Potter was such a success precisely because he was average with a good heart. Every kid wants to believe that being average and a good heart is all you really need to be special--most adults too. Same deal with Frodo and the Narnia kids. All nothing special but still special in the fantasy world.
Pug was always special he just didnt know it. He had to work to become more special, but unlike the other examples it's not a case of the average schmo somehow saving the world. Personally I think there is room for both, but we do tend to love our average everyday folks saving the world because we all want to believe on some level that we're special just like them. On Dec 21, 2011, at 11:55 PM, "James Young" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > > > > > > >
