Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: Entsuropi on July 31, 2005, 09:06:57 PM
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4732385.stm
Interesting. While terry prattchet appears to be in the right here, it's hard to tell without seeing the original interview and his full letter. Still, he's got a better hat than she does, so he wins. :P
-
He definitely wins for the hat, but I have to laugh at her 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".
-
She sounds pretty moronic.
-
When you make 27 million in 24 hours due to book sales then you can say what ever you want no matter how crazy.
-
Yeah, it really astounds me. Is the series really that good?
-
Terry Prattchet just sound envious in that article, not to mention rather whiny.
So what if Rowling doesn't want to be a poster child for the fantasy genre.
-
Okay, for some reason this just finished off my day. I am no longer amused by anything. Grrr. That article made me quite cross. They're both really cocky and rude.
It's silly how Rowling can bring herself to believe that there is anything shockingly original at all in her world. Did she invent mermaids or centaurs or giants? And to claim not to have intended fantasy is a laughably poor attempt at something like false modesty on her part. (She was clearly JK...)
However, that Prat guy is a jerk to her about it.
As famous writers/public figures, they should both hold themselves more gracefully than all that. Neither side deserves to be taken. Bad choice of topic to write an article about.
Oh, and I LOVE HP6!
-
Well I don't know either, and I doubt either are rude jerks (nor did I think Pratchett was being one), honestly though, Rawling has brought any critizim about this on herself for being so full of it, however others shouldn't make such a huge deal about it.
-
Terry Pratchett 4 Teh WIN!!!!!
-
None of these comments, nor the article, have bothered to take note of Pratchett's personality: he's a sarcastic wit, and is always making jokes, at least in public. I doubt he was acting like a jerk at all. He was probably just being witty.
ANd it's true, Rowling is at the expense of other fantasy writers: especially when a magazine can agree with her that fantasy is pat and uninventive.
-
I would sell out to be the richest woman in England though. Seriously.
-
well, maybe not richest WOMAN. But richest Man? yes, I would too.
-
Na she's the richest woman in England, above the Queen (#2) and Madona (#3).
-
Yes, but E is saying he wouldn't sell out if he had to become a woman to be rich.
-
I dono, he might. Someone offer him a billion dollars.
-
I'll offer him a billion dollars, as long as he realizes that I have replaced the meaning of "a billion dollars" with "absolutely nothing and some saltines".
-
did you say SALTINES?
-
Yes sir, I did indeed invoke the name of the holy Saltines.
-
/me bows, but does not submit to a gender change
-
I think Rowling is just showing ignorance, and Pratchett is just being himself. Doesn't affect my good opinion of either one of them.
-
Yes Ookla but the real question of this thread is would you change your gender for a cracker?
-
Spriggan, always asking the hard hitting questions that modern man has struggled with for positively minutes.
-
No, but this guy at the beach said he would pay me $100 if I ate 6 saltines in a minute, and I wasn't able to do it. (I got 4 of them.) If only I hadn't finished drinking my water bottle a few minutes before, I could have washed them down pretty easily.
In independent testing since then, I've gotten up to 5. I'm sure there's some way to do it.
-
Have a bigger mouth, maybe.
-
What are the rules? Do you have to chew and swallow each one before starting on the next?
-
no rules like that. The only thing is it's a saltine see. And 6 of them are going to dry your mouth out. We did it with two pieces of bread to companions on my mission. THey would be spitting out DRY breadcrumbs.
-
So 6 saltines in a flat 60 seconds, no water, and no other rules. I will engage in independent research.
-
The first time I ate them two at a time, the second time one at a time. Next I will try biting off chunks and swallowing them with no chewing.
If I can master the skill, it could mean big money! You never know what kind of gimmicks born-again Christians will use to get you to stop and talk to them.
Two pieces of bread? I could do that easily.
<--- Champeen Bread-Eater
-
bread is worse than crackers, from what I understand. Go get yourself a couple slices of wonder and try it.
Then we'll see if you can.
-
I do it all the time, though I use real bread and not wonder. Just smash it up into a little ball and chomp it down. I often smash two or three slices into one ball and eat them while driving.
-
in 60 seconds?
time it.
-
As soon as I get some bread, I will!!!
-
Maybe we were more cruel, but in our mission the challenge was to drink a gallon of milk in less than one hour, and then hold it down for another hour.
