Democracy, contrary to what many of our world leaders and worthy political organisations would have us believe, is not a good idea. Left to their own devices, people do all sorts of stupid things. If you don't agree, pause for a minute to reflect on the fact that Bush and Blair were both re-elected in the aftermath of their bungled intervention in Iraq.
If people have free choice, they buy rubbish as well. At present, the great unwashed masses seem to have an insatiable desire for mediocre music. I'm bland! I'm more bland! No, look at me, I am the blandest of you all!
And then, dear reader, there is J.K. Rowling.
Are you looking for the literary equivalent of the Emperor's New Clothes? In that case, the seemingly interminable Harry Potter saga is for you! It won't challenge you, or stimulate you. It's good for your children, because it gets them reading instead of killing each other with knives, but sadly it also turns their brains into mush at the same time. Unfortunately, you won't notice this, because you will have been reading it as well, and your brain will have reached maximum mushiness long before your children's.
Rowling's prose is, frankly, terrible. Anyone who uses the exclamation mark as frequently as she does must have some overwhelming need to be noticed. And yet, the great British public - of their own free will - have voted her the "Greatest Living British Author" in The Book Magazine. I can only assume that they've never bothered to read the likes of Anita Brookner or Salman Rushdie. Perhaps, for most of these people, the Potter novels will be the only things they will ever read in their lives, and therefore they have nothing better to judge them against.
The vast majority equate popularity with quality, and fail to realise that it's perfectly possible to like something while acknowledging that it is, frankly, complete rubbish. I quite like a couple of songs by Girls Aloud. QED. But the most depressing thing by far is that the plaudits heaped upon Rowling will mean that her works, such as they are, will have a far longer shelf life than they deserve, to the detriment of other, far more worthy writers.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Michael J. West
You're in an awkward position here. Either you admit that you've read the Harry Potter series, thereby admitting that your brains have turned into mush, or you admit that you've NOT read it, thereby admitting that you're writing on a topic you don't know very well.
2 - Victor Plenty
Exclamation marks? That's all you can say about why you don't like Rowling's writing?
As something of a literary omnivore who can savor Shakespeare while waiting for the next Harry Potter novel to come out in paperback, I understand why people love her work, even if I don't think she's in quite the same league with the Bard. Rowling's protagonists are likeable and in tune with many of the anxieties of modern life, her villains are exactly the sort of people readers love to hate, and her stories are compellingly told; even if her punctuation does not win the approval of self-appointed literary judges.
I'd like to learn why you love the writers you see as more deserving than Rowling. Tell us what specifically you see as admirable in something Rushdie has written, or explain the merits of Anita Brookner to us. Perhaps by doing this you can do more to help them reach the wider audiences you believe they merit.
It's certainly a better use of your time than futile complaints against the popularity of Rowling, which neither this award nor your disapproval are likely to affect much one way or the other.
3 - Bryan McKay
Rowling may not be the best writer, but she's a very good storyteller. Where her prose suffers, she often makes up for it in shear enjoyment.
It's good to at least see that Ian McEwan and Rushdie made the list not too far below the winner. Perhaps people do have taste after all.
4 - Aaman
There are a number of things wrong with your own writing, at least from the sample above. Be that as it may, your complaint against JKR does have some merit, given the richness of British writing in recent years. I'd go with Ian McEwan myself.
5 - Rohan Venkat
As has been said, Rowling isn't brain-turning-to-mush (turn to James Patterson for that) bad.
But Greatest Living British writer?
The Lit world does hang it's head in shame...
6 - Steve Local
Michael, thank you for your comment. I have indeed suffered mushiness of the brain at the hands of Rowling. I'll admit that I haven't read all of the novels, but have battled through three of them. That was quite enough.
It's a little-documented but (thankfully) verifiable fact that repeated exposure to interesting things, over time, can repair the mushiness in the brain caused by reading the Potter novels.
Victor: futile complaining is one of the things I do best! However, your invitation to write at length about Brookner and Rushdie is a welcome one, and if I have time this evening I'll add some more thoughts.
