posted
Linky. Fahim told me about this a half hour or so ago, and I find it rather amusing. But you can read about it for yourself.
quote: 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?"
quote:In a recent interview with Time magazine, Rowling said she was "not a huge fan of fantasy" and was trying to "subvert" the genre.
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".
Yeah, um, I've read a fair bit of fantasy, and I don't recall ever reading any with knights and ladies dancing to Greensleeves.
And if you go to to mugglenet, you'll see some interesting comments, including many spelling errors (including that of Pratchett's name) and such.
Myself? I just find the whole thing amusing. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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".
How bizarre. This, apparently, refers to some alternate reality.
Cool!
(I agree witcha, quid.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I finally found the original Times article that Pratchett was commenting on.
quote: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."
quote:It's precisely Rowling's lack of sentimentality, her earthy, salty realness, her refusal to buy into the basic clichés 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. They take place in the 1990s--not in some never-never Narnia but in modern-day Mugglish England, with cars, telephones and PlayStations. Rowling adapts an inherently conservative genre for her own progressive purposes.
Yes, because Narnia is so representative of ALL fantasy everywhere. Honestly, some of the things both Rowlings and the reporter say are just stoopid.
quote: 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?
quote:It looks backward to an idealized, romanticized, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves. Rowling's books aren't like that. They take place in the 1990s--not in some never-never Narnia but in modern-day Mugglish England, with cars, telephones and PlayStations.
Yep. Because Charles DeLint never wrote a darn thing, and OSC is all about the Greensleeves, man, dontcha know that courtly dancing is all over his books?
What, did somebody sleep through the entire movement of magical realism? *grin
I don't fault Rowling so much -- she's doing her own thing, and she apparently hasn't read much in the field. But the author of the Times article should not have tried to write authoritatively from a position of ignorance.
Edited to add: And that whole Narnia thing is just a blast. The point of the wardrobe was that it represented a transition from the modern to the fantastical. The story didn't just take place in the fantastical -- it had a lot to do with how to live with your feet in both worlds at once, how to handle being different in a nonmagical world which couldn't handle the thought of everything wondrous and scary you were experiencing.
One thing that Rowling has done that I love, and that Lewis didn't, and in this case I am totally on the side of Rowling, is that she let her hero grow up.
I've read when Rowling has spoken of her distaste for the expulsion of Susan. She puts on lipstick and starts liking boys, and suddenly she is no longer a Queen of Narnia. I like that Rowling lets Harry have the idiotic crushes and the real thing and the hormones and relationships of the real world, and they are messy and not idealized and all that doesn't disqualify him from being the hero. Lewis made Narnia a world removed, and Harry's world isn't removed. I'll bet that's what she was thinking of - the heroes in her world do not have to be monks as well.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, how does she knows that happens to Susan if she hasn't finished the books - that's in the last one, almost at the end.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think she's wrong about her summary - it's about loss of belief and turning away from God, not about "sex."
In fact, it's a quite silly statement to make (the one Rowling made in the article).
Further, Lewis has some very unidealized heroes. Ransom in the first and second book of the space trilogy, Edmund, Eustace, and Jill are all less than admirable at times. The King in the Last Battle, Diggory in Magician's Nephew.
The only idealized character is Aslan, for obvious reasons.
posted
I make it a general policy to avoid reading the real-world opinions of fiction authors I admire. This also helps with rock stars and Hollywood types. I've tried hard to ignore the opinions of politicians I admire, or despise, but it doesn't work.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I think she's wrong about her summary - it's about loss of belief and turning away from God, not about "sex."
. . . . . . ************* SPOILERS BELOW **************** . . . . . . . . . . . . . That's how I read it, too. She lost faith in Aslan, so she couldn't be with him -- not because he rejected her, but because she turned away from him. Very consistent with the LDS view of sin and faith,as I understand it (and I hope katharina or someone else will correct me if I am wrong!).
