AAAARGH! Now I want to KILL things!
Jul. 19th, 2007 03:16 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flyingskullOkay, so I'm reading this rather splendid lit crit book on Diana Wynne Jones; it's a collection of essays and I'm enjoying them all when I happen upon an essay titled Good and Evil in the Works of DWJ and JKR. "Oh goody!" ejaculate I and plunge into it.
First of all the author decides to cheat at the outset by comparing the first four HP books with the first four books in the Chrestomanci series. BZUH? The Chrestomancy series is finished and it's not the only thing that DWJ has written. 'The works of' used to mean the whole opus of an author, if you have only four books on one side, you can either A) choose another author or B) take each author's WHOLE SODDING OPUS in account.
As I read on, I see that this person has a personal agenda about inner and outer conflicts in books that could have been expressed withoutinsulting DWJ comparing two authors, because she's distorting the actual books to fit her theory (she's decided that Chrestomanci Castle is a boarding shool. Just like that. Because some children are tutored there which, of course, makes the castle a boarding school. Talk about ELITE!).
Talk about run-on sentences! Sorry.
I want to scream at the author at this point and do, but, that done, I soldier on.
So she decides that DWJ writes the inner conflict between Good and Evil inside the protagonist's soul (I am utterly revolted. DWJ does NOT do that, there's no clear-cut Good and Evil in her books because she happens to be a whoppingly good writer and her character evolve, grow up and don't necessarily become nicer) and JKR writes Romance and so her conflict is external.
This is utter tripe. What we have here at two different authors one of which can and does write well and the other can't and doesn't, to be blunt about it. DWJ writes believable, three-dimensional (four-dimensional, actually *G*) characters who face both internal and external battles and grow because of this. The characters who don't evolve are generally malicious and stupid people, sometimes the villains, exactly because they can't or - as I suspect - won't evolve. This has absolutely nothing to do with Good and Evil, whatever those are, because her multiverse is not black-and-white, but infinitely coloured. Her books have to do with how human (and, in some cases non-human) beings interact and evolve together with their societies. It's not that DWJ's multiverse is amoral, but that social virtues (ethics, justice, respect) are contrasted with social flaws (injustice, immorality, crimes). A character can have some of each and not be Evil at all, in fact all her protagonists have huge social flaws that will be corrected... or not (I'm looking at you, Christopher!), depending on the flaw.
JKR's microverse, OTOH, is severely black-and-white with irrationally attributed 'virtues' and 'flaws'. Good and Evil are just labels with no real social substance and, because they're labels, are used as pointers to make the reader like or dislike a character. The society is inconsistent with no discernible values, but it works very well if the reader presumes it's a Warrior Society in which the only virtue is how efficiently one kills and the only moral standard is winning. The efficient killer who wins is the Hero. If one assumes that, then the Hero and all his followers are Good and anyone who opposes the Hero is Evil and loses every fight. This is NOT romance. I mean, read Chretien de Troyes, read Malory... that's Romance and it has pretty solid societal values, not our own, granted, but they are solid. In the true Romances it's the Hero who has to be redeemed, not the villain; it's the Hero who has to learn that being like the villain only better at fighting does NOT a true Hero make; it's the Hero who has to learn humility and not the other way around precisely because they are Romances.
So what the effing fuck is this woman thinking? Can she think? She blathers all JKR-loving for pages and pages and:
In the world of Harry Potter, good and evil are manifested in external actions, not internal states of mind; it is conscious choice, not unconscious inclination, which makes a hero or a villain. Punctuation faithfully reproduced. God help the commas!
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Has she been reading the HP books? And how DARE she imply that nobody makes a choice in DWJ's multiverse? Has she actually read both authors? A critic with NO reading comprehension or a critic who critics books by hearsay?
I'm SOOOO mad now I could cheerfully strangle the bitch. And I want to write her a letter and advise her to consider buying Eats, Shoots and Leaves ASAP. I'd also tell her that a 'critic', i. e. any person writing a critique, has better read the books she wants to blather about several times paying attention to text AND subtext. GRRR.
First of all the author decides to cheat at the outset by comparing the first four HP books with the first four books in the Chrestomanci series. BZUH? The Chrestomancy series is finished and it's not the only thing that DWJ has written. 'The works of' used to mean the whole opus of an author, if you have only four books on one side, you can either A) choose another author or B) take each author's WHOLE SODDING OPUS in account.
As I read on, I see that this person has a personal agenda about inner and outer conflicts in books that could have been expressed without
Talk about run-on sentences! Sorry.
I want to scream at the author at this point and do, but, that done, I soldier on.
So she decides that DWJ writes the inner conflict between Good and Evil inside the protagonist's soul (I am utterly revolted. DWJ does NOT do that, there's no clear-cut Good and Evil in her books because she happens to be a whoppingly good writer and her character evolve, grow up and don't necessarily become nicer) and JKR writes Romance and so her conflict is external.
