| Find Your Flaws and Run the Hell Away From Them |
[Oct. 22nd, 2007|01:14 am] |
All authors have at least one aspect of writing that they're really not great at. Some authors only have one area they are good at. Some of them learn, as they should, to skirt around those issues. John Grisham, for example, has quite successfully worked his way around the fact that he can't write anything that doesn't include crime and/or a courtroomm.
But some authors (especially those high-profile ones that really should have enough money to pay for an editor who can fill them in) don't every figure out that they should steer clear of certain topics.
Laurell K Hamilton, for example, should have realised (if she didn't have an ego as large as India's population) that she is incapable of writing a good sex scene. In fact, she's incapable of writing even a mediocre sex scene. You'd think, then, that she'd take her books in a direction that involved as little on-page sex as possible. And, if I recall correctly, her main character in the Anita Blake series vowed not to have sex until marriage, so there was no reason she ever had to touch a graphic sex scene with a ten-foot pole. Somehow, though, she has two series of books that are, these days, filled with nothing but sex. Talk about going down the wrong path.
On a similar note, J K Rowling needs someone to clue her in on her inability to write realistic relationships. Of the romantic kind, that is, because she's perfectly adept at writing friendships, rivalries and the like. It's not like she writes nothing but a perfect world all around. She's more than capable of writing three-dimensional relationships of almost all kinds. Apparently, though, that doesn't quite extend to romances.
In my opinion, the only slightly realistic relationship in the whole series (that's right, in seven books worth of romance) is that between Molly and Arthur Weasley. Even they fit Rowling's trademark "two parents, several kids and a couple of pets" family relationship. But at least we see that theirs is an unbalanced relationship, and that they fight, and that their children are a strain on their marriage as much as they're a blessing. And that, yes, Molly actually seems to care more about her kids than she does about herself or even probably Arthur, when it comes down to it. After going through labour six times and raising children for nearing thirty years, you'd hope she'd be at least a little bit attached to them.
And, I'll admit, parts of what little we now know about Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald is fairly realistic, as relationships between super-powerful wizards (one of whom is apparently gay) trying to reforge the world go. It was tragic, but unlike Snape's 'tragic' unrequited relationship, Dumbledore eventually got over himself and moved on as much as he could, to the point that he fought Grindelwald wand to wand and locked him up in the prison Grindelwald himself built, and then went on with his life. This relationship is, however, equally unrealistic in other ways, particularly the fact that Dumbledore, like apparantly half the other characters, met the love of his life when he was a teenager and was apparently incapable of falling in love twice.
And then aside from these two couples, Rowling's relationships are pathetically one-dimensional all around. They don't just have flaws; they are themselves doomed to being defective from the start, since none of them has either a realistic basis or realistic characterisation.
From never getting past kissing during school (and Harry thinking that a few seconds of Frenching with Ginny was something akin to the end of the world in DH) to random chest monsters to everyone marrying their high school sweatheart (or someone they met in Hogwarts, at least) to ... well, to Remus and Tonks, which is just the low-point of any fictional relationship I've ever read about if only because it was so terribly unnecessary for JKR to write such crap in the first place.
And she keeps doling it out. Hell, even their kids are all looking like they'll end up marrying each other, if Teddy and Victoire are any indication. Which is just plain wierd, mind. We always knew that witches and wizards were imbred (the purebloods, at least), but that, to me, still felt a bit incestuous for a children's novel (even though I understand they aren't actually related).
And Neville's married to Hannah Abbot now, on top of everything else, is he? I admit that I won't be wholly surprised when JKR admits that:
(1) George married Alicia Spinnet;
(2) Seamus and Dean married Lavendar Brown and Parvati Patil respectively, and they all remained Best Friends Forever;
(3) Angelina mourned after Fred until she died an insanely clever but lonely old spinster ... kind of like Snape and Dumbledore, except for the spinster gig;
(4) Draco's mystery wife (is she still a mystery?) is actually Millicent Bulstrode, who was admittedly a step down from even pug-faced Pansy Parkinson; and
(5) McGonagall (heartbroken after finding out that Dumbledore was gay all those years) eloped with Filch. Or Flitwick. Or Hooch, if JKR didn't mind lesbian as well as gay relationships. Or perhaps all of them at once, if JKR didn't mind foursomes. She's proved she's liberal minded now, right?
And they all had 2.5 kids and a family owl, even old McGonagall (isn't that what magic's for?). And all was well.
Or has JKR already let those relationships out of the bag? Don't tell me I missed that memo. |
|
|