It was pretty common for people to get the first part done, but, from what I understand, that much milk in your stomach begins to curdle, and comes right back up -- often, guys would froth at the mouth for a little while before losing it. Kinda dumb, yes, but we were nineteen.
-
I got about 5/6 of the gallon down, then knew my goose was cooked and gave up... I did manage to keep that 5/6 all down, though!! Sure felt odd for a couple hours.
-
wow, you guys were harsh. Ours was just a gallon in an hour and hold it there. Still, even at that, the few who actually made it were standing over the toilet and/or tub suppressing gags during the last few seconds.
Fools didn't realize they should just gulp it down in the last 15 minutes. True, an hour later they'd be hurling all over the place, but they would have won the two pizzas.
-
And think, if they were really resourceful, they could have gotten another meal out of it. Wait... that isn't a great thing to be thinking about while eating... :(
-
Okay... I admit it. The bread thing was hard. I didn't get it until my third try. :-[
First try I still had a piece left to eat at the end of 60 seconds (didn't compress it enough to start out)...2nd try I didn't do my final swallow until 69 seconds (I think I didn't put the first bite in soon enough, and put too much in right at the end), and third try I got it down to 56 seconds. So, it's not easy.
-
I will never understand you boys.
-
Masochists, all of them.
-
What are you talking about? This was a human triumph. Ookla is now like unto a god. He should have my title.
-
I...HAVE...THE POWAAAAAH!!
-
I will never understand you boys.
Yup, you never will:
http://articles.health.msn.com/id/100108044/site/100000000/
-
and if it's on MSN, it MUST be true.
-
Especially when they report behavioral science research that is over four decades old and has already entered most college textbooks.
Yup, really current work being done by MSN.
-
Yeah, it really astounds me. Is the series really that good?
I expect to get flamed by Rowling fans for this, but her work is derivative and predictable, a faddish series for people who don't really like books. I'm actually surprised she hasn't been sued for copyright infringement by the person who wrote a series of kiddies books called "The Worst Witch".
Every day I become more amazed that no-one has called this woman's bluff! :o
Pratchett, by contrast, writes stories that actually treat the reader like an intelligent person. His recent childrens books "Wee Free Men" and "Hat Full of Sky" star a young girl who wants to become a witch. These books are so well written, so mindful of existing British folklore and so outright *mature* in outlook that Rowling should be wailing and gnashing her teeth in shame at her own limitations.
To anyone who's read both Rowling and "Wee Free Men": is there a single motif in the entire Rowling ouvre that compares with the simultaneously folksy and profound image of Tiffany burying Nanny Aching's china shepherdess on the Wold?
I think not...
-
look. I'm not the biggest Rowling fan, but I like her stuff. Your claims are obviously very over-stated, reactionary, and poorly thought out.
-
As someone who enjoys Rowling and hates Pratchett, I have to say that I disagree (though I have never read Wee Free Men, I admit). I'm a bit curious as to how you can say that arguably the most successful book series in the modern world is actually a piece of trash that nobody in their right mind would like. It's not perfect, and certainly not great literature, but they're very good stories that connect with the reader in a lot of ways. Do you honestly think that we're all stupid?
-
Yes.
-
I knew that already, I wasn't talking to you. And put on some freakin' pants already.
-
Prattchet is good, but has his flaws. JK Rowling can write well, but has very little originality. She kind of uses that, making it a easy level without having to resort to info-dumps. But if it was a case of which series I could read again for the first time, discworld wins every time.
-
My money's on Pratchett.
-
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".
I think BBC was quoting the magazine article, not Rowling. And I can see how she might not have thought Harry Potter was traditional fantasy, since it takes place in a modern setting, but Pratchett is right. The unicorns should have been a clue. :)
I just wish that I could read the original magazine article. Bad referencing!!
-
Nevermind I found it (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1083935,00.html). Webpage design confuses me. Can't you just put the references at the bottom, like print?
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."
So, at least she can laugh at herself.
And the quote from BBC is Times words, not Rowlings.
So, anyway, yes I'm defending her, but from what I've read on her website, the attitude didn't quite seem hers. She comes across more as I expected in the Times article, and the author of the article is obviously a fan.
-
I don't think awareness of genre is necessary to write a good piece. Though it certainly helps you do a marketable piece.
-
And I do think that if she was aware of genre, she'd realize just how many witch school/boarding school/modern fairy tale/modern fantasy with magic thrown in books there are out there. Not exactly like hers, but enough out there that she ought to have at least recognized it as fantasy.
