Just read the following article on BBC news and nearly choked on my coffee at the woman's arrogance:

Pratchett takes swipe at Rowling

Terry Pratchett is the author of the best-selling Discworld series
Writer Terry Pratchett has poked fun at Harry Potter author JK Rowling for saying she did not realise she was writing a fantasy novel.
He wrote to the Sunday Times:"I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds... would have given her a clue?"

Harry Potter and the Halfblood Prince has been a runaway bestseller in the UK and US since its release on 16 July.

Pratchett is one of the UK's most successful novelists.

His comments came on Rowling's 40th birthday, also Harry Potter's birthday.

In a recent interview with Time magazine, Rowling said she was "not a huge fan of fantasy" and was trying to "subvert" the genre.


JK Rowling recently launched Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
The magazine also said Rowling reinvented fantasy fiction, which was previously stuck in "an idealised, romanticised, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves".

Pratchett, whose first fantasy novel was published 34 years ago and has since sold more than 40 million books, said in his letter that the genre had always been "edgy and inventive".

"Ever since The Lord of the Rings revitalised the genre, writers have played with it, reinvented it, subverted it and bent it to their times," he wrote.

"It has also contained come of the very best, most accessible writing for children, by writers who seldom get the acknowledgement they deserve."

His full response to Rowling's admission that she did not think Harry Potter was fantasy as she was writing it, was:

"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?"

JB, I think I finally get Harry Potter! JKR is subverting the fantasy genre through parody! It all makes sense: the blatant steals from other fantasy novels, the hundreds of plotless pages, the lazy and unexplained ascribing of 'good' and 'evil', the lampooning of the cosy boarding school world that produced Tolkein and C S Lewis, the constant telling not showing, the leadweight dialogue, the one dimensional characters, the magic that never has any cause or effect, the total lack of originality, the massive plot faults, the same plot used in every book, the lack of emotional content - genius!

I read the original interview with JKR, and remember raising a suspicious eyebrow at her comment about 'not knowing' she was writing fantasy. But as I recall it was the interviewer who called her work subversive - whoever it was had their heads shoved firmly up JKR's royal arse...the experience of reading such sycophantic drivvel drove me to rant at my poor father (whose Sunday Times it was) for a good ten minutes before he quite rightly pointed out that instead of slagging her off I should write my own bloody book. Oops. Good point, Dad.

Myrtle

Um......I've always hated fantasy and I was really sniffy about HP when half the adult world started reading it. Then I tried one and read every single one of them, one after the other, and loved every moment.
I don't think there can possibly be some huge con going on here - the books are so popular because they are just wildly entertaining. And I still don't like any other kind of fantasy - (oh dear, think I may regret admitting this...) I tried Pullman with great hopes and HATED it. (I can almost hear a big shocked intake of breath here)
So maybe HP does subvert a genre in a way, by making it acceptable to people like me. Sorry!

I think, I know what JK Rowling means when she says she didn't realise she was writing a fantasy. The difference here is between form and content. You can populate your novel with wizards, trolls and unicorns, and appeal to the subtlest of feelings and speak the deepest philosophy. The presense of these creatures does not make the novel a fantasy. Indeed, one can call Animal Farm a fairy-tale because animals can speak there.
I find the appeal of her books to me unexplainable. I don't even adore them that much, I just can't stop reading them!

I know this has been done to death - but it doesn't seem to be dead yet! - but I still think there's some weird con going on. I do! I read the first HP, I thought it was so average. To me, it was like watching an episode of The Bill. I know that gazillions of people disagree with me, but what annoys me is that the HP 'phenomen...' (I can't bear to say it) has not prompted people to pick up all the hundreds of TRULY BRILLIANT (sorry to shout) contemporary children's novels we have to choose from. And that's just my opinion. No disrespect to how much enjoyment you get from JKR, but to me its all hype and no substance.

Myrtle

Caroline, you hit the nail on the head there I feel, HP is for people who don't read fantasy! If you did, the volumes of plagiarism running through it might make you gag like the rest of us.

Terry - that is funny. But there are plenty of great works of modern fantasy about. It's not all elves and Balrogs you know! (I know, you do know).

I've said it before, but I want to say it one more time. JK Rowling has clearly ripped of Neil Gaiman's Books of Magic wholesale. This graphic (and excellent) novel came out years before Potter, and is about a teenage boy Timothy Hunter, who discovers he is destined to be the greatest magician who has ever lived. He goes off to magic school, complete with his pet owl in tow...

I don't think there is any irony in JK's work, because this would surely be reflected in her writing, which, by professional standards, is mediocre at best. Order of the Phoenix was a pile of unedited drivel, and if you're a writer yourself and refute that, I feel sorry for you.

The key here is hype. Unfortunately, a lot of grown ups (?) bought it. I read the books myself out of curiousity and because I like abreast of literary sensations - but I found them gruelling after Azkaban and the first three books didn't offer anything new to the genre. In fact, I'd go as far as to say she's giving it a bad name.

JB

<Added>

*keep abreast!

