continuing in the lit versus film major vein...
this is actually enjoyable.
choi says in his xanga (a word of warning: it's very interesting, but also EXTREMELY text-heavy and angst-ridden):
I don't think it's really fair to say Harry Potter doesn't deserve to be mentioned alongside Narnia and LotR.
Those two franchises, Lord of the Rings moreso than Narnia, are credited with shaping the world of modern fantasy. But is *better* really the right word? Over 50 years after LotR, is it still the franchise to beat? Rings exists for what it is, and it is untouchable [I won't talk much about Narnia because it appears to hold a lot of personal meaning to those with faith (of which I have very little), because I've only read 1 1/2 books of it and because I just don't like it]. But I will say that if Rowling delivers on the final book in the saga without resorting to deus ex machina or cliche or killing off Luna or Lupin (she'd better not!), Harry Potter can take its rightful throne among the other legendary works of fantasy fiction in the Great Fantasy Franchise Castle In The Sky.
Potter is to fantasy fiction what Tarantino's Kill Bill is to Kung Fu and samurai pictures, a tribute as well as a damn good new saga in itself that adds to the depth and breadth of fantasy fiction by expanding its audience and serving as a gateway between those interested in various sorts of magic. The book "The Sorcerer's Companion" really helped me see just how deep Rowling's rabbit hole goes. Rowling takes mythological creatures, settings, people, artifacts, legends, ideologies and concepts and merges them with something familiarly grounded in the present. She got me interested in mythology. Kill Bill did the same; it made me want to seek out all those Sonny Chiba movies, and those ancient Hong Kong serials that inspired the man so much... not to mention all the Bruce Lee movies. In Tarantino's case, Kill Bill begins and ends in American households, and in Potter's case, the setting of a British boarding school serves as a backdrop for the story.
Potter is unique because the pace with which the books are released allows the series' readership to grow along with its protagonist, and the movies and merchandising and websites and fans' correspondence with the author allow it to become so much a part of the lives of its fans that it transcends the pop labels put on it. Great fantasy is transporting, and while it can be interpreted as escapist, there are always layers to peel away that push it above and beyond the by-the-numbers thrillers disguised as fantasy fiction that you see on shelves all the time nowadays (the Star Wars extended universe novels, the new Dune novels, etc). I don't consider Potter to be as escapist as most fantasy series.
Sure Harry Potter comes with the elements of what many would consider to be typical teenage themes (the bullies, the making out, the fights between friends), but consider how Rowling takes into consideration that the younger readership has changed throughout the years. Back in Tolkien's time it was not uncommon for children of 10 or 11 to pick up and read The Hobbit, then go on to finish Rings before hitting puberty. The Rings novels have a very casual and unstructured arc of development; Fellowship of the Ring has absolutely no real structure at all. Nowadays there is so much great fantasy coming out (The Dark Tower series, Artemis Fowl, Eragon, The Wheel of Time, Dragonlance, etc) that the creation of a popular, enduring saga has to be adaptive, has to change throughout the years, change in tone throughout its tomes and even within each one. This is why I am strongly for a new director for each Potter film.
In a world where everything has been done before, to the point where fashion has turned to emo - basically an amalgam of old and new, a style that embodies fusion and contradiction - it is the works that merge together different elements and successfully create a new and more enriched whole that truly stand out. A thriller nowadays has to be more than a thriller; the action elements have to be action-packed, and the comedy elements have to be funny. Shaun of the Dead is a classic because it is a buddy-movie, a romantic comedy with zombies and a parody of zombie films, while at the same time paying tribute to them, especially Romero's Dawn of the Dead. Monty Python and the Holy Grail takes medieval Europe on a comic spin (totally butchering Camelot), and The Nightmare Before Christmas is about what would happen if Halloween took over Christmas. PJ's LotR takes both the conservative and radical viewpoints presented in Tolkien's work and manages to create a work that has a little something for everyone. Potter takes the elements of the age-old, deep-down-to-the-core-of-human-nature Dante's Inferno kind of stories and mixes them with more modern elements of teen angst and drama, and life in a world where what is essential constantly seems to be out of reach for its youth. Neville, Luna, Harry, Hagrid, Lupin, Sirius, Tom Riddle himself... all come from tragic backgrounds. All contribute something to the themes of the series.
