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.
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).]
quote:
she...has stolen the hearts of money
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.
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).]
Editor: "Ummm...all the stuff in red is bad."
Rowling: "But there's so much of it?!"
Editor: "Yeah..."
Rowling: "Obviously, if I wrote it, it's good. You must be the one who's mistaken here."
Editor: "Well, adverbs and capitilization and elipses are a little --"
Rowling: "Silence! Now go away, while I go and read my royalty checks! I must calculate when I will hit 2 billion!"
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.
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.
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).]
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.
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".
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)
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.
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.
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.
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).]
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.
(Okay, I'm not actually qualified to talk about the quality of her books as I have yet to read them )
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).
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).]
Why does she do that?
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited October 13, 2004).]
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.
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.
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.
BUT CAPITILIZATION DID!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
And the elipsses....everywhere...
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.