You were reading my mind when you wrote this. Oh My Gods, you are so right. I've been telling people for years about the bad writing in these books. I hope she listens to you.

MJ, the word "Deathly" in the title is functioning as an adjective, not an adverb. I don't mind when people don't know their parts of speech, except when they write entire articles based on their supposed knowledge.

First of all, it's not all-Harry-all-the-time except for people who want it to be. I never see anyhing about Harry Potter on the news except a couple of times on the Today show and the like, when a movie/book comes out. No more than for any other movie. People complain about the marketing for this, and all thoughts of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings goes out of their minds. For every one Harry Potter mention there are 100 people going "blah, blah, I hate this, I feel so sorry for me having to hear about it, wah wah wah". All this hate over a book series is so annoying. People like it. Kids like it. Kids who don't normally like to read gobble down these books. Not everyone's going to like the same thing, but it doesn't mean you attack it at every turn. She obviously had some reason for naming the book that, and there is a difference between Deathly Hallows and Hallows of Death. Personally I don't mind the adverbs. I hate books in which the writers go on and on and never add anything different. I'd rather had said Petunia snidely, than Petunia said, Petunia said, said Petunia, said Petunia...

"Deathly" in the context of Rowling's title is indeed an adjective. Any dictionary can confirm this for you.

The text of the article may have a point about the adverbs seen too often in many people's writing, but people who attempt to charge Rowling with "bad writing" miss the key source of her popularity. Very few people (outside the deathly hallows of the academic ivory tower) seek writers who craft beautiful sentence after beautiful sentence, each one describing dully despicable characters nobody could ever care about, committing acts nobody should ever admire, in settings nobody would ever want to visit.

Most readers love writers who can craft a compelling story with vivid and sympathetic characters. An appealing setting is an added bonus. Rowling has proven beyond any reasonable doubt her ability to satisfy such readers.

How are the readers sopostto know what's going on? I read ather books all the time and the onesthat don't have discrib what's going on I do not like. look at this. "Wow,you can't do anything right" How was it said.-----Joe looked at Alex with amusment."Wow,you can't do anything right." OR
Joe looked at Alex wiht anoyment"Wow,you can't do anything right"
Realy all depends.Pratend Alex is a very clambsy person and just slipped in the school cafatera and slaterd food all over. Is Joe inbarested and is anoyed or was this way to funny this time?

While I agree with you that Rowling overuses adverbs, deathly can also be an adjective and is being used as such in the title for Book 7.

Personally, I think it is a tad premature to assume the meaning of this title. Already, Fans of the series have probeled the depths of mytholagy, and antiquity looking for matches to posible meanings of the words "Deathly Hallows" and have come up now with many different possible meanings streatching from venerated objects of importances, which ties nicely in with known plots of the books, to refereces to the night Harry's perants died.

In the end, these books are inspiring children and adults to research history, lore, and discuss eagerly with each other. It is getting people to think critically.

A book those not have to have flawless writing to have a great impact on the literary world. J.K. Rowling has proven that, and in the end, this is a childrens series.

I agree with most of the comments made above. Megan, you said what I was going to say, so I won't repeat it. This is the first article I have read 'attacking' JKR for an excessive use of adverbs. The adverbs are highly descriptive, and add to the quality of writing. JKR is not 'insulting' people by using a lot of adverbs and adjectives. She is accomodating the people who have not been following her books from the very beginning. Not every reader of these books knows the characters well enough to know exactly how they would say any line of dialog. I, personally, have found the adverbs very helpful, even though I am a pretty seasoned fan. Just because a certain character has a certain personality does not mean that they are going to say all of their lines the exact same way every time. The adverbs allow the reader to really think about what the character has just said and more importantly, how the character said it. No matter what any high-browed writing expert might say, adverbs add subtext and meaning behind the words on the page, while still keeping the story interesting. They are not in any way distracting from the tale. I have read the reviews that Order of the Phoenix received, and the worst 'ligitimate' review I read said that the book contained an excessive use of adjectives. If that is all that critics can complain about, I applaud JKR even more. Because of adverbs, the reader knows the motives of each of the characters. In my opinion, J.K. Rowling has done so much for literature (not just children's literature) that if she wants to use an adverb in the title of the last book in her wildly popular series, she can go right ahead, and I won't think anything less of her. There's my two cents. :)

Actually, it would appear to me that MJ Ryan was being a bit cheeky with Rowling's success. Instead of wasting time putting down Rowling's, why don't you write something worth reading MJ?

Is "hallows" a verb.
I don't think so mojamba.

You are a sad, sad little person if you feel that criticising other people's writing when yours is nothing special is a good thing to do in your spare time. Au revoir, my friend. There is nothing left for you here.

First, as others have commented, you've written an entire article on a mistaken point - "deathly" can be both an adverb and an adjective. Perhaps you thought that "hallows" was being used as a verb. Ok, that's wonderful, but if you look a couple of words before it, you'll see "the." That clues everyone in that what's following will be a noun of some sort.

Second, I'm not sure how adverbs are evil. That's an absurd statement. It's just like saying adjectives are evil - get rid of any words of description, and you'll be credited as an amazing (oops, an adjective) writer? Interesting.

I can't quite fathom why you published this article. It's a bit insulting to people who know their parts of speech (by the way, I learned those in elementary school, so they're really not that hard to comprehend).

I remember Stephen King saying something similar about Rowlings use of adverbs in his review of Order of the Phoenix, except he was able to sum it up in a single sentence instead of needing to write an entire article about it.

Perhaps MJ Ryan could enlighten the great unwashed masses by writing an article about those that love the sound of their own (authorial) voice?

