Black and white and read all over.

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 116886


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Renee" <R.Vink2 at c...> wrote:
>  
> Kneasy:
> > Dear, oh dear. 
> > Sounds as if there's someone else with fairly limited expectations.
> 
> Renee:
> So if people are not particularly interested in speculating about 
> the plot, their expectations must be limited? That's a non sequitur, 
> if you ask me. I fully expect the last two books to be entertaining, 
> enjoyable, exciting and bursting with surprises, with a big showdown 
> at the end. 
>

Kneasy:
No. It means they don't appreciate my ironic asides.
 
> snip>
> Renee: 
> Though I can't say I disagree with most of what you say here, I 
> don't see what it has to do with wanting to speculate about plot 
> developments or not. 
> 
> The one thing I don't quite understand is, why it would take an open 
> ending or a vague conclusion for the reader to get to decide what it 
> was all about. Even if the conclusion is wholly unambiguous, there 
> will be enough questions left to ask and answer concerning symbolism 
> and message and meaning and whatnot - precisely because plot isn't 
> what literature is all about. I suspect we're either reading these 
> books in vastly different ways, or we don't mean the same when we 
> say 'plot'. (Or both.)   
> 
> 
Kneasy:
Bit of both probably.
It needn't be vague or open necessarily. Those were possible alternatives
thrown in as examples to show that I'm hoping, willing to accept, indeed
desperate for, almost anything that isn't a bog-standard, run of the mill, 
fantasy conclusion. I want HP to be different, better than perhaps I have
a right to expect.

Literature isn't plot, I'll agree with you there. 
But I don't consider that what JKR writes is literature in the sense that I 
understand it. This is a pretty delicate subject among her fans (of which 
I am one) but I don't believe that she's reached a standard that would 
classify her work as literature. I don't think she has the technical skills,
the necessary experience or possibly even the inclination to write the
sort of stuff that would be generally accepted as literature.

Do you read Jo for her prose style? I doubt it; I doubt anyone else does
either. It's not very good. It's the story, the characters and, dare I say it,
the plot. They're what engages the reader, as does the incredible amount
of detail she includes. It's those that make her books so popular. But if I 
was told that for the rest of my life I would only be allowed to read and 
re-read 10 books then HP would not be one of my choices. 
It might get into my top 50 - just.

I'm looking forward to the next book, but I'm also looking forward to
the next Discworld novel, the next Jasper Fforde, the next Alastair
Reynolds, none of which I would classify as literature, all of which are
character/plot driven. I enjoy books of this type - in moderation. 
I also enjoy coffee cake but I intersperse binges of it with more solid fare.
So it is with books.

HP is a very good series of books *of it's type*. And that is not a
put-down, it's a considered opinion from someone who has read for 
pleasure an average of 3 books a week for the past 45 years. HP is fun. 
But if I want real meat I look elsewhere. 
Others may disagree with my views. Fine.