"I hate Prophecies": A Rant

[slyc_willie]

My daughter tells me that files purporting to be the new book have been downloadable for weeks now.

And she says that two people she knows of downloaded the file and read it and decided that it was a hoax-- that what they had was inferior fan fiction. They then got their genuine copies on the 15th, and found them to be the same book as the one they'd downloaded-- which still read like inferior fanfic...

Ouch.

 

[bluebell]

Aghast

Okay, I'm actually going to respond to the thread in a proper manner now- meaning I read it through with "prophecies" rather than "popsicles".

I don't want to turn everything all around from 3's original question of the prophecy to the question of whether Rowling is a good writer, but I suppose I shall comment on each, as the thread wears on more and more blame seems to be laid at her feet.

First, in terms of prophecies in general, their presence or non-presence never really bothered me, so I can't say that I completely join in with 3's peeve on the subject. That being said, however, I can understand where she's coming from.

It seems to me that what irritates most is the cookie-cutter nature of sci-fi and fantasy plotlines. The fact of the matter is, when you dissect them, prophecies and a bunch of other well-worn devices are used to get the characters from Point A to Point B.

I would never call Christopher Paolini's Eragon series brilliantly plotted (I can hear you snorting, Stella. Just bear with me here), and in fact I always kind of look at them as his way of saying that yes, everything is just a re-hashing of what has always been said in another way. Whether you enjoy the way it's presented is up to you and your sniffer.
He's taken bits from so many acclaimed books and recycled them for his own stories. But you know what? I like them, dammit. I do. I enjoy the way he words most things, the way he describes the scenery, and how he writes his characters.
Hell, even his characters are just more recent examples of many who have been written before, but I refuse to let that ruin the story for me. I acknowledge it and move on, knowing that my enjoyment will outweigh my annoyance.

I think, dearest 3, that it's a battle which might not be won. There might never be anything completely brilliant or original in its entirety, but mostly projects which encompass glimmers of such things.
Is that not the same principal we use to find out what music we like, what TV shows tickle us, or what movies make us happy?
"There is nothing new under the sun", and sooner or later it just comes down to committment: do the bad things make you crazy enough to call it quits, or do the good things outweigh the crap?

Second, as to the assertions that Rowling is not a good writer: I'm shocked that you all think that way. Really!
I'm not saying she's the most fabulous person that ever touched pen to paper, but I do think she's gifted.
I'm rather inclined to react to those opinions with these explanations:

1) Maybe the over-popularity has clouded the fact that if one truly hunkers down inside her language, there is serious good.
It's easy to dispense with something once it feels over-exposed to the point of "Ugh."
I tend to feel that way myself, and usually run screaming for the hills when I know scads of people have jumped on a bandwagon such as this.
But every time I open up those books, I'm confronted with the truth that this fame is not for nothing. (Regardless of how they're fucking up the current movie-to-date)
The woman has made magic. Sure, she's basically working within those same confines I mentioned above, but for what it is, she weaves words wonderfully. The pages practically crinkle with electricity, scenery, and a culture all ours and yet still all its own; particularly in the first four books.

In fact, maybe we've all become so interested to know "what happens" that we've forgotten to look at how "what happens" all comes together within the framework. It puts so much pressure on a plot, and the plot is not the whole of writing. Very important, yes, but with co-pilots.

2) Possibly it's easier to dismiss what's being read as trite or not so great precisely because it is so bloody great.
Like watching tennis. Seeing Roger Federer (currently ranked #1 in the world, and has been so for the last few years) play his clear, crisp game and barely without breaking a sweat makes it look so easy. He can finish off an opponent in the neat, orderly way one would expect to see a chef make sushi.
And yet when I watch other matches, I see the sweating, the labor, the running and grinding of nerves; the utter breakdown of watching the gears crank out shot after shot.
There's a reason this man is so highly ranked. It's not easy.

