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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 [del]SciFi[/del] 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.
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.
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.
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!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
