JK Rowling v.s other fantasy authors

[ArlEammon]

Never read Potter. I might not ever, but perhaps I may review it one day just for the shucks of it.

I've read all but one book of LOTR. I've read one, or maybe two book of C.S Lewis'es, I've read two books of the Wizard of Earth Sea. I've read the entire Dragon Lance Trilogy, the Twins Trilogy, and other Dragon Lance books. I"m sure I've read just a few others, who's names I don't recall. What I need to know is, how does JK Rowling compete with authors like my favorites Margaret Weis/Tracy Hickman, and others?

[....]

The Harry Potter books are fun.

Especially now that they're all out, you can read through them without waiting for the next one and enjoy them quite a bit.

Are they the best fantasy books ever written? I wouldn't say so. But they're not bad. I'd give them a solid 7 out of 10.

(The reason I talk about the HP books and not Rowling as an author is becuase, well, she hasn't written anything else.)

[Sir_Norbert]

Definitely fun, yes.

Plus points: she weaves an intriguing plot, draws you into her world, fascinates you with the detail of her invention. Each book is a well-plotted mystery that will keep you guessing until the final revelation, and then suddenly it all makes sense... but at the same time each book reveals part of the bigger picture behind the whole series, so you're drawn into wanting to read on.

Bonus plus point: when you get as far as the fifth book, it has Luna Lovegood in it.

Minus points: her technique as a writer is not the best. If you're willing to ignore this and concentrate on what she's saying with the writing, there's no reason you won't enjoy them. There are many inconsistencies and plot holes (she has repeatedly admitted she sucks at maths). Her tendency to bring out a giant deus ex machina just when the tension is at its highest gets tiresome after a few books.

Also:

Spoiler

Show

The ending of the last book is a major let-down.

[warty goblin]

Hmm, I'd put Harry Potter way way under LOTR in terms of...just about everything actually. Writing, worldbuilding, plot, character, hell even the Magguffin in LOTR is cooler and more interesting.

I can't say about the Earthsea series since I never read much of 'em. To me it fell into the "if I wanted to read something this much like Tolkien, I'd read Tolkien" catagory.

When compared to Dragonlance, Harry Potter comes out ahead on some scores, behind on others. The Dragonlance world blows the HP world out of the water without a doubt, even after the various later ret-connings, its just plain more interesting. Character wise, its something of a wash, there's some good characters in HP, just as their are in Dragonlance. HP has nobody who even comes close to the awesomeness and complexity of Raistlin however, for one thing there's pretty much nobody in HP who isn't clearly a villian or a heroe in the end. . Where HP IMHO comes out ahead is in narrative consistancy and humor. Although there certainly are some discontinuities in HP, the fundamental elements of the universe tend to not be altered every trilogy or so (not that I'm complianing, DL does a pretty good job of working these kinks out). Narrative scope and complexity I'd have to give to Dragonlance however, although due to spoilers I'm not going to elaborate.

Conclusion: Although inferior to some books, HP is still worth reading, as it is quite fun and entertaining, although it never made me think and interprete in the way that LOTR did.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Also:

Spoiler

Show

The ending of the last book is a major let-down.

Personally, I enjoyed the climax (cheap Deus Ex Machina being expected by then), and just ignored the epilogue except for humor value.

Anyway, Harry Potter's alright, but you should really be reading Discworld, by Terry Pratchett. Far and away the best fantasy franchise I've ever read.

[puppyavenger]

Amber>Diskworld>LOTR>Shanara>Earthsea>Rowling.

[Haruki-kun]

Harry Potter's good, but it's not the best there is. But I should say it is one of the best.

In my opinion, HP deserves to be in a bookshelf next to LOTR and Narnia.

Never read Discworld myself (I will soon) but my current favorite is Garth Nix, especially his "The Seventh Tower" Series.

[Leper_Kahn]

I agree with most people here. It's fun.

Other books are far better, but if you want a lighthearted-esk book one of the Potter books would be a good choice.

[The_Snark]

Amber>Diskworld>LOTR>Shanara>Earthsea>Rowling.

I like most of those, but I'm unsure why you placed Shannara on there at all. I haven't read a whole lot by the guy, but the Shannara book I read struck me as a heavy Tolkien derivative. Different enough that it wasn't a ripoff, sure, but it wasn't all that original, either.

Discworld is great fun. I also liked what I've managed to find of Fritz Leiber so far, although his stuff is hard to track down. (And go read the last book of the Lord of the Rings! How can you stand to go so far in a series and not complete it?)

But going back to Rowling... she's a pretty fair writer. The books have their flaws (parts of the later ones had an almost soap opera-ish feel that annoyed me), but I enjoyed reading them most of the time.

[Xuincherguixe]

Harry Potter is interesting because in a lot of ways the fantasy elements are kind of incidental. That is to say the world is magical and no one is particularly surprised by this. It serves a utility purpose.

It's written in an interesting way. Nothing about it is very original, but I no longer consider originality to be terribly important. I care about how well stories come together. Now if something is outright derivative? Then I won't bother with it.

Lord of the Rings was an interesting story, but looking back I realize that the plot was pretty simplistic. It was a very detailed world, but the characters were kind of lacking in depth. But, that too is how things were back then.

I haven't read too many Fantasy Novels, so I can't compare. There's a number of Shadowrun Novels I read that had a strong fantasy element, but those are going to be pretty obscure.

[Wraith]

After reading some of the Harry Potter stuff, I am convinced that I will never understand why it was such a fantastic success even if someone carved the reason into granite and dropped it on my head. Like several people here, I have found it to be a work of average quality (about irritating characters, I have to admit )

Having said that, what put me off the most was the snobbish pretension with with Rowling has regarded her work. She's on public record as having stated that she didn't intend Harry Potter to be a fantasy novel, and was attempting to 'subvert the genre'. A novel feat, to say that she didn't know WHAT genre she was writing in the first place.

Terry Pratchett didn't like that, much. Although it has little to do with her writing, even so I find it very hard to appreciate any of her work when she keeps making these ridiculous, sensationalist announcements to hype the brand, rather than just working on the overall quality.

Bah, enough rambling. Give me Neil Gaiman any day of the week. American Gods is quite simply the best novel I have ever read, and I thoroughly enjoyed Neverwhere, Anansi Boys and the Sandman series to boot.

[DomaDoma]

The only author who has ever riveted me more than JKR is George R.R. Martin, and I stopped reading Song of Ice and Fire somewhere in the third book because the guy is sorely lacking in, you know, hope. Flaws or no, that's a pretty tall order.

[Xefas]

Personally, and I'm not sure I can rate it without bias, I found the series to be quite good. I enjoyed it a lot more than Lord of the Rings, though I suppose I can concede that the Lord of the Rings series was probably better quality.

The first book came to the states when I was in elementary school, and that's when I read it. I had just finished the Chronicles of Narnia series, which were the first fantasy novels I ever read, but a little much for me at the time (3rdish grade?). Then I got shown Harry Potter, and it was far easier for me to relate to and enjoy. For that reason, the series will always probably be better to me than it actually is.

Right up there with Discworld, which I recommend just as wholeheartedly.

[Dallas-Dakota]

I'm going to be honest here, J.K. rowlings books are ment for children, any better she should or couldnt do.

The earthsea series have a very good plot but there just sometimes just isnt enough humor.

Tolkien owns all those writers asses, he has very good plots, world built, character introduction and build, he even has languages that you can learn and properly speak in, I see none of those in any other books, though I see scrambles of 'true names' in The earthsea series.

I have read all of J.K. books.(honestly, only the 7 HP books)
I am halfway in the second book of the Earthsea triology.
I have read almost all the books of Tolkien except the Silmarrilon.