But that's back to the definition of fantasy, isn't it? A *lot* of people, not just JK Rowling, think that fantasy is just sword and sorcery high fantasy, when--especially in children's literature--it really takes in so much more than that.
-
Aha! Here's JK's source, at last!
http://www.brightgirl.net/mishmash/hpsw.jpg
;)
-
;D
-
Ha ha ha ha ha that was great!!
-
Do you honestly think that we're all stupid?
Fellfrosch:
Absolutely not. I have no objection to the "Harry Potter" books if they are taken as what they are: undemanding, cozey kiddies' books in the "Jennings", "Billy Bunter" and "Worst Witch" school story tradition. What I object to strenuously are the commentators and the fans (who should know better in many cases) trying to make the HP books out as something more than that.
I just get sick of hearing how this woman has <sneery Foamy the Squirrel voice> "Singlehandedly re-invented children's fantasy"</foamy>. She hasn't _invented_ a thing, just mashed existing genre tropes up into a new and popular type of pabulum.
I'd draw an equivalence between Rowling and MacDonalds: both are the market leader in their field, but both are a triumph of hype over substance. Neither the "Harry Potter" series or the Big Mac can be described as nutritious, tasty or 'good for you' in comparison with some of the other stuff that's out there.
Sales =/= good book. They just = good marketing.
e:
obviously very over-stated, reactionary, and poorly thought out
Over-stated and poorly thought out I'll concede, this is an Internet forum after all, people shoot from the lip.
But reactionary? I can't really see from whence you inferred this. I'll concede, I'm a fan of Pratchett, but the fact I like the ways in which he re-invents and recycles fantasy/fairy tale cliches in a way that has some contemporary applicability hopefully doesn't make me a reactionary.
-
*sigh* we've had this argument before.
Let me give you some tips:
If you want friends, don't come on and make claims like this in your first dozen posts. ANd *never* make them so in your face.
People will disagree with you, and expressing weariness that most people disagree with you only alienates people further. You want to vent? Take it to the Rants forum. You want to have a discussion? Point out specific instances where Rowling fails.
Also, resurrecting an argument that was over more than 2 months ago is annoying.
Like I said, I'm not hte biggest Rowling fan, but I think she does a pretty good job. YOU don't have to like her, but comparing her to McDonald's is way off base. There's a lot more to get out of and think about with Rowling. People discuss for long periods where she's going with different characters or themes. She's pretty darn good at discussing the themes of the books completely and without being preachy. Yet she treats the characters realistically in their setting. On the whole, she's a pretty solid writer. Just because she's credited with re-creating a genre (which I agree, she didn't remotely do) doesn't mean that she's a terrible writer. The claims are over stated, but looking at the writing objectively shows a decent amount of skill.
So yeah, reactionary. Yes, I still think that. I think you have one or two pet-peeves about the way the media shows her, and because you disagree with that portrayal you want to translate that into a statement about how she's the opposite -- a terrible writer with good PR. I see you swinging the opposite way -- blaming the writer when you should be blaming the PR, and makign assertions that I don't think are very justifiable.
As for Pratchet, I've found him to be very funny. I giggle out loud frequently. But rarely, if ever, have I had occassion to think of his writing as anything other than funny. Maybe I've missed something, and you can give me some examples. (I've read only Hogfather and Jingo) But what I've read hasn't done a very good job of exploring the themes it brings up, the characters have been extremely static, and his style, other than word play, isn't exciting. It's very, very funny, and on that justification alone I can recommend him to people. But he's not where I'd call it brilliant.
-
Sorry about the thread necromancy, just hadn't logged on in a while.
You make a fair point about my conceptions of media portrayals of Rowling colouring my views of her writing. I've read the first 5 HP books (so at least I'm not just venting at the media), but it seems - given my tastes and prior reading - that they're not for me. ::)
Apologies for any hurt/offence caused to Rowling fans by the manner in which I expressed my opinions.
As to Pratchett. His more recent books actually go beyond being a giggle. "Night Watch", "Feet of Clay" and "Fifth Elephant" in particular are worth a read, hopefully even a casual reader of his books will enjoy them.
We let this die now?
-
I've read Night Watch and Feet of Clay, and they are certainly Pratchett's best. The Captain of the Guard is the only Discworld character I like.