Yeah, I guess that`s true. You could pretty much do what you want at that point. Don`t suppose we`ll ever see the like of that again.
In interviews, she has said that she didn't kill Mr. Weasley because there aren't many good parents in the Harry Potter universe and he was one of them. In the end, she couldn't bear to kill him both because she had grown attached to him, but also because of what a strong father figure he was. When she decided not to kill Mr. Weasley she instead changed the fates of Lupin and Tonks, who originally survived. By killing Lupin and Tonks, Teddy their infant son, was left very much like Harry was in the beginning. The difference being of course, that Teddy was cared for by his loving grandmother and often stayed with Harry and Ginny, almost like a second son. In a way, Teddy's fate was a nod to Harry's 'what could have been.' I don't think any of her decision was done lightly or on a whim. If anything, her biggest crime has been to talk too much about her inner thoughts of Harry Potter, although she is just answering interview questions, since it's an insight not usually given into the creative process. Also, the killing of Lupin and Tonks and the orphaning of Teddy is much more emotionally devastating than killing off Mr. Weasley, so creatively I think that was probably the right decision.
I don't understand: a) why you are comparing Harry Potter to Hard Times. b) why you ask if Harry's death and resurrection could be a boring reference to Jesus. It's fiction, fantasy, out of someone's mind. That doesn't mean it can or should be compared to anything or have anything read into it other than what it's meant to be - a story. I'm sure JK Rowling put a lot more thought into it than "Oh, I like Mr Weasley, I'll let him live ..." I sure she will have looked into the what if he lives versus what if he dies discussion. As an author, you can plan, plot and timeline all you want but as you begin to write, things will change - for lots of reasons. Characters and stories evolve as they grow. I recently decided to kill of a character of mine, one that I really loved and when I told one of my beta readers what I was planning, she hit the roof. Wanted to know what the hell I was thinking. So I told her exactly what I was thinking and after she'd closed her mouth for a second and started breathing again, she said "Oh, good God, that's brilliant!" As the author, I alone have that power over my book and no one should read anything into it other than I came to a crossroads and decided to go left rather than right.
It's usual when you are assessing a book or text's merits to compare it to other texts. I didn't realize that was a secret. I didn't. Read my post again. So it's just a story? Then fine, that's saying something. No one is saying Rowling should change her text. But the fact she did change her own text says a lot about her attitude to her text. Surely that is a simple concept.
Forgive me not knowing how to copy and answer chunks but: It's not a secret, but I didn't actually know that you were supposed to compare one text to another when assessing a book's merits - if that's the case, why chose Hard Times? Why not chose something from the same genre? The Jesus thing - Your words were: "But what about other things in the series, does Harry's death and resurrection mean anything outside the fact it's a boring reference to Jesus? - That a question which you asked, and I said, I don't understand why you ask that. And her attitude to her text, does the fact that she changed her story/mind mean that her attitude to her story is somehow less than you think it should be? Just because she changed her mind?
Ah, sorry, I see what you mean. I find at times, especially when talking about more technical aspects of writing, two texts being in different genres is pretty superficial. The point isn't how another fantasy novel might be structured - what I was getting at was how another writer might structure their novel. If you want another example from the fantasy Genre, The Hobbit, I guess, is another bildungsroman like Potter - I guess. Each challenge Bilbo faces during the novel is either him learning a new skill or being tested on that skill, like I suppose each challenge at the end of each entry of the Potter series. Most of them anyway, they both build to a confrontation, in Potter it's with Voldemort, with The Hobbit it's between Bilbo and Thorin, but by then there is more going on and there is the whole Battle of the 5 Armies, and yadda yadda yadda. In The Hobbit the really important death is Smaug. The death of Thorin is the pathos at the end that means the Dwarfs struggle is over - he seems to get a serious case of Dragon Sickness while the others don't. They are home, they've reclaimed their homeland, battles have been faught, friends have been lost, but basically the great wrong at the beginning has been set right. The other dwarfs that die are Fili and Kili - who are the youngest Dwarfs and are only there to light fires. You can read something into that if you want, but I wouldn't bother. I don't see anything to their characters, personally. That's a novel I like - and I like The Hobbit a lot, but could it have been planned and mapped out better: Hell yes. I read The Hobbit every year, and it is for me a fantasy - pure escapism. I can criticize it for being structurally not as strong as other novels, but I can still love it. Criticism isn't born from hate, it's born from love. I apply the same logic to Potter, a series I don't like. Because it's an important event in the series. To be honest, I don't understand your question, why wouldn't you ask what that means? What does my opinion about what she should have done matter? It doesn't at all, I dare say. My opinion on what she should and should not have done is as worthless as it is uninteresting. But for me, it's not about me, and that's not what I'm asking. What does her opinion matter? Well, everything, she's the one who made it.
I cannot believe I put chose instead of choose - twice! (I should put my specs on) Right - now I think I see where you are coming from except, yes, I've read the Harry Potter books (a long time ago) but I've never read The Hobbit (yes, go ahead, shout at me now) and I couldn't get into the Lord of The Rings at all. Although, I did watch the Desolation of Smaug film the other week ... And I see what you mean about the skills/challenges thing. A lot of stories are - if you take them down to base level - about getting something, usually a girl or a prize, it's the story of how the MC fights their way through, learns a thing or two and then applies that knowledge/skill in the end game. While I never really got the hang of dissecting a book, I do do it a lot with films, moreso now than I ever did before. For example, the Smaug film, riding the river of molten gold in a wooden-looking barrow?? Yeah, right! and the key which opened the hidden door, I knew what they had to do to find the keyhole while they were still halfway up the trail!