Rowling has basically redefined a small part of the english language. That is no small feat. Just because it's been blown up into a swarm of marketing and movies doesn't take away from the fact that this woman sat in a small cafe, years ago, and began to pen this immense thing.
She's classically educated in medieval lore, French, Greek, and Roman studies- most of her names and creatures are not just dotty creations, they're actual topical references to mythology that reflect the traits of the characters which inhabit those names.

There's also the small matter of the Americanization of the British texts. Don't think Scholastic hasn't doctored those babies right up, particularly the first ones. Even such a "small" detail like that can subtly change the landscape of the novels.

Basically, I do think she's taken a "used" genre (the boarding school) and added more than her fair share of flair and gifted prose. I like it and personally, I don't want to dismiss it.

Okay, that was really long.

 

[bluebell]

One more thing

I just realized, after posting that behemoth and reading what you guys said while I was posting, that maybe Rowling has gone down in the last few books.

I did notice I kept saying "in the first four books" a lot.
I'm not altogether sure I remember quite where everything is plot-wise right now and maybe she herself went from an all-over textual richness to a plot-driven slip of a thing.

Hmm.

This needs thinking.

 

[tickledkitty]

I just realized, after posting that behemoth and reading what you guys said while I was posting, that maybe Rowling has gone down in the last few books.

I did notice I kept saying "in the first four books" a lot.
I'm not altogether sure I remember quite where everything is plot-wise right now and maybe she herself went from an all-over textual richness to a plot-driven slip of a thing.

Hmm.

This needs thinking.

Maybe she started writing with the movie in mind?

 

[slyc_willie]

I can see your points, BB. And I don't doubt that J.K. Rowling is gifted at endearing herself to her audience. But not with words. She plays upon the mass-accepted notions of fantasy, to the point where the original ideas of trolls, wizards, apprentices, ghosts, etc. have been supplanted by the modernized version, and made comical in many aspects.

I have often said that there is little room for originality in modern literature, especially in fantasy and sci-fi. But Rowling has gone that one step further and commercialized the 'cutesy' aspect of fantasy. It will be quite some time before any fantasy writer is not compared to her 'genius.'

Harry Potter plays to the lowest common denominator, in my opinion. Maybe that's harsh. But I think it's true.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Fantasy novels have become the popular pulp of the day-- in the way that romances all follow a set of assumptions, or whodunits, or westerns, so popular fantasy has become codified, familiar, recognisable and reassuring.

And, just as there are romance authors who transcend the genre-- Jane Austen-- and mystery writers likewise-- Dorothy Sawyers, or Raymond Chandler (and I don't know enough about Westerns to name any authors)-- there are fantasy writers who transcend. Rowlings is not one of them, but that's no reason to say she should not be popular. But... I just can't endorse her myself. I've read the books, Bluebell-- they are irritating as all fuck, to me. Plot is part of writing.

Likewise Christopher Paolini-- I don't mind that his books are popular, but I can't countenance them being called "Literature" when they are at the skill level of a penny-dreadful. You can't take Tolkien's invented words, transpose two letters and pretend they are your own-- not when you've done it twenty - thirty times in the single book. Not when you are saying you are writing original fiction.

What I'm saying is that there's plenty of room for popularity. But we are mistaking popularity for genuine literary achievement, as if we've forgotten what good writing can be. I hate that.

 

[slyc_willie]

What I'm saying is that there's plenty of room for popularity. But we are mistaking popularity for genuine literary achievement, as if we've forgotten what good writing can be. I hate that.

Amen. And for proof . . . how many news articles have been written and aired about how much Rowling has earned from her sales as opposed to those that eschew her writing?

Granted, much of the media attention is American, which is so steeply mired in hype as to never claw it's way out . . . .

 

[Stella_Omega]

Maybe she started writing with the movie in mind?

No, no, no, no...

No, the story of how she began writing the books is a lovely story in its own right! One that I wish I'd written.

