Obviously I read this the week it came out, but I haven’t had time to actually write it up. In fact, I wasn’t sure if I wanted to write it up. Why not? Because it’s been the most hyped tome since Jesus’ boys penned a little tract called “The New Testament.”
Maybe you’ve heard of it?
Is Potter Jesus? No. Anyone who blows a character out of proportion like the throngs of pre-teens at Barnes and Noble in Union Square needs to know this: fiction = lies. That said, there is some truth to the connection that these people (and lets’ be honest folks: there were some slightly “elder” folk in the midst) have with the characters. And that’s a testament to the genius that is J.K. Rowling.
I’ve had this argument with my more literary-minded friends before, thinking that they’re just kid-books. Or, worse yet, “sci-fi/fantasy” books. Hell, when I talked to my geek/nerd friends when the first books became popular in the U.S., they thought it was the gayest thing in the world to read Harry Potter (because it was “wack; not like The Lord of the Rings – there’s a great episode of “South Park” that echoes this sentiment).
Here’s the problem with both arguments. To begin: What’s wrong with science fiction or fantasy? How much of great literature actually falls under this category? Oh, that’s right, a whole bunch. Shall we do a little list of authors?
Orwell
Bradbury
Asimov
Tolkien
Verne
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
How about perhaps more of a stretch:
William Golding
Toni Morrison
James Joyce
Cormac McCarthy (who just won the Pulitzer)
Philip Roth
Fantastical elements are part and parcel of much of these latter authors' writing, and yet they aren’t classified in a specific “genre” so as not to denigrate their attempts. But it’s there nonetheless.
Magic is magic, boys and girls.
And there’s nothing wrong with that! In the September 2007 issue of Harper’s, an essay from Ursula Le Guin (a canonical sci-fi author – and I love the idea of canonical sci-fi) makes this point abundantly clear when she writes:
“Could he [Michael Chabon] not see that Cormac McCarthy – although everything in his book (except the wonderfully blatant use of an egregiously obscure vocabulary) was remarkably similar to a great many earlier works of science fiction about men crossing the country after a holocaust [speaking of his prize-winning novel, The Road] – could never under any circumstances be said to be a sci-fi writer, because Cormac McCarthy was a serious writer and so by definition incapable of lowering himself to commit genre?”
I’m not saying she thinks that McCarthy holds that opinion, but it’s pretty clear she thinks that the people who read him believe he isn’t “science fiction.” Le Guin’s highly sarcastic essay points out quite clearly the nature of the literary community, in it’s pedestal-placement of “high literature,” as totally ignoring the fact that if you’re going to sneer at “genre,” make sure your Ivory Tower isn’t built on it in the first place!
Moreover, by immediately placing something in a category, you are immediately shutting down any sort of constructive and objective facilities you might have. Considering that the first Potter book, The Sorcerer's Stone, is essentially a mystery novel that incorporates magic shows that it doesn’t easily fit into any genre, per se. It also helps that Rowling is an incredible writer.
Is “incredible” or “genius” too grand of terms? Maybe. But consider these two things: She’s a billionaire and you can read one of her 750 page novels in a day.
I don’t think I’m stretching those words too much.
What makes her so successful? Obviously, I wish I knew the formula, because then I’d be living in a castle in Scotland, too (although, I don’t actually have a desire to live in a castle in Scotland, but if that’s where all the billionaire authors hang out, that’s where my U-Haul will be pulling up to). Instead, though, you can point to a number of things. First, ease of reading. This is fiction at its best, because it is eminently readable. The sentences are not overly complex, the dialogue is natural and flows well, the explanations are short and yet provide information to complex ideas, and the story moves quickly.
Second (and obviously tied to the first) is that it works as YA literature – which I’ve discussed a few times. By being readable and appealing to a wide age-group, she created an audience virtually unparalleled in literature. Think of it this way: Ulysses, often considered the greatest novel ever written, is read by very few people, and understood by even less. You virtually can’t read it for deep understanding without guidance. On the flip-side, an 11-year-old girl can read Harry Potter, and not only get through it without difficulty, but probably give an adult insights they hadn’t even thought of. I’m sorry, but that’s genius.
I recently was speaking with my friend, and she asked me where I thought Potter would rank alongside The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings. I honestly think they will surpass them in terms of literary stature. They have characters that are more readily identifiable. The stories don’t carry any blatant religious overtones or subtexts. And, in an age of instant access, children are growing up with these books. People about to have children are reading these books. And millions and millions of copies are circulating, as well as concurrent movies (something Lewis and Tolkien did not have the luxury of). They have the immediacy of being in the minds of a huge audience, and they have a universality that shouldn’t have any trouble enduring. I love Lewis, and I appreciate Tolkien (I like the story, but I’m not thrilled with the execution), but I think Rowling has taken their tradition and brought it to a whole new place. Because unlike Lewis, her seven books tell one story, and unlike Tolkien, she wrote a populist text.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is an excellent finale to an excellent series. I think it satisfies everything that a fan could want, despite some protestations I’ve heard to the contrary. Rowling was unafraid to make strong decisions regarding characters (some die). Better yet, she answers the questions raised by the series (especially books 5 and 6), and she ends it in a way that leaves very little possibility for there to be more in the Potterverse.
And that’s a good thing.
Imagine you have the ability to write a winning lottery ticket whenever you want. But imagine doing so would destroy something beautiful each time. That’s what Rowling has the ability to do. By ending the last book the way she does, though, she pretty much closes down any future Harry Potter novels. What this means is that there won’t be any Superman IIIs or Batman and Robins or Rocky Vs. In other words, beloved franchises were ruined because of the desire to make more money. It may be over, and that may be sad, but it means the story is complete, and in time I think that’s for the best. I’d rather read all seven and be upset that there’s no more than read an eighth book and hate it.
Like I said, she’s a genius. And I’m willing to go toe-to-toe with anyone who disagrees.
I’m sure I can find a couple of people who might back me up.
Showing posts with label Harry Potter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harry Potter. Show all posts
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
Do You Believe in Magic?
Gee, what could this post be about?
Actually, it's not exactly what you think, but pretty darn close.
I’m sure Warner Brothers was waiting for this to feel legitimate, so I’m sorry I kept you waiting: Go see Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Like the end of one of the first seven days of Genesis: it was good. Just to let you know – there won’t be any spoilers in my review. I don’t think it’s necessary, and since I’m telling you to go see it, it seems pointless to then tell you about specifics.
It’s possibly the best of the five movies, mostly because the acting of the children has continued to improve in each one (with perhaps the exception of Emma Watson, who plays Hermione a bit too stiff. Some of her reactions and emotional displays come off as forced, and you can tell she’s acting instead of being reactive. Still, I think that’s a matter of a director working with his/her actors and getting the right shots – some of my criticism of Watson’s acting is that the scenes go on too long, making her reactions appear unnatural – such as when she and Ron are laughing after Harry’s encounter with Cho). What’s incredible is that these children (all relative – if not complete – nobodies before these movies) are surrounded by a who’s who of British actors – all of them in essentially bit-roles. Amongst the Oscar winners are Ralph Fiennes, Maggie Smith, and Emma Thompson, and the other names are just as impressive: Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Jason Isaacs, Michael Gambon, David Thewlis, Gary Oldman, and newly-cast Helena Bonham Carter (I’m realizing that as I write these names, they may not all jump out as being recognizable, but I guarantee you’ve seen them in movies other than Harry Potter). Also newly cast in bigger roles are Imelda Staunton as Dorothy Umbridge (who she plays perfectly), and Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood, who I thought was brilliant (although, like the casting of Emma Watson as Hermione, is probably prettier than the book implies, but that’s Hollywood). Considering the limits of the script, the actors do a very good job.
It is those limits that I’ve been hearing about so much in complaints about the movie, although more the fact that the movie is not “true to the book.” This is false. The movie is incredibly true to the book, in that it does what it can with what it has (in other words, time and money). While it is a fact that the movie cuts out great swaths of the story Rowling wrote, the essential conflict is kept intact and done so in a satisfying manner. When you are trying to condense 700 pages into a two-and-half hour movie, cuts have to be made. I agree it is a shame that elements of character development are left out either partially or completely – why Harry is so angry, Ron and Quidditch, Neville and his parents, Chang and Cedric – almost all of those aspects are brought into the movie in one way or another.
More importantly, despite what people say, you can’t make a longer movie. Sure, hard-core fans may sit through a four hour film, but such a movie would alienate a less-devoted but no less curious majority, let alone casual viewers. I don’t know if I’m the completely accurate in my assessment here, but it seems to me that: 1) people can’t sit through four hours of movie, 2) don’t have four hours to watch a movie, and/or 3) simply aren’t interested enough to watch a movie for four hours. A four hour movie would be financially a poor decision (an answer I know never satisfies fans, but it is reality, folks), and I question the ability to add a number of the missing elements and make an interesting movie (oooh, Harry’s studying for O.W.L.S!).
I’ve discussed my adherence to my man McLuhan’s idea of “the medium is the message,” and as such, I find it necessary to point out: films are not live-action novels. They are two different mediums, and therefore can do things that that the other can’t do. People approach how they interact with the mediums differently, the mediums give information differently, and the technology that produces and disseminates them are different. A movie can’t include everything a novel can because it would then be too much.
You can’t bookmark a movie (remembering that movies are produced to be seen in movie theatres, not on DVD players).
What everyone should be happy with is that the movie maintains the inherent Harry Potterness that Rowling wanted, while keeping the movie (and the movies – remember this is a piece of something larger, too) in a coherent, forward-moving, direction. If you keep that firmly in mind, the movie is very satisfying. Heck, the scenes with Luna are worth the price of admission alone.
If you want to see comparisons of the movie with the book, check out this site. Although not set up as well as I would hope, the analysis is spot on (this will spoil the movie, if you haven’t seen it): Geeks of Doom – Harry Potter 5
And here’s the same for Goblet of Fire: Geeks of Doom – Harry Potter 4
In other Potter news: haven’t read the last book yet, but I did just pick it up. So you have something to look forward to (although I have another book I’m reading before I get to it, so you might have to wait).
Just a reminder: “Psych,” “Eureka,” and “The Closer” are a couple of weeks into their seasons, and they might be the best shows on television, so check them out.
“Psych”: USA, Friday, 10 p.m. (Eastern Time, of course. Might as well be Only Time).
“Eureka”: Sci-Fi Channel, Tuesday, 9 p.m.
“The Closer”: TNT, Monday, 9 p.m.
Another reminder: Carlos Mencia is still not funny. He's not a "Mexican Dave Chappelle." He's kind of an idiot.
And not funny.
Did I mention that?
Actually, it's not exactly what you think, but pretty darn close.
I’m sure Warner Brothers was waiting for this to feel legitimate, so I’m sorry I kept you waiting: Go see Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Like the end of one of the first seven days of Genesis: it was good. Just to let you know – there won’t be any spoilers in my review. I don’t think it’s necessary, and since I’m telling you to go see it, it seems pointless to then tell you about specifics.
It’s possibly the best of the five movies, mostly because the acting of the children has continued to improve in each one (with perhaps the exception of Emma Watson, who plays Hermione a bit too stiff. Some of her reactions and emotional displays come off as forced, and you can tell she’s acting instead of being reactive. Still, I think that’s a matter of a director working with his/her actors and getting the right shots – some of my criticism of Watson’s acting is that the scenes go on too long, making her reactions appear unnatural – such as when she and Ron are laughing after Harry’s encounter with Cho). What’s incredible is that these children (all relative – if not complete – nobodies before these movies) are surrounded by a who’s who of British actors – all of them in essentially bit-roles. Amongst the Oscar winners are Ralph Fiennes, Maggie Smith, and Emma Thompson, and the other names are just as impressive: Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman, Jason Isaacs, Michael Gambon, David Thewlis, Gary Oldman, and newly-cast Helena Bonham Carter (I’m realizing that as I write these names, they may not all jump out as being recognizable, but I guarantee you’ve seen them in movies other than Harry Potter). Also newly cast in bigger roles are Imelda Staunton as Dorothy Umbridge (who she plays perfectly), and Evanna Lynch as Luna Lovegood, who I thought was brilliant (although, like the casting of Emma Watson as Hermione, is probably prettier than the book implies, but that’s Hollywood). Considering the limits of the script, the actors do a very good job.
It is those limits that I’ve been hearing about so much in complaints about the movie, although more the fact that the movie is not “true to the book.” This is false. The movie is incredibly true to the book, in that it does what it can with what it has (in other words, time and money). While it is a fact that the movie cuts out great swaths of the story Rowling wrote, the essential conflict is kept intact and done so in a satisfying manner. When you are trying to condense 700 pages into a two-and-half hour movie, cuts have to be made. I agree it is a shame that elements of character development are left out either partially or completely – why Harry is so angry, Ron and Quidditch, Neville and his parents, Chang and Cedric – almost all of those aspects are brought into the movie in one way or another.
More importantly, despite what people say, you can’t make a longer movie. Sure, hard-core fans may sit through a four hour film, but such a movie would alienate a less-devoted but no less curious majority, let alone casual viewers. I don’t know if I’m the completely accurate in my assessment here, but it seems to me that: 1) people can’t sit through four hours of movie, 2) don’t have four hours to watch a movie, and/or 3) simply aren’t interested enough to watch a movie for four hours. A four hour movie would be financially a poor decision (an answer I know never satisfies fans, but it is reality, folks), and I question the ability to add a number of the missing elements and make an interesting movie (oooh, Harry’s studying for O.W.L.S!).
I’ve discussed my adherence to my man McLuhan’s idea of “the medium is the message,” and as such, I find it necessary to point out: films are not live-action novels. They are two different mediums, and therefore can do things that that the other can’t do. People approach how they interact with the mediums differently, the mediums give information differently, and the technology that produces and disseminates them are different. A movie can’t include everything a novel can because it would then be too much.
You can’t bookmark a movie (remembering that movies are produced to be seen in movie theatres, not on DVD players).
What everyone should be happy with is that the movie maintains the inherent Harry Potterness that Rowling wanted, while keeping the movie (and the movies – remember this is a piece of something larger, too) in a coherent, forward-moving, direction. If you keep that firmly in mind, the movie is very satisfying. Heck, the scenes with Luna are worth the price of admission alone.
If you want to see comparisons of the movie with the book, check out this site. Although not set up as well as I would hope, the analysis is spot on (this will spoil the movie, if you haven’t seen it): Geeks of Doom – Harry Potter 5
And here’s the same for Goblet of Fire: Geeks of Doom – Harry Potter 4
In other Potter news: haven’t read the last book yet, but I did just pick it up. So you have something to look forward to (although I have another book I’m reading before I get to it, so you might have to wait).
Just a reminder: “Psych,” “Eureka,” and “The Closer” are a couple of weeks into their seasons, and they might be the best shows on television, so check them out.
“Psych”: USA, Friday, 10 p.m. (Eastern Time, of course. Might as well be Only Time).
“Eureka”: Sci-Fi Channel, Tuesday, 9 p.m.
“The Closer”: TNT, Monday, 9 p.m.
Another reminder: Carlos Mencia is still not funny. He's not a "Mexican Dave Chappelle." He's kind of an idiot.
And not funny.
Did I mention that?
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Something's Mything
God bless the inventor of puns. Who I suppose was God, so God bless. . .himself?
Whatever.
Speaking of God, with everything we “know” about mythical creatures, is it too much for the American Museum of Natural History to actually give us something for the money we pay? Even with my discount, it cost me ten dollars to see their Mythical Creatures exhibit.
Ten dollars. Say good-bye to Mr. Hamilton.
Ten dollars is a movie.
Ten dollars is a meal (albeit of the speedy nature).
Ten dollars is two beers.
Ten dollars is .0086957 of my rent (God bless New York City).
And what do you get for ten bucks (or however much those of you unfortunate enough to pay retail)? Perhaps twenty-five minutes of reading and maybe a little longer if you watch the videos. Some interesting displays and information about a variety of “animals” – from the well-known dragons, mermaids, and phoenixes (phoeni? Probably not, but I think it should be) to a bunch of culturally specific beasts that I had already forgotten the names of by the time I reached the subway to go home.
Ten dollars . . .
Perhaps what bothers me so much is what seemed to me like a lack of information. I may joke about the fact that all you get is a half-hour of reading, but in all actuality, I like reading, and I was in a museum. So don’t hold back the intellectualism, you know? Granted, there were space restrictions (at least, as far as the space they decided to utilize), but so many cultural aspects of the animals seemed left to the wayside. They tried, I’ll give them that (and aren’t I magnanimous to do so?), providing literary excerpts for most of the animals, ranging from Beowulf to Tolkien, Japanese folk-stories to Chinese medical texts. But it seems to me that it is exactly there that they dropped the ball. Because by calling the display “mythic,” they are admitting that these creatures are text-based beings – whether the text is written or oral. Therefore, give us stories.
The facts are cool, don’t get me wrong. The artifacts they had, for the most part, were fascinating. But by not playing up the story aspect, they missed an opportunity to hook people in. Considering the abundance of contemporary materials available they also could have had the kiddies clamorin’. Uh, can you say Harry Potter? Hell, half of the animals in that display kids will recognize from Harry Potter, and not only could you have tied those two things together, hell, you probably could have gotten some sponsorship out of Scholastic and Rowling, thus off-setting (or at least justifying) the cost. They did tie in some one of the animals to Pokemon which, as a game is still thriving, but c’mon – it’s not really the pinnacle of popular culture anymore.
-- And yes, it was the pinnacle of culture seven or eight years ago: “I choose you, Pikachu!” I could tell a really embarrassing story about going to see Pokemon: The First Movie in the theatre while in college, but I promised my friend that I wouldn’t anymore. I will say this, though: they showed a short at the beginning of the movie called (I think) Pikachu’s Vacation, and it was quite possibly the least masculine thing I’ve ever participated in. For any of you not familiar with the cartoon, all the animals talk by using the syllables of their names in a variety of forms. So, for instance, that yellow cat-thing with the lightning tail is Pikachu, and he (she? Who knows) would say things like: “Pika pika. Pika chooooo,” all in an adorably vomit-inducing voice. Well, Pikachu’s Vacation is entirely made up of different Pokemon talking to each other in what must be the Fire Island for enslaved battle-animals, and well . . . cringing and giggling. But mostly cringing –
And that’s what we call a tangent, foo's. Brush your teeth!
What I’m saying, though, is that people like to be able to connect with what they’re learning. This is basic educational theory. Yes, many of us are familiar with the giant squid (kraken) from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (which, for those of you not aware, is not about the depth the submarine reaches (which would be pretty impossible, considering a league is 2 miles, and I think the deepest part of any ocean, the Mariana’s Trench, is at most 6 or 7 miles deep), but the distance they travel under water. Just a little trivia). But aren’t a lot more of us familiar with the giant squid in the lake at Hogwarts?
Moreover, aren’t children?
Because that’s what’s really important to remember: this museum, for all its intents and purposes, is a place of wonder for children. And you can get away with a ton of info with the dinosaurs because children are simply in awe of the size. Moreover, they are in awe of the power they have over these giants of the past: First, they are still alive. Second, they not only tend to know more about the dinosaurs than their parents, that knowledge helps reduce those “terrible lizards” to something controllable. As a kid, that’s such an amazing feeling. Now imagine if they were able to do that with the monsters of their dreams?
That’s one of the reasons books like Harry Potter are so popular: because it shows kids like them, kids who grew up without magic, suddenly with power to do amazing things. To battle and handle monsters and overcome fear.
And with the last book coming out, think of the marketing . . .
I’m just saying that I went in expecting more, and felt a little gypped (a pretty ugly/racist word, now that I see it typed on my screen. I guess gypsies don’t really have a lot of say at political correctness conferences).
Part of my disappointment was that I just read a very good book called The Bestiary by Nicholas Christopher. It’s a story about a boy who grows up in a broken family and finds comfort in the stories his grandmother tells about animals and their spirits. It eventually becomes life-consuming, as he searches for the “Caravan Bestiary,” which is supposed to be the book of all the animals Noah didn’t take on the ark.
How dope is that?
What makes the book so good is that the story plays with the magical so that although you get a feeling of fantasy, Christopher is a good enough writer that he is able to blur the edges of reality without completely jettisoning it. In a way, it reminds me of Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell in this regard (if you haven’t read that, do yourself a favor and read it. Not only did it win the Nebula and Hugo Awards for the best science fiction novel, but it’s simply one of the better books written in the past few years). Throughout the book, Christopher provides passages from the narrators’ own bestiary, and you get introduced to a lot of creatures not as common to the popular consciousness.
Unfortunately, this book isn’t actually available yet, but it comes out in a few weeks, and I definitely recommend you check it out. Even if the idea of the bestiary doesn’t capture your imagination, the writing will definitely draw you in, such as the relationships between the narrator and his mysterious father. I will say the romance is a bit trite (nothing new there), but even that works well with the rest of the story. I have a feeling this book is going to be one of those “summer reads” that just blows up.
You heard it hear first.
All six of you.
Whatever.
Speaking of God, with everything we “know” about mythical creatures, is it too much for the American Museum of Natural History to actually give us something for the money we pay? Even with my discount, it cost me ten dollars to see their Mythical Creatures exhibit.
Ten dollars. Say good-bye to Mr. Hamilton.
Ten dollars is a movie.
Ten dollars is a meal (albeit of the speedy nature).
Ten dollars is two beers.
Ten dollars is .0086957 of my rent (God bless New York City).
And what do you get for ten bucks (or however much those of you unfortunate enough to pay retail)? Perhaps twenty-five minutes of reading and maybe a little longer if you watch the videos. Some interesting displays and information about a variety of “animals” – from the well-known dragons, mermaids, and phoenixes (phoeni? Probably not, but I think it should be) to a bunch of culturally specific beasts that I had already forgotten the names of by the time I reached the subway to go home.
Ten dollars . . .
Perhaps what bothers me so much is what seemed to me like a lack of information. I may joke about the fact that all you get is a half-hour of reading, but in all actuality, I like reading, and I was in a museum. So don’t hold back the intellectualism, you know? Granted, there were space restrictions (at least, as far as the space they decided to utilize), but so many cultural aspects of the animals seemed left to the wayside. They tried, I’ll give them that (and aren’t I magnanimous to do so?), providing literary excerpts for most of the animals, ranging from Beowulf to Tolkien, Japanese folk-stories to Chinese medical texts. But it seems to me that it is exactly there that they dropped the ball. Because by calling the display “mythic,” they are admitting that these creatures are text-based beings – whether the text is written or oral. Therefore, give us stories.
The facts are cool, don’t get me wrong. The artifacts they had, for the most part, were fascinating. But by not playing up the story aspect, they missed an opportunity to hook people in. Considering the abundance of contemporary materials available they also could have had the kiddies clamorin’. Uh, can you say Harry Potter? Hell, half of the animals in that display kids will recognize from Harry Potter, and not only could you have tied those two things together, hell, you probably could have gotten some sponsorship out of Scholastic and Rowling, thus off-setting (or at least justifying) the cost. They did tie in some one of the animals to Pokemon which, as a game is still thriving, but c’mon – it’s not really the pinnacle of popular culture anymore.
-- And yes, it was the pinnacle of culture seven or eight years ago: “I choose you, Pikachu!” I could tell a really embarrassing story about going to see Pokemon: The First Movie in the theatre while in college, but I promised my friend that I wouldn’t anymore. I will say this, though: they showed a short at the beginning of the movie called (I think) Pikachu’s Vacation, and it was quite possibly the least masculine thing I’ve ever participated in. For any of you not familiar with the cartoon, all the animals talk by using the syllables of their names in a variety of forms. So, for instance, that yellow cat-thing with the lightning tail is Pikachu, and he (she? Who knows) would say things like: “Pika pika. Pika chooooo,” all in an adorably vomit-inducing voice. Well, Pikachu’s Vacation is entirely made up of different Pokemon talking to each other in what must be the Fire Island for enslaved battle-animals, and well . . . cringing and giggling. But mostly cringing –
And that’s what we call a tangent, foo's. Brush your teeth!
What I’m saying, though, is that people like to be able to connect with what they’re learning. This is basic educational theory. Yes, many of us are familiar with the giant squid (kraken) from 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (which, for those of you not aware, is not about the depth the submarine reaches (which would be pretty impossible, considering a league is 2 miles, and I think the deepest part of any ocean, the Mariana’s Trench, is at most 6 or 7 miles deep), but the distance they travel under water. Just a little trivia). But aren’t a lot more of us familiar with the giant squid in the lake at Hogwarts?
Moreover, aren’t children?
Because that’s what’s really important to remember: this museum, for all its intents and purposes, is a place of wonder for children. And you can get away with a ton of info with the dinosaurs because children are simply in awe of the size. Moreover, they are in awe of the power they have over these giants of the past: First, they are still alive. Second, they not only tend to know more about the dinosaurs than their parents, that knowledge helps reduce those “terrible lizards” to something controllable. As a kid, that’s such an amazing feeling. Now imagine if they were able to do that with the monsters of their dreams?
That’s one of the reasons books like Harry Potter are so popular: because it shows kids like them, kids who grew up without magic, suddenly with power to do amazing things. To battle and handle monsters and overcome fear.
And with the last book coming out, think of the marketing . . .
I’m just saying that I went in expecting more, and felt a little gypped (a pretty ugly/racist word, now that I see it typed on my screen. I guess gypsies don’t really have a lot of say at political correctness conferences).
Part of my disappointment was that I just read a very good book called The Bestiary by Nicholas Christopher. It’s a story about a boy who grows up in a broken family and finds comfort in the stories his grandmother tells about animals and their spirits. It eventually becomes life-consuming, as he searches for the “Caravan Bestiary,” which is supposed to be the book of all the animals Noah didn’t take on the ark.
How dope is that?
What makes the book so good is that the story plays with the magical so that although you get a feeling of fantasy, Christopher is a good enough writer that he is able to blur the edges of reality without completely jettisoning it. In a way, it reminds me of Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norell in this regard (if you haven’t read that, do yourself a favor and read it. Not only did it win the Nebula and Hugo Awards for the best science fiction novel, but it’s simply one of the better books written in the past few years). Throughout the book, Christopher provides passages from the narrators’ own bestiary, and you get introduced to a lot of creatures not as common to the popular consciousness.
Unfortunately, this book isn’t actually available yet, but it comes out in a few weeks, and I definitely recommend you check it out. Even if the idea of the bestiary doesn’t capture your imagination, the writing will definitely draw you in, such as the relationships between the narrator and his mysterious father. I will say the romance is a bit trite (nothing new there), but even that works well with the rest of the story. I have a feeling this book is going to be one of those “summer reads” that just blows up.
You heard it hear first.
All six of you.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Holla Back, Young 'Un!
(I've updated this with a bunch of links about YA Literature below)
I apologize. I might, at some point, go back and add more hyper-links, but I figured I’d left my readers waiting so long . . .
Leave me with my illusions!
Young Adult literature is often seen as being exactly that: books for
teenagers -- and that's it.
However, a lot of great books get unread by people who would probably
enjoy and appreciate the writing, if they either A) knew about the
books, and/or B) weren't embarrassed to be reading "kiddie" books.
Think about Harry Potter for example. Here were books (I find it hard to think that anyone considers them strictly YA anymore) that a lot of adults dismissed as being childish. But as they grew in popularity (and, for some reason, infamy), parents started reading the books to see “what all the fuss was about.” Well, it turns out the fuss was about awesome books that were just as much mystery/thrillers as they were children’s fantasy. And as Harry grew, so did the books, so that they got to be as mature (and annoying) as a teenager can be. It’s one of the many reasons J.K. Rowling is a genius.
There are billions of reasons, though . . .
Luckily for you all, I have no compunctions going into the kids
sections of book stores (looking like the bearded pedophile I am) and
buying these books to bring you good tidings.
The book is Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson, and it's a pretty
accurate look at the social hierarchy of high school from the
viewpoint of a freshman girl (I'm assuming, although I’m pretty sure more than one of you out there can relate). What's so great about the story is that there is clearly something that the narrator isn't telling us about what happened the
summer before she enters high school, and her quirks (such as rarely,
if ever speaking – like the title, Dave!), are somehow a result of this event. The mystery isn't really too hard to solve (one of the slight draw backs of the YA
genre), but it still is a good story.
