Thread: Is Harry Potter Literature?

Originally Posted by czarkastik

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."

Like Stephen King.

Originally Posted by czarkastik

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

It's a matter of aesthetics. Some people have an ear for language, some don't

I'm not trying to set myself up as the sole arbitrator of who has taste and who doesn't, but how could anyone possibly think that a word like "retorted" could fit seamlessly into ordinary dialogue? It's the literary equivalent of a big wet snotty loogie.

Originally Posted by ClancyBoy

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 that it works brilliantly.

WTF are you talking about?

That's horrendous.

What you just posted ClancyBoy is worse than the "dreaded dialogue attribution adverbs."

Not only is it contrived, but it uses a clunky cliche simile that chucks the readers out of the story. You ever heard the expression: less is more?

Let it just be a simple: "he said with a grin."

"'... 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.'

This is just horrible dialogue. Malone writes better than this shit.

No, I think you're wrong, ClancyBoy. I think some people are arrogant, while others are not.

Already I can see some people on this forum are trapped in their own superiority complex, and to be perfectly honest I don't feel comfortable posting my work up here. I think some of you are so trapped in your styles and peeves that in the end it's just going to get you stuck in a creative rut. If you can't appreciate the various styles of authors, you can't build upon your own. If you can't accept that taste does in fact play a role in literature, you could potentially handicap your creativity with these senseless "rules" about "cliches" and what not. That's not to say cliches don't exist, but it is to say worrying too much over the wording of a work can make the whole entire piece collapse in upon itself. Maybe some of you should work on writing more original plots before you become consumed with wording. Sure, your diction can be learned, but sheer talent and imagination cannot.

I'm not afraid of being judged. In fact, I'm looking for people to read my writing and give me feedback about what needs to be changed. However, I'm not about to have my work judged by a fool. You can go on discrediting published authors and avoiding these literary no-nos. There are plenty of other more professional forums where creativity and originality are accepted, not ridiculed because of someone's self-proclaimed "ear for language."

Anyway, thanks for enlightening me before I wasted too much time here.

Originally Posted by czarkastik

There are plenty of other more professional forums where creativity and originality are accepted, not ridiculed because of someone's self-proclaimed "ear for language."

Those forums are for coddling and not telling the truth. The truth is, adverbs appended to dialogue are atrocious. Nobody ridiculed anybody, but I suppose that's yours to take from it.

You can either take the advice or not, but I'd suggest not judging others because of it.

Well, I don't like too much 'said'.

I like classic novels, and I like 'cliched' fantasy.

Just so you know, czarkastik, I wouldn't criticize someone who put their work up here FOR using the word said.

Btw, what if you don't use tags, or 'said' or anything like that. What if you put a 'flowery' description after your dialogue?

Originally Posted by Shawn

The truth is, adverbs appended to dialogue are atrocious.

Then the writing of Henry James, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Joseph Conrad, Thomas Hardy, William Thackeray, and Nathaniel Hawthorne is atrocious. Because they all share the habit.

Here's the real truth. Ezra Pound condemned adverbs that modify dialogue verbs (as well as dialogue attributors other than "said"). Several other middle/late modernists--namely T.S. Eliot and Ford Madox Ford--agreed with him publicly. Theirs was a reaction against the romanticism of the nineteenth century. This wasn't a rule of good writing until Pound said it was.

It's not a better standard--it's the contemporary standard. And it will change again just as it did before.

Oh dear, and the thread lumbers on and on...

czarkastik, face it. retorted is a pretty horrible word. Live with it. I've been around a lot longer than you, and you're going to have to trust me on this one.

Truth-Teller... that thing about empty vessels and noise. You're doing a lot of shouting in here, as usual, and offering no sound advice or alternatives or examples. Do you have any intelligent input? Or do you just like the sound of your own voice?

Originally Posted by mythologicalrealities

Well, I don't like too much 'said'.

No. dialogue tags should be kept to a minimum, so you don't need too many.

Originally Posted by mythologicalrealities

Btw, what if you don't use tags, or 'said' or anything like that. What if you put a 'flowery' description after your dialogue?

Bottom line? The great likelihood is that you'll never get published. In the unlikely event that the rest of your writing is so great that a publisher can overlook the flowery bits, a professional editor will rewrite your dialogue. If you're really, really lucky.

And if it were a short story, I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that the editor wouldn't even read to the end before rejecting it.