Other adults in the series, such as Diggory as the old man in TLTWANW, were still believers. Growing up and having romances, even having children, didn't keep you from returning, I thought -- that was a choice to let go of what you once had or not. Some chose to hang onto it and grow up. A big part of the series (for me) was that tension.
posted
Actually I suspect there's more than a little sloppy reporting in there. The story there now has changed from the original version, which was a bit harsher and more "writer-feud" orientated. As Neil Gaiman pointed out in his journal:
quote:I note that the BBC article formerly entitled PRATCHETT ANGER AT ROWLING'S RISE has now transmuted into a much milder article entitled Pratchett takes swipe at Rowling, which no longer accuses Terry of very much at all, apart from "poking fun". It starts out: 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?" and doesn't really get any further than that, really.
(This replaces the previous opening gambit of Author Terry Pratchett has complained that the status of Harry Potter author JK Rowling is being elevated "at the expense of other writers". Pratchett, one of the UK's most successful novelists with 40 million books sold, said the media ignores the achievements of other fantasy authors. He also took a sideswipe at Rowling for saying she did not realise Harry Potter was fantasy until it was published. )
It's definitely a good thing that online journalism is capable of revising itself to agree with reality, although it's going to puzzle the hell out of all the people in the future who click on the links to the BBC page and are unable to discover what they're meant to be outraged about.
He also said in an earlier journal post:
quote: I read the Time article and thought it was astonishingly badly written and worse researched. The bit that puzzled me the most was that I remembered interviews with Ms. Rowling where she loved the Narnia books (it was a few seconds of Googling to find a 1998 Telegraph interview where she says, "Even now, if I was in a room with one of the Narnia books I would pick it up like a shot and re-read it.") as opposed to the Time version of '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.'
The version of the history of "fantasy" that the article's writer paints is utter bollocks, and I assume Terry decided that needed to be said. I didn't see it as a swipe at Ms Rowling, though, but as a swipe against lazy journalists -- but "Pratchett Anger At Shoddy Journalism" is a much less exciting headline than the one the BBC came up with.
Before I got too upset over what authors said, I'd want to make sure what it was that authors actually said.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:She lost faith in Aslan, so she couldn't be with him -- not because he rejected her, but because she turned away from him.
And remember, she was one of only two witnesses to Aslan's death and ressurection. More than anyone except Lucy, she was given every opportunity to believe.
The dwarfs at the end are a much more extreme version of the same phenomenon. It's obviously something Lewis felt to be very important.
quote:Other adults in the series, such as Diggory as the old man in TLTWANW, were still believers. Growing up and having romances, even having children, didn't keep you from returning, I thought -- that was a choice to let go of what you once had or not. Some chose to hang onto it and grow up. A big part of the series (for me) was that tension.
Exactly. Although, the professor's reaction to Lucy's story isn't nearly as cool when you learn he's actually been to Narnia, and he's not just being very open-minded.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The dwarfs at the end are a much more extreme version of the same phenomenon. It's obviously something Lewis felt to be very important.
Yeah. It still stings me, a member of the Faithlost, to read. The dwarves most acutely, but all of it, really. So I reread the whole series every now and then on the theory that it keeps me thinking about things that I'd be more comfortable avoiding -- and that, in moderation, is a Very Good Thing.
(I moved up my "Spoilers" warning above, just in case. Thanks, Dag. And thanks for the quotes, Chris!)
quote:The blood, the soil, the faith; these words you can't forget, Your vow, your holy place. O love, aren't you tired yet?
posted
Just for clarity's sake: I am unhappy with the author of the article, who shouldn't have published such a silly definitive statement about the genre. I am glad for Chris' gentle reminder that we are reading a filtered version of Rowlings' statements (as all reporting is filtered, that is).