 

[tickledkitty]

No, no, no, no...

No, the story of how she began writing the books is a lovely story in its own right! One that I wish I'd written.

I don't mean in the beginning. I mean the last books. This last one especially.

 

[3113]

And, just as there are romance authors who transcend the genre-- Jane Austen-- and mystery writers likewise-- Dorothy Sawyers, or Raymond Chandler (and I don't know enough about Westerns to name any authors)--

Actually, I'd like to recommend a Western (and a fantasy!) out just this last week that transcends BOTH genres Territory by Emma Bull.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/519t-lKxPpL._AA240_.jpg

Highly recommend it. Amazing writing.

 

[slyc_willie]

I don't mean in the beginning. I mean the last books. This last one especially.

I suppose the answer to that question, from J.K. herself, would do much to cast light upon the type of writer she is.

 

[3113]

I just realized, after posting that behemoth and reading what you guys said while I was posting, that maybe Rowling has gone down in the last few books.

I think this is the point. My feeling about Rowling is that she and her writing and her books were ill served by their huge popularity. (Which isn't to say that she might not be happy with the money and success). It seems to me that the first three books were firmly and nicely written in the vein of most children's books, likely because they were thought out by Rowling; she'd written the first and was probably writing the second as it was published. The third by the time popularity really hit. There is a cohesion to those first three books:
1) They're for kids--with fun stuff kids love; the games, the treats, the secret places, the latest model brooms, toys and secret maps, playing hooky and getting one over on the adults, the competition, dealing with bullies, magical animals, etc. Friendships.

2) They have fairly tight plots with fun puzzles and cliff-hangers; mysteries in every chapter, discoveries.

3) They start off as "Cinderella" with Harry abused by his muggle relatives, involve some slapstick, some wacky characters, some scary, haunted-house moments, adventure, a threat by the evil bad guy and then...upbeat ending.

4) One last, and major point...they don't necessarily make sense. What I mean by that is that adult fantasy usually has a logic and system to its magic and universe. But a kid's book need not have that; a kids book can be a little wacky and nonsensical--like Mary Poppins with statues coming to life or Peter Pan with dogs acting as nannies and crocodiles with clocks in them. Let me give you an example: In "Prisoner," Hermione is given a time-travel device in order to attend double classes. In a kids book, this is fine. Of course she'd have a time travel device to attend double classes. BUT, if this is a fantasy novel to be compared with "Lord of the Rings"...well, now we have a problem. Something so powerful as a *time travel* device just to attend double classes...??? Even if we excuse the device as being given to her for a greater, deux ex machina purpose...shouldn't an experienced adult have handled that? We keep coming up with questions and Rowling has to keep making up excuses in order to make it make sense.

That's not good. It indicates a weak plot point if you have to make that many artificial reasons for why Hermione has such a powerful device on her.

The Wizards in Harry Potter have time travel, teleportation, invisibility, shape-changing abilities, flying broomsticks, telepathy, ghosts, living portraits, wands that can seemingly do anything....I'm not trying to stop anyone from having fun. As kids books there need not be logic or consistency to the magic or limits to power. But in a more adult, "dark" and "literary" book, there should be. Otherwise, readers like me start to say, "Why didn't someone just....?"

Do you see what I mean? This is why Rowlings later books, to me, are problematic, because there's a dissonance between the wacky kids books and the dark "adult" books. Rowling has said that she had all 7 planned out, and maybe she did in some fashion, but I seriously doubt that all this astonishing popularity for those first books had no affect on the story she decided to go with in the four that followed, most especially the last three. A kid's book writer with only moderate success would never, for example, have been allowed to put out a 600+ page book. Which makes me wonder what might have happened in those 7 books if Rowling had been only mildly popular. I suspect that Harry would not have grown up so much. That the story would have stayed aimed at the 11-ish age market, and been less dark. And IMHO, I think the books would have been the better for that because such kid-like books play to Rowling's strength as a writer. The dark "teen" books, on the other hand, play to her weaknesses.

