90. Carole King: Tapestry
Until Thriller hit the scene, more copies of this album had been sold than any other record, ever. Carole King, of course, was a hit songwriter, and many of these songs had been recorded by other artists. I like the album, obviously, but I don’t really know how it was so successful. It’s really fairly generic, but maybe that’s the secret. I mean, when you listen to what’s on the radio today, it all sounds generic.
89. The Rolling Stones: Let It Bleed
The Rolling Stones are made for greatest hits compilations. Every single album they ever produced had way too much crap on it, and three or four great songs. Honestly, I may have overrated this one (in fact, I rated it lower on my first review). But it does have “Gimme Shelter” and “Midnight Rambler,” two of their best songs. And that’s got to be worth something, right? Right? Maybe not. Looking at their albums compared to The Beatles, it’s incredible that they even managed to compete. It must have been Mick Jagger’s Tina Turner impersonation. It’s the only explanation.
88. Black Sabbath: Paranoid
Pretty much, the first four songs on this album are incredible. Epic masterpieces that deserve to be enshrined in a golden conch shell for eternity. Everything else on the album is forgettable, and not worth my time. This album gets all its points from the first four songs, thus why it places so low.
87. Madonna: The Immaculate Collection
When I think of what a metalhead’s reaction would be to the idea that I would place Madonna above Black Sabbath, it makes me laugh to myself. But this is an incredible collection of songs. The last few are not as exciting as the first 75% of the compilation, but Madonna’s early career of straight dance music was awesome. I might be the only person in the world whose favorite Madonna song is “Borderline.” More people should recognize how awesome I am for this.
86. The Ditty Bops: The Ditty Bops
The tight harmonies and hauntingly sweet melodies on this album make it incredibly entertaining. It gets old after a few listens, but it’s always nice to come back after several months. I’ve never seen pictures of these women, and now I wonder: are they good looking? I just looked it up, and the answer is not really, but occasionally. Also, they are lesbians. I had wondered, and now it is confirmed.
85. Nirvana: In Utero
One time, when I was about 8 or 9, I was in the car with my mom, her brother, and her sister. Her brother flips through some stations and settles on one. At some point, my uncle gets out of the car and goes into a building (it might have been my dad’s office. The details are fuzzy! It was a long time ago! Quit scowling at me!). Anyway, this station is on, loud enough to hear but not loud enough to stifle conversation. So my mom and aunt chat, while I’m just sitting there, half listening to the music. Then this song comes on, and the singer is singing “Rape me/Rape me, my friend/Rape me/Rape me again.” Being 8 or 9, I was shocked, yet intrigued. So I’m listening to this song, and then when Cobain screams “Rape me! Rape Me!” at the end, my mom and aunt finally notice, and one of them says, “What did he turn on?” and turns it off. It would be another 6 or 7 years until I discovered In Utero, and all of a sudden I had some context for this interesting memory of mine.
84. Guns N’ Roses: Appetite For Destruction
Despite the general disparaging comments about 80s rock nowadays, there’s no denying that Appetite For Destruction is a masterpiece. Axl Rose is now a joke, and Slash spends too much time playing Guitar Hero, but this work still stands of a fine achievement in rock and roll. Some songs are better than others, but none are really worth skipping over. I would choose “Night Train” or “Mr. Brownstone” over some of the more popular tracks, but that’s just me.
83. The Beatles: Let It Be
I was tempted to give this a huge deduction for Phil Spector’s horrendous additions, but since The Beatles didn’t like his work, I opted to forgive them. Still, there’s obviously some collateral damage, because ranking a set of Beatles originals this low will be considered blasphemy by many. I love The Beatles, I really do. But I think this album is vastly overrated, as is Abbey Road. I just provoked many to rage, but I don’t care. Keep in mind that this is still on a list of albums that I like. It’s just that I like it less than 82 other albums.
82. Ben Harper: Fight For Your Mind
Ben Harper is like the Rolling Stones, in that when he is good, he’s really, really good. It’s just that there are too many songs that make me want to jam pencils in my ears. I discovered in my quest to identify my top 100 albums that, in general, I hate slide guitar. It works only one time in twenty. The rest of the time, it makes me spit with indignation. This album scores relatively high because there seems to be less slide guitar than his other albums (or at least less pain-inducing), and it contains several outstanding songs, most notably “Power of the Gospel.”
81. The Beatles: Abbey Road
I already gave away that I don’t like this album as much as most people, so no big surprise here. Again, I say: overrated. There are some good, catchy songs here, yes. But it’s definitely a band that was ready to break up. It saddens me to say this; I would have loved to see where The Beatles went in the 70s, and maybe beyond that. But it was time to end it. It is too bad they didn’t get around to playing a reunion show, but if John Lennon hadn’t been killed, I think it would have happened some time in the 90s. May we ever curse Mark David Chapman’s name.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Album Rankings: 100-91
100. Tenacious D: Tenacious D
Okay, okay. They are crass. They are juvenile. They are downright satanic. But they are funny, and more importantly, their music is catchy and surprisingly intricate. The songs on this album are brilliant, but I gave a huge deduction for their betrayal of their acoustic roots; they never, ever should have even considered full band arrangements on these songs. Their whole shtick is that two guys with acoustic guitars can rock harder than nine-piece heavy metal bands, but they apparently don’t really believe that, because there was way too much distortion on this album. Listen, JB and KG, you are better than that! Get back to acoustic rock and roll and leave the electric guitars to the Jonas Brothers. Do you really want to be associated with them?
99. No Doubt: Tragic Kingdom
This was a favorite of mine when I was 12 or 13. As I listened to it for the first time in years, I realized that Gwen Stefani’s voice gives me syphilis. She just sounds like she’s trying too hard! The rest of the band is pretty good, and the songs are very catchy. It’s just that they need an attractive singer with an attractive voice. Don’t get me wrong, though. This is a good album. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be on this list.
98. Simon and Garfunkel: The Concert in Central Park
Simon and Garfunkel have a lot of great songs, and Paul Simon’s solo career has spawned a good number as well. (Art Garfunkel’s solo career has been less successful musically, although I’m pretty sure that his hair has been a principle inspiration for the wonder that is Phil Spector.) Many of these great songs appear on this album, including probably my favorite Paul Simon song, “Fifty Ways To Leave Your Lover.” That being said, there is too much of Simon’s solo stuff, and the album suffers from quality issues from the crowd. All live albums have this problem to some extent, but many are made enjoyable because you get to hear entertaining banter between the crowd and the performers. No such luck with this one. Just applause and yelling, which makes this a low-quality greatest hits album with annoying pauses in between songs.
