Fantasy

Bitchy, bitchy, bitchy...

Pratchett takes swipe at Rowling

Writer Terry Pratchett has poked fun at Harry Potter author JK Rowling for saying she did not realise she was writing a fantasy novel.

He wrote to the Sunday Times:"I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds... would have given her a clue?"... [BBC]

...and not because "Rowling is now PTerry's bitch."

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". [BBC, cont'd]

Brilliant. JK Rowling has reduced "PTerry" and to incoherent rage and Neil Gaiman to grim rumination.

On the one hand, they want to claim the Harry Potter books as fantasy. It really pisses them off that such a huge commercial success isn't counted squarely as a coup for the fantasy genre.

On the other hand, they really don't like the fact that a card carrying non-fanboy is kicking asses all over the best seller lists. Evidently, PTerry has some long standing insecurities in this department.

PTerry thinks it's just obvious that books with trolls and broomsticks must be fantasy, and furthermore that Rowling is stupid to say that she didn't realize she was writing a fantasy novel. But that doesn't stop him from berating Rowling for not knowing anything about the fantasy genre. Because, obviously, if she knew anything about fantasy, she'd know that just because you've got a dragon in your book doesn't mean you're not keeping it grittily REAL.

If you want to claim an author's work for your genre, you've got to at least credit the author with knowing basic genre conventions. PTerry should make up his mind. He can either accuse Rowling of being a dilettante who doesn't know anything about fantasy, or he can call her a traitor who actually writes fantasy but pretends that she doesn't. He can't have it both ways.

I don't really have an opinion on any genre fight in any medium. However, I do admire this post by an aspiring fantasy writer about why fantasy writing tends to suck.

Comments

[Linnet]

I'm with Pterry here. I realize there's a technical definition of "fantasy" as a genre, but broadly and colloquially speaking, if your book has magic or anything supernatural then it's fantasy. Or at least, you should be clued in to the fact that other people might consider it fantasy. If your book has technological developments that we don't have yet then you should be prepared to hear it called sci-fi.

And it's totally possible to subvert genre conventions while being unaware of what you're doing.

[Jedmunds]

I haven't read the article so can someone reconcile these two statements for me.

(1)she did not realise she was writing a fantasy novel.

and

(2)Rowling said she... was trying to "subvert" the genre.

Those statements strike me as far more irreconcilable than anything Pratchett said.

[Jerjo]

I've got no beef against Pterry even though the book I liked of his was the one with Gaiman. The original article is very poorly written by someone who had no understanding of fantasy at all. And speaking of having no understanding of fantasy, the whiner who is complaining about fantasy writing sucking has never read George R.R. Martin, Glenn Cook, R Scott Bakker, Emma Bull, Lois Bujold, or Stephen Erikson.

Oh, and I'd crawl over broken glass to get my hands on book 7 of Harry Potter, Pterry has never made me feel that way.

[Nancy]

Well since we're talking about genre writing and sucking, it's time to recall Sturgeon's law:

"Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud."

[Mike Nilsen]

It certainly seems from Rowling's remarks that she is not well-read in the fantasy genre. There's nothing wrong with writing fantasy novels without having a background in the genre, but to criticize fantasy as "an idealised, romanticised, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves" shows that you're in NO position to 'subvert the genre'. Ingnorance-based remarks like that seem arrogant, and are sure to ignite the ire of the fen. If you're trying to subvert, you have to take on the fantasy that's already considered subversive and cutting-edge, not some straw-man of hackneyed, banged-out-for-bucks Barnes-and-Noble shelf filler.

[julia]

Hey, I'm as certifiable a Harry follower as anyone, but Pterry is a better writer.

This is a replay of the Does Vonnegut Write SF? dustup. Hard for me to get excited about. I'm far more interested in books than in where they're shelved in Barnes and Noble.

[Brian Vaughan]

Twoflower? Are you the same person who did the Elegia Eternum and Excrucio Eternum modules for Neverwinter Nights? Those were excellent examples of fantasy writing, and done in a computer version of D&D, which is badly overburdened with cliches, making the achievement all the more noteworthy.

[Bongo]

I think the big irony (or missed point) of this whole discussion is that if anyone can claim to have reinvented fantasy writing then it's Pratchett himself, rather than Rowling.

