No, it is not an informed opinion. Let’s find out who’s the humorless one here. Point out one joke in anything you’ve ever written.
Well, I suspect I’m being set up. I’ll post links to jokes, and you’ll tell me they aren’t funny, and we’ll go back and forth while the sun rises and sets and more important tasks are left undone. If it makes you happy: I know nothing of what I speak. I retract all statements I have made. All future opinions will either be supported by extensive research and appropriate credentials. For instance, if I claim to like “alt country” music, I will list my CD collection, the articles in No Depression I have authored, an interview with Jeff Tweedy, and a personal reference signed by T-Bone Burnett. If I claim not to get anime, I will prove that I have been exposed to 100 hours of the stuff, and cite a psychological report by an expert that after plumbing by brain with state of the art physiological equipment, he’s found no evidence that I understood any of it. If I claim to enjoy a pot of tea, I will include photographs of the teapot and scans of used teabags. YOU, Mr. Wendell, deserve nothing less than the most high-minded and articulate of theories. I am sure that if you take on the Internet one uninformed poster at a time, in a few years there will be nary a soul posting anything but the most verifiable and valid of theses. I wish you God-speed on your errand.
My humor tends not to be of the “joke” crash-bam “get it” variety, but this is a cut-and-dried joke you might get if you’ve read even the most introductory material on Taoism.
Well, Wendell, this doesn’t stop you from going into nearly every thread about The Lord of the Rings movies—even ones that say MOVIES and not BOOKS—and announcing how the movies are crap, how the movies have nothing redeemable about them, how Peter Jackson knows nothing and can’t make a decent movie to save his life because he doesn’t have the same knowledge and respect for the material you do, and berating the movie-watcher because he doesn’t worship the books the way you appear to.
In that regard, you are guilty of the same threadcrapping that skutir performed here—and you of all people are taking him to task for it?
We don’t need to continue the Battle Of The Humorless Pedants. The OP is far more interesting.
Anyway. I think accessibility is an important aspect to Rowling’s success, in that Harry’s first-year experiences are written toward an eleven-year-old audience. I find it fascinating. His second-year experiences are aimed more at twelve-year-olds, it seems to me. And you’re right, skutir, that Harry is a real kid. He and his friends deal with real problems: Hermione isn’t beautiful enough, Ron isn’t rich enough, Harry has an abusive home life.
And yet these problems aren’t solved by magic, but by humanity and effort. Rowling doesn’t suggest that the problems of life vanish with a wand and a spell. Hermione doesn’t fix her frizzy hair or her large front teeth with magic; Ron’s family can’t use magic to become rich. Harry sorts out his problems at home by standing up to his uncle and cousin.
[spoiler]“Hermione doesn’t fix her frizzy hair or her large front teeth with magic”
errr, as I recall, she does use some kind of shrinking spell to fix her teeth.
[/spoiler]
But otherwise I basically agree.
Saying that most of a genre is junk, to casual readers of the genre, seems fair to me.
Take the Dragonlance series, for instance. You have your core three books in the Chronicles. These are to be read in order, and are, IMO, accessible to all. Someone who has never read Tolkien could certainly enjoy the Chronicles. Then you have the Legends series, which doesn’t really make too much sense, unless you have read the Chronicles. Then you have the (literally) 100+ other books, which are varying degrees of crap if you have not read Legends and/or Chronicles.
And a lot of sci-fi/fantasy is like that. It presumes certain knowledge, as the author doesn’t really explain things fully. Not a problem if you are an old-school D20-wielding fool, but stick a copy of Sea of Swords into a neophytes hands, and don’t be suprised if they drop it a quarter of the way through. Too much is presumed to make a complete story.
Harry Potter may be ‘1st level’ fantasy, but it was pretty darned good, IMO. I have been reading the genre since the earth was young, but I still enjoyed it.
My opinion as to part of the reason why HP took off the way it did is that it incorporates every single other genre out there. It’s a school story, a friendship story, it has gross humor, sports, bullies, mystery, thrills–something for every kid who never wanted to read about unicorns or fairies. It’s also somewhat easier to read than a lot of the better fantasy, so even 8-10 year olds can read the first ones (unlike most of what my personal all-time favorite fantasy author, Diana Wynne Jones, has written).
I personally can’t stand the parts about the Durselys–IMO they’re a big problem and a failed attempt to do what Roald Dahl did so well–but everyone else seems to like them. Otherwise I like them fine and always read them soon after they come out.
Fish writes:
> Well, Wendell, this doesn’t stop you from going into nearly every thread about
> The Lord of the Rings movies—even ones that say MOVIES and not BOOKS-and
> nnouncing how the movies are crap, how the movies have nothing redeemable
> about them, how Peter Jackson knows nothing and can’t make a decent movie
> to save his life because he doesn’t have the same knowledge and respect for
> the material you do, and berating the movie-watcher because he doesn’t
> worship the books the way you appear to.
No, that’s not what I’ve said about the films. I’ve said that they are terrible adaptations and that Jackson doesn’t know how to make an adaptation to save his life. The problems with the films are mostly about the terrible script. (Well, the acting is also hit and miss, and that is also Jackson’s problem because he couldn’t figure out how he wanted elves and hobbits to act.) The special effects, the set design, the cinematography, the sound, etc. are excellent. It’s not surprising that they should be. The budget for the films was $270 million. For that kind of money they had better be. And much of the work was done for Jackson in some things before he even began work on the film. There is a thirty-five-year tradition of Tolkien art. All Jackson had to do was look through the Tolkien calendars that have been brought out over that time and pick the designs and artists that he wanted. And that’s just what he did. Jackson is a good director when he has a good script. I thought Heavenly Creatures is a very good film.