I am going off on a lot of different tangents here, but I think my point is that Harry Potter will be deservedly remembered as one of the defining, if not among the great, fantasy series of our time.
god, i miss that guy. he's even better than robee to squabble with. otherwise i just feel my brain cells totally disintegrating... and you'll have me, like, using, like, "like" in the same sentence, kinda like, over and over, you know! like yeah! duh! like, exactly!
okay, affection for the said article's author aside, allow me to launch into my rebuttal/agreement.
i have never said that the story of Harry Potter had anything lacking. one might remember that i must have shed buckets of tears over the death of Sirius Black (and please note that i will send a Howler with an enclosed Sectusempra curse to Rowling, myself, if she ever kills of Remus as well); i am a fan of Alastor Moody and a firm member of those "I trust Severus Snape" shirt-wearers. i can identify with both Professor McGonagall and Hermione; and choi might remember that i have enjoyed traipsing through the magical world of witchcraft and wizardry any number of times through my enigmatic and identity-confused Mary Sue alter-ego, Minstrel Lehman-Force (who has now gained the former identity of Nimue Evermoor; kindly check my fanfiction account for details if and when i ever update it). it is not that i hate the books. i mean, my hardbound copy of The Half-Blood Prince is still in its plastic wrapping several months after i recieved it. i've read the book; but i refuse to open mine, for fear the outside world might sully its pristine condition.
rather, what i despise most about Harry Potter is the juvenile and unsophisticated way it is written. Many times - far too many - have I wanted to (and actually did) whip out my pen or pencil and scribble all over the pages in an attempt to exorcise what Dogbert would call the "vile demons of stupidity", a.k.a. (to an obsessive-compulsive like myself) grammatical errors and poorly-worded phrases. in fact, i am generally this way over any badly-written "literature": i did the same thing to my first copies of The Lord of the Rings, simply because Tolkien likes to drone on and on as if all his readers have the patience, intellect, and lifespan of the Elves. digging through the prose was a chore; but as i got used to it, my mental muscles began seeing the uncut diamonds of words for what they were, instead of chunks of mud. as you know, eventually the story behing the writing, the world behind the book captivated me, until i could forgive (or at least see right through) sentences as long as a page and simply enjoy unraveling the mysteries of Middle-Earth. and so it was with Harry Potter: except that this series was so to the other extreme in its simplistic methods of narration that i grew more disenchanted with it the more i read it. in the end, what keeps me reading is the ease with which i can simply forget the writing and look at the images it brings to light.
as a writer, mainly, Harry Potter insults me. as a reader and lover of stories, i have nothing against it; i will, in fact, support it. as a literature major, i cannot stand for it save as a "contamination of a fairy tale", a re-vision (not revision) one might say. Jack Zipes, in his article "The Contamination of the Fairy Tale", talks about the way the Brothers Grimm injected their own culture and times into the stories that had been passed on by word of mouth to them. "contamination" in this case simply means to render as impure, not including the degenerative or derogatory implication; just as vaccines "contaminate" the human body, making it stronger against disease and improving its chances for survival. in this sense, Harry Potter may indeed stand for the present and future of out literature. i give it that much.
however, you will still not compare it to either LotR or Narnia until it has reached the age that they have by now, without being lost to the tide of other retellings and revisionings, most of whom - though certainly not as well-marketed - are just as well-told and most times better-written than our popular bespectacled hero's tale. nor will you place Rowling upon a pedestal the same elevation as Lewis's or Tolkien's, unless you would like to put Tanith Lee, Margaret Atwood, and (yes, i respect him now) Niel Gaiman there as well.
more on this topic when i can use the net again.
choi says in his xanga (a word of warning: it's very interesting, but also EXTREMELY text-heavy and angst-ridden):
I don't think it's really fair to say Harry Potter doesn't deserve to be mentioned alongside Narnia and LotR.
