Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
discussion
Plot vs. Character?
date
newest »
newest »
Fish wrote: "I have been asking people with negative views of Harry Potter why they don't like it. Usually they imply the plot is too convenient, "there are holes," and the world is inconsistent, random or conv..."I don't dislike Harry Potter as a whole, I only take issue with "The Order of the Phoenix" and "The Deathly Hallows".
My arguments have nothing to do with plot and world building as other people you have heard from before. I'm usually very tolerant with plot holes, plot devices, convenient inconsistencies, etc as long as the characters are relatable and feel like real, whole beings (human or not). You mention Rowling focuses more on character development than plot. While I do agree with you in that you care about the characters in the story, I disagree that this happens because they have a particular complexity and, in my opinion, this becomes very obvious in the two books I mentioned before.
In the Order of the Phoenix (what a fantastic title!), Rowling started to explore darker, more serious subjects. It made sense, both the characters and the readers would be getting older. It was a fantastic idea, an organic progression. Because of this new depth in the subjects that would be dealt with, the contrast with the very one-dimensional -- either all-good or all-evil (except for Snape whose intentions were still not clear) -- characters really added to the plot feeling a little sloppy when the trouble was at its core the lack of character development. This is a persistent issue from the beginning but by now it felt comical.
In "Deathly Hallows" I'm not completely sure what happened. I'm aware the overhyping didn't help at all and that's something that has nothing to do with Rowling or her work. That's also something I had no control over. But I can pinpoint my issues with this book easily anyway:
- The exposition was eternal
- Voldemort never really had a real, deep reason to be that evil. He just was... deal with it. I always hoped for a backstory to him that would perhaps pose a moral question, that would make me go, well, he sort of has a point but he's going the wrong way about it. Never happened. He was just bad. (So really I'm just repeating my earlier point, one-dimensional characters).
- During the epilogue I felt like I was reading Rowling's fan fiction to her own franchise.
I'll be honest, Deathly Hallows made me angry. I felt like I wasted my time. Back when it came out I thought Rowling had just written a whole lot of fan service and I was very disappointed the story didn't have an ending that felt organic. For whatever reason I always thought it felt incredibly forced.
As I said in the beginning though, my issues are with these two books. I like the story as a whole and I think it's far superior to any other YA really. I think it's disappointing how, at least with YA, it seems you always have to choose between interesting characters OR coherent plots. You can rarely get a well rounded novel that that has complex characters, a cohesive plot and that poses interesting questions. You should be able to get well written novels all around, I think. The excuse that "it's written for a younger audience" is just not acceptable. So what? Younger audiences are very perceptive and smart. You don't have to dumb things down, quite the opposite, a young reader is the one you should challenge with interesting questions.
Thank you for your response.Out of curiosity, what makes you say the characters felt either "all good" or "all bad?"
I can come close to understanding how you feel about Rowling's portrayal of bad characters.
The Durselys, the Malfoys, etc, seem to never be able to do anything right, for example. I accepted it as comic effect since they weren't the focus of the story, but if someone thought it was too convenient, I could understand. This is usually what turns me off from books (contrived villains or stock bullies), only in Harry Potter I thought it felt more appropriate, because:
1. They were not main characters
2. It was actually funny this time (you would actually laugh out loud)
3. They brought out interesting sides of other characters
4. It's sometimes good to represent "bad people" this way in fairytales to emphasize the differences between good and evil (although this shouldn't be used as an excuse just to be sloppy)
On those grounds I would say they are different than the corny bullies in 90% of YA fantasy. I believe it's a very rare thing to pull off. They are indeed one-dimensional, but used for the best.
However, it would certainly be cheap to use a character like that for the main threat. I don't know if I agree Voldemort is like that, but I understand your point.
As for good characters, I think Dumbledore would be a Gary Stu in any other book. However, there is the rare fact that he earns his respect, instead of a tone of respect being forced on the audience.
I think I accept these things because I feel like they're earned (for once) or at least, Rowling makes a sincere effort to earn them. This is utterly unique to Harry Potter out of any YA Fantasies, which usually do everything out of pure lack of effort. That's why I say it's the nuances that make HP stand out.
I agree about young audiences being perceptive and smart.
Interesting points, thank you again.
Interesting topic/points.On when you said this:
"Character is considered secondary to Plot (a good plot alone should move us to tears and make us laugh with joy. Aristotle claims character is not necessary for this)."
I think that line of reasoning is more academic than applicable to life. Many readers enjoy character rich stories even if the plot is weak. I'm more character orientated myself and can forgive faulty plot logic if I'm in love with the characters and world building.
To me the characters shone in Harry Potter and many readers were endeared. You don't see people walking around talking about the plot point for a certain HP movie, they're talking about the characters. They have the fake pet owls, the costumes, the favorite character necklaces, the characters are what stands out to them.
I agree some of the plot chances were too convenient, but that's normal for the age group of fiction it was and didn't bother me much. It definitely doesn't take away from the magic of the story for me.
Hey Fish, no problem, I like this type of discussion and knowing other people's points of view :)I actually agree with you completely in that secondary characters such as the Dursleys and the Malfoys, though one-dimensional, are very effective for the points you explained. And they're certainly better characters than other YA fantasy bullies. And from books 1 though 4 I love it.
I just think by the point in the story presented in the Order of the Phoenix -- with the whole problematic with the magic world's politics and corruption coming to light specifically -- maybe Draco and his buddies for example, apart from being comedy reliefs, could've been presented with some moral questions to consider. Start to age the characters accordingly to the tone the book as a whole is taking. Perhaps apart from showing us Harry going through puberty we could've also had him facing moral dilemmas.
This book focuses more on the adult wizard world and this is the book where, in my opinion, the Harry Potter series is no longer for children. Since it's focusing mainly on adult characters I would really expect to read more about the motivation behind the characters actions. It's still YA so I understand how this can't suddenly turn into 1984 and start explaining totalitarianism but I would've loved it if instead of having the dragging, tedious, sections that took the readers to Harry's isolated state, we could've gotten richer characters with real motivations both good and bad. (Actually now that I'm talking about it, I just remembered that was another thing I didn't like about this book. I can appreciate a certain pacing to make you feel like the character and I actually like it. But in my opinion this book was too tedious, too often).
What I mean by all-good and all-bad is when the "good" characters are not being "good" they're only having a rough time, they're going through puberty, they're being misinterpreted, they were being set up, they were only trying to protect someone, etc. The "bad" characters never have a realistic motivation for their evil actions either in my opinion. They just seem to be evil in nature or have a weak character therefore they just do as told.
I mean as many issues as I have with this book, it still beats most YA. I just think it's inferior to the rest of the series and I think the reason is the clash between the nature of the characters vs the seriousness of where the story is going. Still, it's an essential part of the story as a whole and I'd never say something like... Read Harry Potter just skip the Order of the Phoenix hahaha :D
I wish I had more specific examples to talk about but this is what I remember the most. I read the Order of the Phoenix a long time ago. If you have a fresher perspective (or if you also read it a while ago) I would be very happy to read your thoughts on this book in particular. I'm always interested to know how different people perceive the same book :)
Forgot to mention I believe one thing is evident throughout the whole series, despite any problems it may have, and that is Rowling clearly loves all the characters she created and that is contagious as you're reading the books. I think the way you can tell is more in the way she writes about them rather than the way she develops them. it's a little like she's writing about people she knows and as I said before I think that is contagious and the main reason the characters are so lovable.
Erin, I'm starting to agree with that more and more every day.I keep seeing proof that Character is under rated, and is far more powerful than some might realize.
If something can be engaging ethically, intellectually and emotionally, what more can you ask for? Good characters can make you think, sympathize and aspire to be like them (or not like them).
I suppose Plot is necessary for evoking sympathy because you need an event, so in that light, Plot is technically superior. However, that doesn't mean it's what people are reading for as much as the experience.
Ideally both Plot and Character would be the best they possibly could. I can never sincerely say Harry Potter *wouldn't* be better without plot holes, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have high value, in my opinion.
(Then again, this kind of attitude toward Plot might in itself have merit, for reason of not getting in the way of putting characters in interesting situations. After all if "time turners are too convenient!" we wouldn't have as entertaining a scene as in the Prisoner of Azkaban. I guess people have varying degrees of suspension of disbelief when it comes to these things).
