I've been re-reading The Half-blood Prince and noticed many of the same writing "errors" that get bashed so throughly on F&F. As an example, in the first chapter Dudley rarely "says" anything rather he "snarls" his dialog.

All that being said, Rowling did somethings very right in crafting the stories and world, what do you think they are?

I'll start and try to stay with the first book:

An immediately sympathetic character in Harry
- after all who isn't going to want the guy locked in the hall closet to get out of that situation.

Voldemort is an unlikeable villian that does very very bad things.

Real stakes - this is life or death for Harry (and others as the series progresses).

Over time:

Harry is shown as being "flawed" and just as human as the rest of us over the course of the series.
He wants to provoke Dudley in [i] Half Blood [/b]
He initially dislikes Snape and Malfoy for no reason other than they are Slitherin and a bit borish.
He rejects the idea that his father bullied Snape even after seeing that memory in Snape's mind.
He then uses the charm his father used on Snape on Malfoy.

The characters have depth and have grown over the series.

Any other thoughts?

The books are easy to read and easy to love, but if you want to, there is also a deeper level of meaning. There are themes and morals, both subtle and explicit.

I also love that the books grow with Harry, becoming more sophisticated and adultish. By the sixth book, even Harry's hero, Dumbledore, has become more human.

I have to disagree with a couple of things, though...

"He initially dislikes Snape and Malfoy for no reason other than they are Slitherin and a bit borish." -- he initially dislikes Malfoy because he acted like a superioristic prick, acting like he kenw more than everyone else and then telling Harry that "Some wizarding families are better than others. I can help you there." He dislikes Snape because Snape hated him from day one.

"He rejects the idea that his father bullied Snape even after seeing that memory in Snape's mind." -- I didn't get that at all. He seemed quite troubled by this.

I can see, now that I've gotten into writing, that Rowling was probably never in a writer's group and probably didn't take many classes on the subject. She seems to me to be an independent writer. Independence can cause errors. For example, there's this famous trumpet player, I can't think of his name, but he learned the trumpet on his own. I've seen pictures of him playing. He puffs his cheeks when he plays. That is an incorrect technique. But, he figured it out on his own, and while technically incorrect, he is a world-class player.

Many of the things she does right are in the larger frame of writing--plot, character, pacing, etc. If you study her writing line by line, you could find plenty of things to nitpick. It depends on how harsh you want to be about it, I think.

You may have to get to the end to see it, but I rarely feel like a scene is wasted in her books.

1. Extremely efficient storytelling, especially in the early books.

2. Did not "write/talk down" to her initial audience (kids within shouting distance of 10), yet kept things straightforward, thus greatly expanding her potential audience.

3. Great use of tension and drama, without melodrama.

4. One of the most impressive world building jobs I've come across, maybe second to Tolkein, although quite different in nature.

As for "Angry Harry" in the later books - JKR has said herself that those who don't understand why he's so angry didn't understand what happened in the earlier books. He has EVERY REASON to be angry! He was robbed of his parents, robbed of his childhood, an abused and neglected child. JKR told David Yates (the director of "Order of the Phoenix") that Harry should be a very psychologically damaged child by this point - anyone else would be. The fact that he still has a sense of humor (at times) and a sense of justice shows how resilient he is, how honorable, and all the other wonderful qualities he has - all of which had to be inborn, because he sure didn't learn them from the Dursleys!

Lynda

quote:

---

As for "Angry Harry" in the later books - JKR has said herself that those who don't understand why he's so angry didn't understand what happened in the earlier books. He has EVERY REASON to be angry! He was robbed of his parents, robbed of his childhood, an abused and neglected child. JKR told David Yates (the director of "Order of the Phoenix") that Harry should be a very psychologically damaged child by this point - anyone else would be. The fact that he still has a sense of humor (at times) and a sense of justice shows how resilient he is, how honorable, and all the other wonderful qualities he has - all of which had to be inborn, because he sure didn't learn them from the Dursleys!

---

Maybe it's because the early books were somewhat fairytale-like, and the fact that I didn't read any of them until after Book 6 was out, then sat down and read all six back-to-back in a month. That could unduly amplify the change. I supposed I admired young Harry for his stoicism, and seeing him start to lose it at times adds tension that is yet unresolved. A lot of it for me might depend on how it ends.

