PDA

View Full Version : Authors to Rowling: Don't kill Harry Potter



BAMAPHIN 22
08-02-2006, 08:55 AM
Two of America's top authors, John Irving and Stephen King, made a plea to J.K. Rowling on Tuesday not to kill the fictional boy wizard Harry Potter in the final book of the series, but Rowling made no promises.

"My fingers are crossed for Harry," Irving said at a joint news conference before a charity reading by the three writers at New York's Radio City Music Hall.

The author of "The World According to Garp" and a string of other bestsellers said he and King felt like "warm-up bands" for Rowling, who is working on the seventh and last book in the Harry Potter series, and who has said two characters will die.

King, who shot to fame in 1974 with "Carrie," said he had confidence that Rowling would be "fair" to her hero.

"I don't want him to go over the Reichenbach Falls," King said in a reference to Arthur Conan Doyle's effort to kill off fictional detective Sherlock Holmes. Pressure from fans eventually led Conan Doyle to resurrect Holmes, who was found in a later story to have survived.

Rowling, a Briton whose books have sold 300 million copies worldwide according to her publishers, said she was well into the process of writing the final book.

"I feel quite liberated," she said.

"I can resolve the story now and it's fun in a way it wasn't before because finally I've reached my resolution, and I think some people will loathe it and some people will love it, but that's how it should be."

"We're working towards the end I always planned but a couple of characters I expected to survive have died and one character got a reprieve," she said, declining to elaborate.

Asked about the wisdom of killing off fictional characters, Rowling said she didn't enjoy killing the major character who died in book six -- for the sake of those who haven't read it yet she avoided naming the victim -- but she said the conventions of the genre demanded the hero go on alone.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/08/01/people.rowling.reut/index.html

SkapePhin
08-02-2006, 09:04 AM
Off With His Head!

Roman529
08-02-2006, 12:42 PM
Someone shoot Harry right between the pop bottle glasses he wears. Who cares if he is killed off.

JSwerdy
08-02-2006, 12:52 PM
dumbledore had it coming

Majpain
08-02-2006, 12:59 PM
God I hope she kills Harry.

ILPhinFan88
08-02-2006, 01:28 PM
It's because Stephen King wants to kill him off in one of his novels.....Harry vs. Pennywise. :D

http://www.finheaven.com/clear.gif

NaboCane
08-02-2006, 03:32 PM
It's because Stephen King wants to kill him off in one of his novels.....Harry vs. Pennywise. :D

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b55/ILPhinFan88/Pennysig.gif

:lol: He can just make him one of Roland's companions, then the nicer he is the more he's sure to meet a gruesome end.

In_Flames
08-02-2006, 03:38 PM
damn, am I the only one here who actually enjoys the Harry Potter series (books & movies)....it's ok, im not ashamed!!! :foundout:

NaboCane
08-02-2006, 04:10 PM
damn, am I the only one here who actually enjoys the Harry Potter series (books & movies)....it's ok, im not ashamed!!! :foundout:

My lady enjoys them...so I respect the readership.

But on the other hand - my God, people, these are childrens' books!

I know it's an international phenomenon, etc. etc. blahblahblah...but jeez, isn't it sad when John Irving, America's greatest living author, has to take third billing in any panel reading?

People are reading childrens' books and not reading fiction by our most brilliant literary minds, and we're supposed to be happy about this trend? :rolleyes:

The Rev
08-02-2006, 06:50 PM
My lady enjoys them...so I respect the readership.

But on the other hand - my God, people, these are childrens' books!

I know it's an international phenomenon, etc. etc. blahblahblah...but jeez, isn't it sad when John Irving, America's greatest living author, has to take third billing in any panel reading?

People are reading childrens' books and not reading fiction by our most brilliant literary minds, and we're supposed to be happy about this trend? :rolleyes:

Speak for yourself my brother. :wink: I LOVE the Harry Potter books. So does the mrs. She is a great writer. She appeals to children and adults.

Alex44
08-02-2006, 06:54 PM
Two of America's top authors, John Irving and Stephen King, made a plea to J.K. Rowling on Tuesday not to kill the fictional boy wizard Harry Potter in the final book of the series, but Rowling made no promises.

"My fingers are crossed for Harry," Irving said at a joint news conference before a charity reading by the three writers at New York's Radio City Music Hall.

The author of "The World According to Garp" and a string of other bestsellers said he and King felt like "warm-up bands" for Rowling, who is working on the seventh and last book in the Harry Potter series, and who has said two characters will die.

