MSU Red Cedar Message Board

You seem to be confused, an adult reading a book doesn't make it an adult book. Sorry, I should have been more specific, maybe included pictures like in the books you commonly read.

Nerd fight!

Anyway, the Harry Potter series was a lot of fun to read and contained many great stories. Is it "great literature?" Probably not, but it kept me entertained.

Ender's Game, which is probably my favorite book, also had some plot holes and "magic." For heaven's sake, Ender is what, 6, when he enters battle school? Bean is only 3? Suspending disbelief is part of what makes Ender's Game and Harry Potter so fun to read.

OK, I think it's only fair to ask:

Name a great storyteller.

Name a well-plotted book.

Name a great writer.

What is the best book ever written, in your opinion?

Rowling is neither the best storyteller ever, nor the best writer ever. She certainly improved as a writer over the course of 7 books (no grand shock there). To say she's a "terrible storyteller" shows that we do not agree on what constitutes a good storyteller. And, FWIW, you're in the tiniest of minorities in saying she's a "terrible storyteller" -- even her greatest critics say she is a good one.

No need to respond, of course. It's just an opinion on a frickin' book or 7.

Rowling is an okay storyteller who came up with some ideas that reasonated with a lot of people, and kind of took off on hype. The Harry Potter series is good but not great.

There are many authors that deserve to be billionaires more than she does, but that's the way things go. VHS beat out Betamax, Snookie is a TV star, Firefly was cancelled and Twilight makes big bucks. The best team doesn't always win.

Frankly, the success of Eregon is more appalling. God that book sucks.

Did you bother to read any other books in the ender's game series? It's explained later how Bean was a genetic experiement. I'm not saying it doesn't have plot holes, but the plot is much more complex if you read through the entire series (which is still being written), almost to the scale of A Song of Ice and Fire.

You would not read it on a train?
You would not read it in the rain?

Dear God, the Deathly Hallows alone crushed what little respect I had for that woman. Allow me to synopsize the middle THREE HUNDRED PAGES of the exciting, action-packed conclusion to that series:

They go to the woods. They sit in the woods. They talk about the woods. They think about leaving the woods, but then decide to stay in the woods. One of them gets sick of the woods, leaves the woods, feels bad about leaving the woods, and then eventually returns...to the woods.

And a +1 for you, sir.

Not only have I read all the books in the Ender series, I have ready nearly every Orson Scott Card book.

To say that Bean was a result of a genetic experiment is like saying Harry beat Voldemort because he was the last Horcrux. I wasn't trying to lessen the writing of Card by comparing him to Rowling. I was trying to compliment the writing of Rowling by comparing her to Card.

These books are works of fiction and contain elements of the fantastic. Just because the Ansible is explained as using "philotes" and "philotic bonds," or that Jane can use her enormous memory to move objects faster-than-light, doesn't make it any more than "magic." The Ender books are written for an audience that is older than the Potter target audience. I am have a fairly extensive science background, and the "science" explained in Xenocide and Children of the Mind had me baffled. Rowling could have moved into the midi-chlorian realm of George Lucas to explain where wizards got their powers, but made the right choice and made it completely ambiguous. Wizards are magical, muggles are not. Just because Card explains Bean's super-intellect with a genetic experiment, doesn't make it less fantastic than Harry being born a wizard.

I have not read any of the Song of Fire and Ice books (I'm already inundated with unread books), but I like a lot of George RR's older SciFi works. I have held off on watching the HBO series with the hopes of reading the books first.

That is an excellent point. It would be very difficult for a writer like Rowling to take on Card in social commentary. You would be hard-pressed to find a better social commentator than Card in modern science fiction.

I think one major distinction between the Potter universe and the Ender universe has to do with the age of the technology. The ansible and Dr. Device, for example, are very new (to the humans) and have a great impact on their society. Magic, however, has been around for ages in the Potter universe. For wizards, magic is a way of life, and for muggles, they go on their merry, ignorant way.

I agree that the Time Turner was a terrible deus ex machina that promptly demanded more questions than it actually answered. I can time travel, what should I do? I know, take more classes! I get it, it's dumb, but fiction and fantasy are about suspension of disbelief.

I guess it comes down to the level of distraction involved with any pseudo-science or magical powers in fiction. A good writer makes it feel natural, while a poor writer uses it as a crutch, then beats you over the head with it.

I thought Card did a fairly good job with the bugger technology, for example. The humans salvaged the Dr. Device and Ansible from the bugger ships and figured out how to use them before they truly understood how they worked. That's exactly how things would happen in real life. It wasn't until later in the series that these technologies were understood and explained. Whether intentionally or not, Card followed a believable path when it came to the reverse-engineering and understanding of an alien technology.

I kinda equate Rowling's explanation of the wizards in the Potter universe to the science in Frankenstein. If you read the "creation" scene in Frankenstein, there is no explanation of any science or machines used to create the monster. Mary Shelley simply says that Dr. Frankenstein creates the monster. It was Hollywood that brought in the lightning, machines, and "it's alive!" Shelley was not a scientist, she was an author. She wrote about what she understood, just as Rowling does.

Children's literature is that which is directed towards those under 12. I freely admit that Rowling's intended audience wasn't 30 year olds, but it also wasn't for little kids.

Believe me, I love the Harry Potter books and did not miss the social commentary. I was simply pointing out that Card is known for his social commentary, while Rowling isn't.

Funny as I am posting this the Harry Potter park at Universal studios is being advertised. I don't think Rowling deserves any hate. hre wrote very entertaining books and I believe did not have much of history in writing. Goblet of Fire was my fav book I didn't find Deathly Hallows to be very good and the epilogue almost ruined everything