<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Harry Pot Or Not?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/2007/07/28/harry-pot-or-not/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/2007/07/28/harry-pot-or-not/</link>
	<description>A blog for odd things and odd thoughts.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 22:21:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alastair</title>
		<link>http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/2007/07/28/harry-pot-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-52494</link>
		<dc:creator>Alastair</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:47:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/2007/07/28/harry-pot-or-not/#comment-52494</guid>
		<description>I think you guys are being a bit harsh, maybe even snobbish. In fact it almost reminds me of the snobbery exhibited towards SF&amp;F fiction by some in the Real Literary Establishment...

It seems pretty clear to me that the reason why adults read HP is that they are (at least partly) nostalgic for their own childhood. This is an appeal which is offered by the Potter books and not by the alternatives you mention. It&#039;s not just the fact that it is light fantasy-themed reading. Instead the appeal is specific kind of escapism; escapism back to the world of the child. That&#039;s my theory anyway.

Possibly Rowling was aware of the nostalgic allure of the Potterverse. In the first book there is a mirror that reflects the viewer&#039;s deepest desires, and is dangerous because of this. The viewer risks spending their life yearning for the unattainable.

Moderation is of course the key. Taken as part of a balanced literary diet I see no harm in the occasional nostalgic treat. Adults can go to McDonalds too; they just shouldn&#039;t eat every meal there.

I catch public transport regularly nowadays and in recent times it has become very unusual to board the train and &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; see someone reading HP ep 7. Before the release of that however the choice of reading matter was quite diverse, and not all of it was pulp either.

So I think you might have a complaint against the strawman adult that &lt;em&gt;only&lt;/em&gt; reads Harry Potter, to the exclusion of all else. Find such an adult and I will agree with you.

If you&#039;re going to criticise wildly-popular books, a better place to start would be &lt;a href=&quot;http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/000844.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Da Vinci Code&lt;/a&gt;. At least Rowling writes well.

By the way, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/10/npott110.xml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;A S Bryant&#039;s&lt;/a&gt; opinion is worth a read too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you guys are being a bit harsh, maybe even snobbish. In fact it almost reminds me of the snobbery exhibited towards SF&amp;F fiction by some in the Real Literary Establishment&#8230;</p>
<p>It seems pretty clear to me that the reason why adults read HP is that they are (at least partly) nostalgic for their own childhood. This is an appeal which is offered by the Potter books and not by the alternatives you mention. It&#8217;s not just the fact that it is light fantasy-themed reading. Instead the appeal is specific kind of escapism; escapism back to the world of the child. That&#8217;s my theory anyway.</p>
<p>Possibly Rowling was aware of the nostalgic allure of the Potterverse. In the first book there is a mirror that reflects the viewer&#8217;s deepest desires, and is dangerous because of this. The viewer risks spending their life yearning for the unattainable.</p>
<p>Moderation is of course the key. Taken as part of a balanced literary diet I see no harm in the occasional nostalgic treat. Adults can go to McDonalds too; they just shouldn&#8217;t eat every meal there.</p>
<p>I catch public transport regularly nowadays and in recent times it has become very unusual to board the train and <em>not</em> see someone reading HP ep 7. Before the release of that however the choice of reading matter was quite diverse, and not all of it was pulp either.</p>
<p>So I think you might have a complaint against the strawman adult that <em>only</em> reads Harry Potter, to the exclusion of all else. Find such an adult and I will agree with you.</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re going to criticise wildly-popular books, a better place to start would be <a href="http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/000844.html" rel="nofollow" class="liexternal">The Da Vinci Code</a>. At least Rowling writes well.</p>
<p>By the way, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/10/npott110.xml" rel="nofollow" class="liexternal">A S Bryant&#8217;s</a> opinion is worth a read too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sunny Kalsi</title>
		<link>http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/2007/07/28/harry-pot-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-52434</link>
		<dc:creator>Sunny Kalsi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2007 02:03:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/2007/07/28/harry-pot-or-not/#comment-52434</guid>
		<description>I also have this morbid fascination with why people like what is quite clearly a children&#039;s book. There are two reasons I&#039;ve found so far -- They see it as a Mills-and-Boon novel, where they read predictable drivel because... well it&#039;s a happy fantasy.

