Royce&#39;s Random Thoughts

Because we are.

I don't get the popularity of lots of things other people like. Anyhow, at the end of the first book, you haven't read enough to assign the 'patently obvious villain' label to anyone.

PS: I thought the Earthsea books were soporific.

From:

[shrugs] To each his own. You're probably right about the villians, but I never had much of an urge to read CoS or further (the fact that they seem to be more bloated and less edited as the series goes on doesn't help either).

From:

If you don't enjoy them, fair enough. But...

"the fact that they seem to be [...] less edited as the series goes on doesn't help either"

...it's amazing how you can decide that without having read them. (Larger? Certainly, so I'll allow the "bloated" comment as one that could be made without reading. Less edited? Hard to form that opinion without doing so.)

From:

Oh, I agree that they're less well edited and if the next one's as badly edited as the last, I shall be annoyed.

I either adore LeGuin or want to use her books as pillows.

I really loved "The Dispossessed" and "Vaster Than Empires" and I think she wrote "The Word For World Is Forest"?

But I like her better in space than with magick.

From:

But you've actually, y'know, read the later books and formed that opinion based on that action.

From:

oh, true. I've read the books dozens of times. I'm a fairly-well known and someone controversial 'personality' (not quite a BNF) in the fandom.

From:

Poor word choice, I'll admit. I'm going by some of the reviews I've read (published and just chatting with friends) that seemed to indicate that. After seeing similar things happen to other authors I used to like (Clancy, Eddings, ect.) I've become wary of such things.

From:

edg.livejournal.com

Careful, Royce, your bias is showing. 'Long' != 'bloated' or 'less-edited', and I'm not sure when "less edited" became a slur, for that matter.

For my part, I don't know that I can quantify why I enjoy Harry Potter. I just do. I think it has rabid fans, though, for exactly the same reason that anything else does. I'm sure that somewhere out there, there is a 'Manos' the Hands of Fate fan-club who are busily planning out Torgo costumes and waiting eagerly for Hal Warren's next Super-8 masterpiece. Creative works attract fans, and their creators attract followers; Harry Potter is no different in this regard.

From:

Depends of the sort of editing I suppose. Guiding a writer so that they're able to articulate their story and conclusions well, but letting them tell the story they want is Good Editing. Slash & burn editing to fit the editor's personal prejudices over what the book "should be about", OR simply sitting back and letting an author tell in 600 pages what could have easily been said in 200 pages is Less and/or Bad Editing.

From:

If somebody *notices* that your books need editing, then you need more editing.

Rowling appears to be going down the same road as Anne Rice: that is, her pet characters become more and more unbelievably powerful and contradictory, her 'villains' become more paper-thin, her books get larger, and she allows less and less editing, assuming that because she's making boatloads of money, she no longer needs any help refining her artistic vision. PS and CoS were tightly written, perhaps a bit too tightly. PoA was just right. GoF could have been shorter and clearer. OOTP? Not only was OOTP even bigger than GoF, the final battle was very hard to follow and extremely badly done. It's very difficult to believe that the Voldemort of OOTP was a threat to Upper Twattington, let alone the Wizarding World as a whole, and she completely forgot that several of the more important Death Eaters had powers and abilities she herself gave them, because in the all-important final battle, none of them were used. I would be the last person to complain about Sirius' death, because I never liked him much--but this too was poorly blocked and handled.

From:

After discovering that there are enough "Barney Miller" slash fanfics written every year to have their own awards category at MediaWestCon, I came to the conclusion that one should never, ever, ever underestimate how much momentum a fandom can gather.

From:

"Barney Miller"? I fear to ask, but did any of them involve crossovers with "Highlander" or "Firefly"?

From:

When it comes to "Barney Miller" slash fanfic, I feel that not knowing any more details than absolutely possible is the better part of valor.

From:

jvowles.livejournal.com

It isn't required that you *get* it.

To me, the books were grand because they recaptured the bits that have *always* won me over in kid-lit: a sympathetic hero, an injustice that he's doomed to correct, a glimpse of a world more magical and interesting than our own.

Furthermore, I appreciate them as an adult becuase:

1. They don't talk down to the reader. In fact, as the books progress, they become more complex, featuring more shades of grey and less obvious motives and plot twists.

2. Despite number one, they offer (mostly) a team to root for and a team to hate. And yet, those teams are not without weak links, failures, and mistakes.

3. If you've only read the first book and failed to be charmed by it, you've missed out on the the actual growth and development that these kids (and even the adults) undergo. While it's always clear that the Durstleys are smallminded and petty, there is something about them that emerges much later that surprised me while making something FINALLY make sense about that whole situation; and while it's clear that the Malfoys are evil-minded scheming bigots and racial purists, that is not necessarily true of Slytherin -- whom, you'll recall, is the OTHER school with a claim on Harry's loyalties, since he can talk to snakes. And yet....Snape, while petty, has reasons for acting the way he does. And Dumbledore's motives and actions become increasingly murky, if subtly so.

4. The books mature with the reader and the main characters -- something almost unknown in literature (with Madeleine L'Engle being a possible example).

5. They managed to catch the attention of the kids, and get them not only enthusiastic about reading, but literally BEGGING for the next one. And that infection has made school teachers, librarians, and parents everywhere intensely grateful.

Are they perfect books? Heavens no. Few books are, not even my beloved Tolkien. But they're vastly entertaining.

I resisted for years, myself, largely out of irritation at the incredible popularity of the books when I wworked for Waldenbooks -- until a blizzard and few options left me trapped with the first book for several hours; within a week, I'd digested the next two. I have since eagerly awaited each new book as they've been released, and especially after the last story, I'm eager to see how Harry, Ron, Hermione, and company end the book cycle, and what sorts of young adults they'll wind up being. Harry in particular begins to show the strain of all the pressure on him and mixed with usual teenage angst and hormonal rage, reveals a darkness that brings depth to this otherwise heroic boy (if you've seen the third movie, it's hinted at). It makes him more interesting.

Get past the hype, if you can, and just read them for what they are. They really do improve dramatically after the first book -- the weakest of the lot, frankly, despite its many charms and worldbuilding brushstrokes.

From:

Heh. Except for Harry himself and his immediate circle, I don't see any good guys anywhere in that universe. For my opinion of Albus Dumbledore please see icon.

From:

vaultedthewall.livejournal.com

It's okay to not 'get' the Harry Potter phenominon. It's perfectly okay to just not like the books. Burn me at the stake, but I can't read Tolkien. I *adore* what I've seen of the story of the books, and have tried to read them, but his style of writing just doesn't mix well with my style of reading. Same for many other authors. Some genres even I just can't read, although I will wholly admit that just because *I* don't like them doesn't mean they're not good.

So please think before you talk badly about a series that you *have not read*. Just because some people think the books are getting worse as time goes on doesn't make that the gospel truth. Some people had reviews that said Troy was a wonderful adeptation to the myth. Some people said otherwise. Although on principal I'm taking the movie with a proverbial grain of salt, I will withhold a personal opinion until I myself have seen it. (When I can rent it for free.)

There are a billion copies of the books in EVERY public library I have been to, so you don't have the 'wait til it comes out on video' excuse. As anyone who has had the 'favorite book into movie' syndrome happen (and since you refrence Tolkien, I assume you HAVE), you know very well that Movie Quality =/= Book Quality.

I am, again, not saying that you can't dislike the books. Go right ahead. You don't even have to read them. But don't diss books 2-5 if you've only read book 1. And yes, you *WERE* dissing them, even if you admit it was a 'poor choice of words'.

From: