That I can't deny. It's not that I don't like Charles Dickens, I just don't think he's that good. He's not bad. What kind of social commentary? I'm curious.
Charles Dickens was a great writer in his time. His writing is now too descriptive for most tastes. Some of his descriptive passages go on for far too long. But his characters were amazing and his portrayal of them is unmatched, even today. How can anyone forget Uriah Heap, or Fagin. And what power some of his writing had. 'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times....' is still one of the most famous pieces of literature. Judged on today's preferences many would not consider him to be a great writer. But he was - and in my opinion still is.
My problem with Dickens is that his characters are just too much. Like take Hard Times it's described as being a Manchester-esqe industrial town, and yet, for some reason, some of the characters have an obvious Scottish accent. And the character of Thomas Gradgrind only really struck me as a caricature. And Mr. M'choakumchild, that's not a real name is it?
She includes a lot of things that are clearly based on her experiences with amnesty international and Comic Relief. The geeky kid makes good - the school bullying. The comments on the class system. The views on prisons. There is the recreation of the triple entente. Possibly something relating to the apartheid prison system in South Africa. Comments on slavery - which is very hidden in the world. There is the segregation between the muggles and the magic people and the issues there. I could go on there are several more.
I must respectfully but VERY strongly disagree. There's no comparison. Like I said, Dickens' influence on English literature is indisputable, while many, myself included, look at Rowling and see mediocre prose with unoriginal ideas. To me it's like comparing John Coltrane to Kenny G.
Actually that would be about right in Dickens day - Liverpool and Manchester were both full of Scots and Irish - both groups kept themselves segregated. My grandparents born in 1904 and 07 one still had a faint Scots accent and the other a faint Irish one despite in the case of the Irish family being more than 50 years since the Irish lot came over. It was only in late 1800s/early 1900s that the communities even seriously started to intermarry. Dickens is a didactic writer and some of his characters are intended as caricatures. His purpose primarily was to make a social commentary to improve the life for others. Like Rowling his political and social views are a part of his works.
Yes, his characters are a bit caricature-ish, and that was ok way back then. They are too much today, we tend to like them more realistic. Yet we have our own modern caricatures and our own accepted formula for villians and heros. And some of his names were very - er - imaginative. But again, ok. in its day. I wouldn't know about Mr. M'choakumchild - never heard it, but then I haven't read all of Charles Dickens. (doesn't actually feel like something he'd use really) But how about the stories, like 'Christmas Carol' and 'Oliver' - they've stood the test of time and made great stage musicals and numerous films. Not sure that some of the modern best sellers will still be around this time next year, let alone in the next century.
Fair enough. Good point well made. Maybe my reading of Dickens has been colored by the modern world: I just don't like caricatures in serious writing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Times#Other_characters Oliver was good. I liked it, though It's not a favorite. And Christmas Carol; who can forget the Muppets.
You can disagree Plenty did about Dickens at the time. Not entirely sure he was all that original the likes of Walter Scott, Anthony Trollope and Maria Edgworth wrote similar stories. He was using what he saw around him. His prose wasn't that different to his contemporaries - it doesn't stand out from Thomas Hardy etc The main example in this is probably Marlowe vs Shakespeare. Marlowe is arguably the more original of the two his plots have more depth and his writing is better. However Shakespeare trounces him in the humour and character building. His ability to tell the stories was what captured public imagination and why he is the Bard and Marlowe ain't. Just like Dickens tends to be better read than Hardy. Again Hardy is probably the better writer and his plots deeper and more realistic (I can't stand Hardy but do admire his ability). However again Dickens is better with humour and character building. There have been considerably more Dickens adaptations than Hardy because Hardy is more difficult to read.
Dickens used names to make a point - like Charity and Mercy - Uriah Heep etc Little Peg. Pip. Tiny Tim. Bob Cratchett (sp??) They were meant to convey something often the name meanings and associations played a part in their choice. Which was normal for the time Hardy etc did the same thing. Certainly some of Rowling's choice of names shows she knew this.
It's hard to find examples of a lack of talent. You want me to find you some examples of Shakespeare's brilliance? It would be very easy to find some excellent timeless quotes for you. To find examples of Rowling's mediocrity? I dunno, open one of her books on any given page or something. I don't wanna comb through all her books to say "See? There's a fine example of average for you!"
Shakespeare did average he certainly wasn't the best at plots hardly original also had the added problem he could literally lose his head if he was too original. I love Shakespeare but he wasn't the best at the time he was the most popular. If I could get at my books (my book room is currently doubling as the loft) - I could equally include quotes and examples of JK Rowlings brilliance. Her humour with Fred and George is amazing. No writer is perfect - I still don't get how someone who can capture millions of people up in their imagination through the medium of writing can be a bad writer. There are plenty of writers I don't like but I don't call them bad writers - if they convey their stories in such a way to stand the test of time and that people love and turn to again and again - they are good writers.
Shakespeare plagiarized his plots; that's what people did back then. It wasn't his plots that make him great but the amazing things he did with (and for) the English language. Thomas Kincade is the single most successful painter in America. He is also a terrible artist. His works are vapid, pointless and unoriginal. I'm not saying she's a bad writer, and for the record I'm not even saying she ought not to be as successful as she is. What I'm saying is that she is not a great writer, and I really doubt will ever be looked upon as such in the future. I only care because I think if more aspiring writers stopped looking to her as an inspiration and a role model, and replaced her with greats like James Joyce or someone, our art would greatly benefit.
