Sent from my iPhone
On 28/12/2011, at 2:11 AM, Mopok Addy <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear James > > I have only been on the for just over a month, so I am not sure what the > protocol is for emailing directly. > > I am emailing in regard to Tolkien, you seem to know a lot about him, and I > am also a big fan. I know Lord of the Rings was originally printed in six > books, though I refer to them as one book, and was just interested to know > why you refer to them as six? Or do you always refer to books in their > originally printed way? For example do you refer to Great Expectations as 3 > books? > > Clarification would be very welcome, I am always interested in learning about > my favourite authors. > > Timothy > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:55 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. > > > > > > > > > >
