SB Sarah said on...
Candy said on...
Troutqueen said on...
H said on...
Lareign said on...
Love Doc Turtle’s snark --- admire the outcome of this experiment. Cannot wait for the Heyer review! Hurray for Doc Turtle!
Categories: Ranty McRant
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
by Candy • Friday, August 05, 2005 at 10:06 AM
A lot of people have been very, very indignant at Terry Pratchett for his comments on J.K. Rowling, flinging accusations of jealousy, pettiness, etc. Me, I’m just shaking my head.
A little caveat: I enjoy Terry Pratchett’s novels, whereas I think Harry Potter is mediocre at best. At any rate, I’m quoting, in full, what Terry Pratchett wrote:
WHY IS it felt that the continued elevation of J K Rowling can only be achieved at the expense of other writers (Mistress of magic, News Review, last week)? Now we learn that prior to Harry Potter the world of fantasy was plagued with “knights and ladies morris-dancing to Greensleeves.”
In fact the best of it has always been edgy and inventive, with “the dark heart of the real world” being exactly what, underneath the top dressing, it is all about. Ever since The Lord of the Rings revitalised the genre, writers have played with it, reinvented it, subverted it and bent it to the times. It has also contained some of the very best, most accessible writing for children, by writers who seldom get the acknowledgement they deserve.
Rowling says that she didn’t realise that the first Potter book was fantasy until after it was published. I’m not the world’s greatest expert, but I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds, jumping chocolate frogs, owl mail, magic food, ghosts, broomsticks and spells would have given her a clue?Terry Pratchett
Salisbury, Wiltshire
OK, maybe it’s my prejudice shining through, but this really sounds more like a rant about popular (and inaccurate) misconceptions of fantasy than an attack on Rowling. What clued me? This sentence: “Now we learn that prior to Harry Potter the world of fantasy was plagued with ‘knights and ladies morris-dancing to Greensleeves.’” That seems to shift the focus from Rowling to what the journalist wrote about fantasy.
Anyway, Neil Gaiman addressed this miles better than I ever could, so if you haven’t yet, go read what he says.
And by the way? If Rowling DID actually say she didn’t know she was writing a fantasy novel (and given the way people are misquoted in the papers, I’m doubtful she said exactly that), I agree with Pratchett’s snarkery.
You know, I could totally believe someone didn’t know what fantasy was, particularly if you’ve never read it or put labels on what you’re reading or seeing. it’s a little far-fetched, but I had a cow-orker ask me what exactly sci-fi was, and what was fantasy, and how do you distinguish the two.
Buh?
Long story short, after a two hour conversation, she still didn’t get it. She just lumps it all under “fiction.”
You might want to check out Terry Pratchett’s response to the Times and BBC articles.
http://www.wizardnews.com/story.20050802.html
He, like Neil Gaiman, made it clear that Pratchett was really annoyed at the journalists, not Rowling.
Seems like Pratchett was annoyed with the idea that Rowling blew life into the fantasy genre, when it was doing okey dokey on its own. Doesn’t sound like he was dissing Rowling or Sr. Potter.
Of course, if you WANT people to diss Potter, Candy and I will be happy to help! Heh heh.
You know, I could totally believe someone didn’t know what fantasy was, particularly if you’ve never read it or put labels on what you’re reading or seeing.
Hmmm. Good point, but it sounds like Rowling was very well-read, and the issue of whether or not she read or liked other fantasy books like C.S. Lewis’s Narnia series has been debated--check Gaiman’s article.
I’ll give Rowling the benefit of the doubt. Aren’t I just so generous that way?
A writer telling another writer publicly to “Get a clue.” is rude no matter how you gloss it. The rest of the message is completely flushed by that slam.
It didn’t strike me as rude so much as mildly snarky. But that’s just my interpretation--your take on things seems to be the popular one at the mo’.
Does he really tell her to “get a clue” or just skirt the put-down by saying that the fantastical elements might have been a hint that she was writing fantasy?
