Repetition

Unfortunately I anticipate that this won't be the last of Harry Potter on this blog, as he's sure to get a mention once the final book is out; but I wanted to post this, a Guardian article by Lezard, who merrily trashes J. K. Rowling's writing. I don't have a problem with what he says about her writing style and lack of subtlety (he makes the point about her discourse markers better than I did in the Preparatory blog the other day) - she isn't literarily inventive, and her books will never be anything more acclaimed than a children's literature phenomenon (aside from the unprecedented media hype, which is a subject in its own right).

What Lezard doesn't say, however, is more irksome: he doesn't mention the fantastic story-telling that is involved in her books. The almost complete world Rowling has created isn't acknowledged, and that, I think, is unfair. What we think of as 'Literature' (note capitalisation...) has its roots in simple story telling. Take the Anglo-Saxon stuff, for example - stories, it's all tales and myths and legends; passed through the oral/aural tradition for yonks before being put into the text forms we know today (Beowulf, Battle of Maldon, Dream of the Rood, amongst them). Not only are they just stories (almost always with a moral point, in one way or another), but they are stories consisting of formulaic phrases, recycled bits put together in different orders. In this light, the repetitious formulas it's possible to find in Rowling's story telling becomes a bit more forgivable. Come on Lezard, lighten up: lie back and enjoy the ride. Or at least stop treating Rowling's writing as if she's claiming to be the next Virginia Woolf - she's not.