Do you think J.K. Rowling is a good writer?

I'm not trying to use archaic phrasing in my writing. I am just accustomed to writing that way. The only archaic words I use purposely are "for" and "thereof". When I wrote the phrase you criticized in the post I am answering, I did not look for an archaic phrase, but strung those words together based on their individual meanings, aiming to sound a certain way.

Now what I tried to say in my other post, I will try to say again. I am wanting increasingly to practice my writing skills, and not to aim for a majestic style.

I am also willing to write a rough draft, but not to neglect style after writing it. I also am not willing to write a piece with one-hundred thousand words, but I am willing to write and perfect many shorter works.

Now you said before that my writing is better when I do not revise it for flow. But to make my writing clear and concise, I still need to revise it. Writing a piece, not aiming for cadence, does not guarantee that it will be succinct.

Now I had to revise this post as I wrote it to make it succinct. I hope I did not fail.

 

To make it clear, I'm absolutely NOT recommending that you write a single piece of a hundred thousand words. I'm recommending that you write dozens or more likely hundreds of short pieces, most of which will be thrown away. (Or kept, in case someday you want to go through them and see if there's anything worth saving.) The goal is practice.

There's a little of the archaic voice in the piece above, but not much. It's fairly readable.

I'm also wondering: Do you do much reading? I would recommend that if you don't, you start reading.

 

Which parts were archaic?

I don't read much fiction because I don't know many of the concrete words in fiction. My vocabulary is more abstract and technical.

But I think I will discuss this in my other threads that pertain to it. This thread is for discussing the writing style of J.K Rowling.

 

This is sort of mind blowing... O_O Should be stickied, somewhere.

To be fair, though, when I open up Harry Potter, it's because I want to figure out how I can replicate her spell and make millions of dollars.

When I open up, say, Hemingway, it's because I consider him a very "good writer." In the traditional sense, I think most of us agree good writing means good prose? Not world building. Not page turning. Not just-the-right-level-of-porn.

 

OK, but I don't understand this at all. The vocabulary of fiction is usually an everyday vocabulary.

 

It means a word (usually a noun) that refers to anything tangible as opposed to abstract nouns that refer to things that are intangible, like abstract concepts and ideas. Not great writing advice I used to get a lot in grade school was to use concrete nouns instead of abstract ones wherever possible, because... reasons (?).

 

This is really solid advice. Why? The below essay will explain far better than I ever could.

https://www.writingforums.org/resources/walt-mcdonald-advice-i-wish-id-been-told.215/

-OJB

 

I don't disagree with this, but abstract and concrete terms both serve different purposes in writing and should be used accordingly. Trying to fill every abstract with a concrete is not only impossible but would also seriously bloat word count and kill pace. Say your character passes a distinguished gentleman on the street and never see's him again. If you say this gentleman stands about 5 foot 6 is wearing a gray tweet day jacket, brown trousers with smatterings of mud near the ankles and his face sports both a ruddy glow that suggests brandy and a set of gin blossoms that suggests a habit, you've eliminated the abstract, but you've also used a full line of description you didn't have to and thrown a whole pile of information at your reader that's just going to confuse them when it becomes obvious your character never sees this guy again.

 

I don't see how describing the distinguished gentleman converts him from abstract to concrete; a distinguished gentleman is every bit as concrete as one who's wearing a tweed jacket, etc.

 

Distinguished is abstract. Grey Tweed Jacket is concrete.

 

@jannert

When I was younger I tended to read books after watching their movie/ tv show adaptation. I figured that if I enjoyed the screen version then I could assume the books would be a hundred times better. People who watch movies in lieu of reading books were never going to pick up a book to begin with.

 

I think she is, and I base that not on the Harry Potter series, which my college-age daughter tells me I really should give a careful read, but I base it on the mystery/detective book she wrote under a pen name. I forget the name of the book, but the detective's name is Cameron Strike (or Stryke, I listened to the book on CD rather than reading it per se). I didn't realize it was her until later, after I finished it and enjoyed it very much. Got engrossed in it, found it solid and adult and worth my time. IMHO.

