đŹ Weekly Question: Was Ursula K. Le Guin right about J.K. Rowling?
Weekly questionsâ comment sections are left open for one week. This thread is now locked.
Remember when Ursula K. Le Guin savaged J.K. Rowling in a 2004 Guardian interview?
âI have no great opinion of [JK Rowlingâs writing style]. When so many adult critics were carrying on about the âincredible originalityâ of the first Harry Potter book, I read it to find out what the fuss was about, and remained somewhat puzzled; it seemed a lively kidâs fantasy crossed with a âschool novelâ, good fare for its age group, but stylistically ordinary, imaginatively derivative, and ethically rather mean-spirited.â
I donât disagree myself, though I appreciate her many fans and their devotion to the series and films. I only made it 50 pages into The Sorcererâs/Philosopherâs Stone before I abandoned it, one of only two books I ever stopped reading. Even now, I only feel comfortable discussing that aloud â breaking my rule about publicly criticizing othersâ art â because the financial success of these books has funded the decimation of human (trans) rights in the U.K. and helped destroy countless lives around the world.
All this aside, you might wonder why Le Guin would go out of her way to criticize a fellow female fantasy author. Well, consider this, which she wrote in 2010 in the Book View Café:
âSo, then, whatâs the difference between being influenced by a body of work and admitting it, and being influenced by a body of work and not admitting it?
This last is the situation, as I see it, between my A Wizard of Earthsea and J.K.Rowlingâs Harry Potter. I didnât originate the idea of a school for wizards â if anybody did it was T.H.White, though he did it in single throwaway line and didnât develop it. I was the first to do that. Years later, Rowling took the idea and developed it along other lines. She didnât plagiarize. She didnât copy anything. Her book, in fact, could hardly be more different from mine, in style, spirit, everything. The only thing that rankles me is her apparent reluctance to admit that she ever learned anything from other writers. When ignorant critics praised her wonderful originality in inventing the idea of a wizardsâ school, and some of them even seemed to believe that she had invented fantasy, she let them do so. This, I think, was ungenerous, and in the long run unwise.â
I think this is Le Guin very delicately calling Rowling a hack, but maybe Iâm misreading her intent. But she seems to have taken great offense to how Rowling was â and I suppose still is â more interested in her own aggrandizement rather than showing any respect for the authors, many of whom never achieved her commercial success, she learned and borrowed from.
Which brings me to this weekâs question: Was Le Guin right about Rowling and/or her work?
Interpret this question however you wish. I think weâre all going to take more from this exercise if we lean into the variety of experiences here. Just remember, I do not tolerate assholes or transphobes. This is a request for a thoughtful exchange about a cultural touchstone of a generation or two, our relationship to both craft and the history of that craft, and, if youâre up for it, what you make of Le Guinâs âmean-spiritedâ accusation.
I give her credit for writing books that captured the imaginations of children, enticing many to become readers at a young age. Habits formed at a young age tend to stick. However, suggestions about originality are ludicrous. And her style is common-which canât be hand waved away by saying theyâre childrenâs books. Many authors of childrenâs fiction are masterful.
Her lack of openness, if not humility, in failing to credit her influences reflects on her character, which has been irrevocably damaged once she told us what she thinks. Itâs of a piece.
Le Guinâs comments made me think about the classical music world. My husband used to play in orchestras. Unfailingly, the musicians who were the most arrogant were 2nd or 3rd tier. The most talented and skilled almost always demonstrated humility and generosity. (Yes there are divas. No generalisation is perfect.) They used their spotlight to shine a light on others. If you think youâre the best, you lose nothing by lifting others up. Only someone whoâs desperate to prove herself takes all the credit.
Fun fact, I read most of the Harry Potter books in Borders, a large bookshop on Queen St, in Auckland. They were not particularly well written and it was easy to speedread them. I didn't feel inclined to actually own them.
It is risible to consider them as being "incredibly original" as I felt that they were quite derivative of other British books involving groups of children, such as the Famous Five, Secret Seven, just transplanted into the setting of a magical school. All the children were quite stereotyped, and it was no effort at all to just whip through the story sitting in a comfortable chair at Borders.
The only comparison to Le Guin that can be made is that they both describe a school where magic is learned, but beyond that, Le Guin's Earthsea books are in a rarefied level of their own. Impossible to speedread, very possible to linger and reread paragraphs, or even entire books. I must have read A WIZARD OF EARTHSEA about 10 times at this point and Ged's story never ceases to captivate with its many layers of meaning.
Harry Potter ... it puzzled me why it became such a publishing sensation, but I guess it's because it simply was not difficult to read and it hit all the fantasy beats, with this orphan who embraces his family heritage and claims venegance on the man who killed his parents.
Given that Rowling's later books became incredibly bloated with minimal editing and were rolled out as fast as possible in what looks like second drafts at best, she is absolutely a hack.