…and this is a 
Here I go, driving away readership again
Category: Entertainment
Posted on: August 15, 2007 1:00 AM, by PZ Myers
I sometimes say things that outrage people and get me volumes of angry mail. This will be one of those times.
I saw the latest Harry Potter movie tonight, and I must confess: I wasn't a fan, nor am I particularly interested in the whole series. My kids liked them, and I read the first couple, but after the first, the rest just seemed like the same old story — didn't I read this one before? Let me guess; he goes to school, faces a growing dread of a bad guy, plays a game of Quidditch, discovers that someone who should be on the side of goodness is actually very, very naughty, poof, there's a magical combat, Harry wins?
Too formulaic. I can't get at all motivated to read any more of the books, I don't care what happens to Harry in the final volume (I predict Harry fights the big bad guy, poof, Harry wins) so all your spoilers will leave me unconcerned, and the movies just drag on. In fact, the only question on my mind through the latest was to wonder why Voldemort has no nose. Is this a common symptom of evilness? Is it something like leprosy, or is it more like carrying the supermodel ideal to an extreme?
I really want at least one weird, unexpected twist in my fantasy novels, and Potter never delivers. I can see some of the appeal, in that it's a cozy bit of world-building and it has that soap-operaish property of getting the reader hooked on the fate of a group of characters, but I got all that in the first novel and the subsequent retellings of the same story in each of the succeeding versions didn't add anything, as far as I was concerned.
I have to respond to some of the comments.
Don't get me wrong, I thought the first book had quite a few virtues and was an enjoyable read, and the themes that people thought were commendable were present right from the start. I just don't think it gained anything by being repeated 7 times (so the last one is different? Then it should have been a two-book series.)
I know it's a children's book. Good children's literature, though, is not baby-talk versions of trite stories with happy endings -- it is not teletubbies on paper. If you're avoiding L'Engle, Wynne Jones, Pinkwater, Alexander, LeGuin, Pullman, de Saint-Exupéry, White, Rowling, even Lewis because they wrote for children and young adults, then you are missing some excellent literature. It's a huge mistake to regard children as stupid versions of adults who need an inferior literature (books that make that assumption tend to end up in the remainder bins very quickly) -- in many cases, the themes and plots and characters of children's books are much more sophisticated than what you find in books intended for adults.
Try comparing LeGuin's Earthsea trilogy to Dan Brown's tripe, or to those horrid westerns by Louis L'Amour, or the Left Behind books, or anything by Tom Clancy. Which ones have the most depth, treat their readers as serious people who will think and learn, and actually exhibit some hint of good writing? When I see people walking out of airport bookstores that are stocked with the usual bestsellers — which are often little more than glorified Dick-and-Jane books with added sex and violence — I often feel like snatching it out of their hands and leading them to the juvenile literature and telling them they need to work on rebuilding their literary foundations from scratch.
Comments
It's great that these books get kids into reading, but I agree with you completely. They just don't do it for me.
Posted by: Still_Smiling | August 15, 2007 1:07 AM
They're written for kids.
Posted by: Dynaboy | August 15, 2007 1:08 AM
I just read the first of the Harry Potter novels, and, yeah, it just didn't get me interested. I also point out that these are written for pre-teens, and I am not dismissing their value outright, just pointing out that the writing is rather pedestrian, and the plots very formulaic.
To be fair, if I were an adult reading "The Hobbit" for the first time, I would have a few quibbles. The difference is that Tolkien is concerned with creating a world, and if that means that characters die, so be it, while Rowling seems to be creating a story.
I'm not judging the value of stories as compared to epics, but I am saying that one is much less satisfying to a mature reader than the other.
Posted by: autumn | August 15, 2007 1:11 AM
You will change your mind when you read my fanfiction.
Posted by: prhead | August 15, 2007 1:11 AM
I've enjoyed Harry Potter, but Rowling's books don't enthrall me the way Philip Pullman's trilogy did. His Dark Materials has more depth.
Posted by: Zeno | August 15, 2007 1:13 AM
At the risk of spoiling the seventh book's surprise--
--there's no Quidditch game.
See? Suspense after all.
Posted by: Sanguinity | August 15, 2007 1:15 AM
I can see why kids like them: they're safe. The same basic story, some nice things, some bad things, good guy wins.
But I'll never get why adults like them. Literary-wise, they're poorly structured, redundant, and never achieve anything outside of a superficial intent. In that sense, it's like an SNL bit.. but not even funny.
The movies are bit more interesting since it gets rid of a bunch of the crud. And the graphics are generally good.
Unfortunately Rowling has fallen into the King trap: he got popular and his editors stopped editing his work. It became too long, too boring, and too badly written. He still has dedicated readership, as will Rowling, but fans are lost in lust of the author instead of appreciation for the works.
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | August 15, 2007 1:18 AM
No outrage from this corner, PZ. I thank folks like you for preventing me from wasting the time I'd spend reading the big bricks. Especially when I could be reading the new William Gibson (who I just saw tonight at Union Square B&N) or Mohsin Hamid's The Reluctant Fundamentalist or Dawkin's Unweaving the Rainbow or The Fate of the Earth by Jonathan Schell. Or any one of a bunch of other books kicking about my apartment still unread.
Posted by: Robert S. | August 15, 2007 1:21 AM
Posted by: Bechamel | August 15, 2007 1:23 AM
Couldn't disagree more, PZ ;)
The movies really don't do the books justice. Sure they're technically kids books, but there is a lot under the surface. Especially in the later books where there is a lot more than Quiddich going on.
