What did you like about Harry Potter?

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 183795

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler"
<hickengruendler at ...> wrote:
>
> ... What did you like about Harry Potter and (as long as it
> doesn't become off-topic) other children literature? What 
> does particularly interest you in the series?
> 
> It would be a great help, if you could answer the questions.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Hickengruendler
>


bboyminn:

Would I say JKRowling is a great writer? Probably not, but I
would say without hesitation that she is a great storyteller.
Whether her writing meets some technical standard of
literary excellent means little to me. It is possible to meet 
technical standards and still tell a dull rambling story. So,
first and foremost being a great storyteller is what I need
to get drawn in to a story.

Eoin Colfer does a great job of storytelling in the 'Artemis
Fowl' series. Orson Scott Card tells a brilliant job in 
'Enders Game' and the 'Enders Shadow' series. I don't think
JRR Tolkien did such a great job on 'Lord of the Rings', that
is a far more 'wordy' story with a tendency to bog down in 
the endless verbal ramblings and narrative of characters. But
Tolkien still weave together a good story; it is just harder
to trudge through it. 

JKRowling has struck a perfect balance in her writing. She 
keeps things short enough to keep the story moving fast. 
Rather than describe every little detail, she says just 
enough to let my imagination fill in the blanks and that 
makes for a much more vivid and real world. In doing so,
she prevents the stories from getting bogged down in long
droning narrative that takes forever to get anywhere. 

So, despite her very long books, there is a compactness and
efficiency to her writing. I always use Ron as an example,
Ron (or Draco) are not describe in that much detail. I think
if you look back at the descriptions of either character, 
you will find they are no where near as detailed as the
mental image you have of those characters. Again, JKR has
allowed my imagination to fill in the details. Because it
is created in my mind, that makes it far more real, detailed,
and vivid than any elaborate description she could have
written.

So, she trust the imagination of the reader. She doesn't 
preach or condescend. She doesn't dumb down the language;
instead she expects the reader to raise their reading
standards, but she does so in a subtle and undemanding way. 

She creates vivid characters that I care about and are in 
some cases more real than the people I actually know. Her
characters have a depth to them. They are also flawed. Again,
she is not preaching a simple kids morality tale. She doesn't
resolve every issue. There is an element of uncertainty in 
the books that demands that the reader think and ponder the 
meaning of people and events. But rather than being forced
to think and ponder by the demands of the books or the
author, she simply presents the subtle mystery, and we 
instinctively try to resolve it. It is demanding while at 
the same time being very undemanding. You don't /have/ to 
resolve it, but you can't stop yourself. It is another way
she engages the reader.

All these aspects combine to create very real characters in
a very real world. She engages us in the story; through
stimulated imaginations that allow us to create the world. 
Through unresolved moral dilemmas, that we must resolve for
ourselves. Through unresolved characters who are not simply 
good or bad, but are somewhere inbetween, and we must 
resolve for ourselves exactly where. We are not so much along
for the ride as we are part of the ride, and I think that
makes for very powerful, vivid, and real storyteling.

Steve/bboyminn