What can I say I love Tolkien

[Manga Shoggoth]

I've read all but one book of LOTR. I've read one, or maybe two book of C.S Lewis'es, I've read two books of the Wizard of Earth Sea. I've read the entire Dragon Lance Trilogy, the Twins Trilogy, and other Dragon Lance books. I"m sure I've read just a few others, who's names I don't recall. What I need to know is, how does JK Rowling compete with authors like my favorites Margaret Weis/Tracy Hickman, and others?

First of all, remember that the HP stories are children's books, with the slight difference that the viewpoint is supposed to become more mature as the protaganists age. This has implications on the way the stories read.

I found the first three books were a delight. The Goblet of Fire less so (too large, but still held together reasonably well).

The next two books had good patches largely held together by filler.

The last book was more or less back to the quality of "Goblet of Fire". The person who was claiming "Deus Ex Machina" was heavily overstating things: Most of the elements were foreshadowed and there was no real sense of "getting the gods to sort it out". The actual method of Voldemort's defeat was even foreshadowed in the first book.

As to the comparisons: At best the books compare well with the original Dragonlance trilogy. The storyline was planned and is at least reasonably consistent (and reasonably pleasureable to read).

I wouldn't rate it as well as the Earthsea trilogy or The Hobbit.

I wouldn't even compare it with LOTR. They are too different.

[Jorkens]

I wouldn't really think of Harry Potter as a fantasy novel, to be honest - a lot of the time it reads like a boarding school story or a kids' adventure story with added wands. Certainly the focus of the storytelling is very different to the focus in a lot of the books the OP mentioned.

I like them, though. I wouldn't call them great literature or particularly well written stylistically, but they're exciting and fun and a generally enjoyable read.

[SmartAlec]

I reckon Rowling could take Jordan in a fistfight. Maybe not Martin, he has mass, he's a big guy. Pratchett would be a more even fight. Against Tolkien it depends - if it's Professor Tolkien then she could probably beat the old man, but he was a soldier in his youth if we say she's up against Tolkien when he was the same age as she is... he's probably a reasonably tough cookie.

That IS what this thread is about... right?

[Xuincherguixe]

I think I know who won the thread at least.

[Jerthanis]

I reckon Rowling could take Jordan in a fistfight. Maybe not Martin, he has mass, he's a big guy. Pratchett would be a more even fight. Against Tolkien it depends - if it's Professor Tolkien then she could probably beat the old man, but he was a soldier in his youth if we say she's up against Tolkien when he was the same age as she is... he's probably a reasonably tough cookie.

That IS what this thread is about... right?

Dang, you beat me to it...

...I was going to joke about how Rowling probably never learned how to shoot a gun, so probably losing in an arena with guns involved. I was also going to include irreverent jokes about Jordan and Tolkien being dead, and thus not much of a contender in a fight.

In any case... blah blah, Rowling is fun, blah blah, perhaps not a literary triumph or anything, blah blah, she's actually really entertaining, and good at foreshadowing and mystery, despite avoidable plotholes. Due to her popularity, her work is put under a much closer microscope of criticism than other, less popular works, and perhaps can't stand such close scrutiny. I'd say the real test of quality in a book is whether you stay up all night reading it because you can't put it down, or if you fall asleep while reading it. Harry Potter books kept me up all night from middle school through highschool and even into college. In that same time period I grew out of the styles of Robert Jordan and Margaret Weis, but I was still riveted by J. Rowling.

[Darken Rahl]

Weis and Hickman are hacks.

Rowling writes decent fun books, with little serious going on (regardless of intent.)

And the only reason Rowling could take Jordan in a fist fight is because he's dead, may he rest in peace.

[Prophaniti]

Personally, I've never understood the appeal of the series, unless people like it simply because it's british and they wish to feel sophisticated... I doubt that's the case, but I can't fathom what else it could be.
I've read part of it, and I guess it just didn't click with me. I'd much rather read R.A. Salvatore or George R.R. Martin, or even re-read Tolkien or Rober Jordan for the umteenth time. And I greatly prefer Jim Butcher's use and interpretation of a world of magic existing 'underneath' ours.

