Thread: Is Harry Potter Literature?

Dammit Mishki, it's really hard to make my point when you keep bringing up so many valid counterexamples.

Originally Posted by Mishki

Dickens more commonly uses prepositional phrases that modify dialogue attributors. Characters "say with emotion," "say with an air of mystery," "say with a gleam of hope," "add with a writhe," "say with an air of self-denial," "reply with great confidence." (These are in same chapter as the above quotations.)

That sounds more like Dickens to me.

Also, confess. You chopped up that chapter to only include the few tags with adverbs, didn't you.

I'm not opposed to creative dialogue tagging in all circumstances, but I'm still dead set against simply mixing them up for the sake of variety or using them as the primary way of indicating how your characters are speaking.

Actually I wrote this line just yesterday:

"maybe we don't want to kill all of them," he corrected himself.

So I do it sometimes too. Just sometimes though.

I'm not saying that you're parroting what those writers said. I'm saying that this is steeped into the literary consciousness because they said it. I'm saying that before the modernists, there was no such thing as prose without colorful dialogue attributors or adverbs. And if there were, I doubt the reading public would have liked it. It would be like taking Picasso and Georgia O'Keefe to the Italian Renaissance.

Are you sure you don't mean they were popular in the latter half of the 19th century? Because that's where your examples come from. I bet you a coke Virgil never did that.
Even so, Dickens never penned a line like:

"Says you, Bob," Susan exploded angrily.

He wrote things like:

"Swine," pursued Mr. Wopsle, in his deepest voice, and pointing his fork at my blushes, as if he were mentioning my Christian name; "Swine were the companions of the prodigal. The gluttony of Swine is put before us, as an example to the young." (I thought this pretty well in him who had been praising up the pork for being so plump and juicy.) "What is detestable in a pig, is more detestable in a boy."

If you're writing dialogue that lush I don't think the choice of dialogue attributer matters that much.

"Retorted" still blows though, I don't care if Shakespeare used it. It's almost as bad as "jerked out."

Do you think that art exists outside of the culture and time period that creates it, and is not influenced by it, and does not influence it in turn? Do you think that it doesn't evolve over time, and stylistic preferences of the general public and of art (or in this case literary) critics never change?

No no, you're right. Art is culture, and everything changes over time.

Wow, this got off on a tangent, didn't it?

Originally Posted by Faustling

Wait... what? Critics actually complained about the lack of chapters?

...

That is... stupid beyond words...

I once again use my amazing superpowers to take a thread further off topic. Don't care, so... meh.

LOL! I have decided I like you

Originally Posted by ClancyBoy

I'm sorry. I just can't buy this theory of artistic relativism. By God there ARE such things as better and worse.

I'll tell you why flowery dialogue tags are bad writing. They're telling rather than showing. If you have to tell the reader that someone is being impatient, angry, subtle or vague, then you just haven't crafted either your scene or your dialogue well enough. If you choose your words carefully those modifiers will be completely superfluous.

For example, rather than writing "Jack said angrily," tell us about the throbbing vein in his forehead or the way his left hand is twitching. Instead of "Mary replied vaguely," have her say something vague. If you really want to compound the vaguery, have her bite her top lip and stare unfocused at the far wall.

Etc., et al, ad infinitum.

Ok point made!
But there is also a thing called OPINIONS. To me Harry potter was good. Not art but good. You can't fault her on her first novel really, thats just mean!

I am my own worst critic. When i write I tend to te-write and re-write. God i have been working on a novel since i was twelve and I have only happily completed three chapters because I get so wound up with it. People say it is good but if I don't like it I will 'fix' it.

See what i did there ^ OPINIONS.
Everyone elses opinion (and i don't mean my mates and parents) is that I will be a great author some day. My opinion is I suck... mostly.

Originally Posted by FantasyWitch

Ok point made!
But there is also a thing called OPINIONS. To me Harry potter was good. Not art but good. You can't fault her on her first novel really, thats just mean!