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there's anything in the actual text of The Last Battle to suggest that Susan's only sin is "turning against" Aslan. Rather, the text quite clearly says that she's too busy with the trappings of young adulthood -- lipstick, stockings, and specifically other sorts of quasi-sexual advertising -- to pay much attention anymore. So, yeah, she's "turned against" him, but only because she considers that she's grown up out of it. Her real sin is in considering herself too mature for the books' gussied-up God stand-in -- something that almost no real atheist ever does, but which a lot of ex-atheists (like Lewis) apparently did all the time.
This is the same sort of pathetic, shallow allegory that we see with the dwarves in the stable, this time with a hint of prudishness.
-------
quote:They take place in the 1990s--not in some never-never Narnia but in modern-day Mugglish England, with cars, telephones and PlayStations.
Hm. This is entirely incorrect. There's nothing really in the books to suggest that the "Muggle world" in the stories is really that of 1990s England. There are no mentions of Playstations -- or lasers, or cell phones, or the Internet, or anything of that sort. Orphans still sleep under the stairs. Telephone booths still have doors that close. I think this is deliberate on Rowling's part; she's quite intentionally made the books "timeless." Which makes it hard for me to believe that she wasn't aware at the time that she was setting out to write a fantasy novel.
What I can believe is that she doesn't like being associated with pointy-eared elf stereotypes. But if LeGuin had to put up with it, so does she.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think there's anything in the actual text of The Last Battle to suggest that Susan's only sin is "turning against" Aslan.
He doesn't actually say that the Stone Table represents the Cross, either.
quote: Rather, the text quite clearly says that she's too busy with the trappings of young adulthood -- lipstick, stockings, and specifically other sorts of quasi-sexual advertising -- to pay much attention anymore. So, yeah, she's "turned against" him, but only because she considers that she's grown up out of it.
The information comes from a particular character's point of view - a character that does not fully comprehend what's going on until the very end.
quote:Her real sin is in considering herself too mature for the books' gussied-up God stand-in -- something that almost no real atheist ever does, but which a lot of ex-atheists (like Lewis) apparently did all the time.
That would be the symbol representing the real sin, Tom. Just like a Lion is symbol for Christ, the maturity is an allegory for something else.
quote:There are no mentions of Playstations
Dudley throws his Playstation out the window when he is forced on a diet.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for your last letter. That bird was enormous; it could hardly get through my window. Things are the same as usual here. Dudley's diet isn't going too well. My aunt found him smuggling doughnuts into his room yesterday. They told him they'd have to cut his pocket money if he keeps doing it, so he got really angry and chucked his PlayStation out of the window. That's a sort of computer thing you can play games on. Bit stupid really, now he hasn't even got Mega-Mutilation Part Three to take his mind off things.
posted
Dag: Indeed I was just about to mention that, also I'm pretty sure there's plenty of mention of other such electronic devices throughout the books, though unlike EG I don't reread it often enough to give quotes.
As for Narnia is this before or after Tolkeen converted him back to Christianity? I got the whole series for 14$ at Club Price.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Awww, this isn't a deathmatch thread? I was going to bet on Pratchett.
Anyway, it definitely sounds like lousy reporting, but if the bit about Rowling not reading much fantasy is accurate I can't say I'm surprised. Her writing strengths are more with the emotional connections between characters and the mysteries of growing up. The magic and fantasy elements often seem more like an amusing backdrop to the actual story, IMHO.
posted
CT and Chris and Dag you have cracked me up in this thread. Thanks for the laughter.
Def sounds like dodgy reporting ...
I do wish sci-fi and fantasy didn't have such a bad reputation in the big wide world! And here she / the reporter is, making it worse!
I always read it that as Susan grew up she saw herself as above such childish fantasies (ie turning away from the faith) and so could no longer 'get in'.
In my mind, all the best sci-fi and fantasy comes across as a book about emotional connection and mysteries. OSC's work for instance. The fantasy and sci-fi should only be a back drop. (Sometimes a very cool back drop)
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What bothers me even more is the comments on mugglenet, the link that quid provided. These people are completely taking his comments the wrong way, nearly every calling him "jealous" and stupid, ugly, grumpy, whatever. People who admitted they never read his books say what a bad author he is and how no one buys his books. Are people really this stupid?
