Pratchett comments on Rowling
Tim Behrendsen
He writes in The Times....
----
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
----
I have to say I'm disappointed. Fine, take issue with writers who
elevate Rowling above other writers, but exactly what was to be gained
by the shot at JKR?
Here is the quote from Time Magazine, which apparently Pratchett either
didn't read, or didn't understand:
----
The most popular living fantasy writer in the world doesn't even
especially like fantasy novels. It wasn't until after Sorcerer's Stone
was published that it even occurred to her that she had written one.
"That's the honest truth," she says. "You know, the unicorns were in
there. There was the castle, God knows. But I really had not thought
that that's what I was doing. And I think maybe the reason that it
didn't occur to me is that I'm not a huge fan of fantasy." Rowling has
never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn't even read all of C.S.
Lewis' Narnia novels, which her books get compared to a lot. There's
something about Lewis' sentimentality about children that gets on her
nerves. "There comes a point where Susan, who was the older girl, is
lost to Narnia because she becomes interested in lipstick. She's become
irreligious basically because she found sex," Rowling says. "I have a
big problem with that."
----
So what is the controversy here that Pratchett feels the need to make
such a snide comment? JKR wrote a fantasy novel, but wasn't thinking
about *writing fantasy* until afterward. So what?
And that's assuming she even meant that; it was the writer of the Time
Article that said she didn't realize it until after the book was
published. I would think Pratchett had been around the block enough to
know that people get quoted out of context all the time, and that it's
not always the best policy to comment based on a magazine puff piece
that's bound to be taking liberties.
The main thrust of his beef seems to be JKR getting elevated above other
fantasy writers, specifically himself. There is a simple reason for it,
Mr. Pratchett. She is mainstream, and you are not. She has transcended
the "fantasy genre". That's why she gets more attention.
Very disappointing. Pratchett always seemed like one of the
down-to-earth types who was above pettiness like this. Hopefully it was
just a momentary lapse.
Neener
It appears that Pratchett is wrestling with green-eyed issues of his
own:-)
leaky_caldron
describes it, or both?
I don't think that JKR needs to do any elevating herself, so presumably
he's having a go at the media fo being too HP-centric. That can hardy
be blamed on JKR - she only writes the books, which are self-promoting
because they have mass appeal.
So who and what exactly is TP complaining about?
Anke
Language question: "a shot at someone" means "a compliment to someone"?
The expression does not sound like it to me, but saying that Tolkien's
books revitalised the genre certainly is a compliment.
Why is that bad?
~Anke
noesy_parker
news:1122828953.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Is he having a go at JKR or those that do the "elevating" as he
> describes it, or both?
Both of course. He took a potshot at JKR for saying that she hadn't
realised that she wrote a "fantasy" novel (she must be stupid he
probably implied). He appeared to ignore what JKR said - that she
herself found it amusing that she hadn't realised exactly that
initially, what with the unicorns and castles. She, of course, was
primarily interested in telling a story, not writing something that
fits into a "genre", that's her point.
Jealousy is a terrible thing, he will of course insist that he is not
jealous, but we all can see it for what it is.
Tim Behrendsen
Er, where did I talk about Tolkien?
"A shot at someone" means "to direct an insult at", as you're no doubt
aware. His last paragraph is snide and insulting (e.g., "would have
given her a clue"). What I don't understand is exactly his issue with
JKR herself. If he's going to direct an insult at the most popular
author in the world, he better make his issue perfectly clear, otherwise
he ends up looking petty and jealous, despite his own success.
That's what I really don't understand. He's smarter than this. Not only
did he insult her, but it was a *petty* insult! And it wasn't a quote in
the heat of an interview, it was a letter, written by a professional
writer, published in a newspaper. What could he possibly have hoped to
gain by it?
Peter Ellis
>http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/MTarchives/week_2005_07_31.php#007394
>
>He writes in The Times....
>
>----
>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."
[...]
>
>Here is the quote from Time Magazine, which apparently Pratchett either
>didn't read, or didn't understand:
Possibly because he wasn't referring to that? Read the quote you
yourself put up - he's referring to a piece entitled "Mistress of
magic", appearing in the Times News Review some time last week.
And none of that letter reads to me like a shot at JKR, only at the
journalists who can only praise her by putting down all pre-JKR fantasy
as knights and ladies morris-dancing to... etc.
Peter
Peter Ellis
>
>That's what I really don't understand. He's smarter than this. Not only
>did he insult her, but it was a *petty* insult! And it wasn't a quote in
>the heat of an interview, it was a letter, written by a professional
>writer, published in a newspaper. What could he possibly have hoped to
>gain by it?
Amusement? It's a joke. Laugh. You know, that sound you make with
your mouth.
There's a tendency among journalists, critics etc. to denigrate fantasy
in general - so anything *popular* like JKR, Philip Pullman etc can't
possibly be fantasy. And anything by a "respected" author like
Margaret Atwood can't possibly be science fiction... etc.
So, when he seen JKR apparently buying into the same line of "Oh, but
*my* books are different - I've never thought of them as *fantasy*,
because we all know Fantasy Is Shite", he's quite within his rights to
point and laugh. As do I.
<point>
Hahahaha.
Peter
noesy_parker
news:MPG.1d57227c3...@news.individual.net:
>
>>
>>Here is the quote from Time Magazine, which apparently Pratchett
>>either didn't read, or didn't understand:
>
> Possibly because he wasn't referring to that? Read the quote
> you yourself put up - he's referring to a piece entitled
> "Mistress of magic", appearing in the Times News Review some
> time last week.
>
The article in Times is the same as the one in the Time Magazine. I
followed a link to the Time Magazine and then realised it is the same
one that I read before in Times News Review.
The Stainless Steel Cat
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
>[...] If he's going to direct an insult at the most popular
>author in the world,
That'll be Nora Roberts then?
http://www.santafelibrary.org/authors2004.html
Cat. ;o)
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
La Rustimuna ^Stalkato
Freezer
win.
> In article <hh8He.29752$bp.7046@fed1read03>,
> "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
>
>>[...] If he's going to direct an insult at the most popular
>>author in the world,
>
> That'll be Nora Roberts then?
>
> http://www.santafelibrary.org/authors2004.html
>
> Cat. ;o)
I would've guessed Danielle Steele or Tom Clancy.
--
My name is:
____ _
/ ___| | |
| |__ _ __ ___ ___ ____ ___ _ __ | |
| __|| '__/ _ \/ _ \/_ // _ \| '__|| |
| | | | __/ __/ / /| __/| | |_|
|_| |_| \___|\___||___|\___||_| (_)
And my anti-drug is porn.
http://www.geocities.com/mysterysciencefreezer
Tim Behrendsen
news:BF12D4549...@atuin.demon.co.uk...
> In article <hh8He.29752$bp.7046@fed1read03>,
> "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
>
>>[...] If he's going to direct an insult at the most popular
>>author in the world,
>
> That'll be Nora Roberts then?
>
> http://www.santafelibrary.org/authors2004.html
That is misleading; that's because she has (hundreds?) of different
books in print. When you have that many, *someone* is going to have one
of them checked out every day. In terms of sales figures and readership
(i.e., sheer number of people in the world who have read the author,
including translations), JKR blows everyone away.
Tim Behrendsen
news:MPG.1d5725111...@news.individual.net...
> t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com wrote:
>>
>>That's what I really don't understand. He's smarter than this. Not
>>only
>>did he insult her, but it was a *petty* insult! And it wasn't a quote
>>in
>>the heat of an interview, it was a letter, written by a professional
>>writer, published in a newspaper. What could he possibly have hoped to
>>gain by it?
>
> Amusement? It's a joke. Laugh. You know, that sound you make with
> your mouth.
I love it. An insult is not an insult, all you have to do is just say
"Hey, he was joking! If you don't find it funny, there must be something
wrong with YOU."
> There's a tendency among journalists, critics etc. to denigrate
> fantasy
> in general - so anything *popular* like JKR, Philip Pullman etc can't
> possibly be fantasy. And anything by a "respected" author like
> Margaret Atwood can't possibly be science fiction... etc.
>
> So, when he seen JKR apparently buying into the same line of "Oh, but
> *my* books are different - I've never thought of them as *fantasy*,
> because we all know Fantasy Is Shite", he's quite within his rights to
> point and laugh. As do I.
Except that she didn't say. Huh, imagine that.
Is this some sort of fantasy genre land mine? If a fantasy author dares
to say that he or she doesn't care for fantasy in general, then the
fantasy masses march with flaming torches to burn the heretic? Perhaps
that explains Pratchett's bizarre reaction.
Fish Eye no Miko
> t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com wrote:
>>
>> That's what I really don't understand. He's smarter than this. Not
>> only did he insult her, but it was a *petty* insult! And it wasn't
>> a quote in the heat of an interview, it was a letter, written by a
>> professional writer, published in a newspaper. What could he
>> possibly have hoped to gain by it?
>
> Amusement? It's a joke. Laugh. You know, that sound you make with
> your mouth.
I hate when people pull this crap. Insult someone, then say, "No, I was
just kidding" and suddenly the person you insulted is supposed to be the
bad guy; a humorless jerk who can't take 'a joke'.
Sorry, no, it doesn't work like that. If you insult someone, at least have
the guts to stick to your guns.
Catherine Johnson.
--
fenm at cox dot net
Right now you are reading my .sig quote.
Michael J. Schülke
> Is this some sort of fantasy genre land mine? If a fantasy author dares
> to say that he or she doesn't care for fantasy in general, then the
> fantasy masses march with flaming torches to burn the heretic?
Not quite.
It's when an author who obviously writes fantasy (cue the "wizards,
witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds, jumping chocolate frogs, owl
mail, magic food, ghosts, broomsticks and spells") says that it never
occurred to her that that's what she was doing *until after the
publication of her first book*.
Imagine that -- writing over 300 paperback pages of the stuff and
*never* even thinking it might be fantasy. That's either incredibly
naive or incredibly arrogant, with an unsaid "because we all know,
fantasy is for geeks, and I'm not writing for geeks" lingering behind
it.
It's also when either said author, or the journalist conducting the
interview (the excerpt in the OP is too short to tell) states that there
was no innovation in fantasy before her work, that it was all "knights
and ladies morris-dancing to Greensleeves."
Again, that's either incredibly naive (because, really, both the author
and the journalist should know better, the former because it's the field
she is working in, the latter because its his job to do some research
before he starts writing), or incredibly arrogant.
I'm inclined to give JKR the benefit of doubt an vote for naivety, but I
can understand what prompted TP to write his letter.
Michael
Alec Cawley
Ori...@earthlink.net says...
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:03:19 -0700, "Tim Behrendsen"
> <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
>
> >ery disappointing. Pratchett always seemed like one of the
> >down-to-earth types who was above pettiness like this. Hopefully it was
> >just a momentary lapse.
>
> learning witchcraft in a school (even though he has the Unseen
> University) and made several other thinly veiled snide remarks about
> her. He just doesn't like the idea of Harry Potter at all.
In the Pratchett universe, witchcraft is very different from wizardry.
Wizardry can be learned in universities, witchcraft cannot. This was
established in Equal Rites, which precedes any of the HP books. I cannot
see how preserving the thaumics of his own universe can be seen as
criticising someone else's, later, universe.
He has expressed minor irritation at a single statement by JKR which he
regards as foolish (and I agree with him). The statement is by JKR
personally, and not within the HP universe. To inflate this into any
general opinion about Harry Potter is simply ridiculous. What other
snide remarks has he made?
--
@lec ©awley
http://www.livejournal.com/~randombler
Michael J. Schülke
> In terms of sales figures and readership
> (i.e., sheer number of people in the world who have read the author,
> including translations), JKR blows everyone away.
Are you guessing, or can you cite a source?
