Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#1 Old 1st Dec 2018 at 11:59 PM
Default Because We're All Nerds, A Continued Super-In-Depth and High-Level Discussion of The Merits and Shortcomings of JK Rowling as a Writer and the Harry Potter Universe as a Member of the English Literary Canon
So our Harry Potter discussion had reached the point where it was not really suited for dominating threads that are supposed to be about TS2, but I feel like lots of us were kind of enjoying the discussion, so @Orphalesion , @Charity , @Bulbizarre , @Peni Griffin , @Phantomknight , @JustPetro , @Pideli , and @FranH , feel free to carry on our discussion here! (as well as anyone else sufficiently nerdy to join us)

(Sunbee and Peni in particular, I would love to hear the two "rants" (great word choice BTW (I love parentheticals)) that you're holding on to!)

As to the Shakespeare comparisons, what I immediately thought of was the fact that, at his time, Shakespeare was really kind of a hack... but not in a bad way. I'll explain. Probably most of you know that most of his 'histories' were, well, histories, and so they weren't original stories, and in fact most of them were probably adapted for the stage in some fashion already (whether those adaptations have survived is more of an open question). Even some of the fictional stories he is generally credited with, like Hamlet, are probably retellings of pre-existing stories. More significantly, virtually ALL of his plays are using preexisting characters and tropes and storytelling elements that his audience would have been familiar with. What he DOES deserve full credit for is putting them together in a way that captivated the audience for those tropes much more than the already-existing material seemed capable of.

That's what I would argue Rowling has done (making her also a hack, but again, not necessarily in a bad way)- Stories about witches and wizards aren't new, after all, and even some of the more incidental elements of the Harry Potter universe are actually drawn from pre-existing mythology and fantasy. (For example, while the overwhelming majority of people would point to Hippogriffs as stemming from Harry Potter, the first recorded mention of them comes from Virgil, more than 2000 years ago. (I think we can probably all agree that Blast-Ended Skrewts are entirely JK's doing though... ))

Welcome to the Dark Side...
We lied about having cookies.
Advertisement
Mad Poster
#2 Old 2nd Dec 2018 at 12:25 AM
Challenge accepted, even when I wasn't that invested in the thread, I always love a good discussion.

Most writers are 'hacks', if you would countenance the word. Most don't go on to win the Nobel Prize for literature and while that is true, their contribution to the world of letters is also substantial at the same time. Because while you can enjoy a book written by a Nobelist just as much, they're usually very esoteric in thought and word. I've read a few, and those that I've read have been pretty hard to digest as a whole.

Mostly because I think they do tend to think of themselves as being above the ordinary fray as a writers-and those critics who scoff at people like JK Rowling, and the Harry Potter series are usually unmitigated snobs. Reading an enjoyable book should not require one to raise their pinky or put on gloves to do so.

That's why most readers do enjoy books about magical societies and people. It's not 'literature' per se, but it makes their imaginations go free for a while. Which is why JK Rowling is so very popular-she gives the audience what they want. That's all a writer really wants to do-entertain their readers.

Receptacle Refugee & Resident Polar Bear
"Get out of my way, young'un, I'm a ninja!"
Grave Matters: The funeral podium is available here: https://www.mediafire.com/file/e6tj...albits.zip/file
My other downloads are here: https://app.mediafire.com/myfiles
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#3 Old 2nd Dec 2018 at 12:38 AM
I agree with you wholeheartedly... 10 years ago.

Now I think Rowling is a) no longer giving the audiences what they want (vis. the critical and public approval (or lack thereof) of The Crimes of Grindelwald), and b) more concerned with entertaining herself than entertaining her readers. I won't argue that she's just in it to make money, because, well, she's clearly not (and as far as the money side of things goes, I still actually have a lot of respect for HER, if not for the rest of the people and entities that have latched on the the HP universe), but I will say that a lot of the changes she's trying to make to her own established canon are more because she's not happy with how things turned out after the fact. (This is where I could launch into a whole treatise on the "death of the author" theory in literary analysis, but I won't, since I feel like most of you are probably familiar with it already)

(for what it's worth, I also fully agree on not needing a book to be 'great literature' to enjoy it... I'm reading another sci-fi/fantasy (yes, both actually DO apply) series right now, and I'm the first one to admit that it's not great literature and does nothing to elevate the genre or push the boundaries of the English language, but at the same time, I'm 13 books into it, and still enjoying it immensely!)