(update, after thinking about this more)
You know, I think people who complain about the Plot are wrong! It's not that a story can't engage you despite being implausible, it's just the world building they have a problem with. And world building is definitely not more or less important than Character.
Why do I listen to stuck up people who say Harry Potter is far from being a classic when they use arguments like this! I know they're just not putting their finger on something.
-------
M, Order of the Phoenix was probably my least favorite as well, although I never disliked any of the books per say.
The transitioning from light-hearted to dark was probably responsible.
It was darker, but nothing big was really happening, so it was the same except gloomier (although there were some funny parts).
Sorry, this was the book I read the least, so it's not as fresh in my mind either, haha.
I agree that as the series got more serious, characters like Draco should have been less funny, especially if they were becoming bigger threats. I do see that in the Half Blood Prince though, and Draco never bothered me too much. I hear where you're coming from though, because I get that feeling often from other books.
For instance, you can't feel any sense of danger whatsoever in Heroes of Olympus due to clownish villains. An author should take a threat seriously if they expect their audience to.
And evil isn't just a tag for people you dislike. Evil is real, and it's a choice, but it's not something people are just because.
We have to understand the minds of all our characters, good or bad, if their head is worth getting into at all.
At the same time, I appreciate characters like Voldemort, who represent an ultimate evil (like a devil figure) or comic relief in the right places. However, an author should have an obvious goal and then reach it. Don't just do these things out of laziness.
It depends how much dignity the story sets up for itself, then it needs to live up to it.
I think the best way to describe the unique quality of characters in HP is vivid. They are not necessarily all realistic, but are easy to accept, and also very clear. In my personal opinion, the characters never bothered me, despite being (contrived?) at times.
Anyway, yeah, good to talk about this. I always like having discussions about books to get ideas of how to write better stories.
By the way,
in what ways did you think the ending of the series could be better? Did you think too many things were introduced in the last book and she should have used things that already existed? What was rushed about it? (I'm trying to figure out how to improve with writing endings).
Fish wrote: "Erin, I'm starting to agree with that more and more every day.I keep seeing proof that Character is under rated, and is far more powerful than some might realize.
If something can be engaging et..."
I'm a big series reader and I see this shown all the time with my friends thoughts and reviews with those. Even if a book has a flimsy plot, the characters are so loved that people still usually enjoy the book quite a bit. Ideally the plot and characters are both great, but if a book has a wonderful plot but terrible characterization, I can't usually get into it....on the other hand, great characters can make a poor plot more forgivable. At least in my mind.
Agreed.For instance, quite a few people I know can't get through Lord of the Rings because "the characters have no personalities."
Both Character and Plot should be good, but personally I'd usually take good Character over Plot, if I had to choose.
I agree with most of you that character is absolutely essential for a good book, often more than plot. But I think what made Harry Potter memorable for me was the world building. It was that extra ingredient that made a decent plot and characters stand out.Even though there are some plot holes and deus-ex-machina's that disrupt the believability of the world, it still is one of the best constructed and believable worlds in YA fiction. Reading the books, especially the first ones before it got dark, made me want to be in Hogwards myself. It felt real.
Now when I think of other books I really like, it is often the world building that puts them on my favourites list. That's the thing that makes me want to keep going back to the book. To reread and savour it again and again. But of course, none of this will work if the book doesn't already have plot and characters that are good enough.
I guess what I'm saying is that once you get the plot and main characters decent and make the setting extraordinary you can get away with a lot of plot holes and cutout secondary characters. The magic is in transporting the readers to a different, more interesting place. And this requires the often neglected art of world-building which Rowling is proficient in.
Darina wrote: "I agree with most of you that character is absolutely essential for a good book, often more than plot. But I think what made Harry Potter memorable for me was the world building. It was that extra ..."Very true, the world building helps a lot. That's one of the main reasons I love Urban Fantasy so much. It's not too out there, and is familiar, but it's fantasy as well so it's bringing interesting elements to the table.
Fish, I was discussing HP earlier this week with some friends and we were talking mostly about the ending. We agreed what felt the most out of place and certainly affected the overall feel of the entire ending was the epilogue.I think I mentioned this before but I felt like it read as fan fiction. They all married each other and had babies... I don't know, a little too much fan service in my humble opinion.
