Leaving no posterity
Thanks to the Literary Saloon for the link to Philip Hensher’s study of the new Harry Potter novel as an item of literature rather than as a phenomenon. I was intrigued to learn more about the quality of the writing. I happened to have just read a book of children’s stories (for money, not choice. And I should also explain that I never read much, if at all, until I was into my 20s) and was struck by the casual use of clich�, the almost ritualistic descriptive passages, and the chummy, arm-around-the-shoulder style of narrative employed by all the writers. I was half-charmed, half-disgusted by it.
Hensher says “that claims for Harry Potter’s place among the classic children’s books, or even, extravagantly, as a work of literature, are seriously ill-founded. The great children’s books are, without exception, very well written.” He concludes “Quite simply, these are books which will be remembered very fondly, but which their readers will, in the end, grow out of.”
To be fair to Rowling though, to churn out a quarter of a million words in such a short period guarantees poor writing (unless one is a genius like Proust). I admire her ability to even think of a plot let alone write it. Not that I’m interested in the slightest: plots are for gardeners.
Other Splinters posts of interest:
- Why is JK Rowling a bestseller?
- Those who can write novels, those who can’t write plays
- Fudging the issue
- Review madness Thanks to whoever sent me the URL …
- Good news
