Interesting ...

[tamaranth]

article on why Rowling and Pullman aren't that good.

There's a lot to disagree with here, including the statement that "perhaps the greatest difference between Eagle and children's reading today is this: the stories were set in the real world, with no recourse to magic or fantasy." Jenkyns thinks Pullman's too big for his boots grandiose for his audience, and Rowling has inflated the scale of her epic to cope with demand. But he does have some good points about character-building and self-consciousness.

Also, apparently, "science fiction and .. supernatural epic romance ... do not mix." While I am not at all sure what he means by the latter, this sounds like a splendid argument to have. Zelazny? Wolfe? Mieville? Er, other?

Comments

[moral-vacuum.livejournal.com]

"...with no recourse to magic or fantasy".

F*** off.

[profundo-rosso.livejournal.com]

So Dan Dare: Pilot of the Future was set in the Real World? Wow.

[fastfwd.livejournal.com]

Every time someone tells me that science fiction and something else--anything else--don't mix, I always just want to say, "Bite me."

[moral-vacuum.livejournal.com]

Ah, that was "speculative fiction". :-)

[profundo-rosso.livejournal.com]

Good ghod, it's 2005 and we're still having the same stupid arguments we were having back in 1975...

[profundo-rosso.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I've just become a vegetarian.

[tamaranth.livejournal.com]

and do they? or are they toothless?

Interesting indeed.

[(Anonymous)]

Actually the original article, despite the remarks you quote, does make some very good points about the repetitive nature of Harry Potter.
I speculated a couple of years ago that the only way JK Rowling could tie up the series was as follows:
Harry discovers that Hermione is his sister, Hermione and Ron fall in love.
Harry confronts Voldemort in the final battle, only for Voldemort to reveal 'Harry.. I'm your father!'

Kevin McVeigh