Welcome to the Dark Side...
We lied about having cookies.
Mad Poster
#4 Old 2nd Dec 2018 at 12:46 AM Last edited by simmer22 : 2nd Dec 2018 at 2:20 AM.
I think JK made clever use out of known fantastic beasts (unicorns, phoenixes, dragons, hippogriffs, etc.), as well as creating some interesting ones of her own (golden snidgets, blast-ended screwts, Thestrals, etc.), plus mix-and-matching some myths and legends from around the world (kappas, kelpies, sphinxes, etc.) to make the world seem both magical and rooted in our world, since a magical community could potentially live underneath the noses of unwary muggles. She wrote mystery wrapped in a fantasy setting, and perhaps that's one of the reasons why the books became so popular. That, and the great character gallery with some interesting (but flawed) personalities. I think JK may have reached the high-point in her career with the HP books, though.

I'm still a little on the fence when it comes to the Fantastic Beasts movies - I kinda like them as a standalone franchise, and I'm not that upset that they currently seem to go against some of the lore. Despite having a ton more magic in them though, they don't quite reach the heart of the HP books. It's like they try too hard, and kind of fall on their face a bit, because they want to accomplish too much for a 2-hour x5 movie format. Considering the large character gallery and the multiple storylines in each movie, I think they'd perhaps have worked better in a book series format. The whole HP hysteria is much more of a cash-grab nowadays, and the movies didn't make this any better (with all the beast toys and whatnots).

I'm also disappointed in the Pottermore site. I absolutely loved the first version, where it felt like you truly did dicover new bits and bobs, along with the amazing animated scenes and artwork. Now the site more resembles a buzzfeed page, and it's not even half as interesting. It no longer feels like JK's little extended world, as if someone else is running the site and occasionally asks if she's got some new bits and bobs to keep visitors interested. But I guess that's eventually what happens.

Occasionally I do go down the memory lane and watch Youtube videos of talks with JK from the HP book/movie era. She's well-spoken, and it's quite enjoyable to watch her talk about her books and various other topics.

Most, maybe even all stories ever written can be categorized into a very small number of different formats, and if you look really close, most follow a particular structure, with some minor variants. By now it's very hard to be innovative, and it's not that easy to come up with something that hasn't been written an X number of times before. You basically select some elements, maybe come up with some new-ish rules for the universe, throw them together using one of said formats, and voila! New story.

Personally I love fantasy, some variants of sci-fi, the occasional real-world fiction, detective-fantasy, some myth-based fantasy, and a little bit of various other genres. I also have a guilty pleasure when it comes to YA fantasy/sci-fi, because while some of the writing is a bit simple, the stories in them are often fun and adventurous, and the characters often get places much faster than some of the other stories.
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#5 Old 2nd Dec 2018 at 1:23 AM
Oh yeah, I love sci-fi/fantasy (listing all the relevant subgenres is tedious, so I'll just use that as a blanket term, but I think people know that it refers to more than just that) with a passion, but I also think you'd be hard-pressed to find examples that really move the literary canon in a way that will make them "great" books 100, 200, 500 years from now. The only one that I think you could maybe argue that for is, again, Tolkien, and that has more to do with defining the genre in such a compelling way that he spawns a century of imitators, rather than his actual prose being so incredible. Science fiction in particular (within this overly large circus tent of an umbrella-term of 'sci-fi/fantasy') does have the potential to paint the future in compelling ways that can lead to new lines of thought (Isaac Asimov is definitely first and foremost here, but others like Kim Stanley Robinson or William Gibson can be seen in a similar light).

