That's funny because the woman who first read the book and took it in to her company told me herself at Harry Potter Studios when I went there in July.
It's like fashion. We all know the big fashion houses come out with their new lines a season early but who really, really knows what we are going to be wearing come fall/winter? No-one does. There are more factors to consider than what one person deems fashionable.
No we do not just classify it all as 'shit'. I was sort of leaning more on the Sci-fi side, seeing as I have had a heated discussion with a few others on things regarding the genre. Fantasy gives free reign to make anything and everything possible regardless of how obscure and unreasonable. Though I see your point overall. There are always going to be those people that don't like anything to deviate out of what they can reason. Right you are that we all have genres we love and hate. Now I feel that I was bullied into making things more realistic despite my attempts to argue that it is just fiction. Thank you for the insight.
Thanks, @Cave Troll I get really upset by the nasty remarks made by authors against other authors when they don't know what the heck they are talking about, especially when they try to make me believe that their opinion is the only opinion. Yes, we all have different views, likes and dislikes but I believe no author has the right to say other authors can't write.
There are varying degrees of ability to write, but just about anything you find from the major traditional publishers is going to meet a base level of competence.
Yeah, they would be an inspiration. I've been dismissive of Potter, but it isn't like it did not offer something new to people. And it sold a fantasy people wanted to live out - which is why I think they become popular outside of freak occurances of the market. Even something like The Da Vinci Code was a bit of an escape - international mystery, great secrets, and danger behind every corner - and it made learning about art cool for a while, which is something to celebrate.
Reading YA series fantasy or scifi I always thought why most of them go with the chosen one? Actual underdog would be much more interesting.
Well YA specifically is writing for an audience that feels like they are personally unique, special, and full of potential, however in their everyday life they are under the guidance and control of adults. They also are in a system (school) where the vast majority are just another "face in the crowd" but what they covet more than anything is to stand out from the pack. The YA audience is also about to embark on the next stage of life beyond to protective bubble of high school, and is about to find out if they really will be successful in reaching their life goals. The type of story that appeals to that segment of the population is the "chosen one" story type. The idea that you really are special, and the next stage of your life is going to be an exciting journey where you become the most important person in the world. Underdog stories get more popular later in life. Once the audience has become beaten down and has accepted a position as the "little guy" just trying to survive the daily grind. Then a story about the plucky underdog rising up and knocking off the big wigs in control starts to resonate a lot more.
You made great points. Especially in Twilight series reader hopes that some handsome mysterious guy is going to fall in love with them without them actually doing anything. I was a underdog in school already. Guess most are more naive then.
Harry was chosen but with a touch of underdog and a bit of Cinderella tossed in. Harry may have been popular for his scar and story when he got to Hogwarts but he certainly felt inadequate. Everyone knew everything but him. The whole Slytherin house were threatening to the wimpy Potter. He was the constant target of Snape and other various characters. So I wouldn't say that was exactly the same as the chosen one who loses many of the initial battles and looks about to lose when s/he finally triumphs. In the chosen one's case the strong guy isn't strong enough at first. In Potter's case he wasn't strong at first.
I would agree. Makes it much more believable the 'protagonist' might actually lose, instead of giving them every possible solution to each obstacle. Besides where is the fun in feeling bad for a character we know is going to get through unscathed, or has obviously been set up to win in any situation. At least the underdog approach gives a better chance of not succeeding in the end, or they do by the skin of their teeth.
I'm very glad she did! Good post, this might also be the reason why Atlas Shrugged is so well liked by young people too.
Katniss was definitely the underdog and I think that's one of the reasons The Hunger Games was so successful. Would Cato's story have been so interesting? Actually, interesting is the wrong word. Would we have been rooting for him like we did for Katniss?
Presumably the banal lines were in the script he must have read before he accepted the job? So yeah, I don't quite buy this!
I'm not sure what you don't buy. Here's some correspondence between Guinness and a friend during production http://io9.com/5974242/alec-guinness-thought-star-wars-was-fairytale-rubbish-and-harrison-fords-first-name-was-tennyson Quoted here for the lazy: Over at Business Insider, they quote from a couple of Guinness' letters, as cited in Alec Guinness: The Official Biography. (Disclaimer: I couldn't find these letters in the Google Books edition of the book, but the relevant page wasn't included in the preview.) Prior to accepting the role, Guinness wrote to his friend: And once he was on set, Guinness was no more impressed, writing to his friend: And here's Guinness himself saying he wished they could have changed the dialogue Unfortunately the exact quote I used is only found on the wikipedia page and the citation links to a 404, so it may not be accurate. However everything else indicates his displeasure with the role, the dialogue, and the movie itself.
You'll notice the [sic] after "Paul" at the time of reading the script Guinness didn't even know Lucas first name. And the Yahoo was the working title of a Gullivers travels pay he was performing in. Which is all in the text of the page if you had bothered to look at it.
Thanks for posting the Parkinson interview. I watched it, and was much relieved. While yes, he did mention the dialogue, he didn't make a big deal about it, and his overall feel for the movie was good. He did, apparently, actually 'get' what it was all about, and appreciated how fresh it was. I certainly didn't get the impression from that interview that he was sorry he'd been in it. He said at first, when he got the script and realised it was Sci-Fi, he nearly put it away without reading it. But when he started reading it, he couldn't put it down. He said that's the essential thing about any book or script. Is it good enough that you keep turning the pages. Star Wars was like that, for him. All the publicity about his remarks about 'banal' dialogue give the wrong impression. I think he quite liked the film, unless he was lying through his teeth on the Parkinson interview. He may well have recognised that the banality of the dialogue actually added to the fun of the piece. At no point during that movie was anybody under the illusion that this was a 'serious' film. If the dialogue had been Shakespearian in tone, that might have muddied the waters a bit. And maybe he actually understood this, in hindsight. He did seem to recognise the movie's sense of fun. I'm happy. And the interview is there on public record. He did actually say those things on TV. That letter to his friend may well have been written tongue in cheek. I kind of suspect it was. He was an experienced actor with many movies and stage performances under his belt. I can't believe he was so 'above' the process as to be unable to remember anybody's name, etc. How could he have learned his banal lines, if he couldn't even remember the director's name, or the names of his co-stars? I still don't buy it.
Bit snappy today, aren't we? And my apologies if I didn't realize that Sic. does not only pertain to a spelling mistake by an article's author but also to something which we all now know is a completely wrong name.
I agree. But I have to ask, why are people bringing it up now some thirty odd years later? (or is it just a marketing ploy to push the new movie which is due out in the UK in December?
Strange. Maybe it's just because Star Wars is in the news? I can't see it being a great marketing ploy to have one of the major (and well-loved) actors in the first film telling everybody he couldn't stand the script, and couldn't remember anybody's name. But then again, my mind doesn't work like most people's. I've long accepted that fact. I'm out of step, for sure.
To be fair, it's not exactly state secret that Lucas' writing is...lacking. Harrison Ford famously told him on the set for A New Hope that, “you can write this crap, but you can't say it!” Just because it may look good on paper doesn't mean it'll sound good when spoken out loud. Have we forgotten Anakin's abysmal lines in the Prequels? ‘Yippeee!’ ‘I hate sand, they're course, rough, irritating and it gets everywhere. Not like here. Everything's soft and smooth.’ Basically everything that came out of Anakin's mouth in that movie. ‘No, it's only because I'm so in love with you!’
