Why do people say Rowling is a good writer

Fuck my friend brings me to this channel full of people who treat the Harry Potter series like they're important modern literature.  And when told that J.K. Rowling is a poor writer, they say shit along the lines of "in comparison to who? Shakespeare!?"

And Jesus, older kids and adults who treat them like they're not children's books.  A friend of mine met a young girl who told her that she "reads mature books, like Harry Potter."

Hey, its got raep, murder, and death of all sorts. What more do you want in your writing a blow-job?

I know Rowling can't write for shit, but could someone recommend me to writers with good style? I need some examples.

because preteen weeaboos like her books

She's a pretty good writer actually. She knows how to build up suspense and has a good sense of mystery. I don't know why her books are so popular though. Luck?

penis

Ο HARRY POTTER ΕΙΝΑΙ ΜΕΓΑΛΗ ΨΩΛΟΡΟΥΦΗΧΤΡΑ.

She's not a great writer, she is a good storyteller though and that is often more important.

She is considered a "Good writer" because she knows how to write in a way that obviously attracts this much popularity. She's good in that sense.

JKR is a good writer, but the Harry Potter books are certainly not "classics".

fuck some harry potter.

Rowling's is a mediocre writer. She has a boilerplate pull in the sense that her writing is also comforting - JUST intelligent enough that it can be shelved in the juvenille fantasy section but not enough to make you pause or think or challenge you or engage you outside of playing "Spot the worn-out plot hook".

>>Fuck my friend brings me to this channel full of people who treat the Harry Potter series like they're important modern literature.  And when told that J.K. Rowling is a poor writer, they say shit along the lines of "in comparison to who? Shakespeare!?"

The channel is full of idiots. Half the fantasy writers in your local bookstore are better writers than Rowling. 95% of the people in the classics section are better writers. She's not popular because she's a literary wunderkind, she's popular because she's tapped into a lucrative market.

>>3

>>I know Rowling can't write for shit, but could someone recommend me to writers with good style? I need some examples.

What, really?

Fantasy: Glen Cook, Roger Zelazny, for fun and occasionally some thoughtful moments, and for serious lit Borges for god's sakes - tell me you've read Borges

Sci-fi: Stanislaw Lem, Phillip K Dick, Kurt Vonnegut...all masters of the genre who deserve a place in 'real' literature.

Classics: Go nuts. (I recommend Vladimir Nabokov. Fucking amazing writer)

Stephen Baxter and arthur c clarke RULE

Vonnegut just writes about himself and/or makes sarcastic s.f. Not bad for a dead person, though.

I have an explanation.  MARKETING!

philip k dick wrote some absolute shit along with the good stuff.

Fun books are fun to read

China Mieville and Mervyn Peake are (or were in Peake's case, lawl) probably the most highbrow fantasy writers out there

Harry Potter isn't a kids book series anymore.  Books 5-7 are really meant for teens/adults.  That said, they're shitty teen/adult books and would've been much better as kids books like the first 4.

If by "important modern literature" you mean current-day books which have achieved widespread recognition, contain some literary elements of interest, and significantly influence modern society... then, yes, HP does qualify.

Until this last book, I had thought that the series was greatly overrated, but the final book was incredible.

I still think it's going to get more credit than it deserves, but that's just how popularity works, isn't it?  It isn't distributed evenly, it all clumps together.

It's clear that her writing improved throughout the books, as the last few books were far better than the first, but I would argue that the Harry Potter series, as a whole, should become a classic to rival LotR, or any other "classic".

True, LotR had a better writing style, but the Harry Potter books had, in my opinion, a far better story, more emotion, more developed characters, and more of a message.  Of course, the HP books were far longer, thus allowing more opportunity to accomplish all of these things, but that really doesn't matter at all.

It's also true that the Harry Potter books can be enjoyed by a younger audience, which is, I believe, the real heart of all this anti HP crap.  Since these books can be read, and enjoyed, by both younger and less intelligent people, there is less of a sense of smugness to be had from reading these books.  To those of you that don't consider these books to become a classic, are you really just upset that you can't gloat about having been one of the few who read these books?  The only validity that I can see from all of this animosity is that many of the people who read these books wont be able to grasp many of the deeper themes, and will clog any meaningful discussion about them.  While this is annoying, it really shouldn't matter.  Once these damn films are out of production, the whole HP fad will die down, and these books will be able to become classics.

I actually enjoyed her books. i think a lot of people are on this literary elitist kick. People like to be perceived as special and smart and they think that anything written for children(or anything in the mainstream for that matter) brings them down a level. Now, I enjoy intellectual pursuits as much as the next person, I enjoy my Anthony Burgess, my Margaret Atwood, and my George Orwell as much as the next person, but sometimes the things people call "pure literature" are just plain boring.

