Terry Pratchett is a living god.
Aug. 1st, 2005 02:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselkingWriter Terry Pratchett has poked fun at Harry Potter author JK Rowling for saying she did not realise she was writing a fantasy novel. His comments came on Rowling's 40th birthday, also Harry Potter's birthday.
In a recent interview with Time magazine, Rowling said she was "not a huge fan of fantasy" and was trying to "subvert" the genre. The magazine also said Rowling reinvented fantasy fiction, which was previously stuck in "an idealised, romanticised, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves".[1]
Pratchett, whose first fantasy novel was published 34 years ago and has since sold more than 40 million books, said in his letter that the genre had always been "edgy and inventive". "Ever since The Lord of the Rings revitalised the genre, writers have played with it, reinvented it, subverted it and bent it to their times," he wrote.
His full response to Rowling's admission that she did not think Harry Potter was fantasy as she was writing it, was:
"I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds, jumping chocolate frogs, owl mail, magic food, ghosts, broomsticks and spells would have given her a clue?"
==========================================================================================
[1]: Apparently Rowling's been subjected to Starhawk and it's completely burned out parts of her brain. Actually, that might explain the names in Potter.
In a recent interview with Time magazine, Rowling said she was "not a huge fan of fantasy" and was trying to "subvert" the genre. The magazine also said Rowling reinvented fantasy fiction, which was previously stuck in "an idealised, romanticised, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves".[1]
Pratchett, whose first fantasy novel was published 34 years ago and has since sold more than 40 million books, said in his letter that the genre had always been "edgy and inventive". "Ever since The Lord of the Rings revitalised the genre, writers have played with it, reinvented it, subverted it and bent it to their times," he wrote.
His full response to Rowling's admission that she did not think Harry Potter was fantasy as she was writing it, was:
"I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds, jumping chocolate frogs, owl mail, magic food, ghosts, broomsticks and spells would have given her a clue?"
==========================================================================================
[1]: Apparently Rowling's been subjected to Starhawk and it's completely burned out parts of her brain. Actually, that might explain the names in Potter.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-01 06:29 pm (UTC)Or maybe you would. Given the chronicles of human folly that have had their airing in your LJ, I suspect that you have no trouble whatsoever believing it. (And it's amazing how many HP readers have never even heard of Terry Pratchett—who is, based on my admittedly limited Rowling sample of one book, a FAR better writer and more engaging storyteller.)
The especially funny part is that Pratchett isn't criticizing Rowling per se, except perhaps with that little dig at the end. Mostly, he's criticizing the Time author—the actual source of that quote about fantasy being stuck in the past, which isn't even true.
Plenty of authors, unlike Rowling, have really been trying to subvert the fantasy genre, or at least do something different. Off the top of my head: Gregory Maguire, China Miéville, Kelly Link, Neil Gaiman, Tim Powers, Elizabeth Hand, and, yes, Terry Pratchett. Also, wizards' school? Nothing new. Also, bespectacled tweener doomed to either save the world or destroy it? Nothing new, either, and Gaiman did it better.
postscript
Date: 2005-08-01 06:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-01 07:32 pm (UTC)And yeah, given how seriously people take their Potter (I mean, I'm a fan, but come ON), I'd believe the firestorm. Pretty much anything Beloved Of The Masses combined with criticism (no matter WHERE the criticism is actually pointed) seems to trigger off a mass knee-jerk response of epic proportions.
And yes, Pratchett rocks. Despite the fact that I can never remember whether he has one or two "T"s at the end of his name. Waiting for Thud! now...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-01 06:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-01 07:38 pm (UTC)> morris-dance to Greensleeves".
My mind is now stuck on the clearly romaticised /Lords and Ladies/--blood, torture, wasps, death by morris dancing in the rain, heavy sticks, and a very upset orangutan.
Mr. Grossman needs to be smacked.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-01 07:55 pm (UTC)"We are not doing the Stick and Bucket Dance! No one is ever to mention the Stick and Bucket Dance!"
Paraphrased, but you know what I mean.
Morris Dancing is very traditional, if by "traditional" you mean "things we do but we don't know why".
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-01 08:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-01 09:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-01 10:38 pm (UTC)