To quote Hermione: "What an..." hrrmm... Sincerely, what bloody high horse do you think you're on oh great "blogcritics" writer...? I'm quite sure you'll see when the book comes out that "hallows of death" does not mean the same thing and that it doesn't work in this case (also it is clumsy and not the least bit catchy - there is a point in even putting a title on a book you know)... Jeez, even as I'm writing this I realise how really, as you are so obviously far from well-read or educated, perhaps one should just feel sorry for you and not comment at all... But as you seem so utterly pompous I shall do so anyway.. Why do you think adverbs exist in the first place? And don't you think there is a reason the readers know the characters of the books so well by now? - Perhaps it is because Rowling actually described them...

Apparently, you haven't read _On Writing_ by Stephen King, either. He's a huge fan of the Harry Potter books, and said he read them almost exclusively while he recovered from being hit by that van a few years ago.

HA-HA! I think this whole thread is rich as it turns out you are the one who is lazy rather than the franchise-creating Rowling.

Enough people have covered your obvious errors, so I'll only add that I wonder why you think anyone would take advice from a "writer" who thinks "In the title of the book." is a sentence, especially when that "writer" has to leech off others rather than create something of their own.

It appears like people are listening, but at least now you know why people ignore when you ask "Would you please listen to me?" It's because you don't know what you are talking about.

You are jumping to conclusions thinking that the word "Deathly" in the title is an adverb. We don't really know that "Deathly Hallows" isn't the title to a specific place in the wizardling world.

She hasn't use an adverb in the titles to her previous books. I suspect we'll find out it's not actually an adverb when we read book 7.

Btw, if you don't like her writing, you have the wonderful option of not reading her books.

If you can't tell an adjective from an adverb, perhaps you shouldn't write about parts of speech. I realize that School House Rock taught you that adverbs end in -ly, but that doesn't mean that other words don't as well. "Lovely" and "lonely" are also adjectives.

You think that "Harry Potter and the Hallows of Death" has the same ring to it? That title rivals some of George Lucas' titles in stupidity.

Why do we have adverbs in the English language if we are not suppose to use them? I love J.K. Rowlings style of writing!

This article has been selected for syndication to Advance.net, which is affiliated with newspapers around the United States. Nice work!

(By the way folks, I think you'll find that hallows is a verb, at least according to this. Which does mean the title doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, not that it matters for sales .... )

Simple fact... JK Rowlings books are THE most popular story in the world...

Instead of opionionated people telling us how she should write the books... pay attention... readers of the series love HOW she writes...

who made the stupid rule that an author shouldn't use adverbs??? perhaps THEY have it wrong!!

Hallows can be either a noun or verb. As a noun, hallows can refer to a saint, a sacred place or a collection of relics. (See the Oxford English Dictionary) The noun form is now archaic but it survives in "Hallowe'en" which is an abbreviated form of "All Hallows Eve" or the eve of all saints day. Rowling seems to be writing over the head of this particular critic.

well i think this piece of information is useless.....we dont know what is wwritte in the books and therefore have no right to make comments at the title....i think that roling has better writing skills than most of us and thus we should not critisize an author who has been appreciated thruout the world for her work.....and for your information the books are very interesting and so are the movies...

all i want to say is that we should calmly wait for the book and not make our silly comments and also i am looking forward for the next year since it is full of harry potter and those who dont like harry potter BAD LUCK

"She doesn't need to tell us that Aunt Petunia said something "snidely" to Harry or that Mrs. Weasley said something "anxiously" as she was looking for others on a busy train platform."

This whole argument would hold more water if Rowling weren't in reality a writer of children's books.

Although aimed possibly at older children, and with a cadre of older teen and adult followers, the Harry Potter books are primarily kids' stories - a new take on the old fairy tale.

The adverb is very heavily used as a literary device in children's books, along with such perennials as, "I am finished now," he/she laughed (chortled, guffawed, etc), none of which are acceptable as devices in adult writing but which some journalists insist on using.

Let's not be too harsh on Rowling's use of grammar and syntax when she writes primarily for kids, and she does that exceptionally well.

That she has a smattering of adult followers who know how to use adverbs isn't likely to bother her that much and we shouldn't let it detract from her wonderful imagination.

However, as a parent of children who've been reading these works from day one, I must say the whole bloody thing is getting rather tedious.

I liked it better when the wizards and witches were in their own parallel universe and we didn't know a thing about it.

Well, Harry Potter fans are awfully touchy, aren't they!?! It's nice to see someone who's not afraid to be candid. Let's not forget that this critique was balanced by MJ's obvious acknowledgement of JKR's strengths as a writer as well. Nearly every definition of "hallow" that I've seen begins with its most commonly used form-- as a verb. Given that JKR happens to use adverbs excessively, it is quite logical that one would conclude she is using "deathly" as an adverb. Relax people.

You don't have to be a HP fan to know when someone doesn't know what they are talking about.

"it is quite logical that one would conclude she is using "deathly" as an adverb."

Actually that would only be logical if you didn't pay attention to the previous titles of the books, Kim. Feel free to keep grasping at straws, though.

There also appears to be some confusion as to the definition of the word "nice" on this thread. Is there an archaic form where it means "ill-informed"? An article that gets its entire premise wrong is not good work.

One has to wonder if the silent author intentionally wrote the piece just to drum up traffic.

Well, you've gone and done it now. Surely you know that taking any critical approach to Harry Potter that results in less than unadulterated praise is grounds for evisceration? At any rate I enjoyed it, thanks.

It's disturbing to me that you would suggest that Rowling read Stephen King's book "On Writing." I say this as one who has read the book. King isn't a particularly artful writer, but he grinds out good, if prolix, prose like an assembly line cranks out cheap cars. In other words, King is not a model of good writing, and the advice King gives about adverbs describing dialogue is borrowed from a piece by Elmore Leonard in any case.

Rowling stood her ground to editors who told her that kids wouldn't read long books. And she did this in her first volume, before sequels became an issue. Rowling was right, and on the weekend when Deathly Hallows is released, I would hate to be the producer releasing another movie based on comic book heroes. As has happened with the last two books, the movie box office will decline because people are staying home, curled up with a book. A book.