Michael
SPT
>*never* even thinking it might be fantasy. That's either incredibly
>naive or incredibly arrogant, with an un
I think it is permissable to believe that Rowling thought that she was
writing a children's story rather than fantasy novel. While most
children's stories of this type are, indeed, fantasy, they are
frequently not thought of as such. They are thought of simply as
children's books.
Tim Behrendsen
news:MPG.1d574933f...@news.t-online.de...
> Tim Behrendsen wrote:
>> Is this some sort of fantasy genre land mine? If a fantasy author
>> dares
>> to say that he or she doesn't care for fantasy in general, then the
>> fantasy masses march with flaming torches to burn the heretic?
>
> Not quite.
>
> It's when an author who obviously writes fantasy (cue the "wizards,
> witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds, jumping chocolate frogs, owl
> mail, magic food, ghosts, broomsticks and spells") says that it never
> occurred to her that that's what she was doing *until after the
> publication of her first book*.
>
> Imagine that -- writing over 300 paperback pages of the stuff and
> *never* even thinking it might be fantasy. That's either incredibly
> naive or incredibly arrogant, with an unsaid "because we all know,
> fantasy is for geeks, and I'm not writing for geeks" lingering behind
> it.
Yeah, imagine that. Imagine someone considering themselves an *author*,
writing a story that they happen to like, and not worrying about what
genre they were writing in. What a bizarre concept to not pigeonhole
oneself!
What you call incredibly naive or incredibly arrogant, I call incredibly
refreshing. Good for Rowling for not worrying about which audience she
should be writing for.
> It's also when either said author, or the journalist conducting the
> interview (the excerpt in the OP is too short to tell) states that
> there
> was no innovation in fantasy before her work, that it was all "knights
> and ladies morris-dancing to Greensleeves."
No, it's quite clear that Rowling said no such thing, which makes it all
the more bizarre that Pratchett decided to attack her personally.
> Again, that's either incredibly naive (because, really, both the
> author
> and the journalist should know better, the former because it's the
> field
> she is working in, the latter because its his job to do some research
> before he starts writing), or incredibly arrogant.
Not to presume to speak for Rowling, but she has consistently said that
she's writing the books for herself. Her "field" is writing books, not
writing fantasy books. Perhaps that's Pratchett's problem. She's an
author first, and a fantasy author second.
It's also worth pointing that she recently said that she'll never write
another fantasy book, that she's done everything she would want to do
with this type of story. I suppose you think that's also arrogant and
worth criticising.
Tim Behrendsen
Actually, I should have said second to the bible, but that doesn't
really have an author. I remember reading it somewhere, but to be fair,
I could be wrong. In a casual search, I couldn't find the reference,
except that she has 250,000,000 books in print.
The Stainless Steel Cat
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
>"The Stainless Steel Cat" <stee...@atuin.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:BF12D4549...@atuin.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <hh8He.29752$bp.7046@fed1read03>,
>> "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
>>
>>>[...] If he's going to direct an insult at the most popular
>>>author in the world,
>>
>> That'll be Nora Roberts then?
>>
>> http://www.santafelibrary.org/authors2004.html
>
>That is misleading; that's because she has (hundreds?) of different
>books in print. When you have that many, *someone* is going to have one
>of them checked out every day. In terms of sales figures and readership
>(i.e., sheer number of people in the world who have read the author,
>including translations), JKR blows everyone away.
Everyone? Shakespeare? Dickens? Christie? Doyle? Asimov? *Really*?
Unless you can provide figures to back that up, I suspect your fondness for
Joanne's books is leading you into hyperbole.
Cat.
The Stainless Steel Cat
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
Well that's a bit weedy.
Have a look at this;
"Agatha Christie is the world's best-known mystery writer and all-time best
selling author of any genre other than William Shakespeare. Her books have
sold over a billion copies in the English language and another billion in
over 45 foreign languages (as of 2003)."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_Christie)
Going back to the media hype and blinkered reporting that started all this,
you would think from an awful lot of the "news" stories about HP that
Joanne *was* the most read author in the history of print, so I don't blame
you for your views above. I wish more journalists would look at her sales
compared to dear Agatha's - or many other authors - and get a sense of
perspective.
Cat.
Thalia
Brown" fashion - they may be set against a fantasy backdrop, but the
'action' in the books is more along the lines of a "boarding school,
midnight feasts and tuck boxes" scenario, hence Rowling not thinking her
books as being 'fantasy' per se.
"SPT" <cha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1122840492.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Tim Behrendsen
You're probably right. I read something at one time, but I think I
probably misinterpreted it. As usual, it depends on how you measure
these things. I did find a few interesting figures after my last post:
Rowling: 250M books, six books, 8 years.
Dr. Seuss: 400M books, dozens of books, 50 years
Guiness Book of World Records: 100M, 40 years?
Mao Tse-Tung's Little Red Book: 900M (presumably not necessarily demand
driven. :D)
There are no figures for the Koran or the Bible; the bible is presumed
to be the best selling book of all time.
I highly doubt that the classics have that many published, mostly
because they were written in lower production times, and I would guess
most classic books aren't read these days nearly as much as popular
books (although, they certainly have the name recognition). Certainly
not Asimov, who is too genre specific (even though he wrote other than
science fiction), and has hundreds of books.
Anke
Tim Behrendsen wrote:
> "Michael J. Schülke" <news...@mjschuelke.de> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d574933f...@news.t-online.de...
>
> > interview (the excerpt in the OP is too short to tell) states that
> > there
> > was no innovation in fantasy before her work, that it was all "knights
> > and ladies morris-dancing to Greensleeves."
>
> No, it's quite clear that Rowling said no such thing, which makes it all
> the more bizarre that Pratchett decided to attack her personally.
>
> > Again, that's either incredibly naive (because, really, both the
> > author and the journalist should know better, the former because
> > it's the field she is working in, the latter because its his job
> > to do some research before he starts writing), or incredibly
> > arrogant.
>
> Not to presume to speak for Rowling, but she has consistently said that
> she's writing the books for herself. Her "field" is writing books, not
> writing fantasy books. Perhaps that's Pratchett's problem. She's an
> author first, and a fantasy author second.
So is Terry Pratchett.
What I'd really like would be Rowling and Pratchett teaming up against
journalists who do shoddy research and/or misquote them and/or make an
attack out of a harmless remark.
After the example Neil Gaiman provided in his blog, I think I'd rather
hear from the authors themselves what they said.
(link's here:
http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2005/07/storms-and-teacups.asp
Worst bit of the article: Pterry is "attacking" HP because he said
"Fantasy is more than wizards".)
I also think it's a bit over the top for fans to be upset in place of
the author. For all we know JK Rowling thought it was funny.
~Anke
Anke
OrionCA wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:03:19 -0700, "Tim Behrendsen"
> <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
>
> >ery disappointing. Pratchett always seemed like one of the
> >down-to-earth types who was above pettiness like this. Hopefully
> >it was just a momentary lapse.
>
> In his book "The Wee Free Men" he was scathing about the idea of
> learning witchcraft in a school (even though he has the Unseen
> University) and made several other thinly veiled snide remarks about
> her. He just doesn't like the idea of Harry Potter at all.
I've got RPG manuals describing attitudes of elves, which include
"magic cannot be taught from books". Those were published in 1993,
before Harry Potter. I think some people might see references that
are pure coincidences.
~Anke
elfin
Welcome to all alt.fan.harry-potter readers, pull up a chair and make
yourself comfortable.
> "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
[snip]
Neil Gaiman seems to have summed things up quite nicely on his blog.
The article/letter that Terry wrote was, at least to me, aimed at
journalists, not Ms Rowling. In typical journalistic form his words
were then 'twisted', as has happened before.
OrionCA wrote:
> In his book "The Wee Free Men" he was scathing about the idea of
> learning witchcraft in a school (even though he has the Unseen
> University) and made several other thinly veiled snide remarks about
> her. He just doesn't like the idea of Harry Potter at all.
At this point I'd like to point out to you the relevant dates
regarding witches appearing in Discworld Novels, not just Wee Free
Men, but I can't be too sure of what appears in which witch book. Safe
to say that this was already laid out *before* Ms Rowling had
published her first potter book.
elfin
Sleepy
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote in message
news:9F6He.29743$bp.14236@fed1read03...
> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/MTarchives/week_2005_07_31.php#007394
>
> He writes in The Times....
>
> ----
> 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
>
> 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,
>
> Terry Pratchett
> Salisbury, Wiltshire
> ----
>
> I have to say I'm disappointed. Fine, take issue with writers who elevate
> Rowling above other writers, but exactly what was to be gained by the shot
> at JKR?
>
> didn't read, or didn't understand:
>
> The most popular living fantasy writer in the world doesn't even
> especially like fantasy novels. It wasn't until after Sorcerer's Stone was
> published that it even occurred to her that she had written one. "That's
> the honest truth," she says. "You know, the unicorns were in there. There
> was the castle, God knows. But I really had not thought that that's what I
> was doing. And I think maybe the reason that it didn't occur to me is that
> I'm not a huge fan of fantasy." Rowling has never finished The Lord of the
> Rings. She hasn't even read all of C.S. Lewis' Narnia novels, which her
> books get compared to a lot. There's something about Lewis' sentimentality
> about children that gets on her nerves. "There comes a point where Susan,
> who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes interested
> in lipstick. She's become irreligious basically because she found sex,"
> Rowling says. "I have a big problem with that."
Actually that last comment is Rowling taking a swipe at C S Lewis
so whats so wrong about Pratchett doing the same to her? Are you defending
her cause he's wrong or because she's currently your favourite author?
> So what is the controversy here that Pratchett feels the need to make such
> a snide comment? JKR wrote a fantasy novel, but wasn't thinking about
> *writing fantasy* until afterward. So what?
>
> And that's assuming she even meant that; it was the writer of the Time
> Article that said she didn't realize it until after the book was
> published. I would think Pratchett had been around the block enough to
> know that people get quoted out of context all the time, and that it's not
> always the best policy to comment based on a magazine puff piece that's
> bound to be taking liberties.
>
> The main thrust of his beef seems to be JKR getting elevated above other
> fantasy writers, specifically himself. There is a simple reason for it,
> Mr. Pratchett. She is mainstream, and you are not. She has transcended the
> "fantasy genre". That's why she gets more attention.
>
> Very disappointing. Pratchett always seemed like one of the down-to-earth
> types who was above pettiness like this. Hopefully it was just a momentary
> lapse.
I enjoy Rowlings books but I dont think she a great writer because she is so
popular anymore than I thought the Spice Girls were great musicians simply
because they were hugely, internationally popular. Why is it heresy or
jealousy
if you read her books and see illogical mistakes or just plain bad writing?
That said even Pratchett has had off days - Small Gods was crap.
Stacie Hanes
> What you call incredibly naive or incredibly arrogant, I call
> incredibly refreshing. Good for Rowling for not worrying about which
> audience she should be writing for.
I like Rowling and I like the HP books, but I have to say that not realizing
wizards were part of the fantasy genre shows an incredible detachment from
the world around you.
Not labelling onesefl is *entirely* different from not being aware that such
labels exist.
Yeah, I like Pratchett quite a lot, but I don't feel like I have to be
against Rowling, so I'm not. Point is, if you want to level a charge of bias
at me, you can forget about it. And I *still* think it was a naive
statement, at the least. Had *anyone* said that to me, I'd have done a
doubletake, and asked some variant of, "No way, are you serious? For real,
that's what you think? Damn."
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons & Bondage-happy predator
AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion & AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
http://esmeraldus.blogspot.com/
Stacie Hanes
Seriously? Homer, Shakespeare? Gosh.
Stacie Hanes
I love 'em to death, but the wizard/mage bildungsroman isn't breaking news
any more than the quest novel is. They're engaging, and I like the whimsy
and style, but new they are not.
She's managed to put established ingredients together with her own seasoning
in a way that appeals to a lot of people. I don't see why that's not enough.
She's good, yay, but I don't see a need to inflate it beyond that, either.
Stacie Hanes
> That said even Pratchett has had off days - Small Gods was
> crap.
:-)
One which some people regard as one of his best, just to remind people that
opinions do vary.
Freezer
> WFM was published in 2003. You really need to re-read WFM and
> what he wrote about "learning witchcraft in a school" before you
> declare it's just a coincidence.
"Equal Rites" (The book in which PTerry first makes the distinction
between Witch magic and Wizard magic) was published in 1987. "Lords
and Ladies" (In which it's stated that a girl can teach herself
witchcraft) was published in 1994 - three years before SS was
published.
You really need to know the particulars before latching on to one
counterpoint.
Weird Beard
following onin alt.fan.harry-potter:
> WFM was published in 2003. You really need to re-read WFM and what he
> wrote about "learning witchcraft in a school" before you declare it's
> just a coincidence.
It's the same thing he said about how witchcraft worked in his universe,
back in 1987 but with a different plot and for a different audience.
noesy_parker
news:kOcHe.7722$Uk3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> Tim Behrendsen wrote:
>
>> What you call incredibly naive or incredibly arrogant, I call
>> incredibly refreshing. Good for Rowling for not worrying about which
>> audience she should be writing for.
>
> I like Rowling and I like the HP books, but I have to say that not
> realizing wizards were part of the fantasy genre shows an incredible
> detachment from the world around you.
>
> Not labelling onesefl is *entirely* different from not being aware
> that such labels exist.
I was beginning to wonder if Pratchett and his acolytes are being
deliberately obtuse, but now I understand. So please understand - yes
dear, JKR, I assume like most normal people, knows what a fantasy genre
is, and no dear, JKR, like most normal people, don't go around
obsessively labelling what they do. We don't tell ourselves that when
we watch Lord of the Rings that we are watching a "fantasy genre" film,
we don't even think about it, we are just watching a good story well-
told. I assume JKR, like the normal person she is, thought that she was
simply writing a good yarn for children to read.
It must be hard for such a self-consciously "fantasy-genre" writer like
Pratchett to see someone like JKR or the general public don't really
care for the art of fantasy-writing of people like him, it must be even
more galling for him, the talented fantasy-genre writer, that his
interview for Sunday Times got stuck in the back pages of the News
Reviews section, while such over-rated hack writer like JKR got front
page treatment. Life can be so unfair.
Stacie Hanes
It's nice to know that you have such respect for people who like both
writers.
What a condescending load of tripe. I like them both, said so, and you give
me a steaming load of partisan, holier-than-thou, excretory explication of
"normality." Well, piss off, I haven't got time for you.
noesy_parker
>
> It's nice to know that you have such respect for people who like both
> writers.
>
> What a condescending load of tripe. I like them both, said so, and you
> give me a steaming load of partisan, holier-than-thou, excretory
> explication of "normality." Well, piss off, I haven't got time for
> you.
>
Whoever said I am partisan? JKR is an entertaining writer, that's all, and
I'm sure Pratchett is one as well, if I can be bothered to read what he
writes. I just don't like people who talk rubbish, which is what Pratchett
did (and it was condescending tripe about JKR that he wrote, if you had
bothered to read the letter and thought it through).
And there is no reason to assume why I or anyone else should respect
someone for simply liking JKR and/or Pratchett. Silly.
Stacie Hanes
> "Stacie Hanes" <house_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:jqfHe.6849$0C....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>>
>> It's nice to know that you have such respect for people who like both
>> writers.
>>
>> What a condescending load of tripe. I like them both, said so, and
>> you give me a steaming load of partisan, holier-than-thou, excretory
>> explication of "normality." Well, piss off, I haven't got time for
>> you.
>>
>
> Whoever said I am partisan?
I could have sworn *I* did. Let's scroll up and see. Yes, there it is, right
after "steaming load of."
> JKR is an entertaining writer, that's
> all, and I'm sure Pratchett is one as well, if I can be bothered to
> read what he writes.
That looks like you read Rowling and don't read Pratchett. Ergo the charge
of partisanship. Of course, if that's not what you meant, you could improve
your communication skills until you're actually clear.
> I just don't like people who talk rubbish,
Your self-image must really be something.
> which is what Pratchett did (and it was condescending tripe about JKR
> that he wrote, if you had bothered to read the letter and thought it
> through).
I read it; you've got no basis other than the fact I'm not loudly censuring
Pratchett for assuming I didn't, which is a wonderful example of "if you
only paid attention, you'd definitely agree with me!" thinking. Good job,
that'll get you far.
> And there is no reason to assume why I or anyone else should respect
> someone for simply liking JKR and/or Pratchett. Silly.
On the other hand, I am forced to appreciate your astonishing ability to
miss a point. Respect is a part of reasonable discourse. I made a fairly
neutral comment, and you responded with snide references to hero-worship and
addressed me mockingly as "dear." It's not exactly meaningful, coming from
an intellectual giant like you, but you caught me with enough free time to
respond just once more.
It's the objectivity that is due respect, if anything. As your tastes so
clearly demonstrate, cretins are capable of enjoying Rowling's work almost
as much as sentient beings can. Tell me, did the cover taste good? I'm sure
you're a *voracious* reader.
Excuse me, the stench of troll is overwhelming, and I have allergies.
(Sorry, afh-p and afp regulars, I'll play with it outside.)
Weird Beard
<noesy_...@clara.co.uk> wrote the following onin
alt.fan.harry-potter:
> Whoever said I am partisan? JKR is an entertaining writer, that's
> all, and I'm sure Pratchett is one as well, if I can be bothered to
> read what he writes. I just don't like people who talk rubbish, which
> is what Pratchett did (and it was condescending tripe about JKR that
> he wrote, if you had bothered to read the letter and thought it
> through).
>
If it was condescending tripe, then it was condescending tripe about
condescending tripe (the article itself, not Ms. Rowling's quotes). The
author, who I can't remember off-hand, dismisses the fantasy genre as
cliched garbage, seemingly without it ever crossing his or her mind that a
large portion of the Harry Potter fanbase crossed over *from* the fantasy
genre.
Also, Douglas Adams has gone on record as saying that he doesn't like many
sci-fi novels. Said that he wouldn't pay Assimov to write junk mail. But he
never tried to have it both ways by saying that his books aren't *really*
sci-fi. (He did say that he never intended to be a novelist, but that does
seem more plausible given both his start as a comedy writer, and his
legendary deadline-missing abilities).
Alex Clark
> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/MTarchives/week_2005_07_31.php#007394
>
> He writes in The Times....
He seems to be quoting and paraphrasing the same article that was
published in _Time_, for which a link was recently posted to AFHP. I
wish that the person who posted this to The Leaky Cauldron had included
more information about the context; it is not clearly stated that it is
this article to which he is responding, regardless of what publication
it might have appeared in.
> ----
> 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."
He didn't make it entirely clear (though it should be apparent to
someone who has read both the article he quoted and his response
thereto) that this description of fantasy was perpetrated by a
journalist who wrote an article about JKR, and not by JKR herself. His
point seems to be that it is wrong to praise JKR by demeaning the
fantasy genre. I agree.
What I don't like about this paragraph is the anonymous passive voice.
"Why is it felt" by *whom*?
> 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
> ----
Tim answered the more obvious problems with this last paragraph well
enough: Pterry seems to have assumed that the article did justice to
what JKR said although a part thereof was only paraphrased, and he
might have been assuming mistakenly that what JKR didn't realize was
something more than that her story could be pigeonholed in the
publishing genre called "fantasy".
There are two other points that I would like to address. First of all,
the "fantasy" genre is associated mainly with invented worlds (which
Pterry is especially famous for), while JKR is only adding fictional
bits to our real world. The latter kind of fiction with magical
elements, set (at least ostensibly) in the real world, has been around
many times longer than the "fantasy" genre.
But what really worries me is the reference to "jumping chocolate
frogs". That is in the first Harry Potter movie, not in the books. Of
course, it is these frogs that put the movie over the line between
modern fairy-tale and genre fantasy. :-)
> The main thrust of his beef seems to be JKR getting elevated above other
> fantasy writers, specifically himself. There is a simple reason for it,
> Mr. Pratchett. She is mainstream, and you are not. She has transcended
> the "fantasy genre". That's why she gets more attention.
This "simple reason" is only simple because it begs the question. It
also assumes a somewhat arbitrary and questionable definition of
"mainstream". Pratchett, like Rowling, is about as mainstream as a
fantasy author can get (depending on one's definitions, of course).
--
Alex Clark
Dim dolt or ma lover (an anagram rejected by Tom Riddle)
"I am Tom Marvolo Widdle, Dark Lord of the educated rodents.
You know my goal -- to conquer the Death of Rats."
The Magic Engineer
"Weird Beard" <weird...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96A4E090C5BE5we...@204.127.36.1...
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 02:21:48 GMT, "noesy_parker"
> <noesy_...@clara.co.uk> wrote the following onin
> alt.fan.harry-potter:
> If it was condescending tripe, then it was condescending tripe about
> condescending tripe (the article itself, not Ms. Rowling's quotes). The
> author, who I can't remember off-hand, dismisses the fantasy genre as
> cliched garbage, seemingly without it ever crossing his or her mind that
> a
> large portion of the Harry Potter fanbase crossed over *from* the fantasy
> genre.
>
> Also, Douglas Adams has gone on record as saying that he doesn't like
> many
> sci-fi novels. Said that he wouldn't pay Assimov to write junk mail. But
> he
> never tried to have it both ways by saying that his books aren't *really*
> sci-fi. (He did say that he never intended to be a novelist, but that
> does
> seem more plausible given both his start as a comedy writer, and his
> legendary deadline-missing abilities).
Anne/Todd McCaffrey write their Dragonriders of Pern series,
which has all the feel and flavor of fantasy, in a s-f setting, and
all the books are classified as s-f. So I'm sure there's a lot of
'cross pollination' going on with what's classified as what, and
what each author thinks they're writing and what the world at
large feels they're writing.
Since Terry Pratchett is obviously a fantasy writer who uses
sarcasm and humor as his vehicle (and I do enjoy all of his books,
before someone turns a flame tank on me), chances are he
was trying to be funny when he made the comment. It's sounded
like from all accounts, JK Rowling sat down one afternoon and
started writing and writing and writing, came up with the first
book, someone liked it a lot and published it, then they all realized
'Hey, this is fantasy!' and in her mind, she equated fantasy with
Tolkien, and said, "No way, I'm not that verbose, and my
characters do a lot more than walk for the first book!"
*hypothetical sarcasm*
So there's a possibility as to her comments on fantasy and her
books, and Terry Pratchett's comments on her comments.
Just a thought.
The Magic Engineer
Stacie Hanes
> There are two other points that I would like to address. First of all,
> the "fantasy" genre is associated mainly with invented worlds
By whom?
This association of fantasy "mainly with invented worlds" is not an
assumption I see very often. Is it your own view, or are you basing it on
some source like an academic community, a particular forum, or writing from
a fan community? Those are just the few possibilities that spring to mind.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's a broad generalization, and I would
like to know where you're drawing it from.
> (which
> Pterry is especially famous for), while JKR is only adding fictional
> bits to our real world. The latter kind of fiction with magical
> elements, set (at least ostensibly) in the real world, has been around
> many times longer than the "fantasy" genre.
If you mean that fiction has included fantastic elements for longer than the
term "fantasy" has been used as the name for a kind of fiction, then yes, I
suppose it has. Fables, myths, allegories, you name it. Those have been
around forever, practically. But the modern view of genres is pretty much a
20th century development.
I guess I can see the distinction being of value if you're making some sort
of critical point about how a Harry Potter novel operates v. how a Discworld
(or other "otherworld" novel) operates in readers' minds, but not as a
shelving category. Both kind have to have reality in there somewhere, or
readers can't place themselves in the text deeply enough for it to make much
sense.
