Posted: 6/6/16 at 11:25pm
Mr Roxy said: "Methinks success has gone to her head and she is now officially full of herself.
"
Or, maybe she just doesn't like musicals.
Posted: 6/7/16 at 2:09am
Jay Lerner-Z said: "^ Well, yes, actually.
I'm a Harry Potter fan, but I'd be the first to admit it's neither great nor classic nor literature.
Posted: 6/7/16 at 2:22am
She obviously meant "theatre" to denote "performances without music". It's not really right but it's not a deliberate slight. You've gotta be looking for something to be nitpicky or offended about if you think JK Rowling is saying that musicals aren't "theatre" as a medium; she just didn't use the right word for whatever reason. So what, she's not infallible. Many reprints of Harry Potter books have been issued with corrections to match her own canon (wand order in Goblet of Fire) or to line up with Latin etymology even though she read [majored in] Classics (enervate/renervate), so if she can make mistakes even in areas that are pretty well known to her, it's not unfathomable that she just misspoke or personally defines "theatre" in a non-standard way.
This thread is titled like clickbait, almost deliberately misunderstanding to generate controversy where there is none.
Posted: 6/7/16 at 4:35am
Yea, I'm pretty sure she means what I call "straight plays". But I often struggle with the correct words of how to differentiate them, especially since many actors use "play" a as general term for both musicals and straight plays.
I'm not offended by what she said, but I think it's sad. I love her and value her opinion, and on a personal level it would make me happy if the creator of my one big fandom had a bigger regard for my other. Just like it makes me happy when I find out certain Broadway actors love Harry Potter.
I wonder if she's not been exposed to great musicals. Because I know a lot of people (and people who are infestered in theatre, and even work in the industry) who hear "musical" and only think of disney musicals or other showy, glitzy shows that doesn't have a deep meaning. I enjoy those too, but there is so much more to the genre, and there are so many musicals who have just as much depth than any play or opera.
About Harry Potter. How is is not "literature"? I think whatever you think about it, you can't dispute that. I think it's also great literature, and I also think it will be a classic in 50 years. It will stand the test of time be mentioned in the same breath as The Lord of the Rings or His Dark Materials for generations to come.
Posted: 6/7/16 at 7:08am
Let's see... if JK Rowling were to start a thread entitled "HELP!!! NEED SEE MUSICL: UNLMTED $$$ ALWAYS H8 MUSICALS CONVINCE ME THEY R KEWL!!!!!???!!!!" what would our suggestions be?
Side note: Would the supposed hatred apply to Mother Courage and her Children? Or what about a play with background music for effect?
Updated On: 6/7/16 at 07:08 AM
Posted: 6/7/16 at 8:43am
Intrigued to see that many people give Rowling free pass to use theater to denote straight plays while they can't wait to send those who call cast albums soundtracks to hell.
Posted: 6/7/16 at 8:46am
The difference being, of course, that they claim to be fans of the genre and post on a message board that directly engages with others... rather than the opinion of an author from a published interview, which means very little (if anything at all).
Posted: 6/7/16 at 9:59am
KCW said: "Let's see... if JK Rowling were to start a thread entitled "HELP!!! NEED SEE MUSICL: UNLMTED $$$ ALWAYS H8 MUSICALS CONVINCE ME THEY R KEWL!!!!!???!!!!" what would our suggestions be?
"
I just saw Gina Beck (UK Glinda) retweet someone asking JKR to come see Show Boat. While I haven't seen this production I adore the show and think it's a very good choice to show how meaningful musicals can be.
Fun Home would be another one on the complete opposite end of the spectrum, with one being a classic (and said to be the first real musical) and the other being very modern in both content and music.
I think a small and intimate musical like Daddy Long Legs would also work. The story is so beautiful and the transitions from dialogue to song and back are so organic, it really feels like "Sing if you can't speak anymore".
Posted: 6/7/16 at 11:48am
_IrisTInkerbell said:
About Harry Potter. How is is not "literature"? I think whatever you think about it, you can't dispute that. I think it's also great literature, and I also think it will be a classic in 50 years. It will stand the test of time be mentioned in the same breath as The Lord of the Rings or His Dark Materials for generations to come.
That's not a very high bar to clear. It won't be mentioned in the same breath as Crime and Punishment or The Great Gatsby. I guess it depends on how you define "literature."
Posted: 6/7/16 at 11:55am
Just because something isn't Crime and Punishment does not mean it's not literature or not "great". That's just ridiculous.
I strongly doubt that JK Rowling was trying to say that musicals are not real theater. She was just using the term "theater" to indicate straight plays - as opposed to musicals. And she doesn't care for musicals - her loss but her opinion. I can survive.
Updated On: 6/7/16 at 11:55 AM
Posted: 6/7/16 at 2:56pm
KathyNYC2 said: "Just because something isn't Crime and Punishment does not mean it's not literature or not "great". That's just ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is suggesting that Harry Potter is great literature. I suppose The Hunger Games and The DaVinci Code are great literature, as well? I love Harry Potter (though not every book), but I'd never pretend it's anything more than pop entertainment.
Posted: 6/7/16 at 3:20pm
When the decades end, and the "young adult literature" boom dies out, the Potter series is going to be one of the only books for YA audiences still sticking around from this era. Are they as good as all other great books? Probably not, but the degree to which they got better, the huge amount of world-building they created, and the impact they had on the cultural zeitgeist will keep them in the canon.
Posted: 6/7/16 at 3:25pm
hork said: "KathyNYC2 said: "Just because something isn't Crime and Punishment does not mean it's not literature or not "great". That's just ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is suggesting that Harry Potter is great literature. I suppose The Hunger Games and The DaVinci Code are great literature, as well? I love Harry Potter (though not every book), but I'd never pretend it's anything more than pop entertainment.
"
My opinion about the Harry Potter series is irrelevant. And just for the record, I could barely get through The Hunger Games (well actually I didn't) and I don't care much about the DaVinci Code other than it was a clever read.
My comment was to your comment when as you suggested that because something is NOT Crime and Punishment or the like...it can't be considered to be great. Heck, it can't even be considered to be "literature". I could not disagree with you more.. There are many styles of books that are great and can be considered to be literature without your definition of the genre. That's all.