That's something that even Stephen King can't accomplish.

Kim, the use of the article shows conclusively that the word hallows is a noun. You may as well cop to making an error as silly as the writer's mistaking deathly for an adverb, rather than continuing to buttress your position.

Who the heck cares of JK Rowling uses a lot of adverbs or not? She's worth a billion dollars now thanks to these supposedly badly-written, full of adverbs books. How successful have you been Mr. MJ Ryan with your adverb free writing? Are you worth even 1 million? I don't think so. Coz you care more about whether or not your writing is free of adverbs (and I'm sure other gramatically stupidities), than whether or not you can write a good story, that will be loved by millions. Go f*** yourself.

Come on! Those rules are meant to be broken. I would much rather read something interesting, than something written by the rules.

first of all u tell me, "what the hell do u think yourself?" you're trying to teach miss rowling! if she has been writing wrong all this years where does she get those awards from? u think a bunch of fools, sitting out there to award her excellence.
miss rowling is incomparable. no one can compete or take her position.
she is what we call as perfect.
so better stop commenting her skills and potentiality....just go to hell!

As a major fan of the Harry Potter series, I will be what seems to be one of the lone voices here who can be both polite and accusatory regarding the defense of Rowling's work.

Firstly, Rowling writes for children. Yes, but those children are grown up. Some comments here seem to think that there is only a "spattering" of adult fans. Think again. Visit your local bookstore at midnight when the final book is released and you'll see a heck of a lot more adults than children! The Goblet of Fire film played to more adult eyes than child eyes. Adults read these books and enjoy them. So saying that Rowling's writing style is not mature enough for adults is ridiculous because I'm rather certain adults understand the plot more than most children and therefore get more out of the series.

Secondly, the title: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - I'm sorry to break this to you MJ Ryan, but Deathly Hallows has to do with the Horcruxes. I can guarantee you that "deathly" is not an adverb as you say. I don't really even see how you could jump to thinking "deathly" was such. It clearly "describes" (what do adjectives do?) hallows, a pluralized noun. The "hallows" are the Horcruxes, sacred relics. Further evidence of this is due to previous trademarks on two titles, Harry Potter and the Hallows of Hogwarts, and Harry Potter and the Hogwarts Hallows. These were found to be previously trademarked as titles. It is a popular theory that these were the titles Rowling was considering and that the official title was the third one which occurred to her. It makes sense because the seventh book will be about Harry's quest to destroy the Horcruxes, but Harry Potter and the Horcrux Hunt sounds a little tacky.

Thirdly, criticism of Rowling's writing - tut, tut, tut. Yes, Rowling uses adverbs . . . often . . . a lot. But who REALLY cares? Does the abundant use of adverbs somehow give the series a lack of quality? Would you TRULY feel that she's a better writer if she didn't always tell you whether Snape said something silkily or coldly? Because guess what? I think the adverbs add to the writing! Ouch, yes, that must hurt, I know. Breaking Rules of Writing! How terrible. But how is it that such a rule ever became a rule? When you look at the story and you take a character like Snape, it adds to his character when you know he's speaking to Harry quietly (but not menacingly) and when he's speaking to Harry silkily (taunting). There is a difference. The way Rowling describes Snape's actions at times is very much helped by the adverbs. The way he killed Dumbledore in Half-Blood Prince was very different - the way it was described as well as the way his character is described with the use of adverbs throughout that book, versus the other books, is a testament to how the adverbs add to the writing. And yeah, it is better than hearing every time someone speaks (which is often in the series), ". . . ," Hermione said, or, ". . . ," Ron said, or, ". . . ," said Harry. I like hearing that Harry said something sourly and that Hermione said something acidly and that Snape said something menacingly. It adds to the whole story. Rowling's writing is simply known for its adverb use, which is probably part of why her WRITING is so popular!! Because remember, it's not just the story itself, it's the WRITING!

I read the books and I never had the sense that using adverbs while dialouge can be any annoying. Few months ago, I read an article very similer to this one above complaining that Rowling uses too much exclamation marks while writing. Ryan, you know what they say about journalists, don't you? They are those who failed to become writers.

Deathly can be used as either an adjective or adverb (adjective if it modifies a noun and adverb if it modifies a verb). The limiting factor here is "Hallows" which is and only is a transitive verb (check Websters). According to all the grammar references I have checked. Verbs are either transitive or intransitive. A transitive verb communicates action and is always followed by an object which receives the action. An object must receive the action of a transitive verb in order to complete the meaning of the verb. The object of a transitive verb is called the direct object if it receives the action directly from the subject.

Nothing in the title of Harry Potter and the.... makes Hallows anything else but a transitive verb except....if "Deathly Hallows" is being used as a place name - for example if you called the local pub the Deathly Hallows (and I have seen some pubs that could warrent that moniker) - without a direct object upon which Hallows can act - this is a very incomplete phrase.

BTW, I do agree with the use of adverbs being lazy.......but I love HP series anyway!

I can't wait for your next article, "E. E. Cummings and the Disobedient Punctuation."

To those arguing that the word "Hallows" in the title is a verb: No. There is no possible way that "hallows" could be used as a verb when it's preceded by "the" and has nothing else following it.

It's pathetic that people are defending the writer of this article in saying it's possible the word could be being used as an adverb. Obviously those defenders don't know a thing about the English language, either. ;)

To Shannon - As you state - "There is no possible way that "hallows" could be used as a verb when it's preceded by "the" and has nothing else following it."

I quite agree - as I said - "Nothing in the title...makes Hallows anything else but a transitive verb except if "Deathly Hallows" is being used as a place name" The use of "the" does not gaurentee that, but it is suggestive of it.

Please read comments before saying that "defenders don't know a thing about the English language, either." The wink symbol you used does nothing to remove the barb from your written words.

