Harry Potter was badly written

[Stackys]

I’ve seen this said on here a few times, that the books are badly written and she’s a terrible author who just got lucky.

Why do people say this? The world she created was amazing, what’s wrong with the books?

Genuine question - what is wrong with using adverbs? Never heard that before!

Also, I think JK Rowling's prose is great, easy to read and creates a fantastic mental image.

Honestly, if I were a tenth as successful as a writer I would enjoy character debates and nuanced discussions and critical comparison of my works more than anything.

Course you would. This is thread is hardly that.

@missbunnyrabbit

Genuine question - what is wrong with using adverbs? Never heard that before!

Also, I think JK Rowling's prose is great, easy to read and creates a fantastic mental image.

Well, two things, in theory.

"Hello!", she said brightly.
"Nice to see you've finally got here," he answered sarcastically.
"Well if you're going to be like that I won't bother!" she huffed petulantly...

Etc. The theory being that telling a reader all the time exactly how they should read the line is less effective than simply using words that convey sarcasm, brightness, petulance. Readers engage less well with writing when they don't have to do any work at all and it's all spelled out exactly. It also just looks daft.

(note, this isn't a criticism of Rowling - she uses them judiciously)

The second theory is that adverbs weaken sentences. E.g.

The sentence handed down by the judge was monstrously unfair.
vs
The sentence handed down by the judge was unfair.

I used that example specifically because it obviously doesn't weaken the sentence! It can weaken a sentence.

BUT - some people like this advice rather too much. My friend goes to insane contortions to avoid adverbs in her writing, whereas I just noted that plenty of my favourite books got published by using a smattering of adverbs and cracked on with using them as I felt valid.

Publishers will bend the rules for a good story, because a good story trumps all, and the rules are there to be broken.

Many adventure stories will have hero, enemy, etc. I don't think you can complain at JKR doing the same as many other authors in that sense.

The love for Harry Potter shows how much standards have declined. The books are praised to the skies because they get kids to read. That's a worthwhile achievement, but it shouldn't be allowed to disguise the fact that kids don't read as well as they used to and aren't encouraged to engaged in more challenging, more rewarding books any more. Someone said above that she couldn't get on with CS Lewis because of his lack of punctuation. In the past, that wouldn't have been an issue for most children or adults. Now, it seems, no one can cope with sentences more than 8 words long.

The characters in HP are fine as far as they go, there's some allusions to fairy tales and some Latin innuendoes which are engaging, and some very clunky metaphors. The whole King's Cross thing in the last book was nails scraping down the blackboard. Sorry, JK, if you're reading this. I have honestly enjoyed all the books of yours that I've read.

JK Rowling is a perfectly enjoyable writer, and that's perfectly good enough. Whether she is great will depend on whether she's still widely read 50 years from now. I reckon Le Guin, Tolkien and the like will last better. CS Lewis won't because he uses too many Classical and Christian references and children are increasingly too ill-educated to appreciate them. Philip Pullman will probably join the pantheon too.

In contrast, JK Rowling is the 21st century Enid Blyton. No one pretended that Enid Blyton was a brilliant writer.

If that's snobby, well then, society needs snobs.

@Bluesheep8

I've only read one. Lots of things were just copied from a book I read and loved as a child - The Worst Witch. I couldn't get past that I'm afraid

When I read The Worst Witch, I thought a lot of it was copied from a book I read and loved as a child - The Witch Family by Eleanor Estes, published in 1962.

Are people really so bloody simple that they ONLY see it in terms of, 'duh, of course she's brilliant you silly-billy' because she's sold billions?

No, I don’t think that’s what people are saying. I don’t think anyone is claiming she’s in the top rank of writers for language use, intellectual
complexity, or whatever else you rank writing on. Or that popularity + sales = genius.

What we are saying is that she clearly has skill and does a great job in the genres she’s chosen, and for the readerships she aims at. And that ‘good’ writing can mean a number of different things. Lit fiction isn’t necessarily everyone’s pinnacle.

