Ditto.Originally Posted by mona amon
Ditto.
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
What were those "dry cliches", JBI? I couldn't find any worth worrying about on page 4 of Sorcercer's Stone, and I certainly didn't find anything "dry" about any of the phrases.
Bloom makes it sound as if the publisher allowed the book to go to press without an editor's review.
Like or hate the books, JBI, they were very well written. Now, how to do I know that? Those books and movies resonated with millions of readers and viewers for over a decade, repeating their successes over and over again. That's right. You read me correctly. My evidence consists of the very millions of readers Bloom doesn't have any respect for and whom he wants to disparage.
I've read some of Bloom's own writings. I would characterize Bloom's style as "vacuous purple prose, full of mindless name dropping". His goal seems to be to see how far can he can fool the reader into accepting his authority without providing any evidence that the reader could reasonably check. Unfortunately for Bloom, I prefer evidence to authority.
So, this makes me wonder not what's wrong with Rowling, but what's wrong with Bloom? Did Snape cast a Confundus Charm on him? He writes as if someone did.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
The funny thing is even JK Rowling mentioned the need to rewrite the first book (and another) because they are did in a rush and could be better.
But yes, they are very well written. Millions of fans to prove it.
Exactly. You are finally seeing a glimmer of the light although it seems still shaded with some sarcasm. (Oops, that part about the light was probably a big, bad cliche.)
Rewriting a book that would benefit from revision is not a fault, but a virtue in writing.
Authority counts for way too much in literary criticism. The slavish parroting of authority discredits the discipline, and makes outsiders think there is no discipline to it. We need to look at evidence in any way that it comes to us. Sales are definitely hard evidence.
Were I a writer of this type of literature, I would want to know why the HP books were so popular. What did they have that other books did not? I would not be wasting any time trying to put down Rowling or her readers. I would want to understand.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
Well, Bloom's not entirely wrong about the cliche phrases. However, he misses a lot of good things happening as well. I just read through pages 1 - 5. The first thing I noticed was the tone. The opening on page 1 has a very Austen, Dickens, Dahl feel to it.
On re-reading the first 5 pages, one area that Rowling shines is with her voice, which is still a product of prose to some extent, specifically the narration style. There is a very distinct and engaging voice here.
We are introduced to self-centered British bourgeoisie family who pride themselves on their normalcy, spying, gossiping in a comical way that suggests that Rowling is satirically poking fun at them, while also setting us up for the magical world to come, which will contrast with this normalcy.
On page 4:
I like Rowling's characterization here. She takes a typical action (shouting and screaming) normally associated with anger and stress, and flips our expectations in this paragraph by depicting Dursley as being "in a very good mood" after all this yelling as part of his job, telling us a lot about his character in the process in a fairly clever economical way."Mr. Dursley, however, had a perfectly normal owl-free morning. He yelled at five different people. He made several important phone calls and shouted a bit more. He was in a very good mood until lunchtime, when he thought he'd stretch his legs and walk across the road to buy himself a bun from the bakery."
On the other hand, on page 4 we also see some of Rowling's biggest flaws. Her word choices and overuse of adverbs are a weakness. If you have to use an adverb it's usually because you didn't select the correct verb.
Example from page 4: "He eyed them angrily as he passed."
Could easily be: "He glared at them as he passed."
Rowling goes for direct and cliche expressions of emotions (examples underlined):
I also noticed a lot of "was" and "were" throughout the first 5 pages instead of active verbs, which is a reflection of approaching the tale via exposition (telling) versus showing (active)."He didn't know why, but they made him uneasy"
"Mr. Dursley stopped dead. Fear flooded him."
Essentially on a sentence by sentence level Rowling is mediocre, but servicable; the writing has some cliches, too many adverbs, and lacks active verbs. I can't think of a single sentence worth quoting on its own. However, as Ursula Le Guin points out in her book on writing, the job of a sentence at the end of the day is to move the story forward and get to the next sentence. Rowling is actually pretty good at using most of her sentences effectively to move the story forward and is very good at creating a tone, atmosphere, voice, and interesting characterizations through her paragraphs. In the example paragraph above about Mr. Dursley, I would never claim any single sentence is particularly interesting, but all the sentences taken together are interesting in its overall effect.