Rowling doesn't achieve either though- they're great books in that they're fun to read, and they certainly stick with you (I mean, what started this was me asking a question about several never-visited, seldom-mentioned locations from a series of books that concluded more than 10 years ago, and plenty of people not only knew what I was talking about, but had informed and reasoned opinions on the question- obviously it sticks with you), but they don't push any real boundaries in storytelling.

Welcome to the Dark Side...
We lied about having cookies.
Theorist
#6 Old 2nd Dec 2018 at 1:24 AM
Not only are Shakespeare's histories just histories, but they are propaganda pieces to promote the Tudor dynasty. And as you already wrote, even the "original stories" often aren't, the story of Romeo and Juliet (or Romeus and Juliet) was the topic of several novels before Shakespeare adapted it for the screen.

Thing is though, Rowling isn't the "new Shakespeare" in cultural impact. During Shakespeare's time it was easier to be Shakespeare; the world was smaller (at least from a Western point of view), fewer people wrote, there was less access to fiction etc. etc. etc. It was easier for a person to have that much impact.
She was a good author when she wrote the books. Personally I found the world she created a little bit too dystopian for my tastes, but that's my own mindset, and doesn't blind me to the good work she did do with the books. And I find it a bit tragic how she holds on to them. I can understand it must be very hard for her to have this thing sitting in her past and being worried that those books, no matter how good, might have been their peak of her career. Mary Shelley suffered similar difficulties after the success of Frankenstein.
So I can understand her holding on to Harry Potter, but by now I think she might be better off just writing a sequel series where she can play out all her new ideas with new characters instead of retroactively forcing them into her old stories.
I would be mildly curious what happened to the kids (because that bad fanfic they accidentally turned into a play can't be canon) and whether the Wizarding world ever grew beyond their appalling conditions, rampant nepotism, racism etc. etc. etc.

As I wrote, I'm confident that the Harry Potter books will be remembered and read for many generations to come, but I think she doesn't quite have the same, culture defining impact as Shakespearean plays. Otherwise many, many authors are "the new Shakespeare".

Avatar by MasterRed
Taking an extended break from Sims stuff. Might be around, might not.
Mad Poster
#7 Old 2nd Dec 2018 at 2:14 AM
I'm pretty sure, though, that Rowling never in her wildest dreams ever thought that she'd spawn such an 'empire of Hogwarts' as she wrote the first book. I think she was looking for literary success, but would settle for financial if it came to that.

It's been said that actors get typecast in the roles they repeat-and so do authors. Nobody who has ever read her books will ever think she is capable of serious literature, even when she herself is struggling to break away from the "Empire" that she herself created. It's a mixed blessing-on one hand, she's done the impossible but also the inevitable by being kept in the same genre by her own success. I don't know if she can break out of it, or that anyone would allow her to.

Other authors have done so, but at a cost to their readership. it's quite a trick to defy your audience when they're expecting you to repeat the same old stuff with new renditions of it. So far, only Stephen King has done it but even he has had a few bad books that he'd rather not have seen the light of day.

Receptacle Refugee & Resident Polar Bear
"Get out of my way, young'un, I'm a ninja!"
Grave Matters: The funeral podium is available here: https://www.mediafire.com/file/e6tj...albits.zip/file
My other downloads are here: https://app.mediafire.com/myfiles
Alchemist
#8 Old 2nd Dec 2018 at 3:13 AM
Well, you can only compare what you know, right? So to me the Shakespeare comparison seemed apt. But Dickens does, too. I'd love to hear your reasons on that, @Sunbee. I didn't mean to imply that YA literature didn't exist before HP, but rather that YA as a publishing market did not. That the YA market was created because of not only it's universal appeal, but because it was crowding the Children's Lit market. You don't get Twilight and Hunger Games without HP, imo.