Aaman: thank you for your kind words regarding the inadequacies of my prose style. The difference between me and Rowling is that I'm not paid to write, nor have I won any prizes for my writing. If I did, given that I write pretty impulsively, I'd be as horrified as you.
Keep the comments coming folks. "I'm especially interested to hear from anyone who shares my pain and rage!" shouted the critic, enthusiastically!
7 - Mary K. Williams
Well have liked every Potter book I've read so far. So, I guess I disagree with most of your points Steve -
But you do have an interesting way about you!
8 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Steve writes,
"The difference between me and Rowling is that I'm not paid to write,..."
Hmmm,
Considering that Rowling has lifted herself off the dole a bit, I'd say that her writing is not too bad. She is richer than H.M. Elizabeth II, after all.
I'm not well read enough to say "greatest living writer," and I'm not rich enough to acquire more books to become well read enough, but I have noticed the commonality between pigeons and people. They both chase after the places with the most crumbs...
Have a good week - shavua tov.
9 - Dave Nalle
Nice to know the British public are just as stupid as the American public.
Last I checked George MacDonald Fraser, J. G. Ballard, Lady Antonia Fraser and John Mortimer were all still alive. Each of them stands head and shoulders above Rowling as a writer. I'm sure I could think of more great British writers who are still alive if I put half a though into it. Hell, if you want to compete with her in the fantasy genre Lloyd Alexander, Arthur C. Clarke and Mary Stewart are still alive.
You shouldn't give an award like this to someone at the start of their career when so many great older writers are out there who deserve it. Ballard would be the best person to give it to because he could write a great insulting letter like the one he wrote to the times when the Queen tried to give him a CBE.
This is why a popularly voted award like this is so utterly meaningless.
Dave
10 - alena
well i sort of agree that she really is not **greatest living british writer**!!!
i mean there are soo many other brilliant writers.I dunt say she doesnt writes in good way, i mean she is also good but i guess if we say she's the greatest then for me it'll be no less then paradox!
11 - Crystal B.
I personally do not think that you have the right to say that J.K.Rowling's work turns your brain to mush. For one, you have not read all of her books and cannot rightfully say that they all turn brains into mush. For another the Harry Potter series gets kids to read other books that, as you say, can repair the so called "mushiness" of the brain that comes from reading the Harry Potter books.
12 - Steve Local
Great, some more interesting comments - thanks folks.
Mary: thanks for your balanced response. We'll have to agree to disagree, but if you found my article at least entertainingly provocative then I'm happy.
Ruvy: my point is really that the most awful tosh can be popular. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but admiration for Rowling in the way she has continued to tap into an available market, but in no way does that make her prose any better!
Dave: Thanks. It's nice to know I'm not alone. The problem is, of course, that the people that vote in these popularity contests give them such enormous significance - have a look at the outrage this article and another on blogCritics.org have caused over at HPANA.com (Harry Potter fan site).
Alena: If I understand you correctly you're a fan of Rowling but you're agreeing with my basic point. Fair play to you.
Crystal: Much as you may dislike what I've written, I'm afraid I'll continue to state my opinions as I please. I'm sorry if you feel wounded by my dismissal of Rowling's work. Furthermore, if my own observations are anything to go by, I would say that a fair proportion of kids who read Potter don't bother reading anything else, but simply wait for the next Potter book to be released. What will they do when the last book is published? Will they ever read again?
13 - Mary K. Williams
Steve - yup, agreed - I mean, agree to disagree. Should Rowling get that award? Maybe not, I've not read tons of British authors - just a few here and there. So I can't really compare.
Still I think her prose is above the 'tosh' level : )
I think (IMHO) that sometimes people compare one piece of art (as in music, theatre, literary etc) to another that is not fit in the same category. Like the old comparing of 'apples and oranges'. I think Rowling's work is fine, but on a different level of say...Shakespeare, or (fillinyourownchoiceofliterarystar).
Take Chuck Palahniuk. (Fight Club) Some people think he's the bomb. I couldnt get through the first few pages of Diary. Doesn't mean he's crap, just wasn't a good fit for me.
Don't mind me I'm tired and cranky. But I do agree to disagree. : )
14 - Jill M. F.
