What do you think of JKR's writing style?

I was having this conservation with some one the other day. He started it by saying that Rowling is a terrible writer not only in general, but in the fantasy realm.

Me, personally, I completely disagree. When it comes to dialog, I really don't think there's anyone in modern literature who can top her. I'm an english major, but I get bored reading some awful and unrealistic conversations by some "brilliant" authors. But Jo just does it so well. Her dialog is so spot on and it's so realistic that I could imagine the words actually being spoken by the characters.

Then we got started on plot. He said that her latest plot is a "find X magical items", but I really don't think it matters. All of her plotlines are interwoven so well through all stories with clear reasoning for all of them, it doesn't matter how you boil it down, she does it well.

The only thing that we agreed on was that her prose wasn't good. He thought it was terrible, and I somewhat agreed, if we were only talking about the first two books. HPB, while not a marvel of prose, was above average, especially in the fantasy world.

Am I the only one that thinks that JKR is actually a great writer?

I wouldn't say you were alone in that thinking. I love to read and HP is really the only fantasty literature that I can actually read.
I think she set's alot on character development and that's why we either hate them, like them or love them.
She's definatly one of my favorite author's, she's actually my only favorite author.

I would have to agree that JKR is an excellent writer. The dialog is always very interesting and it seems she throws in a little bit of sarcasm or wit from time to time which is very amusing. I read a little bit of other fantasy books but HP is written in a completely different style. She also is great at writing all different moods, light and easygoing, the dark scenes with Voldemort and everything in between.

Well, Jo has glued me to the pages from 2001 with Stone, and I can't wait for DH...

It keeps me hooked. I'm not a very 'bookish' person, I still have to think verb = a doing word. Books that have what I called 'clutered up' writing turn me off very quickly. I like the way JK writes, even the though the plot is complicated, her writing style is simple :)

What I love about J.K.'s writing style is that it combines the modern-day world (with modern-day dialogue) into an imagined fantasy world effortlessly, whereas other books such as Eragon fail at this. Even my mom who's never read a fantasy novel before admits that Harry Potter is very absorbing reading.

And as for her prose, what I love about her style is that it's simple. If it wasn't, she definitely wouldn't have gotten so many people who didn't like reading before to love her books. The prose is simple, but also very engaging, while Tolkien's novels, by contrast, contain very complicated, descriptive prose. It's great writing but can be difficult for the casual reader, not to mention a huge amount of characters to remember (same thing with Robert Jordan). What J.K. Rowling has done is get millions of people to love fantasy, and for that, she deserves congratulations.

i think it is great and would never disagree with it tho. i always wondered what it would be like if it was written in the first person, so we got to read deeper into harrys thoughts and feelings more..but i love it as it is.

I think that she is a great writer, by interwoving things right thoughtout the books and her red-herrings, twists and suprises and what other writer all has us quarralling about *certain* characters?

Also with including the muggle world it also makes us feel like a part of it.

Well, she writes very readerly. Meaning it's very easy for the reader to read and understand what's happening. I don't believe she's the most gifted writer though. She's not very good with romance and sometimes it's not very eloquent, but her ideas and themes more than make up for it.

I like her style.
Its easy to read, yet can contain some really complex ideas.
I like how concise she is, I think.


Sometimes it reminds me of my writing style, but then I get jealous because she's just amazing at what she does, and I wish I could come up with an idea half as good. :p

I've been obsessed with the series since PS first came out, so lets just say I love her style.

You definately aren't alone in thinking she's a great writer. People wouldn't read her books if she wasn't. The story alone isn't good enough, if not supported by a great writer.

Part of being a great fiction writer is coming up with a great storyline.

I also agree with everyone else that her simple, wittty, writing style allows anyone to read with ease and with some wit and depth of story it makes for a great reading.

Shes the perfect author for the perfect series of book

In order to fully appreaciate JKR's writing style you have to read the writing style of some bad fantasy writers. JKR tells the story of Harry Potter in a way that makes it very easy for the average modern reader to understand. The plot of HP is extremely complex, but its hard not to understand it if you read the books. JKR also has a natural gift for making dialogue sound natural. On the flip side you could hardly call JKR's style poetic. Instead, HP fans have to focus on other good aspects of the book of which there are many.

