Writers and their reviews

[selenak]

In the last week, we had two famous authors reviewing Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: Stephen King, who loved it to bits (except for some minor reservations about Ms. Rowlings' use of adjectives, which he phrases very good naturedly), and said so here and A.S. Byatt, who was very bitter about the entire Potter phenomenon here.

King's review caused pleased agreement except among Pullman fans who were disgruntled about him liking the HP saga better. Now I have to confess I still haven't read His Dark Materials, mostly because I keep running into Pullman's interviews, and the guy keeps irritating me. Mostly due to his C.S. Lewis complex. I have yet to read a Pullman interview in which he does not trash C.S. Lewis. And you know, while I find Lewis' judgement on Susan in the last Narnia novel horrible, I wonder whether Pullman couldn't stick to making his "Religion in children's novels (or anywhere else) BAAAAAAD" point in fiction, because he sounds as doctrinaire as Lewis ever was, just with another dogma to preach, and without Lewis' wit.

So, anyway. Several of my friends did read His Dark Materials and assure me it's impressive and deep and innovative. And it might very well be infinitely superior to the Potter saga from a literary point of view. (I love the Potter books, but I can think of several writers in the genre who surpass Rowlings.) Yet I have the sneaking suspicion that when I get around to reading them, I could be inclined to agree with King. Because, you know - Rowlings doesn't patronize her readers, nor does she preach. And if Pullman's narrative voice is anything like his interviews, he does.

Speaking of patronizing: The most dissappointing thing about A.S. Byatt's article is the judgement it passes, not the one on the Potter books, but on their readers:
"Ms. Rowlings' magic world has no place for the numinous. It is written for people whose imaginative lives are confined to TV cartoons, and the exaggerated (more exciting, not threatening) mirror-worlds of soaps, reality TV and celebrity gossip."
As someone who enjoys Byatt's novels (not just Possession but also The Virgin in the Garden, Still Life and Babel Tower, and her essays on painters and literature), Rowlings' books, Pratchett's books (he's a writer she does approve of), and hey, King's books (well, about two thirds of them) as well, I feel stunned by the snobbery. More detailed discussion of Byatt's article can be found here (by someone who like me enjoys Byatt's own work) and here (by someone who does not).

Comments

not actually in regards to your post...

[crushw-eyeliner.livejournal.com]

well, not this particular one - other than I've read His Dark Materials, and while I can see why it could be considered more 'literary' - his imagined alternate universe in Oxford, the style of his writing - and while I enjoyed the trilogy...it all blurred together for me ultimately. There was a passage about love that struck me as rather beautiful at the time, but other than scattered details like the names of the lead characters: Will, Lyra, I can't remember too many specifics about them - whereas I can tell you quite a lot about Harry's world and the people in it.

I think, at the end of the last Pullman book, there is actually a positive note about C.S. Lewis, though again I can't be sure - (it's quite pathetic, really. I read them only about seven months ago...I think.)

*sigh*.

Oh yes, my original intention - I borrowed the Alison Weir novel about Mary, Queen of Scots, after following your posts (and saava's recommendation). I'll be reading her right after I finish Margaret Mahy's The Changeover.

And about other writers surpassing Rowlings...have you ever read Diana Wynne Jones? Now there's a woman who can plot.

Re: not actually in regards to your post...

[selenak.livejournal.com]

If you read Weir's take on Mary, I have to insist you read Susan Kay's take on Elizabeth, "Legacy".

Diana Wynne Jones: yes, I've read some of her work, and I agree about her being the superior writer. I also think that, for example, Neil Gaiman surpasses JKR, since he can not only build worlds but is also a wonderful wordsmith, who can write astonishingly beautiful phrases.

Thankfully, for us readers, there is no reason to fall into an either/or camp. One can love Harry Potter and any of the above.

Pullman wrote something positive about CSL? Colour me stunned. If you find the time, could you look up the quote for me.

Done, done and done.

[crushw-eyeliner.livejournal.com]

I really have to stop going to the library and borrowing more books, when I have piles of unfinished stories to read - but I can't help it. I think it's the Ravenclaw in me. I have written Susan Kay's name down.

DWJ fills me with glee, as does Neil Gaiman - DWJ never fails to charm me with her sense of humor and tight plotting, and Neil takes me away with his language and vision - I've been a fan of his Sandman series, I adore Good Omens to pieces (though, that could be Pratchett's influence as well), Neverwhere and American Gods are some of my favorite re-read books, and his blog is just damn entertaining.

I will inevitably return to the library before the weekend, and I will look up that CSL quote.

:)

We Ravenclaws have to stick together!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

It's a pity that Joss didn't pester Neil Gaiman into writing an episode for Buffy the way JMS did for Babylon 5, isn't it?

[oyceter]

I only read the bit of the King interview that had to do with His Dark Materials, but I was a little irked that King thought HDM was the only contemporary comparable to Harry Potter. I do like HP a great deal, but I think King is ignoring a great deal of good writing that happening in YA fantasy right now.

Personally, I love both HDM and HP. I think "literariness" is a kind of narrow judgment, considering that a huge number of people writing what we consider literature today started out as pop phenomena. I think both books have their points, although I think HDM made me think a great deal more on good and evil and large questions like that. I've only read one interview, and in that one he states his dislike of the fantasy genre. I figured then I'd let it go and not let the author's views influence my views of his work. Although I love the greying of the Potterverse, it's a very very different world from Pullman's.

I'm just being long winded and trying to say give His Dark Materials a chance and maybe ignore Pullman's annoying interviews?

Okay, will do.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Try to ignore the interviews and appreciate HDM by itself that is. I just got a full cast audio version as a present, and I do love radio plays based on books.

Re: Okay, will do.

[oyceter]

Ooo nice. I've never quite done the audio book/radio play bit, although the boy and I listened to about half of the BBC's radio production of Lord of the Rings. Who's in the production?

The only names I recognised...

[selenak.livejournal.com]

...were Emma Fielding and Terrence Stamp. As people called Mrs. Coulter and Asriel respectively. Will listen as soon as possible. Incidentally, I thought the BBC LotR was fabulous.

[saava.livejournal.com]

I haven't read Byatt's essay about HP because when I heard what she'd said, it greatly disappointed me. I want to still love her work, and I'm afraid that if I read the article I'll begin to dislike her as a person and not be able to enjoy her books as fully.

I've read the first two books in the His Dark Materials trilogy and I agree that they could be considered more literary than HP. But at the same time, they're less full of *life* and therefore a lot less entertaining to me. And frankly, all the religious stuff is either boring me or going over my head.

By the way, I'm going to add you to my friend's list. I've been enjoying our conversations about books. :)

I suppose...

[selenak.livejournal.com]

...we're lucky Shakespeare never gave interviews. Imagine what a complete prat he might have been about Beaumont & Fletcher, and how embarassing his enthusiasm for an idiot like Essex .

Thanks for the friending. I'm enjoying our debates, too.

[jidabug.livejournal.com]

I agree completely with your assessment of HDM. They just didn't *grab* me like the HP books have, and I found them a bit dull and tedious in places.

But at least with HDM I didn't spend a lot of time dwelling on the language, because I agree with King in that Rowling has a heavy hand with the adverb.

Re:

[saava.livejournal.com]

I have to say that I didn't notice Rowling overusing adverbs. Perhaps because I tend to read HP books *very* quickly and don't really pay too much attention to word choice.