I think J.K. Rowling is an amazing writer, and not just because I'm a kid. I generally respect people who can write a story of an entirely different world which I can get sucked into without realizing it. Harry Potter is, without a doubt, one of the only books that I've read and actually really cried so much. And even if some people say she has no originality, if a person can read the story and overlook those things just because of the total awesomeness of the book, then I think that she's done a marvelous job. In the end, aren't books for the readers, not the critics? The characters are great, the story line line is great (I agree with Islander; the subplots are much more intriguing than the main plot. But then again, sub-plots are supposed to be like that, in my opinion, aren't they?), and this whole world of magic that she's weaved is just something that is on astronomical levels. I KNOW that ten thousand years from now, someone will read Harry Potter and think the same things that I have.
See this to me is what tells me she is a good writer - if you are just reading it to enjoy the story then actually that story is for many people so good the flaws are unimportant. When you set out to read it first time round none of these details pull you out the story. She did not set out to write a piece of literary fiction - she set out to write a good story. That she did. I flatly refuse to look over work I enjoy and criticize it left right and centre. I am not a bad writer and my writing is improved by looking for what I do like in a story rather than what I do not like. Where I do take note is when something is preventing me from being lost in the story or something pulls me out. To be honest think if you can't be lost in a story I think you can easily lose perspective on what is a good writer and what elements make up an excellent story. Often this is what happens with literary fiction its so focused on getting the writing correct its forgotten to tell a story. Others are more honest and never bother trying to tell one that usually works better. Take a lot more innate talent to be a storyteller than it does to be a writer.
That's true. With learning and practice, you can achieve grammatical perfection in your writing and still be a mediocre writer. In fact, if you concentrate too much on the rules you can lose the spontaneity and freshness of a story. It takes more than being able to follow rules to be a good writer.
this tells me that she is creative...as for her writing...well...it's middle of the line i suppose...
This whole discussion really raises the question of what is meant by 'writing' and 'writers' If we judge 'writers' solely on the use of language and grammatical accuracy and don't take into account any aspect of content, then anyone who can put a series of words, correctly spelled, correctly punctuated, into a well constructed sentence, is a 'good writer'. If we judge on content, forgiving the errors, provided that the story holds the reader, feeds his imagination and brings enjoyment, then anyone who can enthrall his readership with the twists and turns of a well-though out plot would be classed as a 'good writer'. And the point is: does it matter? A writer is someone who picks up a pen and writes. Good writers have readers. Rowling has millions. I
so did hitler...but that isn't fair...a psychologist who writes reports with flourish and style (believe me i have seen them, in both senses too) can be considered a good writer...but i suppose we classify according to niche... so Rowling: good imagination + average quality of writing = ?
They absolutely can. But my point is that you don't have to be a technically correct writer to be good. Neither do you have to be able to produce intiguing plots to be interesting (as in psychologist reports.) Both have their own merit. To be good a writer has to interest, entertain, inform, their readers. Rowling did that. So do thousands of psychologists, engineers, doctors etc. I wouldn't want to sit for even five minutes reading a technical report about mining subsidence. My husband does. It's what interests him. That's good writing. I wouldn't want to do it, but I can appreciate the skill. So taking your equation Rowling good imagination + average quality of writing = a writer who sold millions, entertained her readership and in the process made far too much money (that I'll concede) Psychologist: technically competent, deep knowledge of subject, interests and informs his readership but has little following in the general public = good writer who probably makes too little money. Both are taltented in their own field. It's a bit like comparing apples and pears. Some people like either one or the other, some like neither, some like both. Differences in subject, style, percieved ability should be welcomed in the field of literature. Without them it would be a very boring field.
i think readership is a poor indicator of quality...but i suppose it would be unfair to pit rowling who writes for kids against, say, Tolstoy who writes for gods...
Yes, I get that point. But quality itself is subjective. And if we define a good writer only as someone who is technically good, we would condemn hundreds of others who have been and continue to be successful.
But pooh-poohing popularity is also a pretty poor way of judging. Thomas Pynchon is a fantastic writer, and is also rather popular. Don Delillo is a decent writer too, and popular. T.S. Eliot's Wasteland was the poem of his generation. You can't call it a bad poem either.
absolutely...but i think that to be a good writer...you have to be good (at least)in both technical and creative elements...some amount of lopsidedness is fine...
This is something that really bugs me. Excepting those who are writing entirely for personal pleasure, what use is a writer without a reader? Writing is a communication tool - fact is Rowling communicated her story in a way other people got. I find the disdain writers have for readers a little disgusting. I am a reader and I think this is offensive. Personally I find Tolstoy OK but can ramble on in places, Victor Hugo is better at the rambling. Readers know what they are like and believe me when you have a teen readership they will let you know if you got anything so glaringly wrong the story is boring. If writing is not about communicating your ideas on paper in an effective manner what is it about ?
uggh!...the point was that using a writer's popularity as a tool for evaluating their skills is problematic...
I'm starting to think that JK Rowling's writing is a lot like Gillian Anderson's face. Considered separately, Gillian's features are imperfect (e.g. jaw too large, chin too strong). Seen as a whole, her face is above average. Similarly, Rowling's books have a lot of flaws, but they (obviously) work out in the grand scheme of things.
I think that this discussion is really about the definition of 'a writer' be it good or bad. If you consider a writer to be someone whose priority is the promotion of technically perfect grammar, then only those who achieve the highest grades would be considered good, no matter the subject or their popularity. If, as you say, a writer is primarily a communicator, then a much broader criteria comes into play. I tend to fall on the 'communicator' side of the fence, although I appreciate the well written word. But I do understand the preference, in most cases, for a gripping tale rather than an excellent standard of writing. Some writers do fall below acceptable. I just don't think JK Rowling is one of them.
It's true though and its why i think an authors popularity is generally a good indicator. A reader will take a book as a whole and decide if they like it. If the writing and storytelling was that bad fact is teens will tell you - they don't think twice about telling me when my characters aren't behaving right or something hits them in the face that pulls them out the story. I know I have the story right when a fair number of them read it in a night and have no serious complaints. JK Rowling, Dan Brown, Stephen King, Kathy Reichs etc are popular because their writing communicates a story well. Shakespeare, Alcott, Dickens, Austen, Brontes etc were all popular in their own time. I actually think size of readership is a fair indicator of a writers ability - to suggest otherwise is weird. When Grassic Gibbon, or Joyce experiemented with punctuation and ideas its proclaimed as brilliance and experimental. If Rowling takes liberties with plot or characters in order to tell her story in the way that fits together best its mediocre. That to me smacks of double standards.
well...i will just disagree...completely...and leave it at that... if you start taking that logic into other avenues...you can start to see problems...but that wouldn't be germane...(george w bush)
I just think great writer can be applied to both sides of the fence. I love allsorts of literature. The ideal is when they combine both however that talent is very, very rare. What do you feel a writer is and what their relationship is to a reader ? As an archaeologist my role was to take something incomprehensible and make it engaging and interesting. I see my writing the same way, taking my stories and making them as entertaining, engaging and interesting to my readers as they can be. JK Rowling has achieved what i would love to - not about money or fame etc but to have a story that entertains many people. Nothing gives me greater joy than seeing readers develop relationships with my characters or find the world interesting or ask when there will be more of something.
