"She may be famous, but in reality, JK Rowling isn't a very good writer."
I think the problem here is there isn't a definition of 'good writer'. I wonder if you asked people who said that to substantiate their sentence, what adjective would they use in place of 'good'?
If you take a good writer as one that can captivate an audience with their words and tell a story that can't be put down, I think there is a strong argument that she is good, judging by the massive audience she has captured!
Of course if you're judging by the technicalities of sticking to the rules of literature, then yes, her stories do contain plenty of errors by those standards. But then, there are novels that follow the rules almost to the letter and unfortunately, I don't care if they are considered 'good literature'--if the author hasn't managed to grab me with their narrative, I'm not reading it.
We grouse a lot (sometimes fondly, sometimes not) about plot holes in the series and things like dates working out, but I've found that those things are headache-inducingly hard to keep track of when you're trying to spin a narrative. And unless you're a rabid fan trying to dissect the series to write fanfic, those minute details don't really detract from the story at all. I've found that to be the case in other series I've read as well. Things that don't strike me as troublesome when I've read the first time, just enjoying the story, come up only when I'm actually trying to plot fic from him.
Are there any examples of an interesting, tightly-structured narrative where no holes can be poked whatsoever in the plot/characterisations/dates/etc.? I would hazard a guess as to no--every fandom will manage to tease out the little nitty-gritties that the author/editors overlooked, probably because it wasn't actually important to the main story that is being told.
But I think I'm digressing. The point is, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, sure, but with people who make a vague statement like, 'oh, she's not good,' I'd like to first hear exactly what they define as good.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2016-12-05 06:44 am (UTC)I think the problem here is there isn't a definition of 'good writer'. I wonder if you asked people who said that to substantiate their sentence, what adjective would they use in place of 'good'?
If you take a good writer as one that can captivate an audience with their words and tell a story that can't be put down, I think there is a strong argument that she is good, judging by the massive audience she has captured!
Of course if you're judging by the technicalities of sticking to the rules of literature, then yes, her stories do contain plenty of errors by those standards. But then, there are novels that follow the rules almost to the letter and unfortunately, I don't care if they are considered 'good literature'--if the author hasn't managed to grab me with their narrative, I'm not reading it.
We grouse a lot (sometimes fondly, sometimes not) about plot holes in the series and things like dates working out, but I've found that those things are headache-inducingly hard to keep track of when you're trying to spin a narrative. And unless you're a rabid fan trying to dissect the series to write fanfic, those minute details don't really detract from the story at all. I've found that to be the case in other series I've read as well. Things that don't strike me as troublesome when I've read the first time, just enjoying the story, come up only when I'm actually trying to plot fic from him.
Are there any examples of an interesting, tightly-structured narrative where no holes can be poked whatsoever in the plot/characterisations/dates/etc.? I would hazard a guess as to no--every fandom will manage to tease out the little nitty-gritties that the author/editors overlooked, probably because it wasn't actually important to the main story that is being told.
But I think I'm digressing. The point is, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, sure, but with people who make a vague statement like, 'oh, she's not good,' I'd like to first hear exactly what they define as good.