Hi all...I am one of those louts y'all are going to sneer at for saying that she likes BOTH Potter and LOTR...but a good friend of mine asked me if I would classify JKR's writing as literature, to which I replied with a resounding NO!!!! and my reasdn's for saying so has very little to do with commercialism or brand of magic or popularity.
Her writing mechanics and style SUCKS.
JKR is a WONDERFUL STORYTELLER, there is no doubt about that. However, she not only employs the liberal use of adverbs and rambling sentences and redundant adjectives, she practically floods her writing with them. I can tell you I have been to enough writing workshops and read/heard enough editors and fellow writers to know that the adverb is something of a 'dirty' and lazy tool for writing, and seriously weakens the writing. I am in my second round in reading the books, and am picking up on certain things I did not catch the first time around...(this was something I had to do with LOTR as well...difference is in Tolkien's work my appreciation for the effectiveness of his writing grows with each reading...). I keep wondering why JKR's editor keeps letting her get away with s**t like this. And I mean it. It's not that I think *I* can write the story better than that...but I *do* think I can write, in general, better than JKR. My basic criticism of her books are that if she would only tighten up her writing, she could cram in quite a bit more.
The other criticism I have is less a criticism as a regret for the potential of her story. While I recognize that it is a CHILDREN's Story, I would point out that even C.S. Lewis, who wrote his Narnia Chronicles with various different viewpoints QUITE EFFECTIVELY. JKR sticks to Harry's point of view and Harry's POV ONLY...which is a pity, because she has characters in there that SCREAM for development (*coughdracocoughroncoughhermionecoughginnycoughsnapecough*) yet we have to wait for the next 'episode' to get dribbles of developement so we can discover more of why someone is acting the way they do.
Then again, that is an EXCELLENT ploy to keep people reading...but I keep thinking JKR does not expand the world she has created as fully as she might.
Just my observation, of course.
Given that, the FINAL gripe I have is this annoying penchant she has in reminding her audience about how HP is 'all about tolerance.' What a PC reason to write a story!! That alone makes me choke. Fortunately, she does not come across as preachy and does a fairly effective job of showing some of the more realistic social discrepancies (ie Hermione wanting to 'SAVE' the elves, and Ron and Harry constantly pointing out to her the elvish cultural viewpoint of scorn for those who 'desert their master' and 'work for money.' Ron tells her 'Hermione, they LIKE serving...')
Anyway, this intense interest in providing a format for PC lectures on the faults of being human make me very uncomfortable indeed, something I will be keeping a very eagle eye on in the future.
Other than that, I like the books. I like the story. Daughter and I sit there and laugh like crazy over some of the more quirky and off beat situations. JKR has a sense of humor and way of telling a story that I *do* like.
But I would never call it literature.
why does a story about porcupines have to have any magical quality about it, Christian themed or not? Why do trees have to have a meaning when the story is about a child who is pretending to be an airplane and he pictures himself flying over a forest? I am afraid I don't quite get the point of what the author is trying to say. JKR is very much like Tolkien in that she has removed any 'religiosity' from her story, and from the interviews I have read, it is most certainly NOT from any particular and personal scorn she has for Christianity...it is more of a means of telling the story without having to laden the reader's mind with a distinctive theology. If she had written it with distinctively CATHOLIC themes, the Calvinists would be screaming bloody murder...and if vice versa, the Catholics would object to it as being devoid of any real depth. Its along the same arguments that Tolkien and Lewis had about the purpose of a myth, especially Christian mythology. Tolkien despised allegory, and Lewis encouraged it as a way of imparting basic tenets. I think JKR did what she could to avoid having to address that problem. The magic in her world, the way I see it, is more tongue-in-cheek and a wink and a nod to the more commercial ideas that people have of magic and witches and wizards. Not once have I read the story thinking she was ENDORSING something like that.