Harry Potter (Belated Banned Book Review)

I was twelve when the first Harry Potter came out.

That's right: twelve.

And I was SO disappointed that I never got my Hogwarts letter. I kept checking my window, hoping that maybe the owl was delayed or had gotten lost and that my letter to the famous school of wizards was on its way. (Never mind that I live in the U.S. and using an owl to fly from Britain to Arkansas would be a form of animal cruelty.) I was seriously obsessed with this book. It opened a whole new world for me. A special world where magic and flying broomsticks secretly existed beside parking meters and burger joints. Looking back on how obsessed I was with these books (and still am obsessed to some degree) I can understand why some parents might flip out.

It's sort of the same thing with Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game. It's often misconstrued as a gateway for evil and an encouragement for murder (where they get the connection that rolling dice and slaying dragons equals a desire to pick up a gun and blow your neighbor away...I have no idea). Growing up in the Bible Belt, I dealt with a lot of narrow-mindedness when it came to ANYTHING dealing with magic. I had friends who weren't allowed to watch Beauty and the Beast because the dishes were "possessed." Seriously. So when Harry Potter came out and started a literary fire, I remember all the church officials marching up to my school and demanding that such unholy filth be removed from the reach of innocents.

Nope. Not kidding.

Now, even though I was obsessed (maybe even unhealthily obsessed) with Harry Potter, there are some things a twelve year old understands immediately when she opens a book.

1. It's a book. Therefore, no matter how real the characters/situations feel, it's NOT real.
2. There's a difference between a satanic how-to and a story. Harry Potter is definitely not the former. (Though maybe if you highlight every fourth word every three paragraphs... Nope, gibberish.)
3. Reading a story (or even an instructional how-to) does not mean that you will start a cultish following and start waving wands at people and shouting "Expelliarmus!"

My thoughts? While some people forge into the unknown without a second thought, that same uncertainty scares the beejeezus out of others. Banned books are really about people being afraid; afraid of magic, the Devil or even immorality. And they think that books are powerful tools in conveying such dastardly ideas. But what they don't understand is that even a twelve year old--heck, even an eleven year old--can take what they want from a story and leave the rest.

What I thought was hilarious? At the time they were fighting to keep Harry Potter out of the schools, I discovered a lesbian erotica in the school's library. But there wasn't any magic in it...so I guess it's more appropriate for junior high kids than Harry Potter. ;)

Note: Yes, I was going to do Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings but I haven't had the time or the energy to get to the library. I highly recommend it, however.

The Selling Point

As some of you may have guessed, I have been on a Harry Potter reading spree lately. Well, naturally after reading all of the seven books, I decided to move on to watching the movies. I'd seen bits and pieces of 1-4 before, but they were disappointing. These past few days, however, I forced myself to sit down and watch all of them.

I was still disappointed. 

The movie critic in me will admit that the movies have gotten progressively better, but they're still lackluster compared to the books. And that's my problem: I can't separate the books from the movies. Which means instead of enjoying the special effects or the quality of acting, I'm muttering about how this and that is missing.

Which brings me to the point: Movies and books have different selling points. 

For example: If I wrote a book based completely on the Harry Potter movie (let's say the Goblet of Fire), I would have a pretty pathetic book. There is no Winky, no hints of dark things to come, and everything would seem to happen by luck rather than any sort of premeditation or foreshadowing. The reader would miss out on that "Ah-ha!" moment that I absolutely reveled in while reading. I would never sell the movie-book, that's for sure.

Which makes me wonder how low we've stooped to find something so one-dimensional entertaining. And that's what the movies are: one-dimensional. 

I will admit it's impossible to incorporate all the elements of  a book into a movie (it would be extremely long) but when you completely warp the plot it just pisses me off. That's why I can't stand the movie Eragon. It made me want to pull my hair out. Another movie where I was muttering the whole way through.

So, really, is it inconceivable to follow the same basic plot of a book in its film adaption?

Back from the Brink

I took a break from writing (and thinking about writing) this weekend. This was mainly due to a little thing called LIFE that was demanding my attention (including attending a going away party for a friend at work, getting sick, running a yard sale, going to a baby shower, reading Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (in two days), playing with my 4-year-old cousin, hanging out with my mom, going to a barbecue . . . and that's it).

I'm going to try to get back to rewriting Dragon Queen chapters 17-? today. I managed to rewrite the end of Ch. 16. Twice. The first rewrite felt too contrived. The second one I'm a little happier with, but I'm going to comb through it today and make sure that I'm completely satisfied before moving on.

I have to thank Jenn Lidster for helping me come up with the ideas for these chapters. And Lydia Sharp for being honest and letting me know exactly what was wrong with the circumstances. I think that the new chapters are going to be so much better with their help and advice.

Professional progress: I contacted the guy I interned for at the UA Press. He was happy to offer me some advice and will be getting back with me shortly. Yay!

Revisiting an old friend (er, story)

Have you heard? There's a new Harry Potter movie in theaters!

Of course you heard. Especially if you're a Potterhead like me. (Yes, that's what they call them--er, us.) But here's what sets me apart from most Potterheads: I haven't seen the movies. Well, I've seen 1-3. And was disappointed as all true lovers of J.K. Rowling's masterpieces are. Which is why I believe that if you wish to enjoy the movie, you should see it BEFORE you read the book. But, anyway, I digress.

The point of this post is that the Harry Potter fever has been rekindled inside me and I have been reading the books this past week. Yes, I am 23, and yes, the books are meant for young readers. But I still enjoy them. Not only do they contain engaging characters, well-thought-out plots, and an interesting world, but they are extremely well written.

And that's what intrigues me the most: the style in which they are written. I've yet to come across a book that uses so many parentheses.  Rowling bends the writing rules to her advantage. The result is not confusing, but enriching. 

When I was in college, even in creative writing classes, the writing rules were stressed. Use complete sentences. Annihilate run-ons. Avoid uncommon punctuation (like parentheses). Be brief. Avoid adverbs and adjectives. And then, of course, there is the "said" debate. 

Most writers will break a few of these rules. A few brave ones will break all of them. Rowling, I believe, is one of the braver ones. (Faulkner would count as well, but I still haven't recovered from reading Absalom, Absalom, so I will leave him out of this discussion.)

The point is, what most writing groups, professors and colleagues will try to tell you about "strong writing" (which involves following the grammar rules) is not always correct. It all depends on the skill in which you use it. If it doesn't detract from the writing, then there really isn't a problem with it.

Take the "said" debate. It has been argued that the only dialogue tag necessary is "said" or maybe "asked." Everything else is irrelevant. If you are a "strong" writer, you won't need things like "whispered", "snapped", "screamed", etc. The tone of your character's voice should be derived from the action. I agree . . . some what. 

And adverbs border on blasphemy. Don't you dare say "He said quietly." This also falls under the category of weak writing. 

Now, let's return to J.K. Rowling's works. No, they are not the most wonderful literature in the world to which every other piece of writing must be compared to. No, they aren't even everyone's cup of tea. (Forgive the cliche.) I'm sure there are people out there who can't stand the Potter series (much like I can't stand the Twilight series, but that's another story). The point is, books who contain so-called "weak" writing can be considered brilliant, engaging, and thrilling. Take Faulkner, if you will. Or Cormac McCarthy. Both would have made their English teachers have a mental breakdown--yet both are considered highly talented writers. 

And the BIG point of this post: Write what works for you. Don't sacrifice your style to fit into some sort of "proper" box. If a scene needs fragments, give it fragments. If it needs parentheses, slap them in. But it has to fit. 

But, please, for the love of your reader, try to avoid run-ons. Yuck.