Discussion in 'Community' started by Mar17swgirl, Feb 27, 2012.
Apparently it's an adult novel and has nothing to do with HP.
I remember seeing rumors about that awhile back. Speculation in the weekend papers here was that it might be a crime/mystery novel.
I expect it'll be a police procedural. Young detective Harold Parcel and his partner Rob Worrisome are transferred to the precinct of the eccentric Alfred Dynamo. Their first case finds them up against an evil drugs cartel headed by the dastardly Lionel Violence - last seen fleeing from the scene of a bust. Fortunately, they have a man on the inside... Simon Snarky.
I suspect it will still be terribly written. Since, you know, she really can't write very well.
You die now
Adult novel lol.
I admit she has her characters "beam" a bit too often, but still, you can't possibly say she's not a good writer...
This isn't very ground-breaking commentary, guys. Much like the the earlier English fantasy writer JRR Tolkin, she tells stories that people people find entertaining in prose that is of a pretty notably poor quality. Unlike him, she doesn't do nearly as much work in cultural and mythological synthesis, but I digress. My central point here is that one needn't be good at every facet of a particular discipline (or at any of them) to be well-liked. JK Rowling happens to be bad at writing.
We're on a Star Wars website. George Lucas. Please don't tell me you are challenged by this concept.
She's better then that Tiffany (Stephanie?) Meyer ho with those damned Twilight books.
Well, Judy Blume transitioned from writing books to pre-teen girls to writing trashy sex-filled romance books for adult women, so I don't see why not....
My dyslexic eight year old sister is a better writer than Stephanie Meyer.
I like Harry Potter, but it's not especially well written. It has well though out characters and emotional depth, but the actual writing isn't great.
Good writing is all flashy prose. At the end of the day its character and theme that count, and Rowling nails that cold. JK Rowling is a great writer who happens to write in a plain, direct style.
She uses too many adverbs for my taste and some pretty odd dialogue tags, but I don't find anything particularly "wrong" or "awful" with her writing. For the most part, I find her prose direct and straightforward, and entertaining. I would say her storytelling skills are greater than her technical writing skills.
I'm interested to see what this new book ends up being...
Harry Potter is written for kids. it's not meant to be Mrs Dalloway
I disagree, but then, I'm a Joyce fan.
I still like Harry Potter, mind you. And I also think it's a bit silly that everyone is prejudging a book that isn't out yet.
That should say "isn't all flashy prose" but I missed my edit window, if anyone had trouble sussing my intent. That's not to say that complex, elegant prose is a bad thing, obviously its not. I just chafe at the assertion that Harry Potter is "poorly written" as if the mechanics of the writing, which are (in my opinion) always solid, and which move smoothly and with verve (even if occasionally bland), can be called "bad," when the attention to characterization and theme, and the overall emotional resonance of the writing indicates that it is anything but "poorly written."
But yes, I am just as much a fan of Joyce and Fitzgerald and Faulkner (and Hemingway for that matter) as I am of Rowling, though I would never equate her with being as accomplished a wordsmith as those four.
Yeah, but all writers have their strengths and weaknesses. They all favor different things. Rowling, for instance, might not have the most unique prose, but I feel like she's one of the best character writers of the last century. I always felt like every single character in the books was a complete person, that she knew what was going on with them "off screen", even if we only saw as much as Harry did (the whole subplot with Lupin and Tonks is a great example). Perhaps it's because great characters and character interactions are what I personally tend to prefer, but I much prefer Rowling's writing to many of the literary greats.
Which isn't to say that makes the greats themselves any less great. Faulkner isn't lessened just because he's not everyone's cup of tea. But neither, I think, should Rowling be. I think people who say she's not a very good writer vastly underestimate how rare it is to find an author capable of making you interested in such a huge cast of characters.
-sj loves kevin spacey
Yeah, I'm thinking it will be some kind of detective/horror/political novel. It will be really interesting to read her writing about something else. Hope it comes out soon, it will probably be released before Pottermore is fixed
How's she a bad writer?
Man, this is two threads in a row where I disagree with you 100%, which hardly ever happens.
She reminds me a bit of George Lucas. Can tell a great story everyone loves, but doesn't execute it in the best way.
Harry Potter is great, but it's written in a pretty basic way. She told a good story that people liked, that doesn't make her a good author. Lucas is not a good director because he made a (mostly) good film series, most of it is badly directed.
Kind of the opposite of how I see Jane Austen. She is rightly a highly regarded writer in English literary history, but my god her stories are mind-numbingly boring and predictable.
It would be cool if there were subtle allusions that this book takes place in the Potterverse, but focuses solely on the Muggels, like maybe events are being manipulated behind the scenes by characters who might, or might not, be Death Eaters. I doubt she'll do that, but it would be cool.
Yeah, I, OTOH, would not like to see that, Chancellor_Ewok. What is she, Stephen King?
Someone else mentioned Jane Austen, as if she had superior prose. Having read Pride and Prejudice, I found Austen to be more basic and "readable" than 20th century greats like Faulkner, Hemingway, and Joyce. Kind of like.... gasp! JK Rowling! In fact, Rowling has mentioned Austen as a major influence on her writing, with one character in HP being an homage (Mrs. Norris). At a few rare points in the HP series, I could see the similarities in Rowling and Austen's writing, but I think most of the time, any influence is obfuscated by the fact that Rowling was writing for a young adult or teenager audience. With an adult book, we could end up seeing more obvious similarities between Rowling and Austen.
I am hoping for a mystery.
Really? I see her as pretty opposed to Lucas. Yes, they do share in common an ability for world-building, although Rowling's is much less original and more derivative of other fantasy works than Lucas's. However, Rowling has a supreme grasp of character and dialogue. It's her greatest strength, and something we're all well aware Lucas simply doesn't understand. Rowling's plots are actually not terribly original (though she still managed to dupe me on a lot of mysteries), but as I've said, all her characters are so interesting and well drawn that it becomes clear this is the focus of her story.
Austen is a more accomplished writer of prose than Rowling, but is no less focused on character. I think the end result of the two is basically the same. It's just that Austen was writing a lot of characters who were not saying what they felt and often the incongruity of their words and internal dispositions in the prose was how character was conveyed. But that's partly just a mark of the manner of the era she was writing. I think both women share a sense of witty yet character-revealing writing, it just manifests itself differently according to their eras.
-sj loves kevin spacey