It just seems churlish for so many posts to say something along the lines of ‘I’m a writer and think she’s very poor at what she does.’ Yes, her success has probably involved some luck, great marketing and other non-writing elements. But it’s incredibly difficult to get published, so why aren’t we just saying ‘not my kind of book, but still an amazing achievement.’ It just feels like sour grapes rather than lit crit, because her work is not being judged in context.

I also think the skill of storytelling is hugely undervalued. We’ve come to value form over content in judging literary worthiness. Why? If
we place literature in a broader cultural and historical context, then storytelling is hugely important. It’s how our culture has been passed from generation to generation over centuries, it’s how we learn about the world and seems to be something most of us feel a need for. It’s what novels were all about for a long time. Look at Dickens - lots of dodgy prose, plotting mistakes, poorly developed characters, but a master storyteller. Not saying JKR is the modern Dickens, just that we should acknowledge that she is popular because she excels at something, not through some fluke and the stupidity of her readers.

Oh, and of course she got lucky. It's very hard to get published, and she got picked, probably over lots of better writers that we will never know.

But I wouldn't begrudge her that. Compare her to big name writers like Martin Amis and Ian McEwan who have been turning out dross for decades and yet - at least in the UK - get treated like genuises.

Someone said above that she couldn't get on with CS Lewis because of his lack of punctuation. In the past, that wouldn't have been an issue for most children or adults. Now, it seems, no one can cope with sentences more than 8 words long.

Nope @TomPinch I've always been an avid reader. And I found his stories tedious . And I can cope with a long sentence thanks.

And yes you sound like a snob.

@CreatureComfy

Agree that popularity doesn't equal excellence. It's not just literature, just look at actors, singers, dancers, etc. Huge numbers of people who are popular have pretty average ability. They're popular for other reasons, such as looks, background, parentage, right place at right time, etc. There are lots of really talented performers who never get a sniff of the limelight for lots of reasons.

In a different decade, HP may well have flopped had there been another writer churning out books which appealed to the masses, or had she been a decade too late and kids all had smart phones.

I've always believed 80/90% of "success" is down to luck rather than ability. I think HP proves my theory. It was right story, right time. But in a couple of decades' time, it'll be forgotten whilst other literary classics endure.

*Oh, and of course she got lucky. It's very hard to get published, and she got picked, probably over lots of better writers that we will never know.
*
You're being silly now.

On that basis every writer that ever got published probably got picked " over lots of better writers that we'll never know". 🙄

Luckily for all the "ill educated" children she did.

@sunglassesonthetable

I think there is such a thing as good and bad writing, and I've said why I think JK Rowling falls somewhere in the middle of that standard. You, on the other hand, think you're above standards.

I reckon that makes you the snob.

Not saying JKR is the modern Dickens, just that we should acknowledge that she is popular because she excels at something, not through some fluke and the stupidity of her readers.

👍🏻

@sunglassesonthetable

*Oh, and of course she got lucky. It's very hard to get published, and she got picked, probably over lots of better writers that we will never know. * You're being silly now.

On that basis every writer that ever got published probably got picked " over lots of better writers that we'll never know". 🙄

Luckily for all the "ill educated" children she did.

I think any fair-minded author would recognise that there are a huge number of other candidates out there - some bad, some OK, some good, and whether or not any of them get published is hugely down to luck. Along with connections I daresay (which Rowling wouldn't have had).

This is nothing more than obvious, and to say that Rowling got published purely on her own merit is delusional.

CS Lewis won't because he uses too many Classical and Christian references and children are increasingly too ill-educated to appreciate them.

I don't know if that will be a problem - I didn't understand as a child why people talked about CS Lewis being very Christian. I was first read Voyage of the Dawn Treader at 6 or 7; it was only on a third or fourth rereading in my late teens when I realised Aslan as a lamb is all about our Christian god. I don't know why I had never seen it before - there was enough church-going in my childhood and family that I can't claim lack of knowledge. So I think you can read them without that understanding every reference.

The main thing that realisation gave me was an understanding that you can read a good book more than once and get something new every time, because I have moved on and changed and learned in the time between readings. I think Harry Potter can work in that way, Pratchett certainly does. A book has to have something about it to be reread anyway.

