Books Fantasy Book Discussion

[Lord Sovereign]

As it goes for planning, comparing someone to Rowling is like comparing someone's world building to Tolkien. Obviously they come up short. Like her or hate her, Rawling's ability to foreshadow and plan ahead is second to none, both in a single book and between books.

For just a few examples, Trewlany is always right about what she sees but never the interpretation, Pettigrew death method, Sirius Black being namedropped in book 1, and I could go on.

Seriously, as childish as they can be, the Harry Potter books are structurally tight for the most part. Rowling is not the best writer in the world, but she knows what she’s doing.

 

[Agent23]

Seriously, as childish as they can be, the Harry Potter books are structurally tight for the most part. Rowling is not the best writer in the world, but she knows what she’s doing.

So she took pen and paper and outlined what she wants to do, big lol.

It is not like the plot was overly-complex, and the magical system was pretty schizo/unbalanced.

And the magical world as a whole stinks of a bad allegory for some social trends in the UK.


Honestly, other than the series being longer it doesn't look like much of an achievement compared to other YA/children's books.

 

[Abhorsen]

Also, can we maybe take this thing to a separate thread about fantasy literature already?

Done, and good point.

So she took pen and paper and outlined what she wants to do, big lol.

No, I mean that as far as foreshadowing and follow through goes for writing, she is one of the best there is, if not simply the best. She was good enough at it that people wrote books analyzing her books for hints through extensive textual analysis. And those books were correct at their predictions (for example, that Snape was 'good', etc).

Meanwhile, you got GRRM who's publicly stated that now that some people guessed something, he thinks he has to change it. That's literally the opposite of good storytelling, and sounds like something Vince McMahon would do. It means that her stories were to the point, had a lack of asspull reasons for plot reasons.

Her purpose built world is also interesting, but not good interesting. She took basically the opposite method of Tolkien, and instead built basically a Disneyworld facade: the world works because it's interesting enough with enough bells and whistles that you don't notice that Diagon Alley has only the front edifice built. Basically, her worldbuilding is subordinate to a story: she had a story to tell, and just added stuff to her world that was cool enough and worked sorta well together that you would suspend your disbelief about the world not working. This explains why all of her expanded universe stuff flops: the world created was never intended to hold another story, as it's a collection of asspulls around some cool things.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Done, and good point.

No, I mean that as far as foreshadowing and follow through goes for writing, she is one of the best there is, if not simply the best. She was good enough at it that people wrote books analyzing her books for hints through extensive textual analysis. And those books were correct at their predictions (for example, that Snape was 'good', etc).

Meanwhile, you got GRRM who's publicly stated that now that some people guessed something, he thinks he has to change it. That's literally the opposite of good storytelling, and sounds like something Vince McMahon would do. It means that her stories were to the point, had a lack of asspull reasons for plot reasons.

Her purpose built world is also interesting, but not good interesting. She took basically the opposite method of Tolkien, and instead built basically a Disneyworld facade: the world works because it's interesting enough with enough bells and whistles that you don't notice that Diagon Alley has only the front edifice built. Basically, her worldbuilding is subordinate to a story: she had a story to tell, and just added stuff to her world that was cool enough and worked sorta well together that you would suspend your disbelief about the world not working. This explains why all of her expanded universe stuff flops: the world created was never intended to hold another story, as it's a collection of asspulls around some cool things.

Yeah, Rowling's worldbuilding leaves a lot to be desired (cough, Slytherin, cough), but as you say there is no one better in terms of foreshadowing and follow through. One of the Deathly Hallows is introduced in book one, for example.

She's more than got her "journeyman" papers for the craft, that's for sure.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Yeah, the Harry Potter series does break my claim that many-volume epics fail, can't deny it. It's a pretty exceptional case though.

Rowling's worldbuilding isn't particularly solid but she knew exactly what she wanted and added just enough to get the plot where she wanted it to go. People complain about how Quidditch doesn't make any sense, and as a sport it doesn't. As a plot device to make Harry's skills shine more than anybody else's and ensure the entire alleged team sport comes down to a contest between him and Draco, it's perfectly designed.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

...and then there's the Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan. 14 books to tell the arc for many characters. Joredan passes before the last 3 are written, but he left COPIOUS notes on what his plan was for Brandon Sanderson to take over and complete.

 

[Aldarion]

I'm going to, and I honestly am having trouble believing it, come to Martin's defense a bit here. I don't think it's just him, the entire genre of "Fifteen-book two-million word epics" is a bad one. Trilogies work. Tredecologies are just out of luck. Pretty much every one of them has no satisfying ending. The number of plot threads and new characters multiplies over time and becomes unworkable to where entire books pass without even looking at the ostensible "main characters" because there's so many side characters and b plots to cover. Then the author inevitably gets bored writing the same thing year after year, the fans lash out because they'd like to see some resolution. and the author either drops it or starts doing something new and interesting while promising they'll get back to the first epic any day now. Or, well, the author dies of old age without ever getting there.

But you can count the number of mega-epics that actually had a solid story arc and satisfying conclusion on the fingers of your left hand.. even if your name is James Hook. Nearly all of them start out strong and then die with a whimper.

That said this is still a bit on Martin for decided to use the cursed format...

Martin didn't DECIDE to use the cursed format. He was originally going to write the trilogy, but the tale just "grew in the telling" as it were.

And yes, trilogies work.

Seriously, as childish as they can be, the Harry Potter books are structurally tight for the most part. Rowling is not the best writer in the world, but she knows what she’s doing.

