Hatrack River Writers Workshop   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Writers Workshop » Forums » Discussing Published Hooks & Books » What did Rowling do right?

   
Author Topic: What did Rowling do right?
kings_falcon
Member
Member # 3261

 - posted      Profile for kings_falcon   Email kings_falcon         Edit/Delete Post 
As you can tell from the title this is not a thread to bash Rowling's writing.

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?


Posts: 1210 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
What Rowling does well is tell a story. She uses wit and charm, sympathy and danger. There is comic relief and dark moments. There are characters we love and those we love to hate. There are mysteries to unravel in each book, not to mention those that take us from book to book. The plot is consistent, the foreshadowing, even from book to book, excellent, and there is a great sense that the author knows what she is doing.

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.


Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RMatthewWare
Member
Member # 4831

 - posted      Profile for RMatthewWare   Email RMatthewWare         Edit/Delete Post 
It shows me that if you can tell a very good story, and get most of the techniques right, the audience can overlook minor flaws. Sure, there are often dialog tags that sound like this, "Snape sulked silkily". But for every error in her writing, it is more than made up by a great storyline with characters we love.

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.


Posts: 657 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lehollis
Member
Member # 2883

 - posted      Profile for lehollis   Email lehollis         Edit/Delete Post 
I learned a while ago that there's a difference between a good storyteller and a good writer. To me, Rowling is a better storyteller than a writer.

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.

As for sympathy, it's been a few years since I've read any of it, but I've been disliking Harry more in the last couple books.


Posts: 696 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
Many people disliked "Angry Harry" in book 5. I was taken aback by it at first, but when I reread it I understood. I think there was initial shock because truthfully, books 1-4 are VERY different from 5 and 6 (and, I suspect, 7). The last part of this series is dark, dangerous, and more real. Harry is all of those things too. Now that I understand what she's done, I really like it, though. It's believable and in a way, it makes Harry more sympathetic because he's reacting like a normal person would.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dee_boncci
Member
Member # 2733

 - posted      Profile for dee_boncci   Email dee_boncci         Edit/Delete Post 
What I think

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.

I still have not completely adjusted to the darker/angry Harry of the later books. I rereading HPB right now, and the way he verbally goes after Mrs Malfoy in the robe shoppe still makes me do a double take. In a sense he seems to be developing a split nature. I'll see how I react as I finish up HBP again.


Posts: 612 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lynda
Member
Member # 3574

 - posted      Profile for Lynda   Email Lynda         Edit/Delete Post 
Matthew - I believe the trumpet player you're talking about is the late Dizzy Gillespie. And yes, being self-taught means you make up your own rules. I'm a self-taught sculptor, have won many awards and have built up a good reputation in the equine art world. Being self-taught doesn't mean you aren't good at what you do, it just means you take a different approach to it (like Dizzy Gillespie's poufy cheeks, which were HUGE!). JKR is a fabulous story-teller, even if her techniques aren't "current" or "perfect" - and the vocabulary she uses is amazing, especially in the early books. Also, some of her "wrong uses" could be the difference between British and American writing (such as "said Harry" rather than "Harry said" - and I LOVE the sibulance of "Snape said silkily" - it's perfect for his character!) Some rules were meant to be broken, and whatever rules she's broken don't seem to matter to readers. Tell a great story, and people will flock to it, even if you use adverbs a bit too often or use dialog tags other than "said."

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

[This message has been edited by Lynda (edited July 18, 2007).]


Posts: 415 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
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!

I totally agree with all of this. I was a bit surprised when I first read book 5, but only, I think, because the tone of the book and Harry himself changed quite a bit from 4 to 5. But once I understood I realized that there wasn't any other way for it to be. Anything else would turn the books into meaningless fairy tales.


Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RMatthewWare
Member
Member # 4831

 - posted      Profile for RMatthewWare   Email RMatthewWare         Edit/Delete Post 
Book 5 was my favorite book. It was very emotional and psychological. I loved how angry Harry got. And he should be. His parents are murdered by a guy that comes back and kills a friend (Cedric). No one believes him. So, he's got this guy who has ruined his life, has come back to life to try to kill him again, and no one believes him.

Frankly, for a kid his age, or someone of any age, it's surprising he hasn't become a dark wizard himself.


Posts: 657 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dee_boncci
Member
Member # 2733

 - posted      Profile for dee_boncci   Email dee_boncci         Edit/Delete Post 
I understand why Harry is angry, that's pretty obvious. I guess maybe it's the degree of aggression he shows at times that caught me off guard. It shouldn't because I've seen dramatic changes in that regard with my own kids at about the same age; and moreso with two of my nephews, which led to some seriously self-destructive behavior on their respective parts.

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.

Not meaning to be critical or say JKR is "wrong", it's just my impression as a reader at this point of the unfinished story.


