Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Harry Potter la, la, la.
Right, like I'm saying anything to spoil it. Not like certain NY Times reviewers, I might add.
ETA: Guess who reviewed it for Entertainment Weekly? Christopher Paolini. That's right - they got the author of the most cliched, derivative, badly written work of fantasy I've ever read (that would be Eragon, with book two due next month) to review the new Harry Potter. And it was as bad a review as you would expect. Oh, he gave it an A-, but there was no critical analysis, no exploration of character, no talk about writing style or the substance of the plot. It was an amateurish, gushing fan's review and did not deserve placement in a national magazine. Of course, I don't think he deserved a book deal either, let alone a planned trilogy, movie deal, etc.
|
Right, like I'm saying anything to spoil it. Not like certain NY Times reviewers, I might add.
ETA: Guess who reviewed it for Entertainment Weekly? Christopher Paolini. That's right - they got the author of the most cliched, derivative, badly written work of fantasy I've ever read (that would be Eragon, with book two due next month) to review the new Harry Potter. And it was as bad a review as you would expect. Oh, he gave it an A-, but there was no critical analysis, no exploration of character, no talk about writing style or the substance of the plot. It was an amateurish, gushing fan's review and did not deserve placement in a national magazine. Of course, I don't think he deserved a book deal either, let alone a planned trilogy, movie deal, etc.
Comments:
Post a Comment
