![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Terry Pratchett gets snarky
Regarding JK Rowling's assertion that she only realized that Harry Potter was fantasy after she published the first one, Terry Pratchett said, "I'm not the world's greatest expert, but 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?"
I actually think he has a valid criticism about Rowling's claims that she was trying to "subvert" the genre. Pratchett's work, starting with The Color of Magic, is far more edgy than anything Rowling has written.
Witches and wizards? How about a writer that takes the ancient myth about a flat world but works out the practical implications, in the process creating a world where Death rides a white horse named Binky, talks in capital letters, and has a granddaughter. Not to mention that rodents are carried off by a separate entity called "Death of Rats." Where time itself is the responsibility of a group of secretive monks. Where the librarian of the wizard's university is an orangutan, mainly because he likes it.
And it has as much philosophical content as HP, it just doesn't hit you in the face.
I like HP, have read all the books and await the seventh one. But really, there is nothing in there for me that makes me go "Wow, that's really inventive!" like when I read almost any Pratchett book. (It should also be noted that Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" are far and away more intricate than the world of HP.)
Besides, Pratchett writes the best. footnotes. ever.
I actually think he has a valid criticism about Rowling's claims that she was trying to "subvert" the genre. Pratchett's work, starting with The Color of Magic, is far more edgy than anything Rowling has written.
Witches and wizards? How about a writer that takes the ancient myth about a flat world but works out the practical implications, in the process creating a world where Death rides a white horse named Binky, talks in capital letters, and has a granddaughter. Not to mention that rodents are carried off by a separate entity called "Death of Rats." Where time itself is the responsibility of a group of secretive monks. Where the librarian of the wizard's university is an orangutan, mainly because he likes it.
And it has as much philosophical content as HP, it just doesn't hit you in the face.
I like HP, have read all the books and await the seventh one. But really, there is nothing in there for me that makes me go "Wow, that's really inventive!" like when I read almost any Pratchett book. (It should also be noted that Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" are far and away more intricate than the world of HP.)
Besides, Pratchett writes the best. footnotes. ever.
no subject
no subject
no subject
And yeah, Pratchet is HILARIOUS, and writes the best footnotes in the universe. I think the main difference between Pratchett and Rowling is that Pratchett writes books aimed at adults, which some kids like to read. Rowling, OTOH, writes books for kids, which some adults like to read. Of COURSE Rowling's don't have as much depth.
no subject
Hi, Time? I'd like to introduce you to people like Emma Bull, Will Shetterly, Ellen Kushner, yes, Terry Pratchett, Diana Wynne Jones, Diane Duane, and a whole lotta others.
Rowling's being kind of dumb, and Time isn't helping any. Grarf.
no subject
no subject