep getting dropped on Harry's head would have been a good start albeit nearly as blunt of plotting as Rowling does.

I was going to go point by point here but I know it doesn't matter since you made all of my points for me with the strawmen, even more convoluted descriptions of what I was keeping simple, and missing the point in general.

And yes there's a lot more wrong with the basic structure in Goblet of Fire (the fact that Harry as a protagonist is completely ineffective is a good start) but we're talking about Rowling's constant use of one particular bad writing device.

Eyebrows 0f Doom

07-17-2009, 09:33 PM

They're fun & entertaining and the books are better than the movies. I like them. That's all.

Lynn Bodoni

07-18-2009, 01:34 AM

Amendment: I was mostly talking about the adults. Who are probably supposed to be caricatures, but it didn't help.

Why, if people don't like the first X books of the series, would you expect them to make it to book seven? :P

Criticism of the early books in the series is actually more relevant - by the time the series became a Phenomenon, you can easily just write it off as such. Popular things clearly don't need to be good. What's baffling and confusing is how something that started off even worse than what it eventually became managed to get to Phenomenon status in the first place. I was somewhat excited and interested when I heard about the first HP book. I like fantasy, and in particular I like YA fantasy. So I got the first book, and was thoroughly underwhelmed. My daughter borrowed most of the sequels from the bookstores where she worked. I'd paid retail paperback price for the first book. I read the second and subsequent books for free. I would not have paid ANY money to read them, though I might have borrowed them from the library to see if the writing had improved if Lisa hadn't been able to borrow them.

I don't remember which HP book was the last one I read. It could have been three, or four, or five. But I do remember Lisa offering me the next book in the series, and I told her that I simply didn't get enough enjoyment for the time I spent reading the books.

I have a system of how I'll buy books. I will buy the books of a very few authors in new hardback. There are more authors that I'll buy in trade or mass market paperback. I will buy new copies of books by these authors because I want to "vote" with my dollars, to contribute to royalties and sales for these authors. Then there are the majority of the authors, who I don't feel have put in enough of an effort to really deserve my support. Maybe I'll buy their books new, but usually I will buy used copies of their books.

Then, there are the authors that I will only read if they're on the clearance shelf of the used book store, or the thrift shop. I won't pay more than a buck for their books. And there are the authors that write books that I won't pay even a quarter for. Rowling is such an author. If I have the opportunity to read one of her books without paying for it, I might read it. On the other hand, I might read one of the various women's magazines instead. Rowling does not engage me. I will expend no effort to seek out her books and read them. And remember, I *like* children's fantasy, I just have my standards, that's all.

Lamia

07-18-2009, 01:15 PM

Hmm... perhaps you should look it up. It means resolving a conflict by having an outside element enter without establishing that element beforehand. You know, like every conflict in Goblet of Fire.I'm a librarian, I always look things up. Maybe you should look it up, because you're not going to find any definition of the term that includes a plot device that makes things WORSE for the hero. All this "help" Harry is getting is only taking him out of the frying pan and into the fire. He'd have been better off if he'd lost the tournament.

Instead, by the end of the book the situation is much worse for Harry and the entire wizard world than it was at the beginning. Even the business about the brother wands only succeeds in preventing Harry from being killed. Voldemort's plan was largely successful. He has a new body, he's broken the spell that kept him from harming Harry, and he's regrouping with his old followers. What briefly seemed like a victory for Harry left Voldemort stronger than he'd been in the series to date.

Even setting aside the fact that it's all a trap, it isn't a deus ex machina for the hero's known allies to exercise long-established abilities to assist him. It was established well beforehand that Hagrid had an interest in dragons, that Neville was good at herbology, and that Dobby overhears a lot through his work and would use this information to protect Harry. Cedric tells Harry how to open the egg to repay Harry for telling him about the dragons, he doesn't just offer assistance out of the blue.
It's about narrative structure. A good writer could have still said, "Ha! It was all a scheme!" at the end and resolved the conflicts without resorting to deus ex machina to resolve the middle plot points.It wouldn't have been much of a scheme if the bad guys had just left it to chance whether Harry won the tournament. Maybe you missed this, but the fact that Harry is outclassed by his competition is a fairly important part of the book. Rowling makes it clear that Harry doesn't have the knowledge or skill to win the tournament on his own. Harry needed help, and the help he received was consistent with the characters that offered it to him. The only way for Harry to win all by himself would be if he suddenly became the best and brightest student out of the three competing schools. To her credit, Rowling never went that far into Mary Sue territory.
Just having a character notice that it's awfully convenient that solutions keep getting dropped on Harry's head would have been a good start albeit nearly as blunt of plotting as Rowling does.Sounds like someone is upset he didn't guess the final twist himself. Sorry Rowling didn't hold your hand a bit more, but from quite early in the book we know that someone is setting a trap for Harry involving his participation in the tournament. The Goblet of Fire was rigged so Harry's name would be selected. Many characters in the book suspect Harry of cheating, but the reader knows that this wasn't the case. Someone working behind the scenes was determined to have Harry in the tournament, and it surely wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts. Even Dumbledore is concerned about what's going on.

Moody suggests that the scheme may be to get Harry killed in the competition, but how would he know? He's at best just guessing, and as it turns out he's actually lying. Gosh, who would have suspected that the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher wasn't what he seemed? Only someone who's read any of the previous three books, because that's what happened in every single one of them. An observant reader would also notice that Moody was directly or (seemingly) indirectly involved in a lot of the help that Harry received. He encouraged Hagrid to talk to Harry about the dragons, he told Harry to use his flying skills in the dragon event, and he gave Neville the herboloy book. Harry trusted Moody and accepted all this help at face value, but Harry trusting an untrustworthy person was also nothing new for the series.

I guess Rowling could have dropped some even bigger clues, but in order to have a twist ending it's kind of important not to make it blatantly obvious to everyone well in advance. There was nothing preventing you from noticing on your own that it was awfully convenient that Harry kept getting help at the last minute. If you noticed this and concluded that it was just because Rowling was a lousy writer who wanted her hero to be a big champion but couldn't come up with a better way for him to solve a puzzle, that was your personal bias keeping you from realizing what kind of book you were actually reading.
I was going to go point by point here but I know it doesn't matter since you made all of my points for me with the strawmen, even more convoluted descriptions of what I was keeping simple, and missing the point in general.If you call misstating what actually happened in the book "keeping it simple" then yes, you were keeping it simple. If you get to just make things up about the book, Rowling's writing process, and even me, then I guess you can prove any point you like. It doesn't really count if you do it that way, though.

Goblet of Fire is far from my favorite entry in the series, so it's no surprise to me that someone would dislike it. There are plenty of valid criticisms to be made about this book. But if you dislike it because you didn't get it then that's your problem.