The thing to remember when wondering about the transition from book 4 to book 5 is that Harry went through hell at the end of book 4. Book 5 is a continuation of that story, not a "new" story. She's written a seven book story arc. Half-Blood Prince isn't even a complete book in itself, which drove me nuts when I finished it. She has said that it's the first half of book 7 - or 7 is the second half of 6. No wonder so many HP readers actually threw HBP across the room when they finished reading it (and I was one of those). Some people think it's her best book, to which most of us HP fans say "huh???" Listening to it in my car for the umpteenth time (I could only read it once - couldn't stand to read it again - but I've listened to it a lot), I finally found enough to like in it a few months ago to accept that it is a good book - it just doesn't have a satisfactory ending, finishing with more of a cliff-hanger than any of the others. And the director, screenwriter and Dan Radcliffe all think HBP is "funny" - the director says it will give Dan a chance to stretch his comedic muscles. I'm still scratching my head, wondering where HARRY is funny in the book. Guess I need to read or listen to it again. It has funny scenes, but Harry himself isn't funny in them that I recall. Still - JKR has me reading or listening to a book I DON'T PARTICULARLY LIKE over and over, so she's doing something right (writing a riveting tale about a hero I adore - she's doing that much right!)

Lynda

I always enjoyed the books quite a bit; however, my enjoyment of the books increased greatly when I started reading the various theories that were floating around and suggesting a few of my own. This debate helps solidify a readers interest in the series. It does require that the writer first create a good story that draws the reader in, to be fair.

To comment on "Angry Harry," it was perfectly necessary that he be "damaged" by his life experiences but at the same time the character jumped a bit from GoF to OotP. Rowling "earned" this change, as it were, but the change wasn't shown (to be fair, I don't see how Rowling could have shown Harry stewing for a month). It is good and proper that Harry became upset but readers shouldn't be forced to read a book several times before a character's change of personality makes sense.

At least we did get some good Potter Puppet Pal material from it.

I guess what's unsettling for me regarding the dark/angry Harry is that by the fourth chapter or so of the first book he had plenty of reason to be an angry young man, but he wasn't portrayed that way until after the fourth book. Each book had episodes similar in nature to the end of the fourth (granted the trend was escalating).

I think that JKR just decided to respond to a core audience that had grown 5 or 6 years older by changing the tone and perspective of the story, or maybe it changed inside of her. For me the anger darkness made intellectual sense, but the abrupt change in how the character was portrayed jarred a bit on an emotional level. The Harry I was seeing in book 5 wasn't the Harry I previously knew, and he changed while I wasn't looking.

I agree the reader shouldn't have to go back and study and fill in the gaps themselves to comprehend a character change, or at least shouldn't be chastized for not having done that and not understanding. Good Point SS.

But this is all small potatoes compared to the enjoyment I've got from (both halves of) the seires, and the high regard I hold it in.

In the first book, Harry was a child. All he wanted was for someone to love him and he would have loved to get that from his aunt and uncle. He wasn't angry so much as sad. Deeply sad. I don't know if anyone else got that but I did. I actually didn't like the movie portrayal of Harry in the first movie because he was too forthright and too sure of himself. The Harry I read about was sad, scared, and lonely.

As for the trials he goes through in each of the first 3 books....yes, they shape him, but really each of them was a great adventure. Nobody got hurt, unless you count Quirrel, and he had Voldemort sticking out of the back of his head so he got what he deserved. Not only that, but each adventure brought him closer to his two best friends and made him feel, for the first time in his life, as if he were a part of something. He finally had an outlet for his love.

The end of the 4th book was VERY different. When Cedirck died, I couldn't believe it. The books had not gone tht far yet and it was a huge departure. I was looking for an out for him but I realized by the end of the book why it had to happen. Lord Voldemort was back, and that meant kid games and adventures were over. From here on out, the stakes were real. That's what Rowling said with Cedrick's death.

