Having read her first book as Robert Galbraith, I think she's excellent for a jobbing writer (as opposed to a "literary" writer -- I hate the distinction but admit that in this case it's useful.). I would definitely put her in the Stephen King category rather than the Dan Brown, if that makes sense.
But I also think she and King may end up lasting far longer than many of the well received literary types. Charles Dickens was immensely popular in his time and has remained a classic, but he was also a jobbing writer. Some of the people whose works were better received by the educated public are virtually unknown now because they spoke so directly to their times rather than to a universal humanity. We may not recognize Dickens' society, although with current politics we may start to recognize workhouses and orphanages as commonplaces again, but we certainly recognize his people.
The thing about the Potter books is that you recognize people right away. So many of her characters are variations on universal types -- at least English-language types -- that I think they'll still be recognizable in a hundred years. Fudge and Scrimgeour are politicians of different types, but very recognizable in most political systems. Her flaws as a writer are similar to Dickens' flaws; adding more detail can make a story more vivid, but it also means that certain items no longer make sense strictly speaking (like the Lovegoods in your example).
I'd also like to say that I think she's an absolute genius at getting kids to understand one thing: politics. There are several times when there's no good reason for something to be done in the general scheme of things -- Fudge being so airy about Harry inflating his aunt, for instance -- which click into place when you look at the politics of the situation. She's good at showing how Harry becomes a leader and, unlike some people I don't think Hermione would have been a good leader when young, she's better as an advisor. And she's excellent at showing how one's morals get translated into action. If you look at voting patterns in the 18-24 age group, the percentage of that age group who votes has been going up in presidential voting years since 2004. People say that young people don't vote, but they're voting more than their parents did at the same age and they continue to vote. I think Rowling is at least partially responsible for this.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2016-12-02 08:42 pm (UTC)But I also think she and King may end up lasting far longer than many of the well received literary types. Charles Dickens was immensely popular in his time and has remained a classic, but he was also a jobbing writer. Some of the people whose works were better received by the educated public are virtually unknown now because they spoke so directly to their times rather than to a universal humanity. We may not recognize Dickens' society, although with current politics we may start to recognize workhouses and orphanages as commonplaces again, but we certainly recognize his people.
The thing about the Potter books is that you recognize people right away. So many of her characters are variations on universal types -- at least English-language types -- that I think they'll still be recognizable in a hundred years. Fudge and Scrimgeour are politicians of different types, but very recognizable in most political systems. Her flaws as a writer are similar to Dickens' flaws; adding more detail can make a story more vivid, but it also means that certain items no longer make sense strictly speaking (like the Lovegoods in your example).
I'd also like to say that I think she's an absolute genius at getting kids to understand one thing: politics. There are several times when there's no good reason for something to be done in the general scheme of things -- Fudge being so airy about Harry inflating his aunt, for instance -- which click into place when you look at the politics of the situation. She's good at showing how Harry becomes a leader and, unlike some people I don't think Hermione would have been a good leader when young, she's better as an advisor. And she's excellent at showing how one's morals get translated into action. If you look at voting patterns in the 18-24 age group, the percentage of that age group who votes has been going up in presidential voting years since 2004. People say that young people don't vote, but they're voting more than their parents did at the same age and they continue to vote. I think Rowling is at least partially responsible for this.