I am willing to bet that if he was saying this aloud, we’d have a much better sense of how snarky he meant to be.
Nah. It was definitely bitchy. Snarky indicates humor and that was just bitter. If Terry had been snarking she might have said “Rowling, living a fantasy in her head that HP is the penultimate literary achievement, lacks the necessary oxygen required to puzzle through what qualifies as Fantasy, Paranormal, Sci Fi and ... mystery.”
The mystery is how Amazon managed to LOSE money by selling so many copies of this latest HP offering.
He. Drat. Same diff when bitchy though.
Snarky indicates humor and that was just bitter.
Eh, I still don’t think so. I thought it was pretty good-natured, really. I can think of a lot of nastier ways this could’ve been said. “Hello, clue phone for Rowling” sort of stuff.
Did you read the original article Pratchett was commenting on, by the way?
Dunno. I’m likely to think it was more of a snarky sarcastic comment, which isn’t necessarily bitchy. Then again, with all the random marketing ploys that go along with Rowling’s books, I can totally see where other fantasy writers who still do well would get a bit snarky at someone who’s getting the royal treatment and they’re not.
From the article, I think Pratchett was fed up to the gills over how everyone is throwing Rowling massive props for being innovative and groundbreaking, and in the process denigrating the fantasy genre.
(Note: this bit is more Rampant Speculation on my part. I have no idea what Pratchett really thinks, since he’s not a personal friend or nuttin’.)
Shit, I’m not a writer and *I’m* sick of how people view Rowling as innovative and groundbreaking.
Did you read the original article Pratchett was commenting on, by the way?
::Reading it::
::Reading follow ups::
He still comes off as bitter and bitchy. I’m not saying he doesn’t make a good point. It’s a good point. But he could have made it withOUT the slam on Rowling herself—in a public forum.
... should sell a lot of his books for him though. Don’t feel too badly for the beleaguered bad boy.
It’s a good point. But he could have made it withOUT the slam on Rowling herself—in a public forum.
For what it’s worth, here’s Pratchett’s explanation for why he said what he did:
And then there’s my question. Why didn’t the interviewer ask it? Here’s the worlds best-selling fantasy writer who has just said she hadn’t thought she was writing fantasy and also that she doesn’t really like the stuff. She goes on to say that she didn’t finish TLOTR or the Narnia series and has issues with Lewis. No problem there, but all this revelatory stuff just floated past, apparently unexamined. Id like to know how an author can write in a genre she doesn’t like-- really. I’d like to know what she thinks she *is* writing.
He brings up a good point, and perhaps he could have couched the question all fluffy kittens-n-roses-n-fluffy-bunnies like, but again, I’m giving the dude more leeway than most other people are.
He brings up a good point, and perhaps he could have couched the question all fluffy kittens-n-roses-n-fluffy-bunnies like, but again, I’m giving the dude more leeway than most other people are.
I see the disconnect here. I am giving you the impression that I think Terry bitching about Rowling being clueless is a bad thing. Terry can bitch about Rowling’s seemingly airheaded blondness all he wants. It WAS and airheaded blond thing to say on her part. But ya know - when you rake in 16 mill + in Royalties in one week you can say any stupid thing you want. And Terry, having sold 40 million copies of his books can be bitchy about his fellow millionaire authoress. It’s all good. It’s entertainment. It drives the money machine and keeps their names in print. There’s no downside.
I give both Pratchett and Rowling leeway - because it sounds like convos I’ve had many times. I have never, ever, ever, ever thought of the Harry Potter books as fantasy. I think of them as kids books. That’s all. Maybe because when I was a kid and read, I only knew what I did and didn’t like - I had no concept of genre distinctions (what a lovely innocence) - and that carries over to my adult perception of books intended for kids.
Rowling sounds to me like she just wrote what she wrote without labeling it as anything other than “hero tale” - and Pratchett sounds to me like someone more savvy about book marketing, and who sees her attitude and say “Huh whuh? How’d you get like that?”