Relax people. It's a free country. We are entitled to our opinions. Entitled to our critiques. Entitled to not like adverbs. Likewise, entitled to our adverbs as well as adjectives. It is true, however, that excessive use of adverbs is frowned upon and discouraged in the literary world.

It is also very true that Rowling ignores that rule and many others and yet seems to succeed in spite or despite it. I think the point M. Ryan was trying to make is that Rowling is a skilled writer, a skilled crafts woman, if you would. Therefore, she does not need the adverbs or adjectives or whatever you choose to call them. I also agree that the title doesn't seem to fit or feel right to me. That doesn't really matter though, seeing how I want to read what is inside and could care less about the title.

Stephen King does beg writers not to enage in the use of adverbs in the craft of writing. He also admits he is guilty of breaking that rule himself. I was very surprised when I first picked up a Rowling book to see how many times she broke that rule. I find them annoying, but due to her skill can easily ignore them and enjoy the rest of her book.

It's a free country. It is OK to point out that someone is successful despite their blatantly ignoring steadfast literary rules. It is also OK to be irritated by excessive adverbs. It is OK to critique it. Especially if you appreciate her writing otherwise. So, take a chill pill HP fans! You take yourselves WAY TOO seriously. And, yes. You are also entitled to not like what I say. Life is short, though. Don't get all worked up over it.

It's unfair ! Firstly, Rowling has a beautifully bewitching way of writing. If she has to use adverbs for it, so be it. Secondly, deathly in the title The Deathly Allows is an adjective, not an adverb. Quite a grossly evil mistake !

As one of Harry Potter's oldest fans, I have to say all this plather about writing wrongly, or rightly, is absurd! The books, by the way, are not children's books and were never written as such. The first two movies made the series for children but now that the books have gotten darker, most young children are not being brought to theaters in droves as before. (also, it's because the ones who were small at the beginning have grown with the movies). Why knock JK's writing? Who among us has written anything as popular or successful? Hands please! I thought not. If you don't like Harry Potter, fine by me, just don't think your ramblings will prevent me from seeing it through to the end...hacking my way through the Adverbial Forest is part of the adventure! And I have to comment on the awful spelling of most of the comments. If you're so proficient in grammer, you need to pay as much attention to spelling!

Please keep your simplistic, eighth-grade-English-teacher advice to yourself, especially in light of the fact that J.K. Rowling's writing is far superior to yours.
Sure, adverbs are evil -- languages are known for keeping around an entire class of words that serve no purpose and should be purged. Condemning an entire class of words as "lazy" is the epitome of laziness. It's one of those moronic rules for better writing similar to "short sentences make for clearer writing." True quality in writing is far more difficult to judge and far more difficult to reduce to a set of nice and tidy rules that can be written on a postcard. And I howled when I saw that you actually use Stephen King's advice on writing to condemn J.K. Rowling? Are you kidding me? King is not terrible, but if ever there was a writer in dire need of an editor, it's Stephen King. First and foremost, he needs an editor to TACKLE him and keep him away from his word processor for a few months. Maybe if someone did that, King would actually put a little thought into his books rather than cranking them out like a factory machine.

I am utterly dismayed by the complete incompetence displayed by some people on the subject of the English language. I am talking to you, Natalie Bennett, Kim, and PersonPlaceorThing.

In the title, "Hallows" is a noun. There is no sensible debate about it. It is preceded by the definite article (the). It is a noun. It cannot be a verb with "the" preceding it. End of story.

"Deathly" modifies "Hallows". And what modifies nouns? Yes, that's right, adjectives, and not adverbs. The author is mistaken, and so are all the other dimwits who ran to their dictionaries for answers that it does not give. The structure of the title tells you everything you need to know.

And, uh, Dee, you mispelled "grammar".

HUH!? Oh Lord please help this woman see the light and listen to us sane people who have written valid comments about JK Rowling and her books. The books are fantastic as is the author please see all above comments, Amen

K that was sarcasm towards the author of the above article, the books are so good that I can't put them down and i wont speak on anyones behalf but just live and let live woman!

This article made me laugh at its absurdity. The author has erred in her indentification of the word "deathly" as an adverb. She makes the elementary school error of identifying a word as an adverb simply because it ends in the suffix "ly."

Not every word that ends in "ly" is an adverb. In this case, "deathly" most assuredly is functioning as an adjective. When one speaks of a "deathly pallor," it is clear that "deathly" is an adjective modifying the noun "pallor." It is exactly the same in the title "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows."

As for Stephen King's comments about effective writing, what works for one author does not necessarily work for another. Rowling's style is filled with fascinating elements of linguistics, taken from a deep appreciation of history and culture. These elememts add a special richness to her books. Furthermore, King praised Rowling's writing in their joint appearance in New York City.

I would not change her title for a moment. In fact, her choice of the word "deathly" as opposed to "deadly" (also an adjective) is significant. I understand it to mean that the "Hallows" are deathlike in appearance, but not necessarily something that will cause death.

As for "Hallows" referring to Halloween, that is possible, but it is also possible that "Hallows" refers to the Thirteen Hallows of Britain found in the Arthurian legends or the Hallows of Hogwarts which are undoubtedly relics representing the power and magic of tht institution. Another possibility lies in the use of the word to mean a time when the veil between the worlds of the living and dead is at its thinnest. With such a complex word, Rowling has given her readers a puzzle to consider while waiting for the publication of the final book of the septology.

hey lets all string her up from the nearest tree for writing an OPINION in her BLOG!

really people, have some decency. if you don't like it, don't read it. everyone is entitled to their own opinions, factual or not.

