Harry Potter

Not having read much of the books I cant say if it feels like her writing or not.
But I thought the stuff I did read of the first book was not great writing and this doesn't strike me as great writing, which doesn't overly encourage me to think that the writing in-between is great.

But I tend to view Ringdrotten's, you and Eldo, in particular really, take on Potter to be not dissimilar with my own experience of Star Wars.
If I were to view it with a purely critical hat there is a lot to stir the crabbit about it, but when I watch it Im 8 again. And that can go a hell of a long way.

Well, what is "great writing"? Certainly there are different types of great writing. Every good author has a unique voice.

I guess being able to capture millions with your writing doesn't qualify for great in some places.

the quality is meant to be bad, Rita Skeeter is the worst journalist ever.

what is "great writing"? Certainly there are different types of great writing. Every good author has a unique voice.-Bungo

I guess being able to capture millions with your writing doesn't qualify for great in some places.- Ringdrotten


Very true Bungo, and I do not deny she has her own voice- I am talking about the technical standard of her writing and the manner in which she constructs sentences- which I think is, workmanlike, as opposed to great- and I am hardly the first person to have thought or noticed this about her writing.

Compare the skill and imagination in word choices in her sentences to say someone like Douglas Adams who is a master of construction and the difference is I feel quite stark- but then you only got a book out of Adams about every 10 years whllst he tried to decide if 42 was the funniest number or not!

Ringdrotten on that basis TH films are great because millions paid to see them.

With Potter I rarely comment- look back through this thread, you will find I dont post much here or on GoT- because they are two things that dont hugely appeal to me and I dont have much of an interest in them so they dont irk my crabbit either- Potter is like that, I dont care enough to be annoyed about them, but nor do I happen to think they are great writing from what I have read and what I have seen of the films.

But its quite possible to be a great writer and a terrible story teller and to be an average writer but a great storyteller.

I think Graeme Green is a superb writer, his structuring and sentence construction is masterful- but as a storyteller he is dull as ditch water. Maybe Rowling is the opposite, even if her stuff has the air of borrowed ideas to it- last bit of a Potter film I saw on tv by accident appeared to have ringwraiths in it!

Ringdrotten wrote:I guess being able to capture millions with your writing doesn't qualify for great in some places.

   yeah I agree.
I dont think Petty has any right to criticize Rowling if he hasnt bothered to read the books. How can you criticize something you are ignorant about?

I never criticised the books Figg, I said I wasn't impressed with the writing at the start of them which I did read, and I was not impressed by the piece posted yesterday, which I also read- and that that did not incline me to think that the bit I didn't read in the middle would therefore be written any better.

until you have read the books you cant say they are poorly written, however you can say the piece posted Yesterday as you have read all of it.

I dont see why I cant comment on the opening of the first book which I have also read.
I have never made any comments about the writing beyond that point, save the piece from yesterday, as I dont know about the writing beyond that point.

But reading a start I was not impressed by, and reading something at the end of it all, I'm not impressed by, you have to admit is not likely to make me think the rest of it will suddenly be a revelation of writing quality. But it might be.   

I think its absurd anyone would criticize a writer they hadnt read. who does that?

Im not- I am criticising the writing I have read- obviously. Which is the first few chapters of the first HP book, and that piece yesterday- and saying neither impressed me.

If I dont like chicken I dont need to eat a whole hen house to know it!

maybe if you give it a chance you would see what millions of other people see, a great story well written and lovely to read. dont close your mind to things before you have properly tried them.

Norc wrote:the quality is meant to be bad, Rita Skeeter is the worst journalist ever.

I don't think anyone responded to this yet, but it's an important point.  Contrary to what many news sources are reporting, this is not a "new Harry Potter story".  It's a fake magazine article from the Harry Potter world.  And yes, it's pretty dull and stupid, just like most tabloid magazine articles from the real world.  If you want to criticize Rowling's writing without actually reading the books -- and there are plenty of valid criticisms to make -- then at least read an actual short story by her (though of course, a 1500 word short story and a seven volume novel series are worlds apart).

http://web.archive.org/web/20101222170726/http://copiedtext.blogspot.com/2010/10/harry-potter-prequel-by-jk-rowling-2008.html

I'm not sure what is so contentious here- all I said was I've read some of her early stuff, read that piece of later work, and not being very impressed either time, so I'm not inclined to think the stuff in the middle will be written much differently or will appeal to me any more than what I have read.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my point is that judging an author's ability to write narrative fiction based on a parody of tabloid reporting is disingenuous at best. That said, you've made your feelings for the Philosopher's Stone very clear in the past, so I know you've read more than just this one piece, but this new "story" is not evidence of her shortcomings as a writer (of which she has plenty).

Im not- all I said of that piece was that I thought wasn't well written.

And all I said of the first part of the first HP book I read was that it wasn't very well written.

