Harry Potter wasn't all that great.

I know, I know, I'm sorry; but it's the truth.

Don't get me wrong, Rowling wrote Harry Potter well, but the more I read her work the more I see her making decisions I don't agree with. 

I know what you're probably thinking: what's this know-nothing "writer" thinking, saying that HP wasn't a masterpiece?  Doesn't he see her string of awards?  Doesn't he know that she was the first billionaire writer? All before age 50?

Well, Rowling's popularity was much better earned than many other writers, and frankly her style is so radically different than mine it's hard to judge who is a better writer just because she does things differently than I do.  I mean, she did a lot of things correctly when she wrote the HP series. 

First, her characters were distinct and memorable.  Sometimes writers fall into the pit of "talking head syndrome", in which the characters feel more like puppets getting manipulated by a single operator than distinct personas in a living world.  Everything from Hagrid's thick accent to Snape's disdain for Harry makes the characters more different and believable than the rest of the expansive cast set in the HP universe.  Think about it for a second, if I mention half-moon spectacles, who do you think of?  Bushy hair and buck teeth? Hooked nose and greasy hair?  That's not to mention a lightning-shaped scar, or an electric blue eye, or some of the great and memorable dialogue from the books. 

Remember how badly Umbridge was treating the students and faculty, and that Madam Pomfrey would resign out of protest, only she'd "worry about who would take care of the students if they got hurt"?  What about how McGonagall's eyes misted up when Harry and Ron said that they wanted to visit Hermoine? The details of the characters are so different that you have to remind yourself that Fluer, Peeves, Dedalus Diggle, and Dobby all had lines written by one person.  Simple details like Molly Weasley telling Ginny and Hermoine about how she brewed a love potion as a girl, and how, for some reason, telling this story included a lot of giggling, makes the characters feel geniune and unique.

Second, she provokes an emotional reaction from her readers, not as a fandom (like the Beliebers), but by her sheer skill as a writer.  Do you remember the fury you felt at Umbridge as she forced Harry to harm himself, night after night, or your frustration that Harry kept isolating himself and raged at his two best friends at the slightest provocation?  The confusion of how to view Dumbledore from a more complex and complete light as Rowling uncovered his past to us?  Or how badly Harry was crushing over Cho, and how much she was crushing over him, as well as the awkwardness of their relationship over Cedric?

What about how hard you threw your book after completing The Half-Blood Prince?

Finally, Rowling made sure that every element from the first book related to the last, and that all the clues you needed to solve to the mystery within each book, and the entire series, was provided for you all along.  After a second or third reading, it becomes so glaringly obvious, the stuff you miss, that you kinda kick yourself for not paying attention.  Then again, the details to solve each puzzle were buried so cleverly that you shouldn't blame yourself too much for not getting it the first time, especially if you're an 11-year-old just getting into the series.

So, I've praised Rowling over and over (as if she needs reaffirmation from myself or others), why do I think the books could've been written better?  My first objection is that she doesn't spend enough time to establish settings in which characters are speaking to each other.  Sometimes I have to go back and remind myself where the characters are having a dialogue.  You could chalk that up to my quasi-ADD, but Rowling does tend to cover a lot of ground in a sentence or two, and because she spends so much time describing one scene (let's say the greenhouses for Herbalogy), when we switch to another (let's say the Griffindor common room), I get confused as to why there is a roaring fire next to all of these potted plants.

My second qualm is a tough objection to substantiate, due to the audience the books were written for, but it is a huge thing when it comes to writing a good, intelligent, story: Rowling tells us too much, and doesn't show enough.  With any children's book there will always be a small amount of hand-holding when telling a story; a juvenile's experience is often not cultivated enough for serious introspection to pick up on the subtleties of a scene.  That being said, sometimes she takes a shortcut and tells us directly what is being said, done, or felt, and doesn't let the reader come to their own conclusions. 

In the end, is this a bad or good thing?  To tell the truth, I don't know enough about YA fiction to make final judgement on it, and I haven't decided how I ultimately feel about it.

My final objection is over Order of the Phoenix.  I'm not too sure if she hired anyone to review and edit her book, or people were to afraid to "correct the master", or that her publisher gave her too much freedom to write, but Order of the Phoenix was entirely too long.  Harry hadn't left his summer home at Privet Drive until almost 200 pages in, yet Sorcerer's Stone was less than 300 pages in its entirety.  By the time Harry arrived at Hogwarts in Order of the Phoenix, Harry was already on his way to fight Voldemort in Sorcerer's Stone.  It's not that I'm against long books, it's just that I feel like I saw many instances where Rowling could've eliminated a description or short phrase to make the narrative tighter and more streamlined.

Speaking of going too long, I need to wrap this post up!

Next week, I'll talk about the popularity of Harry Potter, and why it was so successful, along with (another) one of my objections.

See you there ;)