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.

Part of what I found fascinating about HP was Snape: mean, vindictive, despises the hero with a pure hatred, plays favorites--but he's on our (ie, the good guys) side. You don't have to like someone for them to be your ally. And vice versa.

Then there's the Malfoys, arrogant and entitled and vicious, but their guiding principle through the whole thing was protecting each other.

And Harry the hero makes some humungous boner mistakes that have devasting results that aren't made right (Sirius!) and he has to cope with it.

It's the kind of stuff that could make an unsuspecting kid reader sit up and stare at the words in shock and realization.

I don't actually think HP or Twilight are successful because of LCD; I think they're successful because they hit an emotional sweet-spot for the target audience, and manage to do that in combination with a story that people find engaging and fun. It's harder than it looks.

I think they're successful because they hit an emotional sweet-spot for the target audience, and manage to do that in combination with a story that people find engaging and fun. It's harder than it looks.

Oh, I see it, and I'm old enough and have enough 1/4 finished novels to be wary of the "Oh, I could do THAT with my panties tied around my fingers" trap. I just can't put my finger on why THESE novels and not THOSE.

I'm trying to think of novels or series that are more worthy (I know, I know; subjective to a degree.) I'm all walloped on painkillers and nothing truly comparitive is coming to mind. I remember loving to an unreasonable degree Guy Gavirel Kay's Fionavar trilogy, but I realize that I had a much more intensive background in Authurian and Celtic mythologies as a teengager and YA that made my enjoyment and understanding of that series go beyond the pratagonists and plot. Same with Susan Cooper's series.

In fact, it might go a bit towards answering my puzzlement; the average reader's enjoyment and wonder towards HP and Twilight might be because of their general (and I am generalizing to the average reader, not being patronizing) lack of in-depth background info and grounding in the world-building and theories about the mythos that went into the series, i.e., magic and vampires.

Ignorance (and I don't mean that in a perjorative sense, rather, in the sense of simple not knowing) can be literary bliss?