Thread: Is Harry Potter Literature?

Originally Posted by Shawn

Because writing that sells is writing that's quality.

Then I suppose that Danielle Steele is among the literary giants of our age. And quality writing is the exact opposite of what it was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when Ann Radcliffe and Charles Dickens were bestsellers.

Originally Posted by Mishki

Then I suppose that Danielle Steele is among the literary giants of our age. And quality writing is the exact opposite of what it was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when Ann Radcliffe and Charles Dickens were bestsellers.

I wouldn't construe great writing with quality prose. There's a big gap there.

Quality writing sells, that's the point. Not all quality writing is published, but most writing that is published is quality.

Rawr. I wasn't saying there isn't a difference between good and bad writing, I'm just saying just because a person uses certain terms, words, etc. doesn't mean they're a bad writer. Some people can vary the way they write their dialogue, and it doesn't come off as unnatural or anything of the sort. That's all.

Originally Posted by czarkastik

Rawr. I wasn't saying there isn't a difference between good and bad writing, I'm just saying just because a person uses certain terms, words, etc. doesn't mean they're a bad writer. Some people can vary the way they write their dialogue, and it doesn't come off as unnatural or anything of the sort. That's all.

It does come off as unnatural. If I wrote:

"You are not my best best friend anymore!" John yelled.

Instead of:

"You are not my best best friend anymore!"

There's not a difference? (Not excluding my rather hilarious use of the title of a children's book.)

It's just unnatural to put "John yelled" after an exclamatory piece of dialogue. It's self justified.

Not that it's always that simple, but context plays a big role... adverbs should not.

Again, I'm going to repeat what I said.

Originally Posted by Truth-Teller

People, people--let's not worry about superfluous shit like this.

The content of the dialogue is more important than any dialogue modifiers or adverbs.

There are writers who can't even write realistic dialogue, so I think we should learn to improve that area instead of nitpicking about minimalist techniques.

Originally Posted by Shawn

It does come off as unnatural. If I wrote:

"You are not my best best friend anymore!" John yelled.

Instead of:

"You are not my best best friend anymore!"

If you don't put "John yelled," how do you know who's talking?

Also, your example is the most atrocious dialogue I've ever read. No one talks like that.

I guess I think it doesn't matter how you write dialogue as long as it sounds smooth in the end. Some people can use terms like "yelled" or "retorted" and it sounds just as good as if someone uses "said." In the end I still think it's a matter of taste - and the authors style and skill as well.

Eh, whatever. I guess I side with Truth-Teller, as long as the actual content of the dialogue is good the description of the dialogue doesn't really matter.

Call me inept if you will, I don't really care.

If you don't put "John yelled," how do you know who's talking?

Context... of course. I wasn't trying to write the next great American novel, so you can get over it. I was trying to make a point.

Originally Posted by Truth-Teller

Also, your example is the most atrocious dialogue I've ever read. No one talks like that.

Do you really think that I think people talk like that?

Give me some credit.

Originally Posted by Truth-Teller

There are writers who can't even write realistic dialogue, so I think we should learn to improve that area instead of nitpicking about minimalist techniques.

I'm not advocating minimalism at all. You can overload your prose with imagery if you like. The images should be woven throughout the entire scene though, not expressed in a perfunctory way through dialogue tags and adverbs.

I think it really comes down to show vs. tell.

So, another question....

If you do a perfectly good job of describing the situation and then still use more descriptive terms instead of the basic "said" is that still bad? Perhaps it's too repetitive?

If so, do you believe there are exceptions to that rule? I just can't shrug off the feeling that some authors are better at "concealing" their somewhat (as I would assume you'd argue) "forced" dialogue.

I'm asking because I really am wondering. I'm not trying to be annoying about this.

Originally Posted by czarkastik

I guess I think it doesn't matter how you write dialogue as long as it sounds smooth in the end. Some people can use terms like "yelled" or "retorted" and it sounds just as good as if someone uses "said." In the end I still think it's a matter of taste - and the authors style and skill as well.

Ugh, no. "Retorted" especially is just an ugly, clunky word, even all by itself. ReeTOUWRted. Yuck yuck yuck. I can't imagine it fitting anywhere unless you were trying to sound horribly stilted.

"Well then, allow me to retort," said the Earl of Fancy-Prince Poof-Bottom to Napoleon IV.

So, you don't like the word retorted. That's a matter of TASTE.

It's more a matter of flow. There's even instances where the descriptor has more syllables than the dialogue.

*Attention Truthteller, I am writing sample dialogue! whoop! whoop! whoop!*

"Well, yes," Billy retorted.

Alright, then. So, as I said before, it doesn't matter what words an author uses as long as it's smooth in the end - as you said, "a matter of flow."

I agree there are some circumstances when dialogue seems forced by such descriptions, however, there are also plenty of times when the author can use the terms just as well as the simplified "said."

Originally Posted by czarkastik

So, another question....

If you do a perfectly good job of describing the situation and then still use more descriptive terms instead of the basic "said" is that still bad? Perhaps it's too repetitive?

It would be completely unnecessary. If you do a decent job conveying that a character is, say, perturbed, then why would you need to tell the reader he "grumbled perturbedly?"

If so, do you believe there are exceptions to that rule? I just can't shrug off the feeling that some authors are better at "concealing" their somewhat (as I would assume you'd argue) "forced" dialogue.

Oh sure. Douglas Adams is just fantastic with his dialogue tags sometimes.

From Life the Universe and Everything:

"'... then i decided i was a lemon for a couple of weeks. I kept myself amused all that time jumping in and out of a gin and tonic.'
Arthur cleared his throat, and then did it again. 'where', he said, 'did you... ?'
'find a gin and tonic?' Ford said brightly. 'I found a small lake that thought it was a gin and tonic, and jumped in and out of that. At least, I think it thought it was gin and tonic.'
'I may', he added with a grin that would have sent sane men scampering for the trees, 'have been imagining it.'

The underlined part is an extended adverbial phrase, and serves the same function as one of those dreaded dialogue-attribution adverbs. It's so ridiculously forced and unnecessarily complicated though that it works brilliantly.