harry Potter & the Half-Baked Plot

[The Atheist]

Because my kids own books and films, I've been through the Harry Potter experience from go to whoa.

Aside from overwhelming feeling that J K Rowling's success is based upon slick marketing rather than good writing, I have one serious issue with her books:

I get a strong impression that two different writers are involved.

Maybe it's a deliberate ploy of Rowling's and she's much cleverer than I'm prepared to see?

Has anyone got any comments in this vein? Is it possible that Rowling, like Dick Francis, has her very own Chamber of Secrets?

The subject is obviously out there in some form - there's even a betting market on it here - with odds of 25:1 against her having used ghost writers.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I get a strong impression that two different writers are involved.

Care to elaborate? Examples?

 

[sophia8]

WRT Dick Francis, I don't think he ever deliberately hid the fact that his wife helped him with the writing, it was simply that she didn't want the publicity. Friends of the couple certainly knew about it.
As for Rowling having a co-writer - who's saying this and what's the evidence?

 

[The Atheist]

Care to elaborate? Examples?

Cor, not specifically, 'coz I'd have to read them again and I only read good books twice.

This started when the kids played one of the films the other day and it reminded me of what I thought when I read the books. Starting with the third or fourth one, I just felt there were differences to passages of the books. The closest I could get without re-reading is that the "Billy Bunter" schooldays didn't fit together with the rest.

I went looking on the net and saw some punter had started a market on it. Doesn't appear to be much action, however.

WRT Dick Francis, I don't think he ever deliberately hid the fact that his wife helped him with the writing, it was simply that she didn't want the publicity. Friends of the couple certainly knew about it.

Well, not actually being all that chummy with Dick, I don't believe it was any kind of common knowledge that his Mrs did some [most?] of the actual writing.

As for Rowling having a co-writer - who's saying this and what's the evidence?

Evidence for what?

I strongly suggest you read the OP again, but with your eyes open this time, as your questions bear no resemblance to anything in it.

 

[Piscivore]

This started when the kids played one of the films the other day and it reminded me of what I thought when I read the books. Starting with the third or fourth one, I just felt there were differences to passages of the books. The closest I could get without re-reading is that the "Billy Bunter" schooldays didn't fit together with the rest.

You do realise that the screenplays for the movies had a different writer, correct?

If you did not mean differences between the books and movies, you do realise that an author's skill do not remain static from book to book?

Or that a writer sometimes has to write passages and scenes that she isn't thrilled about, and then get to write scenes she does enjoy writing, and this might be reflected in the text?

Or that a writer who has trapped herself into a series with certain plot and scene expectaions from the reader might still have to write those elements she's not particularly thrilled about, and so devotes less attention on and care to those elements?

Lastly, the possibility that there is some poor schlep- apparently considered to have more skill than our Ms. Rowling, as I usually understand these rumours to go- has taken a major part in creating The. Biggest. literary and financial juggernaut in the last few decades, yet is content to sit back and take a negligible share of the fortune and fame accruing therefrom, is beyond credibility.

 

[catbasket]

As for Rowling having a co-writer - who's saying this and what's the evidence?

Evidence for what?

I strongly suggest you read the OP again, but with your eyes open this time, as your questions bear no resemblance to anything in it.

Re-reads OP -

... I have one serious issue with her books:

I get a strong impression that two different writers are involved.

That bears no resemblance to "Rowling having a co-writer"?

 

[The Atheist]

You do realise that the screenplays for the movies had a different writer, correct?

Yes indeed; my brain hasn't stopped working just yet. I said the film reminded me of a subject i'd previously wondered about. Maybe you missed the part where I said I had an issue with her books?

Lastly, the possibility that there is some poor schlep- apparently considered to have more skill than our Ms. Rowling, as I usually understand these rumours to go- has taken a major part in creating The. Biggest. literary and financial juggernaut in the last few decades, yet is content to sit back and take a negligible share of the fortune and fame accruing therefrom, is beyond credibility.

Who's to say he/she, if such existed, wouldn't be getting a big slice of baksheesh?

There's no rumour I'm aware of, which is why I used question marks - to denote that I was raising a speculative possibility.

I don't even think the person need have more skill, just different ones. For times when the train runs out of steam, putting a little fresh water in doesn't make the fresh water boss.

That bears no resemblance to "Rowling having a co-writer"?

Nope, and even less so in context of the whole OP.

I said it was my impression and asked whether anyone else felt the same. Definitely a lot different from "J K Rowling has a ghost writer!!1!!" OMFG!!

 

[Piscivore]

Yes indeed; my brain hasn't stopped working just yet. I said the film reminded me of a subject i'd previously wondered about. Maybe you missed the part where I said I had an issue with her books?

I thought it was possible, if unlikely, that you were comparing lines in the books to lines in the movie. Just checking.

Who's to say he/she, if such existed, wouldn't be getting a big slice of baksheesh?

The taxman. Rowling is pulling in obscene amounts of wealth.

There's no rumour I'm aware of, which is why I used question marks - to denote that I was raising a speculative possibility.

"Just asking questions"?

If there's a betting pool, that seems to suggest there are rumours, does it not? I've heard all kinds of green-eyed pissing about Rowling.

I don't even think the person need have more skill, just different ones. For times when the train runs out of steam, putting a little fresh water in doesn't make the fresh water boss.

No, but the "fresh water" usually wants a share of the credit, where fiction is concerned. Maybe not for the first one, when it was all new and unknown- but even for the third, that's just nuts to not want your name on something that huge.