One of my friends pointed out considering the massive collapse in the wizard society, 19 years was a pretty short time to have everything seemingly back to normal and it felt unbelievable. We know in the real world such a structural crumbling of an entire society wouldn't look the same after only 19 years. Perhaps showing the effect of the war in little details, the way things work, the overall vibe, the way the wizard world still struggles to rebuild itself would have made a better point for the epilogue. It didn't need to be dark or negative, it could portray hope but I think it could've shown the hard work that goes behind that optimism in a much better way and for a better reason.
I certainly think the whole story about the horcruxes wasn't well established enough throughout the whole saga. If I remember correctly the first mention was on the 6th book (I could be wrong, it's been a while) and that made it feel to me like it came out of nowhere and it was rushed at the end so book 7 could happen. Perhaps either introducing the horcrux concept earlier or dropping it altogether would have felt like a more natural closure too.
Are you a writer?
Darina, that's interesting!I often hear critics complaining that the world building is what they don't appreciate. They call it "random" or "inconsistent."
In your opinion, would you say that's too harsh? Or would you agree to a degree, and believe there's some beauty in that?
In any case, I know that when I read Harry Potter, I feel like I'm the wizarding world, and that should be the main thing.
What other books would you say have the best world building?
--------------
M, I'll give you that point. To be completely honest, I had the same feeling about Snape's memory. It didn't feel like the rest of the book. The tone felt more like a fanfiction.
I like the idea of finding out what happened to the characters, but I agree it shouldn't be forced.
I'm as big a defender of J. K. Rowling's imagination as anyone, however, I think people can get too carried away seeing things in the story that were never there. I don't believe she had the horcruxes worked out from the beginning, at least not totally. For example, she probably didn't know the diary was a horcrux when she wrote the second book. One of her unique strengths is having so many little things to fall back on; it doesn't necessarily mean it was always all worked out. Many of the connections in the books are better thought of as trivia than clues. (I don't think the story is always worse for that).
If horcruxes were directly hinted at from the second book on, that would be impressive. There is no proof Rowling hadn't invented them yet, at the same time there is no direct proof that she did. I guess the best thing an ending can be is anticipated, and we would get more excited the more time we had knowing what was coming (the conflict, not the result). That's my theory anyway.
Haha, when I was in high school I tried publishing a book, but it got rejected, of course!
I believe in the story, I just wasn't a good writer then. Now it's the backstory of the one I'm working on today.
Anyway, I always like hearing ideas about story telling so I can improve it.
What about you? Are you a writer too?
Hi Fish,I guess what others may consider inconsistency in the world I consider inconsistency in the plot line or rather a lack of foreshadowing. Things like never mentioning travelling by portkey until the 4th, book (was it?) or by fireplace by the 2nd. Or why the timeturner (not mentioned until 5th book, was it?) wasn't used before Voldemort took over. Or, as you mentioned, the horcruxes that weren't mentioned much before the 6th book. Or how Ron's brothers saw him on the enchanted map with a dead person for years and didn't investigate (that's a clear plot hole). Rowling choose not to mention it because it served her plotline (or she made it up on the go), making the later books feel a bit out of tune with the earlier ones.
I remember when I was reading the books it really irritated me that things just come up in each book that could have made things easier in the previous ones if only Harry knew about them. There is a disconnect between each book and I suppose people may consider that a world inconsistency. So I suppose I partially agree, I'm just not sure if these inconsistencies are due to lack of foreshadowing, lack of plotting the series as a whole or world-building.
When I spoke of Rowling's world-building skill in her books, what I meant was her ability to make the world feel real. She adds little details and stories throughout it that makes it live in the reader's mind. Things like the almost headless Nick, the moving staircases in Hogwards, the creatures in the forbidden forrest, the enchanted ceiling in the common room and the fat lady in the picture-door of the Gryffindor rooms. All these little fantastical details and the way the characters interact with them weather it is part of the plot or not, makes reading the books so addictive. We are there with Harry when he discovers all those details of his adventure world. And this magic makes it possible for us to choke down any inconsistencies of plot or world-building or even character development and still enjoy the book.
