CCBC-Net Archives
ccbc-net digest 25 May 1999
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Andrew Ogus <andbooks>
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 09:46:02 -0700
I'm pleased to have started this discussion, even if I was "out of turn" and off the subject (as a new subscriber, I didn't realize this was frowned upon). To repeat what I wrote to Susan Daugherty after her reply:
My objections are (a) it's very similar to "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" in its portrayal of the hero and the cruel, selfish "family" with which he lives, (b) the lack of logic in the "relationship" between the magic world and the "normal" world (why do the magic people even bother with anyone else? why is everything they can do hidden? what is the point of their magic?) (c) the lack of logic in the story (if Harry is so all fired important, why do the magic people who are observing him let his life be so miserable for so long, before yanking him out of it?). The final horrific image of the evil character is pretty good, but doesn't make up for the preceding drivel. Jones handles many of the same themes MUCH better, as you know! Her style is far superior; her stories make internal sense, and her exploration of the "controlling" forces, the inexplicable
"they" that appear in various guises (compare "The Homeward Bounders" and
"The Nine Lives of Christopher Chant") is endlessly fascinating. Great characterizations as well; real observation of human nature and children/young people. The reinterpretation of the Tam Lin legend in "Fire and Hemlock" is the best of its genre I've ever seen. I think the "Potter" books hit just the right note of mediocrity to be appealing, while Jones is too good for her own good!
My point is that Jones does everything Rowling does, but far better. It's true they share common themes of cruel or misunderstanding parents (and what child doesn't think his or her parents aren't, at some point? I was forced to make my own bed as a child!). Her villains are people, not cartoon characters. Re commercial success: it's simply unfortunate that Rowling's mediocre book is so popular while Jones' excellent work, deserving of a similar audience, is in some cases of out of print or unavailable in this country.
Received on Tue 25 May 1999 11:46:02 AM CDT
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 09:46:02 -0700
I'm pleased to have started this discussion, even if I was "out of turn" and off the subject (as a new subscriber, I didn't realize this was frowned upon). To repeat what I wrote to Susan Daugherty after her reply:
My objections are (a) it's very similar to "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" in its portrayal of the hero and the cruel, selfish "family" with which he lives, (b) the lack of logic in the "relationship" between the magic world and the "normal" world (why do the magic people even bother with anyone else? why is everything they can do hidden? what is the point of their magic?) (c) the lack of logic in the story (if Harry is so all fired important, why do the magic people who are observing him let his life be so miserable for so long, before yanking him out of it?). The final horrific image of the evil character is pretty good, but doesn't make up for the preceding drivel. Jones handles many of the same themes MUCH better, as you know! Her style is far superior; her stories make internal sense, and her exploration of the "controlling" forces, the inexplicable
"they" that appear in various guises (compare "The Homeward Bounders" and
"The Nine Lives of Christopher Chant") is endlessly fascinating. Great characterizations as well; real observation of human nature and children/young people. The reinterpretation of the Tam Lin legend in "Fire and Hemlock" is the best of its genre I've ever seen. I think the "Potter" books hit just the right note of mediocrity to be appealing, while Jones is too good for her own good!
My point is that Jones does everything Rowling does, but far better. It's true they share common themes of cruel or misunderstanding parents (and what child doesn't think his or her parents aren't, at some point? I was forced to make my own bed as a child!). Her villains are people, not cartoon characters. Re commercial success: it's simply unfortunate that Rowling's mediocre book is so popular while Jones' excellent work, deserving of a similar audience, is in some cases of out of print or unavailable in this country.
Received on Tue 25 May 1999 11:46:02 AM CDT
