What a snob!

[dumbledore11214]

> bboyminn:
<SNIP>
>> Look at the tradition of oral story telling. A good example 
> of this would be Garrison Keillor's "Tales of Lake Wobegon".
> Keillor talks very slow, and tells rambling tales of small 
> town life. Though through his words, his voice, and his pace, he
> is able to hold audiences spell bound.
> 
> Other oral storytellers might speak in the vernacular; in the
> voice and speech patterns of some local dialect. What they
> do, oral story tellers, would never really work if it were
> written down. But they still manage to captivate audiences.
> 
> So, a good story well told can overlook a lack of technical
> correctness, as long as it is consistent within its framework.
> But a technically correct story poorly told will never hold up.


Alla:

Ugh, deleted previous post without saving it. Oh well. With the oral storytelling this is the whole point to me - they do not write the story down, so it is just good story and if nameless writers did not eventually record it, I am not sure if we would have been able to enjoy it. IMO of course.


Bboyminn:
> I feel this way about "Classic" literature, again to me it is
> as dry as week old toast. It is just too slow and plodding, 
> and usually about people I couldn't care less about. But, it
> seems to have endured for many many many years, and sometimes
> centuries. But it is just too dull and slow for me.

Alla:

Do you feel that way about every book written before 20th century? Or are you talking about just Greeks and Romans? I guess I am very surprised.


Bboyminn: 
> Will I say JKR is a technically perfect writer? No, probably 
> not, but she is a masterful storyteller. She write just enough
> to ignite the imagination to fill in the details, and when 
> your imagination is so engaged, the world becomes very real to
> you. 
> 
> I also don't think that JKR modifies her vocabulary. She
> doesn't dumb it down for kids, nor does she use hyper 
> intellectual vocabulary. I think she says what she needs to 
> say, in the words she needs to say it in, and if you run into
> something you don't understand, you either infer if from 
> context, or you go look it up. 
> 
> I've not read Dan Brown or Meyers and have little interest in
> them, though I do enjoy the movies. 
> 
> So, if the technique is poor, the read become laborious. If 
> sufficient technique is there, then the story must still be
> well told. I think that has more to due with structure than
> technique. You have to be able to say things in an engaging
> way without over doing it. 
> 
> A great first line or first paragraph lays the whole foundation
> for the book. If you haven't captivated your readers by the
> first paragraph, then likely they are not going to continue.
> 
> First, you must have something to say, then you must say it
> well, in an engaging captivating way. 
> 
>

Alla:

But I would never call JKR a bad writer either, I find her writing style, while sometimes flawed often to be a pleasure to read. It is not "less than perfect writer but good storyteller" expression confuses me, it is "BAD writer, but good storyteller"