posted
I have heard popular authors will sometimes get lazy and do all sorts of writing no-no's because their editor/copy editor is too afraid to correct them (or maybe their in too much of a hurry to get the manuscript out to edit it properly). I did not really believe this until I began reading Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix. Am I the only one that had noticed that she is drowing in adverbs? It's driving me nuts. She said curiously. He said irritably. Gah! It's a good story so far but ever time I hit one it's like a scratch on an LP.
I just had to get that off my chest. It's a reminder to me not to get grammatically lazy if I can help it.
posted
Actually, Rowling drowns in adverbs consistently through the series, starting with book 1. The truth of the matter is that while she's a great storyteller and the wolrd of Harry Potter is a magical one that has stolen the hearts of money, she is only a mediocre writer at best.
Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
|
posted
The other books were miles better written that #5. The adverbs drove me insane and seriously detracted from the reading for me. I also had issues with her storytelling in #5, but I get the feeling you haven't finished reading yet, so I won't say anything more.
Yup. I feel like she sacrificed quality because of her popularity--like she got too big for her britches and figured she didn't NEED an editor anymore.
And I waited SO LONG for that book to come out!
I'm not near so anxious for #6.
[This message has been edited by djvdakota (edited October 11, 2004).]
Hmmmm...now that I've written it that way, I'm not taking it back!
BTW, I'm rereading book 3 right now and the adverbs are driving me nuts. Every dialogue ends with he said ______ly. I had issues with book 5 for other reasons, but I thought the adverb count was aobut on par.
The biggest issue I had with #5 is that its length seemed to be for the sake of length. The first time I read it I found myself saying "get on with it already!" several times, especially early in the book. I don't want to spoil the ending, so skip the rest of the paragraph if you haven't read..............................................................................................................but I also thought the ending came as a bit of a let down. First of all, for the first time we had a story that felt much more like a linker than like a self contained story. Also, the entire situation at the end would have been so easy to avoid its not even funny (although then the truth that you know who's back would not have gotten out). . . . . . . You can start reading again now. Anyway, I hope her sixth book turns out better, and I hope the editors get involved more. I am glad to hear that she does at least plan to make the novel shorter than the 5th book. Hopefully this will make for a tighter story.
posted
c'mon you guys claws away please. you know that movie 'independance day' ? Well when it came out here in Australia, everyone groaned at the title, and the idea, and the general cheesiness of it all. But you had to know when you went and saw it what you were in for. It was never going to be 'rocket surgery'.
By now, you have to know what to expect from Ms Rowling. OSC once said he didn't really want to examine the process and technique of writing detective stories too closely because it may ruin his enjoyment of the genre.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited October 13, 2004).]
posted
I was also aggravated by all those adverbs. If she'd wacked them all out, the book would only have been 600 pages long. It seems like such a simple thing to fix, but no one bothered.
Posts: 1750 | Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted
Honestly, I didn't notice until I started seriously (!) studying how to write fiction. Only then did it start to distract me, then bug me. My kids love "Lolly Lolly Lolly, Get Your Adverbs Here" on their Grammar Rock tape, and I do think there is space in this world for adverbs - sometimes it is hard to show. But I admit, now seeing too many can drive me batty!
Posts: 465 | Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted
Look you know how you subconsciously ignore the "he/she saids" well I subconsciously ignore the "he/she said _______ly". Problem solved.
But seriously, I felt the last book was rushed onto the shelves by both reader and publisher pressure. After all, if she was just doing it for the money, she could easily stop now and rest on her royalties. I believe she cares what her readers think too much and is trying to tell the story for their sakes and not for her own.
posted
Ok, I've got something to say about adverbs and overused to be verbs and weak words and passive voice and showing not telling and all the rest....
Before I started learning to write and finding out that these things were good things to avoid, I never noticed them in other people's writing. Now I do. It's such a shame. It also tells me that maybe these words aren't the end of the world. Now I'll admit that JK Rowling is actually an extreme example of overused adverbs to a point where I sensed that something was wrong before the rule was pointed out to me, but I enjoyed the story so much I didn't go looking for that little naggy thing.
I wish that we, as writers, could go back to reading stories like we were readers.
posted
I've not read Rowlings, but from what I've gathered here and elsewhere, her books are best enjoyed for the story, not the writing. I guess her overuse of adverbs is one of the reasons why.
I know I've said before that using adverbs or adjectives without restraint is like a child hammering nails into every surface he can find. Those nails do no discernible job. They're just there, as aesthetically-challenged as an overabundance of adverbs or adjectives are literarily-challenged (if there is such a word ).
quote:I wish that we, as writers, could go back to reading stories like we were readers.