97. Björk: Vespertine
Björk was at her best when she did dance music, but that was just for one album, and then she decided to start experimenting. Though a couple good songs can be found on Post and Homogenic, they are, for the most part, horrible. I am unequivocal on this point, despite what crazy hippies may say (and we all know that crazy hippies are the biggest followers of Björk). Vespertine actually came through with lots of interesting and relatively catchy songs. I haven’t listened to any of her albums after this one, but I think it shows the first real effectiveness of the direction she started taking with Post. To me, Björk is kind of like Schoenberg: she started off doing things that were relatively standard, but then started pushing the boundaries of music. This analogy completely breaks down, however, when you consider how many tickets Björk sells compared with the amount you hear any Schoenberg work being played by a symphony orchestra. Of course, one is a relatively attractive, eccentric female and the other was bald, cocky old guy.
96. Ben Folds: Rockin’ The Suburbs
I don’t really have much to say about this one. I don’t follow Ben Folds at all and I don’t really know anything about him other than that he plays piano and sings. Years ago, a friend gave me this album. It’s got some catchy songs with some catchy piano licks. Sometimes I think they’re a little too catchy, but that’s okay, I guess. It’s the lyrics that weird me out. Sometimes I think they are songs about nothing. But they’re catchy, and catchy goes a long way.
95. Elton John: Greatest Hits 1970-2002
I saw Elton John play live a few years back. It was a good time, and he’s definitely the biggest name I’ve ever seen play. His songs from the seventies are great, but in his later years he has become a little overproduced for my taste. I have a feeling that if this was a Greatest Hits album from 1970 to 1985 or so, it would have scored much higher. But despite growing up knowing most of his best songs, this is his only actual album (or compilation, as the case may be) that I own. So it gets ranked, but loses points for the more recent hits he’s written.
94. Please Please Me: The Beatles
I’m not really sure whether or not I agree with the lack of comma between the two iterations of “please.” I mean, I think that it works without the comma, but that first please is a nonessential part of the sentence, which I generally (but not always) think should be divided from the rest of the sentence with a comma. I guess it’s okay, but I always question it. I digress.
The reason a Beatles album ranks this low is because of the abundance of covers. The Beatles didn’t really hit their stride until they did all original music a few albums after this. Of course, without the covers, we never would have gotten “Twist and Shout,” which, as everyone in the world probably already knows but I will mention it here anyway, was done in one take at the end of a day’s recording, so John Lennon’s voice was shot.
A fun anecdote about this album: when I was sixteen or seventeen, I was in Sunday School and for some reason I mentioned the Beatles’ first album, Please Please Me. Everyone in the room was shocked. They thought I was being a smart ass and that The Beatles would never name an album so suggestively. Despite my protests that I was not, people thought I was being a jerk. I mean, I was a jerk, but in that case I was innocent.
93. Al Green: Al Green’s Greatest Hits
Here’s the thing about Al Green: he is super awesome. If you try to dispute this, you will probably be struck by lightning, especially because he went from soul to gospel later in his career. Speaking of his gospel music, “Belle” is one of the greatest songs on this album. In fact, I’m recanting on the qualification. It is the greatest song on this album, and if you don’t believe me, then you clearly hate your family, friends, and community.
92. Billy Bragg: Workers’ Playtime
Billy Bragg’s delightful British accent tickles me to death. About half the album is brilliant, while the other half is incredibly generic. I understand that this album was considered a betrayal for his fans, due to the addition of other instruments besides guitar. I can definitely empathize with that, but since these are the only Billy Bragg songs I’ve heard are right here, I can’t say I’m upset. I think the sparse keyboards, bass, and drums are charming. As is his accent. Did I mention that already?
91. Flight of the Conchords: Flight of the Conchords
I am remarkably generous to place this album on the list at all, and as I type this I wonder if it was a mistake (for those who may be wondering, Paul Simon’s Songs from The Capeman was unlucky #101). But one thing I’ve learned is that I should never doubt my gut, especially when it suggests that I eat disgusting but delicious foods. The reason I may not agree with my gut is that I haven’t really listened to this album more than once. I rated it based on the TV show, from which all of these songs were drawn. Oh well. It’s just how it’s going to be, because I am incapable of deleting anything I ever write. When FOTC are on, they’re really good (“Robots,” “Hiphopopotamus Vs. Rhymenocerous,” and “The Most Beautiful Girl (In The Room),” for example), but sometimes their songs are stupid and not compelling musically or comically. I still like them. It just might not be fair to put them on this list. (I am listening to the album now, though. I inspired myself!)
Okay, okay. They are crass. They are juvenile. They are downright satanic. But they are funny, and more importantly, their music is catchy and surprisingly intricate. The songs on this album are brilliant, but I gave a huge deduction for their betrayal of their acoustic roots; they never, ever should have even considered full band arrangements on these songs. Their whole shtick is that two guys with acoustic guitars can rock harder than nine-piece heavy metal bands, but they apparently don’t really believe that, because there was way too much distortion on this album. Listen, JB and KG, you are better than that! Get back to acoustic rock and roll and leave the electric guitars to the Jonas Brothers. Do you really want to be associated with them?
99. No Doubt: Tragic Kingdom
This was a favorite of mine when I was 12 or 13. As I listened to it for the first time in years, I realized that Gwen Stefani’s voice gives me syphilis. She just sounds like she’s trying too hard! The rest of the band is pretty good, and the songs are very catchy. It’s just that they need an attractive singer with an attractive voice. Don’t get me wrong, though. This is a good album. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be on this list.
98. Simon and Garfunkel: The Concert in Central Park
Simon and Garfunkel have a lot of great songs, and Paul Simon’s solo career has spawned a good number as well. (Art Garfunkel’s solo career has been less successful musically, although I’m pretty sure that his hair has been a principle inspiration for the wonder that is Phil Spector.) Many of these great songs appear on this album, including probably my favorite Paul Simon song, “Fifty Ways To Leave Your Lover.” That being said, there is too much of Simon’s solo stuff, and the album suffers from quality issues from the crowd. All live albums have this problem to some extent, but many are made enjoyable because you get to hear entertaining banter between the crowd and the performers. No such luck with this one. Just applause and yelling, which makes this a low-quality greatest hits album with annoying pauses in between songs.
97. Björk: Vespertine
Björk was at her best when she did dance music, but that was just for one album, and then she decided to start experimenting. Though a couple good songs can be found on Post and Homogenic, they are, for the most part, horrible. I am unequivocal on this point, despite what crazy hippies may say (and we all know that crazy hippies are the biggest followers of Björk). Vespertine actually came through with lots of interesting and relatively catchy songs. I haven’t listened to any of her albums after this one, but I think it shows the first real effectiveness of the direction she started taking with Post. To me, Björk is kind of like Schoenberg: she started off doing things that were relatively standard, but then started pushing the boundaries of music. This analogy completely breaks down, however, when you consider how many tickets Björk sells compared with the amount you hear any Schoenberg work being played by a symphony orchestra. Of course, one is a relatively attractive, eccentric female and the other was bald, cocky old guy.
