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…
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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!”
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.
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.
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?
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?
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 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.