I recognized that Rowling isn't a "great" writer long ago. But, I also recognized that she makes up for it by being a naturally creative and prolific writer, with a good storytelling ability, and anybody who spouts about "tired plot hooks" needs to get their head out of their ass. There are only so many Plot hooks one can use, and they are all tired. Most of all, the books are very fun to read, especially the last 4 where she grew in ability the most.

I think these books deserve to at least achieve a place as classic fantasy fiction. Not really as good or better than anything else up there, but very exciting, and very accessible. Don't be pompous, just enjoy the fun like everyone else. Orwell and Vonnegut will still be there when you get back.

>>21

I concur. The 4th, 5th and 6th book didn't impress me much and I wasn't expecting a lot from the final book,  but I'd have to say from the third chapter and onwards it totally blew me away.

This book shouldn't even be labeled as a children's book anymore what with all the deaths that seem to be happening after every chapter or so. I mean, come on, can Hermione's torture scene be labeled for children?

The plot twists have been also pretty surprising but this is Harry Potter and we can always expect an unexpected plot twist or 2 but not with the amount that the book has in it!

A truly epic end to a timeless series.

J.K. Rowling is a good writer, she not the best by far but she is very good. Another Anon listed many superior writers, although s/he forgot Douglas Adams, who could forget that guy!? 42: that was genius!

her "literature" is by far only considered to be pulp fiction for kids.

the only great thing she could ever consider doingg other than making this series is giving a boost of literacy to this lazy generation we're in. seriously, reading a Rowling book can be considered "pimp my ride" in book form. it's complete shit, but you just...can't....turn away

It's her first major series and you can see her writing evolving throughout the books, still her writing itself isn't all that good I write at at least that quality.

Did it bug anyone else how often she was using colons in deathly Hallows? I swear there's was at least 15 on one page.

JKR doesn't write very good, in terms like using wordplays, speech, construction of the plot (even the 7th book is much like the previous 6)

BUT

she really invented a nice little universe, not too far and not too close to ours and she writes about the right things (being good, truat your friends, even if they could betraying you etc.)

maybe the prob is, that most people here don't have any friends to understand this things ...

>>27
>>It's her first major series, so you can see her writing evolve
>>throughout the books. Still, her writing itself isn't all that
>>good; I write at that quality.

>>Did it bug anyone else how often she was using colons in
>>deathly Hallows? I swear, there were at least 15 on one page.


Fix'd. Also, I sincerely hope the way your were typing was subtle commentary on the way she writes.

I think her biggest problem is that once she became popular, her editors were too scared to touch her books.  The recent books have become unnecessarily long.

The biggest problem is that she's only a fairly good writer but her books are literally the most popular novels ever, EVER. That's fucking ridiculous. It's the first publishable thing she ever wrote, it's a nice little fantasy, and it outsells actual high-quality literature. Then again, the DaVinci code wasn't that far off. 

I think the lesson that Harry Potter teaches more than anything is that the book industry is a pitiful shithole. It's so minor and unimportant that being attached to a major motion picture and publicity will easily make a two-bit novel more popular than every other work in history.

>>31
Harry Potter became a major Motion Picture BECAUSE of how popular it got, It's not popular just for the movies.

BUT I'm sure about a hundred times more people have watched HP than Read HP, and almost everyone who read it have seen it.

Actually, I think Rowling's prose is extraordinary. I'm not saying the plot or characters are especially remarkable, but her writing style is extremely effective. Very few authors have prose that carries you along so smoothly.

Thus, by my definition, she is a good writer.

Some of the readers refuse to watch the movie, because it spoils their fantasies of how they would look.
So I think it's equal to eachother, who read and who watched.

>>34
Fair enough, but that's probably an extreme minority.

>>33
 I think the characters are exquisitely well developed. You understand that they have lives outside the main story, that they have internal struggles and have had struggles that have shaped who they are. There are several debates that can be had about why Harry and Voldemort took different paths even though they experienced similar terms of neglect(I've read many a psychological case study on the subject). I think the story is engaging to the point that you feel like you are on the journey with the characters, that their triumph is your triumph, that their betrayal is your betrayal. In my opinion, if a writer can make you feel that way, then they're good at what they do. Sure, there are always cliches'(i.e: good vs. evil) but pretty much everything is a cliche, even when people do a swerve to try and avoid being cliche. My idea of a good writer is a writer who can do cliche, but execute it in a way that is exciting and readable.

>>36

Rowling's character depth is good. Not remarkable.

The characters having lives and motivations offscreen is something we should be able to take for granted. Doing it does not make a writer "exquisite." It makes the writer competent.

