Why does GRRM hate on Harry Potter?

[Caligula_K]

[quote name='Artas' post='1590082' date='Nov 15 2008, 12.41']No, it was all *she* did, by belittling a genre she obviously didn't know well at all. She deserved that comment.[/quote]

Also, mean spirited and hurtful is a bit far. The media made a big deal out of the comment, but most of it was a criticism of bad journalism and the comment towards Rowling seemed to be poking fun more than being mean. I think it was a funny response to a comment that, as Artas said, completely belittled the genre she was writing in.

[Mister Manticore]

I suppose if we wanted to, we could blame it all on bad journalism and news coverage.

[Cosmic Dancer]

Basically, GRRM is very bitter about losing the hugo to Rowling so he doesn't like HP anymore. It's kind of childish.

[Bellis]

I'm pretty sure I heard that Obama read all the HPs to his daughters. It's a sweet tidbit and because they are such popular books it says little about what he prefers to read.

He's also left-handed, but I picked that up in one of the debates.

[Derfel Cadarn]

[quote name='Isis' post='1589200' date='Nov 14 2008, 12.56']She said something along the lines of, 'I didn't realise at the time that I was writing a fantasy story'. Pratchett wrote to the [i]Times[/i] taking the piss out of her, and saying were the wizards, spells, and imaginary creatures not a bit of a clue that it was a fantasy.[/quote]

In fairness, considering the earliest books, she probably considered it a childrens story rather than fantasy, in the same way that Enid Blyton's Famous Five is considered children's fiction and not crime fiction.

[Fenny]

[quote name='Mister Manticore' post='1590114' date='Nov 15 2008, 18.16']I suppose if we wanted to, we could blame it all on bad journalism and news coverage.[/quote]

Or we could blame it on JKR saying something incredibly dense. Pratchett was perfectly right to take the piss out of her. He's worked loyally at increasing the reputation and social acceptability of fantasy. It won't have been very pleasant for him to see a writer make bags of money from her heavy use of fantasy tropes and at the same time try to distance herself from them. If you think Pratchett's very mild and good-humored teasing was 'mean', god knows what you'd make of a real insult.

[quote]In fairness, considering the earliest books, she probably considered it a childrens story rather than fantasy, in the same way that Enid Blyton's Famous Five is considered children's fiction and not crime fiction.[/quote]

Because the Famous Five is full of murders and the usual apparatus of the crime genre?

[Mister Manticore]

[quote name='Fenny' post='1590469' date='Nov 15 2008, 22.01']If you think Pratchett's very mild and good-humored teasing was 'mean', god knows what you'd make of a real insult.[/quote]

Something even worse for his cause? Apparently he managed to get his message regarding media coverage very garbled. Can't imagine that helped at all.

[Artas]

[quote name='Mister Manticore' post='1590500' date='Nov 16 2008, 06.24']Something even worse for his cause? Apparently he managed to get his message regarding media coverage very garbled. Can't imagine that helped at all.[/quote]

That's a weird comment. Is it Pratchett's fault that the BBC and outraged Potter fans twisted his comments out of context? He even went out of his way to [url="http://www.wizardnews.com/story.20050802.html"]clarify[/url] his point.

[quote]Let's take it a bit at a time. You know what I wrote, because I think the entire text has been quoted here somewhere. No, in fact not the *entire* text--the original letter sent to the Sunday Times referred to JKR quite politely as Ms Rowling; a small courtesy, but deleting it makes the relevant sentence twice as harsh, which may be why it was done.

And the BBC website put a nice little spin on thing on things with a headline suggesting I'm directing a tirade at J K Rowling, rather than expressing annoyance at the habits of journalists and specifically one telling phrase* clearly used by someone else*.

As soon as the Harry Potter boom began, journalists who hadn't read a children's book in years went "Wow, a wizards'school! Wow, broomstick lessons! " and so on, and generally acted as though the common property of the genre was the entire invention of JKR. This continues, sometimes quite ridiculously. And now we have Groomsman's 'knights and ladies Morris dancing to Greensleeves' With such an easy wave we can dismiss, oh, Ursula leGuin, Diana Wynn Jones, Jane Yolen, Peter Dickinson Alan Garner...fill in the list.

Pointing this out is, apparently, an attack on JKR. I don't have any problem at all with her rise, only with such third-party silliness such as the above, which insults good authors who wrote great books at a time, not long ago, when advances were always low and hype was unknown.

(...)