Was Clancy actually complaining about Harry Potter though? Didn't someone complained earlier that Rowling didn't use a whole lot other then "said" in her writing? Thus, she didn't fall into the tell-not-show trap Clancy speaks of.

Originally Posted by Faustling

Was Clancy actually complaining about Harry Potter though? Didn't someone complained earlier that Rowling didn't use a whole lot other then "said" in her writing? Thus, she didn't fall into the tell-not-show trap Clancy speaks of.

Opps... I didn't read the whole thread!
If i had then i would have noticed that.

Originally Posted by ClancyBoy

I'm not opposed to creative dialogue tagging in all circumstances, but I'm still dead set against simply mixing them up for the sake of variety or using them as the primary way of indicating how your characters are speaking.

Which, I think, cuts to the chase. Of course there is no way anyone will ever advocate putting 'he said, she said' at the end of every line of dialogue. There are times when

"Its not like that, its like this," he explained briskly

might work better than 'he said'. But use some brain, it might work even better if you say

He slammed the work down in front of me and pointed at the obvious error in my hypothesis. "Its not like that, its like this."

Before I could reply he was off, tearing a strip off the next student.

The first example works OK, but it's telling. It's waving a big flag with "He's in a hurry" written on it in big red letters. The second example, though not artfully written, shows us that he's in a hurry. And, as a bonus, no dialogue tags at all.

If you write your dialogue well, and the surrounding prose, descriptive dialogue tags become redundant because the reader will know what's happening, why it's happening and how. You don't need to write "he said angrily", for example, because the reader should know that your character is angry.

And, from my own back catalogue, may I present possibly the worst tag of all time. A tag so stupidly redundant that it should highlight why they should not be written that way, and an indication that even I, in my dim and distant youth, once thought that fancy tags made me look more like a 'real' writer.

...he said eloquently.

And if you don't know why that stinks like the corpse of a dead dog's arse (no shouting from the back, Clancy) you have no business pretending to be a writer.

Originally Posted by ClancyBoy

Also, confess. You chopped up that chapter to only include the few tags with adverbs, didn't you.

LOL, I did. Dickens doesn't lay it on as thick as some.

I'm not opposed to creative dialogue tagging in all circumstances, but I'm still dead set against simply mixing them up for the sake of variety or using them as the primary way of indicating how your characters are speaking.

Word. Other than the inoffensive "reply" and "continue," I think creative dialogue tagging should be kept to a ratio of 10% or less. But Ray Bradbury still rocks my socks, and he uses them with great frequency.

I feel the same way about adverbs in general. They're best used sparingly, but a novel without a single adverb is a novel with many convoluted and unnecessary clauses in lieu of the occasional needed adverb.

IMO, when people bitch about writers using adjectives and adverbs, the problem is not that they've used them--it's that they've used them in such a way that they add no meaning to the text. It's farting words.

Are you sure you don't mean they were popular in the latter half of the 19th century? Because that's where your examples come from. I bet you a coke Virgil never did that.

ROFL. Yeah, I was referring to the novel form exclusively. Epic poems don't count.

What I found interesting, though, is that the classics by female authors have almost no dialogue attributors or adverbs. (The ones on my shelf, anyway--Jane Eyre and Emma.) And this in a time when florid prose was popular. The reason I find it interesting is that contemporary female authors, in my experience, tend to be more descriptive, and thus use more of those dreaded adjectives and adverbs, than male authors. And they seem to write longer sentences, too, which is another big "no-no" in modern publishing. Female audiences also seem to dig novels with more imagery and descriptive elements. I'm by no means an authority, but I think there may be a gender divide on this issue.

Since these female authors are published, I wonder if the rules for publishing vary depending on the perceived market for a given book. Philippa Gregory's sold a zillion books and she is a huge fan of the adverb.

If you're writing dialogue that lush I don't think the choice of dialogue attributer matters that much.

Tell me that's a real Dickens quote. That'll make my freaking day.

"Retorted" still blows though, I don't care if Shakespeare used it. It's almost as bad as "jerked out."

It does. It really, really does.

Wow, this got off on a tangent, didn't it?