This is utter tripe. What we have here at two different authors one of which can and does write well and the other can't and doesn't, to be blunt about it. DWJ writes believable, three-dimensional (four-dimensional, actually *G*) characters who face both internal and external battles and grow because of this. The characters who don't evolve are generally malicious and stupid people, sometimes the villains, exactly because they can't or - as I suspect - won't evolve. This has absolutely nothing to do with Good and Evil, whatever those are, because her multiverse is not black-and-white, but infinitely coloured. Her books have to do with how human (and, in some cases non-human) beings interact and evolve together with their societies. It's not that DWJ's multiverse is amoral, but that social virtues (ethics, justice, respect) are contrasted with social flaws (injustice, immorality, crimes). A character can have some of each and not be Evil at all, in fact all her protagonists have huge social flaws that will be corrected... or not (I'm looking at you, Christopher!), depending on the flaw.
JKR's microverse, OTOH, is severely black-and-white with irrationally attributed 'virtues' and 'flaws'. Good and Evil are just labels with no real social substance and, because they're labels, are used as pointers to make the reader like or dislike a character. The society is inconsistent with no discernible values, but it works very well if the reader presumes it's a Warrior Society in which the only virtue is how efficiently one kills and the only moral standard is winning. The efficient killer who wins is the Hero. If one assumes that, then the Hero and all his followers are Good and anyone who opposes the Hero is Evil and loses every fight. This is NOT romance. I mean, read Chretien de Troyes, read Malory... that's Romance and it has pretty solid societal values, not our own, granted, but they are solid. In the true Romances it's the Hero who has to be redeemed, not the villain; it's the Hero who has to learn that being like the villain only better at fighting does NOT a true Hero make; it's the Hero who has to learn humility and not the other way around precisely because they are Romances.
So what the effing fuck is this woman thinking? Can she think? She blathers all JKR-loving for pages and pages and:
In the world of Harry Potter, good and evil are manifested in external actions, not internal states of mind; it is conscious choice, not unconscious inclination, which makes a hero or a villain. Punctuation faithfully reproduced. God help the commas!
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Has she been reading the HP books? And how DARE she imply that nobody makes a choice in DWJ's multiverse? Has she actually read both authors? A critic with NO reading comprehension or a critic who critics books by hearsay?
I'm SOOOO mad now I could cheerfully strangle the bitch. And I want to write her a letter and advise her to consider buying Eats, Shoots and Leaves ASAP. I'd also tell her that a 'critic', i. e. any person writing a critique, has better read the books she wants to blather about several times paying attention to text AND subtext. GRRR.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-19 05:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 01:26 pm (UTC)And yes, I've read the HP books as well, impossible to avoid them and I - as per profile - like some HP fanfiction a LOT so I felt I had to read them.
Now, comparing DWJ to Pterry would have been insteresting... :-D
no subject
Date: 2007-07-19 07:15 pm (UTC)Honestly... what is it with the freaking worship of JK Rowling? I keep hearing even otherwise intelligent people with good taste using HP as an example of How To Do It, and I just can't freaking believe it. Are we crazy, Jane? Have the two of us fallen into a paralell dimension that is entirely like ours in every way except that a random quantum event has caused everyone to love this mediocre series to bits? Really, I'm open to any theory here.
I'm not really well-versed in the works of DWJ, but the ones I've read tends to have fallible heroes and villains who are, if not redeemable, then at least clearly human and with human motivations and frailties. You're right, DWJ >> JKR.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 01:43 pm (UTC)I think people worship money, they may say they're Christians, Jews, Islamics, Buddhists, Wiccas whatever, but they all have One True God and its name is MONEY! So, because the stealing slag has billions she MUST BE PERFECT. That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
Do get well versed in the works of DWJ, luv. She is really up there with Pterry about what Fantasy and Science Fiction should be all about. She's great!
no subject
Date: 2007-07-21 01:35 pm (UTC)Good point. Possibly if I had people along to do all the carving and packing for me. I can't be arsed to go through all that when I can just head to the supermarket and buy some beef. =]
That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.
Well, it's not like I can offer a better one...
I'm currently preparing a post where I compare the values and ideals in HP to the values and ideals of Christian fundamentalism. You'd be surprised just how identical they are... actually, no, come to think of it, you probably wouldn't be. =] I'm a bit hesitant to posting it, though. It might get me in no end of trouble. ^_^;
Do get well versed in the works of DWJ, luv.
I may need to check out DWJ, yes. :) Any suggestions on where to start? I seem to recall I've read Howl's Moving Castle, Archer's Goon and the first book in the Chrestomancy series, whatever it was called again...
no subject
Date: 2007-07-21 03:18 pm (UTC)Start with Deep Secret or with The Tough Guide to Fantasyland and The Dark Lord of Derkholm. DWJ is as wonderful as Pterry, in a different style, at debunking clichés.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-03 01:01 pm (UTC)DWJ has not, to my knowledge, written a bad book. She writes consistently and creatively, without any of JKR's cliches.
How can they compare the two? It's just wrong!
no subject
Date: 2007-08-03 08:18 pm (UTC)JKR may be richer than Croesus and world-famous, but a good writer she ain't. Using her as a comparison to a HELL of a good writer like DWJ is utterly cretinous. Besides their attitudes to writing and to stories are completely different, so much so that it's impossible to review them in parallel. *sigh*
Pity, because all the other essay in that book are wonderful, intelligent and immensely thought-provoking.
Hello and welcome, BTW. Also nice icon. :-D
no subject
Date: 2007-08-03 10:17 pm (UTC)