I read the article linked earlier and it gave me two major bones to pick.

1)Obviously the writer (of the Times interview) has never read a contemporary fantasy novel, indeed I would be surprised to learn they've read any kind of novel ever except HP (which was probably an asignment by the editor). Espesially if they can hold the egregious opinions that
a)she "reinvented" the genre in any way whatsoever, and
b) that the genre is in any way stuck in this "idealised, romanticised, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves".
I've never even read a fantasy novel where people morris-dance to greensleeves! I can't begin to fathom where the writer of the interview would pick up such a... (I cant think of an adjective strong enough here) flawed opinion.

2)I'm definitely with Pratchett on this one, you'd think with wizards and such she would have had some clue what genre she was in, even if it's not intended to be a cookie-cutter 'typical' fantasy book.

Sorry Rowling, but I'm relegating you to the 'Young Adult' section of my library. Maybe someday you'll grow up and be able to sit at the big kids table.

EDIT:

Weis and Hickman are hacks.

You, sir, have just earned a very special place on my enemies list. I don't even know where to start with how wrong that is. I... I... I'm going to go calm down before I break the posting rules and make an ass of myself.

[Kraggi]

In a battle royale, I'd give it to JK Rowling. Tolkein is already dead, and Rowling seems like a crazy old cat lady to me, and therefore seems a likely candidate for THE WIN.

[....]

Ooo, I forgot about Garth Nix and Sabriel. That is a really cool world, I wish he'd write more stories about the Abhorsen.

And how can you say LOTR has better characters that...er... anything? Dobby has more character development than the entire cast of LOTR.

[Fascisticide]

Harry Potter is fun to read, it's universe is very original, funny and imaginative. J K Rowling's writing style is easy to read, and the intrigue drags you into the book. That's all the positive things I can say about the books, but that's enough to really enjoy reading it.
The stories themselves are really not that great. When the plot is exposed at the end of the books, it was often a big down.
I would say, she is a great writer, but not a great story maker.

If I were to compare her to Weis and Hickman, who are also my favorite authors, I would say Rowling's writing style is more funny and really fun to read. But Weis and Hickman write better stories. I could say they create better worlds, but it can't really compare, as Harry Potter's world is not very serious.

Rowling lacks experience. Hopefully, she will get better at creating stories and intrigues. Just like Weis and Hickman did. Their earlier books, the dragonlance trilogies, were quite typical D&D stories... good, but not extraordinary. But with their most recent series, like Sovereign Stone and the new Dragonlance trilogy, we really see they gained much experience, their writing style is much better, the stories and worlds they create and much more rich ant with a deep plots.

Hopefully, with time Rowling will also get better at creating stories, while keeping her great writing style which made Harry Potter so fun to read.

[Prophaniti]

And how can you say LOTR has better characters that...er... anything? Dobby has more character development than the entire cast of LOTR.

Look, people. The simple fact is Lord of the Rings was written more that 50 years ago. Things like character development were not high priorities for a novelist at the time. The idea was to tell a good story, and they did tend to have a simplistic 'these are the good guys, these are the bad guys, they're going to fight and the good guys will almost lose, but win in the end' kind of approach. LotR pulled it off quite elegantly, to me.

The other thing to keep in mind when trying to compare LotR to other fantasy books is that Tolkien was creating a story in the old sense of the word. The kind of story that is handed down and told around the fireplace after dinner on a winter night. He was creating something meant to be taken in the same spirit as stories of King Arthur or Robin Hood. He was, as his letters tell, writing an authentically English fairy-tale, complete with shiny castles and wizards towers, deep forests and Dark Enemies. It was written in a rather straight-forward manner compared to some modern books, though I don't find that this detracts at all from the story, but rather enhances it.

I generally don't compare LotR to modern novels because it is simply too different. It was written in a different time with a different approach and had a different end result in mind. You get a lot further and are more easily understood if you compare modern authors to other modern authors, plus you don't piss off all the rabid Tolkien fans out there.