Oh, and I'm pretty sure the noseless Voldemort is supposed to make him look like a snake, one of the many symbols used in the series.
Posted by: Stephen | August 15, 2007 1:31 AM
A friend keeps imploring me to read them, and I've had this hunch that I wouldn't like them much. Your description reinforces that.
Posted by: cm | August 15, 2007 1:35 AM
Quidditch makes no sense, instead of scoring goals, the team should concentrate on catching the golden snitch, or sneetch. It's the only thing that matters.
Posted by: Too young to reason too grown up to dream | August 15, 2007 1:36 AM
PZ...
Um, I am not so sure you get it. This sorta amazes me, and I am a bit shocked that you are not fully in support of her ideas. Voldemort is not only a character meant to teach kids about people like Hitler, but is also a character used to show kids how politicians use such figures to establish their wills in a political arena, by creating fear, and by trying to cover up such fears. The abuse of the press, and political influences verses actual truth are always at odds in these books as to teach kids to search for the deeper realities in these times...
Posted by: Lago | August 15, 2007 1:43 AM
I've read the first 6 books and thought they were alright. Nothing great, but not bad. I've never understood the obsession with them.
I did find out the ending of the last book and now I refuse to read it. I know I should probably care more about the middle, but the ending is a complete letdown. It couldn't have been any more... generic.
Posted by: Kele | August 15, 2007 1:47 AM
Here's another vote for His Dark Materials. I read that trilogy right after finishing the last HP book, and the difference is astounding. While I trudged through HP trying to get to the end, I was sorry to see the end of the Pullman books.
Posted by: Eric | August 15, 2007 1:47 AM
I would just like to take a moment to second His Dark Materials by Phillip Pullman and would earnestly recommend any one pick them up instead of Harry Potter (which I have read through from first to last) if you are looking for a new fiction fix. Easily one of the most colorful and imaginative tales that I have read in a very, very long while. Furthermore, any literary series that tackles the idea of the death of God is a-ok in my book. (Ironically, Pullman's books are disguised and marketed as stories for children. Go figure!)
Posted by: Keith | August 15, 2007 1:48 AM
Eh, the books are ok (I have read them all... they are easy to skate through) but not fabulous. I agree that "His Dark Materials" is way better. But I make that claim about 3 times a week, so take it with a grain of salt.
Posted by: Robert | August 15, 2007 1:50 AM
Almost all literature is formulaic. It kind of has to be; how many different stories ARE there? That said, Harry Potter *is* pretty predictable most of the time, and when it's not predictable it's implausible. They got the nine-year-old going on reading back when she was seven, which will have to do.
For something less predictable, try.. oh, I don't know. Ken MacLeod is interesting if you can stand the socialism, and "The Young Emperors" is totally hilarious except that everybody keeps getting killed. (It's the Roman emperors between Septimius Severus and... bother, can't remember. They're "young" because none of 'em last long. Still, any book that's got two whole chapters of Heliogabalus can't be all bad!)
Posted by: mjfgates | August 15, 2007 1:50 AM
If you're looking for good fantasy, pick up A Game of Thrones by George RR Martin. You won't regret it.
Posted by: Grand Fromage | August 15, 2007 1:51 AM
The religious right hates the books. Isn't that a good enough reason to find some value in them?
Posted by: Ron Chusid | August 15, 2007 1:52 AM
Be Carefull, Christine probably went to Hogwarts..
Decent Pardody..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvXCq0AllCA
Posted by: Rich | August 15, 2007 1:52 AM
Absolutely read the first Harry Potter. It'll make you feel like a kid whose wandered into a dream, all warm and cozy. Then, as PZ says, forget the rest. You get all that's cool in the first one. And reading it is far better than watching it.
On the other hand, His Dark Materials... I didn't like at all, not even the first. Too overt in its religious overtones for me.
Posted by: brc | August 15, 2007 1:53 AM
I never got the whole Harry Potter thing either. Especially the adult audience for what is clearly a series of children's books.
On the other hand there was this lady I used to work with who read the Left Behind series for awhile, but weaned herself off of that with Harry Potter. So it can't be all bad. At least you could call it a lesser evil, certainly.
Posted by: andy | August 15, 2007 2:06 AM
Oooh, now you're in trouble when you go to New York. If you're not careful, you might return to Minnesota with a parrott on your head (final paragraph).
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | August 15, 2007 2:08 AM
Yikes PZ!
One might get the impression you don't give a rat's ass about being polite and PC, and instead just say what you think it right! How can anyone respect that?
Oh wait, I guess I *do* respect that. ;-)
Posted by: Astrogeek | August 15, 2007 2:22 AM
No condemnation from this corner. I've enjoyed the films, myself, though I too couldn't muster the attention to actually read the books ( maybe some day, if I'm bored). I always kind of hate it when people try to talk you into liking something they do. My wife, for example, has no interest whatsoever in Tolkien's work, whereas I'm an enthusiastic ( though not quite rabid) fan. But sitting at dinner with friends trying to advocate reasons why she should like The Lord of the Rings just seemed, frankly, kind of pathetic.