Pratchet started off writing Science Fiction, then humor in a fantasy setting (not taking the genre seriously). Now that he's created his own fantasy world, his more recent books use the fantasy setting merely as colour to his story ideas. His later books are very much vehicles for his characters, than some fantastic world.

If anything, the Harry Potter books are the complete opposite- Rowling has taken a commonplace setting (a public school ) and pepped up this tired and done to death subject by added fantasy characters and story to the whole thing.

So while she may claim she's not writing fantasy, that's a fantasy in itself.

And yes, I enjoy both writers.. but I must agree with Mike above that Pratchett is by far the better writer.

[Brian Vaughan]

Am I the only person who doesn't find Terry Pratchett's novels funny?

[KenL]

Lindsay: I agree with Julian Elson's take, and wonder if perhaps you aren't being a bit contemptuous of PTerry for other reasons (perhaps his petty attack on a successful female author?)

[Auguste]

The thing is that JK Rowling is only competent - even though I enjoy her books - and if she really did claim that she's "subverting the genre", then she's so far off base that she deserves any shellacking that comes her way - which doesn't seem overly evident in Pratchett's remarks in the first place.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I'm exasperated witht PTerry because of his bivalent contempt for JK Rowling. Both he and Neil Gaiman are irritated that Rowling (and/or the media) are portraying the HP books as something other than fantasy. He's not willing to take Rowling at her word when she says that she's not a fantasy fan and that she didn't set out to write genre fantasy.

According to PTerry, it's ridiculous of Rowling to say that she didn't realize she was writing fantasy. Why is this so crazy? She set out to write children's books. Children's literature is generally more flexible about magical or fantastic elements. As it turned out, Rowling's young adult fiction had massive crossover appeal to older audiences. Suddenly JK Rowling is being asked whether she self-identifies as a fantasy writer. This is apparently a big issue within the established community of fantasy writers. Should you describe yourself as a writer of genre fiction and thereby risk "ghettoizing" yourself? Or should you make a bid for mainstream credibility and risk perpetuating the marginal status of genre fiction?

Of course, hardened fantasy fans tend to look down their noses at Rowling. Genre conaisseurs stress that her work isn't as conceptually or stylistically sophisticated as someone like Pratchett. No doubt they're right. PTerry complains that Rowling doesn't actually know anything about the modern fantasy genre--if she did she'd know that fantasy can be gritty and sophisticated and all that good stuff.

There's a double bind here: PTerry et all loudly insisting that Rowling is a member of their camp, berating her for denying her allegiance to fantasy, and simultaneously criticizing her for either not being a good fantasy writer by adult genre standards or not knowing what's going on the the genre they insist she's working in.

[Ha]

I can't believe this. You seem to be willfully misreading the comments and Pratchett's message.

The main thing that ticks me and, I think, although I could be wrong, many fantasy fans off about Rowling's speech is the claim that she is subverting the fantasy field.

She absolutely and definitely isn't. That is a false claim. If that isn't bad enough, she is also claiming that she doesn't know the fantasy field. So, she is making the first claim based on ignorance of the field.

What she says is like a computer scientist, who has never studied biology in detail, claiming that his version of Intelligent Design can replace/update evolution.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Ha, I think PTerry is completely overreacting to a relatively benign statement by Rowling.

What do you think she means by "subverting the fantasy genre"? It's a meaningless phrase, I agree. I think the charitable interpretation is something like this: "I set out to write a young adult novel in which I borrowed some tropes from the fantasy genre. I wasn't trying to write a book that would appeal to adults who self-identify as fantasy readers." Rowling obviously has some inaccurate stereotypes about modern fantasy. That's not surprising. By her own admission, she isn't a fan.

[BillCross]

and PTerry was saying "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you should probably recognize that it's a duck".

Rowling seems to me like the multitudes of emo and power pop bands that adamantly insist they aren't emo or power pop. That's understandable from someone just starting out, but really Rowling can't now be contained by the fantasy "ghetto" anyway, so why deny the obvious.

A big question to me is does she now realize that what she wrote is indeed fantasy no matter what she started out trying to do. Most books go through enough rewrites etc. that where they start and finish can be significantly different. Thus, whether she really wanted to or not she wrote a fantasy series. admitting the truth is the first step to recovery.