96. Ben Folds: Rockin’ The Suburbs
I don’t really have much to say about this one. I don’t follow Ben Folds at all and I don’t really know anything about him other than that he plays piano and sings. Years ago, a friend gave me this album. It’s got some catchy songs with some catchy piano licks. Sometimes I think they’re a little too catchy, but that’s okay, I guess. It’s the lyrics that weird me out. Sometimes I think they are songs about nothing. But they’re catchy, and catchy goes a long way.
95. Elton John: Greatest Hits 1970-2002
I saw Elton John play live a few years back. It was a good time, and he’s definitely the biggest name I’ve ever seen play. His songs from the seventies are great, but in his later years he has become a little overproduced for my taste. I have a feeling that if this was a Greatest Hits album from 1970 to 1985 or so, it would have scored much higher. But despite growing up knowing most of his best songs, this is his only actual album (or compilation, as the case may be) that I own. So it gets ranked, but loses points for the more recent hits he’s written.
94. Please Please Me: The Beatles
I’m not really sure whether or not I agree with the lack of comma between the two iterations of “please.” I mean, I think that it works without the comma, but that first please is a nonessential part of the sentence, which I generally (but not always) think should be divided from the rest of the sentence with a comma. I guess it’s okay, but I always question it. I digress.
The reason a Beatles album ranks this low is because of the abundance of covers. The Beatles didn’t really hit their stride until they did all original music a few albums after this. Of course, without the covers, we never would have gotten “Twist and Shout,” which, as everyone in the world probably already knows but I will mention it here anyway, was done in one take at the end of a day’s recording, so John Lennon’s voice was shot.
A fun anecdote about this album: when I was sixteen or seventeen, I was in Sunday School and for some reason I mentioned the Beatles’ first album, Please Please Me. Everyone in the room was shocked. They thought I was being a smart ass and that The Beatles would never name an album so suggestively. Despite my protests that I was not, people thought I was being a jerk. I mean, I was a jerk, but in that case I was innocent.
93. Al Green: Al Green’s Greatest Hits
Here’s the thing about Al Green: he is super awesome. If you try to dispute this, you will probably be struck by lightning, especially because he went from soul to gospel later in his career. Speaking of his gospel music, “Belle” is one of the greatest songs on this album. In fact, I’m recanting on the qualification. It is the greatest song on this album, and if you don’t believe me, then you clearly hate your family, friends, and community.
92. Billy Bragg: Workers’ Playtime
Billy Bragg’s delightful British accent tickles me to death. About half the album is brilliant, while the other half is incredibly generic. I understand that this album was considered a betrayal for his fans, due to the addition of other instruments besides guitar. I can definitely empathize with that, but since these are the only Billy Bragg songs I’ve heard are right here, I can’t say I’m upset. I think the sparse keyboards, bass, and drums are charming. As is his accent. Did I mention that already?
91. Flight of the Conchords: Flight of the Conchords
I am remarkably generous to place this album on the list at all, and as I type this I wonder if it was a mistake (for those who may be wondering, Paul Simon’s Songs from The Capeman was unlucky #101). But one thing I’ve learned is that I should never doubt my gut, especially when it suggests that I eat disgusting but delicious foods. The reason I may not agree with my gut is that I haven’t really listened to this album more than once. I rated it based on the TV show, from which all of these songs were drawn. Oh well. It’s just how it’s going to be, because I am incapable of deleting anything I ever write. When FOTC are on, they’re really good (“Robots,” “Hiphopopotamus Vs. Rhymenocerous,” and “The Most Beautiful Girl (In The Room),” for example), but sometimes their songs are stupid and not compelling musically or comically. I still like them. It just might not be fair to put them on this list. (I am listening to the album now, though. I inspired myself!)
Monday, August 2, 2010
Intro to Objective-Subjective Analysis
Lately, I’ve been listening to a lot of music. Why have I been doing this, you—the hypothetical and nonexistent reader of this blog—may ask? Certainly not for enjoyment! No, mythical reader, I have been doing it for a project I have wanted to undertake for some time now: ranking my personal favorite top 100 albums. You see these rankings everywhere. Rolling Stone does a new one every three months or so. My album rankings will be much more subjective (obviously) and much more limited than those of Rolling Stone. Here are a couple spoilers: you won’t find any Weezer here, and you certainly won’t find any Metallica. If this makes you, phantom reader, want to leave the page right now, I say this to you: GOOD. If you think generic hogwash like that goes on my top 100 list, I don’t want you to read my blog—not that you’re reading it anyway.
Ranking this many albums is harder than you, my imaginary reader, might think. How do I decide what gets ranked above what? Do I really like this more than that? After much thought and many feeble ideas, I came up with the following system:
“Hit songs”: Tally the number of songs that are absolutely, positively indispensable to the album. Normalize to ten (so that albums with more songs don’t get an unfair advantage).
“Skippable tracks”: Tally the number of songs that are so boring or sonically unpleasing that one would have to be in a drug-induced coma to not skip them. Normalize these to ten, and subtract them from the total.
Each of the following categories received a one to ten score:
“Hits versus filler”: Many albums have some songs that can’t really be considered indispensable, but are certainly not skip-worthy. How do these songs measure up to the best songs on the album? Is there great disparity, or is the quality of the music basically maintained throughout?
“Catchiness”: This is somewhat self-explanatory, but I also considered how likely the songs were to get stuck in my head. Not that only good songs can get stuck in one’s head (sadly, it’s often the opposite), but it does indicate some level of catchiness.
“Memorability”: How well do I remember the songs on the album? If I listen to an album that I haven’t heard for a long time, are there songs I don’t remember, or does every track feel familiar?
“Tendency to Return”: How often do I listen to this album? Do I tend to come back to it every few weeks, months, years? I have fond feelings for many records I listened to in middle school, but rarely listen to them nowadays. On the other hand, some albums I discovered in my teens are still constantly being played as an adult.
“Impact”: This is a hard one to define, really. It’s more of a gut feeling I have about the album. I thought about including cultural impact for this, but I decided that this was my rankings about my favorite albums and it all has to be about me. Besides, how do I judge the cultural impact of something for which I wasn’t around? (I listen to lots of old music.) Basically, this category considers the mental, emotional, or musical impact an album has or had on me. There are a lot of factors that went into my decision on how many points to award an album, but you, ethereal reader, will just have to accept that it is perfectly, 100% accurate and not arbitrary in any way.
“Bonuses and Deductions”: Sometimes for songs that I either really love or really hate, I add or subtract half a point. Other [NOT] arbitrary decisions were made on a case-by-case basis, as will be discussed when I get to the albums.
In total, this is essentially a 60-point scale, although with the bonus system I suppose an album could have received more than 60 points. As it turned out, the highest score was 59.5, so we’ll call it a 60-point scale. I’m not going to give the actual scores the albums received, as my illusive readers will surely nitpick. I might mention specific bonuses and deductions. We’ll see how it goes.