Posts: 612 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lynda
Member
Member # 3574

 - posted      Profile for Lynda   Email Lynda         Edit/Delete Post 
If you've seen the film of book 5, you may have noticed that the screenwriter and director did a wonderful job of showing Harry's transition and the reasons behind it - not alway in order, of course. But when he gets to Grimmauld Place and sees Sirius, you can tell he and Sirius have developed a much closer relationship than is shown in the books. It's a powerful thing, something JKR really didn't do as well as she might have, but hey, who's complaining? And you can see the anguish in Harry as he's dealing with the fact that this nightmare (Voldemort) is back in his life. He relives Cedric's death over and over and over in his dreams, and remembers his mother's dying screams. And he's kept away from the only "family" he has, Sirius, while being forced to stay with the horrible Dursleys. ANYONE would be angry! It's amazing he doesn't blow up a lot more than he does! And he resents Ron and Hermione for being together "having fun" all summer while he's stuck at the Dursleys. He's had loads of time alone to stew over this stuff - IIRC, he's stuck at the Dursleys over a month, maybe for six weeks? I can't remember right now. And all that time, the letters he gets are useless, he can't get any news about what Voldemort's doing and he's living in fear, looking over his shoulder all the time, waiting for Voldie to come after him - or for Dumbledore to rescue him. And then when he DOES see Dumbledore, DD won't look at him, won't talk to him, walks away from him while Harry's calling out to him - a total reversal of the supportive, friendly relationship they'd had before. And RON is named Prefect instead of Harry, which Harry hadn't though about until Ron got the badge (and EVERYONE ELSE thought Harry would be Prefect too). At least Harry managed to overcome his jealousy and be a good friend to Ron, but considering eveyrthing else, who WOULDN'T be enraged with all that going on in his life? Poor kid. You have to admire him for coming through with his values and ability to love intact - and you have to admire Ron and Hermione for being the true friends they are, sticking with him even through his rages against them. And while I've referred to the movie above, for the clarity it gives to Harry and Sirius's relationship, I'm mostly talking about the book here. ("Order of the Phoenix" in case you're lost. . .)

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

[This message has been edited by Lynda (edited July 19, 2007).]


Posts: 415 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Snorri Sturluson
Member
Member # 5807

 - posted      Profile for Snorri Sturluson   Email Snorri Sturluson         Edit/Delete Post 
If I might make a comparison, one of the things Rowling did right is very similar to what Robert Jordan did right in the Wheel of Time Series; she created an imaginary world and story that is complex and with enough clues hidden in it for people to spend hours debating "what will happen next."

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.

[This message has been edited by Snorri Sturluson (edited July 19, 2007).]


Posts: 49 | Registered: Jul 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
debhoag
Member
Member # 5493

 - posted      Profile for debhoag   Email debhoag         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know what this means: GoF to OotP. Help!
Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
The titles of the books are long wo we use initials:

Goblet of Fire -- GoF
OoTP -- Order of the Pheonix
HBP -- Half Blood Prince


Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dee_boncci
Member
Member # 2733

 - posted      Profile for dee_boncci   Email dee_boncci         Edit/Delete Post 
Goblet of Fire, Order of the Pheonix.

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.


Posts: 612 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
debhoag
Member
Member # 5493

 - posted      Profile for debhoag   Email debhoag         Edit/Delete Post 
I was taken aback by all the anger too, but I thought it was very much in keeping with teenagers in general. they reach a stage of cognitive development in which they move out of the here-and-now and are able to project how things WOULD be, if this or that hadn't happened, or had happened differently. It's an important developmental step, but it's also one of the things that makes teenagers so difficult to be around. And I've been around more than my share. six down, and with four more to go. Be afraid for me. Be very afraid!

[This message has been edited by debhoag (edited July 19, 2007).]


Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 1646

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
Harry couldn't start out angry because it would undermine the point of the entire story arc -- that despite everything that happened to him, he can still LOVE. And he can, even through his anger, in the 5th and 6th books. Despite what Star Wars seems to think, I have never felt that anger leads to the dark side -- it's a normal human emotion as often born out of love as hate.

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.

Anyway, that's probably enough on that.


Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RMatthewWare
Member
Member # 4831

 - posted      Profile for RMatthewWare   Email RMatthewWare         Edit/Delete Post 
In book 1, Harry was eleven. In book 5, Harry was fifteen. Puberty can make a big difference when it comes to emotions.

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.

37 hours, 3 minutes...


Posts: 657 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dee_boncci
Member
Member # 2733

 - posted      Profile for dee_boncci   Email dee_boncci         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think it's so much a matter of what/why Harry changed, but how JKR presented it to her readership within the sequence books that confused people.

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.