EBearhug,

I hope you're right about CS Lewis because I think they're wonderful books. My favourite bit was the map (in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader) that draws itself. Narnia was the first imaginary world I encountered, and it still resonates strongly with me, even though I moved on to Tolkien (and also, much later, HP).

It's a pity that Lewis has been pigeonholed with Christianity because while that comes across in his books, there is so much more to them.

I also think the skill of storytelling is hugely undervalued.

And yet, in the business world, there's a ton of courses and articles about storytelling to help you train, manage, sell... People will remember a story more than bare facts.

She has a one of a kind imagination and the storytelling is just brilliant. I was completely obsessed with Harry Potter throughout my childhood

I just can't agree with the statement that they are poorly written based on this

I love JK for lots of reasons but I don't think the books are well written on a technical level. However I think lots of poorly written books are saved by a good editor. In JK's case, I think I think the editing is poor. Not so much in the first book, but it gets worse as the series goes on. This sometimes happens when an author is a cash cow - editors /publishers lose their critical faculties in order to pander to the author. (Not necessarily at the behest of the author who may be unaware.)

*think there is such a thing as good and bad writing, and I've said why I think JK Rowling falls somewhere in the middle of that standard. You, on the other hand, think you're above standards.

Really? 🙄😂

"above standards " what are you on about?

.If that's snobby, well then, society needs snobs.

I agreed with you. 🙄 You seem fine with it.

@Gottheteeshirtandlostit

I love JK for lots of reasons but I don't think the books are well written on a technical level. However I think lots of poorly written books are saved by a good editor. In JK's case, I think I think the editing is poor. Not so much in the first book, but it gets worse as the series goes on. This sometimes happens when an author is a cash cow - editors /publishers lose their critical faculties in order to pander to the author. (Not necessarily at the behest of the author who may be unaware.)

I agree, and I think a lot of people above have made the same point. For me, the first three books had a completeness about them: the story resolved at the end, the baddy was beaten, and that was that.

The difficulties came from the fourth book onwards, when the plot expanded beyond the scope of one book and I think it all got out of control in the last two books. I thought the explanations of Tom Riddle's youth, the Gaunt family, and Snape's school career were all a bit odd.

Harry Potter = Frodo = Luke Skywalker = Lyra Belacqua = Odysseus

Ron Weasley = Sam = Han Solo = Will Parry = Telemachus

Voldemort = Sauron = Palpetine = Metatron = Poseidon

Dumbledore = Gandalf = Yoda = Farder Coram = Athena

Death Eaters = the Ringwraiths = the Sith = the magesterium = Scylla and Charybdis / the Cyclops / etc

Horcruxes = The One Ring = the Death Star = the windows between worlds = the suitors

Hogwarts is No Longer Safe = The Shire is No Longer Safe = Endor / Alderaan / wherever is no longer safe / Heaven is no longer safe / Ithaca is no longer safe

In other words, it’s not that Tolkien came up with a brand new plot that was stolen by J K Rowling. It’s that the ‘Hero Triumphs over Evil and thus saves the world’ archetype is a common one repeated in countless stories for as long as people have been telling them. There are variations in the details, but the bones are broadly comparable.

CS Lewis won't because he uses too many Classical and Christian references and children are increasingly too ill-educated to appreciate them.

I loved CS Lewis’s Narnia books when I was in primary school. I read and reread them until the books were falling apart.

And yet, the Christian subtext in the Narnia books went right over my head until I was older, despite me going to a church school that had a heavy emphasis on teaching Christianity, and my parents taking me to church most Sundays.

I loved them because the story sucked me in. And the story worked without me being aware of the classical and Christian references.

In other words, it’s not that Tolkien came up with a brand new plot that was stolen by J K Rowling. It’s that the ‘Hero Triumphs over Evil and thus saves the world’ archetype is a common one repeated in countless stories for as long as people have been telling them. There are variations in the details, but the bones are broadly comparable.

Forever

I used to like Jeffery Archer novels ( I know he was a disgraced MP who ended up in prison and dodgy as anything etc etc) but hey , he did write some good stories.
A book that draws you in is what I need : bit of escapism and HP and Strike books have that in droves too.
I'd love to be able to write a novel or even a novella!