Writers and their reviews
Jul. 9th, 2003 09:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakIn 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).
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).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: not actually in regards to your post...
Date: 2003-07-09 07:00 am (UTC)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.
Date: 2003-07-09 12:21 pm (UTC)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!
Date: 2003-07-10 10:46 am (UTC)