Harry Potter 7 (meta, no spoilers in post)
I want to talk briefly about perspective.
Sometimes, I go read comments and ratings at Amazon or IMDB. One thing I've slowly come to realize about the rating systems these sites employ is that they're basically superfluous. Having written a rating parser myself for work, I'm aware of the contortions necessary to make ratings meaningful in an environment where there are no consequences for rating.
For example, find any popular, well-liked and well-known movie at IMDB. Chances are good, if you read through the user comments, you'll see some negative ratings. For almost every negative rating, the rating will be one; that is, the minimum possible rating allowed. This is an actual comment title for The Godfather, widely regarded as one of the finest movies ever made: "Good but not the greatest movie by far". Rating? One star out of ten. Here's a comment, bizarre quote marks intact:
"The Godfather" is a 'terrible' film. It's 'the worst' movie I've seen in a decade. The acting in this film is 'excruciatingly painful'. The whole family are 'watered down Sopranos' who show some phenomenally strong 'lack of' chemistry. The 'boring' weeding scene is the 'highlight'.
Naturally, one star out of ten. Even commenters who admit the movie is a good movie give it one star out of ten. Some commenters include their own rating ('I give it 3 out of 5') and still rate it 1/10 in the official rating system.
I have seen terrible movies. I've watched all of the Dungeons and Dragons movie. I've watched late-night Showtime original movies. I've seen the garbage Sci-Fi tries to shovel out at us. Whatever I think of the Godfather, I would be totally fucking insane if I tried to claim it's on the level of those movies -- if, in other words, I claimed it was a 1/10.
Enter The Deathly Hallows. I've now heard several people -- some of whom I actually know personally and respect -- claim they 'hated' the book, and that it 'sucked'. Oh really? Have you not actually read Magic: The Gathering licensed fiction? Or J.V.Jones' excremental The Baker's Boy?
(In the interests of disclosure, I finished the novel last night in the wee hours, and believe it's the best book of the series, with a level of maturity and competence that was sorely missing from the early books, and only started gradually emerging in the fifth and sixth books. Granted, I don't really like Harry Potter all that much, so being the best of what I consider a decent but not amazing series isn't exactly like shouting hosannahs to the heavens over the book, but I liked it well enough to read it in one sitting.)
The keyword here is perspective.
HP7 is not the worst book ever. If you have any glimmering of that thought in your mind, whether you identify as a fan or not, please go take a cold shower and calm the fuck down. You're insane, and should seek medication.
HP7 is not a terrible book. That's distinct from 'worst book ever' in that it's something that a reviewer with any desire to maintain some scrap of credibility might say. The Baker's Boy is a terrible book. Fiction-by-numbers mystery novels by talentless no-names in the remainers bin? Those are terrible books. HP7 is not. Take a deep breath: perspective.
HP7 is not a mediocre book. If it was, you wouldn't care. I have shelves full of mediocre books towards which no one has ever directed ire, anger, hatred or venom. Seriously; there are some Dean Koontz novels on my shelves that are utterly forgettable and impossible to hate because how could you muster enough 'give a damn' to do so?
HP7 is not badly written. I've read a lot of tortured sentences. I've read Hubbard's wretched droppings, Rand's twisted abuse of the unfamiliar English language, King's stilted and uncomfortable dialogue, and dozens of no-name writers whose mastery of grammar and word choice are tenuous at best. Rowling's writing is workmanlike, servicable, occasionally clever, and is sufficient to get the characters, the plot, and the setting from her head into my head. If more writers could manage to stop masturbating for long enough to just tell the damn story, as she's done, I'd be a happier reader.
HP7 did not need an editor. It had one. Seriously, I promise you, cross my heart and hope to die, it had an editor. We're talking about a multimillion dollar franchise that depends on each book being as exciting and well-received as the last. They didn't just have an editor -- they had their best editor. I guarantee it. People who don't write professionally, or who don't work in a creative industry, like to imagine the author/designer/artist as a pompous self-important artiste who can take no criticism and who, once successful, shoves aside any editors/QA/critics in a huff. That's bullshit.
Now, to the nasty bit. Sorry if the next two paragraphs offend you, but it has to be said.
Only fans think the book sucked. The reviewers all say basically the same thing: 'It's a good, satisfying end to the series. The middle bit dragged some.' Only self-identified HP fans are flipping the fuck out. That's why I mention 'perspective', so let's come back to it. If you have been investing a large portion of your self-esteem in this series of novels and the fandom that surrounds it, you need some perspective. Take a step back and think about it. Did you wait in line for this book? In fucking costume? Did you have a party? Did you camp out at midnight? Have you been embroiled in arguments about the plot for the last year? How in the name of god could any book ever live up to that level of expectation?
And here's my final suggestion about perspective: if you are someone who believes that HP fanfic is 'better written' or 'truer to the characters' or any other similar pile of bullshit: I'm sorry Snape doesn't end up buggering Harry in the canonical storyline. Have a tissue, go cry somewhere else.
