So You Want To/Write the Next Harry Potter: Difference between revisions
So You Want To/Write the Next Harry Potter (view source)
Revision as of 01:46, 20 August 2023
, 8 months agoReplaced redirects
m (update links) |
(Replaced redirects) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
While the details surrounding the popularity of ''[[Harry Potter]]'' can at times be sketchy - just how popular ''was'' the first book before the media got ahold of the story?<ref>There may not have been a "before" - [[The BBC|Radio 4]] picked up on it right back when [[
And all about some kid named Harry who finds out he's a wizard.
Line 108:
* The ''[[Deltora Quest]]'' series by Emily Rodda, and her ''[[Rowan of Rin]]'' series as well. A strong sense of setting with an unpredictable world that didn't abide by our physical rules and could offer up unexpected danger if you took just a single step in the wrong direction.
* ''[[Harry Potter]]'', of course. If you're looking to make the next ''Harry Potter'' and don't know what you're trying to be, it'll be a sad day when you figure out it's a far cry from what you were aiming at.
Non-fiction books that you should study:
* John Granger's ''The Hidden Key to Harry Potter'', which discusses at some length the symbolism behind the series. He may be [[What Do You Mean Its Not Symbolic|imagining some of these elements]], but it's nevertheless a well-thought-out thesis with plenty of detail to back it up.
* ''Destiny Unfulfilled: A Critique of the Harry Potter Series''. You can find it on Amazon [http://www.amazon.com/Destiny-Unfulfilled-Critique-Harry-Potter/dp/098435252X here] and in PDF [
** As with all criticisms, though, take this one with a grain of salt. For example, the book seems to take it for granted that Harry should beat Voldemort by ''strength of arms'' - that is, by being a stronger, more gifted wizard, or by amassing superior firepower in the form of fellow wizards - when, in fact, a case could be made that it's supposed to be the other way around. ''[[Harry Potter]]'', like ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', might best be taken as an aversion of the whole [[Right Makes Might]] tradition: The hero wins not by out-gunning the villain, but rather by [[Flaw Exploitation]], generally of the enemy's blindness to some crucial fact<ref>Christopher Booker goes over this one at length in ''[[The Seven Basic Plots]]''</ref>. In ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', for example, Sauron can't begin to imagine that anyone would ever try to destroy the One Ring, so the heroes win despite being horribly outmatched by the sheer power of their [[Big Bad]].
* ''[[Gunnerkrigg Court]]''.
Line 119:
=== '''The Epic Fails''' ===
* Nancy Stouffer's ''[[The Legend of Rah and the Muggles]]'', of course. Actually sold as the ''previous'' ''[[Harry Potter]]'', but nobody believed her and rightly so. A true Epic Fail that's a must-read for any aspiring novelist looking for advice on what ''not'' to do.
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Write The Next Harry Potter]]
[[Category:So You Want To]]
| |||