Posted by: Gene | August 15, 2007 2:27 AM
I realize this is the thread for self-congratulation about not liking Harry Potter or whatever it is you're supposed to get out of a mass-marketed sample of it, but I'll throw in the token defense, while also publishing a link to my spoilery response to book 7 over on the Pandagon thread. I enjoyed the series enough, and don't quite get how one can be a fan of the Angel and Buffyverse and not find something similarly enjoyable in Harry Potter. It's no Disc World (but what else is?) and you could have a lot of discussion about why HP went to huge boxoffice success when others didn't or haven't yet. Rowling took all the flack so that Pullman's work could slip under the radar, but its other virtue is that all the magical trappings are the candy that disguise the moral tales she's subversively including. It's a very anti-authoritarian book. Harry learns that nearly nobody is to be trusted, not even himself.
As for the movies, they're dreams of the books, nicely illustrated sequential art. I haven't seen the 5th movie, but the third book and film remain my favorite in the series.
Posted by: Ken Cope | August 15, 2007 2:29 AM
I'm going to have to take this opportunity to recommend Katharine Kerr's Deverry series. It's *very* well done, and can probably best be described as intricate. The only complaints I've heard is that it's too complicated. I found the series shortly after I hit a decade and haven't had any issues. I expect those that complain about it are the sort who are happy with reading Harry Potter.
Posted by: Kimbits | August 15, 2007 2:31 AM
My opinion is that the new movie might seem frenetic and confusing to those who have not read the book.
(The nine-hundred page book.)
There was so much cut out - some of it rather important, IMO - that the movie seemed to function more as an animated synopsis of the book than as a genuine attempt to give the story its due. A running time of 2:18 (or whatever it was) was simply too short. It could easily have been another 30 minutes and still have suffered from a lack of breathing room.
There are gaping holes in her "world" and the writing is far from economical, but her sense of humor is delightful, and I've enjoyed all the books so far. I haven't finished the last one yet. I admit that I care enough about the characters to make the thought of not-reading the book seem profoundly wrong! :-)
I also admit to having a bias, having grown up with Harry. Or, more precisely, my little brothers did (for I was already 14 when then first one was published here) and the younger of the two really hit his stride as a reader while tackling Harry. I read big chunks of the first two books aloud to him myself, though.
BTW did it ever occur to anyone that the absurdity of the Quidditch rules of scoring was an indirect commentary on the inanity of our hyper-competitive approach to sports in general, and on all the attention and importance (and, at the professional level, obscene amounts of money) attached to a game that, while fun to play and to watch, is at its root rather senseless?
Posted by: Kseniya | August 15, 2007 2:31 AM
I am OUTRAGED! So disgusted, that I am NOT GOING TO READ ANOTHER WORD OF THIS THREAD*!
*(unless I feel like it)
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | August 15, 2007 2:33 AM
I stopped halfway through the fourth (I think) book, when I realised that life's really quite short, and there are a lot of good books out there.
Posted by: wjv | August 15, 2007 2:36 AM
All you Harry-haters are muggle scum!
(Take that!)
Posted by: Nick (Matzke) | August 15, 2007 2:37 AM
You should try reading "The Wheel of Time"-series by Robert Jordan, which in my opinion, is the best written fantasy out there! I really like Tolkien, but tend to find him a little "dry" to read, whereas Robert Jordan really knows how to create an intelligent and original fantasy-universe, which is extremely well written.
Posted by: Tom Nielsen | August 15, 2007 2:50 AM
Tom wrote: " It became too long, too boring, and too badly written. "
At least Rowling has the excuse that her characters, and readers, were getting older. The characters getting older leads to more complicated situations, which may require more space to play out. And older readers can handle longer books.
Posted by: Jon H | August 15, 2007 3:02 AM
I haven't read them but getting children interested in reading rather than the latest shoot-em-up computer game must be encouraged.
As for their potentially negative effects, I find it best to let the author speak for herself.
"I think it's absolute rubbish to protest children's books on the grounds that they are luring children to Satan," Rowling told a London Times reporter in a July 17 interview. "People should be praising them for that! These books guide children to an understanding that the weak, idiotic Son Of God is a living hoax who will be humiliated when the rain of fire comes, and will suck the greasy cock of the Dark Lord while we, his faithful servants, laugh and cavort in victory."
OK, The Onion may have taken it upon themselves to speak for JK Rowling there but I still find it funny that this article is still doing the rounds of the Fundy circuit and even got quoted by WND (and not as a joke!).
Posted by: MartinC | August 15, 2007 3:06 AM
After watching the first five movies before reading the books, I decided to give a listen to the audiobook version of book 6. It was my first exposure to an audiobook, so I don't know if I was enthralled by the book or by the medium, but anyway...
The books have so much more nuance and depth than the movies. And, to answer PZ's question, Voldy's appearance is explained in the 6th book. True, the stories are very formulaic, and yes, they need better twists, more unexpectedness (although the end of book 6 was a surprise, and book 7 appears to deviate substantially from the format of the previous books; on the downside, it's really slow going).
Based on book 6 and a chunk of book 7, I'd say it mirrors our world pretty well, with secrecy-obsessed governments who detain people without trial for the sake of appearances (Stan is Jose Padilla?) and go all-out to defame their critics (Harry as Valerie Plame in book 5?) In the end, how can you even tell if a government steps over that line? How could we even tell if the government stopped acting to protect its own power and started consciously attacking the rights of its own citizenry?