JKR certainly does seem to come in for a fair degree of criticism about her writing style... but who really cares? :) Her books are wonderfully entertaining and enjoyed by millions and at the end of the day that is what matters. I sometimes think those who criticise her do so because they are envious of her extraordinary success.

Some writers are so enamoured with language they lose sight of what it is they are trying to convey. JRR Tolkein fell into this trap with The Silmarillion, which is an absolute chore to read. JKR just concentrates on the story; there are no pretentions in her writing. She manages to create very clear images of both environments and characters without resorting to overlong passages of description. Her prose never gets bogged down and turgid. Her ability to convey emotion is simply excellent. Best of all is the stories themselves. They are full of clever twists and laced with carefully hidden clues and lines which take on a whole other meaning in hindsight. The latter is what makes the stories so re-readable, always a sign of a good book.

JKR's writing isn't without flaws though. The one that sometimes grates is her tendency to overuse the word 'said' during her dialogue, often followed by an adverb e.g. 'quietly' or 'heatedly'. Much of the time I tend not to even notice because the dialogue is so engaging, but occasionally I can't help wishing she had replaced 'said' with an alternative or two instead of ending several lines in a row with 'said X'. Another irritant is her use of the word 'muscly' rather than 'muscular', but that may be just me!

I think her style is just fine, but I wish she would use her language a little better. If I have to read that Harry has "quite enough to be getting on with" one more time, I think I will do something seriously evil to a small furry animal. (Hyperbole, no need to call PETA)

Sometimes she gets very repetative in her word choice, which can be quite out of place when the same language comes from several different characters, especially in the same book. Then there's the "UnitedKingdom-centric" wording that throws me. Petrol, boot, wellies - I get all that - but what does Wotcher! mean??!!? And the fact that Tonks is the only one who uses it, doesn't give it much credence or context. I suppose there's a certain amount of that to be expected since the events take place in greater England, but let's stay away from the colloquialisms, shall we?

George R.R. Martin writes better dialogue than JKR, honestly I think she's an above average write who is spectacularly creative. Really to me, the allure of Harry Potter books is the entire world she has crafted with her books.

Okay, so JKR is not Shakespeare. I don't have a problem with that. She is entertaining. The series began simply, so that any higher level elementary school child could read them. As Harry has aged, so has the writing in the books. What is more important to me than the use of colloquialisms and the over use of 'said' is that she writes stories that entice children and adults to read. I can picture the scenes and the characters in my mind. I feel like I am there with them in Hogwarts. I become a part of the story. To me, that is the sign of a good writer.

I suppose there's a certain amount of that to be expected since the events take place in greater England, but let's stay away from the colloquialisms, shall we?
Since JKR is from the UK I think she has a perfect right to write in British colloquialisms - as far as I can remember, a great deal more of them are changed into Americanisms for the US editions anyway. I know I've read several books by American authors that have quite a lot of American language that I don't understand much, so I know where you're coming from, but I still think, even then, that they have a right to use the words and language in their books that they would use themselves. Indeed, JKR's blatant love of using all words British-y are part of what makes the series attractive to me.

I think that JKR writes in a style that is really easy to read, and makes her muc-more-complicated plots simpler to understand. The dialogue is also realistic, even if her word choices are sometimes too repetitive or simplistic, as others have said. However, the series is still aimed somewhat at young teenagers, and I think the books in general are written in a style that is easy for them to read without being patronising, and at the same time wouldn't put older readers off.

(By the by, ID824, 'wotcher' was apparently a popular form of greeting people around the time Tonks was a young girl, and she certainly strikes me as someone who would not be too bothered about using a phrase that was no longer 'in fashion'. Just in case you still didn't know what it meant :))

Then there's the "UnitedKingdom-centric" wording that throws me. Petrol, boot, wellies - I get all that - but what does Wotcher! mean??!!? And the fact that Tonks is the only one who uses it, doesn't give it much credence or context.

I use wotcher quite alot, probably my favorite greeting of all time, perfectly good compound joining. As you say, it is set in the UK and she is a English so I think it's perfectly fair for Jo not to change her idiolect to be non-UK-centric just because the books are sold outside of the UK. One wouldn't expect an American author to use the term Gasoline instead of Petrol just because the book will ship to the UK as well as US.