Frylock

07-18-2009, 01:28 PM

And yes there's a lot more wrong with the basic structure in Goblet of Fire (the fact that Harry as a protagonist is completely ineffective is a good start)

This is very telling. Putting aside the question how accurate this is as a description of what happens in the book, what's telling is that you find "ineffective protagonist" to be a sign of bad storytelling, and not, rather, a sign of some sophistication in the storytelling.

"Ineffective protagonist" signals either nothing, or sophistication. I can not imagine how it could be construed as signalling bad storytelling. There can be a bad story in which the protagonist is inneffective, but that inneffectiveness is not a sign of that bad storytelling. A protagonist's effectiveness or lack thereof is a plot characteristic that has significance for the quality of the plot whatsoever. It could go either way.

Zsofia

07-18-2009, 01:55 PM

Sigh. The problem with Goblet of Fire is that it's boring and chases its tail and goes on about six times too long. In other words, it's a pretty typical mid-series doldrums sort of book that showcases what's worst about the series. You don't need to argue whether a "inferno ex machina" is a real thing to just say "it was a boring book", do you?

Lamia

07-18-2009, 02:42 PM

Sigh. The problem with Goblet of Fire is that it's boring and chases its tail and goes on about six times too long. FWIW, I largely agree. I'd have liked Goblet of Fire a lot better if Rowling had cut a couple hundred pages of not especially interesting material. There was enjoyable material there as well and I think the central mystery was pretty good, but given how much time was devoted to the Tri-Wizard Tournament I don't think the reader was given much reason to care who won. If we know the twist then it's obvious that Harry would do better NOT to win, but even taking the competition at face value there's no particular reason to be rooting for Harry other than that he's the protagonist of the book. If Harry had really needed the prize money to help a friend or something then we'd have had reason to want him to beat out the others, but as things were the outcome of the competition didn't seem to matter.

I REALLY did not care about the Quidditch World Cup and would have liked to get that over with a lot more quickly. It's not until the end of Chapter 11 that Harry even arrives at Hogwarts and the main plot really gets going.

Beginning with Goblet of Fire, I think the series became to an extent the victim of its own success. Had the series been more modestly successful then Rowling would very likely have been pressured to keep the books shorter. Rowling does not come across to me as a prima donna who would refuse editorial suggestions, but few authors enjoy cutting large sections from their work and the publishers were probably wary of killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. They also likely wanted to get the later books in press ASAP. The later books were as close to the publishing industry gets to a sure thing, and the publisher's would have wanted to delay getting those big bucks. Dragging out the editing process when the later books were already taking years to write also ran the risk of having Pottermania lose steam before the series was finished. But in terms of the actual quality of the books rather than financial profit, I think the later entries in the series would have benefited from more extensive editing.

Lamia

07-18-2009, 02:49 PM

The later books were as close to the publishing industry gets to a sure thing, and the publisher's would have wanted to delay getting those big bucks.Sorry, I mangled this while trying to edit it and then ran out of time. The bolded portion should read "the publishers would not have wanted to delay getting those big bucks".

Sampiro

07-18-2009, 04:07 PM

I've read the HP books, I enjoyed them thoroughly, none would make my Top 20 list.

However, seeing lines around a store and out the door an hour before midnight of people of all ages awaiting a 759 page book- whatever it may owe to a combination of marketing, word of mouth, catchy theme music at the movies, and Danie Radcliffe growing up sexy and gallivanting naked on the net- it's the "one great hope" that the Readers will prevail against Twitter and the TLDR-eaters.

OTOH & AISMT (as I've said many times), I can't get into Tolkien at all. Many people I like, love, respect, etc., swear by him- I can't even make it out of the Shire when I read the first books. The second movie (LOTR2: Gollem Gets Barmitzvahed or whatever the hell it was called) is one of the few movies I've ever fallen asleep during. But... to each his own. I love Confederacy of Dunces and most anything by Capote and David Sedaris, I've friends who dislike all of those. I love Gone With the Wind and am totally indifferent to Casablanca which many consider the incomparably superior movie. The peurile profanity laden comedy songs of Stephen Lynch - NSFW (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPdFrW076R0) crack me up and this VERY NSFW song by John Butler (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLwtqwnI6ko) John R. Butler damned near made me call for oxygen the first time I heard it while many others find them somewhere between completely unfunny and ridiculously offensive, and I find Andy Kaufman and the insanely popular Sasha Baron Cohen roughly as funny as a documentary on TMJ.

As the Latino sage once said, [I]De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum livin' la vida loca.

Just Some Guy

07-18-2009, 05:29 PM

Lamia, since you are so wrapped up in defending the book to actually see my points let me take this to another book.

At the end of Return of the King Tolkien has the problem of Frodo and Sam stuck on an exploding volcano in enemy territory. To resolve this problem he has eagles swoop in and rescue them. This is a deus ex machina. It is no less of a deus ex machina because it is explained ten pages later that Gandalf sent them.

Problem: Sam and Frodo about to die/Harry can't get what he wants
Solution: Eagles swoop in to rescue them/Someone walks up and hands Harry the answer

An external factor enters the narrative to provide a solution for the protagonist. Problem/solution. That's the definition. A reason given later doesn't change the pattern.

"Ineffective protagonist" signals either nothing, or sophistication. I can not imagine how it could be construed as signalling bad storytelling. There can be a bad story in which the protagonist is inneffective, but that inneffectiveness is not a sign of that bad storytelling. A protagonist's effectiveness or lack thereof is a plot characteristic that has significance for the quality of the plot whatsoever. It could go either way.

In this case it's bad storytelling because Rowling is writing a heroic fantasy instead of an existential examination of humanity. And by "ineffective" I mean that Harry could have been replaced with an inanimate carbon rod in Goblet of Fire and the story would have been the same. Things happen to Harry; he doesn't do anything to move the plot forward.

Frylock

07-18-2009, 05:46 PM

In this case it's bad storytelling because Rowling is writing a heroic fantasy instead of an existential examination of humanity. And by "ineffective" I mean that Harry could have been replaced with an inani

Well, I disagree. And one reason I disagree is that there can't be what you're calling an "inneffective protagonist" in a (central case of a) work of heroic fantasy, while "inneffective protagonist" is a fairly typical means by which authors use their characters to examine the human situation. (Existentially or otherwise.)