Posted by: IanR | August 15, 2007 3:09 AM
The oddest people defend Rowlings magnum opus (that's Latin for "enormous penguin") -- people who you'd think would have good taste seem to have a blind spot about the Twenty-First Century Enid Blyton and her turgid, styleless paper bricks. They mention the passing allegories of the War On Terror as if this makes her unedited glurge worthy of respect. Bah.
I recommend Pratchett's Discworld series for excellent writing (after the first half dozen or so, which are merely very good).
And anything by Neil Gaiman, too. For maximum irony, if you like comics, pick up his Books of Magic, a story about a young dark-haired boy with a pet owl and a nasty home life, who discovers that he really has magical powers and will need to defeat a great evil. It was written a good five years before the first Harry Potter, but Gaiman points out that nothing in that premise is remotely original, so he's never considered making a fuss. The significant difference between him and Rowling is that she didn't bother to add anything new to the basic theme, whereas he did.
Posted by: Eric TF Bat | August 15, 2007 3:11 AM
I was just finishing Proust's Swann's Way when I read the 7th Harry Potter book. No kidding HP isn't the greatest literature of all time. On the other hand, I love Proust, but I can certainly see how many great writers (Proust, Pynchon, Nabokov, Ishiguro, etc.) are not terribly accessible. Rowling is a pretty good storyteller, and very accessible, and thus has broad appeal across ages and the intellectual spectrum.
And honestly, how long does it take to read a HP book? A day or two? I'm not going to knock off Ada or Gravity's Rainbow that fast. HP is not a big investment of time.
For the record, the 5th HP book was my least favorite. He acts far too much like an actual 15-year-old boy :)
Posted by: David | August 15, 2007 3:23 AM
I only saw the first 2 movies but Harry reminded me too much of the kind of people i avoided in HS. He got special treatment because he was good at sports and his parents got him the nicest ride (broom).
Posted by: Brian W. | August 15, 2007 3:30 AM
Seems to me that a lot of people want to trash Rowling and her story just because it's so popular and so ubiquitous right now, and that seems like a shame to me. The books are novels, written for ~fun~, people. Enjoy them or don't, but no one in the publishing industry is rubbing the title page against your noses, so if it's not to your taste... maybe someone else has written another book, somewhere.
So yes. There's my bias right there. I loved the books, think they're wonderful and breezy, with clever characters. Couldn't wait to finish the series, actually, and paid hard-cover price ($Aus35) for the last one. For anyone who got bored by the fourth book and stopped reading, things pick up a lot by the fifth.
And let's not forget that Harry Potter was almost single-handedly responsible for introducing a generation of young kids to the thrill of reading. Lots of other authors wrote kids' books just as good (or, yes, even better), but the fad of HP in the last 5-7 years has made it fashionable and important for a lot of young boys, especially, to read. A friend's son, aged four, taught himself to read Harry Potter because his bigger brother was so excited by it.
So, PeeZed, maybe you went into it expecting too much. Look at HP as a lightweight series of fantasies for young minds and don't expect thundering profundities, and it's quite enjoyable. Really.
Posted by: Triumphal_Thusnelda | August 15, 2007 3:35 AM
Rowling can write clear sensible, readable English.
That counts.
The stories ARE "Morality-tales" yes, but not religious.
The fundies hate the Potter books, because they contain Wizards and witches ........
Yes, the good guys win, but at quite a cost - a lot of peole get killed in the last two books.
There are a lot of funhouse reflections of this world - there is a specific reference in the last book to Voldemort's "New (world) Order" which sounds horribly familar - as does the defeat of Voldemort's predecessor Grindelwald by Dumbledore, in 1945.
Provided you remember that they are fiction, there is a lot to be said for thme, sorry about that ...
Posted by: G. Tingey | August 15, 2007 3:40 AM
I too think the Harry Potter books were not as good as the Philip Pullman ones, but HP resonates quite a lot with the books I read and loved as a kid, and there's a kind of magic in that :-) Much in the same way I'll concede that The Labyrinth and Willow have a number of betters, I will still return to them from time to time.
I'd like to caution those of your that have not read George R. R. Martin and Robert Jordan that their books do tend to expand in scope as they progress, and the latest George R. R. Martin book and the latest of the Robert Jordan books have been really disappointing to me as I loved the first in their respective series. The plot seems to bloat and become bigger and bigger, with more and more characters introduced. And neither of them seem to be able to handle the huge cast as well as for instance Steven Erikson.
Posted by: PopeStig | August 15, 2007 3:41 AM
I liked the series up until the ending of the last book. To paraphrase (spoilers if you still havent read it but want to):
Voldemort: Wait....didnt I kill you?
Harry: Yeah, I, um, got better.
*Voldemort dies*
She just chickened out there. It was building up to a great twist ending with Voldemort winning, and then she brings back Harry from the dead and kills Voldemort in the lamest way possible?
Posted by: Baratos | August 15, 2007 4:07 AM
Arrrrrrrrrrrrgh! Someone mentioned Wheel Of Time. Time for a Crusade!
Posted by: Donalbain | August 15, 2007 4:12 AM
Hey, PZ!
Let us know what fantasy you do like. I'm always on the lookout for something new.
I'll back the Pullman supporters with a caveat -- the third book in the series, The Amber Spyglass, winds up kind of spooling around without going anywhere. The first two books made a magnificent promise on which Pullman failed to deliver. (And now I'm reminded of the person who said, "There are some unsplit infiniives up with which I will not put.")
Pullman's shorter works are far and away the best-plotted stories I've ever read, eclipsing even hard-boiled crime novels.