My first thought to that was 'Is that even possible?' My second thought was, 'Would that be counting on a less literate readership, or literacy in moderation?' You can read, kid, but don't inhale. Kind of a weird thought.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited October 12, 2004).]
posted
I understand what Christine is saying. I'm finding it harder to find reading materials that meet my writer-enhanced expectations. Example: I'm a big Frank Herbert fan and LOVE his Dune series, but the new prequels are just not up to my expectations. In the latest one "Butlerian Jihad", the whole first three chapters are botched with what I have learned are serious no nos. All I could think of as I read was - Hey someone should send these guys a copy of "First 5 pages".
Posts: 579 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted
Actually, Kolona, there is a difference between reading as a reader and reading as a writer, but that difference has nothing to do with literacy and how much intellectual stimulation you get from a book. Discounting, for a moment, the people who don't read or, at the least, don't read anything with more than a surface layer, many people spend their lives reading and analyzing and yet never write themselves except, perhaps, to comment on a book. But they don't comment on how it should have been written or on their adverb use or use of weak words. Rather, they comment on plot, theme, and symbolism. They admire the strength of characters and the trial and tribulations they had to suffer on their journey through to the end of the book.
Writers, on the other hand, comment on poor opening hooks, unbelievable character change, meaningless narrative, etc. In a sense, the two types of things are related, but one is far less presumptous than the other.
posted
This reminds me of a discussion on the on writing short stories thread about the evolution of a reader and what the "average reader" is.
I have never read any of Rowling's stuff, but I did see the first movie. I heard it was true to the book for the most part, and the movie struck me as being geared toward young teens. I expect to find, if I read it, the level of quality I would find in a mediocre young adult romance or a lower quality Forgotten Realms novel.
That doesn't mean I won't enjoy it. Just that I will have to force my writer's mentality into "sleep mode".
posted
Actually, Keeley, a strange thing happened with the first movie by nature of its being true to the book: It sucked. They tried to put a book up on the big screen in its entirety and by doing so managed to forget the fundamental strengths that the big screen has over a book, and vice versa. This is why I continue to suggest that people read the books, whether or not they have watched the movies. The book is just a better story, because it is the same story told in the medium in which it was created, the medium the story was intended for. Only the third movie escapes this trap so far (although there is quite a debate about that).
But let me just reiterate that the books are not mediocre. The books are spectacular. The writing is mediocre, and then only if you're picky as writers tend to be. It is proof, in fact, that storytelling is more important than style and prose. (assuming you've at least grasped the basics of grammar which, I assure you, Rowling has)
posted
If I get the time, I may pick it up. I didn't know the movie was worse than the book. The article I read said that Rowling was pleased with the movie and that it followed the book very well. I assumed that meant it was on par with the book.
I completely agree with you, Christine, that storytelling is more important. I read a story recently by a fairly well-known SF author that had me so confused by the end that I didn't care how good the style was (and it was pretty darn good) or how interesting the concepts were. The ending was so stupid and saccharine that I wanted to throw the book against the wall. That story really, really sucked.
If I'd tried reading it as a reader (i.e. focused on storytelling), I probably wouldn't have gotten past the fourth chapter.
posted
Gah! The first movie! What an editing debacle; I wanted to pull my hair out. Even if I hadn't read the book before I had seen the movie, I would have still felt like it was a poorly put together movie. It was like driving with someone learning to drive a stick-shift for the first time.
I am on the same track as Christine. I have a hard time reading now because I read like a writer. Even in some of my favorite authors I notice things. Maybe one day we can have a fun challenge to put out some glaring writing no-no's out there to help learn mistakes. One that I always think of when I come across this is in the book "Scarlett" by Alexandra Ripley. It was the sequel to "Gone with the Wind" that was commissioned by Margaret Mitchell's estate. If you read the last chapter or so of this book, the Deus Ex Machina that ends the book is so blantant and offensive that it screams "If I don't have this sequel done by so-and-so date, I'm not going to get my commission, so I better get something on paper!" The sad part is the rest of the book is pretty decent and stays pretty much away from the author's Harliquen-heaving-breasts background. You were so hoping for the ending she gave you but not in the way it came about. All this even before I was really into the craft of writing. Sad.
posted
Actually, Christine, I didn't say there wasn't a difference between reading as a reader as opposed to reading as a writer. I believe there is a difference. I questioned whether it was possible for a writer to fall back to reading as if he weren't a writer. I don't seem to be able to do so. Not that I don't enjoy reading, but my bar has been raised. And I'm not saying that I'm a great writer, but I have learned a few things I didn't know before.