But I’m really used to not getting it when it comes to defining things along lines I’ve never considered before, so I sympathize both with Rowling for being clueless and with Pratchett for being all incredulous (because I’ve seen that “how can you be so clueless” look in many an eye as I discuss writing).
I am giving you the impression that I think Terry bitching about Rowling being clueless is a bad thing.
Well, yeah. Heh.
“A writer telling another writer publicly to “Get a clue.” is rude no matter how you gloss it. The rest of the message is completely flushed by that slam.”
I have never, ever, ever, ever thought of the Harry Potter books as fantasy. I think of them as kids books.
Interesting point. You know, I always thought of them as both, just as C.S. Lewis’s books are children’s fantasy, ditto a lot of what E. Nesbit wrote, ditto the Darkangel trilogy (well, the first one was fantasy, the last two resemble SF a bit more).
Ahhh, our pretty little labels. Where would we be without them?
I think because as a kid, all of it was fantasy to me. As a kid, all the things that happened in books were magical to me.
Its very very british sarcasm.
Dragons, unicorns etc = fantasy, JK is a similar age to me and lives in the same country she would know this.
Forgive me for saying this. I am in a bitchy mood and will have to pull money otu of my ass to somehow pay the bills because I just got two cats from the shelter when I probably should have waited.
But sometimes I think people diss HP just because it’s popular. I freely admit the first book or two wasn’t fabulous-it was fun, but not great. In fact the first book is probably my least fave. But the books have gotten better and more adult and complex to me as they go on. Rowling’s grown as a writer, I think. I’m not saying They Are The Best Pieces of Writing Ever in The Entire History of the Universe. And I do agree there has been a lot of hype about it, probably too much hype for anything short of well, I don’t know what. Jesus coming back? (I’m a reporter, and I know someone who hates it when exclamation marks are used in news stories. She says the only time we should use exclamation marks is when Jesus comes back. I like this person a lot) But I don’t know how fair it is to judge the whole series on the first book and a half. You can feel free not to like it, though. And I’m sure I’ve done the same thing-I refused to go see the last Lord of the Rings movie, for instance, because everyone was saying it was the Bestest Movie Ever.
I just get the feeling some people think they’re too good to read Harry Potter, or something. And that bugs me because other people think they’re too good to read romance, and that romance is mediocre, and they’ve only read like two books ever, and the titles were something like The Viking’s Voluptous Virgin Bride.
Once again, I apologize if this came off as bitchy and evil. I’m not trying to be.
Actually, you’re right, Lareign. I diss on Harry Potter because it’s popular. If it weren’t so astronomically popular, what would the odds be for me to pick it up? Fairly slim, because while I pick up the occasional YA/children’s book, I read a lot less of that genre than I used to.
And if there weren’t all that hype, I definitely wouldn’t think “What is all the hype about? I don’t get it.”
As for me judging the whole series based on one and a half books: it’s a bit different than judging a whole genre, don’t you think? Because different authors have wildly differing writing styles, plotlines, characters, etc. Authors can be depended on to maintain a fairly consistent style, even if they switch genres or write wildly different plots. In this case, it’s not just the same author, it’s the same bleeding series. HOW many books do I have to read before I can say “I gave it a shot, but it’s not for me”? All bleedin’ 6?
It wasn’t just Rowling’s lackadaisical writing that turned me off; it was the sense that I’d read all of this before, except the previous versions were better, and my dislike of the stereotypes in the various houses, and my lack of connection with the characters, especially Harry, and the silly magic syste (I’m sure you’ve read that bit about the silly magic, right?) and and and… If the books get better further along in the series, well, bully for Rowling, but really, I read one and a half books. Thats, what, 500-600 pages? I am SO not interested in investing more time and energy into it.
I mean, hell, I’ve read and enjoyed several Discworld novels (about 10 of ‘em); the worst grade I’d give any Discworld book is a B-. And I still don’t bother to auto-buy Terry Pratchett. Why should I try to read more of Rowling’s ouevre?