Anyway, tangent over, back to the original point. It is interesting, JKR has done something very, very special with the series. She has managed to make a series of books that grow in complexity and depth of emotion from the first, along with the reader, whilst still creating a series that a young child could enjoy from the first book till the last.

JFTR 'Wotcher' comes from the greeting 'What Cheer?' and if you really want to use it, it's pronounced more 'What-cha' than 'Watcher' . Lets put it this way, it's not the Queens english, though it would be fun if she used it sometimes :D
... and back to our regular topic..

I thought that 'Wotcher' was a lot like 'whazup' here in America.

I think her writing style is fantastic, it definitely draws the reader in quickly and she is so skilled as describing things so beautifully that you can make a really clear visual in your head. She is very clever at putting words together and dropping clues where you would least expect.

I use wotcher quite alot, probably my favorite greeting of all time, perfectly good compound joining. As you say, it is set in the UK and she is a English so I think it's perfectly fair for Jo not to change her idiolect to be non-UK-centric just because the books are sold outside of the UK. One wouldn't expect an American author to use the term Gasoline instead of Petrol just because the book will ship to the UK as well as US.

However, we see all sorts of changes happen through the translations of the book into different language, it would be easy enough to change these as well.

However, we see all sorts of changes happen through the translations of the book into different language, it would be easy enough to change these as well.

I guess it all comes down to the decisions of the US editor on how true to stay to the subject, changing all the terms to Americanisms would be very odd indeed given that it's set in England.

I can picture the scenes and the characters in my mind. I feel like I am there with them in Hogwarts. I become a part of the story. To me, that is the sign of a good writer.

That is exactly what I love about the series as well. She is certainly very descriptive of the events and the scenes in the story. She writes her characters very colorfully, and is able to bring a perfect sense of mood to the story at any time.

I guess it all comes down to the decisions of the US editor on how true to stay to the subject, changing all the terms to Americanisms would be very odd indeed given that it's set in England. True, but don't use words that aren't even recognizable as words that exist. The first time I read "Wotcher Harry" I thought it was a typo - but as I stubled through the sentence I thought maybe it meant something like "Watch Out!" and that Tonks had just accidentally sent some curse his way. :) I assume words like this aren't translated into Chinese or Russian - they would get foreign-language versions of these words and I would like to see this happen with the US editions.

Obviously this isn't really a comment on JKR's writing so much as the US translators, but it would be a welcome change for me.

I enjoy JKR's writing style because she doesn't condescend to her older or younger readers, or hold them at arm's length. Conversation flows well and relationships (on the whole) are believable- a rare thing in any sort of fiction. The transition from innocence to experience is relatable as well.

I genuinely hope she continues writing as I'm eager to see if she'll try her hand at more adult literature. :)

True, but don't use words that aren't even recognizable as words that exist. The first time I read "Wotcher Harry" I thought it was a typo

I had the same experience when I came across the word 'Fug' in the first chapter of HBP, I was sure it was a typo of 'Fog', but it turns out it's an old British term, bit like 'Dimpsey'.

Obviously this isn't really a comment on JKR's writing so much as the US translators, but it would be a welcome change for me.

That's the thing though, the US edition doesn't have translators does it? It's just edited by a different team than the UK edition, which is why the word count is different. I'm fairly sure that they don't actually change any words, just prune and re-arrange.

I love JKR's writing style. She writes it in away that I feel like I'm actually there experincing it all for myself. I feel as if i've left the real world and entered harry's. I love how she forshadows things and how she is so fantastically creative!!! She keeps her reader's aticipating the next book and not every writer can do that. JKR is a fantastic writer and I'm sad to see the series start to come to an end.

she always finds a word to describe, like, every word in the book.

The thing is. You all call Harry Potter books a fantasy. Well it is a fantasy, but not in all aspects of real fantasy books. First of all, it is placed in our world, Earth, it has some (a lot) connection to our 'muggle' world. I dont think this is bad, because it gives a reader a strong connection to the book and its storyline, but this is just not part of a real fantasy novel. I am studying J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis for quite a long time now. And I must say that their work (especially Tolkien's) is much more deeper and much more detailed than Rowling's.
The main difference between Harry Potter and for example Tolkien's Middle Earth is that creation of Middle Earth started from languages, names and maps. Then all those things developed a story. In Harry Potter, story comes first, than all other things.
I cant say I dont like Rowling's books, I like them a lot. But if she payed more attention to details, we would have much more to discuss now. If she just tried to create a basic structure of non-plot related thigs and then build a story on that.
I have read 'Quidditch Through The Ages' and 'Magical Beasts And Where To Find Them' and I must say these two books are phatetic. I know you wont agree with me and that you will think I just came here to brag about. But thats the truth. The only good thing about those books is that the part of the money you paid for the book will go to charity.