Sometimes, I go read comments and ratings at Amazon or IMDB. One thing I've slowly come to realize about the rating systems these sites employ is that they're basically superfluous. Having written a rating parser myself for work, I'm aware of the contortions necessary to make ratings meaningful in an environment where there are no consequences for rating.
For example, find any popular, well-liked and well-known movie at IMDB. Chances are good, if you read through the user comments, you'll see some negative ratings. For almost every negative rating, the rating will be one; that is, the minimum possible rating allowed. This is an actual comment title for The Godfather, widely regarded as one of the finest movies ever made: "Good but not the greatest movie by far". Rating? One star out of ten. Here's a comment, bizarre quote marks intact:
"The Godfather" is a 'terrible' film. It's 'the worst' movie I've seen in a decade. The acting in this film is 'excruciatingly painful'. The whole family are 'watered down Sopranos' who show some phenomenally strong 'lack of' chemistry. The 'boring' weeding scene is the 'highlight'.
Naturally, one star out of ten. Even commenters who admit the movie is a good movie give it one star out of ten. Some commenters include their own rating ('I give it 3 out of 5') and still rate it 1/10 in the official rating system.
I have seen terrible movies. I've watched all of the Dungeons and Dragons movie. I've watched late-night Showtime original movies. I've seen the garbage Sci-Fi tries to shovel out at us. Whatever I think of the Godfather, I would be totally fucking insane if I tried to claim it's on the level of those movies -- if, in other words, I claimed it was a 1/10.
Enter The Deathly Hallows. I've now heard several people -- some of whom I actually know personally and respect -- claim they 'hated' the book, and that it 'sucked'. Oh really? Have you not actually read Magic: The Gathering licensed fiction? Or J.V.Jones' excremental The Baker's Boy?
(In the interests of disclosure, I finished the novel last night in the wee hours, and believe it's the best book of the series, with a level of maturity and competence that was sorely missing from the early books, and only started gradually emerging in the fifth and sixth books. Granted, I don't really like Harry Potter all that much, so being the best of what I consider a decent but not amazing series isn't exactly like shouting hosannahs to the heavens over the book, but I liked it well enough to read it in one sitting.)
The keyword here is perspective.
HP7 is not the worst book ever. If you have any glimmering of that thought in your mind, whether you identify as a fan or not, please go take a cold shower and calm the fuck down. You're insane, and should seek medication.
HP7 is not a terrible book. That's distinct from 'worst book ever' in that it's something that a reviewer with any desire to maintain some scrap of credibility might say. The Baker's Boy is a terrible book. Fiction-by-numbers mystery novels by talentless no-names in the remainers bin? Those are terrible books. HP7 is not. Take a deep breath: perspective.
HP7 is not a mediocre book. If it was, you wouldn't care. I have shelves full of mediocre books towards which no one has ever directed ire, anger, hatred or venom. Seriously; there are some Dean Koontz novels on my shelves that are utterly forgettable and impossible to hate because how could you muster enough 'give a damn' to do so?
HP7 is not badly written. I've read a lot of tortured sentences. I've read Hubbard's wretched droppings, Rand's twisted abuse of the unfamiliar English language, King's stilted and uncomfortable dialogue, and dozens of no-name writers whose mastery of grammar and word choice are tenuous at best. Rowling's writing is workmanlike, servicable, occasionally clever, and is sufficient to get the characters, the plot, and the setting from her head into my head. If more writers could manage to stop masturbating for long enough to just tell the damn story, as she's done, I'd be a happier reader.
HP7 did not need an editor. It had one. Seriously, I promise you, cross my heart and hope to die, it had an editor. We're talking about a multimillion dollar franchise that depends on each book being as exciting and well-received as the last. They didn't just have an editor -- they had their best editor. I guarantee it. People who don't write professionally, or who don't work in a creative industry, like to imagine the author/designer/artist as a pompous self-important artiste who can take no criticism and who, once successful, shoves aside any editors/QA/critics in a huff. That's bullshit.
Now, to the nasty bit. Sorry if the next two paragraphs offend you, but it has to be said.
Only fans think the book sucked. The reviewers all say basically the same thing: 'It's a good, satisfying end to the series. The middle bit dragged some.' Only self-identified HP fans are flipping the fuck out. That's why I mention 'perspective', so let's come back to it. If you have been investing a large portion of your self-esteem in this series of novels and the fandom that surrounds it, you need some perspective. Take a step back and think about it. Did you wait in line for this book? In fucking costume? Did you have a party? Did you camp out at midnight? Have you been embroiled in arguments about the plot for the last year? How in the name of god could any book ever live up to that level of expectation?
And here's my final suggestion about perspective: if you are someone who believes that HP fanfic is 'better written' or 'truer to the characters' or any other similar pile of bullshit: I'm sorry Snape doesn't end up buggering Harry in the canonical storyline. Have a tissue, go cry somewhere else.