Other books I can think of with fascinating worlds that stand out are:
- The Creepy Hollow series by Rachel Morgan
- Anne of Green Gables series by L.M. Montgomery (not fantasy but the world is fascinating and each interaction of the characters with it just feels so real - baking pies, over-sugaring the peas or selling a cow)
- The Leviathan series by Scott Westfield
- Dune by Frank Herbert (way too much politics in the heavy narrative, yet the world is memorable long after you forget all the details of the plot)
- LOTR (again very heavy narrative, yet the Shire and the whole Middle Earth are even more memorable than the characters)
"the way the characters interact with them"In that case, I completely agree, and will always agree. This is Harry Potter greatest strength by far, and a very rare strength to have.
Fish, Wonderful! It's great you keep developing your story! I think you have a very objective perception of the different elements of story telling and I think it's great you continue looking for ideas to improve! I'm sure this will all show in the finished product!I'm only a literature fan. I like to write short stories as a hobby but I'm not a writer at all, I'm a musician, I play mostly classical piano. I like to try and discuss other arts because it's fun, of course, but also because I like to draw inspiration from those experiences and apply them somehow to music.
The best thing I take from literature is when there are eccentric characters or weird stories full of twists and turns because most times I think of a piece of music as a chance to tell a story in an abstract way, without words, and sometimes I can base my characters or my stories off stories I've read (combined with real life and my own ideas, etc).
Best of luck with your story!! :)
Wow- when's the last time I saw a thread this full of detailed, thoughtful comments? Nice work, all of you! Very interesting.I agree with Darina: the world-building is really what makes Harry Potter special for me- and I appreciate the layering- we learn about different magical beasties and contraptions and spells. This is because JK Rowling thought more up each book, but it really felt like we were learning and growing along with Harry.
I never had a problem with the holes in the series because certain questions about what tool was used when never really muddied the story or the flow for me... with the exception of the expelliarmus-own-someone-else's-wand-but-not-really gimmick that felt something like a last-minute cheat...
No, Harry Potter's major flaw for me is the character development. Rowing actually does a good job making characters because she includes just enough detail for us to fill in the blanks, making the people she writes about relatable and easy to understand. The problem for me is that I really like the Hero's Journey model, and I think there's always some small part of it in most of the books I read, and I think a lot was just missing in HP. Few characters matured or changed over time, and that frustrated me a little bit. Ron, I think, changed the most. But often I felt like Harry only matured because he literally got older. I don't think that the story was actually reflected in the characters.
That said, I put character development (which is slightly different from simply the characters) ahead of the plot. I'm really interested in those relatable, richly detailed human beings (sometimes) characters. I believe that a so-so plot with great characters (Think THE OFFICE) leaves me more thoughtful and gives me more lessons than something with a great plot but terrible characters (I can't think of any examples because I think the characters are the fuel. If there are any examples you can think of, I could use them!). Also remember, sometimes character development is fine when implied or only spent a little time on (the ITALIAN JOB, maybe? These are movies, but they're what come to mind).
A balance is best, in my opinion- I think characters that are relatable, that change and grow in ways we understand in some ways, are integral to a good story. Perhaps equally important is the plot- which depicts for us a story of actions done by those characters...that let us almost live those stories as well.
Ah, yes, the deep-thinking-while-typing-syndrome....:)
I think that plot and characters are more closely intertwined than we believe. I think they feed each other and make each other stronger...and in that way, is the question we are answering now really: "what is better, a good plot or good character (development)?"
Yes, they are intertwined... characters drive the story/the story draws the characters along to change in a variety of ways...and if both are done well, then we enjoy it because we relate, we push ourselves while reading to feel what they feel and understand the story perhaps more than the characters themselves.
Oh, dear. What a great thread. A great thread...:)
Thanks for the thoughts, Ruby! I appreciate hearing your perspective, and everybody in this discussion.By the way, after doing more research and thought on the subject, I have more ideas about this...
I think there are some distinctions to be made about types of story throughout history.
When we look back at Fantasy (or fairy tales) its origins are plot-focused while our culture is highly (uniquely) character oriented. This is probably due to the entertainment industry (movies, cartoons, etc, where the experience is the main thing, hence characters becoming more important). It wasn't really until women started writing more novels that they became more character-driven, Jane Austen being revolutionary in this light.
