You know, what frustrates me about the fantasy books that get really big (HP, Eragon, Twilight) is how they're seized upon as some big revolutionary thing, and scholarly treatises and essays are written on them, etc, blah blah blah. I really noticed it with HP, and I was flambozzled; I was all like "Why THIS series? It's not new, it's not revolutionary -- it's really pretty typical for the genre and there are other series and protags who I enjoy quite a bit more - why THIS one?"
And Eragon just made me grit my teeth and spit. Oooh, a kid wrote it, ooh. It's still derivitive and rather plodding and boring.
And there approx. 12 YA vampire series that are far more worthy of adulation than Twilight.
I call it the LCD effect and try to ignore it, but it bugs me, as a long-time reader of excellent AND crappy adult and YA fantasy, ans as the acquaintance of several authors in the genre who are much more deserving of fame and loads of payola.
...why THIS one?"
Very much in agreement wrt the Harry Potter series. I still wonder what the tipping point was that made it take off the way it did, compared to others.
Haven't tried the Twilight series.
LCD as in "lowest common denominator"?
LCD as in "lowest common denominator"?
Yep, possibly the only voluntary math meets lit ref you'll ever see me make.
And I still wonder what the tipping point was that made it take off the way it did, compared to others. yes, this. I don't think it was awful and I found lots of it enjoyable, but I don't get the panting adulation. It was...fine, okay, entertaining, but not, IMO, extraordinary. Except in its reception.
LCD as in "lowest common denominator"?
Yep, possibly the only voluntary math meets lit ref you'll ever see me make.
Oh, DUH.
I blame the percocet.
Don't diss the perc. LOVE the perc. CUDDLE the perc to yer heavin' buzzum.
I'd be loving the percocet if it were going anything remotely resembling relieving the pain. But it's not, so I shake my tiny fist in its direction.
I totally agree, Erin--I enjoyed Harry Potter, especially the later books as they got more complex, but I remember picking up the first couple and reading them and kinda being like "Um, OK, and?" because they were just not that much more exciting or different or whatever than any number of other YA wizardy books that I'd read in ages past, and I didn't see what the hullaballoo was about. Who knows?
I wonder how much of the mythology surrounding the books (HP written by a single mother on welfare, scribbing away during stolen moments. Eragon written by a high school student) have to do with the press they got. Then, once they'd gotten that initial publicity, things had a chance to snowball.
It wouldn't happen with every book with an interesting author backstory, but it might be enough to propel a noticable number of mediocre-to-good books to the point where their fame starts building upon itself.
I adored Harry Potter and personally thought the series had a vivaciousness and originality that many of the other YA fantasy I'd read did not. I am in complete and utter agreement, however, about Eragon (which was crap) and its sequel (which was crap that crap crapped) and Twilight.
