author_by_night (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
author_by_night) wrote2016-12-01 05:53 pm
author_by_night) wrote2016-12-01 05:53 pm
Entry tags:
Is JK Rowling a good writer?
Over the years, something I've seen more and more of is this: "She may be famous, but in reality, JK Rowling isn't a very good writer."
Some minor spoilers for all Harry Potter books under the cut (and potentially huge ones in the comments).
We could consider that the Harry Potter series, at least, is about young people. The language and dialogue itself is written on the same level as they are. Harry thinks and speaks the way an eleven year old speaks and thinks in the first book and continues onward as a teenage boy. Readers largely grew with Harry; yes, there were many adult fans, but the vast majority were kids and teens when they first read the books. Therefore, it makes sense that the books seem simplistic now; we're older and realize "Lavender, can I see Uranus?" is no wittier than your average twelve year old boy's body-related joke. We also realize how simplistic some of her rules are, such as all Slytherins being mean. (I can't speak for the writing in JKR's books for older readers, because I haven't read them.)
I will say that there are flaws in her world-building, which I don't think have anything to do with her target audience whatsoever. It's very obvious upon re-reading that JK Rowling made up a lot as she went along. I don't blame her entirely - seven books is a lot, and of course her writing changed over time. It's to be expected. Still, as fun as her callbacks to earlier books are, as well as realizations that someone was mentioned in the first book (most notably Sirius Black), the reason we notice this is because so much was thrown in later. We only hear of or meet most people and concepts when it's relevant to the story; while on one hand, it works for infodump control, it doesn't make sense when you re-read the books and realize Aurors should've at least been mentioned in PoA, if not CoS. That surely Ron should have known the Lovegoods (though they are mentioned in GoF) - it actually made more sense in OoTP, since Luna seemed to be a relatively new friend of Ginny's as well, yet when Luna and her father are invited to Bill and Fleur's wedding, it's suddenly apparent that they're family friends. But should a writer be expected to have everything planned out perfectly, or be able to fit them into earlier works? Don't all longstanding works have odd holes and inaccuracies? Besides, her world-building is incredible, her characters are memorable, and the messages left a deep impact with many young readers who are now young adults.
Then there are her scripts, the play and movie respectively. I've only read the script for The Cursed Child, but from what I heard, it's "less about the story and more about the visual effects." A lot of people have said the same for Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. I don't know that I would classify scripts where the scenery is better than the story as good writing. However, they were also collaborative efforts, and really, script writing and novel writing are so different that I'm not sure it's really fair to judge JK Rowling as a novelist based on her script writing. Not to mention that they were collaborative works.
I do think there are some unfair arguments. I feel that a lot of fans built expectations based on their own fannish experiences, whether comparing the books to other works or writing their own fanfiction; canon tended to go a different direction. I'm not opposed to critiquing how JKR went about that direction, but I don't think it's right to judge her solely based on the fact that hers weren't the stories we wanted them to be. (Besides, there were so many ships in the fandom that she couldn't have possibly pleased everyone.)
The other argument I've seen is less about shipping and more about where Harry Potter is rated on the literary scale. I've heard the argument that "the books are more on par with Stephen King." Except... a lot of people would consider Stephen King a brilliant author. This seems to be a case of YMMV, more so than quality writing per se. If you're looking for a highly intellectual novel rife with allegory and mythical symbolism, it's not going to be Harry Potter. Yet a lot of beloved, classic novels aren't like that. Pride and Prejudice is, at face value, "girl meets guy, guy snarks at girl, girl sulks, guy says he loves girl, girl tells him to GTFO, girl's sister runs off with a shady soldier, guy saves the day, girl marries guy." Much like Harry Potter, it's renowned not for knocking the socks off of every philosophical literary academic, but for being rife with fun characters and wit. That's why I like it. A lot of people don't, but I've never heard anyone call Jane Austen a bad writer. It's more a matter of taste.
I'm just about out of thoughts! What do you guys think? Is JKR an overrated good writer, is she a good middle grade writer (but a sub par writer when you're older), or is she bloody brilliant and everyone who thinks otherwise has the emotional range of a teaspoon?
Some minor spoilers for all Harry Potter books under the cut (and potentially huge ones in the comments).
We could consider that the Harry Potter series, at least, is about young people. The language and dialogue itself is written on the same level as they are. Harry thinks and speaks the way an eleven year old speaks and thinks in the first book and continues onward as a teenage boy. Readers largely grew with Harry; yes, there were many adult fans, but the vast majority were kids and teens when they first read the books. Therefore, it makes sense that the books seem simplistic now; we're older and realize "Lavender, can I see Uranus?" is no wittier than your average twelve year old boy's body-related joke. We also realize how simplistic some of her rules are, such as all Slytherins being mean. (I can't speak for the writing in JKR's books for older readers, because I haven't read them.)