[warty goblin]

Ooo, I forgot about Garth Nix and Sabriel. That is a really cool world, I wish he'd write more stories about the Abhorsen.

And how can you say LOTR has better characters that...er... anything? Dobby has more character development than the entire cast of LOTR.

Agreed, Sabriel rocks. The sequels are good, even if they follow pretty much exactly the same story. Still, the atmosphere of Sabriel is pretty mindblowing, with just the right amount of creepy.

Although I admit that Weis and Hickman's prose are sometimes a little bad, I would never go so far as to call them hacks. Even with their earlier work there's a sense of wonder and love poured into their creation and characters. Harry Potter to me feels like a daydream, a fun, enjoyable daydream, but not something I can come back to again and again or take much away from. The old DL feels like more than that, the characters, although archtypical, feel alive to me in a way that HP characters never do. All of the characters that die in HP up through the sixth book were characters we had spent a fairly minimal amount of time with, and their deaths were so sterilized and abstract that it was hard to be too torn up about. The character deaths in Dragonlance could be somewhat over the top sometimes (Sturm), but at least were very blunt that yes, in fact, this person had just been impaled by a spear, or had a heart attack or whatever.

Also in HP, by the end, there was not a single character that didn't fall squarely into "Good Guy" or "Bad Guy" camps, which is, frankly, boring. The only characters with actual moral conflicts we never got to really experience as more than passive observers. Also, Raistlin destroys all in HP, not just in terms of raw power, but in terms of complexity of character. By the end of Legends, I was still not sure if I'd call him a hero or a villian. Sure he save the world, from himself.

[Jorkens]

Look, people. The simple fact is Lord of the Rings was written more that 50 years ago. Things like character development were not high priorities for a novelist at the time. The idea was to tell a good story, and they did tend to have a simplistic 'these are the good guys, these are the bad guys, they're going to fight and the good guys will almost lose, but win in the end' kind of approach. LotR pulled it off quite elegantly, to me.

I agree with you - and one of my favorite books, The King of Elfland's Daughter by Lord Dunsany, has even less character development but creates such a wonderful atmosphere of weirdness that it doesn't matter. But that doesn't mean that LotR has better character development, it just means that the lack of character development isn't important.

[....]

I realize that Tolkien's books are old...

But so is Sherlock Holmes, and Conan Doyle's characters are vivid and changing (albiet many of them have a fawning obsession over beautiful women) whereas 99% of Tolkien's are flat, achetypical cardboard cutouts.

Thats fine, because LOTR isn't a novel, its a history book with some vivid discriptions, but it annoys me when fans can't admit that LOTR is not, in fact, perfect.

[SteveMB]

I read the article linked earlier and it gave me two major bones to pick.

1)Obviously the writer (of the Times interview) has never read a contemporary fantasy novel, indeed I would be surprised to learn they've read any kind of novel ever except HP (which was probably an asignment by the editor). Espesially if they can hold the egregious opinions that
a)she "reinvented" the genre in any way whatsoever, and
b) that the genre is in any way stuck in this "idealised, romanticised, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves".
I've never even read a fantasy novel where people morris-dance to greensleeves! I can't begin to fathom where the writer of the interview would pick up such a... (I cant think of an adjective strong enough here) flawed opinion.

The quotation marks around the part I put in boldface give me the impression that the author was quoting Rowling, not giving his own opinion. (This point should have been more clear, though.)

[Prophaniti]

I've never said Tolkiens works were perfect, merely that they are great and deserving of shelf-space next to books like The Once and Future King and, as you mentioned, Sherlock Holmes. There really was more to my post than the quoted first paragraph.

to SteveMB: the article states: 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".

I took this to mean that the writer of the original article (the Rowling interview) posed these ridiculous and laughable claims. If, in fact, Rowling is responsible for that horrific quote then it has simply served to further lower my opinion of her writing capability and integrity. Perhaps she should actually read a few contemporary authors before disparaging them and what they write.