The Harry Potter books fall into the Steven King category for me: they're not the kind of works I'd like to see achieving that level of commercial success, but I don't feel bad about it because the authors are sincere and capable and give every evidence of being decent human beings. In other words, I have no problem with seeing honest craftsmen achieve success.
That said, I found myself becoming weary with the series after (the actually surprisingly good) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. There's a collection of Robertson Davies's short humor where he gives a review of a play and describes it with chilling accuracy and makes it plain that it's a total cliche that has been so worn out that it's come back into style again. The plot is identical with every Harry Potter book and the review was written in Toronto in the fifties... (Not that there's anything wrong with Toronto. I'll always treasure the moment when a Torontonian told me that while all the world says Thank God It's Friday, in Toronto they say, "Thank God It's Monday. We need more of that.)
Anyway, the Potter books don't thrill me for three reasons; One, the aforementioned familiarity of the story -- I like my fantastic fiction to be fantastic, to take me places and show me things that are new and amazing. A lot of people read fantasy and science fiction for comfort and familiarity; I've got James Herriot, Gerald Durrell, and Hunter S. Thompson for that. Two, Harry Potter is an insanely boring character. He's totally unconflicted at the base level. His only real choice is how much to trust the authority figures in his life, which leads to problem three. All of Harry's problems would have been solved long ago if he just had more faith in Dumbledore. Let's get serious here; I ain't gonna support the idea that children should have more faith in authority figures. That's why the comparisons between Dahl and Rowling are nonsense; Rowling is at the base a supporter of the establishment while Dahl views the social structure with grave mistrust. I suspect Rowling would back me up on this.
Let me toss out a few suggestions for fantasy reading that might not be on the charts of most genre fantasy fans.
Anything by Amos Tutola. I've read three of his works (My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts, The Palm-Wine Drinkard, and Simbi And The Satyr Of The Dark Jungle.) The genius of the writer dovetails perfectly with the genius of his people -- the combination of distinctly individual vision and an intensely alien culture is most pleasing.
The Carnal Prayer Mat by Li Yu. This works on so many levels. It's far and away the best Imperial Chinese surrealist pseudo-folk porno novel I've ever read. Everything about it from the parody of formalism to the recognition of the erotic worthiness of fat chicks is dead on and the fantastic elements serve the story superbly.
The fantasies of Robert E. Howard. The hoard of writers that have worked with his characters, especially Conan (Robert Jordan did a lot of this stuff -- I ain't gonna read no Robert Jordan, life's too short for Tolkien clones and Howard ripoffs) have obscured the fact that Howard was a visionary driven by his uncomfortable view of masculinity, one that seems conventional on first exposure only to reveal itself as radical once you understand just how sincere he was.
Then there's the line of descent leading from William Hope Hodgson to Clarke Ashton Smith to Jack Vance to Gene Wolfe. The connection between these writers and their vision of a far future Earth is plain and clear, yet they are distinctly and uncompromisingly individualistic in their vision and approach. And we're living in a world where all of these dudes can be purchased in fresh editions. The years I spent hunting down crappy paperbacks of this stuff were apparently wasted...
The Barry Hughart Master Li and Number Ten Ox books. The Borrible series by Micheal de Larrabieti. Micheal Shea's Nifft the Lean books. And of course (shocked at myself for having not mentioned these first) the Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser books by Fritz (little hearts and birds flying around my head) Leiber. The Face In The Frost by John Bellairs. Lud-in-the-mist by Hope Mirlees. And then there's that Pinkwater fella, and the startlingly shrewd Lord Dunsany, and...
... and so on. The thing is that good writers know how to use the fantastic for both its visionary qualities and its ability to cut through to aspects of the human experience in a fashion more effective than can be approached by realism. Rowling's work does show these qualities (to a limited degree) and they are (when combined with her accesibility) the reason for her success. But if you want the real deal you'll have to look elsewhere...
You notice I don't go into Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. I find their works dull and politically uncongenial -- Tolkien supports the status quo because he needs comfort, Lewis supports it because he's a genuinely hateful SOB. Tolkien's fascination with the Eddas and his genuine delight in coziness and so on does give his work a real resonance but as I said, it bores me. But it ain't the boredom that keeps me away -- I like boredom in entertainment -- I can enjoy early Saturday Night Live and the works of Garrison Keiler (despite his pinheaded prejudice against atheists) -- it's the lack of vision, of expansion. I go to this kind of fiction to make my world larger, not smaller.
Geez, I went on. And on a science-oriented site at that... sorry.
But I'm not sorry! I'm not! This stuff is important!
Posted by: Sean Craven | August 15, 2007 4:15 AM
I will recommend Bored Of The Rings. Simply wonderful.
Posted by: True Bob | August 15, 2007 4:22 AM
I read the first HP book and decided the series wasn't for me. I'm now reading David Edding" Castle of Wizardry and I've come to the conclusion that the fantasy genre would benefit greatly if more prospective fantasy writers read some Steinbeck and Faulkner before writing their first book.
"The Americans came through the portals on May 3rd. By June 5th, after a little over a month of dealing with hordes of unicorns, they had dropped their custom of keeping maidens strict virgins like limburger gone bad. As one homeowner said, 'I'd rather buy rubbers at the drugstore for my 14 year old daughter, than clean up unicorn shit in my front lawn on an hourly basis.'"