Those two franchises, Lord of the Rings moreso than Narnia, are credited with shaping the world of modern fantasy. But is *better* really the right word? Over 50 years after LotR, is it still the franchise to beat? Rings exists for what it is, and it is untouchable [I won't talk much about Narnia because it appears to hold a lot of personal meaning to those with faith (of which I have very little), because I've only read 1 1/2 books of it and because I just don't like it]. But I will say that if Rowling delivers on the final book in the saga without resorting to deus ex machina or cliche or killing off Luna or Lupin (she'd better not!), Harry Potter can take its rightful throne among the other legendary works of fantasy fiction in the Great Fantasy Franchise Castle In The Sky.
Potter is to fantasy fiction what Tarantino's Kill Bill is to Kung Fu and samurai pictures, a tribute as well as a damn good new saga in itself that adds to the depth and breadth of fantasy fiction by expanding its audience and serving as a gateway between those interested in various sorts of magic. The book "The Sorcerer's Companion" really helped me see just how deep Rowling's rabbit hole goes. Rowling takes mythological creatures, settings, people, artifacts, legends, ideologies and concepts and merges them with something familiarly grounded in the present. She got me interested in mythology. Kill Bill did the same; it made me want to seek out all those Sonny Chiba movies, and those ancient Hong Kong serials that inspired the man so much... not to mention all the Bruce Lee movies. In Tarantino's case, Kill Bill begins and ends in American households, and in Potter's case, the setting of a British boarding school serves as a backdrop for the story.
Potter is unique because the pace with which the books are released allows the series' readership to grow along with its protagonist, and the movies and merchandising and websites and fans' correspondence with the author allow it to become so much a part of the lives of its fans that it transcends the pop labels put on it. Great fantasy is transporting, and while it can be interpreted as escapist, there are always layers to peel away that push it above and beyond the by-the-numbers thrillers disguised as fantasy fiction that you see on shelves all the time nowadays (the Star Wars extended universe novels, the new Dune novels, etc). I don't consider Potter to be as escapist as most fantasy series.
Sure Harry Potter comes with the elements of what many would consider to be typical teenage themes (the bullies, the making out, the fights between friends), but consider how Rowling takes into consideration that the younger readership has changed throughout the years. Back in Tolkien's time it was not uncommon for children of 10 or 11 to pick up and read The Hobbit, then go on to finish Rings before hitting puberty. The Rings novels have a very casual and unstructured arc of development; Fellowship of the Ring has absolutely no real structure at all. Nowadays there is so much great fantasy coming out (The Dark Tower series, Artemis Fowl, Eragon, The Wheel of Time, Dragonlance, etc) that the creation of a popular, enduring saga has to be adaptive, has to change throughout the years, change in tone throughout its tomes and even within each one. This is why I am strongly for a new director for each Potter film.
In a world where everything has been done before, to the point where fashion has turned to emo - basically an amalgam of old and new, a style that embodies fusion and contradiction - it is the works that merge together different elements and successfully create a new and more enriched whole that truly stand out. A thriller nowadays has to be more than a thriller; the action elements have to be action-packed, and the comedy elements have to be funny. Shaun of the Dead is a classic because it is a buddy-movie, a romantic comedy with zombies and a parody of zombie films, while at the same time paying tribute to them, especially Romero's Dawn of the Dead. Monty Python and the Holy Grail takes medieval Europe on a comic spin (totally butchering Camelot), and The Nightmare Before Christmas is about what would happen if Halloween took over Christmas. PJ's LotR takes both the conservative and radical viewpoints presented in Tolkien's work and manages to create a work that has a little something for everyone. Potter takes the elements of the age-old, deep-down-to-the-core-of-human-nature Dante's Inferno kind of stories and mixes them with more modern elements of teen angst and drama, and life in a world where what is essential constantly seems to be out of reach for its youth. Neville, Luna, Harry, Hagrid, Lupin, Sirius, Tom Riddle himself... all come from tragic backgrounds. All contribute something to the themes of the series.