 

[angelicminx]

Very interesting, Bluebell and 3113.

For me the change became apparent in the sixth book. I loved the first five and simply devoured them. I thought her writing and imagination were wonderful. I've read them with the thought in mind that they were indeed written for children. (The only reason I picked up the first book was the controversy surrounding them. I wanted to see why they were creating such a furor.)

The sixth book seemed to ramble on and on with no apparent point. Sometime soon I plan to sit down and read them all once more, to refresh my memory.

I have very high hopes for the seventh book, but I'm not holding my breath.

I myself have wondered if she did begin writing the fifth, sixth and seventh books with an eye toward the films, and her adult audience.

 

[Explaura]

Not to change the subject again, but back to Prophesy.. whether or not it is lazy in tems of plot, I really like the idea of a prophesy that traps the subject into their predestined future throught their own actions. I think it is somewhat beautiful, and just as an archetypical scenario, I think it resonates with the way we view the world. Also, in the way I personally view the world and time, I think that the idea of prophesy makes sense. Whether the writing of a story uses this idea to its best advantage is separate from the fact that I think the idea has merit beyond its "fantasy-plot-device" connotations.

As for JK Rowling, I didn't so much get into the later books, but goodness, so many people did. Whether they are written to the lowest common denominator or not, I think that JK Rowlings imagination and writing are well aimed enough.. that is, she pleases her audience so well, that I think anyone could hope to do as well.

If I write a story or book that 15 people think is the pinacle of literary acheivement, that is great! But if million of people are engaged by my writing.. I know I have really done something they can get into.

Hopefully this makes sense.. (I'm a little loopy just now b/c of a cold)

 

[bluebell]

Slyc and Stella, I agree with you- and I hope this doesn't sound too contrary to my original posts- I don't think Rowling's writing could carry her to a status of "classic" acheivement on par with that of the literary giants (Dickens, et al).
I think that, regardless of what people personally think of her writing, it's done: the books are in the pantheon, deservedly or not. Probably not the distinguished one, but for what it is, perhaps?

Which of course brings me to the dichotomy that 3 is so correct to highlight:

I think this is the point. My feeling about Rowling is that she and her writing and her books were ill served by their huge popularity. (Which isn't to say that she might not be happy with the money and success). It seems to me that the first three books were firmly and nicely written in the vein of most children's books, likely because they were thought out by Rowling...

...Do you see what I mean? This is why Rowlings later books, to me, are problematic, because there's a dissonance between the wacky kids books and the dark "adult" books.

And these are points very well taken. I think it all comes down to the context one decides to read these stories in, or the lens used to view them through the scope of literature as a whole. Of course, the only other logical fork in the road is: children's lit or adult lit?

Maybe you're right, 3, it's almost rather impossible to marry the first half of the series with the second half. In which case one must question whether she's accomplished her original goal: to have a seven-part series.
The first half could probably slide fairly easily into a comfortable seat within the realm of children's lit. But the second half is neither children's lit nor adult lit, as you aptly pointed out.

So where does it go?
Dunno.

TK and Minx, interesting points. Like Slyc said, I don't think there's any way to quantify the direction her stories have gone in, as she has not shared and I don't think we can really know if she just started putting it on for the sake of darkness, shock, and drama.

And as for, ahem, Mr. Paolini...well, his books get directly filed underneath the most silly, non-serious, slightly-embarrassed-of-guilty-pleasure mental category for books that I have: the Jellybean Book.
Hits the bloodstream with a little sugar, finds momentary enjoyment and then leaves the system as quickly as it went in.

 

[3113]

So where does it go?

