Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research!

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 162728

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Hmm... The Potter books have never struck me as particularly     
> > gifted when it comes to language.
> > <snip>

> >>klotjohan:
> While I don't see Rowling's language as a weak point, when compared 
> to some of the best English novels I've read it's admittedly fairly 
> flat, but gets the job done nicely. Although I wouldn't say that    
> she writes overly simple prose, it's just more of a mundane style   
> than a poetic one. Perhaps a more elaborate text would only hinder 
> the story, who knows?

> >>Pippin:
> Rowling's style is an art that conceals art. The adverbs which drive
> style addicts crazy make her characters accessible to children who
> would have to work too hard to decode emotions from dialogue alone.
> There's a poetry in simple clear language which I think is under
> appreciated.

> >>bboyminn:
> <snip>
> JKR, believe it or not, has a very compact writing style.
> Yes, the huge tomes she produces might belie that, but
> what other author writes in tight two and three word
> sentences, and equally writes such spare descriptions?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hemmingway?  I think he's an author who made much of sparsity, IIRC.  
Mary Renault also springs to mind.  I do agree that JKR is a good 
story-teller (for the most part, see below), and I think she's a 
master of puns.  But I've never felt moved by a sentence of hers, by 
a simple, spare, perfect bit of writing that shows the power of the 
English language.  But keep in mind, I'm comparing her to an awfully 
grand pantheon.  It's not really fair treatment of a writer on her 
very first set of books.  I'll also add that it's very rare I hit 
upon a writer that I think meets that sort of standard, even while 
I'm completely enjoying the story being told.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Does "mainstream" mean popular?  Because the books are popular.  
> > Or does it mean there's no interesting bits of culture in them.  
> > Which, I suppose if you're British, it could all seem ho-hum.     
> > But I think JKR did a good job fixing Harry into a specific      
> > place.  He and his fellow characters act like British children,   
> > IMO.

> >>klotjohan:
> Agreed about the characters. I'd say mainstream means, at least in 
> the context of Zipes' book, a conventional and somewhat broad piece 
> of pop culture that panders to a large crowd. There's also an       
> implicit association made I feel between mainstream and            
> commercialism, and further down the road between the popular and    
> the "lowbrow".
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Well, I do know for a fact that JKR had a very hard time finding a 
publisher for SS because it was set in a boarding school (a major "no-
no" at the time <g>).  So she certainly didn't start out by pandering.

And honestly, I don't think JKR is tweaking her books in an attempt 
to reach the most readers possible.  I think she's been as surprised 
by their massive popularity as anybody.  I would say books that have 
tried to build off of JKR's popularity ("A Series of Unfortunate 
Events" is one example, IIRC) are more an example of pandering.  
Though honestly, anything that gets kids excited about reading is 
fine with me.  Pander away. <g>

So the question is, why did these books become so popular?  They 
weren't created to be, obviously.  IMO, I think there's probably a 
similarity to the surprise popularity of Star Wars back in 
the '70's.  And I think a good classic tale is at the heart of it.  
People love the old hero's journey.  They love good versus evil.  And 
while the self-appointed culture police tend to sneer at such 
familiar tropes, they're familiar for a reason.

> >>klotjohan:
> <snip>
> Would you care to elaborate on why you dislike her views of women? 
> I'm very curious about this.

Betsy Hp:
Eek!  I just got *out* of a thread on this very topic. <g>  Here's a 
link to an earlier discussion.  Hopefully it'll give you enough to 
work with.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160350

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > So I've been wondering to myself, what's *my* favorite Potter    
> > book, and I've narrowed it down to either PS/SS (which pulled me 
> > in but good) or CoS which, without the benefit of having an      
> > entirely new world to explore, set up what I think is a juicy    
> > little mystery, and ended with an interesting face off between   
> > Harry and Tom Riddle.

> >>klotjohan:
> Right, but would you say that the level of conventionality (let's   
> use the term even though it's problematic) and the shifting        
> complexity of the books have anything to do with your opinion of   
> them? Or is it more dependant on other factors? If I were blunt I'd 
> say that the series have become increasingly more adult with each   
> new book, mirroring the growth of the characters. I'd like to know 
> how old you are, if you don't mind (I guess most everyone in here   
> is above 18, but still). I'm 23 myself and mostly drawn to the     
> combination of myth, magic, fantasy and modern real life displayed 
> in the books, a fictional world I find captivating.
> The gravity of real life seems to be increasing as the series
> progresses. Am I wrong in guessing that you're more inclined       
> towards the innocence and purer sense of magic in the first books? 
> Very understandable, if that's the case.

Betsy Hp:
I'm 34.  And it's not the innocence of the first books, it's the 
clarity.  Because while JKR may have attempted to make her later 
books more adult and complex, I don't think she's done a great job on 
that front.  Remember the discussion about language at the beginning 
of this post and the suggestion that JKR's strength lay in her 
simplicity?  I think her story-telling skills lie in the same thing.  
And as she's gotten more complicated I think the story has become 
more needlessly padded and repetitive.

The Trio spend much of the books doing nothing, figuring out 
nothing.  And they'll sometimes even repeat a previous adventure or 
lesson.  (Hermione's control issues, Ron's quidditch worries are good 
examples.  They've not been allowed to change from OotP through HBP.)

But the first two books are tighter, I think.  And I think JKR's 
talents are more apparent within a tighter tale.  There are still 
good elements to her later books, but they're surrounded by a lot of 
wasted pap, IMO.  I sometimes wonder if her 7 year structure hasn't 
harmed her story telling.  Are there times where she has to keep a 
character from growing in an organic manner so as to keep them to her 
time table?

Betsy Hp