I am going off on a lot of different tangents here, but I think my point is that Harry Potter will be deservedly remembered as one of the defining, if not among the great, fantasy series of our time.
god, i miss that guy. he's even better than robee to squabble with. otherwise i just feel my brain cells totally disintegrating... and you'll have me, like, using, like, "like" in the same sentence, kinda like, over and over, you know! like yeah! duh! like, exactly!
okay, affection for the said article's author aside, allow me to launch into my rebuttal/agreement.
i have never said that the story of Harry Potter had anything lacking. one might remember that i must have shed buckets of tears over the death of Sirius Black (and please note that i will send a Howler with an enclosed Sectusempra curse to Rowling, myself, if she ever kills of Remus as well); i am a fan of Alastor Moody and a firm member of those "I trust Severus Snape" shirt-wearers. i can identify with both Professor McGonagall and Hermione; and choi might remember that i have enjoyed traipsing through the magical world of witchcraft and wizardry any number of times through my enigmatic and identity-confused Mary Sue alter-ego, Minstrel Lehman-Force (who has now gained the former identity of Nimue Evermoor; kindly check my fanfiction account for details if and when i ever update it). it is not that i hate the books. i mean, my hardbound copy of The Half-Blood Prince is still in its plastic wrapping several months after i recieved it. i've read the book; but i refuse to open mine, for fear the outside world might sully its pristine condition.
rather, what i despise most about Harry Potter is the juvenile and unsophisticated way it is written. Many times - far too many - have I wanted to (and actually did) whip out my pen or pencil and scribble all over the pages in an attempt to exorcise what Dogbert would call the "vile demons of stupidity", a.k.a. (to an obsessive-compulsive like myself) grammatical errors and poorly-worded phrases. in fact, i am generally this way over any badly-written "literature": i did the same thing to my first copies of The Lord of the Rings, simply because Tolkien likes to drone on and on as if all his readers have the patience, intellect, and lifespan of the Elves. digging through the prose was a chore; but as i got used to it, my mental muscles began seeing the uncut diamonds of words for what they were, instead of chunks of mud. as you know, eventually the story behing the writing, the world behind the book captivated me, until i could forgive (or at least see right through) sentences as long as a page and simply enjoy unraveling the mysteries of Middle-Earth. and so it was with Harry Potter: except that this series was so to the other extreme in its simplistic methods of narration that i grew more disenchanted with it the more i read it. in the end, what keeps me reading is the ease with which i can simply forget the writing and look at the images it brings to light.
as a writer, mainly, Harry Potter insults me. as a reader and lover of stories, i have nothing against it; i will, in fact, support it. as a literature major, i cannot stand for it save as a "contamination of a fairy tale", a re-vision (not revision) one might say. Jack Zipes, in his article "The Contamination of the Fairy Tale", talks about the way the Brothers Grimm injected their own culture and times into the stories that had been passed on by word of mouth to them. "contamination" in this case simply means to render as impure, not including the degenerative or derogatory implication; just as vaccines "contaminate" the human body, making it stronger against disease and improving its chances for survival. in this sense, Harry Potter may indeed stand for the present and future of out literature. i give it that much.
however, you will still not compare it to either LotR or Narnia until it has reached the age that they have by now, without being lost to the tide of other retellings and revisionings, most of whom - though certainly not as well-marketed - are just as well-told and most times better-written than our popular bespectacled hero's tale. nor will you place Rowling upon a pedestal the same elevation as Lewis's or Tolkien's, unless you would like to put Tanith Lee, Margaret Atwood, and (yes, i respect him now) Niel Gaiman there as well.
more on this topic when i can use the net again.