And then I'm begging for more
Well it's all over. The final book in the Harry Potter series has been published and I have read it. It's a weird feeling. Harry has been a constant in my life for a long time now. I love the Harry Potter books. I am not so naive as to say that they are the best written books I have ever read but I don't care, I love them anyway. I hate all the talk of 'well-written' books. What does that mean really? The Harry Potter books are loved world-wide. They have captured the imaginations and the hearts of millions of people, adults and children alike. Isn't that enough?
What does it really matter, in the end, that JK abuses certain literary techniques to an abominable degree. So what that no character ever speaks in the books without her pointing out to the reader that they have spoken. There is an abundance of "Harry said", "Hermione pointed out", "Hermione said wisely", "Ron groaned." She qualifies every speech where others would let the conversation flow naturally and leave it to the reader to discern who is talking. Personally I feel that the latter is much more suited to adult books and JK's approach is best when writing for children and, lets face it, no matter how many adults have fallen in love with the objects of Rowling's imagination, her story is a children's story.
Since finishing the book and therefore it being safe for me to venture back onto the internet I have been hunting for other people's opinions on the events that unfolded in Deathly Hallows. There is an epilogue at the end of the book that I have discovered many people did not like. Apparently it didn't give enough information and was badly written. I disagree. The epilogue did not match the writing of the rest of the book but of course it didn't! The rest of the book told of dark times and a terrible war. The epilogue was what happened AFTER! (I am trying not to give anything away but I think that anyone who is crazy enough to believe that the books might have ended with Voldemort's reign prevailing needs to have their head read and deserves to have the ending spoilt.) The epilogue tells what happens after Voldemort is defeated so of course there is a happier tone to that part of the book. The tone of the epilogue leads us in a neat little circle back to the light-hearted tone of the first book.
Quite apart from what I see as a nice symmetry between the first book and the epilogue of the final book is that an epilogue is not supposed to be part of a book anyway. Prologues are written to give a reader a small insight into something that is important to the book but that cannot, for whatever reason, be included in the actual book. It is background information that doesn't actually fit with the story but that is important to the story. Similarly an epilogue takes you forward into the future of the characters for a quick glimpse as to what the conclusion of the story has meant for them. The final chapter is (you'd hope) always needed in a story but the epilogue isn't. It is added for readers who want to know just that little bit more, who want to know that their hero moved on and married the love of their life or learnt from that final lesson or, if their hero died, that the other characters still remember them. (No, I'm not referring to Harry Potter. I'm referring to the main character, the hero, of any story.) The epilogue is essentially a lengthy version of the tried and true 'they lived happily ever after'.
Those that think the epilogue of Deathly Hallows didn't fit with the rest of the book need to remember that it isn't meant to. Those who claim it didn't give them enough information about what happened to the surviving characters need to remember that after so many books and after so many millions of people around the world have fallen in love with these characters created by JK Rowling there are always going to be questions, you are always going to want more. The epilogue she has provided us with is good. It gives us a small insight into the character's futures without screeds of boring prose. (Very unlike this blog then!) The epilogue of Deathly Hallows does exactly what an epilogue should do. The testament of a good writer is that the reader is left wanting more. (and that's where fanfiction comes in, bless it.)
Speaking of fanfiction, another annoying thing I have read is that the book reads like well-written fanfiction. What on earth does this mean? Maybe I'm stupid but what is the difference between fanfiction and the real thing? To me, fanfiction is when someone who has a desire to write has an idea for a story that just happens to involve characters that have already been created by someone else. Because the characters belong to someone else it can never be published for profit but instead falls under the category of 'fanfiction'. Hell yeah there is a lot of truly awful fanfiction but that is because there are no restrictions to it. You don't have to pass your work past an editor and have it judged worthy before it is unleashed on an unsuspecting world. You certainly have to search hard to separate the wheat from the chaff when delving into the realm of fanfiction reading but that certainly doesn't explain to me what people mean when they say this book reads like fanfiction, especially since people are calling it well written fanfiction.