Look at the Fantasy that inspired Lord of the Rings and you'll find it's not only content to have everymen characters, but written by people who believed this was important. (And they were right, for their purposes). "Odd" characters were considered a distraction from the personality of the story, which was supposed to make the bigger impact on the reader (Alice in Wonderland, Lord of the Rings, George Macdonald, Lord Dunsany show this attitude).
The Greeks paid more attention to Plot, and how to make it stand on its own. They understood the Plot is what's going to remembered and is the backbone of legends while details fade away. (If you want, read Aristotle's Poetics, it's fascinating). Fairy tales are proof of this too.
Now think about today where all anybody talks about are OCs, Mary Sues, self inserts, one true pairings, character development this, and character development that, and how different these attitudes are. Is this a lesser art? (I don't believe so, necessarily).
I'm an animator. The way animators view story is interesting to contrast with the way it's treated in modern literature. We are EXPERIENCE-driven. The Animation and Movie industry have different priorities, and these are priorities which have shifted into literature for better or worse. That said, they have things worth saying.
You can read The Illusion of Life written by the old Disney Animators to get more of an idea or even learn about acting to write better stories of this kind. But we ought to recognize the difference, and know what rules we're judging our work by. (This is where critics of Harry Potter never do it justice).
Who can blame them? Harry Potter is the only series that makes worthwhile use of this method. I see this being AIMED for by other YA/Children's Fantasy authors, but they've never made anything that significantly justifies reading them over watching TV. Harry Potter is unique in this sense.
We might discuss how Harry Potter succeeded (or failed) being this kind of story, but we have to admit what it is to judge it. If Harry Potter is the mere spectacle, it made use of the spectacle to the fullest. I'm not sure this is always a lesser art, just never been achieved in Fantasy in this way. It's something new, not worse, and that's why I'll always defend it.
Like I said before, it inspires us ethically, logically and emotionally, and makes us better people for reading it. What else is the end goal? And why should we be petty about the way in which it's achieved?
(Of course, we can debate about whether or not it has been achieved, which is a different thing).
Ruby wrote: "Wow- when's the last time I saw a thread this full of detailed, thoughtful comments? Nice work, all of you! Very interesting."
Ditto to that! I don't even know if I can add anything by this point, but I'll give it a go.
Plot consistency is very difficult to achieve, especially when you try to create a "mystery" type of atmosphere, which in a big way seems to be an important aspect of the world of HP. Plot holes are forgivable when consistency isn't your goal- it's been a recurring theme in recent years for writers (especially screenwriters) to come up with interesting set pieces rather than impressive plots, which has worked for the most part because they knew how to draw the attention of their audience to the strengths of their work. If you're already putting your best foot forward to balance intensive world building, dialogue, etc. figuring out how to make a story that always fits with the world's logic is hard to do.
Good characters (by which I mean well-written ones) can usually make up for bad (poorly written) plots- Shakespeare has proven it, Joss Whedon has (arguably) proven it, and J.K. Rowling has proven it with her unique style. As to what even equates to a good plot is still a debatable topic, whereas with characters preferences mostly come down to personal taste. In regards to the criticisms that Fish mentioned, I personally had the opposite problem when it came to Harry Potter; the characters weren't as enjoyable as the plot for me. M. has actually summed up my issues perfectly, right down to the books I dislike and why. With The Deathly Hallows, however, I feel a little more forgiving, since endings to a series are so hard to write for anyway. Other authors have made worse mistakes in their conclusions, and for its flaws the end to HP is at least satisfying.
The majority of my points seem to have been stated several times over already (you guys are thorough!) but overall I agree that judging Harry Potter solely by its plot seems a little nitpicky, and comparing it to The Lord of the Rings is like comparing Eragon with The Runaway Princess; they both have their strengths, but were written to serve different purposes. Plot and Character as writing aspects aren't very comparable either. Both are necessary to create a good story, and the strength of one will often balance out the weakness of the other. I appreciate a well-done world, but if it's populated by characters I don't like learning from it's as though I were looking at clear water through a dirty lens. Communication is the key.
Ditto to that! I don't even know if I can add anything by this point, but I'll give it a go.
