Then explain the lack of editing in the later volumes? Is that intentional, or just pure laziness/arrogance.
Printable View
Then explain the lack of editing in the later volumes? Is that intentional, or just pure laziness/arrogance.
Here's a couple of reasons that I am reluctant to resent or to feel envious of Ms Rawlings' success:
1. She was a single mom in London (?) and packing up her baby, she'd sit in a coffee shop, nursing a coffee while writing her first Harry Potter book in longhand. I don't need to tell you the odds of her achieving success were, and how astronomically her star rose. Who can beat a rags-to-riches story? Her life story is just as fantastic as her made-up stories, yet it gives the rest of us poor schlubs typing away a drop of hope. We have to be realistic, though, and realize that what happened to Rowlings is really rare. Still -- how can we resent her for it?
2.I used to be among the established (i.e. published) critics who would resent the success of horrormeister Stephen King. He, too, came from a very poor background -- in Maine. But when I started teaching young adults my opinion of Mr. King changed radically.
Here were lads (and young women) who had dropped out of high school and were taking a second chance to earn their diplomas. They had probably never read an unassigned book in their lives, but here they were choosing and reading the works of Stephen King.
So any author who can get kids and young adults interested in reading is admirable in my book.
3. Yes, I am envious of "literary" success when the works themselves aren't all that much to, well, write home about it. But instead of being envious, perhaps struggling writers should be grateful that there have been such strong sales for these so-called middle brow writers of popular fiction. Because they bring a profit to the publishing company, the publisher is in a better position to take a chance on previously unpublished "first" novelists.
Are they really though? Are more first-time writers being published now? or is Scholastic, who, from what I know, only publishes previously published authors, just sitting on a pile of gold.
Is the market any better because of Stephen King or Rowling? If dumbing down is what it takes to get people to read, then honestly, they might as well not read. Reading poorly written/mediocre books is just as bad, if not worse, than not reading.
Let's take it one step further - how about someone who doesn't pick up Stephen King, because he is too difficult for him, or too "brainy" and only reads the adds and columns in pornographic magazines. Are we to say well, "At least these porno columnists are getting people reading".
They are taking a lot more risks with new authors. Not all of them mind, but a good load of them are. That gives me confidence and i'm sure a lot more people who write that one day they too may get published. :) After all, if a publisher doesnt think a book has potential, they wont publish it.
Why do you think people are better off not reading at all than reading Stephen King and J. K. Rowling?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
It shouldnt matter what people are reading, as long as they are reading.
Just as a piece of general interest, I recently googled the T.S. Eliot quote: "Dante and Shakespeare divide the world between them; there is no third." - a relatively agreeable statement.
One search result linked to a "Yahoo question" - where people can post questions and anyone can answer them. This particular question was "Who is the greatest author ever, besides dante and shakespeare?"
I was expecting Homer, Milton, Virgil, hell, I'd even except Chaucer, Dickens, anyone.
What I read was that the majority of the responses were in praise of J.K. Rowling and J.R.R. Tolkien - most being the for the former. Here's my favorite response:
TS Eliot didn't live in the days of JK Rowling.
JK Rowling made reading cool again. She was the first author billionaire. Harry Potter has become a household name. I count her in with Shakespeare.
"Give her hell Peeves" is just as recognizable as "to be or not to be" in today's society.
and nowadays, nobody's heard of Dante's the Inferno or anything.
Jk Rowling is the new Shakespeare.
* 7 months ago
The writer makes this sound like "The Age of JK Rowling", like the "Age of Dryden". Every praise of Rowling seems to be either directly linked to her monetary success or her popularity, never the actual writing.
Here's the entire link - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0184145AAz3vSR
Yahoo has chosen it's name correctly, it's a place full of Yahoos.Quote:
Originally Posted by mayneverhave
Because, there are better things to invest time into than reading Rowling. Reading is only as good and beneficial as its content. Meaning if you read rubbish, you are merely wasting time, and money, whereas if you read good stuff, you are benefiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I see more productivity in watching T.V., or perhaps going outside and playing sports than reading Rowling. The opportunity cost of reading Rowling, and Stephen King for that matter is too much.