Well, Bloom is also correct in his assertion that sales aren't evidence for quality. A lot of junk sells in droves. Although sales aren't evidence for lack of quality either. I don't disagree with Bloom on all his points; I just think he made crappy and lazy arguments to support those points.
Typically these conversations unfold the same way every time. We've been having the same argument over Potter for the last four years on LitNet, with the same people involved making pretty much the same exact comments. Heck, I've had this same conversation about literary masterpieces as well such as the Bible. You usually get the same standard lines as Bloom's criticisms of HP:
1) It's poorly written.
2) it's derivative.
3) It's escaping from reality rather than facing it.
4) Can hundreds of millions be wrong? Yes. The only reason people like the Bible is for its cultural status and they don't want to feel left out (Emperor's New Clothes syndrome).
5) As time unfolds and secularism rises, we'll see the Bible relegated to the dustbins of history.
These arguments tend to be just as bad when used against the Bible as they are when Bloom employs them against Potter for exactly the same reasons, which usually involves people taking for granted most of these points and not developing them.
Last edited by Drkshadow03; 09-30-2012 at 11:40 AM.
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
The biggest seller of the cultural revolution, Maos red book is the best selling book in the last 1500 years without a doubt. It resonated over a decade with so many people. Does that make it excellent literature?
Yes/no you are basically proving Blooms argument for him with your zealotry. The books have a toss prose style. Get over yourself please. Any oft with any critical judgment can tell that it is not in style that the book succeeds. Even if they like the books.
As for a mature style, she never achieved it - stylistically as noted the prose mimics many a better author. The style later tends toward melodrama, as the plot takes over the narrative in the last few.
In general the books are not perfect, do get off your high horse and stop feeding this nonsense with zealous proclamations that these semi decent kids books are gospel. Not only are they not, they also are quintessentially English and Christian which also does not resonate with everyone. Preachy potter only gets preachyer. And there will always be those who eat its gospel.
I'm curious, why do they have to be well written? Why can people not accept that what they love may not be that great? It is filled with cliches, just like 99% of literature in the fantasy genre . . . and my question is, so what? People love cliches. I love reading comic books, and a lot of them aren't good, and you know what? I don't really care, and neither do MILLIONS of other people who read comics. But I also have the wherewithal to realize that me loving comic books doesn't mean much when taking into account their quality, I'd estimate about 95% of them are pretty bad. I love them anyways.
So, why do supporters of certain things, in this case HP, after be so insisting that what they love is indeed great . . . when it's obvious it isn't. Is it good? Yes. Does it do what it's supposed to do (provide brainless entertainment)? Yes. Is it great literature? Debatable at best, but definitely not a certain "yes." Drk illustrates the pros and cons wonderfully with actual TEXTUAL evidence (something often lacking around here, not that I'm a huge contributor).
Oh, and btw, Bloom is a dried up old fossil who clings to his own prejudices and narrow views as bad as the masses he talks down to from his pedestal.
Last edited by Mutatis-Mutandis; 10-01-2012 at 10:02 PM.
Meh, you do not give Bloom enough credit. He still has some interesting things to say.
As for why they need to be great, they don't. But the fanboys and girls will not shut up about these books, and keep yelling how great they are, and how by extension we now need to read, or should read this drivel of a follow up novel - it is disgusting how much press we get shoving these books down our face at how Rowling is somehow the world's biggest gift to literature. that's why we argue.
If nobody talked about them, they could simply just be retired to the garbage can of all other toss literature. But people still affirm them, which means people will still dispute how amazing they are, like me. I do not care if people read them, but I dislike when people come on these boards and because they like these books think they are God's gift to literature. The books are flawed, and if one cannot discuss the flaws with someone, one aught not to post.