It reminds me of car features. Get an upscale car with heated seats and then, when you have to replace the car, get one without heated seats. Every cold morning you will be aware of the shortfall.
I'm not sure I agree, though, that "that difference has nothing to do with literacy and how much intellectual stimulation you get from a book." The fact that a person reads and that he admires a story means he is being intellectually stimulated in a literate exercise, obviously to different levels with different stories, but stimulated nonetheless.
While readers may not comment on grammar and the mechanics of writing, writers as readers do concern themselves with those things plus "plot, theme, and symbolism....the strength of characters," etc., etc. Writers as readers have the full panorama in view.
I giggled when I read your comment that one type of reader was "far less presumptous than the other." I wondered which was which. Seems to me, it could be either.
I'm not picking on you, really I'm not, Christine, but this stunned me:
quote:The writing is mediocre, and then only if you're picky as writers tend to be. It is proof, in fact, that storytelling is more important than style and prose.
Storytelling is important, but writers are 'picky'?
The wine is mediocre, but only if you're picky as wine connoisseurs tend to be. The building is mediocre, but only if you're picky as architects tend to be. The teaching is mediocre, but only if you're picky as teachers tend to be.
And that's not to say people can't enjoy wine or architecture or learning, but the experts do enjoy them on a wholly different plane. And who are the keepers of the keys to writing if not writers? Who better than writers to identify mediocrity in writing?
So I do wonder if a writer can truly regress in his reading to be only a reader. And if he would really want to.
posted
I agree with you, Whitney. Scarlett was hideous. The first part was pretty good. I liked finding out what happened to all the characters, especially Ashley.
For me, things fell apart after Scarlett left America. She gradually shed the role of tough survivor that Mitchell had built for her in Gone With the Wind and somehow got transformed into an annoying victim. Deus ex machina was the only way to end it, so I wasn't surprised at the ending.
[edited to take out the superfluous]
[This message has been edited by Keeley (edited October 12, 2004).]
quote:More likely this happened: Editor: "Ummm...all the stuff in red is bad."
Phanto, I think you're right, but after that it went mnore like this:
"My last few books have earned over one Billion dollars." Rowling snapped quickly.
"Yes, But..." the editor sniveled softly.
"That's Billion with a Capital B." Rowling leaned over the Editor's desk glaring hotly.
"Yes, but..." sweating profusely, the Editor looked for some way to escape quickly.
"I can buy this publisher, have you canned and this building turned into an airstrip for pigeons." Rowling growled quietly.
"Well-- now that you mention it, this is perfect. I don't know what that copy reader was thinking. Always hiring these dumb college kids you know." The Editor clucked chickenly.
[This message has been edited by goatboy (edited October 12, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by goatboy (edited October 12, 2004).]
posted
Goatboy and Phanto hit the nail on the head, IMO.
As far as reading as a writer, for the most part I can take a break from that when I read something by OSC. But <GASP> I found myself doing it anyway with Lost Boys. I cried. And not just at the sad ending.
I re-read Dune recently. Loved it the first time I read it twenty years ago. This time I read it as a writer. It just wasn't the same.
posted
Secure in the knowledge she had won, Rowling left the editor cowering behind his desk, not wanting to miss her all important lunch date with Tom Swifty.
(Okay, I'm not actually qualified to talk about the quality of her books as I have yet to read them )
posted
The reading as writer thing... I find it almost impossible to turn off, and I am much more critical of books and their structure than I used to be. There are still times when I can get lost in the story -- something will be so fabulous I don't care about the "mistakes," I just want to inhale the story.
Posts: 652 | Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted
I actually don't have too much trouble just reading as a reader, unless I'm preparing to do a critique.
Even when I do a critique, I try to read through the story first - from beginning to end - before reading it as a crit. Even if I do notice something, I try not comment on it until the second time through (unless it is something that either really grabs me, or something that really jolts me).
posted
I seriously doubt that JK is some kind of crazy money hog who purposely ignores the editor's advice. Far more likely, the editors are just thinking "don't fix it if it's not broken" and don't even mention the adverbs to her.
The reason Harry Potter works so well is its such a clear world with so many imaginative touches, and it's obvious that JK can see every detail in her mind. She has pages and pages of background that never even reaches the books. I think this is where her use of so many adverbs stems--she is so vividly imagining that she cannot bear to just leave it at "Harry said," when to her Harry has a very clear tone and she wants to communicate that. It may be superfluous, but so are all the touches that make the books magical--details about the candies and playing cards or bits of knowledge from their classes.