King, who shot to fame in 1974 with "Carrie," said he had confidence that Rowling would be "fair" to her hero.

"I don't want him to go over the Reichenbach Falls," King said in a reference to Arthur Conan Doyle's effort to kill off fictional detective Sherlock Holmes. Pressure from fans eventually led Conan Doyle to resurrect Holmes, who was found in a later story to have survived.

Rowling, a Briton whose books have sold 300 million copies worldwide according to her publishers, said she was well into the process of writing the final book.

"I feel quite liberated," she said.

"I can resolve the story now and it's fun in a way it wasn't before because finally I've reached my resolution, and I think some people will loathe it and some people will love it, but that's how it should be."

"We're working towards the end I always planned but a couple of characters I expected to survive have died and one character got a reprieve," she said, declining to elaborate.

Asked about the wisdom of killing off fictional characters, Rowling said she didn't enjoy killing the major character who died in book six -- for the sake of those who haven't read it yet she avoided naming the victim -- but she said the conventions of the genre demanded the hero go on alone.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/08/01/people.rowling.reut/index.html

As if he is a real person....come on give me a break

NaboCane
08-02-2006, 07:38 PM
Speak for yourself my brother. :wink: I LOVE the Harry Potter books. So does the mrs. She is a great writer. She appeals to children and adults.

As does my lady...but that wasn't the point I tried to make.

It's that people are reading this in place of the perfectly fine fiction that's out there to be had, and great authors are languishing while adults read books meant for children to the exclusion of books meant for them.

That's what I find hard to take.

I wouldn't dis you broder! :wink:

King Felix
08-02-2006, 07:49 PM
*yawn*

Metal Panda
08-02-2006, 11:30 PM
As does my lady...but that wasn't the point I tried to make.

It's that people are reading this in place of the perfectly fine fiction that's out there to be had, and great authors are languishing while adults read books meant for children to the exclusion of books meant for them.

That's what I find hard to take.

I wouldn't dis you broder! :wink:

Well hell, that goes for all of the arts.

In music, the artists whom are the most accessible, streamlined, and radio-friendly make it big, whereas groups that actually dared to venture into left-field struggle for listeners. Stupid small-time radio critics used to call Genesis "Genesnooze" in the 70's when they were making brilliant prog rock, then loved them when they put out tripe like "I Can't Dance".

And how about the movies, where Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer garbage recycle the same tired cliches and plot points to packed houses while the fantastic Motorcycle Diaries barely drew anybody's interest in the States?

The general populace wants immediacy, their attention span is too short to want to make the effort to try to delve into something with more depth. And as long as that is what is spoonfed to them by the corporations, it will continue, sadly.

JSwerdy
08-03-2006, 12:38 AM
i;ve read them, and they are entertaining, but also some of the worst literature ive ever read. the quality of the writing is piss poor. i mean the past couple books have had the first 200 pages filled with words that dont exist. and its not like theres story ever in those 200 pages, just one bs word after another.

that said i still read them cuse they are enteraining stories (once the story actually begins) and they only take a night to read

Gonzo
08-03-2006, 12:45 AM
My lady enjoys them...so I respect the readership.

But on the other hand - my God, people, these are childrens' books!

I know it's an international phenomenon, etc. etc. blahblahblah...but jeez, isn't it sad when John Irving, America's greatest living author, has to take third billing in any panel reading?

People are reading childrens' books and not reading fiction by our most brilliant literary minds, and we're supposed to be happy about this trend? :rolleyes:

Hey, I can't complain. It's getting kids into reading again, and pretty good quality. I think they play a part in the fact that books are doing well again. They have to start somewhere.

Besides, they are pretty fun reads even for us adults, and this is coming from someone who is reading We at the moment. :lol:

JSwerdy
08-03-2006, 12:53 AM
Hey, I can't complain. It's getting kids into reading again, and pretty good quality. I think they play a part in the fact that books are doing well again. They have to start somewhere.