I will say that there are flaws in her world-building, which I don't think have anything to do with her target audience whatsoever. It's very obvious upon re-reading that JK Rowling made up a lot as she went along. I don't blame her entirely - seven books is a lot, and of course her writing changed over time. It's to be expected. Still, as fun as her callbacks to earlier books are, as well as realizations that someone was mentioned in the first book (most notably Sirius Black), the reason we notice this is because so much was thrown in later. We only hear of or meet most people and concepts when it's relevant to the story; while on one hand, it works for infodump control, it doesn't make sense when you re-read the books and realize Aurors should've at least been mentioned in PoA, if not CoS. That surely Ron should have known the Lovegoods (though they are mentioned in GoF) - it actually made more sense in OoTP, since Luna seemed to be a relatively new friend of Ginny's as well, yet when Luna and her father are invited to Bill and Fleur's wedding, it's suddenly apparent that they're family friends. But should a writer be expected to have everything planned out perfectly, or be able to fit them into earlier works? Don't all longstanding works have odd holes and inaccuracies? Besides, her world-building is incredible, her characters are memorable, and the messages left a deep impact with many young readers who are now young adults.
Then there are her scripts, the play and movie respectively. I've only read the script for The Cursed Child, but from what I heard, it's "less about the story and more about the visual effects." A lot of people have said the same for Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. I don't know that I would classify scripts where the scenery is better than the story as good writing. However, they were also collaborative efforts, and really, script writing and novel writing are so different that I'm not sure it's really fair to judge JK Rowling as a novelist based on her script writing. Not to mention that they were collaborative works.
I do think there are some unfair arguments. I feel that a lot of fans built expectations based on their own fannish experiences, whether comparing the books to other works or writing their own fanfiction; canon tended to go a different direction. I'm not opposed to critiquing how JKR went about that direction, but I don't think it's right to judge her solely based on the fact that hers weren't the stories we wanted them to be. (Besides, there were so many ships in the fandom that she couldn't have possibly pleased everyone.)
The other argument I've seen is less about shipping and more about where Harry Potter is rated on the literary scale. I've heard the argument that "the books are more on par with Stephen King." Except... a lot of people would consider Stephen King a brilliant author. This seems to be a case of YMMV, more so than quality writing per se. If you're looking for a highly intellectual novel rife with allegory and mythical symbolism, it's not going to be Harry Potter. Yet a lot of beloved, classic novels aren't like that. Pride and Prejudice is, at face value, "girl meets guy, guy snarks at girl, girl sulks, guy says he loves girl, girl tells him to GTFO, girl's sister runs off with a shady soldier, guy saves the day, girl marries guy." Much like Harry Potter, it's renowned not for knocking the socks off of every philosophical literary academic, but for being rife with fun characters and wit. That's why I like it. A lot of people don't, but I've never heard anyone call Jane Austen a bad writer. It's more a matter of taste.
I'm just about out of thoughts! What do you guys think? Is JKR an overrated good writer, is she a good middle grade writer (but a sub par writer when you're older), or is she bloody brilliant and everyone who thinks otherwise has the emotional range of a teaspoon?
no subject
no subject
You know, you mention that appeal matters, and I think that's part of why people don't like it. If you're looking for high fantasy, well, it's closer to urban fantasy. If you're looking for philosophical musings, they're there, but not necessarily to the deep level you want them to be.
no subject
no subject
She's written a lot of words. A. Lot. Not all of them will be golden. I have a million+ word manuscript. There's a lot of filler.
Her characterization skills are a little wobbly but when she nails a character she nails it. Her plots hold together for the most part. Some of her phrases are so stuck in my mind that they arise unsummoned at crucial moments.
What I think (tuppence coming) is that she's introduced concepts or perfected concepts that have become part of our culture. If you pick up something remotely wand shaped, wave it in a pattern and say "wingardium leviosa" people get it.
Perfection is not required. It's just nice for some of us.