Sorry, but this proves something about blogs and other online publications: No decent magazine appearing in print would publish this review - it would reflect too badly on them. A book critic who cannot tell an adjective from an adverb simply is not very likely to ever appear in print. To avoid misunderstandings: I am very glad about the technical possibilities today, but this shows that one has to think before believing, even more so if it appears somewhere on the web.
To the author (and anyone interested) a few examples form my English Learners' Grammar:
daily meetings - we meet daily
their early arrival - they arrive early
our monthly meeting - we meet monthly
(for the last ones in confusion: the examples show the use as an adjective - as an adverb)

I don't think this has been pointed out yet, but deathly is an adjective.

Thanks for noticing, Sussman! Good to see someone finally saw fit to mention that.

To those putting forward the silly argument that "hallows" must be a verb in the context of Rowling's title, (and I'd thought Natalie Bennett of all people would be far too perspicacious to perpetuate such an egregious error) I shall point out the alternate phrasing for the name of Halloween, which is also sometimes called All Hallows' Eve.

Look it up. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Firstly, I'm not going to enter this little battle thing starting in here, I'm just going to restate what I'd said earlier: The "Deathly Hallows" refers DIRECTLY and CLEARLY to the Horcruxes. There isn't a doubt in my mind that Rowling means Horcruxes; "Deathly Hallows" is NOT an adverb and verb! Would it even make sense if you made it as such? Think about it people; use some sense rather than "rules". How would "Hallows" as a verb fit into the story - what the heck would it even mean in the context of the books?

Furthermore, to the person above who claims he's "the oldest of the HP fans out there" - guess what, so am I, and I can guarantee you that Rowling specifically published Sorcerer's Stone for children. Read her website, she says she writes for children; or rather, she wrote for an age group of kids who have now grown up and she understands that her writing is now much more adult because her audience is now grown! As is her main character! I was 11 when I first read Sorcerer's Stone, found it in a Scholastic book order catalogue from my middle school. Now I'm at university. Also, Rowling has admitted that her publisher won't let her include strong swearing in the books because they are aiming the books still at kids (Amazon.com lists Half-Blood Prince for 8-12-year olds). And yes, while the first two films were so sacchrine and pathetically childish, it's due to the fact that the director, Chris Columbus, is a hack and he and the studio wanted to make kid films.

Thirdly, I have to agree that quality writing cannot be judged by simple rules and regulations which I agree are lazy. I believe quality writing, true quality, comes from the ability to bring the whole story to life and to create such fleshed out characters, create a whole kind of world just through words. Rowling by far has done this, better than any writer I've come across thus far. There are some "classics" of "literature" I've read which have the rules and the regulations and the stylistic approach and the qualification of "art" and such and they don't do a thing for me! How is it that a book which is not all that interesting and doesn't draw you in and is simply confusing and has no understandable plot (unless you have a reading guide to supplement it) can be considered superior to something like Harry Potter or White Oleander or Tuesdays with Morrie? I'm basically referencing a book like Billy Budd which I felt was rather pointless for it to be considered a classic, yet someone pretends to call it BETTER than Potter? I find THAT ridiculous!

Dear PersonPlaceorThing,

You state, "Nothing in the title of Harry Potter and the.... makes Hallows anything else but a transitive verb except....if "Deathly Hallows" is being used as a place name," but that's not correct. The article "the" means that what follows it a noun--in this case a noun phrase (adj-noun). Never do verbs follow articles. I'll agree that it is unclear whether Hallows is used as the name of a place or as a gerund (a verb being used as a noun), but in either case, grammatically, it is a noun in the title. Hallows is a noun in this title; there is no ambiguity there.

I think Shannon was just pointing out that people, others not just yourself, are defending the author saying that Deathly can be used as an adverb. While Shannon was more abusive than than he/she should've been, he/she is right. There is no question that Deathly is an adjective in this title. People who only look up words in the dictionary and see that Deathly "could be" an adverb and that Hallow "is only" a transitive verb concluding that Deathly is an adverb show their ignorance. Like Shannon said, the defenders don't know their English grammar.

Just wanted to add that I think in 20 or 30 years Harry Potter will be considered literature and that it will be taught in classrooms and universities. Maybe it won't be considered on the same level as Virginia Woolf or The Scarlet Letter or what have you, but it will have far more prestige later on.

Surely this is just another example of the fact that Americans simply don't understand adverbs (or can't even tell them apart from adjectives sometimes), and thus dislike and fear their use. Please let a British writer write in English.

Lord, she's be using semicolons soon!

"Doing good?" anyone?

Uhhh....deathly is an adjective...

Thanks, Josh. We'll include you with all the others that the public school system has failed.

Deathly is not an adverb in the title because there is no verb in the title. It isn't modifying another adverb OR an adjective, so in the title of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Deathly is an ADJECTIVE!

I hope you see this, because your whole article is based on nothing now.

And to your rant about adverbs in a story, they give flavor and details to the reader. If you just said, "Pete picked up the book," you've been told nothing about Pete.
But if you insert an adverb, you tell the reader what condition Pete was in when he picked up the book. If you say "gingerly," then we know Pete is hurt. If you saw "quickly," then we know Pete is in a rush.

Seriously, what kind of writer are you? Adverbs are necessary for writing full and complete stories.

I could be wrong, but in this instance "deathly" is used as an adjective and not an adverb.

First congrats to MJ for kicking off the longest thread on adverbs I've ever seen. Nice post!

Second - to all the JK Rowling fans who seem to be having a collective fit over someone deigning to critique The Sacred Writings....why do you care? JKR won't sell a whit less books due to this posting and MJ is hardly the first reviewer to note that Rowling is less than a literary writer. Given a choice between selling a million copies as a moderate wordsmith and selling 3,000 as a literary wunderkind, my choice would always be the million copies, so please lose some of the vehemence and personal attacks on the post author, it is silly.

Lastly I will point out that grammar is a set of rules and breaking those rules is not a capital offence. William Shakespeare was forever making up new words, coining new phrases and generally playing games with the language to suit himself, his stories and his audience - not worrying about pleasing or offending some grammarian. It was part of what makes his works unique and powerful.