I repeat- I never said a single thing about any of her other writing, including the rest of the HP book save to say I wasnt persuaded by either start or end piece to try them again.

''Both Rowling and Meyer, they’re speaking directly to young people. ... The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She’s not very good." Stephen King.

I think I am going to take the word of a world renowned professional like King, that Rowling is indeed a good writer.

I see little point in dragging up voices to support either side- there are plenty dont rate her as a great writer too I am sure I could find quotes if need be, such a high profile writer will always have acolytes and detractors- but what would be the point when I am talking about my own experiences and opinion of her writing?- which I dont think is very good based on what I have read.

but you havent read much. if I read a chapter or two of Terry Pratchett and said he was crap then it would be a bit of a dumb thing to say as its personal taste, not that he cant write, so you may be confusing the two things, you dont like HP but you cant say she is a bad writer, she has flaws, but she is a creative imaginative writer for all her flaws.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Very true Bungo, and I do not deny she has her own voice- I am talking about the technical standard of her writing and the manner in which she constructs sentences- which I think is, workmanlike, as opposed to great- and I am hardly the first person to have thought or noticed this about her writing.

Compare the skill and imagination in word choices in her sentences to say someone like Douglas Adams who is a master of construction and the difference is I feel quite stark- but then you only got a book out of Adams about every 10 years whllst he tried to decide if 42 was the funniest number or not!

Well, compare Douglas Adams to James Joyce. Anyone could argue that in comparison to Joyce, Adams' prose is "workmanlike." I hope that when you read you don't entirely focus on syntax. If that really tugs at your heart, that's fine, but sometimes it's about the bigger picture that's being portrayed or the story that's being told.

You should also take into consideration that the Harry Potter books are for kids. There's nothing wrong with this, that's just why the writing may not be up to your standards. When I read the HP books, I thought they were great (and I was about 17-18 at the time), the writing never bothered me. The writing in that story she posted online, really bothered me.

If a fantastic, engaging story is being told, and there are no problems with the writing, then I would consider it "great." A Game of Thrones reads very fast, I am half way through, and I really enjoy the story. I don't see a problem in calling it "great writing." My opinion is that "great writing" is different things in different circumstances. It's like music. Beethoven is great, Philip Glass is great. They wrote/write completely different kinds of music, but they get their point across.

bad writing takes you out of the moment, it destroys the world making, and it certainly doesnt make you long to read more, HP was the kind of books people couldnt wait for, I remember when each one came out in the bookshops, it was a wonderful time knowing you would be able to go back to Hogwarts and meet all those wonderful characters. Is that the hallmark of bad writing? I dont think so.

If a fantastic, engaging story is being told, and there are no problems with the writing, then I would consider it "great."- Bungo

Is that the hallmark of bad writing? I dont think so.- Figg

There seems some confusion here over what I said- I said the writing was workmanlike in my opinion, but I also said it is quite possible to be a good storyteller without being a good writer- something I think is actually preferable to the other way round.
Its quite possible this is the case with Rowling, it certainly seems so for many here- but being a good storyteller is not necessarily linked to your writing ability. And as I did not enjoy her writing I am not inclined to want to read more of it.

I had other issues as well with the first book to do with content that put me off, but that's entirely another matter and nothing to do with the standard of the writing.

The HP series isn't perfect, far from it. But I don't think that has anything to do with how she writes, but with what she writes. The problem with the HP books is that there are so many things that cannot be explained by the logic and "laws of nature" Rowling herself has created. You don't see that in Tolkien or G.R.R. Martin. Sometimes it seems like she has difficulties keeping track of "what you can do in the magic world, and what you can not do", and to me, that has nothing to do with how she writes. Actually, that concerns her capabilities as a storyteller. And apart from those (more or less distracting) flaws, she is a brilliant storyteller, but to find that out you will have to read more than the first few chapters (which will never happen, I guess, just saying).

Let's use Skyrim as an example: I bought Skyrim and played it for four-five hours, a period of time which compares to reading a good chunk of the first HP book. I managed to escape, came to an old dusty tavern, spoke to some guys and did some stuff I can't remember. Afterwards, whenever I'd grab my xbox controller for a few hours of fun I'd play Red Dead instead, because I couldn't find the energy or will to play Skyrim again. It simply failed to get me interested. Now, I know that this is one of the best RPGs currently out there judging by its fanbase, and it looks like a fantastic game, but I don't "feel" it. I could put that down to poor storytelling, writing, worldbuilding or character design, but I don't think that has got anything to do with it. I think the game simply didn't appeal to me. Might you have had a similar experience with those first HP chapters?

Its possible, but it was consciously the writing which struck me first at the time. I found it, pedestrian.

As to Skyrim I'd agree- its terribly written, the main story and characters are not engaging and I wouldn't still be playing it either if I couldn't add 250 mods to it to make it a good game with good characters and stories.