The hard part is trying to decide what to review. My decisions on questionable content I describe here:
Classical music: No question. Classical music was excluded for the purposes of this project. I’m sure I’ll write plenty of stuff about classical music (as I have done extensively in the past), but these are pop albums that I am ranking.
Musical Theater: This is closer to being pop music, but I opted to exclude these from my rankings as well.
Greatest Hits Compilations: In some cases, all I know of a band is a greatest hits album. However, due to the very nature of this type of compilation, an unfair advantage is given. But that doesn’t mean I excluded them. Instead, I deducted six points, or 10% of the maximum score. In every case but one, I did not include a greatest hits album if I am very familiar with the studio albums of a group in question.
Live Albums: Live albums are similar to greatest hits compilations, as most bands are going to play their best songs live. However, they are legitimate albums, unlike “Best of...” records. I opted to deduct three points for live albums, or 5% of the maximum score.
Movie Soundtracks: I excluded movie soundtracks, with one exception, which I will not reveal now. I have my reasons for this exception, and will talk about them when it comes up.
When I first started this project, I tried to start ranking albums from memory, without even listening to them. No dice. I realized it was not going to work, except for the very few albums that I know so intimately that I’m practically living in sin. This meant that I was going to have to listen to every album I ranked, and how would it be fair unless I listened to every album I have ever loved? This meant, for example, that I had to track down Limp Bizkit’s Significant Other, which was my favorite album in ninth grade. Honestly, I expected it to make the top 100, but (SPOILER) it did not. Sad day. In total, I listened to more than 150 albums, some of which I didn’t even bother to rank, and others which scored very, very low. I did not even bother to track down at least another 100 albums with which I am familiar, as there was no way they were going to make the list.
Given the fact that I was trying to speed up the process, I did skip past songs on albums that I know very well. One ironic thing about this song-skipping is that songs that I love were often skipped (you know, those “non-skippable” tracks that are indispensable and got the album extra points?), but tracks that were more questionable or even absolutely horrible were given a more earnest listening, in an effort to be fair. This is the exact opposite of what I was giving and subtracting points for in the first two categories listed above!
Really, though, it was a lot of fun. I had to rack my brain and come up with all of my favorite albums from ever since I started listening to pop music. It was challenging, and I’m sure I missed some. For example, I realized, as I was writing this post, that I completely ignored Aerosmith. Now, Aerosmith isn’t one of my favorite bands, and I’ve mostly only listened to random tracks here and there, but I do recall that I used to like Hot Rocks. Theoretical reader, you might just see Hot Rocks, if I can track it down, on the list. I’m really afraid that I will think of a crucial album in the middle of this epic series of posts, and it will mess up the entire order I’ve come up with so far! And yet, if I haven’t thought of it by now, it’s going to score a one on both impact and tendency to return, and that will make it nearly impossible to make the list. We shall see. Perhaps I will curse this whole project before long and just give up. It’s not like anyone actually reads this blog and will be upset that I stopped at number 50.
One last point: I listen to a pretty diverse set of music, but my tastes are by no means exhaustive. Country and rap do appear on this list, but they are underrepresented. Some bands that I like a lot do not appear on this list, or appear very low in the rankings, because I like songs by the band, but not necessarily albums. If I had readers, they might say (spoiler!), “Hey, where the heck is Jimi Hendrix?!” And if that question were asked, I would point out that I love the song “Hey Joe,” and that Jimi Hendrix is basically all right, but I think his albums are filled with a lot of junk sitting beside the gems. There’s a large chance that if a band doesn’t appear on this list, I’m familiar with them and like some of their songs—just not enough of them from any one album.
I’ve spent enough time on this post that was written “For No One” (foreshadowing!). Soon, probably tomorrow, I will begin the list. My plan is ten posts, with ten albums for each post, counting down from 100 to 1. One final spoiler: Pink Floyd is not appearing on this list. I hate Pink Floyd. I try really hard to like them, and even listened to two albums for this project (Dark Side of the Moon and Piper at the Gates of Dawn), but I just hate them. Sorry. They’re not as bad as Metallica, but no one is as bad as Metallica (really, the final spoiler: The Black Album is in the number one spot. Count on it).
Ranking this many albums is harder than you, my imaginary reader, might think. How do I decide what gets ranked above what? Do I really like this more than that? After much thought and many feeble ideas, I came up with the following system:
“Hit songs”: Tally the number of songs that are absolutely, positively indispensable to the album. Normalize to ten (so that albums with more songs don’t get an unfair advantage).
“Skippable tracks”: Tally the number of songs that are so boring or sonically unpleasing that one would have to be in a drug-induced coma to not skip them. Normalize these to ten, and subtract them from the total.
Each of the following categories received a one to ten score:
“Hits versus filler”: Many albums have some songs that can’t really be considered indispensable, but are certainly not skip-worthy. How do these songs measure up to the best songs on the album? Is there great disparity, or is the quality of the music basically maintained throughout?
“Catchiness”: This is somewhat self-explanatory, but I also considered how likely the songs were to get stuck in my head. Not that only good songs can get stuck in one’s head (sadly, it’s often the opposite), but it does indicate some level of catchiness.
“Memorability”: How well do I remember the songs on the album? If I listen to an album that I haven’t heard for a long time, are there songs I don’t remember, or does every track feel familiar?
“Tendency to Return”: How often do I listen to this album? Do I tend to come back to it every few weeks, months, years? I have fond feelings for many records I listened to in middle school, but rarely listen to them nowadays. On the other hand, some albums I discovered in my teens are still constantly being played as an adult.
“Impact”: This is a hard one to define, really. It’s more of a gut feeling I have about the album. I thought about including cultural impact for this, but I decided that this was my rankings about my favorite albums and it all has to be about me. Besides, how do I judge the cultural impact of something for which I wasn’t around? (I listen to lots of old music.) Basically, this category considers the mental, emotional, or musical impact an album has or had on me. There are a lot of factors that went into my decision on how many points to award an album, but you, ethereal reader, will just have to accept that it is perfectly, 100% accurate and not arbitrary in any way.
“Bonuses and Deductions”: Sometimes for songs that I either really love or really hate, I add or subtract half a point. Other [NOT] arbitrary decisions were made on a case-by-case basis, as will be discussed when I get to the albums.
In total, this is essentially a 60-point scale, although with the bonus system I suppose an album could have received more than 60 points. As it turned out, the highest score was 59.5, so we’ll call it a 60-point scale. I’m not going to give the actual scores the albums received, as my illusive readers will surely nitpick. I might mention specific bonuses and deductions. We’ll see how it goes.
The hard part is trying to decide what to review. My decisions on questionable content I describe here:
Classical music: No question. Classical music was excluded for the purposes of this project. I’m sure I’ll write plenty of stuff about classical music (as I have done extensively in the past), but these are pop albums that I am ranking.
Musical Theater: This is closer to being pop music, but I opted to exclude these from my rankings as well.