So, in my head, Shakespeare makes sense to me because Harry Potter is such a watershed moment in pop culture, literature, and in the publishing world. I can't predict the future, but given the amount of people (and different types of people) that want to dress up in robes, grab a wand, and immerse themselves in the HP world... Yeah, of the books of the late 20th/early 21st centuries, I think the HP series will endure and be one of the ones we talk about. Will others be talked about? Absolutely. But will they be as well known and ubiquitous as the HP series? Again, only time will tell. The thing that truly might stop it from reaching that status, however, might be the HP series' lack of universality. Shakespeare has many different works with so many different universal themes, building on those older stories, as others mentioned. I don't know if we can reinvent HP the way books and movies retell Shakespeare now. HP's reach seems to be limited to fantasies. Wouldn't it be funny if in 100 years no one remembers it, though? I can't imagine what that world would look like.

As for my feelings on Rowling, I had said before that she's starting to seem like a one trick pony. The ways she is choosing to expand her universe do not impress me (or apparently, many others). She's adding to it in a way that makes me go "meh. I don't know if I needed that." I was originally very excited about Fantastic Beasts because it would be the first time I could go to the movies with a blank state and no expectations. Just have fun. But the best characters were the side characters, the beasts were underwhelming/nonessential, and for the life of me I couldn't understand why Newt was the main character. I can't shake the feeling that Rowling was trying to create a Harry who was not Harry. Tina or Jacob would've made such better leads! But anyway, I agree with simmer22 in that she should have either made it a series first and then made movies (or do a tv series) because they are trying to cram too much into the movies.

I think Rowling was best in the earliest books and as I continued to read I just disliked so many choices of where she took the story. It's hard to give examples because I don't really remember books 6 and 7, as I only read them once or twice, but the big ones were the epilogue (Albus Severus?!), the horacruxes, having the final book take place outside of the school (that one I understood, but it still made me sad), and the Ginny and Harry thing (Team Cho is a lonely, sad island. I was always waiting for Cho to redeem herself and for her and Harry to find a way back together, but Rowling took the easy route and choose to put Harry with the girl who already had a crush on him and therefore would make a relationship wouldn't need much explaining/depth.). Basically, as the books went on she kept introducing new magical themes, but they were overly complicated for me.

...I guess the best way to sum up my feelings for HP and Rowling is that in so many pieces of media, be it books, tv, or movies, a series starts and has a certain vibe and pitch. As the series goes on, it's supposed to grow and maybe change a little, but it shouldn't really be doing a 180, you know? At the very least that turn should not be abrupt; the readers should be moving with the characters & story. But in so many stories, you feel that turn. Things will start off lighthearted and fun and great, and then all of a sudden things stop. And get "Serious." (Read that with a capital S and a deep tone, please.) Characters have to stop doing all the things you love and the story has to focus on Important Things now because they have to Save The World and Fight Evil. Etc. HP does this. It's a little weird to say, considering that there are seven books and the reader is supposed to grow up and change with Harry, but... I didn't. Or we grew in different directions, idk. In short, I guess, is that I think the balance is off and that I don't think J.K. stuck the landing. I feel this is the reason why I feel so ambivalent about Fantastic Beasts--I think that balance of fun and serious is off and not mixed well. The tones aren't meshing. So I don't know if Rowling has the stuff to improve and come up with something new. She seems to be content with staying in the HP box and fiddling with things that don't need fixing.

"May the sunlight find you, thy days be long, thy winters kind, thy roots be strong." -Grand Oak Tree, DAO

XPTL Mod Archive | Change a Mod's Mesh into a CC Object | Increasing the Game Difficulty | Editing ACR 4 Your Age Mod
Bored? Read an unfinished legacy or sim story. | aka Kelyns | she/her
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#9 Old 2nd Dec 2018 at 3:41 AM
I guess what I was trying to say earlier with regards to Shakespeare though, is at the time, his plays were NOT a watershed moment. They were enjoyed and seen by lots of people, but so were plays by lots of other people who are either only known to people who are super interested in 16th-Century English Theatre, or have just vanished from the public consciousness altogether. In 100 years, will people still remember HP? I'm sure they will, but that's too short a timeframe to really judge a book's staying power based on. I don't think it'll surprise anyone that I think Tolkien is the most likely 20th Century author to still be in heavy rotation in 500 years, but at this point, the 20th Century ended less than two decades ago... we're nowhere near far enough removed to even be able to judge books from the first half of that century, let alone right up at the end of it.