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 15, 2007 4:24 AM
I quite liked the series. Oddly, after books 5 and 6 which read like Rowling was a 19th century author getting paid by the word, the 7th book feels hurried and too short. It's like she was trying to squeeze all the necessary plot points in and forgot about adding any amusing story. And I tend to think that the silly extraneous scenes are the best part of the HP series.
I still have the same basic complaint about the HP world, though. Why are all the wizards so stupid? Take, for example, Hogwarts. In the medival era, it had a spell put on it that made it impossible for any outsider to find and for anyone to teleport in or out. And now, hundreds of years later, that spell still keeps people out. How many medival technologies are there in the real world that modern era people couldn't beat in about 10 seconds? What's with the apparent lack of innovation or creativity? For that matter, they don't even borrow innovations from the muggle world all that much. Voldemort sends his followers in to fight the good guys in hand to hand combat--resulting in their deaths, quite often. Hey, guys, two words: ranged weapons. Ok, so maybe they're too arrogant to think that non-magical people could possibly have anything of use to them, but then why don't the good guys borrow? A high powered rifle could take out Volde or at least some of his more troublesome followers pretty effectively without endangering any of the heros...I suppose the out of book explanation for the lack of innovation is that if wizards were as innovative as people really are the magical world would be completely off scale and too strange to write about. But I would like an in-story explanation.
I've only seen about 5 minutes of any of the movies, but generally thought they weren't worth watching further. For one thing, they seem to overplay the magic. That should be underplayed: it's just a normal, everyday thing and none of the characters should really even much notice it any more than people in the real world get awed by cars or computers.
Posted by: Dianne | August 15, 2007 4:37 AM
Um, er - Nazis! Fundamentalists!
Phew - I thought this thread was going to break both Godwin's and Blake's Law. Couldn't have that now, could we?
I mean, what if people started using the Internet to discuss things in a polite and reasonable fashion? :)
Add another voice to the "His Dark Materials = great" chorus. George RR Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series (of which Game of Thrones is the first book) is also great - as long as he actually gets on and finishes the story.
Posted by: NC Paul | August 15, 2007 4:48 AM
Steinbeck is friggen' awful. Faulkner is worth reading but if I run across another anthology with The Bear or A Rose For Miss Emily in it I'm going to start screaming and I won't stop until someone gives me a shot.
But the point of what Alan is saying is dead on; you can't write great fantasy if all you read is fantasy. The literature of the fantastic spans all of literary history. It is the root form of fiction. But it only really works as fiction when it recognizes itself as part of the larger literary tradition.
The thing is, is that a lot of folks get hooked on the genre, on the familiar round of elves & dwarfs rather than seeing the fantastic as another tool for the writer. I'm not dissing genre fiction. I love genre fiction. But genre can be a straightjacket and there are a lot of people out there hugging their restraints.
Alasdair Gray. I forgot to say go read Alasdair Gray, especially Poor Things, his touching and unsettling reimagination of Frankenstein as Glaswegian social realism. He's a little further into postmodernism than suits his material but despite his pretensions he does some of the best and most affecting work out there.
Posted by: Sean Craven | August 15, 2007 4:50 AM
Sean Craven said: A lot of people read fantasy and science fiction for comfort and familiarity; I've got ... Hunter S. Thompson for that.
Seek help now.
Posted by: MikeJ | August 15, 2007 4:58 AM
Haw haw haw!
I tried that. You know what happened? The medication didn't work and the shrink went crazy.
Haw haw haw!
Posted by: Sean Craven | August 15, 2007 5:04 AM
steven craven, since you liked The Carnal Prayer Mat by Li Yu, you should go on to a true Chinese classic, "The Jin Ping Mei", or "The Golden Lotus". It is a massive book, but never boring and with a lot of sex and intrigue in it. It has often been banned in China. It is probably my favorite novel of all.
As for real magic and fantasy, there is the Chinese "Journey to the West" with the all-time Chinese hero Monkey, a demi-dieu.
For the umpteenth time, I again recommend Jonathan Stroud's Bartimaeus Trilogy.
Posted by: bernarda | August 15, 2007 5:12 AM
At a lunch yesterday of biology grad students Harry Potter lost to Douglas Adams 3-2. Adams took the lead at the beginning of the third period with a deft wrap-around goal beating Rowlings on the stick side. Tolkien left midway in the second after taking a puck to the face, there has yet to be an update on the extent of the injury.
This puts Adams into the semifinals against an outmatched Cindarella story CS Lewis in the east and Murakami versus the Strugatsky Brothers in the west in the chase for the Geek Cup. Can linemates Murakami and Neil Stephenson and Terry Pratchett finally click or will they be shut down by the Russian defensemen Boris and Arkady Strugatsky and the all-star goalie Bulgakov? Find out friday with Game 1 of the western semifinals here on the Literature Sports Network.
Posted by: Greg | August 15, 2007 5:16 AM
My little sister had the remote one night and I ended up sitting through the third movie, though I had no real interest in it. I have mild OCD and one of my compulsions is to finish stories. It takes a seriously bad read to make me put down a book. (I have much less problem changing the channel though, surprise? I think not.) So later I got on my local library's websitee and reserved all the books. Through simple negligence on my part, I started reading at book 5 and worked my way back to book 1. The stories get progressively more mature as the story advances. I suggest you simply read the last three books. Honestly, you won't miss anything doing it.