She's an important writer. She added to our culture.
no subject
no subject
On the other hand, the question of what is good writing is very much open to interpretation and I can't stand the style of some famous writers of supposedly good literature, so it's not like there's one right answer here.
no subject
I also agree with the "appeal matters" point above in the comments. I read for enjoyment, rather than experiencing some kind of literary merit/elitism. I enjoyed the first few HP books and I think got swept up in the excitement of the last few, when I was in fandom for the releases, even if I didn't necessarily enjoy the later books so much. I'm reading a book by Marissa Meyer at the moment, and I had similar issues with her Lunar Chronicles series when I read it last year (inconsistencies in world-building, character introductions, etc), but damn if I didn't enjoy them a whole lot and will definitely buy everything else she writes.
no subject
It's not a bad series. But it's not rocket science either.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I agree with you there.
no subject
But as far as literary merit and good writing, I wouldn't say her turn of phrase does anything to move literature forward. But like the best summer blockbuster movie, that wasn't what I picked up HP for, I picked it up to escape into another world and go on an adventure.
I LOVE Michael Crichton novels and he suffered from the same issue. Man could tell a story that pulled me in and interweave science and fiction to create thrilling moments. But he could NOT do character descriptions to save his LIFE! "He was tall." - there, that is what you get, deal with it.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I always use Tolkein as an example of this. I think he's an amazing storyteller, the world building alone is phenomenal, not to mention the mythology and linguistics - but a good writer? Not for me.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The other things I do side eye her a bit for is all the post-canon info that could have fairly easily made its way into the books in a line or two which would have added a lot to the series as a whole (mostly from Twitter, but Pottermore stuff too), and the imo very simplistic worldbuilding she's shown (especially in her post-series American magical stuff, but also in everything outside the UK). Maybe she's too busy now or just doesn't care, but some research on history and race relations and such would go a long way...
I haven't read/watched Cursed Child or Fantastic Beasts so I can't really comment on that other than what I've heard. I definitely think they suffered from fans having far different expectations than the reality and again I wouldn't blame that entirely or even mostly on her, especially since they're collab works and unless she got a really good contract (which actually wouldn't surprise me) then she didn't get a whole lot of say in things after a certain point. Though I do feel like the marketing built very different expectations than the reality too, especially for Cursed Child, so there's that.
Overall, I guess I do think she's overrated, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Like there are a ton of writers that I think are overrated (many of which I do actually think are bad writers), but Harry Potter did a lot for literature and YA and the fantasy genre and even just for people on an individual level, and I don't think that can be overlooked or understated. But ymmv and all that :D
no subject
The story about a regular person discovering they're the "chosen one" and they must fight the biggest baddy ever is one that has been told over and over (because there really only a few basic stories when you think about it, it's just thing extra bits that make a difference). She leaned heavily on the authors who came before her and it was... okay.
Where she managed to shine was in the fact that she filled a void in the market that had been empty for several decades. The books I was reading in the late 80's (Chronicles on Narnia, A Wrinkle in Time, Asimov's kids books, Lord of the Rings) were written 20-40 years earlier.
no subject
But I also think she and King may end up lasting far longer than many of the well received literary types. Charles Dickens was immensely popular in his time and has remained a classic, but he was also a jobbing writer. Some of the people whose works were better received by the educated public are virtually unknown now because they spoke so directly to their times rather than to a universal humanity. We may not recognize Dickens' society, although with current politics we may start to recognize workhouses and orphanages as commonplaces again, but we certainly recognize his people.
The thing about the Potter books is that you recognize people right away. So many of her characters are variations on universal types -- at least English-language types -- that I think they'll still be recognizable in a hundred years. Fudge and Scrimgeour are politicians of different types, but very recognizable in most political systems. Her flaws as a writer are similar to Dickens' flaws; adding more detail can make a story more vivid, but it also means that certain items no longer make sense strictly speaking (like the Lovegoods in your example).
I'd also like to say that I think she's an absolute genius at getting kids to understand one thing: politics. There are several times when there's no good reason for something to be done in the general scheme of things -- Fudge being so airy about Harry inflating his aunt, for instance -- which click into place when you look at the politics of the situation. She's good at showing how Harry becomes a leader and, unlike some people I don't think Hermione would have been a good leader when young, she's better as an advisor. And she's excellent at showing how one's morals get translated into action. If you look at voting patterns in the 18-24 age group, the percentage of that age group who votes has been going up in presidential voting years since 2004. People say that young people don't vote, but they're voting more than their parents did at the same age and they continue to vote. I think Rowling is at least partially responsible for this.
no subject
no subject
She tells a good story, and she makes me laugh and cry when I read her books.
