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?

I really enjoyed the books and I think she created a great fictional world. I don't think she's a bad writer, at all, but the later books needed much better editing (but editing is something all writers need and all the best recognize this).

I theorize that either the editor wasn't given enough time, or was under pressure from the publishing house and agents, either for time, or not to interfere with the phenomenon. I feel really sorry for whoever got that job. I suspect that Rowling herself was under serious time pressure at that stage and possibly would have wanted to do more rewrites. The later books could have been about half the length without any of the magic being lost (boom, boom).

Is it goblet of fire where it starts with the Gardener finding the Riddles dead in the house. That took me ages to read

I've always struggled to read the first chapter of the books where Harry doesn't appear in the first page. It just gets a bit abstract. not to the same extent but when Snape goes to see Bellatrix and Narcissa in half blood prince.

Stephen Fry is currently reading the books to me half way through Prisoner of Azkaban and the are better to listen to than read almost

Elegant English is a nice to have, but clearly not essential to great storytelling, and let's not forget they are written for children!

It's obviously not essential, but it's a crying shame to eschew it and brush it off as unimportant, especially for children, who are still learning and forming their abilities and ways of looking at the world. If you don't expose them to carefully-crafted language in books when they are still young, when would you expect them to ever learn to appreciate and use a higher level than Take-A-Break-speak?

People will shout at me that this is a massive jump, but in principle, as far as knowledge and learning goes, I think it's similar to when parents never bother disciplining their children, saying no to them or setting boundaries when they're young and then are astonished when their teenagers go off the rails and know no better how to function as they become adults.

Not the same at all, I know - nobody needs anything more than basic language skills to function in society; but they'are extremely helpful to enrich and see you through life.

there are have been accusations that her work is very derivative and I've been told that her use of English is somewhat stilted and facile

Two things to unpick here. She's writing for children, yet people seem to want to compare her to a Booker Prize winner. I think her work is very readable, she draws you into her world and I think her dialogue is good. However, there is a snotty feeling among "serious" writers that you shouldn't use adverbs – ever – and JKR does, a lot. eg "Hermione said sharply", "Harry said brightly". I can't not hear/see that, now that I'm aware of it. I can see why people are critical of that.

Second thing is this "derivative" comment, which is always levelled at JKR. I don't think it stands, myself, because although other fantasy writers have created whole worlds/creatures/magical powers from nowhere, her whole schtick is that "we" muggles are, on a small level, aware of the magical world, we just don't believe in it (because we are prevented from knowing for sure). So yes, she didn't create vampires or werewolves, and her spells are derived from classical language, and her magical plants are familiar to us, but I think that's because it's meant to be "real"; she's weaving that mythology into a familiar-feeling world that includes King's Cross and West Ham FC and people wearing jeans. I think that's why it appeals so much to children, because it's "real" and "not real". (As with so many famous children's fantasies – The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Borrowers, Northern Lights.)

If it's not clear, I think J.K. Rowling is fantastic and I condemn the vile way she has been treated of late.

I’ve got a friend who is a writer who says J k Rowling is a terrible writer.

It seems to come from other writers and perhaps those who really know the trade.

There tends to be a divide. There are those who are "good writers" who really haven't found the knack that actually makes people buy their books, and they are the ones who say she is poor. Good writers who, for whatever reason, feel secure are happy to acknowledge her merits.

I don't think it's snobbish to say that they're not very well written.

JKR is great at world creating and has inspired a love of reading in millions of children which is unarguably a good thing. But her books are derivative and the writing isn't particularly good.

Saying that the books are aimed at children isn't a good excuse for poor writing. I read a lot of teenage/YA books for pleasure. I'm also a primary school teacher so read a lot of children's books. While there are some very successful children's authors who are far worse writers than JKR (David Walliams, I'm looking at you), there are many who are far better.

Having said all that, JKR seems a really nice person, gives loads to charity and pays her taxes. I don't begrudge her any of her money or success.

I absolutely love the Harry Potter books. I am also a little bit in love with Cormoran Strike. I think that JKR is very good at creating characters that readers really like and care about. She is also great at writing dialogue. The HP books are probably not well written in the traditional sense, but JKR has done a much better job than I, or indeed most other people could manage.

“I've heard it said that they are written at about the level of a good year 6 writer“

lol by the most bitter failed novelist ever?!

They’re fine! I could probably think of ‘better written’ children’s books - although they’re aren’t any that spring to mind as exemplary tbh - but they definitely aren’t badly written. I think HP is a victim of it’s own success in the respect that most adults don’t read many kids books so can’t compare to other similar titles. I tried to reread His Dark Materials recently and found it pretty hard going tbh having lived them as a child - but I don’t generally see people call Phillip Pullman’s book ‘badly written’; cos he quotes Milton so he must be good?!

Harry Potter is amazing. Case closed.

Hi there,
We have disabled the voting for you on this one as requested. (Though we might point out that the only Latin our children currently know is through JK, so we would have voted no and immediately arranged an expelliarmus).