I feel sorta bad, like I should have created a new thread for it. I didn't know this topic would create three pages' worth of debate.

So, about Harry Potter...

Originally Posted by Mishki

What I found interesting, though, is that the classics by female authors have almost no dialogue attributors or adverbs. (The ones on my shelf, anyway--Jane Eyre and Emma.) And this in a time when florid prose was popular. The reason I find it interesting is that contemporary female authors, in my experience, tend to be more descriptive, and thus use more of those dreaded adjectives and adverbs, than male authors. And they seem to write longer sentences, too...

This is why (the majority of) females cannot write. They're terrible compared to men. They go on and on with this flowery prose and never get to the point. You've just proved my case, and there's no denying it.

He slammed the work down in front of me and pointed at the obvious error in my hypothesis. "Its not like that, its like this."

Before I could reply he was off, tearing a strip off the next student.

This is a jarring sentence, clumsy and lifeless. It would read smoother if it was written like this:

"Do you ever check your work?" he asked, handing back a paper full of red marks.

Why are you using the word, slammed? Do you know how awkward and choppy it reads under the given circumstance? It reads just like the word retorted. Why use this flowery prose, when you (yourself) said not to use it? Slammed, wtf, is that?

That's just horrible. "Its not like that, its like this." What in god's name kind of dialogue is this? The shit-stainer?

Now what about the word, ask. Can you ever use that word or is it not allowed? Is it simiar to the word, "said" in your eyes?

Originally Posted by Truth-Teller

This is why (the majority of) females cannot write. They're terrible compared to men.

I'll just go ahead and disregard the fact that you ignored the entire point of my post. The point was that men and women may be different audiences, and that their tastes for both writing and reading might differ. Either your intention is an inflammatory one, or your implication is that what men like to read is superior, and what women like to read is inferior. Maybe women are "terrible" at voting, too. /sarcasm

Regardless, I think the NYT best seller list may disagree with you. Half of its authors are women.

They go on and on with this flowery prose and never get to the point. You've just proved my case, and there's no denying it.

I wasn't aware that "description" is the same thing as "flowery prose." James Joyce might have had something to say about that.

Originally Posted by Truth-Teller

Harry Potter is not literature.

Stop daydreaming, folks. [-o<

Literature is based on a clear, personal theme.

Harry Potter is Fastasy, not literature.

That's because literacy is the ability to read and write.

Originally Posted by Truth-Teller

That's just horrible. "Its not like that, its like this." What in god's name kind of dialogue is this?

TT, I wonder about your mental health sometimes, I really do. And your ability to read - but then, according to you, SK is god. Go figure.

Firstly, I gave a specifically meaningless example of dialogue. Then I presented it in two different ways as examples, showing how my preferred option did the job while offering more information and giving it meaning through context. Not, granted, artfully written, as I already said in that post. That was hardly the point.

You have obviously not understood. The point must have gone completely over your head because the example you suggested as an alternative bore no relation to the original in content or meaning.

I've yet to see you contribute anything to this - or any other - discussion here. Except recently an unwelcome taint of mysogeny.

Originally Posted by Truth-Teller

This is why (the majority of) females cannot write. They're terrible compared to men.

Comments of this nature are inaccurate, ignorant and unwelcome.

Seriously, TT, I suggest that unless you can come up with an intelligent, articulate and relevant point that will progress the discussion, you butt out. You're just making yourself look more and more ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Mishki

Word. Other than the inoffensive "reply" and "continue," I think creative dialogue tagging should be kept to a ratio of 10&#37; or less. But Ray Bradbury still rocks my socks, and he uses them with great frequency.

Yes well...
Bradbury's strength is imagery, not dialogue.

Tell me that's a real Dickens quote. That'll make my freaking day.

It is, its from Great Expectations.

I wish to God I could get away with writing like a Victorian, with my sentences full of asides, parenthetics and diversions. Did you also notice the whole paragraph is only two sentences? If were by Lewis Carroll it would have been one sentence.

A modern editor would hack that to bits.