I really love Harry Potter books but I feel sad because we could have been given much more to read and to study.

The thing is. You all call Harry Potter books a fantasy. Well it is a fantasy, but not in all aspects of real fantasy books. First of all, it is placed in our world, Earth, it has some (a lot) connection to our 'muggle' world. I dont think this is bad, because it gives a reader a strong connection to the book and its storyline, but this is just not part of a real fantasy nove

I must disagree with you here. Especially children's fantasy is often set in a world that is accessible through a door in "our" world. Sometimes it is even set in the "real" world. When Tolkien wrote LotR is was not a given that fantasy literature had to be set in its own original fantasy world either. Lewis' work is heavily inspired by Tolkien's, since they were friends and colleagues.


As to JKR's style, it is a simple and straightforward style. I enjoy the humour and the originality of the story she created. She is very inventive and able to evoke vivid images in the readers' minds.

I must disagree with you here. Especially children's fantasy is often set in a world that is accessible through a door in "our" world. Sometimes it is even set in the "real" world. When Tolkien wrote LotR is was not a given that fantasy literature had to be set in its own original fantasy world either. Lewis' work is heavily inspired by Tolkien's, since they were friends and colleagues.


I would just like to point out that the good thing about the connection between real and fantasy world is, as you yourself said, accessibility. But the bad thing is that and influence from the real world destroys the ability to create something new instead of something already familiar. And I know which of these two I prefer.

And I know 'Tollers' and 'Jack' were friends. But I have no doubt that Jack's work is not influenced by Tolkien. If you wish to discuss this subject a bit more please OWL me because this is not the place for it.

I think her writing style is very good, especially the dialogue. Even if a character has to say a long paragraph or something, the way they say it sounds like something someone would say in a real-life conversation.

And we should all be grateful she doesn't use purple prose. XD

HP is the only fantasy I can actually read, and enjoy, for many reasons more than one. I can't stand LOTR, I liked the Hobbit but have never been able to get more than 200 pages into LOTR, primarily because of the way Tolkien writes it - those who share my dislike will know what I'm talking about.

Is JKR a fantastic writer? For fantasy, yes. The only book I have trouble reading sometimes is GoF, even though it's my second favorite, there are so many little plotlines that end up having nothing to do with the plot (Blast-Ended Skrewts and SPEW come to mind) that it's kind of hard to get all the way through sometimes. But no matter how many times I read the books, once I start reading it's hard to not finish the book all the way through, even if I only started so I could escape from my homework for 15 minutes.

I won't deny that there are faults in JKR's writing style - someone pointed out her overuse of adverbs and now I notice it very much. But she makes fantasy bearable and that's good enough for me. Besides, I can't help but notice how much her writing has improved since PS/SS, although I'm not sure if that's a change of tone or writing style.

Her writing style is so addictive for me. I find when I read her books It's really hard to put them down because I want to know what happens next, even though nothing much is happening. She just has a way of capturing your mind.

not only is she brilliant, but i can't even say how many times she's made me laugh out loud, which rarely happens with other books.

Her writing style is perfect!!! That "some one" who said she was terrible must have been confunded! :)

Well shes almost perfect isnt she,her plots are awesome,shes funny she intense shes romantic in a not cheesy way,and shes a genius ,eventually she will have a boring chapter but she give the information you need even though you dont know you need it yet and well she has very complicated story told in such a fun and interesting way I think her style and ability are really magical.

She is so good but sometimes and as I'm not an English-speaker found some sentences written in a complicated way but All in All, I love her style.

Tolkien's Middle Earth is that creation of Middle Earth started from languages, names and maps.
I'd say the main difference between Tolkien's Middle Earth (Midgard anyone?) and Rowling's magical world is that the latter was not lifted from the Eddas.