Then you are getting into what kind and how much "fresh water" we are talking about- writers can get assistance in lots of ways that do not relate to someone else putting words on paper for them- talking out ideas, studying what other writers have done, seeing how other plots are put together. This is just learning and growing. But if someone else is writing bits that go into the book and they are not getting credit, that is ghostwriting. If that's what people suspect happened- and if they are betting on it, someone is- then they are saying "J K Rowling has a ghost writer!!1!!" OMFG!! "

Unless they don't know that the bits they wrote are going into the book, then it's plagarism.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I read all seven books in one three-week stint (I was dog-sitting & had lots of time to read).

I noticed that books one, two, three, and six seemed to have a similar flow and arrangement, and books four, five and seven seemed similar to each other in arrangement and less similar to the other four.

I assumed that it was because Rowling had to cover some major plot developments that she didn't build up in the first books - maybe because when she wrote the first book or two she was writing them as cute childrens' books about the secret life of wizards and the dark theme occurred later, and then she had to play catch-up to explain some of what she had already written in the first books and how it fit in to the developing theme (sorry, long sentence).

I think that the change is more likely to be due to the development in her own mind of the final plot at a point in time after the first books were written than to another writer.

 

[The Atheist]

I think that the change is more likely to be due to the development in her own mind of the final plot at a point in time after the first books were written than to another writer.

Probably right. I couldn't have faced reading them again to check it out. I think you noticed the differences, so I'll take you up on it.

 

[Brainiac]

I'd have to read them again and I only read good books twice.

To each his own. Considering the way the books fly off the shelves, millions of people appear to disagree with you.

 

[Almo]

I had heard that when 4 came out, it was a bit different because JK had enough clout to skip the editors. Can't find a reference on that.

 

[The Atheist]

To each his own. Considering the way the books fly off the shelves, millions of people appear to disagree with you.

Yeah, but I wonder how many of them are read once and then gather dust. Almost all would be my guess.

I had heard that when 4 came out, it was a bit different because JK had enough clout to skip the editors. Can't find a reference on that.

I had thought of this - that maybe she invoked the "Steven King" provision; I'm now bigger than my publisher and I'll make the damn rules.

Probably a combination of all these things added up. If I break my leg and spend a few weeks in plaster at some stage I might have to read them start to finish in one go.

 

[joobz]

The Atheist,
I'm trying to figure out your meaning.

Are you describing the rather obvious change in tenor of the story from book 1 on to book 7? The fact that book one read as a story filled with gum drops and fairies and a light little story, but by book 4 there is a noticible darker tone emerging? That the gum drop stories are nearly gone?

It was my take this change in style was intentional to match the change in adolescence that a kid goes through. Consider that HP is 11 at book one and 15 by book 5. Book five is writen with an extreme sense of displaced angst and anger. Almost irritatingly so. Harry potter lashes out at everyone.... Much like a 15 year old boy commonly does.


Indeed, I thought the change in style throughout the series was actually a mark of a highly skilled writer. But, who knows. Your conspricy theory is equally interesting.

 

[Matty1973]

From the OP:

The subject is obviously out there in some form - there's even a betting market on it here - with odds of 25:1 against her having used ghost writers.

Following the link to the betting site it looks like the odds are closer to 3:1 than 25:1 (currently 26.1% chance).

So it looks like others also believe it is quite likely that ghost writers have been used.

 

[The Atheist]

Are you describing the rather obvious change in tenor of the story from book 1 on to book 7? The fact that book one read as a story filled with gum drops and fairies and a light little story, but by book 4 there is a noticible darker tone emerging? That the gum drop stories are nearly gone?

No. I felt there were inconsistencies in the style within books 3 or 4 to 7. I just got the impression that maybe two different people had written them, as happens in reality from time to time - Steven King & Peter Straub, for instance.

Indeed, I thought the change in style throughout the series was actually a mark of a highly skilled writer. But, who knows. Your conspricy theory is equally interesting.

Well, it's not actually a conspiracy theory if any kind. You could be right, she might be a better author than I'd considered.

I can see I'm going to have to read them all again.

Following the link to the betting site it looks like the odds are closer to 3:1 than 25:1 (currently 26.1% chance).

So it looks like others also believe it is quite likely that ghost writers have been used.

No mate, you just don't understand the odds. The example used of $10 = a 10% chance is correct, as in a 1 in 10 chance, but the dollar return only equates to the percentage chance on that one price. A price of $26 indicates a 1 in 26 chance, or a 3.8% chance. A $5 price indicates a 1 in 5 chance, or 20%, not 5%.

Got it now?

 

[Matty1973]

No mate, you just don't understand the odds. The example used of $10 = a 10% chance is correct, as in a 1 in 10 chance, but the dollar return only equates to the percentage chance on that one price. A price of $26 indicates a 1 in 26 chance, or a 3.8% chance. A $5 price indicates a 1 in 5 chance, or 20%, not 5%.

Got it now?

In that case 'mate' we should bet on Obama to become president at very generous odds of 92:1 see here

PREDICTIONS ........CURRENT VALUE......TODAY
Barack Obama...........$93.72................$0.02
John McCain..............$6.24.................$-0.03

Sounds very good value to me - on the news here in the UK they say he has a good chance to win!

 

[catbasket]

nvm

I said it was my impression and asked whether anyone else felt the same. Definitely a lot different from "J K Rowling has a ghost writer!!1!!" OMFG!!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[kedo1981]

Could it be SATAN

 

[The Atheist]

In that case 'mate' we should bet on Obama to become president at very generous odds of 92:1

Fair cop - I thought they were odds, not some pansy's "buy 100" market.

On the basis of it only being 3.8:1, it's probably a worse bet than McCain.

Could it be SATAN

God, I hope so. Satan's existence would be one of the good things about the sky-fairy tale being true.