Besides, they are pretty fun reads even for us adults, and this is coming from someone who is reading We at the moment. :lol:


i like that its getting kids into the habit of reading, but the quality is not good. instead of challenging kids to learn words that are real and will help bolster their vocabulary (my parents made me read books with a dictionary next to me to learn) she makes words up. the writing technique is bland and predictable. she barely uses appropriate literary devices with the exception of onomotopia to describe made up actions and alliteration with series of words that arent real.

having an imaginary world is one thing, but the books are almost too simple in that they dont present any real challenges to kids, the only challenge is how to pronounce all the god damn made up words

Gonzo
08-03-2006, 01:10 AM
i like that its getting kids into the habit of reading, but the quality is not good. instead of challenging kids to learn words that are real and will help bolster their vocabulary (my parents made me read books with a dictionary next to me to learn) she makes words up. the writing technique is bland and predictable. she barely uses appropriate literary devices with the exception of onomotopia to describe made up actions and alliteration with series of words that arent real.

having an imaginary world is one thing, but the books are almost too simple in that they dont present any real challenges to kids, the only challenge is how to pronounce all the god damn made up words

I grew up reading Dr. Seuss and Tolkien. While my writing is not top notch, I don't think I can attribute the few mistakes I do make to the made up words and actions in either of their writing. I attribute it to my own laziness and complete disregard for strict rules being placed on a form of art.

Reading is not always supposed to be challenging. I don't read Stephen King to be challenged. I read his books to be entertained. However, in that process I am becoming a better reader. If Harry Potter books get even one kid to one day pick up a book by Vonnegut, etc., then they are a success in my...book.

I think most of the hatred for these books stems from literary snobbery. popular=horrendous

JSwerdy
08-03-2006, 01:23 AM
Tolkein didnt settle, if that makes in sense. He didnt make it any easier to read his books. He relied on phenomenal imagery. To me Rowling just dumbs everything down. Just because a book is hard shouldnt make a child want to put it down. Tolkein accomplishes this via his imagery. Basically to me, Rowlings is underestimating her audience, and that she shouldn't settle to make the book easy to read. The story she has created is phenomenal. My problem is that she ensured its mass appeal through oversimplification, instead on relying of the quality and substance of the story (which in my opinion is strong enough to ensure its popularity)

basically i view the book more like wasted talent/opportunity. the characters and story lines are there, but she just didn't go for it. which i think would have immortalized the books along the lines of tolkein

FLOUNDER
08-03-2006, 01:27 AM
But on the other hand - my God, people, these are childrens' books!


Im not a big fan of them myself. But you cannot call them childrens books, there about kids thats why kids relate to them more. But there are words in those books Ray Charles couldnt even prenounce

JSwerdy
08-03-2006, 01:33 AM
love the avatar GONZO.
gotta love Ralph Steadman art (flying dog beer sporting his artwork on labels is a cool reintroduction of his work)

Hunter Thompson and Vonnegut were the authors that really got me excited about reading as a teenager, Voltaire and Swift are my top authors (all about the satire)

Gonzo
08-03-2006, 01:35 AM
Tolkein didnt settle, if that makes in sense. He didnt make it any easier to read his books. He relied on phenomenal imagery. To me Rowling just dumbs everything down. Just because a book is hard shouldnt make a child want to put it down. Tolkein accomplishes this via his imagery. Basically to me, Rowlings is underestimating her audience, and that she shouldn't settle to make the book easy to read. The story she has created is phenomenal. My problem is that she ensured its mass appeal through oversimplification, instead on relying of the quality and substance of the story (which in my opinion is strong enough to ensure its popularity)

basically i view the book more like wasted talent/opportunity. the characters and story lines are there, but she just didn't go for it. which i think would have immortalized the books along the lines of tolkein

Have you read all of the books? Or just the first one? I'm not asking to be a dick, just out of curiousity. While I haven't read all of them yet, I have noticed a steadily increasing complexity. This is because she is writing for an aging audience. Personally, I thought Tolkien was just as easy to read. Making a book harder to read does not make it better.

Don't get me wrong, I am not putting her up among the greatest writers of all time (businesspeople...well, there is certainly an argument for that), but I certainly respect what she has done. She never set out to create the greatest story ever told, just one that she thought kids would like. She succeeded.

NaboCane
08-03-2006, 01:37 AM
I grew up reading Dr. Seuss and Tolkien. While my writing is not top notch, I don't think I can attribute the few mistakes I do make to the made up words and actions in either of their writing. I attribute it to my own laziness and complete disregard for strict rules being placed on a form of art.

Reading is not always supposed to be challenging. I don't read Stephen King to be challenged. I read his books to be entertained. However, in that process I am becoming a better reader. If Harry Potter books get even one kid to one day pick up a book by Vonnegut, etc., then they are a success in my...book.

I think most of the hatred for these books stems from literary snobbery. popular=horrendous

Not from me...King is one of my favorite authors, as is Irving, and neither is exactly obscure. But hey, one thing is right - she's getting people to read, period. Kind of like Oprah...

