Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
What we're reading

Find your new favourite book or recommend one on our Book forum.

Original poster

Potter books - why so wordy?

41 replies

pointydog · 16/07/2007 20:04

The first few Harry Potter books are normal book size.

Got the story cds of book number 4 - there are millions of them! We got to cd number 7 and still nothing has actually happened.

Don't you think Rowling has become needlessly wordy? They just go on and on and on...

OP posts:
lunavix · 16/07/2007 20:05

I felt that a little about book... 5 i think.

Pruners · 16/07/2007 20:06

Message withdrawn

Kathyis6incheshigh · 16/07/2007 20:07

I read the first three and gave up on the fourth. Certainly it seemed wordy to me.

Original poster
pointydog · 16/07/2007 20:07

ah, someone was telling me about the 'said' thing recently pruners and I didn't know what they were on about.

Yes, over-egged

OP posts:
Original poster
pointydog · 16/07/2007 20:08

dh says he's only going to read 3 'cause the rest are too long.

OP posts:
hufflebranpuff · 16/07/2007 20:15

I get the impression they were severely edited for the first few and then as her popularity grew the publishers were anxious not to piss her off and so didn't edit as strongly. It's a pity IMO as the later books would be greatly improved by being made a bit shorter and snappier.

Kathyis6incheshigh · 16/07/2007 20:17

That's what I've always thought, Hufflebranpuff.

Original poster
pointydog · 16/07/2007 20:22

that makes sense, huffle. She needs serious editing

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 16/07/2007 20:27

I'll sum up the last book for you: Harry Potter DIES.

persephonesnape · 16/07/2007 21:30

I'm not paying eighteen quid for three words!

i think six drags. there are two points to half blood prince - DD and harry go on a horcrux hunt and snape kills dumbeldore. it takes quite a longtime to get there, although i guess when book seven appears it may all be pertinent. i do think a lot of things are in for a reason - eg theres a spider on dumbeldores hat when he hears the prophecy. i think that may be an animagus of a character we already know.

frankly, i want the last book to be 1000 words long and I'm a bit miffed that it's just over 600.

DumbledoresGirl · 16/07/2007 21:31

IMO they only became good when they became door stoppers.

I don't think that was to do with the number of words though, but just the plotlines grew up.

Hey, no-one says it is great literature!

Original poster
pointydog · 16/07/2007 21:32

Does Harry Poytter really die?

OP posts:
DumbledoresGirl · 16/07/2007 21:33

The last book is 600 words long? that won't take long to read!

DumbledoresGirl · 16/07/2007 21:33

Errr pointydog, no-one actually knows yet. Well not here on MN anyway.

motherinferior · 16/07/2007 21:33

Because Rowling is a fundamentally not terribly good writer trying to write Big Books.

BillWeasleyBeast · 16/07/2007 21:34

because her editor hasn't got the bollocks to stand upp to her and tell her the first 60 pages of book 4 needed to be scrapped

Original poster
pointydog · 16/07/2007 21:35

I agree DG that all those 'not great literature' arguments are tedious.

But I thought they were good romps until I was bored to tears listening to the ridiculously long cd.

(I've not read any, by the way)

OP posts:
Original poster
pointydog · 16/07/2007 21:36

MI, yeah, I think it's the whole Big Books are better that irritates

OP posts:
janeitebus · 16/07/2007 21:37

Agree with Huffle and Motherinferior. Whilst JK Rowling has a tremendous sense of adventure, a brilliant ear for names and has created a really vividly imagined world, she is rather a pedestrian writer at times and would benefit hugely from some fairly ruthless editing in books 4, 5 and 6.

motherinferior · 16/07/2007 21:39

She is striving towards Great Literature, and can't quite manage it.

I rather like JKR as a person - I mean what I've read of her, I've never met her or anything - and the Potter books do what they do very well; but they work, on that mass scale, precisely because they are so unchallenging. She doesn't play with Big Stuff in the way that rather (coughs) better fantasy writers do. So all she can do is go on and on and on and on.

Must confess that I'll end up buying the new sodding one, I know I will.

expatinscotland · 16/07/2007 21:40

She tells a good story. And obviously, that's what sells.

Perhaps she has the Terry Pratchett approach. He doesn't take himself at all seriously, used to be a print journalist before he turned to writing novels so churns things out quickly and laughs when he is 'accused of literature'.

MamaGryffindor · 16/07/2007 21:43

hijack - expat I don't think you got my message darling

Original poster
pointydog · 16/07/2007 21:46

I just assumed she wasn't bothered about writing Literature, she was just enjoying her stories and making much money

OP posts:
motherinferior · 16/07/2007 21:47

I don't agree, Expat - the last Rowling definitely strove for Being Literature.

Pratchett's actually a very funny, talented novelist (who does play around with Big Stuff). Rather better - and better at imagined universes, too - than Rowling.

motherinferior · 16/07/2007 21:49

I do think that what Rowling has done is to tell a story that's not that good - it's very basic, very linear and all that - so it's very unthreatening. Each book is very formulaic.

What is interesting - and probably the one Big Thing she has actually done, I reckon - is to age the characters. Except that now she's stuck. Harry et al aren't genuine 16 year olds. They're kind of 13 year olds a bit roughed up round the edges. You don't exactly get spliffs or pregnancy scares, do you.