Plot consistency is very difficult to achieve, especially when you try to create a "mystery" type of atmosphere, which in a big way seems to be an important aspect of the world of HP. Plot holes are forgivable when consistency isn't your goal- it's been a recurring theme in recent years for writers (especially screenwriters) to come up with interesting set pieces rather than impressive plots, which has worked for the most part because they knew how to draw the attention of their audience to the strengths of their work. If you're already putting your best foot forward to balance intensive world building, dialogue, etc. figuring out how to make a story that always fits with the world's logic is hard to do.
Good characters (by which I mean well-written ones) can usually make up for bad (poorly written) plots- Shakespeare has proven it, Joss Whedon has (arguably) proven it, and J.K. Rowling has proven it with her unique style. As to what even equates to a good plot is still a debatable topic, whereas with characters preferences mostly come down to personal taste. In regards to the criticisms that Fish mentioned, I personally had the opposite problem when it came to Harry Potter; the characters weren't as enjoyable as the plot for me. M. has actually summed up my issues perfectly, right down to the books I dislike and why. With The Deathly Hallows, however, I feel a little more forgiving, since endings to a series are so hard to write for anyway. Other authors have made worse mistakes in their conclusions, and for its flaws the end to HP is at least satisfying.
The majority of my points seem to have been stated several times over already (you guys are thorough!) but overall I agree that judging Harry Potter solely by its plot seems a little nitpicky, and comparing it to The Lord of the Rings is like comparing Eragon with The Runaway Princess; they both have their strengths, but were written to serve different purposes. Plot and Character as writing aspects aren't very comparable either. Both are necessary to create a good story, and the strength of one will often balance out the weakness of the other. I appreciate a well-done world, but if it's populated by characters I don't like learning from it's as though I were looking at clear water through a dirty lens. Communication is the key.
Thinking about this, I might describe character more as the point of view the story is told from than simply the people it's about. Imagine Lord of the Rings looks at the world from a telescope, while Harry Potter looks with a magnifying glass. A story being "character-driven" is just a different angle to look at things from.Whether the characters are good or not, they are in focus. I don't believe one view is superior to another, although some people think stories are fundamentally flawed depending on this alone.
J, those are fair points.
Thanks! Your points make more sense (points I definitely agree with), but I'm glad it was fair, at least. :)
Good luck with your story, by the way!
Good luck with your story, by the way!
I'm interested in all of your views on the Deathly Hallows- I actually say that it's my favorite in the series (well- maybe the first one- well, maybe I'm just thinking of being enchanted by the first movie when I was little- ahhhhhhhh! How can I choose a favorite?).The funny thing is that the reasons other discussion members seem to dislike this one is different from the traits I dislike about the book:
So, what I'm hearing is that:
1) DH had too much exposition
2) It built up but ended up overly complex
3) It did not give a satisfactory conclusion to the characters (19 years later was sappy/fanfic-sounding)
4) It created new and did not resolve old plot holes
Okay, my reasons are as follows:
1) All the time spent in the tent/forests got boring and repetitive- she didn't describe the forests they stayed in, and it just felt like a green screen of 'random, ugly forest'
2) The take-wands-by-force-and-that-works-even-though-we made-a-big-deal-of-the-wand-choosing-the-wizard
That is really interesting to me! Since I read DH when I was younger, 19 years later pleased me.
I really liked the book- it was long and I think that Snape's memory chapter added the information we were unwittingly looking for the entire series. I loved the Battle of Hogwarts and thought that the final confrontation was somewhat epic and perfect. Now, I didn't like the prophecy thing, but more on that later (if you guys want to discuss prophecies.)
So, what about the DH made it your least favorite? I'm surprised.
Perfect, I need to hear more about what makes good endings.What I'm gleaning is it should:
Bring back and finish everything unfinished, without adding anything new. Have an anticipated conflict (not anticipated results). If using a plot twist, it must be something we had evidence of in the beginning (but can't believe we missed), not something invented on the spot. Be simple and condensed as possible. Give everything justice, but not too quickly or conveniently, maybe more slowly throughout the story so there's not too much excess to tie up at the end that distracts from the main conflict.
Any other thoughts?
