The Tapestry:
The Hound of Rowan
By Henry Neff
I had to look it up to figure out which of these titles was for the book, and which is for the series. My research says that the book is called "The HOund of Rowan" and "The Tapestry" is the name of the series. Neither title makes much sense to me, but whatever.
This series seems to be a shameless knock off of Harry Potter. It involves a boy named Max who discovers that he has magical powers and is immediately swept off to a school where he will learn to use them. There are magical creatures, wacky teachers, special games, lighthearted banter between new friends, a bully, and rule breaking. What would happen if Harry Potter went to school on the East coast of the good old USA?
Some special and unique features of this book are an ogre and a hag who make the meals at the school. Magical bedroom and room mate selection, creatures that can only be described as seriously evil werewolves on steroids, a singing bullfrog that removes, ahem, social inhibitions, magical pets and an ancient ship which student must not sleep on lest its sea dwelling guardian make waves that toss them overboard.
Generally, I think knock offs are rather annoying. But I gave this one a chance because I am curious to see if other authors are trying to amend Rowling as I would like to. I rather hate Rowling for failing to deliver on so many good ideas. She is really good at half the things you need to tell a good story. But this is a rant for another post. I can't help comparing this book to Potter, since it's clearly in the same sub-genre. It's an interesting comparison.
I enjoyed this book because most of the characters were believable. They were distinctive and memorable, yet not overly simplified. The adults were reasonably competent and mature and also had believable disagreements, personal grudges and biases. The children were petty and rude, often terrified, secretive, hot tempered, and sometimes rose above what was expected of people their age to show real virtue. There was one exception. I guess you could call him the Draco Malfoy equivalent. They never gave him even Draco's excuse for his bad behavior. He was just mean for the sake of being mean. Maybe they will further explain his character in another book. I was awfully proud of Max, however, because he was willing to put aside their animosity when it really counted.
I disliked some of the narrative choices the author made. There were scenes that were merely passing jokes and insignificant insidence that were not written as such. They were sometimes given more narraitve weight, so to speak. A reader can sense when the author is giving them a detail they are supposed to pay attentiong to. One of Rowling's strengths is that she is really good at leaving hints around, leading her reader on, and then tying it all up like a Christmas package. In The Tapestry there are several dramatic events that ought to hide some kind of secret or clue to be reincorporated later, and they don't. It would be tempting to dwell on such events just for the sake of the humor or drama of the whole thing. But they didn't actually have the significance in the greater story to merit it.
Another stylistic thing that bothered me was the Neff's habit of ending chapters with drawn knives, pointed guns, strangers stepping out of shadows, or new clues being uncovered, only to pick up two weeks later in the next chapter. We are not given the benefit of seeing how the characters process these dramatic events. We must just assume that they did and latch on to whatever they are interested in now.
Another thing I loved about this book was that there was no thirty pages of exposition right before the final action of the climax. The explanation of the mysterious bad things that keep happening is revealed slowly throughout most of the book and the last hundred pages are pretty non stop action with only minimal explanation. Some questions are never explained but merely proved. A character who has been portrayed as a villain for the first half, swears his good intentions half way through, leaving us in confusion, and then proves what side he is on in the climax. No explanation necessary.
Speaking of the climax, wow. The immediacy of the whole thing and the high stakes made it pretty darn intense. The climax of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (my favorite book so far) comes close. Creepy ritual, blood, desperate fighting, painful sacrifice, heroics. Only without the long monologue from the big bad guy.
Overall, The Hound of Rowan's tone was less charming (if just as whimsical. Did I mention Max has to babysit goslings for a goose who likes to shout insults at the referee at sporting events?) and darker than Potter's world in the early books. Come to think of it, it was less emotional. There was no lack of children with tragic pasts, but no one was threatening to take away Maxes birthday, so there was not the same tug on the old heart strings. Neff is weak in some of the areas in which Rowling shines, but also very strong in some areas that I think Rowling could use some work.
So, what about knock offs? Do we give our unswerving allegiance to originals only? Or do we allow imitation to be the most sincere form of flattery? If it is obviously an imitation, but done really well, does that make a difference? Is it a crime against the original creator, or homage to their art?
2 comments:
Hm. For me, if it smells of an attempt to make a profit out of someone else's good idea, I dismiss it. Usually they are not done well at all. If, however, it is someone trying to write a good story, then I have some patience for it. But I have yet to find a knock-off that stood up to the original. Have you read any of the Charlie Bones series? I read the first one and it was so obviously a HP knock-off and also very uninspired. some knock-offs can be sort of enjoyable. I don't mind all of the wanna-be Tolkien's out there. They are trying to accomplish what Tolkien did, even if they fall painfully short. so I guess I put it down to motivation and probably ability as well, because I don't actually know what an author's motivation is.
Trying to make a buck off of someone's success is rather low. That paints it pretty black. Of course, we can't know, just from reading the book, usually, why an author wrote the story.
But if someone has a good idea that other people can use to write their own story, is it fair to forbid other people from using it since they didn't think of it first? What makes it a knock off? If it is inspired by Harry Potter, if there is almost a one to one equivalency in the plot and characters, if it starts from the same premise, if it involves a school for the magically gifted? I figure, if it's badly done, it's a knock off. If it's a new story told from the same starting point, it might be just that. A new story. Since it started from the same kind of seed, it probably has some major similarities. If those outweigh the differences, it may as well be harry potter. But if there is something about it that makes it distinct, elaborates or invents something new, I won't begrudge it a common origin.
Post a Comment