 

Ann Patchett, who's pretty critically respected, praised Rowling's The Casual Vacancy.

 

I think she's a good writer. I love how she can create a story, and you can fully see it in your head, even though there's tons of storylines, and tons of characters. Still it's not confusing. So I think that's great.

But I think what's good and what isn't, is just an opinion. Same as music. Not everyone likes the same thing. For example, a lot of people think Virginia Woolf's writing is just brilliant. I think it's boring, and I don't get the fuss. So I think the same goes for J.K. Rowling. It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea. And not everyone is going to agree on whether she's technically a good writer or not, because not everyone thinks the same things are good.

 

Ahhhh, JK Rowling. Had you asked me about her when I was 13 or 14, I would have likely cited her as my favorite writer. Then I read Half-Blood Prince, and I was left completely confused. Her writing definitely changed as the book series went on. I'm not sure if she began phoning it in or what, but I noticed a change as some HP-obsessed teenager. The characterization seemed off, the heart gone, and the plot didn't flow seamlessly like I felt it had in previous books. I don't know, I just remember to this day finishing book six scratching my head. I actually never read book seven, though I am well aware how the series ends.

I agree with those who said JK is a good writer, but I think her biggest strength is world building and story/character creation. What she came up with was brilliant in that way. You can't tell me the wizarding world she conjured up was not imaginative. She managed to create this universe that engaged children's imaginations everywhere while at the same time including enough intricacy, she also captivated adult readers, too. There's a lot to be learned from her and how she organically crafted the HP series.

 

Mark Twain:
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years.

 

This is exactly whay I wanted to post. I do like her worlbuilding and I think that's more important to suck you info the story of a fantasty novel than the writing itself.

 

The Cormoran Strike series written by Robert Galbraith -- or, as we now know, Mrs. J.K. Rowling.

 

This is really interesting to me as Half-Blood Prince is my favorite book of the whole series. I love everything about that book; Harry and Dumbledore's interactions and relationship in that book, everything that we learned about Voldemoret, his past and his family, those private lessons' with Dumbledore are some of my favorite moments of the book, maybe even of the whole series, the lore of the Horcruxes, all the character moments, Malfoy's arc. I'm not trying to challenge your opinion here it's just that I was genuinely taken about by your take on HBP. I mean a lot of people in the fandom do have issues with HBP and are critical of it, but I've never met anyone who had as strong of a reaction as you to it.

Deathly Hallows is a fantastic book in my opinion as well, it's a shame you never read it. It's a lot of people's favorite book of the series, even those who didn't enjoy HBP.


As for J. K. Rowling, she is definitely a good writer in my opinion. She's a fantastic storyteller who knows how to craft an engaging story with well-crafted and interesting characters in a really imaginative world. You can't help but be engrossed in her stories and her worlds, she sucks you in form the first page and doesn't let go until the very end. That's, in my opinion, the most important thing that a writer needs to accomplish with their story, and Rowling has mastered it. Sure her prose is simple, especially in the early HP books, but for me the story takes priority over the prose. I don't need beautiful, poetic prose to enjoy a book, I just need a well-crafted story.

 

I've read her Cormoran Strike series, it's fantastic. I'm guessing you only read/listened to the first one? if so give the second and third one a read/listen, you'll definitely love them as it gets better by each book, and she intends to write more. My personal favorite so far is the second book, Silkworm. Though Career of Evil (third book) is great too.

 

It gets really dark with the third one. But it's very well done imo.

Have you watched the BBC adaptation? They've done adaptes the first 2 books so far and I really like how it's turned out.

 

I think she's great; she gave one of the commencement speeches and was honored at my Dartmouth College graduation ceremony (Class of 2000!).