Ruby, interesting what you said about the 19 years later part. I do think the younger you are, the more you will appreciate it. When I was little, my stories always worked out similarly. Familiarity is more important than being believable to us then. There's some wisdom in that. In general, every storytelling element should have a beginning and an end, and connect to each other if possible. Although I can understand if it wasn't the most convincing way of doing so.
I liked the Deathly Hallows when I read it. Nothing about it bothered me, I was too sucked in. I would like to learn how to make as few annoying problems as possible so I can write stories that will suck more people in in the same way. All stories are imperfect and looking at them is really fascinating.
Hi Fish! I'm writing a story, too! Ever heard of Nanowrimo? It will save your life.Remember to differentiate ENDING and CLIMAX (since you said the thing about conflict). Also, I believe the best endings start early, where threads get tied not all at once but slowly throughout the close of the book.
An important thing is that not all threads are of equal weight- some you can tie up with a line of comic relief while others need pages of dialogue or a paragraph of thought. What I like when it happens is when the beginning of the book is mirrored by the end. It might seems a little childish, but not always. You can kind of see it in HP- he's on a train going one way, he comes back the other way.
Aha, great way of looking at it!! Thank you so much. This really is very helpful.
"The ending is always in the beginning." I heard that somewhere. It seems like a good way to think of it.I always hear about Nanowrimo, but I'm never quite sure what it is. Would it be helpful if you've already started a book but are still editing?
It's good to hear you're writing a story too. I like talking to people about their experiences writing, because everyone notices different strange little things. Good luck to you!
Thank you!Nanowrimo- you can look it up- it's National Novel Writing Month- you join the site and set a word count goal for yourself, and you can spend entire April or July or Novemeber writing a novel or a writing project. And they have huge forums where you can discuss your writing and play games and answer/ask questions about writing and your story.
The story I'm writing is coming upon 130,000 words and not even done yet, and I'm planning to spend the next July and November writing it.
What I try to do is, when I'm reading, glean information about how to write well from what I read. It seems laughably simple, but it's a great way to analyze a book. Also, reading bad books makes me feel better because I know that however flawed my book may become, it will never be as bad as so and so, which is even mroe encouraging since so and so has been published.
I definitely plan on looking into it.Out of curiosity, are you going to look into publishing your story when you're done?
Oh, I agree. Reading good AND bad books is important!
You never feel more humbled than after reading bad fiction and realizing something is annoying you didn't put your finger on before.
Yes, I'm going to aim to get published, but it's the last thing on my mind. Can't worry about publishing before I worry about editing. The length of the story really matters to editors, apparently. Novels are supposed to be 90k or lower, I think? Mine is quite long, so I might need to write more concisely...
Always better to have more ideas than not enough, it'll show in the end.
I feel like the characters in J.K Rowlings books are so complex and they help to drive the plot forward. Nothing shocks me more than the sheer amount of character development in her books and I believe that her plot goes hand in hand with the characters. Noticeably this happens more in the last four books I would say but throughout it is fantastically written.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
What drew me to Harry Potter was not the situations from afar, but when looked at up close. This is what makes it better than other modern Fantasy. There are many books about young wizards and magic schools.
Character is considered secondary to Plot (a good plot alone should move us to tears and make us laugh with joy. Aristotle claims character is not necessary for this).
But... perhaps plot isn't actually necessary for this. Doesn't J. K. Rowling make you care about characters for their own sake in a way other authors don't? Isn't relatabilty on its own, fulfilling ethically, emotionally and logically? Furthermore, isn't this accomplished most interestingly when situations are unbelievable and instinctively treated as secondary embellishments?
Are the people who criticize Harry Potter looking at it from the point of view of her avoiding many problems with character (like Mary Sues, characters with no personality, being dependent on people's impressions of each other more than proof, etc. or just not trying to have a contrast or dynamic relationships at all) which she is the only one to get right? In this light, I do think she is worthy of high praise.
Lord of the Rings is always brought up as a comparison. Tolkien is plot-driven. It could be said he treats plot the same way Rowling treats character. And on that note, his characters are much less complex in personality (if not backstory), and not as intimately written. The reverse might be true of Rowling. How can we say one method is better than the other?
I believe it's these subtle nuances of Harry Potter which make it stand out. How is this not an equal good? Certain YA books seem on the verge of getting it right, but never quite succeed. Does anyone have any theories or opinions?