On anti-HP-hype

[conuly]

A lot of people on my friends list today have posted about how they don't want the new HP book when it comes out. Harry Potter is derivative, a rip-off. It's badly written. It's in serious need of a good editing job. It's overhyped!

Well, yeah. I know!

I have always liked literary fluff. I still have very fond memories of the Baby-Sitters Club books, and of the Sweet Valley Twins series. I will happily read cheesy sci-fi novels with plot holes big enough to drive trucks though. (I also watch Lifetime and Disney made-for-tv movies, which really should give an indication of my taste). Yes, I read and enjoy serious works as well, but I've always felt there was a little bit of fun in reading candy. Or mocking it, whatever.

Am I the only one who sees it that way? Don't take Harry Potter so seriously. Read it, laugh, and move on with your life. Or don't read it. But don't diss those of us who happen to like badly-written books and movies.

Comments

[conuly]

I disagree. I don't think they're well-written at all.

Many of the characters are two-dimensional. There's glimpses that they could be more, but she never follows through with this.

The same adjectives are used over and over again. Try counting how often Hermione says something "waspishly". She never says something causticly, or cruelly, or snidely, or sardonically, it's always "waspishly". She doesn't even just *say* something. Why do we need to be told that an insult was said in an insulting fashion?

As for editing, I disagree again with you. There is no need for the books to be as long as they are. There's no need for JKR to put in loads of backstory in every book, the people reading the fifth book have read the first five. 100 pages could've been cut off of the last book if she'd just cut out the details that add nothing to the story.

And editing doesn't just mean "cutting out parts". It also means "making sure there aren't serious errors". She's had full moons when full moons are impossible, she's had characters repeat a year (something I'm assured is nearly impossible in the British system, especially if the year they repeat is their last year in school), she's made mistakes through the books. And that's fine, it happens - but a good editor should catch the more obvious ones.

Derivative? Well, aside from the infamous "Larry Potter" incident when they first became famous, there's the Worst Witch series to contend with. She's not on the grounds of copyright infringement, not by far, and I certainly agree that there's only so many ideas going around the world at any one time, but she's not the unique ideas person she's made out to be.

[conuly]

I don't mean that they're exceptionally badly written (god, I've seen too much to believe that) or that they're careless. I just mean... they're not that great. People get this idea that JKR is a wonderful writer. Well, she's not terrible, and she writes better than many (not that this is hard, mind, but she does) but she's not the world's best writer, she's not a wonderful writer.

[rpeate.livejournal.com]

My wife is a fan who has read all the books. I'll ask her opinion of your criticisms and get back to you. In the mean time, happy holidays!

[missfahrenheit.livejournal.com]

Re- repeating years.
Your last year is the one you're most likely to repeat afaik. There are a handful of people who were in my year who failed their A-Levels miserably and just went straigh back to FP to do the second year again. One of the people I work with is in this position (she was in my class) and is apparently now applying to do Law at uni- something she'd never have been able to achieve otherwise.

As for the Worst Witch things... I loved those as a kid, but I think they were boarding school books that happaned to be about witches and wizards, rather than books about witches and wizards that just happen to be in a boarding school.

[conuly]

1. Ah, that makes sense!
2. I miss the worst witch. Sigh.