It's examination-lite, written for kids. But examination it is. The story isn't about how Harry saves the day. (To my recollection, he never really does, not even by the end of the series. You're right--things generally happen to him. By the way, this is true of Frodo in LotR for the most part, as well.) Rather, the story is about what Harry discovers, how he learns that humans (him or others) can be. He is constantly discovering how his preconceptions about himself and others are wrong. Indeed, that process of revelation seemed to me to be the driving force in the book. The mystery plots and save the world stuff seemed like a mere excuse to get this more important and interesting quasi-philosophical stuff accomplished. (Keep in mind, I'm in philosophy, so I do have a tendency to see philosophy being done where others might not have spotted it, or agreed it was really there... ;) )

Like I said, it's examination lite, written for kids. I don't mean to say it's incredibly deep or merits a lot of study or anything. The work does use heroic fantasy tropes. But precisely because of the characteristics you're adducing as criticisms of the work, (they aren't criticisms, really, though you intend them that way--they only manage to be characterizations), we can see that those tropes really are just being used in the service of a more important project. And that project is exactly what you claim the book is not--an examination of humanity.

Just Some Guy

07-18-2009, 06:25 PM

Well, I disagree. And one reason I disagree is that there can't be what you're calling an "inneffective protagonist" in a (central case of a) work of heroic fantasy, while "inneffective protagonist" is a fairly typical means by which authors use their characters to examine the human situation. (Existentially or otherwise.)

Perhaps "inactive" might be a better word for things. I don't think we're that far apart on the core point (though I have my share of disagreements with your details). I mean that Harry Potter (particularly in Goblet of Fire but this is a common thing throughout the series) takes no action to move the plot forward; he is ridden by events rather than the other way around.

That can still work in fiction but Rowling is clearly writing heroic fantasy where we are supposed to latch onto the protagonist as the "hero". For the hero to not have an effect on the plot is a problem in that situation.

It's examination-lite, written for kids. But examination it is. The story isn't about how Harry saves the day. (To my recollection, he never really does, not even by the end of the series. You're right--things generally happen to him. By the way, this is true of Frodo in LotR for the most part, as well.) Rather, the story is about what Harry discovers, how he learns that humans (him or others) can be. He is constantly discovering how his preconceptions about himself and others are wrong. Indeed, that process of revelation seemed to me to be the driving force in the book. The mystery plots and save the world stuff seemed like a mere excuse to get this more important and interesting quasi-philosophical stuff accomplished. (Keep in mind, I'm in philosophy, so I do have a tendency to see philosophy being done where others might not have spotted it, or agreed it was really there... ;) )

I think you are reading more into it than Rowling put in and I disagree with your assessment though a detailed argument would require that I reread the series and I'm not doing that ;). For every person or situation that Harry learns that he is wrong about there's ten his snap decision was exactly right. And even when Harry learns that he was wrong about something often he was right originally in some vital aspect. It undercuts the theme that you found.

I'm more inclined to just look at those aspects of the books as children's book morality tales. The kind where you can almost read "MORAL" printed in big block text over the page where the characters learn a very important lesson and a more sophisticated reader can recognize that the author undercut their moral in other aspects of the book.

And Frodo is far from inactive like Harry Potter; right from the start his decisions drive the plot and do so through the end. Events happen as a consequence to his actions and he reacts to them but Frodo chooses to take the ring, to delay his departure, to destroy the ring, to go through Moria, to leave the Fellowship, to try to help Smeagol, and in the end to keep the ring. Frodo moves the story while Harry reacts to it.

Lamia

07-18-2009, 07:25 PM

Lamia, since you are so wrapped up in defending the book to actually see my points let me take this to another book.Gosh, sorry I was focusing on a Harry Potter book in a discussion about Harry Potter books.

At the end of Return of the King Tolkien has the problem of Frodo and Sam stuck on an exploding volcano in enemy territory. To resolve this problem he has eagles swoop in and rescue them. This is a deus ex machina. It is no less of a deus ex machina because it is explained ten pages later that Gandalf sent them.Sure, this example is a deus ex machina. It's also unlike anything that happens in Goblet of Fire.
An external factor enters the narrative to provide a solution for the protagonist. Problem/solution. That's the definition. A reason given later doesn't change the pattern.The help Harry gets in Goblet of Fire never comes out of nowhere. It's always based on established aspects of the characters involved, and most of these characters were well-known to readers from earlier books. Hagrid doesn't just suddenly develop an interest in dragons when it becomes convenient, he was rather excessively interested in dragons way back in the first book. Neville's strength in school was already said to be herbology. Cedric only offers Harry help to repay him for helping Cedric earlier in the book. Both Harry and the reader know all these things in advance, which is why Harry doesn't suspect he's being manipulated. Dobby running up at the last minute to literally hand Harry the solution to a puzzle is the most improbable help he receives, but even then there had been earlier clues about the usefulness of gillyweed and Dobby was introduced back in the second book as a character who overheard useful information and went out of his way to help Harry.

More importantly, the help Harry receives only leads to bigger problems. I don't know why you're having such difficulty grasping this point, but plot devices that make things WORSE for the hero aren't deus ex machina. They may be contrived, but they aren't deus ex machina. If those eagles had rescued the hobbits from a cliff only to deliver them to Saruman that wouldn't have been a deus ex machina, it would have been the heroes falling victim to a clever plan of the villain.

I think it was in one of Terry Rossio's Wordplay (http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/welcome.html) columns (although I can't find the right one now) that he said the only time it was forgivable to give your hero a spot of luck to get him out of a tricky situation was if this turned out to lead to even bigger problems. That's just the case with all the help Harry receives while competing in the Tri-Wizard Tournament. Winning the Tri-Wizard Tournament led directly to Voldemort's resurrection, which is just about the biggest problem possible for Harry at that point.

Goblet of Fire is not a book where external forces conveniently appear to solve all the hero's problems, and for you to claim that it is proves you totally failed to understand it. In Goblet of Fire NOTHING works out for the hero, while the villain accomplishes nearly everything he set out to do. Harry doesn't get the girl, he doesn't prevent Voldemort's resurrection or even seriously disrupt his plans, his attempt to be noble at the end of the tournament leads to the death of an innocent boy, and even his warning about Voldemort's return isn't taken seriously by the Minister of Magic. Harry's apparent victories in the tournament are only due to the manipulations of the villains, are trivial in the scheme of things and lead to no real gain for Harry, and ultimately serve to make things much, much worse for him and everyone he cares about.

Bridget Burke

07-18-2009, 07:37 PM

PeskiPiksi

07-18-2009, 07:39 PM

In defense of Rowling, she would agree with a lot of the criticisms being listed about Goblet of Fire. I remember reading an interview with her where she talked about how hard GoF was to write because she was under a strict deadline, and she was unhappy with the book as it ended up...she knew it needed pruning and polishing. That's why there was such a big gap between the releases of GoF and Phoenix--she refused to work under a deadline like that again.

I'll try to find a cite...