Secondly, as you mention above, they&#039;re just not that well-read into fantasy. If there was a &quot;fantasy for dummies&quot;, Harry Potter would be it. In a way, because it&#039;s about children in schools, the readers are effectively being taught about concepts which you would find in other books, but in a nice, easy to understand, and concise manner. All the various creatures, materials, customs, etc.

I&#039;d recommend more Mills and Boon. They probably don&#039;t actually like the fantasy genre.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also have this morbid fascination with why people like what is quite clearly a children&#8217;s book. There are two reasons I&#8217;ve found so far &#8212; They see it as a Mills-and-Boon novel, where they read predictable drivel because&#8230; well it&#8217;s a happy fantasy.</p>
<p>Secondly, as you mention above, they&#8217;re just not that well-read into fantasy. If there was a &#8220;fantasy for dummies&#8221;, Harry Potter would be it. In a way, because it&#8217;s about children in schools, the readers are effectively being taught about concepts which you would find in other books, but in a nice, easy to understand, and concise manner. All the various creatures, materials, customs, etc.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d recommend more Mills and Boon. They probably don&#8217;t actually like the fantasy genre.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/2007/07/28/harry-pot-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-52284</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jul 2007 07:01:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/2007/07/28/harry-pot-or-not/#comment-52284</guid>
		<description>I was thinking of Eddings&#039; Belgariad as a very close match to the early HP books. The more I think about them the more I think they fail to meet the quality requirement.  They&#039;re really a formula page-turner where parallel storylines are mechanically interwoven with a context switch every chapter.  It&#039;s also a fairly blatant cavalcade of sexual and racial stereotypes.

I&#039;m a Vance fan, and I think the Lyonesse trilogy is his finest serious work.  Like Le Guin, I wouldn&#039;t force him on novice readers, but it&#039;s a very fine piece of work.  Beautiful, tragic, and moving.

Vance&#039;s non-serious work is another story.  The Dying Earth series is fantastic comedy.  I&#039;d recommend Eyes of the Overworld or Cugel&#039;s Saga as an excellent introduction to Vance&#039;s very dry and dark sense of humour.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was thinking of Eddings&#8217; Belgariad as a very close match to the early HP books. The more I think about them the more I think they fail to meet the quality requirement.  They&#8217;re really a formula page-turner where parallel storylines are mechanically interwoven with a context switch every chapter.  It&#8217;s also a fairly blatant cavalcade of sexual and racial stereotypes.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m a Vance fan, and I think the Lyonesse trilogy is his finest serious work.  Like Le Guin, I wouldn&#8217;t force him on novice readers, but it&#8217;s a very fine piece of work.  Beautiful, tragic, and moving.</p>
<p>Vance&#8217;s non-serious work is another story.  The Dying Earth series is fantastic comedy.  I&#8217;d recommend Eyes of the Overworld or Cugel&#8217;s Saga as an excellent introduction to Vance&#8217;s very dry and dark sense of humour.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/2007/07/28/harry-pot-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-52167</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 16:28:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.somethinkodd.com/oddthinking/2007/07/28/harry-pot-or-not/#comment-52167</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d have second thoughts about recommending Ursula LeGuin&#039;s work to those new to fantasy, as the Earthsea quartet (as it was when I finished reading it, anyway) is a study in Things Not Happening. Her style is focused much more on personal dynamics - her equivalent sci-fi works are all about how strangers react to each other. For Earthsea, this style leads to all the action sequences occuring between books. They&#039;re still very good books, but not for those new to the f in sf&amp;f.

By comparison, Feist&#039;s Riftwar series is a great read for beginners. And here I&#039;m focusing on Magician - and to a lesser extent Silverthorn and A Darkness at Sethanon - since Magician is a highly focused book with some interesting concepts of how magic can work. If you think the sequence in Mac Mordain Cadal is familiar, I urge you to look past its inadequacies and continue, because the fight with the Balrog/Brak Nurr helps drive the protagonists to their respective fates - and there&#039;s no resurrection allusions with this version.

Another series that&#039;s good for those starting out with fantasy is one of the many David Eddings series (pick one, any one). I&#039;d recommend the Belgariad (since that&#039;s the one I started with) starting with Pawn of Prophecy, but they&#039;re all roughly as good as each other. Their weakness is each of his series is much the same as the others, but that might be what you&#039;re looking for in your fantasy anyway.

Xanth is great, but if you can&#039;t tell that even the place name is a pun (let alone almost every single book title), then I&#039;m not sure you&#039;re ready for the shear volume of puns to be set forth on those pages. Also, be careful not to stray into Piers&#039; more... exotic fiction, since that can be quite confronting.