Your friend that you were talking about really offended me :argh: .... It makes me wonder what that person thinks is "good writing" :hmm: . But no, her writing is so good. SO GOOD! that I'd chose her book over anyone's (Even the one I'm writing) :D .

I love Jo's writing style. Reading the HP books makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside, like I'm returning to an old friend. I can't think of any other author that has been able to create such a liaison with her or his audience.

HP books are certainly some of the easiest books I have ever read ... but it is because of HP that I got into fantasy (Tamora Pierce, Tolkein, Terry Pratchett (if that counts, lolz xD) hmmm .. ?)

I do like her writing style. First two books were very different from the recent ones as the years go by - she certainly did improve. ^.^;; ...

Umm what else to say ... oO;;

I think her writing is excellent. Although sometimes she does leave some questions unanswered. Although the unanswered questions will soon be answered in the 7th book. I give her a A+++

I'm kind of mixed on the actual style. In some areas, she's brilliant. In other areas, she's downright clumsy.

POSITIVES
+outstanding, off-the-cuff dialogue (hermione, you're ruining the best moment of my life!)
+witty observations (aunt petunia would simply love to be the one to call the hotline)
+she's avoids purple prose
+she can dredge up some striking imagery (bloodstains floating like crimson flowers across its surface)
+she never lets the words get in the way of the story

NEGATIVES
-downright awful use of adverbs ("Very happy," said Professor Trelawney sniffily.) [Staff edit]
-Occasionaly awkward sentence construction
I have no idea why the sentence {"I'll be careful not to slip in it." Harry smiled.} wasn't kept together in the same sentence
i.e {I'll be careful not to slip in it," said Harry and he smiled. or "I'll be careful not to slip in it," said Harry smiling.
-redundant phrases: "tiny little man" should be "tiny man"
-Misplaced commas and semicolons, etc.

And this is just a pet peeve of mine.

"-yet sadly, accidental rudeness occurs alarmingly often," Dumbledore finished the sentence gravely. "Best not to say anything at all my dear man."

THAT SENTENCE DRIVES ME CRAZY! I always notice it. Even when I'm deeply immersed. :yuhup:

I don't see why her editors didn't pick this up, but somebody needed to reconstruct this:

i.e.
"-yet sadly, accidental rudeness occurs alarmingly often," said Dumbledore. "Best not to say anything at all my dear man."

Or if said alone seemed to bare-bones for HP readers,

"yet sadly, accidental rudeness occurs alarming often," said Dumbledore, finishing the sentence gravely. "Best not to say anything at all my dear man."

But these things don't really matter, because JKR is such a genius at the art of building a blot and building character. The writing becomes a secondary concern.

Tell me what you think. I'd love for somebody to disagree with me.

I think that JKR's writing is great. Once you start reading one of her book's it's hard to put it down.

I like that she uses her writting diffrent from others. Her characters and writting make you feel like your a character too. She takes you from your room and into her books. I think a few people don't like her writting because it's based on witchcraft and the way she writes. Personally I love the way she writes....

I think her writing style is a little traditional, but that just adds to the charm of the story

I love JK's writing. She doesnt leav any plot holes and she keeps you on the edge of your seat with every chapter :)

Originally posted by AptPupil
Sniffily .
Yet it is in the dictionary! Trewlaney is expressing disapproval in the way she says 'Very happy'. JKR is criticised for her over-reliance on adverbs, but she does use them to great affect to communicate the way in which her characters are speaking and therefore the meaning behind their words. This plays an important part in establishing the distinct personalities of her characters.

I have no idea why the sentence {"I'll be careful not to slip in it." Harry smiled.} wasn't kept together in the same sentence
i.e {I'll be careful not to slip in it," said Harry and he smiled. or "I'll be careful not to slip in it," said Harry smiling.
Well, your second alternative has a different meaning. It states that Harry is smiling whilst he speaks whereas the original line and your first alternative both state that he speaks and then smiles. Personally, I see nothing wrong in JKR's version. There is no inherent need to use conjunctions.

And this is just a pet peeve of mine.

"-yet sadly, accidental rudeness occurs alarmingly often," Dumbledore finished the sentence gravely. "Best not to say anything at all my dear man."

THAT SENTENCE DRIVES ME CRAZY! I always notice it. Even when I'm deeply immersed.