Magiver

07-18-2009, 07:53 PM

Lamia

07-18-2009, 08:29 PM

I didn't read the books until recently and found them progressively soap opera-ish. The first movie was perfect in every way but the movies that followed did not stick with the book nor were they consistent in topography. I can't criticize the author for writing successful books for teenagers but I find fault with her lack of literary control of the movies.You can't really blame Rowling for not having control of the movies. Authors never have control of the movies. Even if the original author also writes the screenplay the producers or director can order changes or even have the whole thing rewritten by someone else. The massive popularity of the books meant that Rowling was granted more input than is usual for novelists whose books are being adapted for the screen, the usual amount being "none", but even so her influence would have been limited to what the filmmakers were willing to put up with. Rowling had enough clout to demand certain concessions as a part of the movie deal (she wanted all the leads to be British/Irish actors, not Americans faking English accents), but she wouldn't have had any legal right to prevent changes not specified in the contract.

DrDeth

07-18-2009, 09:33 PM

e.

For examples of good epic Fantasy, rather than throwing my personal opinions down this looks like a good list.
http://www.bestfantasybooks.com/best-fantasy-series.php.

#3 is Wheel of Time, which became hack writing of the very worst sort.

#7 is the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, which is boring, depressing and barely fantasy. And poorly written.

Of his top ten, I have only enjoyed A Game of Thrones (too dark for me, and too slowly written, however) and of course LotR. The fact that he puts LotR last of 10 after several hack writers is proof this guy has no taste and his list is crap.

Magiver

07-18-2009, 10:22 PM

You can't really blame Rowling for not having control of the movies. Authors never have control of the movies. Even if the original author also writes the screenplay the producers or director can order changes or even have the whole thing rewritten by someone else. The massive popularity of the books meant that Rowling was granted more input than is usual for novelists whose books are being adapted for the screen, the usual amount being "none", but even so her influence would have been limited to what the filmmakers were willing to put up with. Rowling had enough clout to demand certain concessions as a part of the movie deal (she wanted all the leads to be British/Irish actors, not Americans faking English accents), but she wouldn't have had any legal right to prevent changes not specified in the contract.
I disagree. Authors can retain control over content by writing that into the contract. They swapped out the character Neville and inserted Dobby in the scene about the hidden room. They completely changed the school between movies so there is no official layout. These are simple things to control and should have been dealt with from day one.

Zsofia

07-18-2009, 10:40 PM

As somebody who doesn't love Harry Potter but knows many fine people who do, and who is by no means depressed by its success, I thought I'd point out that Wolf_Man, the OP, hasn't returned to his thread.

Perhaps he isn't up to defending that somewhat dicey list of heroic fantasy he included....

Well, A Game of Thrones really is quite good. Also, and I'll defend it in your carious teeth, Thomas Covenant. You have to throw out the whole list when the words "wheel" and "time" come within six words of one another, though.

Guinastasia

07-18-2009, 10:51 PM

That's pretty much my attitude, although I wouldn't say "anything". I'd be a little depressed if it was The Adventures Of Harry Potter In The KKK or something of the sort that was so popular. :D

But as it is, it's harmless entertainment that's drawn a lot of people into reading more.

Someone HAS to write that fanfic now. ;)

mr. jp -- actually, you have to be up by a certain number of points to catch the Snitch. You can, in theory, catch it, and STILL lose the game -- IF the other team is ahead enough that the 250 points doesn't matter.

As for the rest, Birdmonster, eleanorigby, Lamia, Sleeps With Butterflies and CyclopticXander have said most of what I wanted to.

They completely changed the school between movies so there is no official layout. These are simple things to control and should have been dealt with from day one.

Maybe, but it can be argued that the layout of Hogwarts actually DOES tend to change -- it's mentioned in the book that rooms aren't always were they were the last time.

eleanorigby

07-18-2009, 10:58 PM

I disagree. Authors can retain control over content by writing that into the contract. They swapped out the character Neville and inserted Dobby in the scene about the hidden room. They completely changed the school between movies so there is no official layout. These are simple things to control and should have been dealt with from day one.

actually, you have that backwards--they inserted Neville re the Room of Requirement. Neville seems to be a handy stand in for Dobby. Luna looks to be a handy stand in for Tonks in HP6.

Your second point is one that bothers me as well, but I don't blame Rowling for it. It is an error of the production and continuity team; the author of the material has no say in it whatsoever.

Books and film, being completely different media, cannot possibly be treated as equivalents. IMO, a fan is lucky if the spirit or soul (if you will) of a work translates onto the screen (examples are Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind ,LOTR and HP). Having bought the rights to the material, the producer can do as he or she pleases in order to make the film he or she thinks will be the best product. Hollywood being what it is, the best product usually means the most marketable and profit making, not a Work of Art Faithful to The Work That Inspired the Deal.

Then again, Guin may well have a point: why not have the grounds change a bit? It's a magical place, afterall. PS-Guin, catching the Snitch is worth 150, not 250 points. :)

Rubystreak

07-18-2009, 11:23 PM

I think you are reading more into it than Rowling put in and I disagree with your assessment though a detailed argument would require that I reread the series and I'm not doing that ;). For every person or situation that Harry learns that he is wrong about there's ten his snap decision was exactly right. And even when Harry learns that he was wrong about something often he was right originally in some vital aspect. It undercuts the theme that you found.

I think Rowling very much did intend it to be a theme that Harry would discover that people are not exactly who he thought they were. He grows up over the course of the books and learns to see people as being more complex than he thought. Heroes can be very flawed (Dumbledore), and villains can be noble (Snape). Everyone has a story, and a reason why they are they way they are. When the books start, Harry is too young to grasp that, reacting only to the parts of people he seems and experiences, but as he matures, he comes to realize that usually there's more to people than meets the eye. That is something that all kids go through, the quintessence of a romansbildung, if you want me to get all grad school on you.

I wish you could give an example of "ten snap decisions about people that Harry made that were exactly right." I can't think of any, actually. All of his initial impressions were deepened and made more complex, even when he ultimately decided that a person was, in fact, truly a right bastard (Malfoy).

I came to the series late, and read them all straight through after the last one came out. All of my students were reading them, so I felt I ought to. They were enjoyable and in no way harmful to kids, so what's the problem? It got a lot of indifferent readers interested in books, which I hope will carry over into other reading. Nothing whatsoever to be depressed about IMO.

