September 30, 2006

On The Subject of BOOKS J.D.Salinger is on this list, as are John Steinbeck and Mark Twain. Somewhat astounding, to say the least.
posted by jeraboam 17 years ago
  • I don't think Mark Twain's ever been off the list.
  • Rowling said yesterday: "As this puts me in the company of Harper Lee, Mark Twain, J.D.Salinger, William Golding, John Steinbeck and other writers I revere, I have always taken my annual inclusion on the list as a great honour." Your books are fun, but no, you are not in their company.
  • Such snobbery. She accompanies them on this list, which, of course, is what she was referring to.
  • No, it's not snobbery. I own and have read and enjoyed every single Harry Potter book. I don't begrudge her her success at all -- in fact, I'm quite happy for her. To be able to just live off of your income as a novelist is a thousand-to-one shot at best, but to be truly successful and find fame and fortune that way is a one-in-a-million situation. Good for her, I say without a drop of distaste or condescension. But even her inclusion on this list doesn't put her in the same league as these other writers. They were put there for rattling cages, using their art to reflect and challenge the worlds in which they lived and worked. She's there because my country is currently overrun with slackjawed knuckle-draggers who think fantasy fiction is of the debbil. I didn't mean it as a slam. No, she's not a particularly great writer and never met an adverb she didn't like, but she's written a string of page-turners that I have very much enjoyed. But the "controversy" surrounding her work is about as meaty and meaningful to me as the "controversy" that Bert and Ernie might be gay lovers.
  • I don't think she actually believes she's in the same class as Salinger et al. I think she's just saying that if she has to be on a list at least she has good company on this one.
  • >>But the "controversy" surrounding her work is about as meaty and meaningful to me as the "controversy" that Bert and Ernie might be gay lovers. The controversy surrounding the other books she names is exactly the same as the controversy surrounding the Harry Potter books- none of them would be controversial but for a predominance of pinheads. The point is that Rowling wasn't claiming to be in their company for any reason other than her inclusion on the list.
  • >>The controversy surrounding the other books she names Sorry, the other AUTHORS she names- she doesn't name any books.
  • >>The point is that Rowling wasn't claiming to be in their company for any reason other than her inclusion on the list. Yep, that's what I'm sayin'.
  • Say it, say Rowling is as good as Salinger. SAY IT!!!!
  • Er, no.
  • Rowling is a mediocre writer compared to the others on that list. Still dosen't mean she cannot write an enjoyable book.
  • I think Rowling is better than Salinger (whom I loathe). There, I said it!
  • I think Rowling is better than Salinger (whom I loathe). Never read Rowling, and yet I agree with this statement.
  • Never read Rowling, and yet I agree with this statement. You don't have to have read Rowling to agree that rushmc thinks R is better than S.
  • Correct.
  • Word! wait, what are talking about?
  • The deficiencies of J.K. Rowling as a writer seem to be the burden of this thread. However, it's not because of her writing abilities, or lack thereof, that she landed on this list: objections centre on the content of her books. It's interesting that Frank L. Baum, best-known for his Oz tales, included magic and fantasy in his stories, yet his work hasn't attracted the opposition in the US that Rowling's has.
  • I think that maybe, bees, since the Oz tales are presented in the context of dreams or daydreams, they are considered harmless and could possibly be construed as having a "Christian message." Howeverm sorcery is sorcery, and you must not suffer a witch to live. Kill Harry Potter FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR VERY SOULS! And kill Disney while you're at it.
  • Whoa, there, nunia. the Oz books aren't presented in context of either dreams or daydreams. The kids are awake, alert, and well-oriented in traveling to and from Oz. Believe you may be thinking of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland/Through the Looking-glass, where the dream motif is used. (He wanted American youngsters and Yankee ingenuity to show in his kids' stories, so you might end up reading about a robot character like Tik-Tok. He did keep the magic, though, so there was the sawhorse who was made of logs and twigs, or the Gump, who is a being made of a moose's head atop the body of a Victorian parlour sofa.) Dorothy lives in Kansas, and with her house and her dog she's blown into the air and ends up in Oz. She returns by being wished back by Glenda the Good Witch of I forget which direction.
  • North.
  • I think the main reason Rowling's books make parents nervous isn't really the sorcery thing, but the fact that they inspire such obsession in their young fans. If Junior says, "Hey, Mom, I kinda like this book about a wizard," Mom's not going to have a problem with it. But if Junior reads every book three times through, spends all his time talking about them, can't go to sleep without the DVD on endless loop in his room, bases his entire social life around other kids who do the same thing, casts spells on the family dog, peppers his vocabulary with Hogwarts lingo, and spends his weekends glued to the Internets writing fanfiction, it's gonna set off some alarm bells.
  • Seems The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by Frank L. Baum is online here.
  • Me, I think Americans simply lack the ability to leave kids' things to kids. Just look at what's happened to sandlot baseball. Or soapbox derbies. And now the poor kids can never get out of parental earshot because they all have to carry cell phones.
  • i will use rowling's books to encourage my kids to request that they be sent to boarding school. my boss's son, having read the first three or four books, was very eager to go.
  • Good idea, roryk! I'm reading my boy Lord of the Flies, in the hope that he will kill a particular fat, smartarse little friend of his.
  • rowling in the company of golding again.
  • rowling in the company of golding again.
  • As a child I read Barrie and Burns, A-roaming in the gloaming, The kids today take turns, A-rowling in the golding.
  • I'm reading my kids The Hunt for Red October, because they're thrilled and petrified by illiteracy.
  • MonkeyFilter: The kids are awake, alert, and well-oriented in traveling to and from Oz
  • Every baby is born illiterate. Just as he/she is born incontinent. But these characteristics in and of themselves scarcely seem adequate preparation for a lifetime of more or less social interaction with one's fellows.
  • I believe this Alton Verm goes against my religious beliefs. And a sizable number of my unreligious ones, too.
  • Maybe he only wants to ban books about banning books? Because that would be meta.