I think for Rowling *and* Pratchett, the reality (what there is of it, and
see me not favoring either of them) is of the interior kind. That is, much
of the realism is related to the inner lives of the characters. Rowling may
be placing the wizard world adjacent to the real world, but we spend hardly
any time in her "real world." When we *are* there, it's almost a parody. The
Dursleys aren't realistic, they're caricatures. I find her England hardly
more likely than Lancre.
I don't disagree with the letter of what you've said, but I think it's only
important when applied to a thesis of some kind, not as a disconnected fact.
Alex Clark
> I like Rowling and I like the HP books, but I have to say that not realizing
> wizards were part of the fantasy genre shows an incredible detachment from
> the world around you.
On the contrary, it shows a refreshing awareness of the place of
fantasy in the history of literature. The genre known as "fantasy" is
modern.[1] Practically nothing that is generally recognized as
belonging to the genre (as such) is much more than a century old. If
you will consult a good dictionary, you will find that the word
"wizard" (let alone the concept) is much older than that. Wizards are
present in the fantasy genre, but they most certainly do not belong to
the genre, as you seem to imply.
BTW, Tolkien (whom Pratchett referred to in apparently favorable terms)
also did not mean to write in the genre. His intention was to write
modern medieval romances or sagas, not fantasy genre stories. (BTW,
Poul Anderson's early approach to fantasy writing, dating from before
the publication of LotR, was more than a little bit similar to
Tolkien's in this way.)
[1] Before the "fantasy" genre was brought into being by such writers
as Morris, Dunsany, Burroughs, and Cabell (and their publishers and
imitators), stories could be more properly classified on a spectrum,
ranging from stories based on phenomena experienced empirically with
the senses to stories incorporating a great deal of mystical,
religious, or traditional kinds of supernatural phenomena. This
spectrum does not have anything like a dividing line between "fantasy"
and "not fantasy".
mark
Stainless Steel Cat (stee...@atuin.demon.co.uk) was heard to remark...
> In article <hh8He.29752$bp.7046@fed1read03>,
> "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
>
> >[...] If he's going to direct an insult at the most popular
> >author in the world,
>
> That'll be Nora Roberts then?
>
> http://www.santafelibrary.org/authors2004.html
Had no idea who she was, did some Googling. Crikey.
"Nora Roberts, here writing as J Dobbs" (or whateveritwas). Her book
covers look like dozens I've seen in airports; is she really that
popular that her old books should be re-released with her name as the
tagline?
(f'ups set)
--
"An unattended cart! What a bit of luck for an unattended cart thief!"
- /Asterix in Britain/
mark
> "Equal Rites" (The book in which PTerry first makes the distinction
> between Witch magic and Wizard magic) was published in 1987. "Lords
> and Ladies" (In which it's stated that a girl can teach herself
> witchcraft) was published in 1994 - three years before SS was
> published.
SS? I don't recall Rowling writing any books with the initials /SS/
...
--
"The [New York] Times is not a bad little newspaper in some ways. But
when it comes to things like egg balancing, it is out of its depth."
- Cecil Adams, /More of the Straight Dope/
The Stainless Steel Cat
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
>[...] As usual, it depends on how you measure
>these things. I did find a few interesting figures after my last post:
>
>Rowling: 250M books, six books, 8 years.
Fair point, I wonder if it's sustainable?
>Mao Tse-Tung's Little Red Book: 900M (presumably not necessarily demand
>driven. :D)
Hah! I like the fact that Agatha Christie's outsold Mao...
"Glorious Chairman Inspector Mao! Why have you gathered us all here?"
"Because comrades, one person in this room is an Imperialist Running Dog!"
"Gasp!"
>I highly doubt that the classics have that many published, mostly
>because they were written in lower production times, and I would guess
>most classic books aren't read these days nearly as much as popular
>books (although, they certainly have the name recognition). Certainly
>not Asimov, who is too genre specific (even though he wrote other than
>science fiction), and has hundreds of books.
No, I just put him in because of the sheer volume of his writings, rather
than a serious expectation of astronomical sales figures.
Carol Hague
> While recovering from a recent, uncomfortable transmembrification,
> Freezer (freezer8...@hotmail.com) was heard to remark...
> > "Equal Rites" (The book in which PTerry first makes the distinction
> > between Witch magic and Wizard magic) was published in 1987. "Lords
> > and Ladies" (In which it's stated that a girl can teach herself
> > witchcraft) was published in 1994 - three years before SS was
> > published.
>
> SS? I don't recall Rowling writing any books with the initials /SS/
I think Freezer is posting from the US, where the title of the first HP
book was _Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone_
--
Carol
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad, in some way or another."
-The Doctor, Doctor Who
Alex Clark
> Alex Clark wrote:
>
> > There are two other points that I would like to address. First of all,
> > the "fantasy" genre is associated mainly with invented worlds
>
> By whom?
>
> This association of fantasy "mainly with invented worlds" is not an
> assumption I see very often. Is it your own view, or are you basing it on
> some source like an academic community, a particular forum, or writing from
> a fan community? Those are just the few possibilities that spring to mind.
I did not just say "fantasy", as you did in your paraphrase. I made a
point of saying "the 'fantasy' genre". One of the most distinctive
differences between the genre and the older traditions (fairy tales,
etc.) from which it is descended is that stories in the genre are often
set in invented worlds that are not really supposed to be plausibly
identified with the real world, while stories with magic from outside
the genre typically locate their settings in the known world, or
sometimes in unknown regions supposed to be on our planet but beyond
the edges of the known world. (BTW, I am using "invented world" to mean
only that the idea of a complete non-existent world is implied, not
that such a world has been imagined in full detail. Obviously even the
most dedicated world-builders can't create complete worlds to serve as
the settings of their stories.) This difference between stories inside
and outside the genre not an absolute rule, but it is such a strong
tendency that without it the "fantasy" genre (if it existed) would be
almost unrecognizable to most current fans of the genre.
It is true that stories set in the real world (more or less) are
shelved and advertised in the genre, but those stories by themselves
would not amount to much of a genre. This is where the boundaries
between fantasy, other genres, and stories not categorized in any
genre, are more blurred. Just for one example, the Miss Seeton stories
include some magic-like phenomena, but are categorized as detective
stories. Without the stories set in invented worlds, the rest of the
stories in the genre would be much less likely to be categorized
together in a genre at all. The genre is centered around invented
worlds where there is magic, and some (but not all) other stories with
magic are appended to this genre. The latter stories are in the genre
not because they needed to be put into a genre, but because the stories
set in invented worlds are a popular enough and distinctive enough
category to make the genre (as a whole) viable as a separate genre.
So you want me to prove this? It can't be done. You would have to find
the alternate present-day Earth where (at least in English) there are
no fantasy stories set in invented worlds, and then see if the
remainder of the genre is still categorized in approximately the same
way. I know that in that case there would effectively be no fantasy
genre, but that is intuitive knowledge based on experience, not
objective knowledge based on proof.
> > (which
> > Pterry is especially famous for), while JKR is only adding fictional
> > bits to our real world. The latter kind of fiction with magical
> > elements, set (at least ostensibly) in the real world, has been around
> > many times longer than the "fantasy" genre.
>
> If you mean that fiction has included fantastic elements for longer than the
> term "fantasy" has been used as the name for a kind of fiction, then yes, I
> suppose it has. Fables, myths, allegories, you name it. Those have been
> around forever, practically. But the modern view of genres is pretty much a
> 20th century development.
>
> I guess I can see the distinction being of value if you're making some sort
> of critical point about how a Harry Potter novel operates v. how a Discworld
> (or other "otherworld" novel) operates in readers' minds, . . .
I don't see what this (and the subsequent stuff that I snipped) has to
do with the question at hand. We had been talking about whether Rowling
should have recognized the Harry Potter series as belonging in the
fantasy genre. How this specific point relates to that question is that
the combination of features (magic and an invented world) that
practically seems to ensure a story's inclusion in the genre is not
present in her story. This is about how a story is categorized by
genre, not how it "operates in readers' minds".
--
Alex Clark
Marmot Dildo Lover (an anagram rejected by Tom Riddle)
John Wilkins
> mark <m.gal...@student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>>While recovering from a recent, uncomfortable transmembrification,
>>Freezer (freezer8...@hotmail.com) was heard to remark...
>>
>>>"Equal Rites" (The book in which PTerry first makes the distinction
>>>between Witch magic and Wizard magic) was published in 1987. "Lords
>>>and Ladies" (In which it's stated that a girl can teach herself
>>>witchcraft) was published in 1994 - three years before SS was
>>>published.
>>
>>SS? I don't recall Rowling writing any books with the initials /SS/
>
>
>
> I think Freezer is posting from the US, where the title of the first HP
> book was _Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone_
>
>
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
ma...@alien8n.net
difference seems to be that because JKR has a more visible appeal
(thanks to films) she gets more news coverage. Not to knock the films,
I actually quite like them, I just can't read her books. As for the
caricaturisation of the Dursleys, you could have ripped that family
straight out of a Roald Dahl book :)
Let's face it, if the Dursley's existed in England today then the book
would have been "Harry Potter and the Social Services Agency"
Anyone else feel that PTerry never expected the Spanish Inquisition?
Alien X Xenomorph
mark
> mark <m.gal...@student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> > While recovering from a recent, uncomfortable transmembrification,
> > Freezer (freezer8...@hotmail.com) was heard to remark...
> > > "Equal Rites" (The book in which PTerry first makes the distinction
> > > between Witch magic and Wizard magic) was published in 1987. "Lords
> > > and Ladies" (In which it's stated that a girl can teach herself
> > > witchcraft) was published in 1994 - three years before SS was
> > > published.
> >
> > SS? I don't recall Rowling writing any books with the initials /SS/
>
> I think Freezer is posting from the US, where the title of the first HP
> book was _Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone_
ITYM, where /PS/ was published under the idiotic title /SS/, *not* "the
title was /SS/" ;-)
Alex Clark
> Anyone else feel that PTerry never expected the Spanish Inquisition?
Nobody expects the Rotfang Conspir . . . Oh bloody hell. Please forgive
the intrusion; I seem to have put the same foot through both legs of my
Trousers of Time.
--
Alex Clark
Lard lover do it mom (an anagram rejected by Tom Riddle)
Carol Hague
> While recovering from a recent, uncomfortable transmembrification,
> Carol Hague (ca...@wrhpv.com) was heard to remark...
> > I think Freezer is posting from the US, where the title of the first HP
> > book was _Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone_
>
> ITYM, where /PS/ was published under the idiotic title /SS/, *not* "the
> title was /SS/" ;-)
I was trying to be diplomatic about it. After all, it's not the fault of
the US readers if the pulishers have stupid ideas.
PeterH
> Stacie Hanes wrote:
>> I like Rowling and I like the HP books, but I have to say that not realizing
>> wizards were part of the fantasy genre shows an incredible detachment from
>> the world around you.
>
> On the contrary, it shows a refreshing awareness of the place of
> fantasy in the history of literature. The genre known as "fantasy" is
> modern.[1] Practically nothing that is generally recognized as
> belonging to the genre (as such) is much more than a century old. If
> you will consult a good dictionary, you will find that the word
> "wizard" (let alone the concept) is much older than that. Wizards are
> present in the fantasy genre, but they most certainly do not belong to
> the genre, as you seem to imply.
Or whatever. I don't class the HP books as fantasy, because for me the
fantasy genre is a lot of jumped-up, boring little people writing about
characters like Herrena the Henna-Haired Haridan to fulfill their own
boring little fantasies about leather. (Please see the relevant passage in
The Light Fantastic for Pratchett's similar view on the subject.)
Another relevant point is raised in The Science of Discworld, regarding
science-fiction novels. The authors say, quite rightly, that the presence
of laser guns no more makes a story science fiction than the absence
of them proves a story *not* to be science fiction.
There aren't really any wizards or witches in JKR's books. They are just
everyday people with the ability to make life easier for themselves using
magic. So there's a couple of unicorns here and there - so what?