And I fully agree with your take on the balance of fun and seriousness with HP and its spinoffs (let's be real, Fantastic Beasts is a spinoff.) I might put the transition point one book later than you, but the last three books absolutely lose some of the 'whimsy' that makes magic fun. I would argue that balance has been almost completely lacking in just about everything Rowling has put out post-DH too; hence why the Fantastic Beasts films haven't managed to capture the magic (pun intended) of the earlier films. I don't think they're aware enough to fix that though, since the direction they're going only seems like it can get darker.

Welcome to the Dark Side...
We lied about having cookies.
Alchemist
#10 Old 2nd Dec 2018 at 4:39 AM
That could be a whole discussion in itself, trying to think about what books will last the test of time. That's why I said late 20th/early 21st century--I started thinking about the books HP has to compete with in the rest of the 20th century... Competition is steep. But yeah, 100 years is probably too short; I didn't mean it literally. But now I'm seriously wondering who will be the "winner" of the last 100 years and how many of my old professors would get upset that Harry Potter will probably be remembered more than something like The Great Gatsby. Anyway.

Quote: Originally posted by Zarathustra
I would argue that balance has been almost completely lacking in just about everything Rowling has put out post-DH too; hence why the Fantastic Beasts films haven't managed to capture the magic (pun intended) of the earlier films. I don't think they're aware enough to fix that though, since the direction they're going only seems like it can get darker.


You don't know how much I went when you said the d word. (Dark.) I really think the whole "dark" thing is a really bad Warner Bros problem. In some of their biggest franchises, (HP & DC comics) they've no idea when to lighten up and when to get serious and how to find the balance in both. They try so hard to be taken seriously, that they lose a little of what makes you love the characters in the first place. Realism in that studio house seems to mean dark colors and serious expressions and instead of character arcs we get random jokes/lighthearted scenes, because see, that's how you show a character has depth! You throw a joke in there.

Now I do feel that the main problem with Fantastic Beasts is that Rowling choose the wrong protagonist, but I can definitely see the WB influence there, too. Thinking about HP and then the "DCEU" (in quotes because apparently Warner Bros never decided to call it the DC Extended Universe and they don't have a term for it ), I see similarities and a studio that seems to be more concerned about the look and feel of a world instead of characters and story arcs. Except with DC, they don't know where they're going, so they have no clue how to show their stories & characters' arcs, and with Rowling & FB, she knows where she's going but not how she wants to get there, so, similarly, is having problems telling a good story and arc. It's just disappointing because the setting is just about the least important factor in a good story, imo, even in movies. That's why a movie like The Princess Bride (or insert your favorite movie here) can endure without any grand special effects. The characters and their journeys/arcs are compelling. Does it help if the movie is beautiful? Sure. But you don't need it. (So maybe, when it's time to choose a new setting for a boarding school with lots of outdoor activities, don't choose a craggy mountain side and a castle with an open air corridors, even if they're geographically accurate, cuz it doesn't fit with the story you're trying to tell! Sorry. But Prisoner of Azkaban makes me so upset.)

"May the sunlight find you, thy days be long, thy winters kind, thy roots be strong." -Grand Oak Tree, DAO

XPTL Mod Archive | Change a Mod's Mesh into a CC Object | Increasing the Game Difficulty | Editing ACR 4 Your Age Mod
Bored? Read an unfinished legacy or sim story. | aka Kelyns | she/her
Mad Poster
#11 Old 2nd Dec 2018 at 2:25 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 2nd Dec 2018 at 10:55 PM.
Another issue with the movies is that it seems they're trying to do too much - particularly the last one. You've got several loose ends, and all you end up with is a big, messy knot with a few pieces of a color you didn't even use poking out. The whole dropping of previously unknown (and one familiar that logically shouldn't be there) names in the movie currently make no sense. I hope they will make sense in the end, though.