Lamia

07-18-2009, 11:27 PM

I disagree. Authors can retain control over content by writing that into the contract.If the author demands a contract that gives them total creative control then there isn't going to be any contract.
They swapped out the character Neville and inserted Dobby in the scene about the hidden room. They completely changed the school between movies so there is no official layout. These are simple things to control and should have been dealt with from day one.Come on. J.K. Rowling was supposed to include demands like use of the same sets from one movie to the next in her contract? Since she has no background in filmmaking I doubt this would even have occurred to her, and it would have been a pretty wacky demand for a novelist to make. In 1998, when she sold the movie rights to the first four books, J.K. Rowling was the bestselling author of two children's books but she was not yet the bestselling author EVER. Several studios wanted the movie rights to the HP series, but not so badly that they'd have signed a deal granting the author the power to micromanage the production. I doubt that even now she'd have that kind of clout. That's just not the way moviemaking works.

If you don't like the way the movies turned out then blame the filmmakers.

Guinastasia

07-18-2009, 11:35 PM

PS-Guin, catching the Snitch is worth 150, not 250 points. :)

:smack:

Clothahump

07-19-2009, 12:08 AM

Who finds the success of Harry Potter depressing?

Not I. I loved the books and I love the movies. SWMBO and I have already been to see Half-Blood Prince and we are probably going to go again next weekend.

wolfman

07-19-2009, 01:21 AM

Sonnenstrahl

07-19-2009, 02:39 AM

I find this thread very interesting, because I started reading Harry Potter at a time when I was suffering from debilitating social anxiety. I couldn't sleep, I felt anxious all the time. It seemed the only time I got some respite was when I was reading these books. Now don't get me wrong, other books could have accomplished the same thing. But for me they were engrossing and very readable, without being pretentious, that it allowed me to easily ignore my symptoms for a few hours at a pop.

That's actually a common thread among people I've met who have loved HP - they read them while going through a tough time. I read them while living alone in a very isolated place, my mother read them while caring for her dying mother, another friend read them while her husband was deployed in Iraq... For people who like them, there's something about them that consumes your attention so fully that they can really take you away from daily life. I think that one thing that Rowling does well is create a character you care about in only a few words, so you feel like you're surrounded by a large cast of friends when you read them, and it's comforting.

Of course, as others have mentioned, it's a mistake to read them and expect classical fantasy - that's not the genre to which they belong. I don't like LOTR-style fantasy at all, so I don't miss any features of those books. To each his or her own!

Bridget Burke

07-19-2009, 05:11 AM

Well, I guess I am purposefully guilty of drive-by posting because I decided I would make my anti-Rowlings post, then give it three days before I come back to avoid any quick response meltdown.

After three days I have to say, I got lazy and picked a really shitty alternative list. It had menus and covers and matched a few lookups, and it was shitty, and I beg Mea Culpa for that. But I still stand by my OP. Reading shit is not better than watching quality.

You didn't stand "by" your OP so much as stand at a significant distance from it. I'm not a huge Harry Potter fan but am hardly "depressed" by its success.

Are you depressed that it's taking attention away from more worthy works? If so, perhaps you could type out a list of stuff you, personally, like better. I'm not shy about promoting favorite books & authors, but usually do so in threads where people are asking for recommendations.

John DiFool

07-19-2009, 10:24 AM

#3 is Wheel of Time, which became hack writing of the very worst sort.

#7 is the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, which is boring, depressing and barely fantasy. And poorly written.

Of his top ten, I have only enjoyed A Game of Thrones (too dark for me, and too slowly written, however) and of course LotR. The fact that he puts LotR last of 10 after several hack writers is proof this guy has no taste and his list is crap.

Not to mention he completely ignored seminal works like Amber (okay it's 25th-whoopie), Elric, and stuff from Fritz Leiber (who, to be fair, generally strung novellas and short stories together, as the concept of the multinovel "series" didn't really exist back then).

Magiver

07-19-2009, 10:48 AM

Maybe, but it can be argued that the layout of Hogwarts actually DOES tend to change -- it's mentioned in the book that rooms aren't always were they were the last time.
That was Dumbledor referring to the room that shows up as needed. It bothers me that there is no true layout of the school. I had trouble visualizing it as I read the books and the movies made it worse. I was expecting LOTR faithfulness to the books and that was done without the author. Given the pile of money she made on the books (starting with the first) she was in a clear position to dictate how they would be translated.

eleanorigby

07-19-2009, 11:11 AM

That's actually a common thread among people I've met who have loved HP - they read them while going through a tough time.

Yes. When I first read them, I thought they were just fun kids' books and I read them aloud to my (then) young children. And then the movies came out and it was a family thing we could all share.

But I have found an appeal in this particular film that is deeper than the others for me. I am most likely going to go see it again this afternoon (this will be the 3rd time). I have been questioning this desire in myself for several days, even mocking myself about it, but I think it's because there's not too much "danger" in this one and the story line is mostly sweet. I am working 2 jobs and an infrequent 3rd one; my husband is out of work and we very recently lost his father. I need this movie. I need the escapism.

If others have different ways of escaping, that's great. I don't look to pop fiction for Great Literature. I look for solid writing (which is iffy in Rowling's case), sturdy plotlines (she's got that) and good characterization (ditto). If the fictional place and story are plausible, so much the better... It's all I need to make a commute better.

I don't want to reread the books though--I reread book 6 just prior to seeing the opening of the film and I went on to book 7 (skipping the horrid epilogue). I put that down to me being an adult (and yes, being irked by some of the writing style). I prefer murder mysteries for my reading escape. YMMV.

2ply

07-19-2009, 11:45 AM

Harry Potter doesn't depress me at all. Twilight does....

Twilight can get my 12 year old cousin to read. It's alright by me.

Lamia

07-19-2009, 11:47 AM

Given the pile of money she made on the books (starting with the first) she was in a clear position to dictate how they would be translated.No, she wasn't. That is not how the movie business works. You are very naive if you think Rowling could have set herself up as dictator over the films. I doubt that's a position she would have wanted even if she could have, since she's a novelist and not a film director.

Magiver

07-19-2009, 11:53 AM

actually, you have that backwards--they inserted Neville re the Room of Requirement. Neville seems to be a handy stand in for Dobby. Luna looks to be a handy stand in for Tonks in HP6.

You're right. They took out the development and importance of Doby in this scene. I knew one of the characters was screwed up in the scene. There was a Neville complaint I had but can't think of it at the moment.

Your second point is one that bothers me as well, but I don't blame Rowling for it. It is an error of the production and continuity team; the author of the material has no say in it whatsoever.

Books and film, being completely different media, cannot possibly be treated as equivalents. IMO, a fan is lucky if the spirit or soul (if you will) of a work translates onto the screen (examples are Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind ,LOTR and HP). Having bought the rights to the material, the producer can do as he or she pleases in order to make the film he or she thinks will be the best product. Hollywood being what it is, the best product usually means the most marketable and profit making, not a Work of Art Faithful to The Work That Inspired the Deal.