"I would say that a fair proportion of kids who read Harry Potter don't bother to read anything else. . . "
I'm not a kid any more, but I've read most of them while being a kid, as have my friends (Harry was our age for the first book). None of us in any way stinted our reading material due to Harry Potter. In fact, thanks to Rowling, I now like Jane Austen because she's an author highly recommended by Rowling.
That said, you WILL hear of kids who don't want to read other things because they seem "boring" in comparison to Harry Potter. I don't think it's anything to worry about. I went through a phase where I wouldn't read anything but comic books. I think most people go through at least one obsessive phase where they don't even look at anything else. This is not to say they never will. And the reason that many kids don't read is because they find it difficult to see stories in words when it's so much easier to do so on the television. It's not easy to enjoy something when you're constantly struggling with it. But by reading Harry Potter they get the practice of seeing stories with words, which in the long run will only help them when it comes to reading (and enjoying) other things.
As to whether she deserves the award is a different question, and it obviously depends on what you're grading on. I've just finished my third Pratchett book and think he could have won based on certain criteria. Many of the authors could have. But Rowling DID win, and I think many people voted for her due to the strength of her characters. They have a tendency to grow on you.
15 - Steve Local
Folks, I'm delighted that the level of debate on this version of the most has stayed so reasonable - by comparison a hilarious rant has been posted on my own blog's version of this article, suggesting that I need to come to terms with my "uselessness" as a human being. Lovely.
Mary: agreed. One should try and compare like with like. That said, if you stay within the children's fantasy genre, and compare Rowling with her next most widely-read rival, Philip Pullman, you find a writer with a far more creative and fluid style and far more sophisticated imagery.
Jill: You make a really interesting point regarding the ease of consumption of books relative to television. If what you say is true, and I think it might well be, then the very fact that Rowling is either so easy-going or so bland (depending upon which side of the fence you sit) is likely to be what makes her so popular.
As I said, I was basing my comment regarding reading habits purely on my own observations. I'm glad Rowling has pointed you in other directions, though I suspect you may be in a minority. Have a go at Gaskell once you've finished with Austen!
16 - mAP
Its good to find a critical assessment of the Harry Potter phenomenon. Her team has been successful at marketing the books to the huge majority of the public that seems to be constantly searching for the literary equivalent of Chiclets. And that seems to be what matters in popularity-based prizes, be it MTV, Hollywood, or pulp-fiction.
Personally, while I have read all the books and like some of them, I think Rowling is far from being an author of any consequence. One formulaic idea does not a great author make! It might have made her a great children's author, a la Enid Blyton, but she seems to have chosen not to go on that path. With all due respect to Victor, if one has read more than one work by Rushdie, Mortimer, or Byatt (who, of course, is public enemy #2 after Voldemort to the incensed Potter fans), one would really not need an explanation as to why they are different from Rowling.
Such empty prizes (what does 'greatest living British author' mean anyway?) just reinforces the pulp fictional nature of this series. So hopefully, although it might increase the shelf life of the Potter books, it will not deter that of consequential literature. After all, I dont think Eliot, Shaw, or Russell won many popularity prizes!
17 - ellie crookes
I am a child, i am fourteen and i think out of all of your opinions, my views matter the most. As JK writes for my age group and not yours. Its not her fault that you, Mr Steve, do not like her books, it is your own opinon, and i respect that. though i dont agree with it, in any way shape or form im afraid.
i assure you my brain is very much intact and is deffinatly not mush, if anything my brain has become whole and stronger since my dad read harry potter and the philosophers stone to me at the age of eight, but enough with this metaphor of mush.
I am, as i have said, fourteen know.I am excelling in english and i have written many storys of my own that have won competitions.
I owe this to JK Rowling because, before i was read the first book at age eight, i despised reading and english. Since then i have read many books from childrens novels to adult and i visit the library frequently so that i can read somethiong new. JK has opened a whole new world for me i know want to be a writer.
i just wish that a mathmatician would emerge and help me like JK R owling has.
Please dont spread hateful words out of jelousy, as i know you are doing.
p.s. When you write a best selling novel that makes you richer than the queen, then i might listen to yur views, maybe.