[Thad]

Lindsay,

Genre arguments aside (seriously, what genre would you call the Harry Potter series, if not fantasy?), people are mostly pissed because Rowling is saying, "Fantasy is complete bunk. I'm doing all these fresh and original things that have never happened in fantasy novels before. And by the way, I've never read a fantasy novel all the way through." Plus, she's been given a very large platform to say it.

Neither Pratchett nor Gaiman said anything remotely approaching Rowling's level of ignorant arrogance. [Plus, you know, they can actually write.]

[Ampersand]

Lindsey, I find the genre distinction you're making between "fantasy" and "children's books" to be dubious. When I was ten years old and reading "The Hobbit" and "Nancy Drew," it was obvious to me that these books were in different genres, and my view was not uncommon - there are plenty of children who not only are aware of genre categories, but have favorite genres to read.

Clearly, Prachett doesn't make the distinction you're making: he says fantasy "has also contained some of the very best, most accessible writing for children."

As for Prachett's supposed attack on Rowling, personally I find Prachett's books unreadable, and I'm a big fan of the Harry Potter books. Nonetheless, I think you're straining to create smoke where there's very little actual fire. Your post gives an inaccurate impression that he was sniping at Rowling; but when I read the letter, it was much more about criticizing the Time magazine author than about criticizing Rowling.

[Patrick]

There is nothing obviously contradictory about the following claims:

a) Harry Potter is a fantasy novel.
b) J.K. Rowling is wrong when she says that HP is not fantasy.
c) Rowling is also incorrect when she says she is "subverting the genre."

I have read some Harry Potter, and it seems pretty clear that these three statements are true. And true statements can't contradict themselves.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Genre and "audience" distinctions are largely arbitrary and unhelpful. It's usually unenlightening for readers and critics to split hairs over whether a given work is really fantasy or really children's literature or really bebop, or whatever. My primary exception to this generalization is when an artist tries to tell you what they set out to do with their own work. Identifying yourself as part of a genre is a shorthand way to specify your influences, your tradition, your goals, etc.

What's inaccurate about my description of PTerry? He was clearly sniping at Rowling. Remarks like "...what was her first clue...?" are nasty, patronizing, and completely lacking in collegiality. Yes, Rowling said some uninformed things about the fantasy genre, and for that she deserves to be criticized. She's certainly not "subverting the genre" in any meaningful sense. Again, if someone wants to call her out on that in a constructive and collegial way, I'm all for it. (Frankly, I wish nobody ever talked about "subverting genres" because I'm never quite sure what they're talking about.)

But PTerry and some of the other hardcore fantasy types are being drippingly condescending towards Rowling without relinquishing one iota of there sense of entitlement to whatever good publicity Rowling might give as the sales-appointed queen of the genre.

Pratchett is being incoherent. He's clearly irritated that Rowling won't stand up and be counted as a fantasy writer. Yet he goes out of his way to say that she isn't an informed participant in the genre itself. What's the point of demarcating genres if not to indicate that a work is part of a tradition/community? If she doesn't read current fantasy, and doesn't like classic fantasy, and doesn't know (much less share) any of the prevailing aesthetic(s), then it's arbitrary to count her as a part of that tradition. Better to say she's borrowing some elements from the fantasy genre without much understanding of the source tradition.

Another way of looking at the double bind is this: If Rowling identified herself as a fantasy author, many of the same hardcore fans would probably be complaining that she wasn't a real fantasy writer, just a cheap appropriator and popularizer who was contributing to vulgar public perceptions of the genre.

[clew]

I agree with Julian Elson - once Rowling claims to not read much (or any) fantasy, any claim she makes to be subverting fantasy is fatuous; she doesn't know enough to say. I should add that I now distrust any edited report of the whole discussion, as many ringer dogs seem to be being thrown into the fight.

Personally, I think she's doing a better job of subverting whatever made grownups quit reading children's books. Go her.

I completely disagree that Pratchett is being either incoherent or uncollegial. Not incoherent, because I don't think he wants her to wave a flag, just quit this bit of fatuousness. Not uncollegial, *first* because his argument was logical and directed as much as possible towards her work not her; *second* because insofar as they're colleagues, they are colleagues in British public speaking, and that was a featherbed comment by the standards of that college. Rowling has said more cutting things to her own fans.