I remember I had some of the same feeling with the hallows in the 7th book. Sure, they were explained, but I kind of felt they were a bit jammed in, since except for the cloak and just a couple very vague descriptions of the stone, there was no prior mention of them (that couldn't have been explained away otherwise). The horcruxes, while late to the party, had a fair explanation and a purpose, and we'd already seen one in action and spotted a few more throughout the books if paying enough attention. The 7th book with a little bit of rewriting may even have been able to function without the hallows at all (would've been considerably shorter, though - that storyline takes up at least a good third of the book). I keep thinking they may have been a "way back in", because the new movies are based on the whole storyline between Dumbledore and Grindelwald.
Mad Poster
Original Poster
#12 Old 2nd Dec 2018 at 10:10 PM
This is why I'm inclined to think JK should stay with writing books where there's much more creative freedom as far as what should or should not be included (although yes, I do also agree with you about the 7th book being a little 'jammed in').

Something that occurs to me as potentially being a related issue is that of pacing, especially with the Fantastic Beasts movies. With the Harry Potter books, there was a clear and obvious reason why there were going to be 7 of them from pretty early on in the series, and so it was easy to see why certain narrative decisions were or were not made (like, Dumbledore's death falling where it does makes sense when you consider it as building to a climax that's almost been reached, and where the audience KNOWS that it's almost been reached). Seven years at Hogwarts = seven books. Pretty easy. Sure, the story could have continued on beyond seven years, I suppose, but that would have just felt... weird.

With the Fantastic Beasts films though, we've gone from there being three films to there being five films, but without a clear narrative reason for either choice. I think this kind of makes pacing difficult, since a) it changed unexpectedly, and more importantly, b) why is this a story that should be told in 5 parts? There's not obvious narrative breaks like there are between Harry's school years, so choosing 5 'episodes' just feels arbitrary.

Welcome to the Dark Side...
We lied about having cookies.
Mad Poster
#13 Old 2nd Dec 2018 at 11:07 PM
Exactly. It's almost like she wants to put in way to many details and tell too much wth these movies, so they feel unneccessarily crammed while not really getting anywhere - and yet there's no real goal in sight (except for the obvious Dumbledore/Grindelwald fight in the end, possibly anyway). The first movie didn't feel as crammed, but at the same time it felt a little on the side of what curently seems to be the actual storyline. I guess it was meant to be more of a character study on Newt, and it did work as a standalone movie but with some samples of what was to come. The second movie didn't leave me with the same feeling at all. I kept thinking, "is this it?", particularly after the last reveal. I even watched the credits just in case there was a post-credit scene, because there were so many weirdly tangled and/or out of the blue loose threads at the end.
Theorist
#14 Old 3rd Dec 2018 at 3:39 AM
Books and Movies, especially Holllywood movies are just two different pairs of shoes, and just like with plays, what works in one doesn't work in the other, and being skilled at one doesn't make you skilled at the other.

That's part of the reason why adaptions are often so different from their sources.

And btw, I'm serious, if she'd write a sequel series to HP, I'd definitely buy it.

Avatar by MasterRed
Taking an extended break from Sims stuff. Might be around, might not.
Mad Poster
#15 Old 4th Dec 2018 at 6:36 AM Last edited by Justpetro : 4th Dec 2018 at 6:46 AM.
I enjoyed reading the Harry Potter series.

I have also enjoyed reading a bunch of other books, and there is no reason why I would put Rowling on the same level as Shakespeare, except that I will admit both of them are British

Rowling wrote a much longer than normal story for children; a good and entertaining one, but as far as I am concerned - that is that.

The themes Shakespeare explored - tragedies and comedies - may have been based on existing stories which may have some truth to it (and I admit not liking all of them) - but the English language has benefited from the words he invented, and we might have been calling curtains by another name if not for him. He is on another level than most playwrights. (The Venda people seem to like the name Portia and I had 4 of them in a class once).

Of course South Africa has great writers too (two of ours won the Nobel prize for literature).

