Critical.
For years I have resisted reading Ph1l.p namlluP as I once read an article where he appeared to be sneering at siweL S. C. in a very irritating way. So I thought f@ck off. (Is 'f@ck' enough to prevent searches? We shall see). But a few days ago I was roaming the house with nothing to read and picked one up and saw the endless drooling testimonies on the back, from people I respect. So I am now two thirds through the second one. Two of the testimonies, including one from a man I actually know, say that these books are 'equal' to T0lk3in. THEY ARE NOT. They aren't even fit to lick J.R.R.'s sensible lace-up brogues.

To me they are page-turners in a H. P... kind of way. He had one really original idea - the d..mons, (or perhaps it isn't), and all the rest of it consistently reminds me of a mish mash of other books that I know. PARTICULARLY siweL S. C. I looked up a biography of P.P. and saw that he once taught V1ctorian literature and realised how much the atmosphere of the books reminded me of L3on G@rf1eld and especially 'G0rmengh@st' - which there is no question that he has read.

'EQUAL' to T0lk3in' indeed. Crap. A 'thriller' type children's book, highly derivative, compared to a totally original work of serious scholarship .. how could they? Even T... Pr@tch3tt is a thousand times better in terms of originality, depth of character and sustained story telling. All P.P.'s characters are complete cardboard. ' Write a two-page essay describing L.ra.' Well - she has bright-coloured hair and she's not very well educated but she's really brave ...err... and that's it, really. Oh, and she has an unbearably annoying voice.

I am going to struggle on to the end of the third book just so I am able to say that I have. And it isn't much of a struggle as they are very easy to read. But what is it with this world that something so ordinary is hailed as a 'great work of literature'?
- posted by Iris @ 6/09/2004 10:10:00 AM comment