This isn't nearly as entertaining as Margaret Atwood explaining that _Oryx & Crake_ wasn't a science-fiction novel with Martians, it was a speculative fiction novel based on "What if we continue down the road we're already on?"... which I thought was the sop to convention that let Serious People read it, with a reference to "If This Goes On" that any actual SF reader should have caught on the wink.

[Patrick]

Pratchett is probably just being sarcastic. Not in a mean way, either. I read his comment about "what did she think she was writing?" to simply be an effort at using a joke to explain that there's no point in making this fantasy stuff more complex than it needs to be. If its got dragons in it, its fantasy. No point in subverting genres when the only linking feature of the genre is that its got dragons in it.

Case in point, there's western fantasy, faery tale fantasy, gothic fantasy, relationship fantasy, basically any type of book you can imagine, someone's got a fantasy version of that type of book.

Don't try to read extra venom into something innocuous.

As for portraying the mythic, its worth noting that this is basically Pratchett's schtick. People don't love his books because they're hilarious. They love his books because they're mythic. Taking the extraordinary, demystifying it, then building up a new version to mythic proportions is the thing which makes his books so great. He does it with traditional fantasy mainstays, like the incarnation of Death, but he also does it with mundane things: his Vimes and Granny Weatherwax characters work so well not because of any supernatural aspects (granny has these anyways) but because he builds normal, human moral choice into something of mythic proportions.

If I were a lit crit person, I would be able to wax eloquent on the virtues of reading the Vimes novels in order: Its a rare ability to read a series of books where 1) the author grows as an author, 2) the main character grows as a character, and 3) the depth of the books grows deeper, all at once. They begin with Guards, Guards, and end with Nightwatch. The moral of the first is relatively simple: "Kings. Not a Good Idea." By the last one, its a grim but hopeful exposition on the banality of evil compared to the fundamental good nature of humanity.

The only one I didn't enjoy in there is Jingo, but I think that was probably just because I wasn't personally able to laugh at a parody of jingoism so soon after 9/11. He wrote it before then, so that's not his fault.

Anyways, highly recommended. Even if you don't like Fantasy.

[Brian Vaughan]

I must be really missing out on the Pratchett, then. The only things I've read were the novels about Rincewind, which I thought were rather meanspirited, crude, and unimaginative. Were those his earliest books?

[Auguste]

His first two books were Rincewind novels, after which he retired the character, before bringing him back for a couple mainly lackluster novels. I agree that the Vimes books are by far the best.

I grew up with Pratchett, picking him up at age 14 in England and remaining a lifelong fan - therefore being wildly biased - but I feel that there's gotta be a book in there for everyone. By the way, if there's anyone who successfully subverts (or at the very least, bends nearly beyond recognition) his genre, it's Pratchett. Try Pyramids, or Small Gods, or Reaper Man, or Feet of Clay.

[Auguste]

Oh, and since you (kind of) asked, the Vimes/City Watch series are, in order:

Guards! Guards!
Men At Arms
Feet of Clay
Jingo
The Fifth Elephant
The Truth
The Last Hero
Night Watch
Monstrous Regiment

I looked that up, I didn't have it in memory. I'm not that far gone.

[John deBoer]

Given that Rowling says she didn't know she was writing in the fantasy genre, I think it's fair to wonder what genre she meant when she says she was trying to "subvert" it. Based on what she says afterward, I'm guessing she meant the popular fairy tale, where once it's revealed that the peasant is really a princess, she lives happily ever after. I really doubt she meant Fantasy, as most people here would define it.

Maybe it's my overly optimistic nature, but it didn't seem to me like anybody is trying to dis anybody else in this exchange, except the journalist Lev Grossman ragging on morris-dancing fantasy novels he (she?) has never read. My impression of Rowling is that she is not someone whose feelings would be hurt by Prachett's "would have given her a clue", and the rest of his remarks were surely not directed at her but at journalism that imagines all fantasy is morris-dancing, all comic books are about ZAP! BAM! superheroes, all rap lyrics are about bitches guns & bling, etc etc.