Well, for better or worse it's created its own category--at least temporarily. It is closer to "fanfic" and I don't say that to insult it (especially as some Fanfic can be well written), only to quantify it. Fanfic--and I speak very generally here--often contains adult characters and adult situations, but the characters act like they're still in high school in their reactions and actions. There is also a lack of adult consequences. In a way, it's a little like erotica where a adults can met up, and indulge in outrageous sex--no need to mention protection, or any other consequences.

Ditto here. The readers want to read about "teenagers" because, I think, there is a freshness to such stories; you can read and write about first love, first trust and betrayal, first mistakes and misunderstandings. The teen is not jaded and cynical yet, not locked into that adult groove. The teen also has that wonderful group of friends, and the reader gets to discover things with the teen and "mature" with them all over again. On the other hand, the adult reader wants adult situations for characters to explore--dark things like death and pain, exciting things like sex (if possible), complex things like moral ambiguity.

With this genre, the reader gets to have their cake and eat it, too. The characters *act* like teenagers, but, because they either are adults or are in an adult world, they get to indulge in adult situations. And, best of all, this "dark" (adult book) stuff doesn't have adult consequences, or have to make adult sense. For example, you'll notice in "Phoenix" that the three "villains" (Voldemort, Bellatrix and Umbridge) are ALL described as taking pleasure in pain and loving to torture people. Three sadists is too much for a kid's book, and makes no sense for an adult book...but fanfic type books encourage it.

There are plenty of books out there that fit this description without being fanfic--I used that word just because that type of genre typifies these elements. I think now, however, that such stories will have their own "genre" as a specialized niche in fantasy.

 

[slyc_willie]

There are plenty of books out there that fit this description without being fanfic--I used that word just because that type of genre typifies these elements. I think now, however, that such stories will have their own "genre" as a specialized niche in fantasy.

True. But it also makes me wonder as to the future of 'popular' fantasy fiction. Every hopeful writer out there has seen the success that a very writers have enjoyed, Rowling being at the top.

So, a writer is then faced with a quandry: write what they want, or write what they know will sell? Of couse, for some, the two may be one and the same. But for others, they face compromising themselves for the sake of becoming 'successful.' Alas, then comes the inevitability of being compared, and thus labeled a hack writer . . . oh, the circles turn . . . .

The mainstream fiction market has much in common with Hollywood these days. You take a formula that works, and use it over and over until it's dead. Then, you move on to something else. You follow the bandwagon, because that's what everyone chases, grasping at the scraps that tumble off the back.

And if there is that rare gem of originality, well, like any diamond, it can get lost pretty easily in the coal that is being churned out on a daily basis.

-----



Feeling a little melancholic and philosophical tonight. Damn, it's late, and I'm a 'wee bit pissed,' as my wife used to say.

Dismiss the above if it makes no sense.

 

[3113]

The mainstream fiction market has much in common with Hollywood these days. You take a formula that works, and use it over and over until it's dead. Then, you move on to something else. You follow the bandwagon, because that's what everyone chases, grasping at the scraps that tumble off the back.

Oh, this makes sense, yes. You're quite right that mainstream fiction has become like Hollywood and, alas, for a very good reason--less readers, and it costs more to put out a book (or rather it did--print-on-demand may do very strange things to publishing). What happens is this: The publishing houses need a cash cow to keep them afloat. They find one--a popular author who has the touch of gold. Anything he/she writes will sell a lot. In turn, they give this writer huge advances. But now...now they have far less money to pay those who don't sell like gangbusters. Soooo, they offer tiny advances to new authors. They gamble on books they want to take a chance on (those that *might* sell like gangbusters), but they rarely gamble much. If those new books do sell as promised, they buy more from the author. If those books don't sell much, they drop the author.

End result--No way for an author to slowly build up a readership (you sink or swim on that first go), and no "mid-list" authors in mainstream publishing. There was a very comfortable niche there, authors who sold a middling amount, had a loyal following, but were not huge. This niche was destroyed by the big bookstore chains that use sales to decide how much to buy. If a Barnes & Noble sells three of your books, then they'll buy three of the next book. But if you have a bad cover and sell only one, then they buy only one of your next book even if it has a great cover and is a much better book. So your chances of getting new readers drops by a third. You're selling less and the publisher can't afford you (you're not a cash cow, and you're not a cheap new author). Luckily for mid-list authors, small publishers are now doing much better, so mid-list authors do have a home.