Then again, Guin may well have a point: why not have the grounds change a bit? It's a magical place, afterall. PS-Guin, catching the Snitch is worth 150, not 250 points. :) You brought up a classic example of a movie that veered from the book (Oz) and stood alone because of it. I would grant this if I thought this were the case. There were scenes that were included that I thought were complete misrepresentations of the book (for no good reason) such as the return of Ron's father from the hospital. It was so out of character with the book. I can accept the death of Harry's Uncle in the movie because it's close enough to the book and they wanted to dramatize it more. It's not like I'm a purist but I want the meaning and intent to be consistent to the story line.

I know I've seen authors talk about their creative control of movies before in interviews. Maybe I'm expecting too much from this author's status. She wasn't an established author when the first book became an international success.

Magiver

07-19-2009, 12:09 PM

No, she wasn't. That is not how the movie business works. You are very naive if you think Rowling could have set herself up as dictator over the films. I doubt that's a position she would have wanted even if she could have, since she's a novelist and not a film director. Your opinion makes no sense. It's common practice to pay people to ensure elements of a movie are factually correct. That does not make the person a dictator. All of the LOTR movies were very faithful to the books. That was no accident.

These books were extremely popular (internationally) and it was within the author's negotiating power to include the appropriate guidance to the movies. For people in this thread to conclude that the movies would not be made if she were contractually part of the process ignores the worldwide appeal behind the books and the money those movies would make.

Dangerosa

07-19-2009, 12:43 PM

No, she wasn't. That is not how the movie business works. You are very naive if you think Rowling could have set herself up as dictator over the films. I doubt that's a position she would have wanted even if she could have, since she's a novelist and not a film director.

It was widely reported when she signed the original contracts that she had "unprecedented" control over the movies. It was widely reported that was the only way she was willing to sell the rights. She certainly didn't need to sell the rights, Harry Potter had made her wealthy already. It was also said that was one of the reasons the first few films were so weak - that she refused to have things cut in order to make the films tighter. And its why the later films are better, she stopped micromanaging them. Its normal in translating a book to film to cut parts, combine characters, change scenes - it makes for a better movie.

(Magiver - The LOTR movies were very faithful to the books? Did you see the same movies I did? Aragon falling off the cliff, elves at Helm's Deep? Some nonsense about Arwen's fate being tied to the ring? Faramir?)

mr. jp

07-19-2009, 01:32 PM

mr. jp -- actually, you have to be up by a certain number of points to catch the Snitch. You can, in theory, catch it, and STILL lose the game -- IF the other team is ahead enough that the 250 points doesn't matter.

I realise this. But still.

eleanorigby

07-19-2009, 04:29 PM

You brought up a classic example of a movie that veered from the book (Oz) and stood alone because of it. I would grant this if I thought this were the case.

I have to disagree. If the Wizard of Oz were released today, there would be people screaming that they were silver shoes, not ruby slippers and that it was a sawhorse, not a strawman (IMS--and it may not--I read all of them 34 years ago, and may have mixed them up with that detail).

There were scenes that were included that I thought were complete misrepresentations of the book (for no good reason) such as the return of Ron's father from the hospital. It was so out of character with the book.

I found that abrupt too, and would have been delighted to see St Mungo's, but it was a needed cinematic shortcut.

I can accept the death of Harry's Uncle in the movie because it's close enough to the book and they wanted to dramatize it more. It's not like I'm a purist but I want the meaning and intent to be consistent to the story line.

You have completely lost me--Harry's Uncle does not die, not even at the end of book 7. His godfather dies, and dies on screen exactly the way he dies in the book. :confused:

I know I've seen authors talk about their creative control of movies before in interviews. Maybe I'm expecting too much from this author's status. She wasn't an established author when the first book became an international success.

She got unprecedented control for a writer (and got to insist that only Brits be used--I'm not sure if that has remained in place after all this time). She is on record as saying that the film version of Hogwarts match her vision. True, they don't always match mine, but that's the limitation of film and the beauty of imagination.

Kamino Neko

07-19-2009, 04:39 PM

If the Wizard of Oz were released today, there would be people screaming that they were silver shoes, not ruby slippers and that it was a sawhorse, not a strawman (IMS--and it may not--I read all of them 34 years ago, and may have mixed them up with that detail).

You're right on the shoes, but the sawhorse was from Marvelous Land of Oz. One of 'Tip''s creations with the Powder of Life.

Dorothy's companion in Wizard was, in fact, a scarecrow.

That aside, I agree with your point.

eleanorigby

07-19-2009, 04:55 PM

You're right on the shoes, but the sawhorse was from Marvelous Land of Oz. One of 'Tip''s creations with the Powder of Life.

Dorothy's companion in Wizard was, in fact, a scarecrow.

That aside, I agree with your point.

Thanks. I vaguely remember a sawhorse and could not remember where it came in. I always found that object to be quite odd....

There were other changes made from the book for the filmed Oz, but I cannot recall them now.

IMO, what happens is that good stories (no matter how well or ill told) unfold much like movies in our heads. When an actual film does not match that, people get a bit testy.... But we are straying OT. :)

Lamia

07-19-2009, 05:34 PM

Your opinion makes no sense. It's common practice to pay people to ensure elements of a movie are factually correct. That does not make the person a dictator.You're the one who said Rowling should have been dictating how the movies were made. Guess what that would have made her?
All of the LOTR movies were very faithful to the books. That was no accident.It wasn't because J.R.R. Tolkien was given complete creative control over every single production decision though, now was it? Of course not, because he had been dead for decades. Rowling had a hell of a lot more to do with the making of the Harry Potter films than Tolkien did with the LOTR films.
These books were extremely popular (internationally) and it was within the author's negotiating power to include the appropriate guidance to the movies. For people in this thread to conclude that the movies would not be made if she were contractually part of the process ignores the worldwide appeal behind the books and the money those movies would make.Rowling had far, far more input in these movies than most authors could ever hope for. I said that quite a few posts back, so I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing that it was impossible for her to have any input at all. I'm arguing that you have no understanding of the Hollywood moviemaking process if you think that she could have demanded vastly more power, dictating every detail down to the floor plans.

I don't know why you think she'd have even wanted to do this, since she had no experience as a filmmaker and at the time she sold the movie rights she still had five books to complete. Do you think maybe that might have been a higher priority for her than micromanaging every aspect of the movies? Rowling has always said she's pleased with how the movies have turned out, so she obviously doesn't share your outrage over the fact that certain changes were made in the transition from page to screen.