Posted by: Jonathan | August 15, 2007 5:40 AM
Steven King had this to say about it:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20044270_20044274_20050689,00.html
I quite enjoyed the books myself. They're not Shakespeare (or even Tolkien), but quite good nevertheless.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | August 15, 2007 5:58 AM
You should try reading "The Wheel of Time"-series by Robert Jordan, which in my opinion, is the best written fantasy out there!
Pfft.
Try Dave Duncan's various series, such as the Seventh Sword series or the connected A Man Of His Word and a Handful Of Men series.
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | August 15, 2007 6:09 AM
If we are going to recommend other authors, I will join in the chorus supporting Pullman.
It will be interesting to see what the film of the first book Northern Lights/Golden Compass - the film uses the latter US title - comes out.
Especially as I'm in it as an "Gyptian" extra .....
No-one has spoken up for the late great and sorely miseed Roger Zelazny's "Nine Princes in Amber" series, I notice.
Why not?
Posted by: G. Tingey | August 15, 2007 6:27 AM
Sorry, P-Zed, but your movie reviews are perhaps the dullest of your postings. I rather like both the HP& movies and books, but could not shrug less on hearing you don't.
As for the chorus of the like-minded this posting has drawn, the point of snubbing one decent series of fantasy or SF in favor of another basically identical series comes across as the purest form of ridiculous, more-than-unneccessary pretentiousness. Worse by far than arguing over mass-produced beer brands.
Your blog or not, do have a point, rather than just having an opinion, please.
Posted by: ippeikun | August 15, 2007 6:29 AM
I enjoyed the HP series starting with the 3rd book where it actually started to get dark (for a children's story). I don't think they're the pinnacle of literature or the fantasy genre by any means, and although as has been mentioned above Rowling is a sincere writer, I think she owes her success mostly to being in the right place at the right time.
Chalk up another vote for His Dark Materials, but sadly I am at an age where I can't really obsess over a particular book or series or author anymore. The stuff you liked in your preteens and teens tends to stay with you even when you realize it's not that great. I loved the Dragonlance books in my teens, but could never get into Tolkien or that hack, Terry Brooks. I made the mistake of not reading Narnia until well into my 20s, and hated it.
Robert Jordan's another overblown hack--I hated the derivative first two books of the Waste of Time, but managed to get through the decent parts of 3 through 6. Terry Goodkind is basically the R-rated version of Jordan: the first two books were good but then he kept using disgusting scenes of sexual violence to indicate how evil his villains were. Maybe the first few times that was effective; after that I just got the creepy feeling that he got off on writing it.
I stick with Gaiman though--he usually manages to keep innovative and interesting. I can't think of another author with his output that doesn't fall down a few times, but Gaiman keeps going strong.
Posted by: False Prophet | August 15, 2007 6:35 AM
After 7 years of living in George Bush's fantasy-land, anything JK Rowling could possibly dream up is bound to seem tame by comparison.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | August 15, 2007 6:37 AM
You shouldn't be calling him by name like that! That's like people going around referring to you as "PZ Myers", instead of "he who should not be named".
Posted by: jw | August 15, 2007 6:53 AM
And did anyone else feel that the characters' "final solution" to the multiple universes and knife thing was not quite in the spirit of the earlier books? I get it that Pullman needed some sacrifice and seriousness instead of a sappy happy ending, but it was so... unscientific. ;)
Posted by: windy | August 15, 2007 7:11 AM
Anyone who would get angry with you and leave this forum over your reading preferences is perhaps not as close to the pillars of reason and logic than I might have hoped. I hope all reasonable people can agree that one's opinion of the Harry Potter series is not of large consequence.
Except for mine, of course ...
And I did enjoy the series. Your complaint is valid, book two is like book one, book three is like book two, etc. However, book seven is not so much like book one. JK's intent was to write a children's series that grew in complexity and depth with the audience. I think she succeeded at this ... book seven seems at the right complexity for a seventeen-year old audience.
The books do deal with serious themes of prejudice, political ambition, inequity, war, death, love, etc. In that sense, they are not "watered down". I read quite a bit, and very diversely ... and I wouldn't consider JK Rowling to be another Balzac (one of my favorite authors); however, I think she succeeded at her goal of making a very engaging children's series that exposed her audience to a lot of real, culturally transcendent issues in a fun, fantasy-oriented setting.
(Additionally, her ambiguous and inconsistent physics is, at least, amusing).
That adult scientists don't find her books that interesting is hardly that surprising.
Posted by: R. Paul Wiegand | August 15, 2007 7:13 AM
You should try reading "The Wheel of Time"-series by Robert Jordan, which in my opinion, is the best written fantasy out there!
I wasn't going to weigh in at all - I'm a rabid Potter book fan (movies, eh except Alan Rickman is perfect), but to praise The Wheel of Time? No. The first few books were well-written. I was completely on board through, oh, book 5 or so. Then they started getting longer, but strangely less happened in each book. Then around book 8, surely everything would wrap up? There's not much left to do. Then book 9, then book 10, and somewhere in there I decided that life really wasn't long enough to keep sinking in the miasma of Jordan's world because he obviously was NEVER GOING TO FINISH. God.
Posted by: Carlie | August 15, 2007 7:25 AM
Oh god, that adolescent piece-of-crap series. Martin used to be a good writer, but he didn't sell. So he wrote the equivalent of the soft-core porn, like rapidly devolved series of books by John Norman, or any Harlequin Romance, and has made a killing titillating teen-age boys.