At lets say 50 pages an hour read, the books being like 3000 pages, that means 60 hours of time spent reading Potter. I think it could have been better spent elsewhere.
When reading, one must take into consideration what they are not doing. And if the not doing is better for the person than the reading, then there is no point in them doing the reading. If you read Proust, you gain something, which is well worth the effort. If you read even simple, easy works, those by Houseman, or Christina Rossetti, the time allotted to read such works is justified. If you read Dan Brown, or Rowling, or King, or Grisham, or Steele, or whomever, I do not feel the time allotted is worth it.
Rowling doesn't seem to challenge her readers, and neither do the others. I think that is the simple staple for their stressfulness, the fact that one need not think to read them.
This first response made me laugh out loud:
Quote:
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
How about Tolkien?
It may sound cliche, but he actually was quite a genius.
He created an epic that has had huge sales worldwide, has been translated into dozens of languages and I have no doubt will survive the test of time for as long as Shakespeare and Dante will.
He wrote prose, poetry, and histories. He created worlds and invented languages. He took inspiration from both ancient literature and personal experience. The lessons in The Lord of the Rings are as timeless as Shakespeare's characters or Dante's allegory.
I think you can make a good argument that he's done a lot of things that make him quite as good as Shakespeare and Dante.
Edit:
And, in reference to J.K Rowling being the next Shakespeare - good Lord, what an insult to Shakespeare. Rowling has done *nothing* for the English language, nor does she come anywhere near Shakespeare's wit or his way with words.
Rowling is simply a good storyteller, not a literary genius.
Even the edit is unbearably comical, as the foolish kid fails to realize he mocks himself. Pure Irony for you!
Another comical snippet
This coming from the unrelenting Rowling fan who declares Rowling's sales have made her the best writer since Shakespeare, and has deemed "Rowling made reading cool again." Of course, the only answer I have to that phrase is, no, Rowling made reading Rowling cool for the people who are too insecure to read in the first place.Quote:
My favourite author is Jean M. Auel, author of the Earth's Children series simply because of the extra effort she puts into writing her books. Unlike some authors, she does not just write, she also studies and researches A LOT before writing.
But of course, there is also the future to look forward to. This bright and promising star concludes with the following:
Good luck.Quote:
Also, I know this has nothing to do with the question, but it's my dream to be an author ^^
I was looking at the style rather than substance. The increasing size is just a marketing ploy.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Which goes to show how well the marketing ploys work!Quote:
Originally Posted by bazarov
(They're a bit young for Orwell yet)
Not everyone is interested in the same types of books. who cares if people read trash. the main thing is that they are reading. Just because they dont read dante, doesnt mean they shouldnt read at all.
JBI, I also think it is a bit pedantic to tell people to use their time better than read book X or Y, they can just do whatever they want. If they argue that Rowling has the value of Shakespeare (as the Yahoos), then that's another matter. If someone wants to read for pure escapism, well better that than, say watching a sitcom, for example. Or even if it's as "bad" well what do I or you care? They could spend their time sleeping or just watching paint dry, for all I, or you should, care.
It's just this problem with the whole "at least there are reading" fallacy. There is a distinction, and people shouldn't get "credit" for reading something of such a low quality. We shouldn't praise Rowling and Stephen King for things like making children read, since they aren't. Reading Rowling and Stephen King isn't the same as real reading. Has society come to the point where we give credit to the successfully published trash as being "beneficial" for getting children, and other lazy people to read a book? Where is the justification in that.
Why not praise all the simpleminded female readers who only read genre romances, for being such avid and zealous readers. Why not praise the people who only read Starwars fiction (god knows there is enough of it) for being avid readers, and so dedicated and intelligent, and well read.
The point is, there is a difference. There is reading, and there is reading. If the book doesn't challenge the reader, I see no justification in reading it as helping society by getting more people to read. Sure, people will read junk, and personally, I couldn't care less, until such time as people start praising the junk, and praising people for reading it, and people for writing it.
We live in a society where children are praised for eating their food at the dinner table, whereas in the other parts of their world, that food is a luxury. Let's be honest, that's decadence.