So to me, the adverbs are just like every other device in the story and make a world which is fun to visit over and over, where "better-written" books don't usually give the same level of comfort.
[This message has been edited by writerPTL (edited October 12, 2004).]
posted
I resisted reading the Harry Potter books when they came out because I figured that anything that was that popular couldn't be good. When I finally started reading the first book I felt like I had to force myself because the writing was not good--but, very quickly I hit a point where I couldn't put it down because the story was compelling.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted
hoptoad, those explanations at the end are called "validations" and stories need something like that in one form or another.
Mysteries (and in a way, all HP books are about solving a mystery), require them (the most common form is the gathering in the library--or wherever--when the sleuth discloses the solution to the mystery).
The very first STAR WARS movie had one when they put the medals on the heroes.
In westerns with the hero riding off into the sunset, that counts as a validation.
What a validation does is make sure the reader has closure. Sometimes they're very subtle, and other times they're blatant. Some are clumsy and frustrate the reader, and others work very well. But they are more or less necessary or else books would just end when the author got tired of writing.
posted
To second WriterPTL's comments, the Harry Potter stories work as written. I suspect at least some of the adverb usage is a style JKR has chosen to present these stories. It wouldn't work for a James Bond story, or most other stories for that matter. But can you imagine the Harry Potter books if they were written in a different style? Say Frank Herbert's? Or CJ Cherryh? Or even OSC? Would they be as good? A whole lot of fans would probably say “No”.
Besides, when you’ve sold a billion dollars worth of books, no publisher in his right mind is going to question your work. The real question is not how does she do it now, but how did she do it the first time? How did she get the very first publisher to print it without a major editing?
I've been reading a number of different children's authors the last few months. Short, choppy sentences and Tom Swifties are common. There is usually a forest of exclamation points (apparently adding these can make the sentence scary or exciting). Plot points appear and never reappear, and miraculous saves are common. Compared with other popular children’s authors like RL Stine, JKR’s technical skill doesn’t seem that out of line to me. I think these authors have proven that spinning a good yarn is more important than perfect language usage.
posted
I'd just like to point out that this conversation would be wildly unpopular in the Hatrack Forums section. I made a slight assertion that the HP movies were better than the books (precisely because of what you people have said -- she's a storyteller, not a writer) and I nearly got strung up.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Apr 2002
|
posted
I think a lot of times we spend so much time studying our craft and how to improve ourselves, that we come to accept these writing rules as irrefutable laws. These rules aren't there because they're good in and of themselves, they're there because of the effect that they have on a piece of literature. Like the adverb rule: sure, it's generally not a good idea to pepper your work with adverbs all over the place because of the effect that it has. It makes your work sound generally less polished, more juvenile. If you want your work to sound less polished and more juvenile, by all means, throw in the adverbs. I can imagine that Ms. Rowling might desire exactly that effect in her work, since her core audience is pretty juvenile. (Not saying anything bad about people who like her books, just saying they're aimed at kids).
I think the same applies to any rule. It's only a rule because the effect it has on your work is usually considered good in most fields of fiction. The rules shouldn't be looked at so much as "This is what you should/shouldn't do in your writing" but "This is what effect it will have if you do this." If that's the effect you want, go for it.
As far as reading like a writer, what I've noticed with myself is that, as I've learned more about writing, I've come to appreciate different kinds of writing. I absolutely love Henry James, but if I read him as a reader instead of as a writer, I doubt that would be the case. It's broadened my horizons, so to speak.
posted
Huh, didn't even notice the adverbs. Guess I don't usually read things as a writer. I'll watch for them in the next book.
Posts: 116 | Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted
My main beef with the HP movies, most notably the first two, was that they missed the soul of the book, even while trying so hard to reproduce it faithfully.
It's kinda like a lifesize cardboard reproduction of a movie star; the shape and appearance are there, but the essence of life is gone.
One of the reasons I personally love the HP books (with the possible exception of 5, which was far too whiney and farfetched for me) is the quirky humor in them. The first two movies were mostly much more solemn and serious, especially Dumbledore's character. They completely left out the facets of Dumbledore that I love: things like his opening speech ("I should like to say a few words, and they are: blabber! Nitwit! Oddment! Tweak!"). The books are full of little gems like that.
I highly recommend that instead of forming opinions about the books based on what everyone says, you read them yourself and decide what to think of them that way.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