It was widely reported when she signed the original contracts that she had "unprecedented" control over the movies. It was widely reported that was the only way she was willing to sell the rights.This is essentially what I said back in post #106. Rowling had a lot more power when it came to the way these movies were made than most authors do. She was able to make the studio concede to certain demands, like casting only British/Irish actors in the lead roles. IIRC she also insisted that children of approximately the same age as the characters be cast for all child roles and had a lot of input into the first four scripts. But Magiver thinks that this was not enough, and that it was some sort of personal shortcoming that Rowling did not demand complete creative control over every little detail of the films.

Magiver

07-19-2009, 09:18 PM

I found that abrupt too, and would have been delighted to see St Mungo's, but it was a needed cinematic shortcut.
the scene at St Mungo's explained Neville's parents death.

You have completely lost me--Harry's Uncle does not die, not even at the end of book 7. His godfather dies, and dies on screen exactly the way he dies in the book. :confused: Sorry, his Godfather. He was not cursed in the book. He just falls into the void.

She got unprecedented control for a writer (and got to insist that only Brits be used--I'm not sure if that has remained in place after all this time). She is on record as saying that the film version of Hogwarts match her vision. True, they don't always match mine, but that's the limitation of film and the beauty of imagination. Which version of Hogwarts?

Magiver

07-19-2009, 09:32 PM

[/i]It wasn't because J.R.R. Tolkien was given complete creative control over every single production decision though, now was it? Of course not, because he had been dead for decades. Rowling had a hell of a lot more to do with the making of the Harry Potter films than Tolkien did with the LOTR films. And yet the movies did not accurately portray the books.

[/i]Rowling had far, far more input in these movies than most authors could ever hope for. I said that quite a few posts back, so I'm not sure why you think I'm arguing that it was impossible for her to have any input at all. I'm arguing that you have no understanding of the Hollywood moviemaking process if you think that she could have demanded vastly more power, dictating every detail down to the floor plans. What manner of rocket science is required to get a good adaptation of a movie from a book when the author is involved? LOTR is accurately portrayed, Harry Potter is not.

I don't know why you think she'd have even wanted to do this, since she had no experience as a filmmaker and at the time she sold the movie rights she still had five books to complete. Because she wrote the books and would take pride in how well they were adapted to movies.

Lamia

07-19-2009, 11:16 PM

And yet the movies did not accurately portray the books.They were far more accurate than many other screen adaptations of novels. We were lucky Harry didn't wind up being rewritten as an exchange student from California or something.
What manner of rocket science is required to get a good adaptation of a movie from a book when the author is involved? LOTR is accurately portrayed, Harry Potter is not.A lot of people would disagree with you on both points. But if you really feel that the LOTR series was far more faithful than the HP series, it's pretty bizarre that you also believe the problems you perceive in the HP films could only have been solved by giving total creative control to the author. Authorial involvement obviously isn't necessary to produce a film that you consider a faithful adaptation of a book.
Because she wrote the books and would take pride in how well they were adapted to movies.Rowling IS apparently proud of how well the movies have turned out, even though she didn't put her writing career on hold to micromanage every detail of their production. If YOU don't like the way the movies came out then you can blame the actual moviemakers for the decisions THEY made, although frankly it sounds like you would have been impossible to please. I'll bet you're one of those people who got all upset because Hermione's Yule Ball gown wasn't the same color in the movie as in the book.

Sitnam

07-19-2009, 11:39 PM

I think it's depressing. Anything that gets children to read is great but this sophomoric literature's infection of the mature brain is nothing but proof of widespread adult idiocy.

Magiver

07-19-2009, 11:49 PM

They were far more accurate than many other screen adaptations of novels. We were lucky Harry didn't wind up being rewritten as an exchange student from California or something.
[/i]A lot of people would disagree with you on both points. But if you really feel that the LOTR series was far more faithful than the HP series, it's pretty bizarre that you also believe the problems you perceive in the HP films could only have been solved by giving total creative control to the author. Authorial involvement obviously isn't necessary to produce a film that you consider a faithful adaptation of a book.
[/i]Rowling IS apparently proud of how well the movies have turned out, even though she didn't put her writing career on hold to micromanage every detail of their production. If YOU don't like the way the movies came out then you can blame the actual moviemakers for the decisions THEY made, although frankly it sounds like you would have been impossible to please. I'll bet you're one of those people who got all upset because Hermione's Yule Ball gown wasn't the same color in the movie as in the book. I'm not as picky as you think. I want the character development to remain intact and I want artistic license to remain in the background. A good example would be the brick wall that moves aside in Diagon Alley. It was masterfully done in the movie. Truly a great special effect that did not detract from the scene.

You have raised a point about dealing with the movies in addition to writing the next book. I can see a conflict of time with the author. Since this is something that can be done by someone other than the author I concede your point that the movie makers mucked it up. If Rowlings signed on as the perveyor of the gospel then she failed in that respect.

DrDeth

07-20-2009, 12:24 AM

And yet the movies did not accurately portray the books.
.

Books were far to long to adapt to film well, too much had to be cut. :(

Other than that, I think they did a fine job.

DMark

07-20-2009, 02:46 AM

I love LOTR, read the books and think the films were great. Am looking forward to seeing The Hobbit as well.

That said, I have never read any Harry Potter books, but have seen all the films in theaters when first released and like them a lot. It is silly, escapist fun - some cool magic and effects and - I actually care for, and like, the lead characters. I have no idea how the last book ends, so am looking forward to the next (two) films to find out. What's not to like about HP? And why should I, or anyone else, begrudge a popular series for being financially successful?

I have never seen Transformers (and don't intend to), nor read or seen Twilight (also don't intend to) and there are many other big-hit films that don't particularly interest me. But if they make a gazillion dollars, good for them.

eleanorigby

07-20-2009, 07:15 AM

the scene at St Mungo's explained Neville's parents death.

Which they awkwardly changed to Neville doing about 5 minutes of exposition to Harry privately in the Room of Requirement. Not the best solution, but it spared them the expense of several more actors for the St Mungo pts and staff, another set and the most important thing: time.

Sorry, his Godfather. He was not cursed in the book. He just falls into the void.

Yes, indeed he was cursed by Bellatrix LeStrange who crowed about it afterward and Harry chases her, using the Cruciatus curse on her in the book.

Which version of Hogwarts? The entire world--I suppose we should say the non-Muggle one, since there is no label for the magical world, just the magical school. Rowling made a point of saying that this was true to her version and vision when the first movie came out. I'm not about to hunt that far back for a cite. :)

Part of the issue may be because several different directors led the first few films, creating the changes in vision. That they all kept to the same "look" and major sets (with changes here and there) is amazing in and of itself. Just look at how much the Star Trek films costumes change with every film (the first 6)--details count. Do I love every change? Of course not, but I accept them as part of film making.