I don't see why her editors didn't pick this up, but somebody needed to reconstruct this:

i.e.
"-yet sadly, accidental rudeness occurs alarmingly often," said Dumbledore. "Best not to say anything at all my dear man."

Or if said alone seemed to bare-bones for HP readers,

"yet sadly, accidental rudeness occurs alarming often," said Dumbledore, finishing the sentence gravely. "Best not to say anything at all my dear man."
Again, I'm not sure what the problem is here. Dumbledore finishes Uncle Vernon's last sentence either because Vernon leaves it hanging or because Dumbledore interupts him before he can complete it. The only slight issue I can see is that there should be a full stop after 'often' instead of a comma because it states that Dumbledore 'finished the sentence'. 'Best not to say anything at all my dear man.' should therefore constitute a new sentence rather than be a continuation.

As I was rereading the 6th book before the release of the 7th, I noticed a couple things that I thought were worth mentioning. J.K. has always carefully done her research while writing the books, like how much thought she puts into character names for example. Well, I noticed some word choices in the sixth book that may also bear the same importance. [br]
The first is that throughout the books, Harry has been safe "while he is with Dumbledore," and the same phrase is repeated when Harry is escorted to Slughorn's home in the beginning of the sixth book. Later, Rowling changes the wording to say that Dumbledore is safe because he is with Harry in the scene that Dumbledore becomes weak from drinking the potion. This change seems very significant, especially since it is the last sentence in the chapter. I am not sure exactly what causes the change, possibly a way to signify harry's transition or his value in the fight against Voldemort, but I thought it was worth noting. [br]
The second parallelism deals with the snape debate. Firts let me say that my view is that Snape is good and that Dumbledore knew about the unbreakable vow, which i believe is strengthened by a specific wording choice that Rowling uses. When Dumbledore tells Harry to force-feed him the potion in the cave, Rowling uses the words, "Hating himself, repulsed by what he was doing..." which make sense. It is understandable why Harry would feel those things - he is causing someone he care about to endure something awful because Dumbledore is forcing him to do so. The same word choice is used when Snape kills Dumbledore, "there was revelsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face." It seems to me that Snape felt the same way Harry did...forced to do something horrible to someone you care about. I am adding in the assumption that Snape cares about Dumbledore to further the parallelism and because I do not feel that it is too much of a stretch, even for Snape. Let me know what you think!

"-yet sadly, accidental rudeness occurs alarmingly often," Dumbledore finished the sentence gravely. "Best not to say anything at all my dear man."


Again, I'm not sure what the problem is here. Dumbledore finishes Uncle Vernon's last sentence either because Vernon leaves it hanging or because Dumbledore interupts him before he can complete it. The only slight issue I can see is that there should be a full stop after 'often' instead of a comma because it states that Dumbledore 'finished the sentence'. 'Best not to say anything at all my dear man.' should therefore constitute a new sentence rather than be a continuation.

No, the end of the sentence is the full stop after 'gravely', as is the case with all dialogue sentences. 'Dumbledore finished the sentence gravely' is grammatically no different from 'he said'; so a comma is the correct punctuation.

Yet it is in the dictionary! Trewlaney is expressing disapproval in the way she says 'Very happy'. JKR is criticised for her over-reliance on adverbs, but she does use them to great affect to communicate the way in which her characters are speaking and therefore the meaning behind their words. This plays an important part in establishing the distinct personalities of her characters.

Even if the word IS in the dictionary, it should not be used. JK Rowling's dialogue is vivid enough to the point that we don't need the adverb. We can TELL that Trewlaney said it that way just because she talks in such a vivid way. The adverb is uneccesary and it grates on the ears. (When I'm reading the HP books to other people, I always cut out the adverbs, because it sounds like nails on a chalkboard. I guess this makes me sacreligious :lol: but oh well)


Well, your second alternative has a different meaning. It states that Harry is smiling whilst he speaks whereas the original line and your first alternative both state that he speaks and then smiles. Personally, I see nothing wrong in JKR's version. There is no inherent need to use conjunctions.

You've got a point there. I guess I'm being sort of picky. But in my opinion, that sentence was always sort of awkward.


Again, I'm not sure what the problem is here. Dumbledore finishes Uncle Vernon's last sentence either because Vernon leaves it hanging or because Dumbledore interupts him before he can complete it. The only slight issue I can see is that there should be a full stop after 'often' instead of a comma because it states that Dumbledore 'finished the sentence'. 'Best not to say anything at all my dear man.' should therefore constitute a new sentence rather than be a continuation.