All we need is some dark elves named Drizzt and we'll get all the teen-age titillation and angst out in one series...
Posted by: Moses | August 15, 2007 7:27 AM
Fantasy of fantasies, all is fantasy, and there is no new thing under the Suns of Fairie, saith the prophet! The prophet has been scanning the racks in the s-f section of bookstores for nigh unto 40 years, man and boy, and the percentage of dragons, goblins, and elves (oh my!) staring back at him, versus spacesuits, spaceships, and starscapes, has steadily risen, to well over 50%.
In the Golden Age of the prophet's youth, science-fiction was a literature in which ideas were generated and tested. The prophet could feel the boundaries of his mind being stretched as he read the stories. What would it be like to try to live on the Moon, and be self-sufficient ("The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", R.Heinlein)? On Mars? How could we travel to another solar system, without being able to exceed the speed of light (Heinlein's Generation Ship)? What new geologies and biologies would we find on other planets (Hal Clement's "Mission of Gravity")? What if we met a race of intelligent aliens? What if they were smarter than we are? What if we all had robots to do all our menial tasks? What if the robots were intelligent? What if they were smarter than we are?
There are still some people writing stories like that. What would the life forms be like on a planet whose sun's nuclear reaction shuts off for 250 years, then relights for 50 years, cyclically ("A Deepness In The Sky", Vernor Vinge)? How could we change Mar's atmosphere and climate to make it habitable ("Red Mars", "Blue Mars", "Green Mars", by Kim Robertson)? What if a Black Hole went into orbit around the Earth, and we could feel it pulling on our heads every time it passed over ("The Eater", Gregory Benford)?
You have to analyze situations like that thoroughly, and know something about orbital mechanics and so on, in order to do a good job. Whereas, in fantasy, you just make it up as you go along. Everybody lives as they did in the feudal ages, using swords, bows and arrows, and wooden plows, except for a few wizards who live off by themselves. They don't try to share and spread their techniques, so there is no progress. Nobody knows the germ theory of disease, for example. Some bad creatures threaten to take control of the world with a powerful magic, unless a small band of heroes makes a long journey and accomplishes some impossible tasks. Been there, done that, over and over.
Meanwhile, and what bugs me the most, is that day-to-day activities in the fantasy world proceed according to the same physical laws which govern the real world. Rain falls from clouds. Wheat grows, and is ground into flour to make bread. Heat triggers a chemical reaction between hydrocarbon compounds and oxygen, known as fire. Arrows fall to earth according to the laws of gravity. And yet, thousands of years go by, and nobody figures any of the basic principles out!
If a character in a novel is a stereotype who can not learn or grow or do anything unexpected, that is known as a "cardboard character". In a sense, all the characters in most fantasies are cardboard characters.
Of course, there are examples where science-fiction can be fantasy (with faster-than-light spaceships taking the place of magic carpets), and fantasy can be science-fiction. Some of Jack Vance's best science-fiction was nominally in the fantasy genre. What if the human race had gained all the knowledge it was ever going to gain, and accomplished everything it was going to accomplish, many tens of thousands of years ago, and all that are left are a group of aristocratic "magicians" who only half-understand the reminants of technology which they use, and a race of peasants whom the magicians keep in ignorance and myth without access to the technology, except for arcane artifacts which litter the landscape ("The Dying Earth")?
As for fantasy, sure, I'll read it. But I won't be challenged or stretched by it. Look - here I am not being stretched! That's what I'm on about!
Posted by: JimV | August 15, 2007 7:45 AM
Another vote here for His Dark Materials.
Harry Potter is actually an example of a genre of British young people's fiction that throve, I think, between the wars and remained popular until about the Sixties: the school story series. The famous children's author Enid Blyton had a couple of them going - Malory Towers was one, I remember. The Greyfriars books of 'Frank Richards' spawned the legendary Billy Bunter. There were heaps of others; probably still are, but I don't think school stories have the same size of readership nowadays.
Except of course, for Happy Rotter.
Posted by: Astyanax | August 15, 2007 7:57 AM
A Game of Thrones is perfect beyond words. It's the only fantasy epic with that many characters told from that many perspectives that I can actually keep up with.
The incredibly intrigue-laden nature of the series is just gravy, and the plot twists are gut-wrenching.
If only George could write faster!
Posted by: Loren Michael | August 15, 2007 8:15 AM
??? Did we read the same series? The last instance of steamy sex I recall was about 2 books or 2000 pages ago. If that plus incessant feudal politics are enough to titillate teenage boys nowadays, good for them.
Posted by: windy | August 15, 2007 8:16 AM
Not sure if you're aware of him, but James Morrow has written a number of very entertaining books that take as their premise that God exists, and he's kind of a dick... start with "Towing Jehovah" in which God dies and his massive corpse needs to be towed to the arctic... "Only Begotten Daughter" is great, too. He's a quirky writer, but if every religious person in the world would read him, we'd be a lot better off (that goes for Christopher Moore's "Lamb" as well).
Posted by: jwer | August 15, 2007 8:20 AM
Sean and others are right-- Pullman's Dark materials is much better written, except that the third book does indeed become a mess. Movie version of the first, The Golden Compass, is due out in December. I will see it just for Sam Elliot and Iorek.
Posted by: Faithful Reader | August 15, 2007 8:23 AM
The no-nose thing? Obviously indicates a crypto Michael Jackson.
Posted by: jim a | August 15, 2007 8:24 AM