18 - ellie crookes
I didnt mean that your views dont matter! im sorry it came out wrong im just angry.
19 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Ellie,
I'm glad that JK Rowling has brought you into the world of reading. That is what they did for my sons. As a matter of learning, I would suggest that you advance to Sherlock Holmes (Conan Doyle)or H.G. Wells science fantasy novels.
There are TIME-LIFE books on science that deal very nicely with mathematics. I leaned a lot more from them as a teenager than from the texts given me in school. Maybe you should ask your father if he would invest in them if you find these on amazon.co.uk...
Do I have to be richer than the queen to get your attention with what I write? That is a rather high bar to jump over...
20 - ellie crookes
Im sorry that i offended you, actually i was reffering to the authour of the article. and no i wasnt really focusing on the money, more on the fact that she gained such a great degree of recignition.
i am not a bias person, i belive that everyone is equal , if you were a man living on the street with no money, talking to me i would listen. But i will not listen to a man saying that he belives JK's writting is an appaling writer ect, when i dont belive that he can write any better himself.
21 - Christopher Rose
Ellie: the dangers of getting angry are that you make silly mistakes:
"is deffinatly not mush"
"I am, as i have said, fourteen know."
"I am excelling in english"
"i despised reading and english"
"books from childrens novels to adult"
"i can read somethiong new"
"i know want to be a writer"
"i just wish that a mathmatician"
"words out of jelousy"
"i might listen to yur views"
Hmm, one paragraph, ten basic mistakes. You might want to try and put your own writing in order before attacking other people's efforts...
22 - ellie crookes
I’m sorry I was just really angry and I wrote everything in a rush. I am only 14. I’m sorry that my spelling and grammar does not compare to the standard of 50 year olds such as your self.
I was just expressing my feelings, actually I wasn’t even writing about or to anyone but the author of the article, which I don’t believe is you.
This is about Harry potter and J.K Rowling not my spelling mistakes.
23 - Daniel Woolstencroft
Ellie: Indeed, this isn't about your spelling, or grammar. It's just that when you say things like "i assure you my brain is very much intact and is deffinatly not mush, if anything my brain has become whole and stronger since my dad read harry potter and the philosophers stone to me at the age of eight" you're trying to make the point that you're an intelligent fourteen year old.
And I'm sure you are; it's just that when you don't take time to check your posts before clicking that button - angry or not - it makes you sound less bright than I suspect you are.
We all make typing mistakes, but it's a good idea to check through what you've written before posting it.
Great comments though; if the world was filled with more fourteen year olds who feel as strongly as you do about things like this, we'd all be better off, methinks.
24 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Ellie,
You didn't offend me at all. And I realize that you were referring to the article's author and not me. I was once a man living on the street with no money. I may be again, G-d forbid.
It is my personal opinion that her writing is appropriate to the audience she seeks, children who are between ten and twenty. And she doesn't write down to this audience.
As for her story about the young wizard Harry Potter, a little mature reflection will let you realize that whether she intended to or not, she followed a standard formula for what are called "coming of age" books. As I saw where she was going with her novels, this became clear to me.
There is the young child, orphaned (or abandoned) at an early age. The young child has protectors who must be stripped from him in order for him to prove his mettle. These are just a couple of elements of the formula. In her most recent novel, Rowling virtually comes out and says this towards the end. This is why I do not believe she was following a formula purposefully. If you look at the original three Star Wars movies, you see a very similar formula employed to move the plot forward.
While Rowling writes well and tells a good story, it is things like this that might lead someone like Steve Local to heap criticism on her. JK Rowling has not written serious adult literature in her Harry Potter series. She is not the "greatest living writer" by any stretch of the imagination. But she has written a very interesting story nonetheless, and introduced millions of youngsters to reading. For this, the rest of us who write (and occasionally make some money at it) owe much to her.
25 - Christopher Rose
When I was fourteen my spelling and grammar were perfect so age has nothing to do with it.
By the way, the article is about Ms Rowling receiving an award and the debatable standard of her writing, not about "Harry potter".
This is also an open blog so anybody, even the illiterate, are able to comment here...