There's a meanness of spirit at the core of the Potter books, and a streak of authorial frigidity, that really bothers me - I mean, come on. She spends almost the entire series glorifying motherhood, and then sends a woman (Tonks) who's given birth less than a month earlier out to die in a battle? In what universe does *that* makes sense? Rowling gave birth to two children while writing the Potter books and surely knows better, but she was so intent on having yet *another* orphaned (male) wizard baby that she included a patently ridiculous plot element.
The books are often compared to Tolkien, but I truly can't see Harry Potter being named the most influential piece of literature of the early 21st century thirty years after JK Rowling dies. Then again, Tolkien didn't treat his characters like puppets, and was a fanatic about rewriting. Rowling should take a lesson from him.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-30 03:04 am (UTC)The books are often compared to Tolkien, but I truly can't see Harry Potter being named the most influential piece of literature of the early 21st century thirty years after JK Rowling dies. Then again, Tolkien didn't treat his characters like puppets, and was a fanatic about rewriting. Rowling should take a lesson from him.