Greatest Hits Compilations: In some cases, all I know of a band is a greatest hits album. However, due to the very nature of this type of compilation, an unfair advantage is given. But that doesn’t mean I excluded them. Instead, I deducted six points, or 10% of the maximum score. In every case but one, I did not include a greatest hits album if I am very familiar with the studio albums of a group in question.
Live Albums: Live albums are similar to greatest hits compilations, as most bands are going to play their best songs live. However, they are legitimate albums, unlike “Best of...” records. I opted to deduct three points for live albums, or 5% of the maximum score.
Movie Soundtracks: I excluded movie soundtracks, with one exception, which I will not reveal now. I have my reasons for this exception, and will talk about them when it comes up.
When I first started this project, I tried to start ranking albums from memory, without even listening to them. No dice. I realized it was not going to work, except for the very few albums that I know so intimately that I’m practically living in sin. This meant that I was going to have to listen to every album I ranked, and how would it be fair unless I listened to every album I have ever loved? This meant, for example, that I had to track down Limp Bizkit’s Significant Other, which was my favorite album in ninth grade. Honestly, I expected it to make the top 100, but (SPOILER) it did not. Sad day. In total, I listened to more than 150 albums, some of which I didn’t even bother to rank, and others which scored very, very low. I did not even bother to track down at least another 100 albums with which I am familiar, as there was no way they were going to make the list.
Given the fact that I was trying to speed up the process, I did skip past songs on albums that I know very well. One ironic thing about this song-skipping is that songs that I love were often skipped (you know, those “non-skippable” tracks that are indispensable and got the album extra points?), but tracks that were more questionable or even absolutely horrible were given a more earnest listening, in an effort to be fair. This is the exact opposite of what I was giving and subtracting points for in the first two categories listed above!
Really, though, it was a lot of fun. I had to rack my brain and come up with all of my favorite albums from ever since I started listening to pop music. It was challenging, and I’m sure I missed some. For example, I realized, as I was writing this post, that I completely ignored Aerosmith. Now, Aerosmith isn’t one of my favorite bands, and I’ve mostly only listened to random tracks here and there, but I do recall that I used to like Hot Rocks. Theoretical reader, you might just see Hot Rocks, if I can track it down, on the list. I’m really afraid that I will think of a crucial album in the middle of this epic series of posts, and it will mess up the entire order I’ve come up with so far! And yet, if I haven’t thought of it by now, it’s going to score a one on both impact and tendency to return, and that will make it nearly impossible to make the list. We shall see. Perhaps I will curse this whole project before long and just give up. It’s not like anyone actually reads this blog and will be upset that I stopped at number 50.
One last point: I listen to a pretty diverse set of music, but my tastes are by no means exhaustive. Country and rap do appear on this list, but they are underrepresented. Some bands that I like a lot do not appear on this list, or appear very low in the rankings, because I like songs by the band, but not necessarily albums. If I had readers, they might say (spoiler!), “Hey, where the heck is Jimi Hendrix?!” And if that question were asked, I would point out that I love the song “Hey Joe,” and that Jimi Hendrix is basically all right, but I think his albums are filled with a lot of junk sitting beside the gems. There’s a large chance that if a band doesn’t appear on this list, I’m familiar with them and like some of their songs—just not enough of them from any one album.
I’ve spent enough time on this post that was written “For No One” (foreshadowing!). Soon, probably tomorrow, I will begin the list. My plan is ten posts, with ten albums for each post, counting down from 100 to 1. One final spoiler: Pink Floyd is not appearing on this list. I hate Pink Floyd. I try really hard to like them, and even listened to two albums for this project (Dark Side of the Moon and Piper at the Gates of Dawn), but I just hate them. Sorry. They’re not as bad as Metallica, but no one is as bad as Metallica (really, the final spoiler: The Black Album is in the number one spot. Count on it).
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Fact: Movies are almost never as awesome as books
In the vast majority of cases, movies should not be based on books. There are several reasons for this:
1) No film could possibly portray the idiosyncrasies and internal struggles of characters that are written well. When the characters are good, why cheapen them with simplistic reproductions?
2) It creates lazy people who refuse to read good books because they have seen or will see the movie.
3) The imagination is stifled because all of the visuals the mind creates for the book are defined by the film maker.
4) When an author excels at writing dialogue, one can be sure that the film is going to mess it up.
5) Directors want to have an “artistic vision” for their films, which means changing the story to fit their own agenda and motivations.
There are more reasons; these were just the ones that came off the top of my head. The reason for writing this post, however, is to discuss an exception. What is this exception, you ask?
The Princess Bride.
I have a hard time believing that anyone, anywhere in the entire world has not seen this movie. It has been dubbed in 3,187 languages, shown more times than any movie in the history of theater, quoted 713% more often than all other films put together, and more erotic fan fiction has been written using its characters than even Twilight. (I didn’t check any of those facts, but I don’t have to because they’re obviously right.)
But here’s the thing. It was a book first! I won’t claim to have grown up knowing this. I grew up with the movie, as has everyone since its original production somewhere around the time of Noah (what staying power!), but it wasn’t until my late teens that I learned of the novel.
Now, maybe I’m not qualified to say how the movie stands up to the novel, since I’d seen the movie at least 700 times before reading the book. Most people aren’t upset at a book after being a fan of the movie, but every single person who has ever loved a book-become-film has wanted to murder the director of said film. These things being said, I’m granting myself the qualifications to judge this movie in comparison to the book because, as is obviously apparent, I can be completely objective on this topic and also avoid hyperbole.
What I’m not going to do is say that the movie is as good as the book. The movie is closer to my heart, yes. If I had to choose one, I’d choose the movie, which is saying a lot because books are inherently better at developing characters than films, and I take my fictional characters with such a degree of seriousness that most psychologists would be worried. The book is better, no question.
But Princess Bride: The Movie is the most perfect, most awesome adaptation of a book in the history of things. And why is this, do you ask? Because the novelist of the book also wrote the freaking screenplay. Taking this into consideration, I am making the following demand which, when I am king of the world (I predict ten years, tops), will be implemented as law: all screenplays based on books shall be written by the original author. And I know some of you film snobs are going to say, “But writing a script is way different than writing a novel!!!” To you, I say this: you clearly don’t understand awesome things. In my completely open-minded and objective way, I declare myself right and you wrong. Fin.
1) No film could possibly portray the idiosyncrasies and internal struggles of characters that are written well. When the characters are good, why cheapen them with simplistic reproductions?
2) It creates lazy people who refuse to read good books because they have seen or will see the movie.
3) The imagination is stifled because all of the visuals the mind creates for the book are defined by the film maker.
4) When an author excels at writing dialogue, one can be sure that the film is going to mess it up.
5) Directors want to have an “artistic vision” for their films, which means changing the story to fit their own agenda and motivations.
