Terry Pratchett lays into JK Rowling!

[Thadlerian]

But works of mainstream fiction could theorethically be real: There is usually nothing in their setting profoundly preventing them from happening in the world in which we live.

 

[ray gower]

For a creature born in a stable to be a horse, it needs a leg in each corner, eat oats and hay and go neigh. A cat born in those circumstances misses being called a horse on at least 2 items on the checklist, it does however tick a lot of boxes for being a cat.

The first two HP books check far boxes for an adventure, all be it in a fantasy world- witches, wizards, clever tricks and broomsticks are not indisputable proof of fantasy as they are inflicted on us by fairy stories and more than a few historical stories (not all of which are fiction). So Ms. Rowlings wrote an adventure story. That publishers have chosen to label it fantasy rather than adventure/fantasy is perhaps more an unfortunate byproduct of slack categorisation

 

[Thadlerian]

Then what about the battle of the good against the centralized evil power intent of taking over the world?

What about the magic that is made rational and tangible, and, I'm inclined to say, institutionalized, with a whole governmental apparatus around it, with its own nomenclature, its own cultural phenomena?

What about the creation of a complex, unique universe for long-term use and development in this book series alone?

Cat or horse, they're both mammals anyway.

 

[McMurphy]

Pratchett....I love you, man.

I think authors who claim to subvert the genre they are writing in have an inflated sense of their own importance.

No matter how many millions of books she has sold, I don't really see Rowling having that great an effect on the genre one way or another, certainly not to overthrow or cause the downfall of traditional fantasy, which seems to be selling as well as ever, and I somehow can't imagine that she means to say that she's corrupting the genre.

And why would someone who says she doesn't read in the genre anyway wish to subvert it in the first place? Sounds a bit mean-spirited to me.

To do her justice, I don't think she ever had any such intention at all. She's just saying that now to keep from getting lumped in with the rest of us.
Which considering her sales and mass popularity seems ... a little unnecessary, don't you think?

Agreed. The magazine article appears to encourage her attitude. Maybe she brought attention back to fantasy writing for children, but she has certainly, in no way, "reinvented" the genre.

 

[ray gower]

Then what about the battle of the good against the centralized evil power intent of taking over the world?

What about the magic that is made rational and tangible, and, I'm inclined to say, institutionalized, with a whole governmental apparatus around it, with its own nomenclature, its own cultural phenomena?

What about the creation of a complex, unique universe for long-term use and development in this book series alone?

Cat or horse, they're both mammals anyway.

Would suggest reading Tintin, Steely, Secret Seven, anything by Robert Ludlum etc. but I don't need to, my initial exposition was that Ms Rowlings believed she was writing an Adventure (which she was), set in an imaginary (fantasy) world, which she still is.

That her imagination has grown under the weight of wacky mushrooms all the money buys, is embarassing taken with her public statements, until you read the statement in its full context- Viz. I did not realize I was writing a fantasy novel.

And please remember to put the horse out at bedtime

 

[CarlottaVonUberwald]

they are fantasy novels becasue some peoplesee them as that simple as..HIM getaway with labelling themselves the non-exsistent love metal genre as that is what people see them as

however thats a seperate issue to the fact she's and ignorant talentless *naughty word*

she is still highly derrogatory about fantasy genres ..a genre which wether she likes it or not her books fit very well into.

 

[the_faery_queen]

for me something is fantasy if it is fantastical in nature. and her stuff is, from what i can gather. other worlds and magical spells, it's fantasy. but i can see perhaps she thinks that as it's a child's book, and children's books tend to be fantastical generally, perhaps she thinks her genre is children's books, not fantasy? in which case, i do get her statement

BUT to say she's subverting it is madness.
and my friend posted an comment she made about possibly killing harry (not sure if it has been said here already)

"...the conventions of the genre demanded the hero go on alone...When fans accuse me of sadism...I feel I'm toughening them up...they've got to be toughened up somehow. It's a cruel literary world out there."

and i thought that was madness. if she's writing children's fiction, then that's not true. the hero doesn't usually go on alone. if she's writing fantasy, that's also not really true! and it seems bizzare if she is talking about fantasy as she claims she doens't write it. and it is a cruel literary world out there, but that doesn't mean kids are going to rad books that are like that. and heros often don't die in literary books anywya! so though her statement doesn't directly refer to her killing harry, it does, to me at least, show that's she's kinda full of herself, and her whole thing abotu subverting the genre is now shown as rubbish as she is saying she is doing what the genre demands, by having the hero go on alone!

i find her confuzing as a person, overrated as a writer.