At school we were taught about a genre of stories known as Bildungsromane.
If you feel the need to pigeonhole Harry Potter, I think that's probably
the best place to put it.
Discworld can then go into the Satire genre, and bookshops all over the
world can happily start relabeling their bookshelves.
..PeterH
mark
Carol Hague (ca...@wrhpv.com) was heard to remark...
> mark <m.gal...@student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > While recovering from a recent, uncomfortable transmembrification,
> > Carol Hague (ca...@wrhpv.com) was heard to remark...
>
> > > I think Freezer is posting from the US, where the title of the first HP
> > > book was _Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone_
> >
> > ITYM, where /PS/ was published under the idiotic title /SS/, *not* "the
> > title was /SS/" ;-)
>
> I was trying to be diplomatic about it. After all, it's not the fault of
> the US readers if the pulishers have stupid ideas.
True 'nuff. Just look at the US editions of Pratchett ...
(Aaaargh! My keyboard is playing up! ve gone throgh 3 setsof
erieslrea!)
PeterH
> [Pratchett] has expressed minor irritation at a single statement by JKR
> which he regards as foolish (and I agree with him). The statement is by
> JKR personally, and not within the HP universe. To inflate this into any
> general opinion about Harry Potter is simply ridiculous. What other
> snide remarks has he made?
I don't think JKR's statement about "not realising" she was writing a
fantasy was foolish at all. However, I do think it was exceptionally
foolish of Pterry to have a go at her in the way he did.
So now instead of people wondering if perhaps they haven't given the
fantasy genre the credit it deserves, they're sitting back with the
popcorn watching a Potter vs Discworld fight.
..PeterH
Ian and Mandy
> lots of things that I have snipped...
Very eloquently put, I have lots to say on this whole thread but couldn't
follow that post for style or content
Bravo!
Mandy
Sanity
> I have to say I'm disappointed. Fine, take issue with writers who
> elevate Rowling above other writers, but exactly what was to be gained
> by the shot at JKR?
Well, writing fantasy and then saying "I didn't realise it was fantasy"
*is* a bit silly, isn't it? Apart from that, I don't see anything negative
about Rowling - he doesn't mention the quality of the books, for example.
All he does is make a statement against the way the fantasy genre is being
treated.
--
TTFN, | AFPChess, Planet AFP, L-Files & more:
| http://www.affordable-prawns.co.uk/
| *Submit your blog to Planet AFP!*
Michel AKA Sanity | Jabber IM: michel @ jabber.xs4all.nl
Sanity
Warning, spoilers for Half-Blood Prince below.
1
2
3
4
5
6
> Since Terry Pratchett is obviously a fantasy writer who uses
> sarcasm and humor as his vehicle (and I do enjoy all of his books,
> before someone turns a flame tank on me), chances are he
> was trying to be funny when he made the comment. It's sounded
> like from all accounts, JK Rowling sat down one afternoon and
> started writing and writing and writing, came up with the first
> book, someone liked it a lot and published it, then they all realized
> 'Hey, this is fantasy!' and in her mind, she equated fantasy with
> Tolkien, and said, "No way, I'm not that verbose, and my
> characters do a lot more than walk for the first book!"
> *hypothetical sarcasm*
How will we laugh when Dumbledore comes back as Dumbledore the White in
book 7, and Snape will have scoured Little Whinging.
Ian and Mandy
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 00:58:50 GMT, OrionCA <Ori...@earthlink.net>
> wrote the following onin alt.fan.harry-potter:
>
>> WFM was published in 2003. You really need to re-read WFM and what
>> he wrote about "learning witchcraft in a school" before you declare
>> it's just a coincidence.
>
> It's the same thing he said about how witchcraft worked in his
> universe, back in 1987 but with a different plot and for a different
> audience.
>
It's also a reflection of the way he talks about real world education,
or it's lack, in schools.
Just because an author writes something, which apparently contradicts
something, another author has written it doesn't mean he is having a go.
I took the time to read the article Pterry refers to in his letter and
have to say it does appear very scathing of other fantasy novels, and
without having the foggiest idea what they are talking about. It doesn't
say JKR was negative except in her comments about CS Lewis, and that's
open for discussion as in other interviews she claims to love the Narnia
books. So maybe the journalist is at fault here.
The comment from Pterry about not realising it was fantasy is a typical
remark I could just imagine him saying at a convention. Maybe that was
something that would be better having remained a remark rather than
being in print, but it's hardly a hanging offence.
Mandy
mark
> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:11:47 GMT, Freezer
> <freezer8...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >If I don't reply to this OrionCA post, the terrorists win.
> >> WFM was published in 2003. You really need to re-read WFM and
> >> what he wrote about "learning witchcraft in a school" before you
> >> declare it's just a coincidence.
> >
> >between Witch magic and Wizard magic) was published in 1987. "Lords
> >and Ladies" (In which it's stated that a girl can teach herself
> >witchcraft) was published in 1994 - three years before SS was
> >published.
> >
> >counterpoint.
>
> So you've made up your mind and aren't going to re-read (or read, it
> would seem) WFM to see what I'm talking about.
*I've* just re-read the passage to which you refer, FWIW. Will I do,
or did you have your heart set on hearing from our American friend?
Page 303, Doubleday first edition hardback. Tiffany decides that the
"Witches' school" is in fact the real world, and that proper witchcraft
comes from what's inside, rather than what others teach. You can't
teach *real* witchcraft. Granny Weatherwax agrees with her. All well
and good.
Now, the foundations for this conversation were laid (although I'm sure
Pterry didn't realise it back then) waaaaay back in 1987 in /Equal
Rites/. /ER/ shows us that there's two kinds of magic in Pterry's
universe: wizardry and witchcraft. Wizardry is very impressive,
involves lots of spells and shouting and dribbly candles and *teaching
in schools*. Witchcraft is very different.
In the Potter universe, there's no such thing as witchcraft as Pterry
describes it. Witches are just wizards without the dangly bits. As
such, witchcraft can be taught just as easily at Hogwarts as wizardry
is taught at Unseen University.
There can be no Discworld school of witchcraft because that would be
against the definition set up back in '87. Um. You have *read* /ER/,
right? The difference between wizards and witches is a pretty big deal
in that book, while the similarity between the two in the Potter
universe is hammered home reasonably early in /PS/.
I don't know of any equivalent to Pterry's witchcraft in the fantasy
world (there's certainly plenty written about wizards that's similar).
There is *no* crossover. /WFM/ refers to /ER/, not to /PS/. Any
confusion between the two universes exists only in the mind of the
reader, not in those of the authors!
Deevo
news:9F6He.29743$bp.14236@fed1read03...
> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/MTarchives/week_2005_07_31.php#007394
>
> He writes in The Times....
>
> 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."
>
> 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
Well, I'm a bit surprised to read something like that. I don't want to read
too much into that but that last paragraph sounded like the kind of pithy
comment that a high school kid would make after being out scored by someone
else in the class they usually excell at.
I've never read Pratchett and though I may have considered doing so at one
point I must admit after reading that I'm a lot less inclined to do so.
--
Deevo
Geraldton Western Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie/index.htm
mark
[snip: letter by Pratchett that Deevo didn't like]
> I've never read Pratchett and though I may have considered doing so at one
> point I must admit after reading that I'm a lot less inclined to do so.
Why? My views on Robert Heinlen are reasonably well-known to medium-
term regs in afp (I did kinda repeatedly shout abusive comments about
said lunatic), but that doesn't mean I can't thoroughly enjoy /Have
Space Suit, Will Travel/ or stuff like it.
(It *does* mean that Heinlen's Mary Sue books like /Time Enough For
Love/ tend to be very slow going, but so far Pterry hasn't written
anything like that <crosses fingers />).
One can dislike an author without disliking his style or stories.
Flesh-eating Dragon
> So what is the controversy here that Pratchett feels the need to make such a
> snide comment? JKR wrote a fantasy novel, but wasn't thinking about *writing
> fantasy* until afterward. So what?
I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with this, and disagree
with others who believe that it makes Rowling look silly. I have
extrapolated on this point in another post:
<dcinaq$khs$1...@groundhog.korenwolf.net>.
> And that's assuming she even meant that; it was the writer of the Time Article
> that said she didn't realize it until after the book was published. I would
> think Pratchett had been around the block enough to know that people get
> quoted out of context all the time, and that it's not always the best policy
> to comment based on a magazine puff piece that's bound to be taking liberties.
Can you be absolutely certain that Pratchett's letter was not edited
for space? Personally, I'm *very* suspicious that it might have been,
because actually I agree with you that the way it was printed comes
across rather unkindly and undeservedly.
> The main thrust of his beef seems to be JKR getting elevated above other
> fantasy writers, specifically himself.
There is absolutely no justification for this statement. The statement
of yours above is a petty insult, same as what you accuse Pratchett of
dishing out to Rowling. Let's not be hypocritical here.
Adrian.
Forrest
> Yeah, imagine that. Imagine someone considering themselves an *author*,
> writing a story that they happen to like, and not worrying about what
> genre they were writing in. What a bizarre concept to not pigeonhole
> oneself!
This is not the problem. Claiming that one was trying to "subvert" a
genre that one has just claimed one one was not aware one was writing is
a problem, and an interviewer gaming the interviewer's subject into
making statements like that would be a bigger problem.
What's a genre? A classification based on form and content. There's no
avoiding the fact she was and is writing fantasy. It's what people do
after realizing that fact that matters.
Terry P, as the afp half of this crossposted message knows, started off
by subverting the genre, which is to say by taking the P out of *bad*
fantasy -- which back then was epitomized by Sword of Shannara type
stuff, which treated fantasy as format and formula rather than a medium.
He knows what subversion is and what subversion is for. He's on the
same side as Rowling as far as the subversion goes. But he's not
accepting, and never has accepted, the notion that fantasy is
necessarily contemptible escapism.
The objectionable part to elevating Rowling, the intellectually
dishonest part, is trying to take her out of the genre rather than by
establishing her as an epitome of it. It would be like saying that
Raymond Chandler didn't write mysteries or Philip K Dick didn't write
science fiction because they "wrote literature". Literature is not an
exclusive classification, and to claim otherwise is to indulge in
either-or fallacy.
PKD is a particularly interesting example, since some tried to call his
stuff literature-not-SF -- and PKD saw them try, and called BS on them
because he knew what he was doing.
................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
mark
OrionCA (Ori...@earthlink.net) was heard to remark...
> <m.gal...@student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> >> So you've made up your mind and aren't going to re-read (or read, it
> >> would seem) WFM to see what I'm talking about.
> >
> >*I've* just re-read the passage to which you refer, FWIW. Will I do,
> >or did you have your heart set on hearing from our American friend?
>
w00t!
> >Page 303, Doubleday first edition hardback. Tiffany decides that the
> >"Witches' school" is in fact the real world, and that proper witchcraft
> >comes from what's inside, rather than what others teach. You can't
> >teach *real* witchcraft. Granny Weatherwax agrees with her. All well
> >and good.
>
> Which is where Prachett takes one of his swipes at JKR, yes. There are
> others if you'd care to look. Now, where's the passage in Equal Rites
> (which I have read, cover to cover until I was crosseyed) where
> Prachett explicitly says the same thing?
Um. You answer yourself in the next point, so I'll assume I'm not
meant to.
> >Now, the foundations for this conversation were laid (although I'm sure
> >Pterry didn't realise it back then) waaaaay back in 1987 in /Equal
> >Rites/. /ER/ shows us that there's two kinds of magic in Pterry's
> >universe: wizardry and witchcraft. Wizardry is very impressive,
> >involves lots of spells and shouting and dribbly candles and *teaching
> >in schools*. Witchcraft is very different.
>
> You can't find it so you're INFERRING it. Prachett didn't like the
> Harry Potter series because of this early mindset and expressed his
> dislike for it in WFM. It doesn't matter when the man got set in his
> ways; he became a curmudgeon about it after he saw how popular JKR's
> books were.and used his *recent* book to criticize them. Terry's a
> wonderful writer but, like you, he needs to lighten up, develop some
> perspective about it. If Jo had set Harry Potter in Discworld his
> publisher would have sued.
