The last two books I have read are Harry Potter year 1 and 2. Before that I read Lord of the Rings. It's been an interesting back to back series. J.R.R. can write extremely well. He tells a great story and moves me with the words that he uses. J.K. doesn't really know how to write. It's just the case. She tells a good story and creates wonderful characters, but doesn't have any capacity to command the language (for God's sake leave adverbs alone unless you know how to use them!).
But that's no surprise.
Here are some things that I have thought of in these reading experiences:
LOTR is a book about Sam having children. That's really it. Everything in the series is family, but Sam's in particular.
Harry Potter is pretty funny, which I didn't expect. Fred and George are sweet. Does every book make the school hate Harry and think he's bad and then turns out he's actually the good and saving guy?
Do you think that Sam goes to the Grey Havens as it said in the appendix? It leaves it open as a tale of legend, which is definitely a part of LOTR, and I think he does, but I like how it could just be legend.
Everyone says Rowling hits her stride in year 3, which I hope is true. I have enjoyed the first two books, but to be honest, not all that much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I can't wait to read LOTR some day...I'm nearly the only person left on this planet who has only read the Hobbit. Anyway, I agree with you about HP, I read the first two books as well and stopped. There were just other things I found more pressing to read I suppose.
When I read the first two HP books, in high school, I thought they were a pleasant way to fill time. But I remember when finished the third, I think I sat there with my mouth hanging open for a bit, and then pulled out the first two to confirm details and plot points. I was blown away by the complexity and how BIG the story was.
Unfortunately there's no way for you to experience them so purely; they're too popular, too hyped, and you're too old. I know I would feel very very different about these books if I were just reading them for the first time now.
To me, this is what matters: both LOTR and HP are series of books that I love to be in. I care about the characters, I love them. There are lots of people who think Tolkien was an awful writer, too wordy, too dry--boring (I disagree wholeheartedly and felt somehow betrayed when I found out not everyone loved LOTR the way I did). I remember reading LOTR, and being so involved in the story (I was 11) that I was hiding under the kitchen table reading as fast as I could, practically skimming becasue I needed to know what was going to happen so badly.
Whatever shortcomings these authors have, there's no denying that they have each created something wonderful. Not perfect, no, but perfection is not what we read those books for.
That was rather long...but you asked a lot of questions!
AZF: ask and you shall receive
Don't worry AZF, I have also only read The Hobbit, but I think that it will take me a while to read Lord of the Rings because if I do read them, my husband might not ever talk to me about anything else.
haha, amen. a woman after my own heart...
I have absolutely no desire to read LOTR. Maybe the movies just made me bored of it. Maybe geeks who think that elves are awesome ruined it.
But I'd rather read Gravity's Rainbow and Danielle Steele.
Sorry.
As for Harry Potter. #3 and 4 start to suck you and then you can't stop. You're right, she's a bad writer.
I was reading a NYTimes review of the new movie and they tore apart the young actors for not bringing more life to the characters... the fact is, JK made them one dimensional. The film versions of those characters are far more complex... alas.
so why did you read them and encourage me to read them? i don't understand.
and you should read LOTR. they are really good. sucka!
oh wait. did you mean to say 3 and 4 start to suck you in? because you said they suck you.
i think we all need to step back and understand that first and foremost j.k. is a children's author. she hasn't written anything else. she has not made a world as complex as tolkien nor was that her intention. for children's books the HP series is pretty damn sexy (in a literary sense). what rowling has done with this series is amazing. what other series that you can think of has this much fanfare when a book is released? are they the greatest books of all time? no, not even close. yet, sometimes we need to read for fun just as sometimes we need to watch a movie for fun.
Rowling hits her stride in year 4. i have to shower. i smell like stale beer.
I agree with you to a certain extent big al, the books are for kids and they written to "just be enjoyed"...but when you refuse to follow the rules of grammar, it's not because you are writing for children, it's because you are a bad writer. And that makes them pretty hard to keep picking up.
i would agree to an extent, big al. i'm not holding rowling up to the standard of tolkein, there are few writers of fantasy that can be held up to him.
but i think that the 'she's a children's writer' and 'don't pretend she has to be a good writer to write for children' is kind of stupid. because there are brilliant writers who white for children, and that attitude that she writes for kids so who cares how she writes puts those who actually can write well down.
also. i have every intention of finishing the series, and i did enjoy the first two books. just not as much as many people, which does not make me a jerk, or an asshole or a literary bigot. it's just the case.
for all the years i have been a harry potter fan i have never heard rowling and great writer in the same sentence. great story teller, yes, great writer, no. what rowling does is tell a hell of a story and there is something great about that. she isn't a bad writer, she's just a storyteller who writes. the first two books are poop. they are boring and full of seemingly useless information.
one of the wonderful things about these books is she still references the first book in the sixth. so some of that boring tripe turns out to be important.
I did say they start to suck you... eeehhhhh *pulling collar*...
No, they are a lot of fun. That's what I meant....
They are nothing like a blow job.
i stopped reading after wh's post where he misspelled elfs. as everyone knows, JRR was very fond of spelling it "elfs" rather than elves. this was a fight with his publisher, and JRR won. so if you please, wh, elfs.
i think the potter author's ability (versus, say, Tolkien's) as a writer comes through in how we refer to these texts. when one is reading Lord of the Rings, one says, "I'm reading Tolkien." When one is reading the Harry Potter books, one says just that. "I'm reading the Harry Potter books." Maybe this is why people like them. They can read a book in which the characters tickle just enough that they forget that they are reading a book with an author.
But golly, do I love the Potter movies!
i'm sick of this: "the first/first two book(s) are bad, wait till you get to book three!" that's shit and you all know it. i read the first book and it was crap. at the time, everyone said, "oh, of course you dont like it, the first one isn't any good. you have to keep going..." now i'm told i must get to book three. one sucked. why i should bother with two or three is beyond me.
here's the best book i've read in 4 months:
http://www.amazon.com/Orange-Pear-Apple-Emily-Gravett/dp/1416939997
Post a Comment