Speaking of confronting exotic fantasy, Michael Moorcock (really! Look it up!) and his Elric saga are fantastic (in every sense). This is another aquired taste, but well worth the effort. Similarly Robert E. Howard&#039;s Conan series (you might remember Arnie playing him shouting &#039;Crom!&#039;) is also cool for pulp fantasy.

Lastly, I can&#039;t help mentioning the Amber series by Roger Zelazny, since that&#039;s yet another well constructed multiverse that mostly makes sense - and is also somewhat rooted in our own world, much like Harry Potter is.

Lastly, I quite liked the Dragonlance Chronicles and Legends series, even though they&#039;re based on a &#039;mere&#039; game world. I&#039;ve also heard great things about the Drizzt series of books, but I&#039;ve not read them myself so I can&#039;t recommend any particular trilogy. Beware rambling to your friends and relatives about how wonderful Drizzt is though - you just might drive them away from reading fiction altogether!

Anne McAffrey is another easy read with a universe that&#039;s got some depth to it. Dragonsinger and The White Dragon are stand out volumes, but you could read &#039;em all. Be warned that some volumes fall on the romance-novels-featuring-dragons side of the fence, but they&#039;re still ok.

Oh, and does alternate history count as fantasy here?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d have second thoughts about recommending Ursula LeGuin&#8217;s work to those new to fantasy, as the Earthsea quartet (as it was when I finished reading it, anyway) is a study in Things Not Happening. Her style is focused much more on personal dynamics &#8211; her equivalent sci-fi works are all about how strangers react to each other. For Earthsea, this style leads to all the action sequences occuring between books. They&#8217;re still very good books, but not for those new to the f in sf&amp;f.</p>
<p>By comparison, Feist&#8217;s Riftwar series is a great read for beginners. And here I&#8217;m focusing on Magician &#8211; and to a lesser extent Silverthorn and A Darkness at Sethanon &#8211; since Magician is a highly focused book with some interesting concepts of how magic can work. If you think the sequence in Mac Mordain Cadal is familiar, I urge you to look past its inadequacies and continue, because the fight with the Balrog/Brak Nurr helps drive the protagonists to their respective fates &#8211; and there&#8217;s no resurrection allusions with this version.</p>
<p>Another series that&#8217;s good for those starting out with fantasy is one of the many David Eddings series (pick one, any one). I&#8217;d recommend the Belgariad (since that&#8217;s the one I started with) starting with Pawn of Prophecy, but they&#8217;re all roughly as good as each other. Their weakness is each of his series is much the same as the others, but that might be what you&#8217;re looking for in your fantasy anyway.</p>
<p>Xanth is great, but if you can&#8217;t tell that even the place name is a pun (let alone almost every single book title), then I&#8217;m not sure you&#8217;re ready for the shear volume of puns to be set forth on those pages. Also, be careful not to stray into Piers&#8217; more&#8230; exotic fiction, since that can be quite confronting.</p>
<p>Speaking of confronting exotic fantasy, Michael Moorcock (really! Look it up!) and his Elric saga are fantastic (in every sense). This is another aquired taste, but well worth the effort. Similarly Robert E. Howard&#8217;s Conan series (you might remember Arnie playing him shouting &#8216;Crom!&#8217;) is also cool for pulp fantasy.</p>
<p>Lastly, I can&#8217;t help mentioning the Amber series by Roger Zelazny, since that&#8217;s yet another well constructed multiverse that mostly makes sense &#8211; and is also somewhat rooted in our own world, much like Harry Potter is.</p>
<p>Lastly, I quite liked the Dragonlance Chronicles and Legends series, even though they&#8217;re based on a &#8216;mere&#8217; game world. I&#8217;ve also heard great things about the Drizzt series of books, but I&#8217;ve not read them myself so I can&#8217;t recommend any particular trilogy. Beware rambling to your friends and relatives about how wonderful Drizzt is though &#8211; you just might drive them away from reading fiction altogether!</p>
<p>Anne McAffrey is another easy read with a universe that&#8217;s got some depth to it. Dragonsinger and The White Dragon are stand out volumes, but you could read &#8216;em all. Be warned that some volumes fall on the romance-novels-featuring-dragons side of the fence, but they&#8217;re still ok.</p>
<p>Oh, and does alternate history count as fantasy here?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

