| |
|
Jack - you wrote:
I don't like Potter or Rowling, I think I've made that clear, but I was referring to the kind of demented craze that her work has possibly inspired, not the work itself, and being typically flippant about it.
So here's what I was responding to:
the source material is giving the nutbars a feedbag with a shelflife independent of the nasty mediamental circus that surrounds the Damned Thing
That's about the books, isn't it? Not the circus, but the 'source material'. Anyone who eats from the 'feedbag' is a 'nutbar'. The craze is 'demented'. I misinterpreted your irony as being an expression of scorn and contempt.
Then:
But to exaggerate my position to the point where you make an assumption of my intent that borders on an accusation of, what, misogyny? I was clearly taking the piss. I think I deserve at least the benefit of the doubt even if you weren't sure about that.
I was talking about this:
But Rowling still needs a kick in the third eye for being so bloody smug.
I changed the original draft of reply which read 'physically assaulted' - but I think 'punished' is fair enough, given what was on the page. Obviously, I realise you didn't intend anyone to go round and duff her up. On the other hand, the clear implication - overstated or not - is that her success has put her in need of 'taking down a peg'.
I didn't intend to rile you as much as I obviously have, and looking back, my post seems pretty innocuous. If it wasn't, I'm sorry. I just responded to what I saw on the screen. As an aside, you've been a Barbelith poster for long enough to know the pitfalls of 'clearly taking the piss'.
I believe that only the most over the top fan would consider that the books and movies actually live up to the constant hype and screams of 'genius'.
I think that depends entirely in your definition of genius - a vexed issue, as we know from discussions elsewhere on the board. Rowling has created something which has become a phenomenon. She has entranced a generation. She certainly isn't a great prose stylist, but maybe she's as much a genius as, say, HP Lovecraft, whose creation of a universe where horror lurked just down the street shares some basic characteristics with Rowling's Wizard World. Lovecraft, too, was capable of writing scenes to make you cringe, but people study his work with a similar obsession, and he defines an area of the US for many.
The irony of my position in this debate is that I wouldn't think of myself as a huge fan. I have a lot of time for Rowling, but I don't worship the ground she treads. I'm just intrigued by the negative reaction to her, which seems out of all proportion with what she is. She gets the kind of flack I'd expect to see directed at Monsanto.
As I said, either this is due to damned impressive cutting-edge marketing, or maybe, just maybe, the original books are good enough, worthy enough, to keep the ball rolling. As I said, despite myself, I tend to go for the latter rather than the former.
That's extremely different from the previous iteration, Jack. If that's actually what you meant, I can only repeat my apology for misinterpreting you, whilst at the same time repeating that you got nailed by the dangers of irony in print. If it can happen to Swift, it can happen to you.
Does that make my really simple point any more easy to understand, or would you rather I bring over the milk and cookies and read you the pop-up-book version?
And you called me reactionary, as well. Nice. One glass of grown up juice, please. |
|
|