:barf:

Gonzo
08-03-2006, 01:39 AM
love the avatar GONZO.
gotta love Ralph Steadman art (flying dog beer sporting his artwork on labels is a cool reintroduction of his work)

Hunter Thompson and Vonnegut were the authors that really got me excited about reading as a teenager, Voltaire and Swift are my top authors (all about the satire)

:hi5: I missed out on the special edition bottles he did. Did you get those? My g/f just got me the Curse of Lono special edition republished by Steadman. It's awesome. One of the best gifts ever.

I will add Pynchon to that list. :yes:

JSwerdy
08-03-2006, 01:43 AM
Have you read all of the books? Or just the first one? I'm not asking to be a dick, just out of curiousity. While I haven't read all of them yet, I have noticed a steadily increasing complexity. This is because she is writing for an aging audience. Personally, I thought Tolkien was just as easy to read. Making a book harder to read does not make it better.


read them all, multiple times (im a fast reader so i can get through one of hers in a night)

the first one is misleading, so is two

but 3-6 are a whole new ball game (800+ pages each) 3 isnt as bad as 4,5,6.

4,5,6 begin with 200 pages of new words that do nothing to contribute to the story but waste space. I mean, absolutely nothing is added to the stories (then again the bigger the book, the more expensive. and all the prices did incread with each later book)

theyre getting more complex only in story line. its like a sitcom. you know what happened in past episodes, but they decide to spend an episode telling you.

THe stories get more complex just because she keeps introducing new conditionals and ways for the characters to keep conflicting.

Tolkein created a world, and justified everything in it (i dont know if you've every read THE SILMARILLION by Tolkein, its essentially the bible story to the world they live in) Rowlings is just keeping the story going, Jumping the SHark to use more TV terms, the world wasnt necessarily established before she started writing shes just kind of winging it. and everytime she conflicts herself, she creates a few new words and justifies the conflict based on magic and terms the reader can't really differentiate meaning from.

the only thing complex about her that makes her hard to read are the words, because they have no foundation in language (tolkein actually established languages for each of the characters in his books, which separate books are written on and the languages can actually be learned)

JSwerdy
08-03-2006, 01:45 AM
Not from me...King is one of my favorite authors, as is Irving, and neither is exactly obscure. But hey, one thing is right - she's getting people to read, period. Kind of like Oprah...

:barf:


yea exactly, but then again i really hate oprah (for different reasons)

JSwerdy
08-03-2006, 01:49 AM
don't own much of his work (besides the sketches in various editions of thomspons books), since hunter thompson died the prices have gone through the roof

Gonzo
08-03-2006, 01:56 AM
read them all, multiple times (im a fast reader so i can get through one of hers in a night)

the first one is misleading, so is two

but 3-6 are a whole new ball game (800+ pages each) 3 isnt as bad as 4,5,6.

4,5,6 begin with 200 pages of new words that do nothing to contribute to the story but waste space. I mean, absolutely nothing is added to the stories (then again the bigger the book, the more expensive. and all the prices did incread with each later book)

theyre getting more complex only in story line. its like a sitcom. you know what happened in past episodes, but they decide to spend an episode telling you.

THe stories get more complex just because she keeps introducing new conditionals and ways for the characters to keep conflicting.

Tolkein created a world, and justified everything in it (i dont know if you've every read THE SILMARILLION by Tolkein, its essentially the bible story to the world they live in) Rowlings is just keeping the story going, Jumping the SHark to use more TV terms, the world wasnt necessarily established before she started writing shes just kind of winging it. and everytime she conflicts herself, she creates a few new words and justifies the conflict based on magic and terms the reader can't really differentiate meaning from.

the only thing complex about her that makes her hard to read are the words, because they have no foundation in language (tolkein actually established languages for each of the characters in his books, which separate books are written on and the languages can actually be learned)
To be fair, Tolkien was a linguist and originally set out to create a working fictional language (edit: and succeeded several times). Middle Earth was the focus of his ideas from the beginning. That is not the case with Rowling. Her focus was not the world around her characters, it was the characters themselves. That's why people are so worried about Harry dying. They grew attached to him, not Hogwarts. With Tolkien, I was worried about Middle Earth, and didn't care who died in the process of saving it. They are completely different approaches to fantasy and I think they both work. Granted, I think Tolkien did it much better, but that's not the argument.

Perhaps we just approached the books differently. When I sat down to read them, it was typically after a hard semester and I just wanted a break. I didn't want to analyze anything. I just wanted a good story. She provided that.