Why can't both be great writers - both communicate their work in a truly amazing manner ? I love both - there isn't much I won't attempt reading or writing. Personally think Grassic Gibbon is better than Joyce his stories are much stronger but he experiments as much with his writing. David Mitchell is a great choice as he can do story and great writing. I would rather be Rowling than Joyce - she is a better storyteller. Storytelling is a different art to writing and it is my goal. It is the better storyteller rather than the better writer that usually wins out in terms of longevity. Hence Dickens being more popular than Walter Scott, Anthony Trollope or Maria Edgworth. Those that endure in popularity rather than just enduring are always the ones with the warmth, humour and characters that capture, plots that interest. They tend to be good writers and great storytellers. Those that are great writers and mediocre storytellers tend to endure but to a lesser degree. Enid Blyton well and truly knocked Lewis and Tolkien into a cocked hat. Her books went through a troubled time but demand is bringing them back. Occasionally you get someone like Mark Twain or Agatha Christie that are great at both.
I wasn't asking for direct quotes. I was asking for a general breakdown. For example: Was suspension of disbelief maintained? Did her plot-lines make sense? Was her grammar okay? Was poor sentence structure an issue? Not enough description? Too much? That kind of thing. Many say that her books are poorly-written, but few go into detail. It helps to know "how" and "what" for a change. My complaints about her writing include the lengthy, unnecessary side-plots (like the SPEW thing) and the "killing sprees" in the later books. Also, the fact that JK Rowling preached too much. Okay, I get it that novels will always have a message of some sort, but it's not amusing when the book turns into a pulpit. The way to avoid this is by making things more grey instead of black-and-white. Oh, and I never cared for the main villain, Voldemort. He was too much like a comic book villain to take seriously - too black and white. Interesting how Rowling came up with so many other fascinating characters (characterization is where her real talent lies, in my opinion), but she didn't/couldn't give Voldie enough humanity to make him interesting. Voldemort reminds me of the villain Capricorn from Inkheart , another totally forgettable cardboard character due to his utter lack of humanity. Lastly, the lack of originality was sometimes grating. But, overall, despite the flaws, I did enjoy the series a great deal . . . the earlier books and selected parts of the later ones, anyway.
Well, I think her ending for the series was poorly written and thought out. BOOM! Voldemort is dead and the world is magically better! All the bad guys instantly give up. And there are no bad long term effects on the world. Live happily ever after everyone! I have to agree. Voldemort wasn't very good as a character. Yea, in the first few novels he was good as a villain because he was vague and mysterious, which works for children's novels, but after nine books his backstory was really weak. I mean, Rowling basically said Voldemort didn't understand true love because he was born of a union without love, was never loved as a child, no love here, no love there, no love anywhere, etc. Good grief, if the guy doesn't love anything why would he want to live forever? Of course, the only thing I hated worse than the ending of HP was the controversy started when Rowling said Dumbledore was gay and everyone started rereading the entire series for hidden meanings. Really, did people expect to find Dumbledore hitting on Harry or something?
That's a good point. Imo a good epic story should leave the world in an overall worse (or in some cases better) state than where it was when the story began.
Just curious why you read all seven books if it was so bad you were constantly pulled out of the story to wonder what Rowling was on when she wrote? I actually think the remaining books (Order of the Phoenix) show what happens when you write sequels after previous ones have been published. You can't go back and rewrite to make it work as you develop the stories but then after Goblet of Fire I didn' t rush out to read them because I didn't they were as good. What they also showed was how seeing the injustices had affected her and they seemed more important to get into her stories to her. I mean Dickens did the same with some of his books, as we seem to be comparing the two. It will be interesting to see if the likes of SPEW etc actually have an impact in a few generations when those who grew up reading Harry Potter start to affect things. Took Tiny Tim around fifty years to start to bring about some form of healthcare reform.
The list quoted above is the text book guidelines of good writing. How many people apply themselves to these particular 'rules' and don't ever make a popular writer? The fact is that, whether or not Rowling adhered to the accepted theory of 'good writing', she gave her reader exactly what they wanted. That is good writing. I'm not saying throw away the rules, but what's the most important aspect of writing? Well in my opinion, and obviously in the opinion of the millions who have read and loved Harry Potter, to create an imagination-grabbing story that holds the reader. You could take the books, re-write them using 'good' writing guidelines and come up with a mediocre book, well written and of no interest whatsoever. J.K. Rowing would have to be classed as a good writer because she achieved what most writers set out to do - entertain her readers. She did exactly that. She wasn't trying to teach or to preach - she wanted kids to enjoy a good story.
I agree Evelon - you can't help but wonder if some of the magic of them would be lost if they were rewritten by someone else in a perfect style with different plot holes (every wrter has them if they are telling a story, right now my two biggest are forgetting to take his wolf everywhere and he has a broken arm). They work because of Rowling's style - I have read some of the other books she gets compared to and they are OK they are better written but they are missing that spark that her collection of words and ideas have.