There are more reasons; these were just the ones that came off the top of my head. The reason for writing this post, however, is to discuss an exception. What is this exception, you ask?
The Princess Bride.
I have a hard time believing that anyone, anywhere in the entire world has not seen this movie. It has been dubbed in 3,187 languages, shown more times than any movie in the history of theater, quoted 713% more often than all other films put together, and more erotic fan fiction has been written using its characters than even Twilight. (I didn’t check any of those facts, but I don’t have to because they’re obviously right.)
But here’s the thing. It was a book first! I won’t claim to have grown up knowing this. I grew up with the movie, as has everyone since its original production somewhere around the time of Noah (what staying power!), but it wasn’t until my late teens that I learned of the novel.
Now, maybe I’m not qualified to say how the movie stands up to the novel, since I’d seen the movie at least 700 times before reading the book. Most people aren’t upset at a book after being a fan of the movie, but every single person who has ever loved a book-become-film has wanted to murder the director of said film. These things being said, I’m granting myself the qualifications to judge this movie in comparison to the book because, as is obviously apparent, I can be completely objective on this topic and also avoid hyperbole.
What I’m not going to do is say that the movie is as good as the book. The movie is closer to my heart, yes. If I had to choose one, I’d choose the movie, which is saying a lot because books are inherently better at developing characters than films, and I take my fictional characters with such a degree of seriousness that most psychologists would be worried. The book is better, no question.
But Princess Bride: The Movie is the most perfect, most awesome adaptation of a book in the history of things. And why is this, do you ask? Because the novelist of the book also wrote the freaking screenplay. Taking this into consideration, I am making the following demand which, when I am king of the world (I predict ten years, tops), will be implemented as law: all screenplays based on books shall be written by the original author. And I know some of you film snobs are going to say, “But writing a script is way different than writing a novel!!!” To you, I say this: you clearly don’t understand awesome things. In my completely open-minded and objective way, I declare myself right and you wrong. Fin.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Harry Potter's Wand is a Golden Rod of Awesome
Sometimes I feel like just one more sheep when I admit that the Harry Potter books are among my favorite, possibly my absolute favorite, books of all time. I am certainly not embarrassed to admit this—anyone who has read the series knows that all the hype is well deserved. And yet, as something of a nonconformist, I sometimes wish that my favorite book was an esoteric French novel or an ancient Chinese tome. My taste in television, music, and movies may not be absolutely obscure, but it is at least a little quirky. There is nothing quirky about my love for Harry Potter. Everyone enjoys J.K. Rowling’s masterworks (naysayers and better-nonconformists-than-me aside).
I have been reading the Harry Potter books since seventh grade. Harry, Ron, and Hermione have been close to my heart for more than half of my life. At the time I first started reading, the first three books were all that had been published. If I recall correctly, I read them four times each. I don’t remember how long I had to wait for The Goblet of Fire, but I do vividly remember getting it on the Saturday it came out, opening it at 8 PM, and finishing at 10 AM the next morning, just in time to go to church at 11 AM (I do not, as one might expect, recall that church meeting at all).
Ever since I fell in love with the first three books all those years ago, I have looked forward to the entire series being published. Not because of a desire for closure (I want it to go on forever!), but because of a long time plan to read the series from beginning to end, with no long waits in between books. Last night, I finished The Deathly Hallows. It took me 23 days to get through all seven books: not a record, I’m sure, but plenty respectable considering my many other interests and distractions.
The Books
So now, without further ado, I will launch into my rankings of the books. I’m going to list them from most superior to least superior, and give some comments on each book.
Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince – Year Six
The series truly hit its stride with this masterpiece. Easily my favorite book among the seven, Rowling balances darkness and light with absolute mastery. Getting to know Dumbledore throughout the book was like a Christmas present. And then there was the cave. Wow. Just wow. Incidentally, I still trusted Snape after this book, but I couldn’t figure out the circumstances in which he was still Dumbledore’s man.
Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallow – Year Seven
What a surprise that Harry wasn’t going back to school! All along, you figured he would be at Hogwarts until the end of the series, so the entire setting of this book was a twist. I liked this one so much more the second time. I was not disappointed when I read it shortly after its release, but I was not absolutely gushing over it. For some reason, I am feeling in a gushy mood this second time.
The most commonly heard complaint about the book is the long section in the middle where Harry, Ron, and Hermione are fighting continuously and not really doing anything. I thought this portion of the book ran a little long, but it illustrated how Voldemort was tearing families, friendships, and communities apart just as much through fear and confusion as through murder and torture. No, my main complaint about the book is the epilogue. While it is nice to see that everyone lived happily ever after, what I really wanted to know was what everyone did for a living. Besides this disappointment, the epilogue just didn’t move me.
Snape was indeed a good guy, and not only does Rowling make that undoubtedly clear, but she inspires sympathy for him (and to a lesser extent, Draco) that one never expected to have. All of a sudden, Snape is one of the biggest heroes in the series: after Dumbledore dies, no one knows that he is still opposing Voldemort. There is simply nothing to gain by continuing to work against the Dark Lord, but Snape does it anyway.
Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire – Year Four
I could have easily put The Prisoner of Azkaban here, but I didn’t for a few reasons. One is purely my love of reading: GoF offers twice as many pages as PoA. Another is the scene in the graveyard. The return of Voldemort was an epic turning point in the series and, as a reader, there was no turning back after this book.
Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban – Year Three
The anomaly of the series, PoA is the one book that doesn’t feature Voldemort as the principle villain. Expertly written, but always painful to read, as things go wrong in just about every way they can. No one could have realized it until Book Four, but Pettigrew getting away was the turning point in the story.
Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone – Year One
This book introduced us to the world of wizards. The first visit to Diagon Alley will always live in my heart as a special memory, even though I only participated vicariously.
Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets – Year Two
The only reason this book is this low in my rankings is because the other books were so good. There’s nothing really wrong with CoS, it just has tough competition. Note the expert storytelling in that the climax of this book became of the utmost importance four books later.
Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix – Year Five
I will always be slightly traumatized that this, clearly the worst book of the series, is 200 pages longer than the next book, the best in the series. The main things I didn’t like about the book: lack of Dumbledore, way too much Umbridge, boring giant storyline, and more than anything else, the lack of Voldemort. At the end of the fourth book, I couldn’t wait until the epic battles of good versus evil. We still get battles of good versus evil, but they are psychological battles of good Harry versus evil Umbridge.
To me, Umbridge is second only to Voldemort as principle villain in the series. Book Seven shows us that she only gets worse, so why does she never get her comeuppance? So she spent some time being tortured (or whatever) by the centaurs. She doesn’t appear to have been permanently scarred by that experience, and she goes on to do so much bad to so many people, under the guise of being the “good guy.” This makes her possibly worse than Voldemort, and the fact that she neither redeems herself nor receives a punishment is the biggest disappointment of the entire series for me. Then again, the fact that I hate her so much might just be an indication of how well Rowling wrote her character. All I can say is that this book should have been 500 pages, and 175 pages should have been added to each of the subsequent books to make up for it.