 

[Saltheart]

As a writer, she improved at the major plot twist of her series, her fifth book; but yet her books are sprinkled with predictable trite and cliches. But, IMHO, Terry Pratchett is the better writer who has finer precision with language: Rowlings's books are unnecassarily long; her prose is almost to the point of being purple.

Her books are mediocre, as is her "professional" attitude: she is rich and famous, and want to keep it that way, and live on in history and not be bunched as a subordinate of fantasy, but a subplanter.

I used to like her books and respect her as a writer, but since her fifth book she comes to me as one really arrogant and insecure, and I only like her books--not her. I think she plans on retiring after HP because she is afraid any other books she writes will make her seem as a has-been. This interview with her really sets off my ire towards her, and makes me label her a "poser"--she wants to come off as high and noble and scholarly, even though it despites her real personality. Before HP's success, she was a humble writer, now she's crossing the threshold of arrogance.

I would really like to see her write a book in the genre she claims to write--a book without banking on Harry Potter success, published under a pen name--and see how well it sells without cliches and other cr*p like that. Maybe then she'll finally be humbled again.

 

[ray gower]

But, IMHO, Terry Pratchett is the better writer who has finer precision with language: Rowlings's books are unnecassarily long; her prose is almost to the point of being purple.

Don't think there is any dispute there; Pratchett has become an acceptable writer, but he should after so many books and his original profession. Where he really scores is he is a far better storyteller and that is far more important when trying to find a spare and meaningful 50,000 words to make up the quota.

 

[Pyan]

"meaningful" being the important word there. I have a feeling that Ms Rowling is suffering from excessive word-count disease, or Jordan's Syndrome as it's known to some. Certainly I think that the increase in book thickness from the first Harry Potter to the latest tome owes a lot to padding. TP on the other hand has maintained an average story length (in the Discworld series) for at least the last fifteen books, without the reader feeling either bloated or stinted.

 

[3point142]

Hello! I'm new - My first post, how very exciting.I think there's been a lot of misunderstanding concerning Terrys comments. As far as I'm aware the comments were primarily directed towards the poor journalism, rather than directly at JKR. That said, the comment regarding not noticing that she was writing fantasy was spot on.I suspect that JKR was advised by her agent or publisher to try and distance herself from the 'Fantasy' genre, so that she wouldn't alienate potential sales (sorr, potential readers.) This is something that Terry has fought ever since he has become popular - he knows the debt he owes to Tolkien and all those that follow, and has resisted any urgings to distance himself from the genre.With regard to movie making, the primary reason TP hasn't had a movie made (although sky are doing Hogfather as I type I believe) is that he would have to give up the rights to his characters to the movie makers. JKR has done this - as far as I'm aware she no longer 'owns' Harry Potter, and I have heard it said that she may kill him off to avoid any 'non-authour written sequels.' this is somehing that could never happen to Pterry's characters as he will not give them up for a bucketload of cash (very laudable, I'm sure, but then as he himself says, he kind of has enough of that already)I'll stop rambling now, and let you all shoot me down. Just to let you know, I have read one JKR book, the first one, it was okay, but I wasn't blown away like 'they' said I would be. I've read pretty much all pratchetts work. I't fantasy. I love it.

 

[^jordy^]

I can't understand all those people who make a cult of the HP books. I'm not trying to say that there is no point in the series but they could have been written much better. And despite all her money and fans, she cannot subvert the fantasy, just because, compared to other series the HP books are just poor. In my opinion, of course. It was definitely not her who reinvented the genre. I'm a little angry because I can't agree that the fantasy is a world of "knights and laddies who morris-dance to Greensleeves". Come on, who do you think you are to state like this?!

 

[SmoothasSilk]

Well, all I have to say is neither Terry Pratchett NOR JK Rowling got me to read fantasy. It was C S Lewis Narnia books that ignited my passion and David Eddings Belgariad that continued it.

I love both Terry Pratchett and JK Rowling, and I'm sorry but I disagree with people that think of her as arrogant! SHE has actually personally replied TWICE to letters that I wrote to her, and the first time I sent her a poem that she LIKED! Sorry, I will defend Jo as I like her, and would personally love to meet her. But then I once lived not too far from where she did.

OKAY so she hasn't read any fantasy and is going on a stereotype.... I won't watch a Brad Pitt film but that doesn't stop me from commenting on him and despising him, and no one will get me to watch one of his films. I doubt TPs comments will get her to read fantasy either, and why should she?

