Then you agree that she is a very good writer. OKQuote:
Originally Posted by Apotropaic
Printable View
Then you agree that she is a very good writer. OKQuote:
Originally Posted by Apotropaic
It wouldn't bother a bit if they read it. Those "fantasy" books are only literature by virtue of being words on paper. They are without plot or theme, mere;y massive collections of characterizations and events that go no where.Quote:
Originally Posted by LightShade
PeterL, the fantasy genre is HUGE. There are great writings there, and even some of the bad ones that I have read had "plot" or "theme". I don't understand your position.
Are you sure you didn't mean "fairy tales"? :D
I certainly didn't mean "fairy tales". I meant the multivolume medaevalish sword, sorcery, and romance things. There is also a huge amount of good 'fantasy' from Dunsany to Tolkein to de Camp and LeGuin. I contrast that George R.R. Martin, Tad and others.Quote:
Originally Posted by LightShade
I just looked at a list of "fantasy" writers and found many authors listed who are very good writers, who know when a story has ended. An endless series of episodes do not make good literature.
yes, i know that, but i find that his discworrld series has a wonderful ploy when it concerns being child friendly or utterly mature. It's lovely! has anyone read his "Soul Music"??Quote:
Chava, Pratchett also wrote some children's books
Umm... I don't understand what you're talking about. You keep jumping from anti-fantasy books to pro-fantasy, then back to anti. Are you critcizing the books and praising the authors??Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I agree, the series can be read at many levels and every person will understand (or not) the various subtleties based on his/her previous experience. And even if you don't get most of them, the stories are still thoroughly enjoyable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava
I read all his Discworld books up to Night Watch and I am currently re-reading them for what would be the third or fourth time in some cases. And sometimes, as it happens when you re-read a book after some time, I see things and characters in a new light. I love that.
Definitely. One has to know when to stop, otherwise it becomes rather boring and possibly too thinly stretched.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I see you have reconsidered your position as to the fantasy genre in general. I'm glad we finally agree on the subject. :)
Now, not to be totally off-topic: has anybody read the latest HP book? how did you find it? (I am looking for opinions as to plot, character development and general writing style. Please have good arguments to back up your opinion :D ).
ps - I haven't read it yet, I'm waiting for the paperback and I wish she'd stop writing such big books, they cost a lot :p
Okay, here's my crack at this.
After reading 7 pages of this thread, I come to 2 interesting conclusions. First, it appears that all the English majors (including myself) are in support of the HP books. Second, I was shocked that no one has brought up the fact that much of the inspiration has come from Mythology and classic literary themes.
Like Logos, if something is wildly popular, I'm likely not to be interested either. Early on while persuing my degree, I established the fact that the closer I get to the 20th century, the less likely I am to enjoy a piece. But I've also found that if I can make comparisons to older classics, I tend to like them (hence my thorough enjoyment of Tolkein). Initially, I condemned the books for religious reasons but then decided that wasn't fair, as I hadn't read them yet. I began reading them after the fourth one came out and found that they were no more harmful than Lord of the Rings or Narnia. Then I began my degree. I was happy to discover numerous parallels between the HP series and classic works of lit, and this was only enhanced by mythology classes.
THEN! At Cambridge this past summer, I took a class on Dickens and another on the Bronte sisters, both taught by the same professor. She expressed the same observations that I had on the HP books (at the time she was comparing the orphan state of Oliver Twist to Harry), and she said that the only reason that she hadn't read the new one was because her daughter hadn't finished it yet. She felt the same as myself that Rowling was quite brilliant for introducing these themes and ideas to children in such an entertaining way that they can more easily identify them later in life while they read more challenging works. I even experienced this for myself. I had never heard of a Basilisk until reading The Chamber of Secrets. For a while I thought she just made up the creature. Then I ran across it while reading for one of my classes. I read the footnote for curiosities sake, but really it wasn't necessary. I already thoroughly knew what a Basilisk was because of Rowling.
Lightshade, perhaps this is why the characters seem so archetypal to you. But even so, I don't think any of the HP characters are nearly as flat as the classic character of Oliver Twist.
About the writing, what I've said above I think must be taken into consideration. Also in agreement to what Apotropaic said about not comparing to Dickens because it's from a different time period I wanted to add: while taking those classes in England, I discovered that a good knowledge of the history of society at that time (Dickens' or Brontes') is necessary in order to fully understand the meaning behind the ideas presented in a novel or even the language. Children (and most adults) don't generally know what happened during Dickens lifetime. They obviously know our own societal issues better and so can adhere to the HP books better. I also believe that the series follows the Dickens and Bronte example of trying to identify and change problems in our society. This leads me to an interesting example.
I found it ironic that many of the people complaining about the books also complained about kids being glued to the TV. Look at Dudley! Rowling has recognized the very issue brought up here, and personified it in one of her more rotten characters that no normal child would want to emulate!
Anyway, as a soon-to-be English teacher, I'm quite glad the books have been so poplular as I'll be refering to them from time to time during my classes for the reasons stated above.
sorry it's so long.
Shea, I read many, MANY fairy tales and mythological tales when I was a kid. So I approached the HP books with that knowledge already installed :) but no, that's not the reason for my seeing the characters as archetypal - I wasn't referring to dragons and suchlike. I was referring to Harry & his buddies & his enemies.
It's been some time since I read Oliver Twist. To make a fair judgment now, I'd have to read it again and I don't really feel like it. I wasn't saying classics didn't use archetypes - when I was at the University we studied flat characters in literary theory class using examples from classic English writers :D And I remember an exam where I had to write an essay concerning D.H.Lawrence's use of archetypes :) it was pretty obvious he did use such characters. (btw, I got mark 10 (an A, for US students) :D )Quote:
I don't think any of the HP characters are nearly as flat as the classic character of Oliver Twist.
In any case, you may start with an archetypal character, but you have to work towards giving it more dimensions than the archetypal flat one. I fail to see that in Harry.
exactly on the dubloons! there is no real inbetween ground with ol HP (the books, not the barbecue suce, but I suppose you either love it or hate it too)Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
Personally I think that they aren't so hot, and they don't teach kids some great moral lesson but ohvell.
Personally I think children shouldn't read untill they really have a need to, when they are 12ish, and then they should only read Robinson crusoe! (joke)...(Rousseaue)...:D
I just think it's sad that the classics aren't given to kids and that they aren't encouraged to read higher level literature, like Lem, Sienkewicz, Assimov,Jordan, Clavel.
So was I..Quote:
Originally Posted by LightShade
BBQ sauce? you've never had marmite have you :lol: it's truely `unique'!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaw
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
OMG :goof:
actually, I've never heard of it. What's it taste like?