Potter isn't an anti-hero, he has assumed positive characteristics, he's just more "average". An
anti-hero is sub-par, and while Potter didn't excel at everything, he wasn't an abject failure
either. He had strengths and weaknesses, and he certainly isn't playing with moral-relativism,
things are pretty black and white in that series. As for the world, I think it's not really an
issue for kids to day dream up an entire alternate reality, or a completely different world. When
we were kids we did the same. Potter has a lot of very common literary tropes that just happened to
mesh well and be timed about perfectly to be a smashing success.
Technically the only Narnia books which didn't involve the Pevensie children were Silver Chair and
the Magician's Nephew. A horse and his boy only touches on them lightly, but they are most
certainly involved in the story. Of those, the oldest and first published are the most commonly
read, and yes most popular, but I don't think it's a matter of the children being the focus, but
because the nature of the way people read. Many people I knew growing up knew about The Lion, The
Witch, and The Wardrobe, but they didn't have a clue there were six more books.
Tolkien wrote far more than 3 books, and if you're talking about the "trilogy" it's actually 6 books
plus a lot of appendices. This does not include his many pages of partially finished works which
have since been published and expanded upon by Christopher. Calling it a trilogy is a marketing
gimmick, which is the same issue we see with Ray's US edition of Magician which is split rather than
a single bound volume in mass market. Still it's a style thing and you're right in that each author
picks a different way to address the history of their worlds.
As for the critiquing of Lewis, Tolkien got as good as he gave among the
Inklings.
-James
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamila Rose" <[email protected]>
To: "Feist" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 10:38 PM
Subject: RE: Possible answer
And that is exactly what JK was going for.. the anti hero.. I
think that’s why so many kids love the books.. because lets face it.. Harry is
average.. for a wizard at least. Another reason the books reach a wider
audience, is it doesn’t require you to create a whole other world with your
imagination.. because its built within our reality. A kid can quite easily sit
in school and daydream that the Hogwarts express is on its way to Hogwarts or
that that owl is delivery post. I think that’s why you find that the books from
the Narnia series, that are the most popular are the ones where the pevensie
children are focused on.
Personally I know both Ray and JK are classified as fantasy
writers, but the worlds they work in are completely different so I can’t
compare them. I will however say this.. I know Ray you are a big fan of
Tolkien.. however I much prefer to read your books over and over again.. then
to tackle LOR again.. love the Hobbit.. but I much prefer how you space out
your facts and history over multiples and multiples of books.. and not jam pack
everything into 3... Don’t get me wrong Tolkien was a master.. but I've never
quite forgiven him for his criticisms of his good friend C S Lewis!
'As a people we should never let what makes us different get in the way of what
makes us the same'
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Possible answer
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:50:14 -0600
I am with you on the Harry Potter issue. He certainly did seem to be in over his head and always
came out on top by pure luck, or by someone else bigger and stronger stepping in, not my idea of a
hero. And the wand trick did not do much for me either. Power should always come from within and if
you are going to use a wand, then it should be merely an extension of your own power. I think JK
came up with a really cool concept, but her writing made it a bit bland for me. But on your
description of Magician and Silverthorn I am not there with you. I loved both of them, and I thought
they were excellent books with enough in them to keep me going and going. Magician was an awesome
introduction to Midkemia. And Silverthorn, I just loved the hopelessness felt by the characters.
That for me was what made it the best. The characters felt overwhelmed, over matched and hopeless,
and yet they continued to strive and win through. But Darkness was definitely the ultimate end to
that adventure. I know I will be really sad when Pugs story comes to an end. Just to make it last a
bit longer I have went back and am rereading Magician. Am about half way through. But I wanted to
read them all again so that everything was fresh when I finally picked up crown imperiled. Graham
Watson From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of jshkay
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 2:38 PM
To: feistfans-l
Subject: Re: Possible answer I liked your magician books. I think that overall, they were quite
well done. That being said, I did feel they lacked the starting flourish of a series like the Harry
Potter books. The magician books were more down to earth on the whole, and though they had their
fair share of mystery they also didn't really compare to something like the mistborn trilogy in
their ability to intrique. Also, a solid chunk of the magician books were relatively slow. That is
not necessarily a bad thing, but would inhibit readers from picking it up. To be completely
honest, out of that series my favorite book was A Darkness at Sethanon and my least favorite was
Silverthorn. I really felt like the characters were a bit lost in Silverthorn and I also didn't
like the feel of helplessness that went with them being assaulted by powerful magic with little
ability to defend themselves. Jimmy was definitely the strength of this book, but on the whole it
just felt bland. I also did not find the journey to be that enjoyable, nor did I like that magic
from Pantathian priests could so overwhelm a monastary that had been steeped in magical power for
centuries. I kind of felt the power of the Pantathian priests not very believable. On the other
hand, Darkness had a much more interesting journey. I absolutely loved Armengar from start to
finish. The whole series of events in Armengar gave the book an epic feel. I also very much
enjoyed the culmination of the book with the invasion of Sethanon. I felt like every character in
this book was deep and had a reason, and story, behind their actions. It was a much more intense
book than the previous three and you really did a great job w/ it.
I think JK Rowling got a bit lucky, to be honest. I found her books to be good, but nothing
extraordinary. I've read quite a few fantasy novels I much prefer over hers, and the last book was
extremely disappointing. The whole mechanic with the wand felt cheap and cheesy to me. Lose your
wand and you have zip for magical power. To be honest, the wand mechanic was one of the things I
disliked most about her books. Instead of getting your magical power from within, you get it from a
wand that can be broken like a twig (always drove me crazy every time someone got owned cause they
dropped their wand). That being said, she had some great characters. Professor Snape was easily my
favorite, but I also thought Hermione was quite good (though I felt Hermione should have been more
relavant in a lot of the fights w/ the dark forces). The last thing I'd say is it always felt to me
like Harry Potter was tagging along. Dumbledore would tell him what to do, give him hints, and then
he would do it. Harry Potter would get in a fight and be saved by one of the powerful wizards at
the academy. In general, he seemed hopelessly outmarched by every situation he was in. Throughout
the books, I felt like he was in for the ride and not actually a main character. He just felt
shallow to me. On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Raymond E. Feist <[email protected]> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Scott Norris wrote:
You're saying you need to work on your charm but you date women half your age...
now I'm really confused.
;-D
Scott45
Everywhere you go, smart alecs.
Look, I think there was a lot of charm in Magician,because of the two main characters, and in
Silverthorn and Darkness because of who Jimmy was. I intentionally didn't make the twins or Erik
and Roo "charming" and it's been pretty dark since then.
Rowlings had a lot of the same issues; Goblet of fire was the last "charming book" where they were
still kids, but Order of the Phoenix turned very dark and from there . . .
Still, she had this charming foundation that echoed in the narrative of the
later books.
My situation in real life has nothing to do with the work.
And it's 1/3rd my age if you must know.
Best, R.E.F.
----
www.crydee.com
Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by
stupidity.