I found similarly confusing comments when Half-Blood Prince came out. Back then I read heaps of comments where people claimed that Harry et al were out of character. What I wanted to know then was how can the author's own characters be out of character? Sure, they can do things that surprise us, but ultimately they are the creation of someone's imagination and that someone cannot really take them out of character. A poor writer can create a character who is unbelievable due to their changeable, with no explanation, personality, but I think that is very different to saying their character is out of character. The only time a character can be out of character, in my opinion, is in fanfiction because the author of the fanfiction is not the creator of the character and can not say that it is the way that character would act in that circumstance. But the original creator can say that is the way the character would act because it is their character, their world, their rules.
If, say, JK Rowling decided to have Snape dance down the hallways of Hogwarts singing a song about raindrops on roses and mittens on kittens then he would be acting surprisingly out of character but he wouldn't actually be out of character. It would certainly require a huge explanation to readers as to why he was doing it but, while they might not like it and while it might lead to the book not being successful, you could not say that Snape was out of character. You could only say that it was stupid because he was acting so out of character.
I fear I have not explained myself clearly and this is one of the glaringly obvious pitfalls in all of my writing, that I can never write succinctly enough to get my point across. I will, however, persist and try to get my point across even if I have to do it far more verbosely than better writers than I would need to.
Let's say, for the sake of this argument that I'm beginning to wish I had never started but find myself needing to continue, that I was to leave my house right now, take out a gun and shoot the first person I saw. Those of you who know me would know how severely out of character I would be acting if I did that. (Hell, I'm acting out of character enough when I yell at someone let alone shoot them!) Would anyone actually say that I am out of character though? Of course not. That's crazy, I am a thinking, feeling being and my actions are mine alone. The action I committed seems out of character for me but it is impossible for me to actually be out of character. Only I can ever know with absolute certainty how I am going to act. To act out of character is to do something that takes those who know you by surprise because it is not what it is expected of you but a person cannot actually be out of character. It is the same with a character in a book, they can act in a way the reader didn't expect but they are an extension of the person writing the story and as such cannot actually be out of character.
I fear I have gone on about this too long. I am even boring myself! I think I will leave it here. The short version of what I have just written - I really enjoyed the books and I am incredibly sad it's all over. share this: facebook
What does it really matter, in the end, that JK abuses certain literary techniques to an abominable degree. So what that no character ever speaks in the books without her pointing out to the reader that they have spoken. There is an abundance of "Harry said", "Hermione pointed out", "Hermione said wisely", "Ron groaned." She qualifies every speech where others would let the conversation flow naturally and leave it to the reader to discern who is talking. Personally I feel that the latter is much more suited to adult books and JK's approach is best when writing for children and, lets face it, no matter how many adults have fallen in love with the objects of Rowling's imagination, her story is a children's story.
Since finishing the book and therefore it being safe for me to venture back onto the internet I have been hunting for other people's opinions on the events that unfolded in Deathly Hallows. There is an epilogue at the end of the book that I have discovered many people did not like. Apparently it didn't give enough information and was badly written. I disagree. The epilogue did not match the writing of the rest of the book but of course it didn't! The rest of the book told of dark times and a terrible war. The epilogue was what happened AFTER! (I am trying not to give anything away but I think that anyone who is crazy enough to believe that the books might have ended with Voldemort's reign prevailing needs to have their head read and deserves to have the ending spoilt.) The epilogue tells what happens after Voldemort is defeated so of course there is a happier tone to that part of the book. The tone of the epilogue leads us in a neat little circle back to the light-hearted tone of the first book.
Quite apart from what I see as a nice symmetry between the first book and the epilogue of the final book is that an epilogue is not supposed to be part of a book anyway. Prologues are written to give a reader a small insight into something that is important to the book but that cannot, for whatever reason, be included in the actual book. It is background information that doesn't actually fit with the story but that is important to the story. Similarly an epilogue takes you forward into the future of the characters for a quick glimpse as to what the conclusion of the story has meant for them. The final chapter is (you'd hope) always needed in a story but the epilogue isn't. It is added for readers who want to know just that little bit more, who want to know that their hero moved on and married the love of their life or learnt from that final lesson or, if their hero died, that the other characters still remember them. (No, I'm not referring to Harry Potter. I'm referring to the main character, the hero, of any story.) The epilogue is essentially a lengthy version of the tried and true 'they lived happily ever after'.
