Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
discussion
In what way could J.K Rowling improve her writing?
date
newest »
newest »
nothing. they are perfection
It's curious that I've been asking this myself for a couple of years and now that I finally finished the series I still don't have an answer lol. What I noticed, though, is that J.K. is not a good writer herself but she rather knows how to tell a good story and how to make friends. And that's what made this book a huge success.
I agree with srhelsel - nothing. She magnificently matured her prose as the characters mature. Nothing is awkward. I thought the Harry Potter books were probably one of the best written series in a loooong time.
The story I think is near perfect. Good characters, great plot, easy to understand, and fun. I think the writing could be improved. While serving its purpose, the writing isn't rich or poetic- it's more simple. Instead of just describing a scene adequately, the books could be bettered through better narration through better word usage. When I compare HP to LotR, that's the first thing that comes into my head. Second, I wished the wizarding world was fleshed out more: one can just poke a hole in it anywhere because the rules and customs aren't all explained. Third and final, I believe the HP series would be a lot better if there was stronger character development. Perhaps if Harry wasn't so perfect at the start and all the other characters were deeper (some are, most aren't) then the adventures and trials would be more interesting. Really: I would not actually change the book- it is beautiful and awesome the way it is- but I believe this would be the best way to improve it.
Some of the characters (such as Vernon, for one), I think, worked as more "shallow" characters for the reason that they could do certain things that other more "realistic" characters could not.I'm studying animation, and I think he would be considered a certain type of character if he were from that medium. He's the type you can make funnier, sillier things happen to (if not necessarily realistic). While "good" characters you're supposed to like and respect, like Cinderella or the Prince, were called "straight" characters (notice that they wouldn't be drawn as funny).
When used in the right places and not abused, I do believe the "shallower" characters can add a unique effect and be used for good...
The goal in story telling is not to be "realistic," but "believable." It's like a caricature. This can be well done or not so well done. You need to know the rules to break the rules.
Now the reason I defend Uncle Vernon's case is because I feel Rowling doesn't abuse this. Many lesser novels would have such cop-out-characters clogging up the majority of the cast. But the Dursleys are used as a light-hearted way to ease us into the novel (they are what sold me when I was younger, personally). But they are not main characters or used as a cheap excuse. Nor are the other characters always being compared to them as if it's actually shocking and impressive on their part that they are not as, shall we say, demented (I despise books that use a biasedly twisted rest of the world as a stepping stone to make the main characters look better).
Anyway, that's my take on it. Though I should probably have asked which characters you were referring to before that tangent.
Fish wrote: "Some of the characters (such as Vernon, for one), I think, worked as more "shallow" characters for the reason that they could do certain things that other more "realistic" characters could..."I agree with you that some smaller characters were there for the purpose of not so much being integral to the plot but to provide comic relief and vary the mood and types of characters and so on. The characters I was referring to were actually the main ones: Harry and Hermione especially. Of course I love the characters, but I think that Harry started out good, was never tempted away from good, and was good to the end. I wished that he came across more ethical questions and develop his character and his philosophy. He mainly stays the same person the whole time. Ron, I think, has enough stuff about him for me. Hermione I think should have had more richness about her than just being the brains- what are her wants? Her fears? They can't just be about failing school, can they? Not really any of the trials they face challenge them as humans- they are mainly just obstacles they have to get past.
Take Spiderman for instance: I always say that the series is a philosopher's paradise- so many decisions Peter Parker makes before and while he is Spiderman raise moral questions and challenge both him and the viewer that you really feel he is growing as a character. Take Lord of the Rings as well- Frodo's experience with the Ring challenged him and changed him, and that in turn affected the rest of the story. I would have gone for a little more of that in HP (acknowledging that that isn't really Rowling's writing style).
Okay, I see.Perhaps I don't think about character growth as much as I should.
Are you saying you find it unbelievable that Harry would always be so good, or just that it would be more interesting if he struggled more? Do you think a protagonist could ever be good in a way that was more interesting?
Fish wrote: "Okay, I see.Perhaps I don't think about character growth as much as I should.
Are you saying you find it unbelievable that Harry would always be so good, or just that it would be more interestin..."
That it would be more interesting if he was faced with challenges that a) developed him morally as a person and b) gave us more insight to the kind of person he is. As it is, most of what I can say he is is: brave, a good friend, funny...and more sort of general stuff. Of course character development isn't the one factor of a book that makes it terrible or fantastic, but in my opinion it's something to consider when writing because it can have an impact. As it is, the story in HP is good enough to render character-developy stuff less important.
I think that J.K Rowling's writing has improved with the succession of the books. Speaking of character development, Harry Potter has been a huge reading experience for every Potterhead out there in the world, and we ourselves have grown up with the characters over the years.
The characters like Harry or Hermoine or Ron, for that matter, have matured and emerged out with a stronger bond of friendship throughout the years. And there is nothing perfect or imperfect about them, in my opinion. They were just what they were, ordinary wizards who did extraordinary deeds for the magical world, and we loved them just like that.
Every one of us have been so engrossed in the richness and the intricacy of the Harry Potter series that we have never once questioned J.K Rowling's kind of writing which is not very descriptive too for that matter. Like I have come across authors who have a certain kind of charm to their vivid descriptions.
Regardless, the imagination that Rowling has invested in this series rules out all the other minor flaws.
And definitely, HP has been an incredible journey.
You can't basically say that J.K. rowling has been a bad writer, she has constantly been our childhood modern day super hero of literature. She has honestly shaped and made a solid foundation on the fantasy world of books.
I adore Rowling. I wish she doesn't hold the actions until the last few chapters though, but I agree her writings become more and more enjoyable as you proceed with the series.I haven't read her other books, I wonder about her current writing style.
I love her writing. My main wish would be that she would write another series as great as Harry Potter. But...that's kind of like asking the inventor of bread to invent something else just as significant. And can you imagine the pressure of being her, and everyone wanting her to duplicate such a phenomenon? I'm afraid that lightning doesn't often strike twice.
Well, it will be interesting to see what the Fantastic Beasts movies will be like, for sure.I want to believe she has it in her, that she could use some of the same methods at least to a degree. There must've been certain things she did that you could put your finger on if you looked hard enough. Things that other authors don't do, which made her books stand out.
How about a collection of Short Stories. Quoting A. J. Fikry "but the most elegant creation in the prose universe is a short story. Master the short story and you’ll have mastered the world"
What's your opinion on Beedle the Bard?
Well thanks Fish, didn't know about it. I will hook it tmrlist. How about short stories of non Wizarding genres. I consider A. Christies short stories master pieces, for example.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
(Not so much what you wish could have happened in the story, unless your opinion is based on a theory rather than preference).