The problem with sentence is that it is CLUNKY. A dialogue atribution verb should NEVER be that long without at least a comma to segment it. I love JKR unconditionally, but this is a hideous sentence. What is so wrong with saying,
-yet accidental rudeness occurs alarmingly often," said Dumbledore. "Best not to say anything at all my dear man. I mean, he DID say it. Why does he have to "FINISH" the sentence. We can SEE by use of the dash that he finishes the sentence. Saying that he finished the sentence is redundant (and a bit insulting to one's intelligence). And then she uses yet another adverb. Dumbledore should SAY it and that is the end. Writers should not use any other word but said, unless it is a moment of emotional crisis and they SHOUT and even then, alternative verbs of dilaogue atribution should be kept at a bare minimum.

Anyway, reply back if you still disagree with me. :rockon:

I love it, but it will be interesting to see how she views it. I heard that a company called RDF MEDIA were given unprecedented access to her to film a fly-on-the-wall documentary about her which is meant to be broadcast here in the UK before christmas on ITV1, that type of question may come up.

I must confess that I find her rather average, compared to other authors.

- her prose: well. She is an awful lot better than other authors who sell million of books. That said, I find her prose more or less unremarkable, in the good like in the bad way.

- her dialogue: funny at times. Hard to swallow at others.

- her plots: I shouldn't get started on this. Whenever I've finished one of the books, I was unsatisfied to a certain degree, sometimes more, sometimes less.

- her characters: I like them :) I can't make a final judgement before finishing DH, of course, but she has created some wonderful, memorable characters staying in my head long after putting down the books.


Before you mistake me - despite all my nagging, I do love the books very, very much. They are so much more than the sum of their pieces (and there are indeed books, films etc which do everything absolutely right, but don't work nevertheless because the je ne sais quoi that can't be measured, is missing still)

I appreciate reading opinions about both the negatives and positives of JKR's writing.

She is a wonderful storyteller although there are some flaws which might have come from not planning carefully enough. For example, I am one of those who found Harry's romantic feelings for Ginny came too suddenly without "anvil-sized" hints to actually make the relationship into something I could care enough about.


I must say that she writes in a very very readable way. By 'readable', I mean she keeps your attention and her story is easy to keep up with.
And as for words such as 'sniffily', it does sound like a word kids might like. I know I wouldn't mind using it here and there for sake of saying it. :D

One more description of Jo's language as stupid or clunky, and I'll close this thread.

If you can't express your opinions respectfully, don't do it.

I think it's really basic, but find it pretty good. The first two books aren't anything special, but she vastly improves throughout the series.

And I agree with the topic starter, her dialouge is second to none in the fantasy genre, maybe even all of book writing, right up there with Brad Meltzer.

I also like her writing style. The characters are very vivid. You certainly know every move they are making. The only time I became bored was reading OoTP when they were cleaning the house. Reading all the different rooms and objects became a little slow. Or maybe it's just because I felt guilty that I was reading and not cleaning my own house! :p

I love JKR's style. She has definitely perfected it through the series, and I love how the books become darker as Harry grows older and the story progresses. She has so much history and personality to her characters. They become real and beleivable, and you can relate them to other people in your life. She really has created a secondary world that seems almost as real as ours.

To my way of thinking, what constitutes a "great writer" varies according to context. That is, different writing styles suit different subjects. Even if one limits things to the realm of fiction, this remains true. Imagine, if you will, a Harry Potter story penned by Tom Clancy. By Michael Crichton. By Ernest Hemingway. By Poppy Z. Brite.* Absurd, right? But each of these authors are "great writers" in their own areas.

Even within the fantasy genre, different styles suit different works. The sweeping, anachronistic (to many modern eyes) style of Tolkien, incredibly rich in visual descriptives, perfectly suited his subject matter on many levels. Thus his status as one of the great masters of the genre.

This is why I consider JK Rowling a "great writer." Not because she's sold a jillion books (although that's no mean accomplishment!). But because her style perfectly suited the world she was creating. The combination of whimsy and excitement was instantly involving. The way she deepened and darkened things as her characters grew and matured (and were, as more mature persons, capable of experiencing and understanding deeper things) was masterful. Her knack for crafting perfect names for people and things is pure genius.

