Oh dear god...

[conuly]

This is even worse than frantic comparisons of anything and everything to Harry Potter. (Here's a clue. Even though The Young Wizards series includes magic, it's really nothing like Harry Potter. It's possible to like both series. It's also possible to like one, but not the other, and the fact that they're completely different should make that obvious.)

The article is apparently here.

I can only imagine that the writer of that article never read a book in his (her?) life. Certainly not Diane Duane, or DWJ, or even Pratchett, who has included Morris Dancing in his books.... (Oh, the shame.)

When it comes to that, JKR's books aren't even that original. They aren't subverting anything, anymore than all those fractured fairy tales are, because it's been done. Doesn't mean they aren't worth reading, but... they're hardly subverting the genre here. School of magic? I can name at least five authors who got there first, without even pausing for breath. Magic and realism combined? Three, but I got interrupted to look for tape. Multiracial, multicultural, sexual? Oh dear god, do you want me to count? Magical worlds that aren't any better than the original? Well, gee, that's only about half of them.

Sci-fi tends to have the same problem. People think that because they didn't like Star Trek, they know everything about every sci-fi book ever written. I'm not even that well-read, and I know a lot of sci-fi is nothing like Star Trek, and that's nothing new. JKR hasn't read much fantasy, so she assumes what she's done is unique, when the fact is it's not. It's still a fun read, and it's still good to analyse it to death, and it's not like there's ever anything new under the sun, but... if there were, Harry Potter wouldn't be it.

And now I'm repeating myself. Sorrysorry.

And another article.
And Gaiman's take on it.
And Pterry's reply to the storm surrounding his letter.

Oh dear. It's been fandomwanked. Must run hide.

Ahem, sorry: Fandomwank

Comments

[rho]

One might even be so far as to suggest that one of the reasons for her success is that she isn't in any way subversive or original. The Harry Potter series is, essentially, fluff. There's no having to get your head around grand ideas, nothing particularly thought provoking, nothing that in any way makes you stop and think.

You only have to look at some of the most popular shows on TV to realise that a whole lot of people rather enjoy mindless entertainment. Now that's not to say that Rowling's books are mindless, and it's not to say that fuff is bad. I like a good bit of fluff as much as the next person. But the stuff that truly is original and subversive is never going to be that popular, because most people just don't want to be stretched that much.

[conuly]

I have always said that there is a place in this world for light, escapist fiction. Hell, I still like to curl up with a BSC book now and again.

But the stuff that truly is original and subversive is never going to be that popular, because most people just don't want to be stretched that much.

Exactly. JKR doesn't get flak for her ideas, usually - she gets a lot of it from the "OMG! MAGIC IS EVIL!" crowd, and some from the "OMG! HARRY MISBEHAVES!" people, but not a lot of "Gee, I wonder, is it possible Voldie is a good person, and what does this mean for morality?".

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"You only have to look at some of the most popular shows on TV to realise that a whole lot of people rather enjoy mindless entertainment."

Gods, isn't that the truth, and every time they try to put the real fantasy classics onscreen, they invariably dumb them down to the mindless generic level. The Lord of the Rings is the classic example, of course - it just made me sick; as visually-beautiful as it was, Peter Jackson took Tolkien's classic tale and bowdlerized it into mass-appeal mush. The BBC's version of Gormenghast - again, great visuals, dumbed-down generic plot. The Science Fiction Channel's utter travesty of Earthsea - sheesh, they sucked all the nuance out of that one; it was pathetic, and so was The Mists of Avalon as-seen-on-television.

"But the stuff that truly is original and subversive is never going to be that popular, because most people just don't want to be stretched that much."

Y'know what, I don't agree with that. Take the four examples above - all classics of high fantasy - the reason they were adapted for movies/TV is because they are that popular; sheesh, The Lord of the Rings outsold everything but the Bible. But the film-makers have their eye firmly fixed on the profit-margin, so what they want is lowest-common-denominator appeal.

I haven't bothered with the Harry Potter books. Oh, I suppose I'll read them some time, but at the time the first one came out, my daughter was just getting done with her Redwall phase - sheesh, it seemed like there were a thousand of those books, all pretty-much the same: Mice With Swords Save The Day - so I was a little burned out on fluffy childrens' fantasy. I've seen the movies, of course: very nice, though probably best if one hasn't read the books first.

Much as I love it, I've kind of given up expecting to see much original come out of the fantasy genre - it is very conservative these days, very formulaic - and if anything does, one can rest assured that it'll eventually be made into a visually-stunning movie, the plot of which resembles the original only in the characters having the same names.