Try to remember - the publishing industry does not exist for your benefit. There are more manuscripts and stories out there than can ever be published (I think final reckoning at NFG was around ten thousand submissions to fill 90 slots).

Agents and editors can afford to be real choosy. When they read, they're looking for the best of the best, and they're looking for reasons to reject. Use of ridiculous dialogue tags gives that excuse.

Originally Posted by Truth-Teller

What you just posted ClancyBoy is worse than the "dreaded dialogue attribution adverbs."

Not only is it contrived, but it uses a clunky cliche simile that chucks the readers out of the story. You ever heard the expression: less is more?

Let it just be a simple: "he said with a grin."

I think you may have missed both my comments on the passage, and also the point.

Originally Posted by czarkastik

Maybe some of you should work on writing more original plots before you become consumed with wording. Sure, your diction can be learned, but sheer talent and imagination cannot.

You've seen my plots?

I'm not afraid of being judged. In fact, I'm looking for people to read my writing and give me feedback about what needs to be changed. However, I'm not about to have my work judged by a fool. You can go on discrediting published authors and avoiding these literary no-nos. There are plenty of other more professional forums where creativity and originality are accepted, not ridiculed because of someone's self-proclaimed "ear for language."

Anyway, thanks for enlightening me before I wasted too much time here.

It's a rough world out there, kid. I hope you find the emotionally supportive environment you seek.

Also did you just call me a fool?

Originally Posted by mythologicalrealities

Btw, what if you don't use tags, or 'said' or anything like that. What if you put a 'flowery' description after your dialogue?

That sounds pretty good to me.

Originally Posted by Mishki

Then the writing of Henry James, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Joseph Conrad, Thomas Hardy, William Thackeray, and Nathaniel Hawthorne is atrocious. Because they all share the habit.

Examples please. I haven't read all of them, but I'm pretty sure Dickens and Twain at least never did what you're talking about.

Here's the real truth. Ezra Pound condemned adverbs that modify dialogue verbs (as well as dialogue attributors other than "said"). Several other middle/late modernists--namely T.S. Eliot and Ford Madox Ford--agreed with him publicly. Theirs was a reaction against the romanticism of the nineteenth century. This wasn't a rule of good writing until Pound said it was.

It's not a better standard--it's the contemporary standard. And it will change again just as it did before.

I'm not parroting Pound or Eliot, I arrived at this conclusion independently. It's like the way I know open sewers stink. No one had to help me with that, I figured it out myself.

Maybe you're right though and it's all relative. Maybe the smell of feces will come back into fashion, and in 2063 people will walk around with vials of their own excrement so they can sniff it at their convenience.

Maybe, but I doubt it. I personally think shit will always stink.

Originally Posted by ClancyBoy

Examples please. I haven't read all of them, but I'm pretty sure Dickens and Twain at least never did what you're talking about.

From David Copperfield, the chapter entitled "Somebody Turns Up":

"Would you like to be taught Latin?" I said briskly. "I will teach it to you with pleasure, as I learn it."

"I have discovered my friend Copperfield," said Mr. Micawber genteelly, and without addressing himself particularly to any one....

"Oh dear, no, sir!" I replied, most decisively. I was ingenuous and young, and I thought so.

And, LOL, I have to include:

"Thank you, sir," retorted Mrs. Heep. "We know our station, and are thankful in it."

"To be sure he has," retorted Mr. Dick, nodding his head gravely.

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.)


From Life on the Mississippi, random examples because the book contains little dialogue:

Presently someone asked: "Any boat gone up?"

In the morning I took him aside when he was off duty; and when we were out of sight and hearing of witnesses, I said, impressively: "A part of your fortune is so grave, that I thought it would be better for you if I did not tell it in public...."

Then imagine the horror which came into this pinched face when I put the cordials behind me, and said mockingly: "Speak up, Franz Adler--call upon these dead. Doubtless they will listen and have pity; but here there is none else that will."

"Yes, that's it," interrupted Rogers, fervently, "I've seen it a hundred times--yes, more than a hundred..."

"Why put upon ourselves this crime, gentlemen?" interrupted the poet earnestly and appealingly. "He is happy where he is, and as he is."

I'm not parroting Pound or Eliot, I arrived at this conclusion independently. It's like the way I know open sewers stink. No one had to help me with that, I figured it out myself.

LOL. Nice imagery, that.

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.

Maybe you're right though and it's all relative.

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?