I promise, no more about the 4-5 transition from me.


Posts: 612 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
J
Member
Member # 2197

 - posted      Profile for J   Email J         Edit/Delete Post 
As a side note, I think it's interesting that Dumbledore tolerates, and at times even approves of, Harry's anger (although, as a good role model, he often is stern and requires Harry to control himself and be polite, he approves of Harry's single-minded anger at Voldemort). When Dumbledore is explaining things to Harry in Half-Blood Prince, he speaks approvingly of Harry's overwhelming desire to avenge his parents' death.
Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zero
Member
Member # 3619

 - posted      Profile for Zero           Edit/Delete Post 
One word: Snape
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
J
Member
Member # 2197

 - posted      Profile for J   Email J         Edit/Delete Post 
Rowling did a lot of things right, but one of the biggest is characterization. The stories are full of these magnificently unique, full, entertaining characters. She takes the time to explore the adult characters. Dumbledore, Snape, Hagrid, McGonacall, Sirius, Lupin, and Tonks hold as much a place in the readers heart as Harry, Ron, or Hermione.

That's why the last couple of movies have been (in my opinion) so awful. While the actors who play Snape, Sirius Black, Voldemort, and McGonacall are absolutely marvelous, the one who play Dumbledore and Hermione are terrible. Dumbledore especially. The actor plays him as almost the opposite of what the books describe. The books describe, essentially, a stoic with a sense of humor; a man so kind, calm, and unfailingly polite that those who don't know him well often don't realize his shrewdness or power. Dumbledore goes to breakfast and goes into mortal combat with his enemies with the exact same demeanor; that's a big part of his characer. The actor plays Dumbledore as an emotional, almost moody, irritable man. Ruins the whole movie.


Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dee_boncci
Member
Member # 2733

 - posted      Profile for dee_boncci   Email dee_boncci         Edit/Delete Post 
Question about Dumbledore ...

Has more than one actore played him? For some reason it seems to me he's changed somewhere between the 1st couple and the last couple. Am I just getting old?


Posts: 612 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
J
Member
Member # 2197

 - posted      Profile for J   Email J         Edit/Delete Post 
Richard Harris played him the first couple--and did an excellent job. Harris died, and Michael Gambon (I think) took up the role.

Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lord Darkstorm
Member
Member # 1610

 - posted      Profile for Lord Darkstorm   Email Lord Darkstorm         Edit/Delete Post 
I think books 1 through 4 were the fairy tail. The more light hearted adventure of a boy...but like all fairy tales, they have to end. Book 5 tells the story after the fairy tale is over. It's dark, it's different, and so many people didn't seem to like it.

I think books 5 and 6 are my favorites so far. Fairy tales are nice, but I prefer the what comes after.


Posts: 807 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zero
Member
Member # 3619

 - posted      Profile for Zero           Edit/Delete Post 
Am I the only one under the impression that book 4 was actually the darkest. It's been my favorite so far and I think Cedric's death, and the circumstances surrounding it, were vastly more eye-opening than Sirius' "death" in book 5 which most of us actually expected.

Perhaps the 5th book is the darkest, but it didn't feel that way given the angry PMS nature of Harry, which irritated me. But since JK Rowling wanted to drive Harry's anger up a few notches, because of his connection with Voldemort, then she did a bang-up job. Excellent job. I just didn't like the flavor of book 5.


Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KayTi
Member
Member # 5137

 - posted      Profile for KayTi           Edit/Delete Post 
Late to the party, having been away the last week, but back, finished HP 7, and excited to join the discussion. (not going to spoil HP7 here, though, sticking to the comments from last week.)

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.


Posts: 1911 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ValleyPastor
Member
Member # 5467

 - posted      Profile for ValleyPastor   Email ValleyPastor         Edit/Delete Post 
The question of "technique" is interesting. In music, painting, and sculpting, technique is a means to an end and, because of that, has evolved by trial and error. I learned classical guitar and was taught that "this" was the way to position and move your fingers, etc., because it has been discovered that fingers move with greatest speed and accuracy this way. Puffed cheeks in a trumpet player are "bad technique" because it's an inefficient use of air.

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?

[This message has been edited by ValleyPastor (edited August 02, 2007).]


Posts: 22 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KayTi
Member
Member # 5137

 - posted      Profile for KayTi           Edit/Delete Post 
Hey VP - that's a great example/question/thought - care to post it on the general writing forum? I'm interested to explore it, as I think there is a theme I'm picking up from the books on writing I've been reading of late. The nature/nurture argument as it relates to writing. Fascinating subject, I think. (Are writers born or only the product of years of long hard study/work? Can you learn the craft on your own or must you learn from books/college professors/having thousands of rejection slips in your file cabinet, those sorts of questions...)
Posts: 1911 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2