JKR: a C+ author?

[Jim Flanagan]

I was leafing through a magazine at the local Barnes & Noble 
recently, and stumbled across an interview with one of the academic 
literati, who stated that JKR was a "C+" author (which invites the 
question:  "so how come you ain't richer than the Queen of England 
like she is?").  This comment was in the context of PoA's having been 
in contention for the 2000 Whitbread Award, which was ultimately 
awarded to Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf.

I'm currently re-re-re-reading PoA, and this comment caused me to pay 
some attention to mechanics and style.  I think that the commentator 
may, to some extent, have a point.  JKR's prose is clearly at the 9-
12 year level, and it is consequently quite linear in structure;  
there are a lot of dry, expository passages that would certainly be 
graded down in any Creative Writing 101 course.  However, I feel it 
is wrongheaded to require that Harry Potter be "great literature" in 
a narrow mechanistic/stylistic sense.

HP's prime virtues are the imaginative universe that JKR has created 
along with the reality and complexity of her characters. Many of the 
key characters -- Harry, Ron, Hermione, Draco, Lupin, Snape, Hagrid, 
and even the Dursleys -- are painted in various shades of grey. She 
invites the reader to think about how they became the way they are. 
The depth of her characterizations certainly equals or exceeds that 
of most current popular fiction, adult or juvenile.

Above all, Harry Potter is really just old fashioned *storytelling*, 
which is naturally linear and straightforward.  When the essence of a 
story is really good, the the mechanics are of secondary importance 
and it doesn't matter whether it is told in a children's book or an 
epic poem in 10th century alliterative verse.

So there.  Nyaa nyaa nyaa.

-Jim.