Analysis
I really would like to know what makes these books so enthralling. I have read a lot of books in my life. I am lucky to have diverse interests and book-cover-judging skills that allow me to say that I have rarely read a book that I have not liked in some way. I finish 99 percent of the books I begin reading, and almost always have good things to say about them once they are concluded. So what makes Harry Potter so special? Is it the writing, the story, the characters, or something else? I have some thoughts on the matter, and though one would be better served just going and reading The Sorcerer’s Stone (which will surely take less time than reading my musings), I am going to address at least some of these thoughts.
Essentially, Harry has no life until the first book—his abuse and neglect at the hands of the Dursleys makes it clear that his was an unremarkable life. So from age 10 to 18 (give or take a few months), we live the parts of Harry’s life that matter right along with him. He knows nothing of his parents, and what he learns, we learn. He knows nothing of the world from which he comes, so we are given the treat of discovering that world with him. When it comes right down to it, he is thrust into such a different life that none of his past experiences matter. We know everything about this character there is to know because we experience everything right alongside him. This is significant.
One of the reasons that Rowling’s books are so great is that she manages to find a balance between story arcs within the books and story arcs linking the books. I am curious just how much she had planned when she first started writing. Did she know, for example, that the diary from Book Two would be revealed as a horcrux as we approached the conclusion of the series? Ultimately, it does not matter whether she had a plan or not. What matters is how well she fit things together. If she had opted out of the epilogue in the seventh book, I could say that she gave us answers for everything that truly mattered and left everything else open ended enough to let us enjoy our imaginations. Even with the epilogue, it was still a completely satisfying ending without feeling like we were being spoon fed a conclusion. (A recent series finale of a TV show—rhymes with Cost—took the exact opposite approach: answer none of the questions that matter, and spoon feed us an ending that doesn’t particularly make us think).
Continuing to speak to the series as a whole, Rowling does a fantastic job of avoiding the pit into which authors of other series fall: the form written book. I have read plenty of these series in my time, and they can be entertaining. But by the third Redwall book I read, I knew what was going to happen in each of the subsequent books (I read about a dozen of them from elementary through high school). Harry Potter keeps you on your toes the entire time. Yes, there is a certain deus ex machina element to the series and the ways in which Harry and company get out of trouble often seem contrived. Nevertheless, we are in a world of magic, so anything can happen.
My one complaint about this world of magic is the very primitive technology that wizards and witches use. One thing that comes to mind is the use of quills for writing. Why? It is completely pointless. Use ballpoint pens, magic computers, or just write with your mind. Or at least have quills that have magically endless sources of ink, rather than needing to keep ink on hand! You start to think, as the series goes on, that the wizarding world has it so much easier than the muggle world. But how much easier is typing an essay than writing one by hand? Or using separate sheets of paper rather than rolls of parchment? It adds to the level of mystique the world holds, but it is impractical. And with people like Dumbledore and Hermione around, you would think that some people, at least, would sway toward practicality. Still, this is a small complaint, and one that didn’t bother me while reading the books. Only in retrospect do I really consider this so strange.
Conclusion
Both times I have finished The Deathly Hallows, I have felt a certain emptiness after the final sentence of the book. Over the years, I was always sad to finish each book as it was published, but this is different. The series has been concluded. There is nothing to which I can look forward. The upcoming movies are not a comfort—they had been okay until The Half-Blood Prince, which absolutely ruined my favorite book. No, the movies are entertaining, but they are hardly worth my excitement. Harry, Ron, and Hermione have been my friends for 13 years, and now they are effectively dead. Selective amnesia would be most welcome every couple of years—let me forget the books completely and get lost in the word all over again.
It is unlikely that J.K. Rowling will ever write anything more about Harry directly, but I find it hard to believe she will not return to the world of magic[al writing]. Then again, she may want to expand her horizons and, after living in luxury for a few years, she may return to the keyboard only to create a new and different world. I am sure it will be entertaining, but I doubt she could ever recreate the phenomenon she created with Harry Potter. The time line in the epilogue indicates that there are five to six years between the end of Book Seven and the birth of Ginny’s and Hermione’s children. Do we want to rejoin Harry in his life? Or perhaps we might enjoy a series about James, Albus, Lily, Rose, and Hugo at Hogwarts? Personally, I think I would prefer a prequel series. Dumbledore’s life would be great. It would also be nice to learn about the early lives of Lily and James Sr. or some of the Hogwarts teachers. She could also take a much different route and give us a story about Voldemort’s life, or the lives of other dark wizards. If J.K. Rowling does write more books using the characters from the series, what would you most like to see?
I have been reading the Harry Potter books since seventh grade. Harry, Ron, and Hermione have been close to my heart for more than half of my life. At the time I first started reading, the first three books were all that had been published. If I recall correctly, I read them four times each. I don’t remember how long I had to wait for The Goblet of Fire, but I do vividly remember getting it on the Saturday it came out, opening it at 8 PM, and finishing at 10 AM the next morning, just in time to go to church at 11 AM (I do not, as one might expect, recall that church meeting at all).
Ever since I fell in love with the first three books all those years ago, I have looked forward to the entire series being published. Not because of a desire for closure (I want it to go on forever!), but because of a long time plan to read the series from beginning to end, with no long waits in between books. Last night, I finished The Deathly Hallows. It took me 23 days to get through all seven books: not a record, I’m sure, but plenty respectable considering my many other interests and distractions.
The Books
So now, without further ado, I will launch into my rankings of the books. I’m going to list them from most superior to least superior, and give some comments on each book.
Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince – Year Six
The series truly hit its stride with this masterpiece. Easily my favorite book among the seven, Rowling balances darkness and light with absolute mastery. Getting to know Dumbledore throughout the book was like a Christmas present. And then there was the cave. Wow. Just wow. Incidentally, I still trusted Snape after this book, but I couldn’t figure out the circumstances in which he was still Dumbledore’s man.
Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallow – Year Seven
What a surprise that Harry wasn’t going back to school! All along, you figured he would be at Hogwarts until the end of the series, so the entire setting of this book was a twist. I liked this one so much more the second time. I was not disappointed when I read it shortly after its release, but I was not absolutely gushing over it. For some reason, I am feeling in a gushy mood this second time.
The most commonly heard complaint about the book is the long section in the middle where Harry, Ron, and Hermione are fighting continuously and not really doing anything. I thought this portion of the book ran a little long, but it illustrated how Voldemort was tearing families, friendships, and communities apart just as much through fear and confusion as through murder and torture. No, my main complaint about the book is the epilogue. While it is nice to see that everyone lived happily ever after, what I really wanted to know was what everyone did for a living. Besides this disappointment, the epilogue just didn’t move me.