It's just a book. People act like it's supposed be some sort of high art! Who cares if it's popular? who cares if it's selling well? It's getting people to read and perhaps, through that, they will find more and may indeed be willing to plumb the depths of the so called "classics."

Everyone needs a hook. You don't start out diving into Tolkein or anything like that. You build up to it. It's introducing young readers into the fantasy world and providing a clever and interesting world for the older crowd. Besides, it's not like Rowling ever would've imagined it being some runaway success.

And who cares if her writing isn't some sort of deep prose written in a manner fitting the turn of the century? It's easy to pick up page turner and honestly, as a casual reader, I prefer that more than anything. She tells the story clearly and smoothly. It works for me.

I don't know... I enjoyed the books. I had adamantly refused to read them initally, but I did get swept in it. And it did keep me occupied for quite awhile.

What is it that sets the "classic" authors apart? Personally I'd rather read fantasy that presented itself with some original ideas or reimagining of things rather than the typical Tolkien-esque schlock that seems to be so common.

>>37
 Actually, there are tons of books that are considered good where the characters aren't too well developed and where little detail is given about them, because it's not the point they want to get across(or they just aren't very good at doing it). It depends on what you're writing. Of course, I guess it all comes down to personal opinion on what good writing and exquisite characters(which in a general sense mean that the characters breathe on the page.)are.

>>38

It's because people like to appear smart and they can't do that with pop culture for the most part. People like to shit on the mainstream party and assert themselves as intellectuals by reciting canon.

>>40

I don't know, in a lot of cases, they're actually worse than the older classics. 

Not all the time, but I've never seen a world as detailed as Tolkien's.  I've never had a series that made me wonder about what mankind would really be like in 20,000 years like *Dune*. 

The some and total of JKR's world is "Take bits of British culture and BS some fantasy elements around them."  A lot of things are silly just beneath the surface.  Why enslave magical creatures to dig in your garden and make your dinner when you can do so by magic?  If you can appear *anywhere* by either portkey or floo powder (neither of which actually require the user to cast a spell), why do students take *trains* to Hogwarts?

At least in Tolkien, he managed to keep his magical abilities consistant.  Magic could only be done by highly trained wizards, so it made sense to see people travel by horse, or plow a field. 

And really, the some and total of the moral question is simple good and evil.  Harry never doubts that he'll stop voldy, he never questions it, and so on.  He's basicly the Cloud Strife of the fantasy novel world.  He just wants to get Sephiroth, and it's all possible because he's the hero. 

Muaddib was somewhat of a better hero -- he's somewhat afraid of his gift.  Sure he's supposed to be a messiah, but all he wants to do is avoid the disaster he knows is coming.  He fulfills prophecies even, not because he's the zomg hero, but because he's trying to avoid a disaster he feels is coming.  In later novels, he tries to undo his own cult. 

JKR doesn't have that kind of meat in the story.

lol

Oh you faggot, it doesnt matter if its "amazing literature" its just a good story.


Also, needs moar luna.

>>40
>>40
>>40
>>40
>>40

This

>>41
 Regardless of how classic LOTR is, I thought it was boring as hell when I was reading it. Dune? I don't know, sometimes it was a little tedious. I think all that matters is that a piece is enjoyed. My writing professor thinks Shakespeare is the most boring crap ever even though he's charged with presenting the canon to us. Just because people pronounce something a classic, doesn't necessarily mean it will be automatically enjoyable.

>>41
About the assualt on JK's world......The reason why some things aren't done there(I.E: magicking dinner) is because of rules and laws. When you create a world, there are usually rules(even if they aren't expressed to your audience as they so often aren't.) for how things do and do not work. Maybe they can't magick dinner for the same reason why they can't just create food out of nowhere. There are stories I consider good where things like that aren't explained because they aren't important. As far as the whole hero thing.......there is only one hero story. It's always the hero against something(god, nature, himself, another character) and it's almost always going to be cliche in that respect. Maybe the scenery is different and the characters new, but it's all basically the same. Tolkien did not invent this story. What can differ is the way the story is told. I think a good author can make you give a shit about the story and it's characters and even that is subjective depending on who you're speaking with.

god, that woman needs a thesaurus

She's a pretty good writer actually. She knows how to build up suspense and has a good sense of mystery.

Good storytelling skills but rather drab writing style. There's a difference, you know.

>>49

Yeah, but it doesn't seem to matter much. Usually good storytelling=enjoyable read.

>>47
seconded

The books are great because damn near everyone can enjoy them to some degree, not because JK is an amazing writer. Her characters are well-developed and the books are uplifting; perfect pop literature.

At least it's a fuckton better than Eragon. Seriously, I piss blood thinking about THAT pile of shit.

>>50
Signed, I'd take a book with good storytelling and good characters before a "perfected" writing style any day.