posted
I have to be honest, I don't find style to be Rowling's strong suit. But style is important to discuss, both for good and for bad, so what did you think? Things that annoyed you? Things that worked for you?
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
It has a distinctly "British" flavor, I think, and yet it also seems a little old-fashioned in feel... at times, almost seeming like C.S. Lewis. Rowling's voice is very clear, and that can be seen as either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on whether you like it. Some might prefer that she slip a little deeper into the characters' voices, but personally, I think this suits the books just fine, ad I happen to enjoy the prose.
Posts: 233 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted
Well, just to start the ball rolling on this one, let me point out that ROwing breaks a few "rules" as she writes:
1. She constantly uses adjectives in her dialogue tags...ie "she said sternly" or "he said nastily" 2. a great many elipses and hyphens, as was pointed out in the general hubbub topic 3. "he, Harry"...the reoccurence of this phrase throughout her books has actually begun to annoy me.
posted
I think the use of adjectives in dialogue worked, in a strange way. It strikes me as being very matter-of-fact about it (and that begin very, well, British). It is voiced as a children's book, and I think this fits, because some forms of characterization have to be more direct in speaking to children.
At the same time, though, I found myself thinking over and over that she could get away with more by targeting a younger audience. Subtlety is not necessary.
posted
Isn't that a little sad, though? I mean, that in order to get away with writing how we'd like we have to be targetting children? I'm told things like adjectives take away from the power of your work, but in practice I don't quite understand except for the extreme examples these know-it-alls who tell me this use.
I think this is why OSC doesn't talk about style. One thing I will take away from the boot camp last year is what he said about wordsmithing. Basically, that if you wordsmith it will get in the way of the story and either you'll never finish or you will, but the spirit will be gone.
I guess that's one of the reasons I wanted to talk about her style. He used her as an example at the bootcamp of someone who was a GREAT storyteller but only an ok writer. The example has stuck with me ever since.
posted
I thought the style worked rather well in keeping everything a bit off-beat. She does some rather exaggerated description that I found delightful, and the tone worked well with the story. I'm still rereading for the bookclub, but in earlier reads, I didn't notice the he said nastily, the elipses, and the like, but I was engaged enough I'm sure I was just reading over them.
Only style thing that did annoy me (which I didn't notice until book 5), was the yelling in all caps. Irritating.
posted
One thing to keep in mind is that this is a YA book. The main purpose of her style is to set the mood to one children will like, and also to become invisible. The narrative reminds me a great deal of my third-grade teacher reading various books aloud. JK's style is not my own, but I think it suits her purposes quite well.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted
Ah, Jsteg1210 that was exactly the point I was gonig to make. It's not so much that because she writes that way she has to be targetting children, more that because she is targetting children she has to write that way. That's not to say that there aren't a lot of successful children's authors who don't write with a more grown up style, because there are; Philip Pullman springs to mind because I'm currently reading His Dark Materials. However, these authors are usually targetting the higher age range in the YA bracket. Rowling's books seem to cater more for the Juvenile market and children of this age range tend to connect more with a story if it is being read to them aloud by somebody else, hence her style that reads as if somebody is telling you the story.
Posts: 156 | Registered: Nov 2003
|
posted
One thing I have noticed when talking to actual children about the book...they don't get it. They get the details, they know the story, but they usually miss some of the interactions between characters. If you notice the movie (yes it is another thread) concentrated more on the action than the characters. I do feel her style is simplistic, and easy to read. I guess that shows that done well, even the bad things we are told to avoid can work.
LDS
[This message has been edited by Lord Darkstorm (edited April 28, 2004).]
posted
I don't recall being pulled away from the story at any time, so I would say her style worked for her book.
I did go back and look at dialogue attribution. It seemed like what she used helped in several places to avoid confusion, or to avoid showing which might be more lengthy. And yes, I think length matters - the stories grow with the age of the readers (or, the readers grow up with the books?). For example, I think 'said Ron darkly' gave us a quick feel for his voice and attitude, which then flavored his explanation of the Malfoys. As an adult I didn't need it, and I'm not insisting a 7-year old would either (the age at which my mother's helper started reading the books) but I do think it acted sort of like suspenseful music played before something bad happens in a movie - almost a lightning-quick foreshadowing.
As a big user of dashes and elipses myself, I either didn't notice it, or picked up the habit from her! I have tried to watch it since I realized what I was doing.
Didn't notice "...he, Harry" but now I'm sure I will! I think the book flowed well given that I escaped into it and didn't come up for air until I was done (yes, took it to the bathroom - not in the shower though!).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