Snape was indeed a good guy, and not only does Rowling make that undoubtedly clear, but she inspires sympathy for him (and to a lesser extent, Draco) that one never expected to have. All of a sudden, Snape is one of the biggest heroes in the series: after Dumbledore dies, no one knows that he is still opposing Voldemort. There is simply nothing to gain by continuing to work against the Dark Lord, but Snape does it anyway.
Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire – Year Four
I could have easily put The Prisoner of Azkaban here, but I didn’t for a few reasons. One is purely my love of reading: GoF offers twice as many pages as PoA. Another is the scene in the graveyard. The return of Voldemort was an epic turning point in the series and, as a reader, there was no turning back after this book.
Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban – Year Three
The anomaly of the series, PoA is the one book that doesn’t feature Voldemort as the principle villain. Expertly written, but always painful to read, as things go wrong in just about every way they can. No one could have realized it until Book Four, but Pettigrew getting away was the turning point in the story.
Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone – Year One
This book introduced us to the world of wizards. The first visit to Diagon Alley will always live in my heart as a special memory, even though I only participated vicariously.
Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets – Year Two
The only reason this book is this low in my rankings is because the other books were so good. There’s nothing really wrong with CoS, it just has tough competition. Note the expert storytelling in that the climax of this book became of the utmost importance four books later.
Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix – Year Five
I will always be slightly traumatized that this, clearly the worst book of the series, is 200 pages longer than the next book, the best in the series. The main things I didn’t like about the book: lack of Dumbledore, way too much Umbridge, boring giant storyline, and more than anything else, the lack of Voldemort. At the end of the fourth book, I couldn’t wait until the epic battles of good versus evil. We still get battles of good versus evil, but they are psychological battles of good Harry versus evil Umbridge.
To me, Umbridge is second only to Voldemort as principle villain in the series. Book Seven shows us that she only gets worse, so why does she never get her comeuppance? So she spent some time being tortured (or whatever) by the centaurs. She doesn’t appear to have been permanently scarred by that experience, and she goes on to do so much bad to so many people, under the guise of being the “good guy.” This makes her possibly worse than Voldemort, and the fact that she neither redeems herself nor receives a punishment is the biggest disappointment of the entire series for me. Then again, the fact that I hate her so much might just be an indication of how well Rowling wrote her character. All I can say is that this book should have been 500 pages, and 175 pages should have been added to each of the subsequent books to make up for it.
Analysis
I really would like to know what makes these books so enthralling. I have read a lot of books in my life. I am lucky to have diverse interests and book-cover-judging skills that allow me to say that I have rarely read a book that I have not liked in some way. I finish 99 percent of the books I begin reading, and almost always have good things to say about them once they are concluded. So what makes Harry Potter so special? Is it the writing, the story, the characters, or something else? I have some thoughts on the matter, and though one would be better served just going and reading The Sorcerer’s Stone (which will surely take less time than reading my musings), I am going to address at least some of these thoughts.
Essentially, Harry has no life until the first book—his abuse and neglect at the hands of the Dursleys makes it clear that his was an unremarkable life. So from age 10 to 18 (give or take a few months), we live the parts of Harry’s life that matter right along with him. He knows nothing of his parents, and what he learns, we learn. He knows nothing of the world from which he comes, so we are given the treat of discovering that world with him. When it comes right down to it, he is thrust into such a different life that none of his past experiences matter. We know everything about this character there is to know because we experience everything right alongside him. This is significant.
One of the reasons that Rowling’s books are so great is that she manages to find a balance between story arcs within the books and story arcs linking the books. I am curious just how much she had planned when she first started writing. Did she know, for example, that the diary from Book Two would be revealed as a horcrux as we approached the conclusion of the series? Ultimately, it does not matter whether she had a plan or not. What matters is how well she fit things together. If she had opted out of the epilogue in the seventh book, I could say that she gave us answers for everything that truly mattered and left everything else open ended enough to let us enjoy our imaginations. Even with the epilogue, it was still a completely satisfying ending without feeling like we were being spoon fed a conclusion. (A recent series finale of a TV show—rhymes with Cost—took the exact opposite approach: answer none of the questions that matter, and spoon feed us an ending that doesn’t particularly make us think).
Continuing to speak to the series as a whole, Rowling does a fantastic job of avoiding the pit into which authors of other series fall: the form written book. I have read plenty of these series in my time, and they can be entertaining. But by the third Redwall book I read, I knew what was going to happen in each of the subsequent books (I read about a dozen of them from elementary through high school). Harry Potter keeps you on your toes the entire time. Yes, there is a certain deus ex machina element to the series and the ways in which Harry and company get out of trouble often seem contrived. Nevertheless, we are in a world of magic, so anything can happen.
My one complaint about this world of magic is the very primitive technology that wizards and witches use. One thing that comes to mind is the use of quills for writing. Why? It is completely pointless. Use ballpoint pens, magic computers, or just write with your mind. Or at least have quills that have magically endless sources of ink, rather than needing to keep ink on hand! You start to think, as the series goes on, that the wizarding world has it so much easier than the muggle world. But how much easier is typing an essay than writing one by hand? Or using separate sheets of paper rather than rolls of parchment? It adds to the level of mystique the world holds, but it is impractical. And with people like Dumbledore and Hermione around, you would think that some people, at least, would sway toward practicality. Still, this is a small complaint, and one that didn’t bother me while reading the books. Only in retrospect do I really consider this so strange.
Conclusion
Both times I have finished The Deathly Hallows, I have felt a certain emptiness after the final sentence of the book. Over the years, I was always sad to finish each book as it was published, but this is different. The series has been concluded. There is nothing to which I can look forward. The upcoming movies are not a comfort—they had been okay until The Half-Blood Prince, which absolutely ruined my favorite book. No, the movies are entertaining, but they are hardly worth my excitement. Harry, Ron, and Hermione have been my friends for 13 years, and now they are effectively dead. Selective amnesia would be most welcome every couple of years—let me forget the books completely and get lost in the word all over again.
It is unlikely that J.K. Rowling will ever write anything more about Harry directly, but I find it hard to believe she will not return to the world of magic[al writing]. Then again, she may want to expand her horizons and, after living in luxury for a few years, she may return to the keyboard only to create a new and different world. I am sure it will be entertaining, but I doubt she could ever recreate the phenomenon she created with Harry Potter. The time line in the epilogue indicates that there are five to six years between the end of Book Seven and the birth of Ginny’s and Hermione’s children. Do we want to rejoin Harry in his life? Or perhaps we might enjoy a series about James, Albus, Lily, Rose, and Hugo at Hogwarts? Personally, I think I would prefer a prequel series. Dumbledore’s life would be great. It would also be nice to learn about the early lives of Lily and James Sr. or some of the Hogwarts teachers. She could also take a much different route and give us a story about Voldemort’s life, or the lives of other dark wizards. If J.K. Rowling does write more books using the characters from the series, what would you most like to see?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)