JB,
Fair enough that I wouldn't recognise the plagiarism. But there is one key part of your sentence about the author you mentioned..it was a 'graphic' novel. You see, that would have turned me right off at the outset, and probably would have done with many others like me. JKR has, however you view it, made people who wouldn't normally read this kind of book take an interest in children's fiction.

I'm interested that you make a distinction with Dan Brown - to me, that also came under the category of 'stuff I'd never normally read'. In his case, I enjoyed TDC very much, but strictly as a one-off.
Myrtle, I DID try one of the other major authors for children. I tried Philip Pullman and didn't like it at all. Came v much under category of hardcore magic to me.
Guess I'm just going to have to agree to disagree on HP!

<Added>

Sorry, think the Dan Brown comments must have been elsewhere on the site!

We who get a little worked up about HP being badly written and derivative are probably missing the point. Myrtle mentioned The Bill and actually, when you think about it, HP is really soap opera. I was talking to a very intelligent 15 year old recently who's in to all kinds of great authors; he's also a fantasy fan, but is able to separate in his mind quite easily the 'real' stuff from the soap. And he sees HP as soap – something to not have to think about. I know someone who writes for EastEnders, Casualty, Heartbeat, etc, and she will quite cheerfully admit that US dramas such as ER are much better. I guess the difficulty is that JKR – and many adults and critics who should know better – also wants to be seen as a great writer too. Hence that scene in the Paxman interview where she brought out an exercise book of background notes she'd written, to show she was a real writer; and all that nonsense about how she'd planned out all seven books from the start (wouldn't they have been somewhat more consistent in length, and tighter in plot, if that was the case?).


Terry

Sure, everyone is free to like whatever. if it floats your boat, go for it. I've just been spoilt by a wealth of far superior fantasy novels, a genre I love.

The distinction I was trying to make is between being influenced by something, adding a new spin, and ripping something off to make a fast buck.

JB

As a school librarian who has witnessed first hand what the Potter phemomenen has apparently done for a select proportion, (ie white,
middle-class) student readers, I have thus far sheid away from criticism.

But after reading the new one I am just amazed at how utterly boring and plodding it is. Virtually nothing happens until the last 200 pages and the rest of it can be read with a check-list by one's side....
episode with the Dursley's
visit to Diagon Alley
trip on the train
visit to Hagrid
day out at Hogsmeade
quidditch match.....

And the climax of the novel, with the death of Dumbledore, a character I had always quite liked, (though I think that's from his portrayal in the films), was so stilted that I felt no emotion at all.

Vapid and hollow, are I think the words. Roll on the final one , then we can hopefully forget about it all
x
tc


<Added>

And Voldemort hardly makes an appearance. If the prophecy says that either Harry or Lord Vol will die, why doesn't he come for Harry and just get it over with?

<Added>

Oh, and I don't buy Snape as a murderer, either. Sure he's been a bit subversive all the way through, but a killer? nope.

Nor Malfoy, for that matter. Too big a jump from school bully to assassin...

help.....stop me someone

Yes, every book follows the same pattern, and I can't help but feel that Rowling underestimates the intelligence of children. But not of adults, it would seem. Let's be honest, kids like it because it is 'the thing to like', on the whole. Adults? The answer to that continues to escape me.

Anyway, even your spoilers don't bother me. Who cares? The characters are dead anyway.

JB

Hmm...it bothers me!!! I'd managed quite well in avoiding finding out who has died until now! [think my low intelligence helped]
Oh well! I still say they are wonderful, entertaining books. Haven't read the latest yet though.

Oops! Sorry, did I give the game away? My apologies, off to turn myself into a chocolate frog...
x
tc

Oh dear, I've been assuming that Snape will still turn out to be playing some complex double game because Dumbledore said something in an early book about HP's Dad having saved his life etc etc - but perhaps JR has forgotten this - ditto Malfoy could still be redeemed in final book - but perhaps I'm going to be disappointed.

I think the analogy with soaps is quite good - I can see everything that is wrong with the HP books but I have read them all and some of them more than once.

I think they would be not too bad without all the hype - yes they need editing, there are just too many words, all sorts of sloppy things - but there are some great jokes with names etc and some characters like Ron and Hermione who kids like and who have worked well in the films - BUT of course clearly it's not great writing and I would love kids to be reading good writing and good stories. If they were regarded with more balance then we probably wouldn't all get so cross about them.

I must say I am bemused at the suggestion that they encourage reading.The kids I know who devour them are middle class and highly literate, so reading is always a choice. My daughter is dyslexic and had a crap education in her early years in the care system - and can't read them at all - she is 18 now so a bit old but tried to read the latest one 'just to see what all the fuss is about' - but the print size and sheer number of words on the page just turned her off straight away. The various poorer kids and kids with special needs I've worked with when helping out at her school (secondary, i.e. Rowling's target group) would really struggle with this stuff. I'm not sure what the point of writing long wordy stuff for kids rather than tell a good and complex story in simple elegant language (well that's what I aspire to anyway - Alan Garner one of my top heroes).

Enough!
bye all
Veronica