Waitwaitwaitwaitwait ... Pterry writes a passage that makes perfect
sense, as a discussion of Pterryverse witchcraft, to 99.9% of his
readership ... but you disagree with it.
Thus, those who're inferring that he's merely being consistent are just
"inferring", unable to point to where Pterry's broken the fourth wall
and said "hey kids, I really mean X here". Okay, I'm with you so far.
We *are*, really. We'll have to wait 'till JKR or TP say something
explicit in their ngs ... but given what happened last time the two of
them opened their mouths, I suspect they're a bit wary.
But *your* interpretation of the passage, that Pterry is really having
a go at a fellow popular fantasy author and that it's just
*coincidence* that it all fits together perfectly in his universe, must
be right, and it's up to Pratchett to prove otherwise by explicitly
stating such somewhere.
Somehow I think you've got things the wrong way around. Unless I
misread you, and you're challenging my assertion that witchcraft is
different to wizardry in Pratchett's universe. This would be
consistent with your first post on the topic (where you found it odd
that Pratchett would say such a thing, considering Unseen University),
but also makes absolutely no goddamn sense since you claim to have read
/ER/.
SPT
>Brown" fashion - they may be set against a fantasy backdrop, but the
>'action' in the books is more along the lines of a "boarding school,
>midnight feasts and tuck boxes" scenario, hence Rowling not thinking her
>books as being 'fantasy' per se.
Yes, she may have been thinking she was writing an extremely strange
take on a school story, rather than creating a series of fantasy
novels.
Zywicki
Forrest wrote:
> Tim Behrendsen wrote:
>
> > Yeah, imagine that. Imagine someone considering themselves an *author*,
> > writing a story that they happen to like, and not worrying about what
> > genre they were writing in. What a bizarre concept to not pigeonhole
> > oneself!
>
> This is not the problem. Claiming that one was trying to "subvert" a
> genre that one has just claimed one one was not aware one was writing is
> a problem, and an interviewer gaming the interviewer's subject into
> making statements like that would be a bigger problem.
>
> What's a genre? A classification based on form and content. There's no
> avoiding the fact she was and is writing fantasy. It's what people do
> after realizing that fact that matters.
>
> dishonest part, is trying to take her out of the genre rather than by
> establishing her as an epitome of it.
Even better, the ridiculous notion that a book is part of _one_ genre.
Pratchett writes satirical books. The books are fantasy books. The
books often incorporate scientific ideas, so are at times science
fiction(Sourcery, Thief of Time). They often incorporate political
themes and are pollitical fiction (Guards! Guards!, Monstrous Regiment!
Rowlings books are Juvenile Fantasy Coming of Age English Residential
School Romance War stories.
Or less simply put, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
it's an animal, a bird, a marine creature, a vertebrate, and an object
of humor.
Greg Zywicki
elfin
> Freezer wrote:
>>>WFM was published in 2003. You really need to re-read WFM and
>>>what he wrote about "learning witchcraft in a school" before you
>>>declare it's just a coincidence.
>>
>>"Equal Rites" (The book in which PTerry first makes the distinction
>>between Witch magic and Wizard magic) was published in 1987. "Lords
>>and Ladies" (In which it's stated that a girl can teach herself
>>witchcraft) was published in 1994 - three years before SS was
>>published.
>>
>>You really need to know the particulars before latching on to one
>>counterpoint.
>
>
> So you've made up your mind and aren't going to re-read (or read, it
> would seem) WFM to see what I'm talking about.
sorry I forgot that Terry gets all his ideas from Harry Potter,
including all the books written before Harry Potter came out.
How stupid of me.
elfin
Stacie Hanes
> Forrest wrote:
>> The objectionable part to elevating Rowling, the intellectually
>> dishonest part, is trying to take her out of the genre rather than by
>> establishing her as an epitome of it.
>
> Or less simply put, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
> it's an animal, a bird, a marine creature, a vertebrate, and an object
> of humor.
Ta, both of you. I deleted many lines of inferior explanation because I
didn't feel like dealing with it anymore.
--
Stacie, fourth swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons & Bondage-happy predator
AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion & AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to be a horrible
warning." Catherine Aird, _His Burial Too_
http://esmeraldus.blogspot.com/
Zywicki
OrionCA wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:03:19 -0700, "Tim Behrendsen"
> <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
>
> >ery disappointing. Pratchett always seemed like one of the
> >down-to-earth types who was above pettiness like this. Hopefully it was
> >just a momentary lapse.
>
> In his book "The Wee Free Men" he was scathing about the idea of
> learning witchcraft in a school (even though he has the Unseen
> University) and made several other thinly veiled snide remarks about
> her. He just doesn't like the idea of Harry Potter at all.
> --
> "For all the days of your life prepare,
> And meet them ever alike.
> When you are the anvil bear,
> And when the hammer strike."
My response is also to later posts, but I thought it best to back up to
this point.
I think it's naive or willfully obtuse to suggest that the refs in Wee
Free Men to a School of Witchcraft are made in a vacuum. Terry's smart
and, what's more, likes to be topical. The refs are a pretty clear
wink at the Potter books.
What's not clear is his feelings towards them. I would guess that more
than anything he's long since sick of journalists saying, "hey, that's
kind of like Harry Potter, innit?" Pratchett's work is popular enough
(especially among writers) that it would be more appropriate to charge
JKR with plagiarism, if they weren't both clearly riffing off earlier
works by other authors.
Greg Zywicki
Arthur Hagen
>
> I don't see what this (and the subsequent stuff that I snipped) has to
> do with the question at hand. We had been talking about whether
> Rowling should have recognized the Harry Potter series as belonging
> in the fantasy genre. How this specific point relates to that
> question is that the combination of features (magic and an invented
> world) that practically seems to ensure a story's inclusion in the
> genre is not present in her story. This is about how a story is
> categorized by genre, not how it "operates in readers' minds".
On the other hand, it makes a *lot* of economic sense to avoid being put
in the Fantasy genre, where you not only are relegated to the SF&F shelf
over at the left in the back of the store instead of the main
storefront, but also have to fight for shelf space with some of the most
brilliant writers of our day. While Rowling's books are /engaging/ and
lots of people love them, they're certainly not WFA material.
It's far from uncommon for authors to try to distance themselves from
SF&F, even when it's quite obvious to a reader (and presumably the
author) what kind of books they are. What's less common is for an
author to claim unawareness.
I just hope that J. K. Rowling's success means that more kids of all
ages will start reading -- no matter whether it's fantasy or not -- and
broaden their horizons. Unfortunately, the most zealous and loud spoken
fans appear to be those who have little experience with other authors,
but hopefully that will change, seeing as HP books can't come out as
quickly as even the slowest reader can read them. With a bit of luck,
people will also wander away from the mainstream storefront and pick up
books from other shelves than "current bestsellers".
And Potterheads -- enjoy the books, as they're certainly enjoyable
(sales figures alone prove that). Just /please/ don't turn into
paranoid zealots who think that others are out to "get" your favourite
author and get rabid at any kind of negative remarks. Hard as it may be
to accept, not everybody even gives a damn about the Potter fad, and
don't think it's important one way or another.
Regards,
--
*Art
Diane L
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 09:03:19 -0700, "Tim Behrendsen"
> <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
>
>> ery disappointing. Pratchett always seemed like one of the
>> down-to-earth types who was above pettiness like this. Hopefully it
>> was just a momentary lapse.
>
> In his book "The Wee Free Men" he was scathing about the idea of
> learning witchcraft in a school (even though he has the Unseen
> University) and made several other thinly veiled snide remarks about
> her.
It's worse than that. He said exactly the same thing in Equal Rites (where
a witch wanted to go to the Unseen University to learn wizardry). He's
obviously obsessed with putting down Harry Potter and JKR. The most
shocking thing is that Equal Rites was published in 1987. Don't you just
hate it when people are so jealous that they resort to time travel to make
snide remarks?
> He just doesn't like the idea of Harry Potter at all.
He doesn't like the idea of lazy journalists who write a load of crap
because they can't be bothered to do any research. I rather thought that
Ms Rowling felt the same way.
Diane L.
Zywicki
Ta, Tea, and Tor too I suppose. No idea why I'm quoted.
Greg Zywicki
Terry Pratchett
Clark <alexb...@pennswoods.net> writes
>Tim Behrendsen wrote:
>>
>
>He seems to be quoting and paraphrasing the same article that was
>published in _Time_, for which a link was recently posted to AFHP. I
>wish that the person who posted this to The Leaky Cauldron had included
>more information about the context; it is not clearly stated that it is
>this article to which he is responding, regardless of what publication
>it might have appeared in.
Well, I'm back, with a nice new provider which work with Turnpike.
Anything been happening while I've been away?
Oh. My word. I might as well come in here as anywhere.
Let's take it a bit at a time. You know what I wrote, because I think
the entire text has been quoted here somewhere. No, in fact not the
*entire* text--the original letter sent to the Sunday Times referred to
JKR quite politely as Ms Rowling; a small courtesy, but deleting it
makes the relevant sentence twice as harsh, which may be why it was
done.
And the BBC website put a nice little spin on thing on things with a
headline suggesting I'm directing a tirade at J K Rowling, rather than
expressing annoyance at the habits of journalists and specifically
one telling phrase* clearly used by someone else*.
As soon as the Harry Potter boom began, journalists who hadn't read
a children's book in years went "Wow, a wizards'school! Wow,
broomstick lessons! " and so on, and generally acted as though the
common property of the genre was the entire invention of JKR. This
continues, sometimes quite ridiculously. And now we have
Groomsman's 'knights and ladies Morris dancing to Greensleeves'
With such an easy wave we can dismiss, oh, Ursula leGuin, Diana
Wynn Jones, Jane Yolen, Peter Dickinson Alan Garner...fill in the list.
Pointing this out is, apparently, an attack on JKR. I don't have any
problem at all with her rise, only with such third-party silliness such
as the above, which insults good authors who wrote great books at a
time, not long ago, when advances were always low and hype was
unknown.
No, I do not think these words originated with her. It's self-evident in
the article that they are the voice of the interviewer, who is very .
visible in the piece. The tone and presentation make it obvious. Read
the paragraph beginning 'It is precisely Rowling's lack of
sentimentality...' He's giving us *his* opinion, and the guy just had a
nice line he wanted to use. Read the context and say I'm wrong.
And remember: what I was doing was apparently the right of every
Englishman, which was to write a letter to The Times -- for an audience
that can be assumed to have read, with some intelligence, the article in
question. Believe me, if the ST guys had read it as an attack on the
lady herself, it would have been an article, not a letter.
But out there now, I believe, are various morphs of the BBC piece, with
extra venom. You don't have to think about it, just react. 'Pratchett
Attacks Journalist' just would not be as much fun. Every story needs a
villain, right?
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.
I'm jealous? Well, that saves having to have any discussion at all,
right?
But I will pick up on the comments about Tiffany Aching and 'the
school for witches'. As he Discworld take on Witch v. Wizard magic
has been in place for a very long time. Tiffany's daydream of a magical
school' *could *be Hogwarts --or Unseen University or Miss Cackle's
Academy or any fantasy school or all or none. It might even be five
seconds of Tiffany's wishful thinking. So what? Granny
Weatherwax's often voiced distrust of books, magical tools goes all
the way back to 'Equal Rites' in 1987. Why should she suddenly be
talking about another author's creations?
--
--
Terry Pratchett
April Goodwin-Smith
> mark wrote:
<snip>
>>Page 303, Doubleday first edition hardback. Tiffany decides that the
>>"Witches' school" is in fact the real world, and that proper witchcraft
>>comes from what's inside, rather than what others teach. You can't
>>teach *real* witchcraft. Granny Weatherwax agrees with her. All well
>>and good.