NaboCane
08-03-2006, 01:58 AM
Anyone here ever read any Irwin Shaw? Rich Man Poor Man, A Night in Byzantium, The Young Lions...?

Gonzo
08-03-2006, 01:59 AM
don't own much of his work (besides the sketches in various editions of thomspons books), since hunter thompson died the prices have gone through the roof

Yeah, it was probably pretty pricey. It's a big art book. The Curse of Lono is almost secondary to the art drawn for it. It's the only thing I own of Steadman's though...besides the sketches you mentioned.

JSwerdy
08-03-2006, 02:01 AM
really good point...i want to respond but...yea, thats a really good point about comparing the two....

in terms of our approach, i didnt intend to look deeply too them, but i think it was book 4 or 5, where i literally just picked the book up and threw it against the wall because it was so frustrating to read the first 200 pages. The next 600 were really good, but you could rip the first 200 out and the story would stay the same.

myabe my problem is with her editors for allowing all of it to be published and not spending the time (instead of releasing them like an assembly line) and work the literature aspect


ultimately i wanted more out of it, if that makes any sense.

i dont think this is out of snobbish-ness, i just want quality, and it just feels like wasted talent

Gonzo
08-03-2006, 02:25 AM
really good point...i want to respond but...yea, thats a really good point about comparing the two....

in terms of our approach, i didnt intend to look deeply too them, but i think it was book 4 or 5, where i literally just picked the book up and threw it against the wall because it was so frustrating to read the first 200 pages. The next 600 were really good, but you could rip the first 200 out and the story would stay the same.

myabe my problem is with her editors for allowing all of it to be published and not spending the time (instead of releasing them like an assembly line) and work the literature aspect


ultimately i wanted more out of it, if that makes any sense.

i dont think this is out of snobbish-ness, i just want quality, and it just feels like wasted talent

Good to know, since I haven't read 5 yet :lol:. I'll go ahead and skim the beginning. I do get annoyed when authors attempt to "catch you up" in series. Do they really think I am beginning with the third book? Also, I hate it when they point out every little thing like their readers live in a hole. An example of this is Dan Brown (again, good stories, though I think his writing is...subpar). Does he really need to explain what a Smart car is? Granted, many Americans are ignorant when it comes to things in foreign countries (not all, and I am not calling Americans stupid, just pointing out a fact), but did the car play such a vital role as to require describing exactly what a smart car is? He does that a lot.

/tangent

JSwerdy
08-03-2006, 02:36 AM
she constantly catches you up in the later books, like they literally have flashbacks in the book. it gets ridiculous after a while.

i avoided reading dan brown because ive read the book he basically plagerized from (the historical basis, HOLY BLOOD HOLY GRAIL) i know the true history behind the book and i dont appreciate how he connected the stories that are not connected (completely his perogative as a fiction author) but too many people came away from that book thinking it was real history and it isnt. i cant tell you how many people have tried to argue the whole history of it based on his books

PhinzN703
08-03-2006, 11:36 AM
I've never read a page of Harry Potter, so I say off with his face. My wife reads the books, which is fine by me. I love that kids are getting into books again. Try and balance books/Playstation all ya can.

But to 'pray' he doesn't get killed. Geez :rolleyes:

You know he wont die, maybe one of his yoyo companions, namely the red head kid maybe

Metal Panda
08-05-2006, 11:12 AM
i like that its getting kids into the habit of reading, but the quality is not good. instead of challenging kids to learn words that are real and will help bolster their vocabulary (my parents made me read books with a dictionary next to me to learn) she makes words up.

well hell, even Dr. Seuss did that....

JSwerdy
08-05-2006, 03:42 PM
well hell, even Dr. Seuss did that....

dr. suess wrote poetry

Metal Panda
08-05-2006, 03:47 PM
dr. suess wrote poetry

which was still literature children read

JSwerdy
08-05-2006, 04:40 PM
which was still literature children read\

the rules of poetry allow/demand certain aspects of form and rhyme,

not to mention the difference in target ages of dr suess vs. rowlings

just cuse dr suess makes up words to rhyme doesnt mean its ok for Rowlings to try and pawn it off as necessary to the story

literature and poetry have different value systems for vocabulary and imagery, arguing by making the two authors analogous is just weak (analogy is the weakest basis for an argument possible)

JSwerdy
08-05-2006, 04:47 PM
break it down into logical steps:

me: rowlings relies on making up words to fill flaws and holes in her story

you're counter: Dr. suess made up words. Dr. Suess is considered a great childrens literary author. Therefore since J.K rownlings makes up words too, she is a great literary author.

see the flaw in the argument? Tolkein is a better comparison since he deals in actual prose, but even then just cuse one of those authors did something that rowlings does too, it doesnt justify her use of it

Pennington's Rocket Arm
08-05-2006, 05:05 PM
i want someone to mow eveyr harry potter character down in a wave of bullets. that's my dream ending.

