Defend OOTP against my horribly Muggle mind!

[evangelina839]

No: HPFGUIDX 76455

> > Art wrote:
> > 
> > > First, I would like to say that what JKR is doing is not
> > literature, in a true sense of 
> > the word if you subscribe to post Joyce mentality.

I replied:
> > My god. That was harsh. IMO, everything that's written is 
> literature.

And Art then said....:
> Re-read the sentence that begins with "First" and you will find that 
> the qualifying phrase is "subscribe to post Joyce mentality".

I say:
I didn't miss that definition. I still believe though that it was a harsh thing to say, 
whatever mentality you subscribe to. It wasn't necessarily directed at you personally.

Back to Art...
> Apparently, you do not subscribe to post Joyce mentality and 
> therefore the lack of "literary" style does not affect you. I still 
> stand by my insistence that GOF was grammatically a nightmare. If I 
> hadn't packed the book up yesterday because we are moving in a week, 
> I would quote specific lines and dissect exactly what is 
> grammatically incorrect about each example. OotP had fewer examples 
> of such errors, which means either JKR is becoming aware of her 
> writing style, or an editor became aware and is making corrections.

Me again:
I really can't comment much on your GoF judgement, as I haven't read the original 
version. I saw absolutely no nightmare-ish grammar in the Swedish translation, but I 
guess Rowling didn't have a lot of influence there. And though you most likely have a 
better knowledge of English than I do, I didn't find any such mistakes in OotP either.

I then wrote....
> > You're still being harsh! The "-ly" form is one of my favorite
> > aspects ...

...to which Art replied:
> Let me give you the Tom Mix example of "-ly" usage:
> The cloaked man walked haltingly to the corner where he met the 
> stunningly beautiful woman. 
> "Why did you bring me here?" He said menacingly.
> She batted her eyes flirtatiously, and said silkily, "Because I have 
> something that will be of interest to you."
> He regarded her coolly before speaking gruffly. "I doubt you have 
> anything that would interest me."
> 
> That is just what came off the top of my head to illustrate how "-ly" 
> can be over-used. If you want better examples, read Stephen 
> King's "On Writing," he explains it much better than I just did, or 
> Sol Stein's "Stein On Writing."

Me:
Yeah... that was just vile. ;) Although liking the "-ly" doesn't necessarily mean I like it 
all the time, all over the place. I'm sure I didn't say that. :) And I really don't think 
Rowling overuses the form. I read a random extract of OotP, paying extra attention to 
any -ly:s (ehm), and I find them well-used, at the most. Yes, there may be many, but I 
like Rowling's descriptive way of writing and don't mind it being done this way.
 
Art:
> This WILL sound harsh. Every writer gets lucky and slips in 
> the "purple prose" that trickles down from the Muse. JKR has 
> the "world" of HP beautifully developed in her imagination. For that, 
> the series warrants a nod. Her lack of training and experience show 
> in her writing, but are improving the more training and experience 
> she receives. Almost every beginning writer WILL make mistakes, and 
> their work in retrospective improves with age. To qualify any of 
> these books as stunning examples of Literature would be an insult to 
> Strunk & White for starters. 

To be honest, I found that less harsh than the rest of it. :) Probably because I don't 
mind mistakes being made or anyone lacking in training and experience. I think I 
agree with almost everything there, except I'm not sure it's fair to assume that every 
poetic piece of prose (ah, alliteration) of Rowling's is a strike of luck. I also wonder 
why her books can't be called stunning literature without it being an immediate 
insult... I'm not saying they *are* absolutely stunning and the best written books I've 
ever read etc, but I think they're way above "insult". But that was just a notion I had 
that I can't really explain well, so let's not argue on that one...

> I will not disqualify that the world of HP is wondrous and (if I dare 
> abuse the pun) "magical," but it is not Literature (with a 
> capital "L" as taught in moldy institutions around the globe) in the 
> true sense of the word. 
> 
> Despite the examples I have listed above, I (and many others as 
> evident by this list traffic) still love the books and the world of 
> HP. Maybe, just maybe, that helps qualify it as literature.

And I think it's definately literature, but we've been through that discussion. We have 
different standards, which is fine, but I don't think I would ever had engaged in this 
discussion if I hadn't found it so unfair that the HP books weren't even fit to qualify as 
literature. Maybe it isn't, by post Joyce mentality, but, well... I find it unfair 
nevertheless.

evangelina