An interesting thing about the YA genre is that just because a book is about children, it is not necessarily for children. For example, Curtis Sittenfeld’s Prep is about a young girl from “the wrong side of the tracks” who ends up at a prestigious (read: rich) prep school and has to deal with not only being poor, but also simply being in high school. The subject matter is similar to Speak but the style, the content, is most certainly more “adult” than “young.” This is not to say that YA necessarily means “childish” (or that, conversely, “adult” literature is necessarily mature) it’s just that Prep feels like you need to have had adult experiences to connect with, whereas Speak makes sense as long as you’ve had high school experience.
Of course, a lot of high school kids probably have more “experience” than a lot of adults, but that’s another topic.
But it is the readers’ experience that is what makes YA able to straddle age-groups. Because, whereas teenagers may not connect with all the aspects of Prep (although, to be fair, Sittenfeld does a good job of painting high school relationships), adults have been to high school – for many, it was the greatest time of their lives – so reading YA actually makes sense. Considering many adults have teenagers of their own (you wacky Baby Boomers!), connections might be made that are even deeper than for those of us without.
What’s different about YA as a genre – as opposed to, say, science fiction or romance – is that it is more about audience than about content. So, while Prep probably falls under “literary fiction,” a book like Holes, by Louis Sachar (Wayside School, motherfu*@&$s!) is considered in the same genre as Speak. And it should, if that genre was labeled “awesome” (and, really, shouldn’t there be an “awesome” genre. I wonder where Dewey would put those decimals?). Holes – which was made into an excellent movie with Shia LeBouf (of “Even, Stevens” fame – well, I watched it) and the Fonz – is the story of a boy who is falsely convicted of theft and sent to a juvenile camp in the desert, where all day, every day, the boys are made to dig holes (once again, ingenious title). Sachar does a great job weaving the various characters and plot-lines (including moving back-and-forth in time), and keeps it whimsical enough for kids to enjoy, while clever enough for adults to not feel ridiculous.
Because that’s the other great feature of good YA: it makes sure that both kids and adults feel comfortable encountering it (think of teens, and how they balance those two age groups. Then think how touchy they can be. The last thing you want to do with that audience is talk-down-to or baby-up the writing. Try to be honest about yourself as a teen when you do this exercise). For example, although Eragon is wildly popular as a book (I think I heard somewhere the movie was not very good – someone needs to tell Jeremy Irons to stay out of fantasy movies), realistically, they do a poor job addressing adults. At least, they do a poor job of adults who have grown up reading science fiction/fantasy. Maybe this is jealousy (okay, this is blatantly jealously – I want to be published, too! (Probably should start writing. . .)), but if Christopher Paolini had been thirty when he wrote the first book, instead of nineteen or so, I doubt these books would have been as much of a success. It’s so obvious that Paolini has read all the books I did while growing up (Dragonlance, David Eddings, Terry Brooks, Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, Anne McCaffery – you know, beat-the-nerd fodder), and his books seems to do a fair job “borrowing” from them.
Of course, as Jonathan Lethem (of Fortress of Solitude and Motherless Brooklyn fame) wrote in his article “The Ecstasy of Influence” (February 2007 issue of Harper’s), writers have been biting off each other since the beginning of time.
(NOTE: The brilliance of Lethem’s essay is that he goes through example of example of borrowing, only to show in the end that his entire essay was in fact constructed entirely of “plagiarism.” It’s very cool, and I highly recommend it. On the flip-side, as a big fan of web-comics, you can check out this douche-berry (it could be a word) to see the “dark side” of plagarism. I'm changing an earlier position, to an extent).
That little tangent aside, read YA literature – because it truly is literature. If you don’t believe me, think about these titles: Lord of the Flies, Huckleberry Finn, Ender’s Game (okay, the last one might be a stretch), and tell me they aren’t literature. Go ahead. I dare you.
I double dare you.
Physical challenge!
Suffolk County, NY -- Library
theliterarylink.com
Alan-YA
Wikipedia--YA Literature
If you haven't read the comments, I suggest you do so -- they're pretty interesting.
I apologize. I might, at some point, go back and add more hyper-links, but I figured I’d left my readers waiting so long . . .
Leave me with my illusions!
Young Adult literature is often seen as being exactly that: books for
teenagers -- and that's it.
However, a lot of great books get unread by people who would probably
enjoy and appreciate the writing, if they either A) knew about the
books, and/or B) weren't embarrassed to be reading "kiddie" books.
Think about Harry Potter for example. Here were books (I find it hard to think that anyone considers them strictly YA anymore) that a lot of adults dismissed as being childish. But as they grew in popularity (and, for some reason, infamy), parents started reading the books to see “what all the fuss was about.” Well, it turns out the fuss was about awesome books that were just as much mystery/thrillers as they were children’s fantasy. And as Harry grew, so did the books, so that they got to be as mature (and annoying) as a teenager can be. It’s one of the many reasons J.K. Rowling is a genius.