After that, too, I think things became real for Harry. He had finally given up on his aunt and uncle as a source of comfort or love. The person who had murdered his parents -- taking that love from him in the first place -- was back and NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE HiM. Not only that, but his hero, Dumbledore, was keeping him in the dark after everything that had happened. He went to school and was surrounded by points and whispers, but not of the awestruck variety as before. The school turned his their collective backs on him. He still had Ron and Hermione, but he had lost a lot of what he had -- even Dumbledore.

Ironically, the anger was borne out of the same desire he had since book 1 -- to love and be loved.

I didn't think it took any reading between the lines to get this but then, I've had enough stories critiqued and critiqued enough stories to know that no 2 people ever see the same manuscript in the same way. We all bring in our personal feelings and prejudices. Maybe for that reason, it is unfair of an author to suggest that something should be clear and people out to be able to get something; but I can also understand her frustration that some people aren't getting it. That doesn't make it wrong for you to see it that way -- your reading is as colored by your life as mine is by mine. Personally, I have always felt a connection to Harry since book 1. Oh, our lives are quite different but for various personal reasons I understand how a longing for love can turn sharply into anger.

I think the mistake people make in the Potterverse was that things would stay the same. The characters are pretty much defined in the first book and stay the same. This isn't the case. Harry is getting older. Fifteen and sixteen year old kids are very smart and usually have a lot of attitude (go work at a fast food place if you don't agree with me). Couple that with personal loss and righteous indignation, and that completely explains Harry's attitude in book 5-6.

I just can't buy that the large majority of the HP readers I personally know (actually, all of them now that I think about it) are defective readers who didn't pay attention or don't understand people and thus found themselves saying "Wait, what's going on here?" during parts of book 5. Whether or not JKR intended it to be that jarring I suppose is arguable. I would contend it didn't have to be (from the reader's perspective).

To me it seems like from Book 5 started a different story, the "real" story, maybe. The final trilogy.

So, the interesting thing to me here that I see in this thread, is something I've long thought JKR did RIGHT in the HP books, Order of the Phoenix in particular. She embedded such a complete sense of angst in the book. Did anyone else have this experience? I find when I'm reading book 5, I'm anxious and jumpy. Even during the hours I'm not reading! LOL Yes, I've checked, it's not just PMS.

I find that fascinating. True, it caught many of us off-guard, but I thought it fit. It fit Harry's age, it fit his situation, having seen Cedric killed before his eyes and his worst nightmare come to life. I've heard/read a JKR interview where she says that Harry rages against his friends even in this book, and that the reason is because he HAS NO ONE ELSE. And they take it because, in some way, they understand this...and they play the role of his family.

I found the whole book distasteful, Umbridge incredibly unpleasant (and unbelievable!), and his attitude and overall teen angst really uncomfortable. And amazing. That a writer can do all that while busily moving the plot forward, building the world, growing the characters, etc. Stunning, really.

I know there are those who don't care for JKR, but I look at book 5 as the example of her mastery of storytelling, of using words to convey feelings, and of completely enveloping her readers in the emotional state of the main character. I can't think of a single other example (I'm sure there are others, I'm just busy in lala HP fanland right now. LOL) where an author has used their storytelling talent to convey such a complex and completely immersive emotional environment, without making me hate the book. There are plenty of really sad depressing books that I have jettisoned after feeling like the author was only going to continue to make me sad and depressed throughout the book.

Sometimes, however, you get a Dizzy Gillespie, or a Phil Keaggy in guitar, who has enough natural talent that he can play the parts with excellence even without the most "efficient" technique. Sometimes the person may have a physical problem that prevents him from using "approved" technique (Keaggy, for instance, is missing the middle finger of his right hand).

There are trumpet "purists" who will point out Dizzy's cheeks or Keaggy's unorthodox fingering. But, if they close their eyes and just listen, they would not be able to distinguish the final product from someone who played it "correctly," except, in the case of these prodigies, to maybe say that it sounded better.

I teach guitar now, and I teach my students correct technique, because it works. No need to re-invent the wheel. But the technique is not the final product, and it is the final product that counts. Good technique is just the best known way to get to that end product.

In other fields, the technique IS, to a great extent, the final product. My son competes in skateboarding. Kick-flips and shove-its and such are judged on the technique itself, as well as the grace with which they were done (same with figure skating and gymnastics).

Now where on this spectrum does written storytelling fall?