I tried to read the first book, I thought it was crap so I gave in. English isn’t my first language (which is obvious when reading my posts), so I struggled to understand some parts due to poor punctuation etc.

The Strike series is much better, still not brilliant, but better.

My criterion for good writing in children's books tends to be how easy they are to read aloud. There are some which simply don't work because the writing, particularly the dialogue, is mannered and unnatural, or for various other reasons including sheer bloody tedium. I enjoyed reading all the early HP books to the children because they met this criterion easily, as well as having good plots and characterisation. I never read the later books to the them because I felt they were appropriate for older children who didn't need to be read to, but they were all very eager to read them for themselves at the appropriate time.

I was also reminded the other day about the sheer excitement and fun there used to be around publication day for a new HP: nothing else really generates that, particularly amongst children. To be able to generate all that excitement and anticipation simply for a book was an absolutely remarkable achievement.

I love them! I don't need perfect writing from a story. I need something engaging and entertaining.

It's so easy to be a critic! But she has written what must be the most successful children's series evwr written so someone must like them!

It's a bit unfair to compare her to Hilary Mantel. For all the brilliance of the Wolf Hall trilogy it isn't as if Mantel had to devise the plot! Rowling like Blyton has the ability to tell a story in a way that keeps the pages turning. She also manages to create worlds within worlds which is quite tricky to do.

It isn't the most elegant prose but an 8 year old would struggle with the first page of Bring up the Bodies - I had to reread it a few times to understand that "his children were in the air" referred to hawking...

I couldn't get on with the books. That does not mean she isn't a good writer though!

I'm in a bit love with Cormoran too! I watched 'the Cuckoos calling ' on I player again and they are both just as I imagined them to look in the books , even the office looks as I imagined it in the books too!
( Mind you, I'm not very good looking / young / fashion model or rich so I doubt I'd have a look in :)

@HopeMumsnet

I'm currently learning Latin on Duolingo in preparation for the new Strike book !

I’m having thought of a few kids authors I do think are very good - Meg Rossof, Patrick Ness, David Almond, Mal Peet are all big hitters, I would also say that these are way more stylised than HP and have a very different tone. Obv they are good and many people may prefer that style, but the appeal of HP is basically that it’s a conventional boarding school adventure. If it was written in a cool stylish way it would be a very different thing altogether, And I think it would lose it’s ‘wholesomeness’ that people lie.

Ugh sorry for typos - also, I listened to them all this summer (love Stephen Fry’s reading of them) and I would say they are fantastically plotted across the seven books. Even in the last book where it all gets a bit ‘convenient’ the groundwork has all been properly laid.

I agree the later books could have been better edited, but they knew they were going to sell anyway.

They're not perfect, but they're good stories, very readable. They've got some kids reading who otherwise wouldn't have, in the same way Enid Blyton did (and Rowling's a better writer than Blyton.)

I read a wide range of books, just as I eat a wide range of food. Some of it isn't as nutritious as it could be, but it's fun. As long as it's part of a diet that's otherwise balanced, it's okay. And if it's the only food, that's still better than starvation.

Her prose is no better than OK, but her plotting and broad brush characterisation are exceptional. She’s often compared unfavourably with Diana Wynne Jones (who I do love). DWJ has a better prose style and more subtle characterisation but her plotting was often all over the shop: she didn’t have a clear line of plot and theme. One of these writers is a billionaire and one was not.

But she’s streets ahead of Dan Brown whose prose and research in allegedly adult books is genuinely dreadful, but has made millions on the back of a gift for page-turning plotting.

And saying that she’s just a plagiarist because she sets her stories in a schools for witches and wizards like countless writers have before and since, or for using names which refer in passing to real world elements is ridiculous.

The first three books were great. Superb plots and appealing characters in a beautifully realised fantasy world.

The problems started with Goblet of Fire, which retained much of the appeal of the previous books but was too long winded, and the pace dropped too often.

Order of the Phoenix was much worse. It was far too long, with too much emphasis on tedious politics. The plot was muddled at best and often confusing. A good editor would have stripped out 200 pages of pointless verbiage and created a much better book.

The final two books had similar issues and I found myself skipping page after page of waffle in an attempt to relocate the actual plot. Again, the books would have been vastly improved by radical editorial pruning.

@SmileTolerantly I also love DWJ! However also agree that that some titles, eg. Howl’s Moving Castle, actually make no sense. That’s part of the appeal for me but HMC is a genuinely bizarre book.

I think that's why it appeals so much to children, because it's "real" and "not real". (As with so many famous children's fantasies – The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, The Borrowers, Northern Lights.)

Alan Garner did the same thing in his books - The Weirdstone of Brisingamen, Elidor, The Moon of Gomrath, The Owl Service - but I think he did it a lot better.

Well she uses existing stories and concepts well. The iconography in her books is based on well established concepts that people are (probably unconsciously) familiar with. It’s like a one direction song, on the face of it original but so much is nicked from elsewhere people are immediately familiar with it, they often just don’t know why.

I think her writing style does improve over time, the first book would certainly have benefited from better editing.