What it all boils down to is that Ms. Rowling tells stories that immerse you so deeply that you lose track of time and place. The cliche' about not being able to put the book down is literally true (for so many of us). To me, that's a "great writer" in any genre.


*Okay, that might work, in a really twisted sort of way...

She is a very good writer. I wouldn't say that shes the best, but shes up there. She has a certain way of writing that gravitates both children and adults towards her, something that not many authors can do in the same book.

As she got older, she got better. She began to develop her characters more clearly, so that by the end of the book, even if the movies were never made, you could envision EVERYTHING. Her writing is very descriptive.

I think she is a great writer her books really drag you in and make you believ it could happen. She researches all of the magical creatures she writes about...now that's good...there actually is a mandrake plant, ok so it doesn't bring people back who have been petrified or anything but she does her research and i think it's pretty cool. Her dialogues are so realistic too you can imagine people saying what the characters in her book say whereas some writters dialogues sound fake. Her storeylines fit together like a jigsaw and most of the time what she writes isn't predictable. On the whole i think she is a great author.

She researches all of the magical creatures she writes about.

I'm not entirely sure if that's accurate. Most depictions of basilisks that I've seen is a rooster/bird-like creature, not a snake.

On her writing style professionally, I won't lie, she is probably one of the worst writers. However, where she lacks in that department, she makes up for her unique ability to effortlessly create images with words. So she's a good story-teller, not a good writer. There's quite a difference.

it's great, because it is easy for younger kids and those who have trouble reading to understand, yet she uses her technique to leave clues, drop hints etc. It's very good. One of the best I've ever seen!!

I must say that my immediate reaction after putting down DH (no worries, I won't spoil here ;) ) was a) god, I love that book, and b) she would have done good to take more time in writing and revising it with a good editor. (these were my exact words, incidentally, because I was in such an emotional state after finishing it that I had to call my mum, and she was all 'AND? How was it???')

I heard somewhere that she wants to revise all seven books some day, now that DH is out there. I think that's an excellent idea. It won't help to smoothe the plot problems that she struggles with in six out of seven books (the only one standing out there is HBP, in my opinion), but it might help to get some more 'balance'. Balance was the biggest problem I saw with DH, and it's not integral to the plot, so it can be counteracted. I guess that's what I mean with 'take a bit more time and ask for help from someone not as immersed in the story as the author herself'. DH is a wonderful book, but it is far from brilliant on a stylistic level. HBP shows she can do so much better.

I stand by what I always said, she isn't Dostoievsky, Dickens, not even Jane Austen. But she has created a world loved by millions of people from 6 to 96 (when I was queueing to get the book in the middle of the night, I talked to a lovely elderly lady, whose husband had driven thirty miles to give her a chance to get the book asap), and that is an accomplishment in itself, a huge one, no quibbling about her use of adjectives or whatever else here ;)

I adore her writing style. People have accused her of writing too simplistically, but I disagree entirely. She can conjure up images in a few simple words that take other authors pages to reach. To me, that's a wonderful talent. She also has an incredible ability to work humour into the story in a way that never feels out of place.

However, I definitely agree that some of the later books (particularly OOTP) could do with a good trim :)

The Harry Potter books aren't perhaps a piece of literature which will ever rival the technical brilliance of writers such as James Joyce or the like but they have certainly made a huge impact on people and have proved to be so enjoyable that they will certainly be passed down the generations and in the long run perhaps that is a better indicator of the quality of a book that simply the techical side.

For me JKR is a great writer. I love her style and despite of the fact that english is not my first language, I usually read a lot of books in english, since my favorite writers are British and most of their books are not translated to portuguese. One of that facts that I like most about her is the way that her style improoved and changed, becoming more adult like, following the path of the story. To read the books is very enjoyable and she has a great sence of humour.

JKR is an amazing writer, she uses words that are simple and easy to understand and yet manages to instruct them into such awesomely complicated sentences- it is wonderful english.

I think it just got better and better as the series goes on-I love it. And how could anyone on a Harry POtter fans website say anything different?

And how could anyone on a Harry POtter fans website say anything different?

Easily :lol: To love something doesn't mean to be automatically blind for the faults, does it?