JSwerdy
08-05-2006, 05:11 PM
i want someone to mow eveyr harry potter character down in a wave of bullets. that's my dream ending.

word.

im still waiting for it to turn into a porno once the characters are 18, its been moving slowly that way over the course of the books. the final book/movie ends up being "Harry Twater and the Sourcerors Dildo"

Metal Panda
08-05-2006, 05:27 PM
\

the rules of poetry allow/demand certain aspects of form and rhyme,

not to mention the difference in target ages of dr suess vs. rowlings

just cuse dr suess makes up words to rhyme doesnt mean its ok for Rowlings to try and pawn it off as necessary to the story

literature and poetry have different value systems for vocabulary and imagery, arguing by making the two authors analogous is just weak (analogy is the weakest basis for an argument possible)

I wasn't doing that at all. Seuss pwnz Rowling. I just didn't feel "making up words" in itself was that much a damning condemnation, that's all.

Metal Panda
08-05-2006, 05:31 PM
\

(analogy is the weakest basis for an argument possible)

Analogy isn't inherently flawed at all. It all comes down to usage and execution.

Ad hominem is the weakest basis for an argument possible.

Besides, most of my alleged "analogy" was your invention.

Metal Panda
08-05-2006, 05:32 PM
break it down into logical steps:

me: rowlings relies on making up words to fill flaws and holes in her story

you're counter: Dr. suess made up words. Dr. Suess is considered a great childrens literary author. Therefore since J.K rownlings makes up words too, she is a great literary author.


What the hell are you talking about? You took extreme liberties with what I said. That wasn't even remotely implied by what I typed.

You stated Rowling made up words in the first 200 pages or so of her books, and used it as a demerit to her writing style, and impact on children. I merely cited Dr. Seuss among many to show that even the late great children's author had done so, not to suggest (on the slippery slope you concocted) that ergo, Rowling was also a great author. Yes, Dr. Seuss wrote in rhyme, but despite the poetic nature of what he wrote, he still wrote in a story format.

No, not every book he wrote was a 'story' in the conventional sense of the word, but most of what he wrote WERE stories in rhyme. Yes, he wrote for a different demographic, but one that would likely be more impressionable. I'd never compare the two authors, Seuss was a man not afraid to teach children about class issues (The Sneetches), not writing about boy wizards...I just didn't believe the made-up words was such a damning argument against Rowling.

Not sure where you got the rest of that from whatsoever.

JSwerdy
08-05-2006, 10:55 PM
You stated Rowling made up words in the first 200 pages or so of her books, and used it as a demerit to her writing style, and impact on children. I merely cited Dr. Seuss among many to show that even the late great children's author had done so, not to suggest (on the slippery slope you concocted) that ergo, Rowling was also a great author. Yes, Dr. Seuss wrote in rhyme, but despite the poetic nature of what he wrote, he still wrote in a story format.

.

the earlier part of that argument came from why the making of words was a discredit to her, she uses made up words (which the magic theme makes all too easy) to justify conflicts in her storyline instead of resolving the entire story as a whole, allowing her to continue on. essentially she wrote the first book, 2nd book, 3rd book, etc just adding on to the plot and whenever the plot conflicted itself she would justify the confliction and explain it away with made up termonology that contributes absolutely nothing to the overall story but allows her to continue nonetheless

JSwerdy
08-05-2006, 10:57 PM
yea sorry bout exaggerating the anolgy thing, just screwing around there really for the sake of argument, 4 hrs of lsat practice makes me argumentative

JSwerdy
08-05-2006, 10:57 PM
the whole impact on children argument comes from the overarching sense that people are praising her as good literature when i dont believe it is. Shes more in it for the now (i know this is a fickle statement, i just dont feel like rejustifying the first 2 pages of the thread) than the lasting quality of her work as literature.

Phinz4Life
08-06-2006, 04:33 AM
It's because Stephen King wants to kill him off in one of his novels.....Harry vs. Pennywise. :D

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b55/ILPhinFan88/Pennysig.gif

NOOOOOOOOOO! :(

Saw "IT" when I was three, I couldn't LOOK at a clown without freaking out.

Only now am I recovering.

Agh that F@$#ing clown.