I have no idea whether Jackson’s problem is that he doesn’t know the book very well or if he just doesn’t care or if he honestly thinks that he did a good adaptation. It’s not a good script. I’ve seen a lot of movies in my life - at least 2500. I’ve read a lot of novels in my life - at least 1500. That’s the basis on which I say that it’s not a good adaptation, on a comparison of good movies and good novels. And I’ve only brought this up in three threads, which isn’t nearly every Tolkien thread. I don’t post anything in most Tolkien threads.
Brutus writes:
> Saying that most of a genre is junk, to casual readers of the genre, seems fair
> to me.
To someone who has never read anything except the Dragonlance books, it is a fair statement. But there’s a lot of good fantasy out there beyond the Dragonlance books. This strikes me as equivalent to checking out every bar band currently playing in your city and announcing that all rock and roll is junk.
Um well ok, how about Milton or Thomas Bulfinch, Hippogrif s are mentioned in both as well as being in Greek Mythology.
Milton- “So saying he caught him up, and without wing Of hippogrif, bore through the air sublime Over the wilderness and o’er the plain.” ( Paradise Regained)
Thomas Bulfinch- “Like a griffin, he had the head of an eagle, claws armed with talons, and wings covered with feathers, the rest of his body being that of a horse. This strange animal is called a Hippogriff.” (Legends of Charlemagne)
Adhemar
I’d buy that, purely on a proof by induction 
Hell, for the record, I need new specs. There’s a most before the fantasy. Sorry!
Btw, I first saw the word “hippogriff” as the name of a fairy chess piece in an essay on the same. I had no idea what it was at the time and I don’t think I saw the word again until I read the AD&D Monster Manual. Later I read “The Incomplete Enchanter”, the longest section of which has a setting based on the Orlando Furioso and duly dragged in Duke Astolph and his hippogriff. So count me as one who’d heard the word years before Rowling was even scratching away in a cheap cafe, despite being on the whole unacquainted with classic literature.
While Gilgamesh may have fallen into a chasm centuries before Gandalf did for all I know on the matter, I respectfully submit that most of the Shannara readership will trace the ancestry of Allanon’s descent no further than the Bridge of Khazad-Dum, and I further reserve the right privately to doubt that the author did either. Hack.
Actually, IIRC the 1st ed. AD&D said Tolkien was an influence, but he was not listed as a major one, like Howard, Lovecraft, White, etc. I believe they compared rangers to Robin Hood.
Downright chimerical, eh, ** Steve**?
As for Lem, anyone else flash back to Shatner and SNL? And I like ST.
Ellison’s 90% is probably conservative now. Still, the 5-10% is worth it. Stick to referrals, and online samples to decide what to buy. And that’s the whole store, not just SF/F.
Only because, in its original incarnation, it was such a transparent Tolkien ripoff that they nearly got sued by his estate.
might I ask for a cite? The only case I heard of was the one which made them change “hobbits” to “halflings”. It didn’t involve rangers. Seems to me basing it on something without attribution would lead to more suits.
I highly recommend Anthony Horowitz’ Groosham Grange.
The first book was published mere months before the release of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, and I am seriously vexed that Ms. Rowling’s series eclipsed Groosham Grange, because Groosham Grange is something you can get your teeth into.
It is strikingly similar to Harry Potter (“When it is steam engine time it steam
engines”, I guess,) but it is wickedly funny, similar in style to Roald Dahl.
As the book opens, young David, who is unhappy at home, owing to an abusive environment. (Dad: “What that boy needs is more discipline. My father knew how to discipline a child, and it never hurt me.” Mum: “Well, you are in a wheelchair, dear.” Dad: “I’d rather be in this wheelchair than have grown up without learning proper manners.”) Soon, an invitation to a mysterious school shows up, which seems to be just the thing. While David is on the special train bound for the school, he meets a couple of his new schoolmates- a rather thick but unfailingly loyal boy, and a bookish and indomitable bespectacled girl. They become fast friends, and together they dig into some of the mysterious goings on at the school, where the teachers are setting about indoctrinating children into an order of black magicians.
Without spoiling the plot, suffice it to say that the flavour is rather more O.T.O. than Golden Dawn.
The fundamentalists that object so strongly to Harry Potter would shit their pants if Groosham Grange caught on. (Imagine if Harry was happy with the Sorting Hat’s initial determination of Slitherin for him – and he was still the hero of the story.) How would the Bob Larsenites react to the sequel, The Unholy Grail?
Mwahahaha.
And there you have it. Rowling has not really created a world in her stories. Not the way Roger Zelazny did, or Ursula LeGuin, or Frank Herbert, to name just three. The “magical community” of the HP books is strikingly similar to modern-day Britain, except that everything has a funny name.
In fact, I’m beginning to get the sense that she’s lately been knocking herself out to show that the characters have the same motivations that you and your friends do, and the Ministry of Magic has the same politics that your dad’s company has (or your own, if you’re an adult), and Hogwarts is run the same way your school is (or was). See?! If you took away Harry’s wand, he would simply be a normal kid! Just like you (or like you used to be)!
Well, whoop-the-fuck-ee.
[sub]And I’m not particularly looking forward to book 6. Not if Harry’s gonna be the same asshole he was in 5.[/sub]