But out there now, I believe, are various morphs of the BBC piece, with extra venom. You don't have to think about it, just react. 'Pratchett Attacks Journalist' just would not be as much fun. Every story needs a villain, right?[/quote]


I really can't see what you're blaming him for.

[Nearly Headless Ned]

Ursula K Leguin has a few things to say about JKR as well.

[url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/dec/17/booksforchildrenandteenagers.shopping"]http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/dec/1...nagers.shopping[/url]

[Derfel Cadarn]

[quote name='Artas' post='1590563' date='Nov 16 2008, 06.47']That's a weird comment. Is it Pratchett's fault that the BBC and outraged Potter fans twisted his comments out of context? He even went out of his way to [url="http://www.wizardnews.com/story.20050802.html"]clarify[/url] his point.


I really can't see what you're blaming him for.[/quote]

I agree his comments were likely taken out of context though it's ironic you seem to have done the same thing with J K Rowling's comments. "It wasn't until after Sorcerer's Stone was published that it even occurred to her that she had written one." It doesn't say she was in denial about writing fantasy or that she felt she had 'transcended it'. Given that when she wrote the first one she was an unemployed single mother writing the book in cafes to save money on heating, I doubt she spent a lot of time mulling over genres.

She isn't a big fan of fantasy? So what. It doesnt mean she holds it in contempt or is 'above it', she just doesnt read it. She didnt turn up to collect the Hugo, an award she had probably never heard of? Maybe she had pressing issues like finishing her books and raising her children to go swanning off to America (I assume it is awarded there) to collect an award? It's a hell of a hassle just to collect an award that can be mailed.

One thing that pisses me off a bit is people making big assumptions about author-quotes to fit their own beliefs. GRRM hasa wink at Robert Jordan by having Jordyne of the Tor? People start going "Oooh, he thinks Jordan is a sell out because he has a quill on green checks." GRRM makes a tongue-in-cheek post about Obama reading HP and collecting comics? He must *hate* Harry Potter or be consumed with envy. Terry Pratchet makes a remark about Rowling not realising she had written fantasy? ALl of a sudden he is "bitter" and accusing her of besmirching the whole genre. Geez, people, no wonder some authors are wary of interviews or making comments, with hordes of rabid fans/haters ready to twist each word to fit their own agenda, never considering they can't read tone or facial expression through words, or that the journalist may have skewed things.

:rolleyes:

[Mister Manticore]

[quote name='Artas' post='1590563' date='Nov 16 2008, 04.47']That's a weird comment. Is it Pratchett's fault that the BBC and outraged Potter fans twisted his comments out of context?[/quote]

In any communication, there's responsibility on all sides. That his words could be so twisted due to some ill-chosen comments puts some fault on him, yes.

Taking a different route wouldn't have left him so vulnerable to being misunderstood.

[quote]He even went out of his way to [url="http://www.wizardnews.com/story.20050802.html"]clarify[/url] his point.[/quote]

Having to clarify the point of his remarks is exactly why I feel he failed in his responsibilities. Especially since that's the very thing he was complaining about happening.

[Artas]

[quote name='Mister Manticore' post='1590718' date='Nov 16 2008, 17.51']In any communication, there's responsibility on all sides.[/quote]

Sorry, that's a bit too easy. If someone misrepresents my words, that's not my fault.

[quote]Having to clarify the point of his remarks is exactly why I feel he failed in his responsibilities. Especially since that's the very thing he was complaining about happening.[/quote]


That would be true if his original comment had been somehow unclear or ambiguous. To me, however, it seems perfectly straightforward:

[quote]WHY IS it felt that the continued elevation of J K Rowling can only be achieved at the expense of other writers (Mistress of magic, News Review, last week)? Now we learn that prior to Harry Potter the world of fantasy was plagued with "knights and ladies morris-dancing to Greensleeves."

In fact the best of it has always been edgy and inventive, with "the dark heart of the real world" being exactly what, underneath the top dressing, it is all about. Ever since The Lord of the Rings revitalised the genre, writers have played with it, reinvented it, subverted it and bent it to the times. It has also contained some of the very best, most accessible writing for children, by writers who seldom get the acknowledgement they deserve.