A lot of the JKR isn't a good writer talk (along with a fair amount of the Joss Whedon is so shitty talk) seems to come from a disengenous place to me. I can't tell if it's an "I used to like this stuff when I was a kiddo and now I have outgrown it and therefore must act like it is beneath me" or genre snobbishness or what.
no subject
I don't know about everyone else, but I just like JKR's writing overall (and find Harry Potter a good book series for my kids).
no subject
I think J. K Rowling is an imaginative writer who's writing has matured over time, just like every other writer. She may not be winning literary prizes but I think her words have meaning for so many people that it's impossible to consider her bad. It seems like it's becoming 'trendy' to think she's a bad writer and I'm not a fan of that. That J.K Rowling bought so many young people back to reading is a feat in itself.
I personally adored Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and I loved Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. I felt like I was a kid again, reading Harry for the first time, or a teenager and seeing Philospher's Stone at the cinema for the first time.
no subject
Rowling and King’s writings are both, even if they had not been championed by Hollywood, subordinate to the cinematic art form. I.e. they write like people who watch a lot of movies. Neither of them is producing the sort of books that I’d cherish for their ideas and/or bookishness. Good fun, yes. But not the sort of novel-for-the-sake-of-the-novel that Atwood or D.F. Wallace or Toni Morrison produces/produced.
Still, I wouldn’t call either of them “bad.” They are very good at what they do. To compare them to the literary elites seems unfair. They are creating an entirely different product.
Jane Austen is given some slack since she is one of the few female writers from her era. She writes witty comedies about manners because ladies were forbidden to go off and have adventures. (She wrote what she knew.) Thus, I think Austen needs to be read with a pinch of feminist history in mind. If, given today’s modern freedoms, Jane might have turned her wit to novels about quantum physics or animal cruelty or whatever struck her fancy.
Peace.
no subject
I actually wrote a 5 page paper in high school on analyzing her word choices especially as she used animal characteristics on inanimate objects like the Hogwarts train looking like a snake which was foreshadowing for the Basilisk in the end of that book.
However, a large part of why the books are imperfect, why people complain about the juvenile quality...is that side from a few chapters the narrator is hampered by what Harry knows. Harry's too thick to realize things like Dumbledore being homosexual or Snape being in love with his mom unless someone flat out tells him. As opposed to a novel series centered around Hermione who figured out Lupin was a werewolf after Snape's lesson and lots of other things but wouldn't have been in the boy's dorm for other events and would need an actual female best friend in her own dorm...although she did seem to get close to Ginny eventually.
Now, can she be accused of getting caught up in her own fantasy world so that the actual story might suffer? Yeah, but so did Tolkien, took him over 50 years to write The Silmarillion and he never did truly finish it.
Of course, we could just go for the Frankly Bad or Frankly Good test...where would a person put Rowling? Considering the utter crap I have read over the years, some of it published like Twilight, I think she is Frankly Good based on everything stated in the first paragraph but again, I will add the caveat of not reading Galbraith although I did see Fantastic Beasts twice and went through enough of the script book to notice there weren't any deleted scenes or lines. Unfortunately, less fun with mechanics since it's a script but still some delicious plays on words, "Are you a Seeker?", the name clues and some other things...although I acknowledge that having a Legilimens as a main character is a bit of a cheat/easy Deus ex Machina available.
no subject
I think the problem here is there isn't a definition of 'good writer'. I wonder if you asked people who said that to substantiate their sentence, what adjective would they use in place of 'good'?
If you take a good writer as one that can captivate an audience with their words and tell a story that can't be put down, I think there is a strong argument that she is good, judging by the massive audience she has captured!
Of course if you're judging by the technicalities of sticking to the rules of literature, then yes, her stories do contain plenty of errors by those standards. But then, there are novels that follow the rules almost to the letter and unfortunately, I don't care if they are considered 'good literature'--if the author hasn't managed to grab me with their narrative, I'm not reading it.
We grouse a lot (sometimes fondly, sometimes not) about plot holes in the series and things like dates working out, but I've found that those things are headache-inducingly hard to keep track of when you're trying to spin a narrative. And unless you're a rabid fan trying to dissect the series to write fanfic, those minute details don't really detract from the story at all. I've found that to be the case in other series I've read as well. Things that don't strike me as troublesome when I've read the first time, just enjoying the story, come up only when I'm actually trying to plot fic from him.
Are there any examples of an interesting, tightly-structured narrative where no holes can be poked whatsoever in the plot/characterisations/dates/etc.? I would hazard a guess as to no--every fandom will manage to tease out the little nitty-gritties that the author/editors overlooked, probably because it wasn't actually important to the main story that is being told.
But I think I'm digressing. The point is, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, sure, but with people who make a vague statement like, 'oh, she's not good,' I'd like to first hear exactly what they define as good.
no subject