There are billions of reasons, though . . .
Luckily for you all, I have no compunctions going into the kids
sections of book stores (looking like the bearded pedophile I am) and
buying these books to bring you good tidings.
The book is Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson, and it's a pretty
accurate look at the social hierarchy of high school from the
viewpoint of a freshman girl (I'm assuming, although I’m pretty sure more than one of you out there can relate). What's so great about the story is that there is clearly something that the narrator isn't telling us about what happened the
summer before she enters high school, and her quirks (such as rarely,
if ever speaking – like the title, Dave!), are somehow a result of this event. The mystery isn't really too hard to solve (one of the slight draw backs of the YA
genre), but it still is a good story.
An interesting thing about the YA genre is that just because a book is about children, it is not necessarily for children. For example, Curtis Sittenfeld’s Prep is about a young girl from “the wrong side of the tracks” who ends up at a prestigious (read: rich) prep school and has to deal with not only being poor, but also simply being in high school. The subject matter is similar to Speak but the style, the content, is most certainly more “adult” than “young.” This is not to say that YA necessarily means “childish” (or that, conversely, “adult” literature is necessarily mature) it’s just that Prep feels like you need to have had adult experiences to connect with, whereas Speak makes sense as long as you’ve had high school experience.
Of course, a lot of high school kids probably have more “experience” than a lot of adults, but that’s another topic.
But it is the readers’ experience that is what makes YA able to straddle age-groups. Because, whereas teenagers may not connect with all the aspects of Prep (although, to be fair, Sittenfeld does a good job of painting high school relationships), adults have been to high school – for many, it was the greatest time of their lives – so reading YA actually makes sense. Considering many adults have teenagers of their own (you wacky Baby Boomers!), connections might be made that are even deeper than for those of us without.
What’s different about YA as a genre – as opposed to, say, science fiction or romance – is that it is more about audience than about content. So, while Prep probably falls under “literary fiction,” a book like Holes, by Louis Sachar (Wayside School, motherfu*@&$s!) is considered in the same genre as Speak. And it should, if that genre was labeled “awesome” (and, really, shouldn’t there be an “awesome” genre. I wonder where Dewey would put those decimals?). Holes – which was made into an excellent movie with Shia LeBouf (of “Even, Stevens” fame – well, I watched it) and the Fonz – is the story of a boy who is falsely convicted of theft and sent to a juvenile camp in the desert, where all day, every day, the boys are made to dig holes (once again, ingenious title). Sachar does a great job weaving the various characters and plot-lines (including moving back-and-forth in time), and keeps it whimsical enough for kids to enjoy, while clever enough for adults to not feel ridiculous.
Because that’s the other great feature of good YA: it makes sure that both kids and adults feel comfortable encountering it (think of teens, and how they balance those two age groups. Then think how touchy they can be. The last thing you want to do with that audience is talk-down-to or baby-up the writing. Try to be honest about yourself as a teen when you do this exercise). For example, although Eragon is wildly popular as a book (I think I heard somewhere the movie was not very good – someone needs to tell Jeremy Irons to stay out of fantasy movies), realistically, they do a poor job addressing adults. At least, they do a poor job of adults who have grown up reading science fiction/fantasy. Maybe this is jealousy (okay, this is blatantly jealously – I want to be published, too! (Probably should start writing. . .)), but if Christopher Paolini had been thirty when he wrote the first book, instead of nineteen or so, I doubt these books would have been as much of a success. It’s so obvious that Paolini has read all the books I did while growing up (Dragonlance, David Eddings, Terry Brooks, Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, Anne McCaffery – you know, beat-the-nerd fodder), and his books seems to do a fair job “borrowing” from them.
Of course, as Jonathan Lethem (of Fortress of Solitude and Motherless Brooklyn fame) wrote in his article “The Ecstasy of Influence” (February 2007 issue of Harper’s), writers have been biting off each other since the beginning of time.
(NOTE: The brilliance of Lethem’s essay is that he goes through example of example of borrowing, only to show in the end that his entire essay was in fact constructed entirely of “plagiarism.” It’s very cool, and I highly recommend it. On the flip-side, as a big fan of web-comics, you can check out this douche-berry (it could be a word) to see the “dark side” of plagarism. I'm changing an earlier position, to an extent).
That little tangent aside, read YA literature – because it truly is literature. If you don’t believe me, think about these titles: Lord of the Flies, Huckleberry Finn, Ender’s Game (okay, the last one might be a stretch), and tell me they aren’t literature. Go ahead. I dare you.
I double dare you.
Physical challenge!
Suffolk County, NY -- Library
theliterarylink.com
Alan-YA
Wikipedia--YA Literature
If you haven't read the comments, I suggest you do so -- they're pretty interesting.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)