We also have the Spud books, written by John van de Ruit, which is aimed at a slightly older audience than Harry Potter, have been made into movies (starring John Cleese too) and may not have any magic in it, but in a way, they are magic You can read about them here: http://spudbooks.co.za/books/spud

Edit: I will admit to having read exactly one chapter of Twilight. That was, as far as I am concerned, more than enough.
Mad Poster
#16 Old 4th Dec 2018 at 10:48 AM
I still haven't seen Fantastic Beasts 2. 1 wasn't bad, but people seem to like 2 less.
Mad Poster
#17 Old 4th Dec 2018 at 11:57 AM
Now as far as Dickens is concerned - I believe he may have been the first soap opera writer in the world - if I am not mistaken, he sold his books in chapters at the end of the week.

Dickens has created some amazing characters in my opinion - I am especially partial to young Pip in Great Expectations, have never succeeded in forgiving Miss Havisham or Estella and cannot see the faintest resemblance between Dickens and Rowling.

As for Harry Potter and friends - they are likable, and I rather enjoyed Hermione being a total academic wreck - but I did not find the story that original - magic stories have been around for ages, so has the fight between good and evil.
There are some moments when Harry is tempted - nothing new to that either.

I have not enjoyed the movies nearly as much as the books - so I do not plan to watch any Fantastic Beasts myself.
Top Secret Researcher
#18 Old 5th Dec 2018 at 2:40 AM Last edited by lordtyger9 : 5th Dec 2018 at 5:23 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by Justpetro
Now as far as Dickens is concerned - I believe he may have been the first soap opera writer in the world - if I am not mistaken, he sold his books in chapters at the end of the week.

Dickens has created some amazing characters in my opinion - I am especially partial to young Pip in Great Expectations, have never succeeded in forgiving Miss Havisham or Estella and cannot see the faintest resemblance between Dickens and Rowling.

As for Harry Potter and friends - they are likable, and I rather enjoyed Hermione being a total academic wreck - but I did not find the story that original - magic stories have been around for ages, so has the fight between good and evil.
There are some moments when Harry is tempted - nothing new to that either.

I have not enjoyed the movies nearly as much as the books - so I do not plan to watch any Fantastic Beasts myself.


"Charles John Huffam Dickens was an English writer and social critic. He created some of the world's best-known fictional characters and is regarded by many as the greatest novelist of the Victorian era." Wikipedia

Charles Dickens published 21 Novels that are still famous today after 180 Years and have never been out of print. I have not read them all, but I have read several.

"Joanne Rowling, CH, OBE, FRSL, FRCPE, FRSE, writing under the pen names J. K. Rowling and Robert Galbraith, is a British novelist, philanthropist, film producer, television producer and screenwriter, best known for writing the Harry Potter fantasy series." Wikipedia

First book published in 1997, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. I did read all 7 of the Harry Potter books, but none of the others. I don't think J. K. Rowling is in the same league as Charles Dickens. I have my doubts that her work will be continously in print for 180 years, I don't think that the Harry Potter books are that out standing. I first watched the first movie and then I went to library and checked out the first book of the series. I did not buy any of the books. I did think that the books were better than the movies, but that is not really surprising as books are usually superior to the movie that it is based on.

I have watched the first Fantastic Beasts movie, but I have Not read the book as I didn't feel motivated to do so, I have no particular plans on watching the sequels, though I might.

for info on changing the Mac Open File Limit check out my post here http://www.insimenator.org/index.ph...html#msg1628939
Curiosity killed the cat,
but satisfaction brought it back.
Forum Resident
#19 Old 5th Dec 2018 at 7:00 PM
I think the comparisons to Shakespeare and Dickens are apt. Both were popular writers in their day. Neither were considered- at their time- to be great literature. Time and analysis by culturally influential (generally white, Western male) people have convinced us of their importance. In 150 years, after decades of university courses on Snape and Dumbledore, maybe they too will be considered some of the greatest fictional characters. Lindsay Ellis (one of my fav YouTubers) has a great video discussing who decides books are important.