As for feeling I’m too good for Potter: look, I read and love pirate romances. I read and love DRAGONLANCE, ferchrissakes. Trust me, I don’t think I’m too good for Potter.
I just think that based on the one and a half books I read, they’re… well, they don’t exactly suck. They’re just thoroughly meh.
By the way, The Return of the King? The weakest instalment of the movie trilogy. The Fellowship of the Ring was by far the best of the lot. It felt a lot more substantial, and the fight scenes were exciting instead of verging on farcical in spots. (What’s with trying to make Legolas into some kind of X-TREME SKATEBOARDER, I ask you?)
And no, you’re not coming off as bitchy and evil. See, THIS is what I mean when I refer to reasoned debate and reasonable disagreement. I like doing this--discussing things with people who don’t necessarily agree with me and hashing crap out.
I have never, ever, ever, ever thought of the Harry Potter books as fantasy. I think of them as kids books. That’s all.
But, in my opinion, this is precisely the thing that Terry Pratchett and others who write and love fantasy are trying to point out.
They ARE fantasty. Straight up, heroic fantasty. The fact that they’re kids books is secondary to the fact that they’re fanasty.
Just as romance is denigrated as reading material, so is fantasy, and those who love the genre are tired of people considering it trash. (This line should be familiar to you, yes?)
Rowling attempting to deny that she’s written fantasy (assuming that the article even got the facts right) is foolish. It seems to me (wild speculation here) that Terry Pratchett is also upset about the fact that JK Rowling seems to be saying, “My books are good, therefore they can’t be fantasy.”
I like the Harry Potter books, and I like Terry Pratchett’s books. But if JK Rowling is attempting to deny that the Harry Potter books are fantasy, then she is in the wrong, and should be called on the carpet for it.
I think my opinion on this one is coloured by the fact that I think Terry Pratchett knocks JK Rowling into a cocked hat.
And I think Rowling’s good, too.
He’s just better. Lightyears better.
TP’s always had issues that his stuff, brilliant though it is, has often been dismissed as fluff (gee, romance writers, does this sound familiar?), “just fantasy” and “kids’ stuff” and not taken seriously. It’s gotta smart to see Rowling feted as some sort of cultural hero for stories that (IMO) are nowhere near as clever, deep, or entertaining.
And if past fans had been put off by the preachy tone of some of his recent stuff, Monstrous Regiment marks a serious return to form.
By the way, The Return of the King? The weakest instalment of the movie trilogy. The Fellowship of the Ring was by far the best of the lot.
I love you, Candy.
Huge Tolkien nerd here, and (much as I loved parts of the movie) I had trouble sitting through all of ROTK. The chickpea avalanche nearly did me in.
(Just came back from two weeks’ holiday and am still catching up on the internets. Now, off to get educated on the RITA fiasco.)
They ARE fantasty. Straight up, heroic fantasty. The fact that they’re kids books is secondary to the fact that they’re fanasty.
It’s this sort of dogmatic statement that a particular book IS part of a particular genre that makes me so anti the whole genre-labelling business. It’s one thing to come up with helpful category descriptions, but quite another to start making rigid assignations of particular books to particular categories. Down that road lies the statement that Cold Comfort Farm (by Stella Gibbons, and a masterpiece of comic writing, by the way) is Science Fiction. It may be true that it meets one of the common criteria for Science Fiction (anachronistic technology) but this is such a minor plot point that it makes the statement absurd when one considers all the things that CCF actually is.
My point here is that while it is fine for you to score HP as Fantasy, it is equally fine for JKR to think of it as children’s fiction without necessarily adding a fantasy tag.
if JK Rowling is attempting to deny that the Harry Potter books are fantasy, then she is in the wrong, and should be called on the carpet for it.
If she is trying to deny that it is Fantasy because she fears that the label will be bad for her image, sales or whatever, then I agree. But that is really about saying that you can’t call them fantasy. If in fact she is saying that she just doesn’t pigeon-hole her work into rigidly defined genre compartments then she is quite within her rights.
08.05.05 at 11:30 AM |