Rowling says that she didn't realise that the first Potter book was fantasy until after it was published. I'm not the world's greatest expert, but I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds, jumping chocolate frogs, owl mail, magic food, ghosts, broomsticks and spells would have given her a clue?[/quote]

[Artas]

Derfel,

My main beef is with this comment:

[quote]"I was trying to subvert the genre," Rowling explains bluntly. "Harry goes off into this magical world, and is it any better than the world he's left? Only because he meets nicer people. Magic does not make his world better significantly. The relationships make his world better. Magic in many ways complicates his life."[/quote]

By claiming this is somehow new ("subvert the genre"), Rowling does not do justice to many of the fantasy writers who came before her. In a genre that has been struggling for literary recognition ever since Tolkien, I can imagine that did not land well with everyone. Hence the comments by Pratchett and Ursula Le Guin.

As for your general point, I agree with that. I also think that it was mainly the journalist's elaboration on her remark that blew this thing out of proportion. But the remark was there, nonetheless.

[Mister Manticore]

[quote name='Artas' post='1590724' date='Nov 16 2008, 10.59']That would be true if his original comment had been somehow unclear or ambiguous. To me, however, it seems perfectly straightforward:[/quote]

And he'd have been much better if he'd left off the last bit. He's responsible for writing them. I have no real objection to the first two paragraphs, but the last is a problem. He'd have been much smarter to not say it, because adding it just gave the media the ammunition.

[Ormond]

[quote name='Artas' post='1590735' date='Nov 16 2008, 11.10']By claiming this is somehow new ("subvert the genre"), Rowling does not do justice to many of the fantasy writers who came before her. In a genre that has been struggling for literary recognition ever since Tolkien, I can imagine that did not land well with everyone. Hence the comments by Pratchett and Ursula Le Guin.[/quote]

I'm a fan of Rowling myself, but I agree that her comment about "subverting the genre" shows she hadn't read much fantasy, and what she had read was probably primarily fantasy books written for young children.

But she admitted as much in the [i]Time[/i] interview, when she said she'd never finished either [i]Lord of the Rings[/i] or [i]Narnia[/i]. So her comment is one made by someone who really doesn't have knowledge about what she's criticizing.

Knowing how reporters operate, Rowling told [i]Time[/i] much more than is quoted in the piece, and she may well have said other things which would have modified the judgment in the quote. But we really shouldn't expect someone who admits she hasn't read much fantasy to be making an accurate critique of the whole genre.

I was fascinated, though, by her complaint about C. S. Lewis's treatment of Susan's budding sexuality. Rowling has exactly the same complaint about Lewis that Philip Pullman does. The distaste toward Lewis's views on teenage sexuality isn't confined to atheists by any means. :)

[Fenny]

[quote name='Ormond' post='1591081' date='Nov 17 2008, 00.42']I was fascinated, though, by her complaint about C. S. Lewis's treatment of Susan's budding sexuality. Rowling has exactly the same complaint about Lewis that Philip Pullman does. The distaste toward Lewis's views on teenage sexuality isn't confined to atheists by any means. :)[/quote]

The strange thing is that in 1998, Rowling [url="http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1998/0798-telegraph-bertodano.html"]claimed[/url] that she would 'read and re-read the Narnia books'. She did rather a u-turn.

[Mister Manticore]

Or the reporter managed to put a whole different spin on what she really said....whichever one it was.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Her criticism about Susan's treatment in Narnia's The Last Battle is spot on. In The Silver Chair Eustace and a girl (can't remember her name offhand) attend a secular school and it's portrayed as a bully-infested hellhole.

[alguien]

[quote name='Derfel Cadarn' post='1591145' date='Nov 16 2008, 22.01']Her criticism about Susan's treatment in Narnia's The Last Battle is spot on. In The Silver Chair Eustace and a girl (can't remember her name offhand) attend a secular school and it's portrayed as a bully-infested hellhole.[/quote]

Neil Gaiman wrote an interesting and fairly graphic short story on this very subject titled "The Problem of Susan."

[Fenny]

[quote]Or the reporter managed to put a whole different spin on what she really said....whichever one it was.[/quote]
Her affection for C.S. Lewis is attested elsewhere - in another Electronic Telegraph article from 1998, and in Comic Relief (2001) and in The Australian (1998).

[quote]I was fascinated, though, by her complaint about C. S. Lewis's treatment of Susan's budding sexuality. Rowling has exactly the same complaint about Lewis that Philip Pullman does. The distaste toward Lewis's views on teenage sexuality isn't confined to atheists by any means.[/quote]
And I'm no a Lewis fan, but I think a case could (and has been) made that Susan's rejection from Narnia in TLB is not about sex at all, but about what she has chosen to prioritise.