Getting back to the point, however, the one thing neither mainstream publishing or Hollywood seems to get is the whole "Zeitgeist" idea. Examples are abundant: Star Wars is an unexpected hit, and everyone makes space adventure movies with silly robots (because, obviously, those elements are what made the movie popular, right?)...these movies flop big time, and everyone scratches their head. "Wha happened? Why wasn't it an instant hit like Star Wars?" Likewise, The Simpsons appears on television and is a surprise hit. Everyone says, "People want witty cartoons!' and make a bunch of the for t.v. And they flop. Why? Well, because the Simpsons wasn't popular just because it was a "cartoon." Just like Pixar's breakout movie Toy Story didn't do well *just* because it was a computer animated feature. This is what Hollywood, and mainstream publishing don't get when they try to follow these trends. Harry Potter didn't gain popularity *just* because it's about a bunch of kids in a Wizard's school. What made it popular was when it came out, how it was written, the way the story was told...etc. All of which hit the right note with the right audience. If we sent Harry Potter back 20 years to when kids were all crazy about creepy horror books, then no one might have read the book. It would have been the wrong time for it, wrong audience.

As for authors copying it hoping to succeed--sure. If gullible editors want Harry Potter clones, then authors will provide them in order to be published. And they'll glut the market, go out of fashion and die (which will sorely hurt the authors as they'll be blamed for the failure). Or not. Romances have never gone out of fashion. But no one can predict when lightning will strike next, or why. And like Harry Potter it'll probably appear unexpectedly and from some grass roots source.

 

[rgraham666]

That's why I'm liking e-publishing so much. For the most part they seem to be more concerned with good stories than whether they'll hit it big.

 

[3113]

That's why I'm liking e-publishing so much. For the most part they seem to be more concerned with good stories than whether they'll hit it big.

Well, their overhead is very low, like the small publishers. This is why print-on-demand will change things as well. Paper is costly, and publishers have to pay a tax on warehoused books (once upon a time they didn't used to have to pay this tax and books stayed in print much longer). This is why books barely stay in print any more--the publisher can't afford to warehouse them. BUT if you get a machine that can print up and bind a book "on demand" then you don't have to warehouse a book and it need never go out of print.

 

[rgraham666]

Well, their overhead is very low, like the small publishers. This is why print-on-demand will change things as well. Paper is costly, and publishers have to pay a tax on warehoused books (once upon a time they didn't used to have to pay this tax and books stayed in print much longer). This is why books barely stay in print any more--the publisher can't afford to warehouse them. BUT if you get a machine that can print up and bind a book "on demand" then you don't have to warehouse a book and it need never go out of print.

Another good thing.

 

[3113]

Another good thing.

Heh. Well, yes and no. It all depends on whether or not print-on-demand will lead to contracts that bind the author to the publisher in perpetuity. Or if enough such machines destroy publishing altogether rather like digital music is destroying the record companies because customers can burn the album they want at home...which might be good, but it's also putting record stores out of business.

There's really no telling what the end result of all this will be.

 

[rgraham666]

As long as, some day, I make enough money to raise me to the higher end of poverty, I'm cool.

 

[elsol]

The interesting use of the prophecy in this case is how the belief in it is what causes Lord V to bring about his own destruction.

Prophecies are what they are a genre schtick... some writers handle it well other writers handle it badly.

It would be like complaining about the way that in romance novels in the end they always end up together... can't one romance novel shock me? Just one?


I read a story once where the 'prophecy' was actually false and planted by the evil side to make the good side open the gates of hell or something else fantasy schticky... it was pretty good.