Adverb, adjective or noun, I'm looking forward to reading Rowlings next opus.

I snidely think that the real question here is: What part of speech is the word 'deathly'? Does anyone snidely know?

hahahahaaa

This is lovely, I think. Bloody wonderful. See, you'd think, perhaps, that in this sort of discussion the literary critics would be the knowledgeable ones, and sweep the floor with the silly little Potter fans, but nooo... It turns out, tis the Potter fans whom are knowledgeable... :P (go us!!)

Honestly, everything's been said about 50 times now, so just to sum up:

Deathly: Adjective and adverb, adjective for sure (very obvious) in this case...
Hallows: Very obviously in this case a noun (plural!!... wooow... oh really? there's a world outside of Internet dictionaries you say?? King Arthur.. who?? hehehe...)

Do some research and think for two seconds next time...

MJ, what are you talking about? You think you know everything about this topic when you really do not know anything at all. Maybe you should think first (and maybe take an IQ test) before you start commenting negatively about the style of writing of one of the best authors of all time. And yes, negatively is an adverb. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with using adverbs in writing. They are used to add description to the writing. If they were not meant to be used, they would not be a part of speech. All I'm saying is that you should not pretend to know ore about writing than JK Rowling.

As the article has already been thoroughly (hehe adverb) thrashed I will comment on the comments. First, I am terrible at grammar so when even I notice how moronic it is to say that "'Deathly' is an adverb" in this case, its pretty bad. Second, I strongly (ooo another adverb) agree with all those who who've said that the adverbs add to Jo's writing. The books are far from being "Adverb Hell". Third, I've never been taught that adverb usage is lazy but then again, I went to a public elementary school in Florida so that may explain some things. Whoever said that this person has a right to say what they think and all those who disagree should just leave them alone must not be aware that we have equal right to disagree and say what we think. Finally, I completely agree with Michelle.

Oh, and just because i dont think its been said enough, deathly,in this case, is an adjective.

As most of the others replying have stated in the context of this book title "Deathly" seems to be used as an adjective, not an adverb. And as Janice stated in her reply the word "hallows" has a number of definitions that refer to it as a noun. However, since none of us really know exactly what JKR's particular meaning of the title might be (is it a place name, or does it refer to the horcruxes?) do we really have any business bashing her for it?

Also, in reply to Michelle's comment thatJKR writes for children I'd just like to say that in an interview Ms. Rowling stated that she had never intended Harry Potter to be a children's book. She wrote it as a book initially, with no particular age demographic in mind, but that because the book is about a child the publishers who chose it felt it would be marketable as a children's book.

Well, personally I think the fact that all you die hard Potter fans have been so vicious in your attacks on MJRyan proves a point. You don't care how Rowlings writes, or what. You will defend her to the death just because you don't have a life outside of Harry Potter! A good critic doesn't care what you think of the review - the purpose of it is not to stroke the fans, it is to cause people to think. But wait - I forgot. You CAN'T think for yourselves, you ARE Harry Potter!

If I'd known I was Harry Potter, I'd've known "deathly" was an adjective.

1. Deathly in the title is an adjective. If you are going to bash someone else's writing and grammar, get it right yourself please

2. I totally disagree that JK's writing is over done. Remember she's still trying to write books that are child friendly, even if it's older children. There's a certain writing style that goes with that and it includes such 'spelling out' of feelings etc.

3. Hallows is a term that means holy and as someone mentioned is probably a reference back to the Horicruxes, the loss of which would spell the complete and final death of Voldy. But the word when said outloud sounds a lot like Hollows. 5 will get you 10 that this is on purpose. Why? to remind us of Godric's Hollow, the place where it all began. And it's only appropriate that the end would take place there as well.

"the purpose of it is not to stroke the fans, it is to cause people to think"

It did make me think. I thought, "Anyone who can't tell that Deathly is used as an adjective in the title is an idiot, and their criticism isn't worth much." Thanks for the thought-provoking article, MJ Ryan.

Come on "ohmagolly", Harry Potter-fans don't just read Harry Potter, and, well, who the hell are you to say people you don't know don't have a life? I love the books for what they are. The story is really good, it strings together very well and it happens to bring up important topics as well, without throwing them openly into your face. Also, the story clearly has connections to many of those books we consider the greats, and to mythology, and just because they are easy to read books this doesn't mean that they are trash. Being artful for "artfulness'" sake is being bloody big-headed really.. But if that's what you want to be, really, to base the attempted bashing of Harry Potter that this article was on a book by Steven King (-there's a popular writer if there ever was one, though once again, a good story teller) is really pretty silly...
I'm a Harry Potter-fan. I also enjoy books by Dostojevskij, Zola, Hesse.. to name but a few... I do not raise Rowling above these authors, I recognise her writing is completely different, but I don't see the point of turning your nose up to a good story and being pretentious... You'll only miss out... I am a thinking person. I am not, as you put it, Harry Potter. I love the books, but I am also a writer, a musician and an artist. What you say about a good critic is true. It is not the purpose of a critic to try to please anybody, but again, as you say, if their purpose is to make people think, don't you think it would be a good idea for the critic to do a bit of thinking as well?

In Lord of the Rings, Tolkien used the word "Hallows" in the sense of "sacred sanctuary" to refer to the City of the Dead (the burial place of Gondor's kings and stewards), and he also used the word "hallow" in the sense of "depression in the earth's surface" to refer to an area on the side of Mount Mindolluin where a sapling of the White Tree was found growing at the end of the book. Rowling has said in interviews that she read LOTR when she was 19; moreover, she and Tolkien share a love of arcane words and a gift for coining new ones, so I expect she was paying close attention to his word choices (if indeed, she wasn't already aware of those usages).

