Quote:
Originally Posted by OtterBooks
But I think Rowling is skilled writer and storyteller so far as craft goes, to the point where the above shortcomings can be forgiven to some extent. I don't, however, think her work deserves mention anywhere near a conversation that includes substantial childrens authors such as Madeleine L'Engle or Frances Hodges Burnett, or even contemporaries like Philip Pullman. Maybe I'm just narrow-sighted and someday people will see it otherwise. My appreciation of literature is far from perfect.
|
I agree on the storyteller part. That might be why the audiobooks are so superior to the pbooks. The audiobooks put the story into the hands of a storyteller, which seems to make quite a difference, not merely for the Potter books, but for a lot of books, even well written ones. Angela's Ashes, for example, is simply superb when read by McCourt, who wrote the book.
As for the writing in the Potter books, it's just not very good. I think you could make an argument for her ability to construct a narrative flow, which is no small thing, but her vocabulary is small (a good thesaurus would have helped her a bit,) and her range is narrow. She repeats herself a lot when she describes things. I think the books suffer from being written down to her intended audience - early teens. Too bad she didn't have more respect for their ability to rise to a challenge. But OTOH, perhaps she knew exactly what she was doing - hard to argue with her overall success.
She's about on the level of Edgar Rice Burroughs - ERB wrote great stories, as long as you suspend your critical faculties and go with the flow. At least, for boys, and those of us who remain boys. But the writing? Pah!