JK Rowling's Literary Offenses

[sunnyskywalker]

If these have been posted here before, it must have been a while, so I'm sure a review will still be interesting.

The Well-Tempered Plot Device, which has this interesting analysis of a bad book's plot:

"It would be much too complicated to have three goodies overcome the whole usurping army, or at any rate it would be far beyond the plotting powers of a Lin Carter. So what you do instead is write into the scenario one or more Plot Coupons which happen to be 'supernaturally' linked to the outcome of the larger action; and then all your character have to do is save up the tokens till it's time to cash them in."

*coughcough* Deathly Hallows, anyone? Did becoming the "Master of Death," ie (according to Dumbledore) being unafraid to die, actually result from Harry possessing the stone and the cloak and technically being master of the Elder Wand? And I think that grabbing Draco's wand, which is supernaturally linked to the Elder Wand even though we've never had any indication that wands communicate before, causing the Elder Wand not want to shoot Harry and turn back on Voldemort counts as a vague supernatural link which works by authorial fiat. (I'll let the Horcruxes slide, because they are actually bits of Voldemort and it's pretty clear how killing bits of someone could directly lead to that person's death.)

Next, Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses is Mark Twain's very own Deathtocapslock post. I thought some of his "rules governing literary art in domain of romantic fiction" were particularly appropriate here:

1. That a tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere. Well, Harry does kill Voldemort, which is accomplishing something, but we've discussed how otherwise basically nothing changes in the wizarding world.

2. They require that the episodes in a tale shall be necessary parts of the tale, and shall help to develop it. House-elf rights, Deathly Hallows, Ludo Bagman, Florean Fortescue... put all the subplots which turned out to go absolutely nowhere and contribute almost nothing to the plot here.

4. They require that the personages in a tale, both dead and alive, shall exhibit a sufficient excuse for being there. Hi, Tonks. Insert all the other characters who don't seem to contribute much relative to their screentime here.

6. They require that when the author describes the character of a personage in the tale, the conduct and conversation of that personage shall justify said description. I think you guys have this one covered...

And many of the other rules make me think that JK Rowling and Fenimore Cooper must have some writing tricks in common. We could probably put together our own, Harry Potter version of the list quite easily.

Comments

[oryx_leucoryx]

A big part is that she didn't try to think what happens in her world when Harry Potter isn't looking. No sense of history, no sense of a society that most of the time works.

[sunnyskywalker]

She did say once she didn't consider herself a fantasy writer. So she jumped into it without having any idea about worldbuilding (doesn't have to be the focus, but you still have to do it to make the setting consistent). And I suspect she doesn't care.