It's a safe bet that Rowling takes her definitions for arcane words from the Oxford English Dictionary. There are three entries in the OED for "Hallow" as a noun, two entries for "Hallow" as a verb, and two miscellaneous entries; "Deathly" has four definitions as an adjective and two as an adverb. It's absurd to think that interpretations of "Deathly Hallows" must be limited to the definitions found in standard American dictionaries (let alone the entries in lightweight online dictionaries).

It's obvious to me that "Hallows" in the title "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" is a noun; therefore, "Deathly" is an adjective.

Oxford English Dictionary entries:

Hallow, Noun (1)

1. A holy personage, a saint. (Little used after 1500, and now preserved only in All-Hallows and its combinations, q.v.)

2. In pl. applied to the shrines or relics of saints; the gods of the heathen or their shrines. In the phrase to seek hallows, to visit the shrines or relics of saints; orig. as in sense 1, the saints themselves being thought of as present at their shrines. Cf. quot. c1440 in 1.

3. hallow- in Comb. (chiefly in Sc.) is used for All-Hallow- = All Saints'-, in Hallow-day, Hallow-e'en, Hallowmas, Hallow-tide; also hallow-fair, a fair or market held at Hallowmas; hallow-fire, a bonfire kindled on All-hallow-e'en, an ancient Celtic observance.

Hallow, Noun (2)

A loud shout or cry, to incite dogs in the chase, to help combined effort, or to attract attention.

Hallow, Noun (3)

Obs. The parts of the hare given to hounds as a reward or encouragement after a successful chase.

Hallow, Verb (1)

1. trans. To make holy; to sanctify, purify.

2. To consecrate, set apart (a person or thing) as sacred to God; to dedicate to some sacred or religious use or office; to bless a thing so that it may be under the particular protection of a deity, or possess divine virtue. arch.

3. To honour as holy, to regard and treat with reverence or awe (esp. God or his name).

4. trans. To keep (a day, festival, etc.) holy; to observe solemnly.

Hallow, Verb (2)

1. trans. a. To chase or pursue with shouts. b. To urge on or incite with shouts. c. To call or summon in, back, etc. with shouting.

2. intr. To shout, in order to urge on dogs to the chase, assist combined effort, or attract attention.

3. trans. To shout (something) aloud.


Hallow, int.

Obs. An exclamation to arouse to action, or to excite attention.


Hallow: obscure form of Hollow


Deathly, Adjective

†1. Subject to death, mortal. Obs.

2. Causing death, deadly.

3. Of the nature of or resembling death, deathlike; gloomy, pale, etc. as death.

4. Of or pertaining to death. poetical.


Deathly, Adverb

†1. In a way causing or tending to death. Obs.

2. To a degree resembling death.

So. Let me pose a question to the people who are get all heated up about this article. Just because someone is a famous writer, it means no one is allowed to critique his/her work from a literary standpoint? Get a grip people.

Rowling's creative writing is superb. Her literary writing is good/fair. Have I seen better literary work as far as the "craft" or literary part goes? Yes. There are better writers in the CRAFT of writing. But Rowling is one of the best where it COUNTS. That is: in the creative and compelling part of writing (you know- where it matters most).

The point is we like her books regardless. I'd rather read someone who has vivid creative writing with compelling plot lines who (regarding gramar/literary) writes in a mediocre fashion than read a perfect literary piece of work that is drab and boring. (And, yes- that was a run on sentence. Suck it up people).

On a side note, here: the grammar/adverb thing- let her EDITORS deal with it. That's what they're paid the big bucks for. If they let her slide on this stuff, who cares?

Furthermore, Ryan was giving an OPINION so get off her back. And who cares if it's an adjective or adverb? Stop with the stupid argument people. Adjective. Adverb. You're above that nonsense. We love Rowling and we're going to read her stuff anyways, right? So loosen up and let a critic do her thing- critique. (I will not be held responsible for any grammar/spelling errors- so get off my back too).

"So. Let me pose a question to the people who are get all heated up about this article. Just because someone is a famous writer, it means no one is allowed to critique his/her work from a literary standpoint? Get a grip people."

anonymous, no one here is disputing the fact that MJRyan has the right to critique JKR's writing from a literary standpoint. What people are objecting to is the fact that the person doing the critiquing clearly doesn't even know basic grammar. It seems a bit presumptuous of her to hold herself up as an authority on writing and grammar when she can't even tell an adverb from an adjective.

M.J. could be right, but she could also be wrong. J.K. could be right or wrong also. But my bet is on J.K.

According to the Dictionary, "DEATHLY" is defined either as an ADJECTIVE--Of, resembling, or characteristic of death: a deathly silence.
Causing death; fatal.

OR

As an ADVERB--In the manner of death.

And HALLOWS according to Oxford is either a verb--To make holy; consecrate, honour as holy.

OR

As a noun--(archaic) A saint or holy person.

Sounds like J.K. is covered either way. Besides she likes to make us think.

j.k. Too

hey ohmagolly, what a frickin' babyish name, and also, go f*** yourself.

JK Too-

The phrase Deathly Hallows is preceded by a definite article (the), which means Hallows must be a noun and Deathly must be an adjective. The meaning of "the Deathly Hallows" is ambiguous, but the parts of speech are not.

j.k. Too

You are an idiot. There are many posts already on here that detail why Deathly is not an adverb. Read them. If you don't believe them, find a college professor who specializes in linguistics and ask him/her. Deathly is an adjective in this title. There's no maybe about it. The author is wrong calling Deathly an adverb. You're just another idiot who looks up the words in a dictionary and pays no attention to the context in which they are used.

this is article is a piece of shit!!!

oops! there i used one verb extra (really by mistake!)

What about the three exclamation marks???

And let us not forget to mention your continued failure to properly capitalize!!!

Carry on.

Perhaps we should just all agree that MJ has no real understanding of grammar. Her critique of the title is based on an erroneous belief that her abridged dictionary is an accurate source for identifying parts of speech.