About the river of gold, thank you! Mate, I was furious about that! And many other things in those films. I can't imagine critiquing and deconstructing films is much different from books. But I do both a lot, so ... yeah haha.
That was the moment I slapped my own face and thought 'really?' Going back to the OP, what is it that makes Rowling, Meyer, King and now James, so successful? Especially when there are people out there ready to pull their work apart until it's nothing more than a pile of ashes. Which also makes me wonder, how can some people be so rotten about an author's work? If you don't like something, then that's fine but is there really any need to publicly burn the book?
No shame in that, Tolkiens books are not for the faint hearted. Apparently, from a friend at work who understands history a lot more than I, even Tolkien didn`t consider himself to be a particularly good writer. I`ve read both but will probably never read them again. The LOTR films are so much better than the Hobbit. I liked the Hobbit, as entertainment, and because I enjoy films in general and am pretty easy going with regard to accuracy and such, but they never stood up to the first three. If PJ had kept the Hobbit to a one film, possibly two, adaption then maybe.
I remember trying to read recommended classics when attending junior high-school. There was so much information and food for thought that I almost immediately lost interest. It wasn't until many years later that I established a new-found appreciation for the art of literature. One of the books that made me re-consider writing and self-publishing was actually a paranormal-romance novel. It was such a simple read. After finishing 400 pages of what felt like a stroll in the park, I was led to believe that becoming an author wasn't too far from reality.
Dark Lover by J.R. Ward My girlfriend asked me to give it a try. The author has a decent following and it's the first book one of a series. It isn't classical in a sense like Anne Rice, but more modern. The sheer simplicity of the writing is what attracted me the most. It just restored a little faith in the possibility of writing in the future. Afterwards, I purchased some classics like The Once and Future King by T.H. White and The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexander Dumas. Since then, I've become more interested in reading.
I may be in the minority but I have to point out that I thought Casual Vacancy was a poweful story, emotional and gripping, with great characters and a nice string of plots that all tied up well. I also found it highly relatable, coming from a similar background to some of the main characters. On a broader note (referencing the topic), I'll defend Potter until the end of time as a great book series. I don't really care if it's considered a 'literary classic' because I consider it a classic in my own terms. I'd say the same for any series I can read over and over and enjoy it as much as I did the first time I read it fifteen years ago. Rowling has become such a success because millions of other people, like myself, fell in love with reading because of the world she created (despite its flaws) and the wonderful characters that inhabited it. She started a series as strictly a children's book but evolved it into more of a YA series, with the series "growing up" pretty much exactly the same time as I did. Without Potter, I probably never would have become such an avid reader and certainly wouldn't have considered writing. As for Meyer and King, the only King book I have read is Misery (which I enjoyed) and after struggling to finish the first Twilight, I decided it wasn't for me so I can't really comment on why they were so successful (although I feel I should read Shawshank as the film remains one of my all time favourites.)
Shawshank the novella is pretty good. You should check it out. If you like Potter then good, all power to you. People should be allowed to read what they like. My problem starts when people claim it's good literature, and it isn't. You might not care if it will survive the century, you just enjoy it for what it is, then fine. But I do care. I care because I feel a personal investment in trying to help keep up the standards of literature that have held us true since Homer first sang. To me calling Potter good writing is like calling Tracey Emin a good artist. I wouldn't try to stop you listening to dubstep or whatever if you really wanted to. Just don't try to promote it as fine art unless you can really defend it when attacked on these flaws. And things established as good writing are being attacked and questioned all the time, how many times has TS Eliot been called an antisemite? How many times has Keats been called a sexist or Dante too Christian? Even if its only in academic circles, that's often where it matters the most.
I only recently found out about some of the people in Inferno, and am shocked because I used to be really involved in progressive politics -- not that I have a problem with Dante. Speaking of big steps forward, must admit I smiled when you wrote "then power to you." The Lord has adopted a doctrine of non-interference with wayward civilizations
James Borges, a Dante scholar puts it best. 'Whores and murderers are as likely to be found in Dante's Hell as saints and Popes.' - something like that. It's true. Leads me onto a criticism you certainly can make about Dante, Dante gave places in Hell to people he did not like, and it's very clear he did this. And its funny most of the souls he meets run to him because he's a Florentine, when his work is so concerned with Florentine issues. What about even the other cities of Italy? Why aren't they so well represented as Florence? What about places like China? That and the geocentric universe. I know it's all about the music of the spheres, yes, fine, alright, but still, no. There, two big criticisms I can make of Dante. Let no one say I'm an elitist snob. And indeed!
I think Italy became a self-caricature the past few hundred years. Repeats itself as farce. I guess Medina was the end of the earth in those times...*Checks backyard for ISIS converts lurking*
Maybe. In 1300, the crusades were going on, and the Italian renaissance was just around the corner. I can't remember when Marco Polo's travels occurred, but ... I'm not sure actually. Dante does use minarrets in Dis to make it seem strange and otherworldly to his Christian readers.
Admit it, Lemex; academia has postured with a facade of criteria that stands for literary criticism's astonishment and impotence to even begin to comment on the ineffable and all-transcending narrative that is Potter.
To be honest, change 'literary criticism' to 'literary theory' and that will not actually be wrong. Especially with the word 'postured'.
It's okay, I shall posture behind the Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism, which, I'm told by a PowerPoint presentation retrieved from Google's first page, makes no such distinction as I shudder in a miffed mood at the embarrassment of such ignorance, whilst employing affectedly cerebral prose.