I can't fault Rowling for going back to the Harry Potter franchise. A generation was raised on those books, and no one wants to say goodbye to the vivid world she created. And I'm sure all the publishers and studios who became billionaires off of her work didn't either. Same thing happened with George Lucas, same thing is happening with George RR Martin now. If they don't create them, someone else will come around with a cheap imitation story in about 5-10 years (hello, Sword of Shannara). I'm a giant fantasy nerd, so I don't mind the chance to see more of these stories, even if they're not as good as the originals. I don't think Fantastic Beasts could ever make a movie so bad that it would ruin my childhood enjoyment of the original Harry Potter series.
Mad Poster
#20 Old 5th Dec 2018 at 7:02 PM
I grew up - as many generations here have - with our own little witch - which I would translate as "Beloved Little Witch" - she is a very incompetent and forgetful little witch, but does have a heart of gold. While she tries hard to help fight the evil enemies of her home, Flower Land, she tends to cast the wrong spells and often summons her horse by accident. This leads, of course, to interesting situations. Fortunately she does have some good friends in the form of a brilliant little elf and a dignified cat and the King has a soft spot for her.

She made it into a weekly television series here and 52 episodes were made, all based on the books and quite true to them.

I am not sure that has anything to do with Harry Potter Perhaps just that the idea of witches and warlocks did not bowl me over.
Top Secret Researcher
#21 Old 7th Dec 2018 at 12:07 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Justpetro
I grew up - as many generations here have - with our own little witch - which I would translate as "Beloved Little Witch" - she is a very incompetent and forgetful little witch, but does have a heart of gold. While she tries hard to help fight the evil enemies of her home, Flower Land, she tends to cast the wrong spells and often summons her horse by accident. This leads, of course, to interesting situations. Fortunately she does have some good friends in the form of a brilliant little elf and a dignified cat and the King has a soft spot for her.

She made it into a weekly television series here and 52 episodes were made, all based on the books and quite true to them.

I am not sure that has anything to do with Harry Potter Perhaps just that the idea of witches and warlocks did not bowl me over.


I am not familiar with the stories about the "Beloved Little Witch" naturally enough living in Southern California like I do, but having read a lot of Fantasy stories I was not bowled over by Witches and Wizards either. I did like how there was a School for Witches and Wizards, that was the main thing that was sort of new I think.

for info on changing the Mac Open File Limit check out my post here http://www.insimenator.org/index.ph...html#msg1628939
Curiosity killed the cat,
but satisfaction brought it back.
Mad Poster
#22 Old 7th Dec 2018 at 9:13 AM
The Beloved Little Witch - her name is Lavinia and the books were not, as far as I know, translated into English - It would be hard, I think, because of the catching use of language.

Harry Potter and company, in my opinion, could have been anything else for the story to work - if Harry's parents were criminal investigators and his parents were killed by a syndicate (it happens, doesn't it?). Or he could have been an alien with some powers that humans do not have. The magic component is quite colorful and I also appreciated the school - the teachers are certainly interesting, and I admit to laughing out loud about the ghost teaching History.

I don't think the books will disappear in the future at all - and neither should they, because those books are said to turn non-readers into readers (I guess good marketing must have played a role here - because there certainly are other books who can turn non-readers into readers too). Yet there are many popular novels out there which will hopefully stay in print (I have always loved, for instance, the Phillipa Carr/Victoria Holt novels; own every single Inspector Morse novel by Colin Dexter, keep reading my Agatha Christie books and will walk miles to find the latest new Lee Child book) - and some local novels as well (here is a link to the (English) books of my favorite local author - written in Afrikaans but translated into more than 40 languages by now - .
https://www.deonmeyer.com/b_books.html Deon Meyer has been in negotiations for a while about a Hollywood film series starring Bennie Griessel.



When a book is a joy to read, it should never vanish from print.

It does not, however, change the author into William Shakespeare a number, even a large number, of popular books will not change anyone into the Bard of Avon.
Back to top