>
> others if you'd care to look. Now, where's the passage in Equal Rites
> (which I have read, cover to cover until I was crosseyed) where
> Prachett explicitly says the same thing?
>
>>Pterry didn't realise it back then) waaaaay back in 1987 in /Equal
>>Rites/. /ER/ shows us that there's two kinds of magic in Pterry's
>>universe: wizardry and witchcraft. Wizardry is very impressive,
>>involves lots of spells and shouting and dribbly candles and *teaching
>>in schools*. Witchcraft is very different.
>
>
All quotes taken from _Equal Rites_, the third discworld novel,
first printed in 1987, this copy Corgi paperback printed in 1989
page 14
Granny Weatherwax shut the big doors and turned to him
angrily. "Now you listen to me, Gordon Smith!" she said.
"Female wizards aren't right either! It's the wrong kind of
magic for women, is wizard magic, it's all books and stars
and jommetry. She'd never grasp it. Whoever heard of
a female wizard?"
"There's witches," said the smith uncertainly. "And enchantresses
too, I've heard."
"Witches is a different thing altogether" snapped Granny
Weatherwax. "It's magic out of the ground, not out of
the sky, and men could never get the hang of it. As for
enchantresses," she added, "They're no better than they
should be. You take it from me, just burn the staff, bury
the body and don't let on it ever happened."
page 35
The tree finished its monologue.
Granny waited until she was quite sure that it wasn't going
to add anything, and said, "That's witchcraft, is it?"
"Its theoretical basis, yes."
"You wizards certainly get some funny ideas."
The tree said, "Not a wizard any more, just a tree."
Granny ruffled her feathers.
"Well, just you listen to me, Mr. so-called Theoretical Basis
Tree, if women were meant to be wizards they'd be able to
grow long white beards and she is not going to be a wizard,
is that quite clear, wizardry is not the way to use magic, do
you hear, it's nothing but lights and fire and meddling with
power and she'll be having no part of it and good night to
you."
page 59 to page 60
Esk looked hard at the staff, then at Granny.
"I've got to be a wizard?"
"Yes. No. I don't know."
"That isn't really and answer, Granny," Esk said
reproachfully. "Am I or amp't I?"
"Women can't be wizards," said Granny bluntly. "It's agin
nature. You might as well have a female blacksmith."
"Actually I've watched dad at work and I don't see why -"
"Look," said Granny hurriedly, "you can't have a female
wizard any more than you can have a male witch, because -"
"I've heard of male witches," said Esk meekly.
"Warlocks!"
"I think so."
"I mean there's no male witches, only silly men," said Granny
hotly. "If men were witches, they'd be wizards. It's all down
to -" she tapped her head "- headology. How your minds
works. Men's minds work different from ours, see. Their
magic's all numbers and angles and edges and what the stars
are doing, as if that really mattered. It's all power. It's all -"
Granny paused, and dredged up her favourite word to
desccribe all she despised about wizardry, "- jommetry."
"That's all right, then," said Esk, relieved. "I'll stay here
and learn witchery."
"Ah," said Granny gloomily, "that's all very well for you to
say. I don't think it will be as easy as that."
"But you said th at men can be wizards and women can be
witches and it can't be the other way around."
"That's right."
"Well, then," said Esk triumphantly, "it's all solved, isn't
it? I can't help but be a witch."
Granny pointed to the staff. Esk shrugged.
It's just an old stick."
Granny shook her head. Esk blinked.
"No?"
"No."
The whole sodding book is about the difference, so either
you haven't read the book, or your comprehension needs
a prosthetic device.
April.
Lesley Weston
at house_d...@yahoo.com wrote on 31/07/2005 8:04 PM:
> noesy_parker wrote:
>> "Stacie Hanes" <house_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:jqfHe.6849$0C....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
<snip Stacie's magnificent flame>
Wow! The stench of singed troll is getting stronger by the minute!
--
Lesley Weston.
Brightly_coloured_blob is real, but I don't often check even the few bits
that get through Yahoo's filters. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca,
changing spelling and spacing as required.
Lesley Weston
stee...@atuin.demon.co.uk wrote on 31/07/2005 11:00 PM:
> In article <ZabHe.29792$bp.29635@fed1read03>,
> "Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> wrote:
>
>> [...] As usual, it depends on how you measure
>> these things. I did find a few interesting figures after my last post:
>>
>> Rowling: 250M books, six books, 8 years.
>
> Fair point, I wonder if it's sustainable?
>
>> Mao Tse-Tung's Little Red Book: 900M (presumably not necessarily demand
>> driven. :D)
>
> Hah! I like the fact that Agatha Christie's outsold Mao...
>
> "Glorious Chairman Inspector Mao! Why have you gathered us all here?"
> "Because comrades, one person in this room is an Imperialist Running Dog!"
> "Gasp!"
Somebody write this one, please. I want to read it.
Stacie Hanes
> I don't see what this (and the subsequent stuff that I snipped) has to
> do with the question at hand. We had been talking about whether
> Rowling should have recognized the Harry Potter series as belonging
> in the fantasy genre. How this specific point relates to that
> question is that the combination of features (magic and an invented
> world) that practically seems to ensure a story's inclusion in the
> genre is not present in her story. This is about how a story is
> categorized by genre, not how it "operates in readers' minds".
Actually, I think we're having two different conversations. I still find it
hard to believe that she didn't realize it, but to answer you:
The features of "magic and an invented world" are ONE combination that
practically guarantees inclusion in the fantasy genre. Where I absolutely,
definitely, strongly disagree with you is that it's the only one.
I think magic, wizards, and unicorns, even if the unicorns are frolicking
around in central London, is ANOTHER combination that will land a book on
the fantasy shelf.
There is no universally agreed upon taxonomy.
I can point to where I got my views on the subject. Mind you, it's not an
appeal to authority, because the authority is homegrown. I hit two academic
conferences yearly: the Science Fiction Research Association and the
International Conference for the Fantastic in the Arts. The people I talk to
the most are academics who study the field, avidly, but usually as a
sideline to something else. I've read fantasy & sf for maybe 20 years; some
of my friends are into fandom, but I'm really not. And I read afp and abp.
So basically I see lots of critics and a subset of fans and readers that
includes mainly Rowling, Whedon, and Pratchett fans.
Okay? That's what I mean by "where are you getting this." Because my
exposure, which I've laid out for you, leads me to believe that it's
decidedly unusual to write a multi-hundred page book full of wizards without
having the "fantasy novel" thought occur to you.
I'm sorry, but I find it surprising and it seems much more like a lack of
awareness of the literature rather than a deep knowledge of literary
history. If that's somehow offensive to your sensibilities, then I think
we've reached the end of any useful dialogue.
Rhiannon Sands
"OrionCA" <Ori...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:s32se1toddbva5j8d...@4ax.com...
> >> would seem) WFM to see what I'm talking about.
> >
> >*I've* just re-read the passage to which you refer, FWIW. Will I do,
> >or did you have your heart set on hearing from our American friend?
>
>
> >Page 303, Doubleday first edition hardback. Tiffany decides that the
> >"Witches' school" is in fact the real world, and that proper witchcraft
> >comes from what's inside, rather than what others teach. You can't
> >teach *real* witchcraft. Granny Weatherwax agrees with her. All well
> >and good.
>
Actually given that Harry P is about teaching wizardry in schools, which TP
thinks is ok, if we are going interpret it as a swipe at anyone it should be
at Jill Murphy's Worst Witches books. Which are about teaching witchcraft
in schools. Which has been around a bit before Harry P and is probably a
bit better known to his adult readers anyway.
Personally I'm going to view it as TP being internally consistent with his
own creation.
--
Rhiannon S
I'm not an idiot! I'm just in touch with my pineal gland.
Troels Forchhammer
"Tim Behrendsen" <t...@zapthisbehrendsen.com> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> I have to say I'm disappointed. Fine, take issue with writers who
> elevate Rowling above other writers, but exactly what was to be
> gained by the shot at JKR?
<snip>
> Very disappointing. Pratchett always seemed like one of the
> down-to-earth types who was above pettiness like this. Hopefully
> it was just a momentary lapse.
Let's calm down, shall we?
Neil Gaiman has some comments on this <http://neilgaiman.com/journal/>
Essentially he says that Terry Pratchett is commenting on the extremely
poor quality of the Time article (something I agree with even if it
does glorify one of my favourite authors), and in that context the
comment about Rowling might just as well be seen as a comment on how
stupid the article actually makes Rowling out to be (PS was published
in June 1997 and SS in October 1998, and Rowling had been developing
the story and backstory since 1990).
I recall the argument Gaiman refers to in connection with the Carnegie
medal (being on both Pratchett and Tolkien newgroups was fun, though).
The cross-posted flame-war in alt.fan.tolkien and alt.fan.pratchett on
the argument of 'our author is better than yours' was rather stupid as
I recall it.
Sometimes it's incredible the lengths to which we'll go to 'prove' that
that which we like is also universally and objectively better than
anything else -- that 'our author is better than your author' and not
the least the imaginative (I'm tempted to borrow Emerson's 'word of the
day' from 16th July -- 'delusional') misunderstandings we'll perpetuate
in order to perceive a slight against 'our author' and blow it
completely out of proportion.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
++?????++ Out of Cheese Error. Redo From Start.
- (Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times)
Troels Forchhammer
Pratchett <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> Oh. My word. I might as well come in here as anywhere.
Thank you, very much!
I'll admit to being a bit ashamed of my fellow Potter fans -- this
knee-jerk reaction of '/our author is better than your author so he
should just shut up/' is very unbecoming.
May I quote from this in other on-line fora where others have found it
difficult to read your letter in the spirit it was intended?
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
- Anne Lamott
Man o Tea
> Let's calm down, shall we?
"I don't much like the tone of your voice."
(shoots him)
"Right let's have a ding dong ..."
noesy_parker
> I could have sworn *I* did. Let's scroll up and see. Yes, there it is,
> right after "steaming load of."
>
>> JKR is an entertaining writer, that's
>> all, and I'm sure Pratchett is one as well, if I can be bothered to
>> read what he writes.
>
> That looks like you read Rowling and don't read Pratchett. Ergo the
> charge of partisanship. Of course, if that's not what you meant, you
> could improve your communication skills until you're actually clear.
Dear me, I read JKR therefore I must be her supporter, I don't read
Pratchett therefore I can't be on his side. You really must get out a
bit more.
> I read it; you've got no basis other than the fact I'm not loudly
> censuring Pratchett for assuming I didn't, which is a wonderful
> example of "if you only paid attention, you'd definitely agree with
> me!" thinking. Good job, that'll get you far.
>
>> And there is no reason to assume why I or anyone else should respect
>> someone for simply liking JKR and/or Pratchett. Silly.
>
> On the other hand, I am forced to appreciate your astonishing ability
> to miss a point. Respect is a part of reasonable discourse.
No dear, don't try to rewrite what you wrote. It might impress the
duller members of your community but to most of the rest of us you are
simply trying to pull a fast one. You wrote "It's nice to know that you
have such respect for people who like both writers.", meaning that I
should have respect for people who like JKR and Practchett. If you had
said I should conduct the discourse in a civil manner I might have felt
a twinge of shame, but as it is, I feel entire justified as now that you
shown yourself to be dishonest.
But since you mentioned it, no dear, I don't respect people for simply
existing. If no one ever taught you this, respect is something that is
earned, not simply expected of others.
> I made a
> fairly neutral comment, and you responded with snide references to
> hero-worship and addressed me mockingly as "dear." It's not exactly
> meaningful, coming from an intellectual giant like you, but you caught
> me with enough free time to respond just once more.
Show that you have more up in your brain and I might feel more inclined
to be civil, but here again you are being dishonest. You are accusing
JKR being "detached from the world", it is not a neutral comment.