Well there is a certain segment of various fandoms that generally take their entertainment (read: obsessions) way too seriously.
I'm a dude . . .Drk illustrates her pros and cons wonderfully with actual TEXTUAL evidence (something often lacking around here, not that I'm a huge contributor).
Essentially the problem isn't fanboy love of Potter or Bloom's dislike of Potter. It's the constant back-and-forth declarations: it is good, it is bad. It has great prose. It's prose sucks.
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
I think I screwed up spelling"the" and it autocorrected it to "her" for some reason. You know I know you're a dude.
Ah, I just thought the pronoun referred to Rowling, not Drkshadow, her as in Rowling's pros and cons.
I don't think I've ever said the Harry Potter books are "great." I believe I have said that I thought her characterizations were good. I think she plotted her books fairly well. I enjoyed reading them quite a bit, as did my children.
I guess I never understood why they had to be "great." They are children's books. I would hope they'd be well-written, but great literature? It isn't necessary for them to be great literature for them to be great reads for kids. If you want great literature for kids you might look at The Mouse and His Child by Russell Hoban which one critic described as "Beckett for children."
What other children's books do you all think fall into the great literature catetgory? Perhaps we'd have better luck with this discussion if we compared them to other literature.
And yes, she does use cliches. Its probably what makes the books easy to read, as cliches act as a kind of shorthand to various elements of a plot; think of a beach read, in other words. Kids probably aren't going to notice that as much as adults will.
Last edited by qimissung; 10-02-2012 at 12:56 AM.
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its' own reason for existing." ~ Albert Einstein
"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are." Buckaroo Bonzai "Some people say I done alright for a girl." Melanie Safka
Just finished the Casual Vacancy. It was OK - not bad, not great. Definitely not on par with the wonderful HP books, but I don't think anyone was expecting it to be.
The HP characters are larger than life, cast in the heroic mould, battling it out in extreme situations. This book is about small people in a small town, with their small everyday concerns and predictable peccadilloes and neuroses.
While each chapter had me interested and involved (I was certainly not hovering over the story in a detached way, as happens with some books), I feel it lacked focus or something and don't feel she did a good job of tying up the various threads in the end. I didn't crack a smile. I didn't shed a tear. Maybe I just didn't get it, but I closed the book feeling unsatisfied, though not disatisfied, and that's the reason for my lukewarm review.
My rating - 5.5/10
Last edited by mona amon; 10-02-2012 at 01:08 AM.
Exit, pursued by a bear.
I for once do not think that any critic should be made because of the genre children literature, something JK Rowling does not even follow so strictly. It is more a critic to the industry, many flaws you may find could be corrected had the books a more slow process of production, but the demand pushed the book faster. Plus, the publishing house play more and more with safe bets. If Rowling or any author wanted to fly away, they would probally push her down. Look, even now when she is considerably free, a change of style atracted many question marks even before the book was out. Without risk she cannot even polish her style. This is the same for many authors who are vallued more for the capacity to stay on the same place than move foward.
This does not affect her, even a more versatile writer like Neil Gaiman is getting "dumbed down" (copyright bloom) to be in a safe place on children market. His Graveyard Book is very poor, almost a HP wannabe for emo boys that love gothic stuff. The book has a plot similar to HP and as simplistic. Those books work, but really, it is basic. Paulo Coelho and Dan Brown work too. And they will sell with the appropriate marketing.
Quimmisung, you raise interesting points. I feel children's critical faculties are still in the developing stage, and the important thing is to get them into the reading habit and allow them to decide for themselves what they find interesting, even if it's just Sweet Valley or Goosebumps. Those with a penchant for reading good books will eventually gravitate towards them.
The important thing is to give them plenty of books to choose from. If you just provide them with a few 'great children's literature' or what some critics think is great, they just might find these boring and give up reading altogether.
Exit, pursued by a bear.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