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're muggles. All muggles are a little addled, what with their memories being modified every time a wizard forgets to take off his pointy hat.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it so hard for these people to understand what Pratchett meant by those comments? He wasn't being jealous. He wasn't doing it for publicity. His comments have nothing to do with the quality of his books and to boycott his books (as many people there said they'd do from now on, even though they never even heard of him before this) is a completely stupid thing to do. Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Pratchett is a grump old man, always has been
I can even read one of his discworld books, they made no sense whatsoever and his writing has no fluidity or draws you in as much as jks writing does. There is no one in his books that you can become attatched to and i honestly dont think he knows what he is putting in his books half of the time and id be surprised if it made sense even to himself, let alone his readers.
He puts out book after book after book in the hopes of making as much money as possible with pieces of awful, nonsensical literature unlike JK who puts a huge amount of time, thought and effort into her work and deserves every penny she gets for revolutionising literature and introducing it to a large, worldwide audience. Pratchett is jealous of her success as he has released 5 times the amount of books she has and hasnt earned a quarter of what she has in the process.
This crosses the line for me. (sorry if I turned this into a rant)
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That kind of quote (Jaime's quote from mugglenet) demonstrates the difference between fans and fanboys (or fangirls). A fan may defend the work or artist that he/she is a fan of, but the fanboy/fangirl will do so to the point of attacking the critics and their motivations, no matter how absurd doing so is.
They're probably right about the money part, but I'd bet not if you only counted book sales. Discworld hasn't had any movies or action figures, after all.
I like both Harry Potter and Discworld. I applaud Rowling for bringing a lot of people into reading fiction who may not otherwise read so much. However, if it comes down to whose work is more intelligent and thought provoking, I'm going to go with Pratchett, easily. Discworld has parodied or commented on all the mainstays of fantasy literature as well as politics, war, religion, civil rights, prejudice, economics, and pretty much any other aspect of society you can think of. Rowling touches on some of these same ideas (anyone want to replace "death-eaters" with "terrorists" in book 6?) but not nearly as in depth or as thoroughly.
quote: Discworld hasn't had any movies or action figures, after all.
*blush* Well, actually, I own two of the Discworld movies and one of the action figures. It just hasn't had any of that stuff here in the States.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah! The only spinoff things I'd been aware of were the cookbook and the GURPS rulebooks (Discworld, and Discworld Also). The play scripts I sort of just counted as more books. Or, as my more succinct sibling puts it:
posted
Lewis's former atheism seems to be rooted in more that his mother died when he was very young even though he had prayed for her to be well again.
He felt he had been "let down"...either deliberately by an uncaring God, or one who just wasn't there.
It was a bit more complicated than he "often felt he was too mature".
Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if this isn't something that happens frequently with the Times. Some people I know were worked up over a Times interview with an actor they like that seemed to twist his words and ended with very inappropriate suppositions about his personal life.
It must be extremely painful to have your words twisted like that. It's no wonder famous people grow to loathe the press.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are also Discworld sculptures, figurines, badges of office, yearly calendar datebooks (which are hilarious, each is presented from a different guild or group, or, in one case, Death), passports, stamps, and more. Hadn't heard about action figures, though.Here's a handy guide to some of it.Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Poseable as in move it around to face things, or poseable as in the arms and legs move?
I've got the datebooks, the ancilliary publications (cookbook, art books, the Science books -- including the 3rd one that just came out), some stamps, a CMOT Dibbler compass, and a Death bookstamp. Someday I'll work out how much money I've spent on things like this, and I'll cry and cry and cry. Then I'll go read Discworld again.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
Why is it so hard for these people to understand what Pratchett meant by those comments? He wasn't being jealous. He wasn't doing it for publicity. His comments have nothing to do with the quality of his books and to boycott his books (as many people there said they'd do from now on, even though they never even heard of him before this) is a completely stupid thing to do. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