I also see HP as more Action/Adventure than FANTASY, as it's set in this world. Come on would anyone SERIOUSLY put James Bond in the Thriller sections? NO!

I also think that TP was just joking and not jibing her at all. I think Jo is a good writer and to all those people who say how bad she is at writing I suggest YOU try writing a book, getting published, and getting people to read it? It isn't easy I know!

ALSO can you name me ONE other author that has got SUCH a huge fanbase that she has? I have tried to find David Eddings forums and can't find NONE dedicated truly to him, yet there are thousands of HP forums. Stop despising her because she's popular! She's worked HARD to get published... ANYONE who's read her life story would know THAT!

I also read a few months ago that she felt guilty buying a pair of earrings that cost £230 odd pounds because she remembered the time when she was poor, the action of an arrogant woman? I think not!

TP only has more books published because he's OLDER than her, once she gets to his age then she might have just as many. And for peoples information, she HAS got another childrens fantasy book in the making, and she has read E Nesbit, an author much like Jo but existed over a hundred years ago.

There is nothing wrong with her and what she said... besides I don't think the entire quote was said, to me it sounded like a journalist trying to shake things up! And he succeeded.

 

[Werthead]

What pisses me off about Rowling is that she won the Hugo Award for Best Novel in 2001 for Goblet of Fire. She didn't bother turning up to accept the award (the highest honour in SF and Fantasy publishing). Not only that, but she didn't even send someone to pick it up or send a thank you note for three years afterwards. And then, when she later won an award only given to adult authors, she said, "I've never won an adult award before in my life!" Er, yes you have.

Pratchett > Rowling to the same ratio that Jupiter > Pluto.

 

[Thadlerian]

If that's true, make it Charon.

 

[Raghailligh]

If that's true about the Hugo, that was totally unconscionable. But I feel that I must point out that the Hugo is more of a "People's Choice" type of award since all registered members of Worldcon can nominate and vote.

I notice JKRowling has never won a Nebula Award. I would say this is the important award in F&SF since it is given out by the writer's peers. Although to be honest, PTerry hasn't won a Nebula either, although he has been nominated unlike Ms. Rowling.

 

[Lacedaemonian]

Terry Pratchett has brought nothing to the genre.

 

[Thadlerian]

Terry Pratchett has brought nothing to the genre.

What about questions on ethnicity and discrimination? Pratchett, in his later books, is the only writer I've seen who's been able to treat these matters in ways that can be taken seriously.

There's also a relatively strong "Mrs. Brown" tendency in his novels.

 

[SmoothasSilk]

Um, what about SLYTHERINS ethos of NOT allowing Muggleborns in the Wizarding world, and Draco's racism towards Hermione because she's a Muggleborn, and the fact that he calls her a MUDBLOOD? What about in GoF when Hagrid is tormented because he is a Half-Giant, and Lupin not being able to find work because of his disability being a Werewolf?

Obviously you haven't read more than the first book! To me Jo relays racism in her books MUCH more than Terry Pratchett, and in more disturbing ways!

Terry Pratchett does NOT have a raving ego maniac called Lord Voldemort trying to promote PURITY OF BLOOD in a Hitler like way.

 

[the_faery_queen]

i don't think either writer has brought anything new to the genre. but i don't think a writer has to, i think as long as they're entertaining and people like them, that's all that matters (unless they're extremely nasty like goodkind, but that's my own personal belief) because books are, after all, like films and music, for entertainment. yes it's nice and great when there is new music/films/books, that push the boundaries and make you think, that are well done and moving, but there is still place in the world for utter rubbish, or just mildly entertaining stuff. and to me, thats why prachett and rowling fit in. entertaining, nothing special, it amuses people so it's ok.

though for me, i dislike rowling because of her arrogance, the way she seems to think, or comes across at least, as though she's doing something amazing for fantasy, while saying she isn't writing it at the same time. i also don't think that her books will get lots of people to read fantasy. in fact, most of the people i know who like her books, haven't read a single other fantasy book in their life. the only people who like fantasy, and read rowling, read fantasy BEFORE her, not the other way around. so while it may get kids reading, i dont' thik it will neccessarily get them reading fantasy.

and i also hate the rowling fans. they're so damn obsessive! had an argument with a friend of mine abotu them. i don't care about the books, i dont' find them all that, yet my friend couldn't accept that. people seem to think you're reading her wrong if you dont' like her, or you're missing out on something, or you're just lying to avoid jumping on the bandwagon. they can't seem toa ccept that you just don't like them. like any other truly obessessive fan i guess.

sigh.