Lamia

07-20-2009, 08:20 AM

You have raised a point about dealing with the movies in addition to writing the next book. I can see a conflict of time with the author. Since this is something that can be done by someone other than the author I concede your point that the movie makers mucked it up.Thanks. The directors and producers were capable of reading the books on their own, so they didn't need Rowling standing over them to point out what it said on the page.
If Rowlings signed on as the perveyor of the gospel then she failed in that respect.She didn't sign on as any such thing though, and I don't think there's any chance the studio would have agreed to have her serve in such a role.

Dave Hartwick

07-20-2009, 08:23 AM

I wasn't depressed by HP before reading this thread, but now that I have, I'm a bit down.

None of my favorite authors would generate this sort of response. People have admitted that Rowling isn't all that great of an author but can still discuss, er, whatever it is you're talking about.

Just pulling a couple names out here: Tom Holt and Robert Asprin. Both have written light fantasy, and Asprin's Myth series was aimed at kids. Nice, amusing reads, just as good as HP IMO. Funnier, at any rate.

I wrote a quiz on Tom Holt for FunTrivia.com. It was still listed as new a year later because nobody took it.

Man, I bet I could start a discussion thread here on this board or on Amazon or Shelfari on my all time favorite, Hemingway's "The Sun Also Rises" and get maybe 2 responses. Yet everybody has something to say about, well, whatever it is you guys were talking about.

I keep reading that kids love HP. Yeah, I remember that happening. It was 2002, right? The neighbor kid had a HP party, it was cute. I think he's moved on since.

You know what's not cute? The dork in the next cubicle bringing the latest HP book with him so he can read it in the freaking elevator. Why not wear a Hello Kitty raincoat while you're at it, there, champ? It'll go nicely with the Transformers lunchbox.

Notice that he doesn't qualify as a geek. If he brought in a model trainset and built a little town on his desk? Cool. Stupid but cool. Being publicly interested in kiddie lit is just stupid. Dorky and stupid. So yeah, now that you mention it, I do feel a little depressed. Thanks for asking. I'll be over here writing quizzes. YOU BASTARDS!

rhubarbarin

09-14-2009, 08:40 PM

I don't like the movies but I think the books are great. They are feel-good kiddy fantasy. The hero is the hero because he is pure of heart, and he will always be okay. The plots aren't great but the characters are memorable. I wouldn't want it every day, but I think it's great fun. Gets better as it goes along, too.

For me, judging a thing's ultimate 'quality' or level of artistry has little to do with enjoying it, and nothing to do with other people's feelings about it. To each their own, and I second the posters who say it's nice to see kids reading something.. anything!

AK84

09-15-2009, 12:31 AM

I don't like the movies but I think the books are great. They are feel-good kiddy fantasy.
The last couple of books can be accused of being many things, "kiddY" and for children however are not one of them. In truth thats true of all the latter books.
Agree with you on the movies though.

Huerta88

09-15-2009, 01:15 AM

- Quidditch doesn't make any damn sense. Capturing the snitch is all that matters. The other players must feel like idiots, if they ever paused to think.

Ding ding ding, and wish they had not spent so much time of the SFX for this in the movies.

Always a huge problem. JKR is clearly no true sports fan, doesn't understand how a sport might work, her invented "sport" makes less sense well even than soccer.

Deal with a sport-centric series written by a welfare mum. Wodehouse would at least get the cricket or golf dead right.

JKR, crudely, might do as well with the interpersonal stuff as PGW or P.O'B, but holds no candle to either of them on sport. Actually, she certainly could not hold a candle to the latter in any realm -- but who of us could? She did okay on junior high school crushes.

But sports? No. She should have figured this out and backed off.

Huerta88

09-15-2009, 01:29 AM

The last couple of books can be accused of being many things, "kiddY" and for children however are not one of them. In truth thats true of all the latter books.
Agree with you on the movies though.

Her writing definitely progressed a significant amount -- as witness the sometimes-too-multifaarious subplots -- but it never became as effortless as the great writers of mystery/suspense. She definitely understood the lure of the red herring, the double double twist, and the employment of what Frank Herbert called PRESSURE (as a plot driver) (albeit she betrayed the latter from time to time in her latter and overly expansive volumes). I can imagine a world in which JKR goes on to write fairly effective non-magical suspense, mystery, thriller, whodunit novels -- she understands the basic vocabulary, she's reasonably (???) fair in not f'ing with her readers' built-in expectations, and she has figured out how to kinda sorta manage a sprawling fact pattern.

lee

09-15-2009, 02:01 AM

I wonder to what extent the popularity is due to the things that make them seem so bad to so many. I get the feeling that what you read is what you get, and although there are something that turn out to be deceptions, you were not really supposed to get it ahead of time. Some people I know don't like books because they feel that they are missing something and feel that people like them are being sneered at by the author, and with Harry Potter, it just isn't the case, it is a fairly WYSIWYG series without being deliberately low brow.

And Deus Ex Machina, well, I like it in Forever Free, so I won't condemn it universally.

Gyrate

09-15-2009, 06:03 AM

One more time:
Quidditch doesn't make any damn sense. Capturing the snitch is all that matters. The other players must feel like idiots, if they ever paused to think.So... something like this (http://www.sluggy.com/comics/archives/daily/020915).

longhair75

09-15-2009, 07:47 AM

I have always thought that the incomprehensible nature of Quidditch was intentional. The magical world follows a sport that makes absolutely no sense to muggles. Of course, JKR comes from England where the national sport is Cricket, which to the uninitiated makes almost as little sense as Quidditch......

AK84

09-15-2009, 02:29 PM

Makes more scence than Baseball or any other Yank sport (**ducks**).

Her writing definitely progressed a significant amount -- as witness the sometimes-too-multifaarious subplots -- but it never became as effortless as the great writers of mystery/suspense. She definitely understood the lure of the red herring, the double double twist, and the employment of what Frank Herbert called PRESSURE (as a plot driver) (albeit she betrayed the latter from time to time in her latter and overly expansive volumes). I can imagine a world in which JKR goes on to write fairly effective non-magical suspense, mystery, thriller, whodunit novels -- she understands the basic vocabulary, she's reasonably (???) fair in not f'ing with her readers' built-in expectations, and she has figured out how to kinda sorta manage a sprawling fact pattern.
Her writing improved a lot over time, however it was never any thing extradinary and thats okay. My point is that the books became more and more "adult" in theme as Harry grew older so that by the last two books (and especially in the death parade that is Deathly Hallows) you can no longer call it a childrens or even young teens books. This is actually in contrast with what you find in most British boarding school novels, Enid Blyton's characters acted the same at 18 as they did at 10.

I think that the huge differnce in style, setting and theme that the Harry Potter scene has between the early and later novels, will hurt it in the future, adults will not want to read the early books while the later books are often difficult to follow sans knowledge of the earlier ones.