It is true that new writers often use too many adverbs, but that does not mean that all adverbs are evil. In fact, a skillful writer employs adverbs to bring richness to the text.

MJ wrote "There are a plethora of other ways to describe speech than to saddle it with adverbs." Of course, since "plethora" is a non-count noun used with the indefinite article "a", it requires a singular verb. By the way, she's forgotten her comparative adjective "better" to match her use of the word "than." Her sentence should have read "There is a plethora of other ways to better describe speech than to saddle it with adverbs."

There are other errors in MJ's rather sanctimonious text, but I don't want to bore anyone.

MJ mentioned Stephen King's "On Writing," yet she neglected to mention that he named Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix as number five on his list of his ten favorite books of 2005. Surely, if her use of adverbs were excessive, he would not have named her as one of his favorite authors.

By the way, Scott K asked for a college professor who specializes in linguistics. Will I do?

Nice analysis, Janis. As long as we're on the topic of "plethora," my contention is that the word should never be used. It is an ugly word. There is a plethora of synonyms for the word. I find that it is most often used as a demonstration of the budding writer's command of the language, in the same way that, for example, the word "utilize" is thrown around -- it sounds like a fancy word.

My current pet word peeve appears in the book The Dragon Rider, an English translation from the German original by Cornelia Funke, which I'm reading to my son. Funke has thrown in the word "clambered" at least ten times so far (when somebody climbs aboard the dragon), and it's looking more and more conspicuous every time I come across it. Maybe it's the tranlator's fault.

Final thought for future posters: enough dogpiling on poor MJ. Give it a rest. We get it.

Good Lord people, get off it. Firstly JK Rowling's stories about Harry Potter were told to her son as bedtime stories, then made into books. Hello??? HER SON that would make them CHILDRENS stories wouldn't it? Secondly, I don't give a witches backside if she uses adjectives or adverbs too often. The woman has done something amazing that will be remembered for many many years to come. But my question is this...According to MJ Ryan..one would be lead to believe that the world should go back to writing styles as in the days of Shakespeare, who was without a doubt one of the greatest authors of all time. But was also very confusing. Methinks HE could have used an adjective or adverb once in a while and not confused the Hell out of generations to come. I mean we take college courses in English just to TRY to translate and understand Mr. Shakespeare, but there is no need to TRY to understand JK Rowling, it just comes naturally.

Good Lord people, get off it. Firstly JK Rowling's stories about Harry Potter were told to her son as bedtime stories, then made into books. Hello??? HER SON that would make them CHILDRENS stories wouldn't it? Secondly, I don't give a witches backside if she uses adjectives or adverbs too often. The woman has done something amazing that will be remembered for many many years to come. But my question is this...According to MJ Ryan..one would be lead to believe that the world should go back to writing styles as in the days of Shakespeare, who was without a doubt one of the greatest authors of all time. But was also very confusing. Methinks HE could have used an adjective or adverb once in a while and not confused the Hell out of generations to come. I mean we take college courses in English just to TRY to translate and understand Mr. Shakespeare, but there is no need to TRY to understand JK Rowling, it just comes naturally.

The word "deathly" CANNOT be used as an adverb nor is it being use as one in the title. It is an adjective and nothing more. Maybe u should've looked in your dictionary before writing a whole article on something u apparently didn't know.

"Harry Potter and the Hallows of Death. Look at that. No adverb and the meaning is the same."

You have no clue what the meaning of Deathly Hallows is. No one, except JKR, does.

I like her writing just the way it is.

This is really quite funny!

just a reminder...

deathly is not an adverb

thanks, move along.

PS. if 'death' COULD be made an 'adverb', it would have been deathILY.



It would help if you didn't rely on -ly as being your sole indicator for a word being an adverb or not.

1. deathly is defintly an adjective not an adverb.

2. i love the way she writes and its not up to you on how many adjectives or adverbs she uses.

Ouch and Ouch.

Article and comments are both pretty darn painful to read. What can I say? I can't look away from this train wreck.


The author has been called both he and she. Doesn't matter because either way MJ has got some huge stainless steel balls to post this. For that s/he should be commended. I don't think I've ever seen better, or more misguided, "Rule Lawyering". Evar. No that's not misspelled, the a is intentional. All other mistakes are genuine.

Comments... Wow.

I don't think you'd see a more vicious pack of animals if you tossed a baby into a pit of starving dingoes.


In summery, keep it up it's freakin' hilarious.

to "2xKnight" you made me laugh so much!

I cant beleive peolpe can be stupid enough not to know the're grammar but then to write and entire article on it. I wonder what the author of that article said when he looked at these comments.

Im sorry do u know anything about english grammar? hallows in this case is a NOUN nad deathly is an ADJECTIVE. ADVERBS cant modify NOUNS, they modify VERBS and hallows cant be one bacause every verb needs a subject. I dont particulary like the books so i don't knwo about the excessive use of adverbs.

Please consult a dictionary nearest to you. "Deathly" is an adjective. It's quite ironic that this article was talking about the "dire need of a strong editing hand." Please be careful about the facts you are writing about. Grammatical errors are forgivable. Wrong information and weak research are quite fatal.

OMG! Deathly is an adverb! Hallows is a verb, it means to make holy or sacred, so deathly is describing the verb hallow. Which makes deathly an adverb. OMG! I feel sooooooooooooooo stupid.

"Everything I've ever read or been taught is that to use adverbs in writing is lazy" - what, you've only read it and had it taught to you, you don't have an opinion of your own? Since you wrote a whole article on the subject, I'm sure you do. Don't be afraid to rely on it.

Many messages say that "deathly" can be used as an adjective or an adverb. Really?

Can someone give an example in which it is used as an adverb?

Can someone actually do something deathly? "He walked into the room very deathly"? I can't think of a context in which it makes any sense to use "deathly" as an adverb. Can you?