Those that think the epilogue of Deathly Hallows didn't fit with the rest of the book need to remember that it isn't meant to. Those who claim it didn't give them enough information about what happened to the surviving characters need to remember that after so many books and after so many millions of people around the world have fallen in love with these characters created by JK Rowling there are always going to be questions, you are always going to want more. The epilogue she has provided us with is good. It gives us a small insight into the character's futures without screeds of boring prose. (Very unlike this blog then!) The epilogue of Deathly Hallows does exactly what an epilogue should do. The testament of a good writer is that the reader is left wanting more. (and that's where fanfiction comes in, bless it.)
Speaking of fanfiction, another annoying thing I have read is that the book reads like well-written fanfiction. What on earth does this mean? Maybe I'm stupid but what is the difference between fanfiction and the real thing? To me, fanfiction is when someone who has a desire to write has an idea for a story that just happens to involve characters that have already been created by someone else. Because the characters belong to someone else it can never be published for profit but instead falls under the category of 'fanfiction'. Hell yeah there is a lot of truly awful fanfiction but that is because there are no restrictions to it. You don't have to pass your work past an editor and have it judged worthy before it is unleashed on an unsuspecting world. You certainly have to search hard to separate the wheat from the chaff when delving into the realm of fanfiction reading but that certainly doesn't explain to me what people mean when they say this book reads like fanfiction, especially since people are calling it well written fanfiction.
I found similarly confusing comments when Half-Blood Prince came out. Back then I read heaps of comments where people claimed that Harry et al were out of character. What I wanted to know then was how can the author's own characters be out of character? Sure, they can do things that surprise us, but ultimately they are the creation of someone's imagination and that someone cannot really take them out of character. A poor writer can create a character who is unbelievable due to their changeable, with no explanation, personality, but I think that is very different to saying their character is out of character. The only time a character can be out of character, in my opinion, is in fanfiction because the author of the fanfiction is not the creator of the character and can not say that it is the way that character would act in that circumstance. But the original creator can say that is the way the character would act because it is their character, their world, their rules.
If, say, JK Rowling decided to have Snape dance down the hallways of Hogwarts singing a song about raindrops on roses and mittens on kittens then he would be acting surprisingly out of character but he wouldn't actually be out of character. It would certainly require a huge explanation to readers as to why he was doing it but, while they might not like it and while it might lead to the book not being successful, you could not say that Snape was out of character. You could only say that it was stupid because he was acting so out of character.
I fear I have not explained myself clearly and this is one of the glaringly obvious pitfalls in all of my writing, that I can never write succinctly enough to get my point across. I will, however, persist and try to get my point across even if I have to do it far more verbosely than better writers than I would need to.
Let's say, for the sake of this argument that I'm beginning to wish I had never started but find myself needing to continue, that I was to leave my house right now, take out a gun and shoot the first person I saw. Those of you who know me would know how severely out of character I would be acting if I did that. (Hell, I'm acting out of character enough when I yell at someone let alone shoot them!) Would anyone actually say that I am out of character though? Of course not. That's crazy, I am a thinking, feeling being and my actions are mine alone. The action I committed seems out of character for me but it is impossible for me to actually be out of character. Only I can ever know with absolute certainty how I am going to act. To act out of character is to do something that takes those who know you by surprise because it is not what it is expected of you but a person cannot actually be out of character. It is the same with a character in a book, they can act in a way the reader didn't expect but they are an extension of the person writing the story and as such cannot actually be out of character.
I fear I have gone on about this too long. I am even boring myself! I think I will leave it here. The short version of what I have just written - I really enjoyed the books and I am incredibly sad it's all over. share this: facebook
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 1:24 PM.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
3 Comments:
I get it. But then again we've had this conversation before.
Yes the epiloge was a different tone, that didn't upset me at all, the thing that upset me about it was it didn't focus on the stuff that really interested me.
That said, I'm glad we had some sort of closing, and it did end nicely I must say.
i am amazed that i managed to follow that.
sadly i cannot comment about the book cos i haven't read it.
waiting for the boring 24 hour commute back home before i even buy it.
i did happen to pick up a copy at borders the other day and read the epilogue thou
i just couldn't help myself
had to know the end.
and while i kinda had to read it twice i was happy with what i did understand.
and curious as to how things got there.
I'm impressed you followed it too. I often think no-one but myself can really follow what I'm talking about.
I desperately wanted to skip ahead but I remained strong and didn't give in to the impulse. Now you know some of the people who are going to live! I guess all of them are pretty obvious though so it's not so bad.
Post a Comment