I might have put it better, the point I made is still a valid one - to
those stuck in "fantasy genre" geekdom and don't know how normal people
think, do remember most normal people don't obsessively classifying
everything in sight. If JKR had thought that she should be writing a
"children-fantasy-mystery-thriller-schoolboys-adventure genre" book, she
would have probably failed miserably. She is simply telling a story,
got that?
> It's the objectivity that is due respect, if anything. As your tastes
> so clearly demonstrate, cretins are capable of enjoying Rowling's work
> almost as much as sentient beings can. Tell me, did the cover taste
> good? I'm sure you're a *voracious* reader.
>
> Excuse me, the stench of troll is overwhelming, and I have allergies.
Dear, dear, troll eh? Last refuge of those like you who can't argue a
point.
>
> (Sorry, afh-p and afp regulars, I'll play with it outside.)
Richard Bos
Sure. And Dante may have been thinking he was just writing an extremely
odd travel story.
Richard
Terry Pratchett
<Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> writes
>
>
>May I quote from this
I'm unfamiliar with the concept of being asked:-)
You might like to throw in the relevant quote from the article:
"It's precisely Rowling's lack of sentimentality, her earthy, salty
realness, her refusal to buy into the basic cliches of fantasy, that
make her such a great fantasy writer. The genre tends to be deeply
conservative--politically, culturally, psychologically. It looks
backward to an idealized, romanticized, pseudofeudal world, where
knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves. Rowling's books aren't
like that."
A magic wand it not required to see that this is Grossman giving an
opinion, not a view expressed by JKR. And what was intended as a letter
to ST readers, who'd probably read the article, got dragged out and
rebuilt to make a quick story. Check? Why check, when it's so much
easier to rant.
--
Terry Pratchett
Eric Jarvis
<3lsqe1tvlpom69npc...@4ax.com>:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:41:09 GMT, elfin <el...@lspace.org> wrote:
>
> >OrionCA wrote:
> >> In his book "The Wee Free Men" he was scathing about the idea of
> >> learning witchcraft in a school (even though he has the Unseen
> >> University) and made several other thinly veiled snide remarks about
> >
> >At this point I'd like to point out to you the relevant dates
> >regarding witches appearing in Discworld Novels, not just Wee Free
> >Men, but I can't be too sure of what appears in which witch book. Safe
> >to say that this was already laid out *before* Ms Rowling had
> >published her first potter book.
>
> WFM was published in 2003. You really need to re-read WFM and what he
> wrote about "learning witchcraft in a school" before you declare it's
> just a coincidence.
>
YOU need to read Equal Rites, Sourcery, Wyrd Sisters and Witches Abroad.
The differences between wizardry and witchcraft have been clearly laid out
in Discworld since 1987. Equal Rites is almost entirely about the
differences between men and women, and between witchcraft and wizardry
(and about being true to your own nature even when it isn't convenient or
conventional). Wee Free Men merely contains references to something
established some 16 years earlier.
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Ian and Mandy
news:gbid0XMy...@unseen.demon.co.uk:
>
> But I will pick up on the comments about Tiffany Aching and 'the
> school for witches'. As he Discworld take on Witch v. Wizard magic
> has been in place for a very long time. Tiffany's daydream of a magical
> school' *could *be Hogwarts --or Unseen University or Miss Cackle's
> Academy or any fantasy school or all or none. It might even be five
> seconds of Tiffany's wishful thinking. So what? Granny
> Weatherwax's often voiced distrust of books, magical tools goes all
> the way back to 'Equal Rites' in 1987. Why should she suddenly be
> talking about another author's creations?
The main wishful thinking a certain Tiffany does about school is wishing
it would be over quicker so she can get on with reading interesting things.
Mandy
AKA foul ol Ron
Tim Behrendsen
news:gbid0XMy...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
> In message <1122867580.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Alex Clark <alexb...@pennswoods.net> writes
>>Tim Behrendsen wrote:
>>>
>>
>>He seems to be quoting and paraphrasing the same article that was
>>published in _Time_, for which a link was recently posted to AFHP. I
>>wish that the person who posted this to The Leaky Cauldron had
>>included
>>more information about the context; it is not clearly stated that it
>>is
>>this article to which he is responding, regardless of what publication
>>it might have appeared in.
>
> the entire text has been quoted here somewhere. No, in fact not the
> *entire* text--the original letter sent to the Sunday Times referred
> to JKR quite politely as Ms Rowling; a small courtesy, but deleting it
> makes the relevant sentence twice as harsh, which may be why it was
> done.
OK, accepted that the letter was hacked up.
> As soon as the Harry Potter boom began, journalists who hadn't read
> a children's book in years went "Wow, a wizards'school! Wow,
> broomstick lessons! " and so on, and generally acted as though the
> common property of the genre was the entire invention of JKR. This
> continues, sometimes quite ridiculously. And now we have
> Groomsman's 'knights and ladies Morris dancing to Greensleeves'
> With such an easy wave we can dismiss, oh, Ursula leGuin, Diana
> Wynn Jones, Jane Yolen, Peter Dickinson Alan Garner...fill in the
> list.
OK, so far so good -- you are criticizing the media for glorifying
Rowling. This sounds fine and fair.
> Pointing this out is, apparently, an attack on JKR. I don't have any
> problem at all with her rise, only with such third-party silliness
> such
> as the above, which insults good authors who wrote great books at a
> time, not long ago, when advances were always low and hype was
> unknown.
Oh dear. At least to me, pointing that out was NOT an attack on JKR.
This is the first place you go wrong.
> No, I do not think these words originated with her. It's self-evident
> in
> the article that they are the voice of the interviewer, who is very .
> visible in the piece. The tone and presentation make it obvious. Read
> the paragraph beginning 'It is precisely Rowling's lack of
> sentimentality...' He's giving us *his* opinion, and the guy just had
> a nice line he wanted to use. Read the context and say I'm wrong.
So then, you agree (and most agree with you) that the article in Time
was filled with misleading opinion. Yet, you still used it as fodder.
> And remember: what I was doing was apparently the right of every
> Englishman, which was to write a letter to The Times -- for an
> audience that can be assumed to have read, with some intelligence, the
> article in question. Believe me, if the ST guys had read it as an
> attack on the lady herself, it would have been an article, not a
> letter.
>
> But out there now, I believe, are various morphs of the BBC piece,
> with extra venom. You don't have to think about it, just react.
> 'Pratchett Attacks Journalist' just would not be as much fun. Every
> story needs a villain, right?
>
> 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.
And here's where we get to the crux of the matter, and why you're being
criticisized. What does this issue have to do with your central point
(as I understand it), that the media is glorifying Rowling? Correct me
if I'm wrong, but you seem to levelling a criticism at Rowling here that
she isn't embracing being a fantasy author enough for your taste. So
exactly what *was* the purpose of this "extra" shot?
> 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.
As someone who doesn't particularly care for "standard" fantasy, yet
likes the Harry Potter books, it makes complete sense to me. They are
novels about the "real world", but happen to have magic. Stephen King's
The Stand is about the real world, yet has fantasy elements -- same
thing. That's in comparison to completely manufactured fantasy worlds
(King's Tower series would be closer to that).
Rowling wrote a novel about characters in the real world that happened
to have magic. Why is it so difficult to believe that she wouldn't worry
about what "genre" she was writing in, until afterward?
Not to speak for her, but I think she thinks she is writing stories, and
doesn't worry about what the genre is. Why is it so important to you
that she "admits" she's writing fantasy novels?
David Jensen
John Wilkins <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote in
<dcki1i$1mh8$2...@bunyip2.cc.uq.edu.au>:
>Carol Hague wrote:
>> mark <m.gal...@student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>While recovering from a recent, uncomfortable transmembrification,
>>>
>>>>"Equal Rites" (The book in which PTerry first makes the distinction
>>>>between Witch magic and Wizard magic) was published in 1987. "Lords
>>>>and Ladies" (In which it's stated that a girl can teach herself
>>>>witchcraft) was published in 1994 - three years before SS was
>>>>published.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think Freezer is posting from the US, where the title of the first HP
>> book was _Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone_
>>
>>
>Because Americans wouldn't know what a philosopher was...
Some do. Why it's only been days since you left America's fair shores,
hasn't it?
ma...@alien8n.net
There's a great deal of snobbery where books are concerned, the press
trumpets JKR's books as being subversive and different from fantasy.
This is simply not true, they're just modern fantasy that's accessible
to children and made more popular due to the fact that they translate
very well to the big screen. If any other author had the film success
that JKR has had they would also be seen as subversive and different.
I happen to like fantasy in it's purest forms, I like Melanie Rawn,
Raymond Feist and Terry Brooks. Because they write classic fantasy they
are seen as inferior yet I have read better literature by these authors
than by the likes of Dan Brown (Digital Fortress was an okay book in my
opinion, yet was much inferior in style and composition and had a plot
twist that was guessed within the first quarter of the book). Some of
these authors also write great modern fantasy as well, Faerie Tale and
Running With The Demon coming to mind straight away, both much more
subversive of the fantasy genre than a Harry Potter book.
There are also the great deal of children's fantasy authors out there.
The snobbery perpetrated by the media on our children's reading habits
would have you believe that there is only one author writing fantasy
for children. Has there ever been the hype that has been generated over
a single Harry Potter book generated over a Garth Nix or even Lemony
Snickett book? No, yet these and many other authors write books that
are for children and are just as readable at any age as any Harry
Potter book.
My suggestion to any reading this would be, forget whatever you read in
the press. Forget what you think you know of any genre of lierature.
Remember why you are reading a book, that each page takes you into a
story, be it a thriller, horror, fantasy or science-fiction. Read the
story because you want to be transported into the world created by that
author, be it a land called Narnia, the concrete jungle of New York or
the outer spiral of the galaxy. And always be prepared to read
something you never thought you would read. You never know, you may
find that you enjoy fantasy for what it is, a good read.
Alien X Xenomorph
Ian and Mandy
$bp.6338@fed1read03:
> "Terry Pratchett" <tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gbid0XMy...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
lots of stuff snipped that is not relevent to my point.....
>> 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.
>
> And here's where we get to the crux of the matter, and why you're being
> criticisized. What does this issue have to do with your central point
> (as I understand it), that the media is glorifying Rowling? Correct me
> if I'm wrong, but you seem to levelling a criticism at Rowling here that
> she isn't embracing being a fantasy author enough for your taste. So
> exactly what *was* the purpose of this "extra" shot?
First of all a major disclaimer, I have no idea if Terry is/was saying
this- this bit is MY interpretation of the words.
Isn't the point here that the interviewer didn't ask a rather important
question? Surely a comment of this nature would have required a follow up
question(s). I certainly would have wanted to know more about the thinking
behind her writing, Her statement about it not occurring it's fantasy maybe
would have been clearer had the follow up questions been asked. Maybe they
were and it wasn't reported, as that would have made the article far less
controversial.
Mandy
Troels Forchhammer
> Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.invalid> writes
>>
>> May I quote from this
>
> I'm unfamiliar with the concept of being asked:-)
It seems only polite, thanks.
That might even seem a bit like double standards, seeing that I'm using
quotations from your books in my .sigs ;-) Somehow I do feel that
there is a difference between a short witty quotation and quoting an
opinion like this.
I've advised The Leaky Cauldron <www.the-leaky-cauldron.org> of your
replies here.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Tim Behrendsen
news:Xns96A5E208E825Fne...@195.129.110.131...
Hmm. OK, your interpretation is that he's saying, "I'd like to know how
the writer of an article about an author can fail to ask a follow-up
question when the author in question makes what I consider a statement
that doesn't seem logical on-the-face."
My interpretation was, "How can Rowling claim to not be writing fantasy
when her books are chock-full of elements from fantasy? If she claims
this, then she must either be disengenuous in some way, or otherwise
lacking a 'clue'."
Reading back the statements in question, I can see that it's possible
that's what he meant, even though it didn't read that way to me. If so,
then I apologize for the misinterpretation and subsequent accusation.