Not in terms of worldbuilding.

I mean, just consider the realistic impact of Time Turners. Or, literally, realistic impact of half the magic present in the books. Her worldbuilding is literally "she thinks of a seemingly good idea" -> "she writes the seemingly good idea" -> "she realizes she didn't consider impact of said idea on the world at all" -> "she writes a half-arsed fix / excuse / explanation".

Rowling wrote excellent childrens' books, but comparing her to the likes of J.R.R. Tolkien, George Martin, Eiichiro Oda or Katsura Hoshino is literally an insult to any of the authors I just namedropped.

EDIT: As to the other things, her plot is good, ability to foreshadow is excellent, characterization can go from "okay" to "garbage" - though this might have to do to an extent with books kinda tracking Harry as he grows up (so in early books all Slytherins are bad, later books kinda introduce some gray?). And of course, she is rather fond of droping anvils, with not one but TWO Stupid Magical Hitlers, enemies in main books being essentially a Ku Klux Klan crossed with Neo Nazis, and so on.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Rowling wrote excellent childrens' books, but comparing her to the likes of J.R.R. Tolkien, George Martin, Eiichiro Oda or Katsura Hoshino is literally an insult to any of the authors I just namedropped.

Do not misunderstand. Rowling is far from perfect and in those regards is no equal to Tolkien and his like.

But in terms of foreshadowing and plotting? She's somewhat unmatched in the modern day.

 

[Aldarion]

Do not misunderstand. Rowling is far from perfect and in those regards is no equal to Tolkien and his like.

But in terms of foreshadowing and plotting? She's somewhat unmatched in the modern day.

In book-format literature, maybe. But if you think she is unmatched in general - I don't think I'd place either Oda or Hoshino below her, even with latter's health issues forcing her to rather cut down on her story.

Of course, whether manga count as books...

 

[Prince Ire]

As it goes for planning, comparing someone to Rowling is like comparing someone's world building to Tolkien. Obviously they come up short. Like her or hate her, Rawling's ability to foreshadow and plan ahead is second to none, both in a single book and between books.

For just a few examples, Trewlany is always right about what she sees but never the interpretation, Pettigrew death method, Sirius Black being namedropped in book 1, and I could go on.

Sirius gets name dropped in the first chapter of book one. I've burned through a lot of my podcasts (as well as the audiobooks of ASoIaF) and started listening to the Harry Potter audiobooks at work having not reread them since middle school and was shocked when that happened.

Done, and good point.

No, I mean that as far as foreshadowing and follow through goes for writing, she is one of the best there is, if not simply the best. She was good enough at it that people wrote books analyzing her books for hints through extensive textual analysis. And those books were correct at their predictions (for example, that Snape was 'good', etc).

Meanwhile, you got GRRM who's publicly stated that now that some people guessed something, he thinks he has to change it. That's literally the opposite of good storytelling, and sounds like something Vince McMahon would do. It means that her stories were to the point, had a lack of asspull reasons for plot reasons.

Her purpose built world is also interesting, but not good interesting. She took basically the opposite method of Tolkien, and instead built basically a Disneyworld facade: the world works because it's interesting enough with enough bells and whistles that you don't notice that Diagon Alley has only the front edifice built. Basically, her worldbuilding is subordinate to a story: she had a story to tell, and just added stuff to her world that was cool enough and worked sorta well together that you would suspend your disbelief about the world not working. This explains why all of her expanded universe stuff flops: the world created was never intended to hold another story, as it's a collection of asspulls around some cool things.

The only video I've seen where GRRM talks about people guessing a surprise features him specifically rejecting changing the answer to a mystery in response, even if he admits a gut reaction to change things in order to keep people shocked.

Also interesting, hadn't heard of the textual analysis predictions of Rowling's work. What are some of them called?

 

[Abhorsen]

Sirius gets name dropped in the first chapter of book one. I've burned through a lot of my podcasts (as well as the audiobooks of ASoIaF) and started listening to the Harry Potter audiobooks at work having not reread them since middle school and was shocked when that happened.

Yeah. Pettigrews death is one of the most impressive for me. It's set up in book 3. In book 4 Pettigrew gets the silver hand and Dumbledore explains how useful the life debt is (might have the wrong book here). It all sets up the death in book 7: Pettigrew has to help out Potter, but just as Pettigrew betrays Voldemort, his hand betrays him. A fitting way for a traitor to die.

Also interesting, hadn't heard of the textual analysis predictions of Rowling's work. What are some of them called?

Ugh, I gotta look it up now. When I was a kid, waiting for books 5, 6 and 7 to came out, I bought them, but they're somewhere in my parents house (if we kept them in the move). There was a slim book for book 7 just listing predictions about who lives, who dies and some other stuff, but the ones I remember best were by some university prof I think. They were these huge paperback books (looked like phonebooks almost) that had indepth textual analysis of each chapter basically looking for clues both to the rest of the book, and for clues for the rest of the series.

I can't seem to find it online, but I know I bought it in Barnes and Nobles.

EDIT: NVM, I found it!

Ultimate Unofficial Guide to the Mysteries of Harry Potter.

Goodreads

Discover and share books you love on Goodreads.

www.goodreads.com

(and a few sequels, for books 5 and 6)

Looking at the books, it adds a few other cool things. For example, the bad guy always makes an appearance in chapter 13. Now are there some wild theories in it? Yeah. But it's more or less accurate about big things (like that the chamber of secrets still mattered post book 2, for example).