Who's excited about J K Rowling's new book?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

One cannot help wondering how much of the harsh criticism The Casual Vacancy had received was due to the fact that it was written by JK Rowling.

I will be reading either or both books sometime soon just satisfy my curiosity.

---

Well, that is one way to look at it. Another way is to suggest the book probably would not have been printed, and certainly not in such a large volume had it not been written by an already well known author. There are quite a great number of books left unpublished of equal or greater quality that just couldn't get the presses to print them. The fact that she had such a great chance to publish again after Potter is already a somewhat large privilege in the cutthroat world of publishing.

As for this new read - without the fame machine behind it, a modest sale of 1500 copies is not surprising (her agent also knew who she was, as to probably how she secured the printing in the first place, given how hard it is to break into a market). Though we can expect now the mass printing that will bring this new one to best seller.

Fame is a double-edged sword. If she didn't like criticism she should have published a different novel or not published at all. As it is, she is sitting on a pile of gold, and still makes good money from book sales - her kids are going to be quite well-off, as probably will her grandchildren, etc. so there is no lack of personal achievement there. She can I guess just put writing as a sort of hobby and write the books that she wants, regardless of a public opinion against her. After all, the Ivory Tower did not like Potter as much as other favorites in the first place. Literary fiction is far more dangerous a field, as lack of proper style in prose cannot be dismissed with "well the book was just written for kids, so of course it is simple." As far as I am concerned, she uses far too many adverbs (almost on every sentence) which is a mark of amateurish writing (in the sense that she cannot convey attitudes or the implied meaning of the adverb through the basic narration or tone of dialog). We call such writing redundant in literary fiction, but we let it slip with Potter because the books are cute. When it comes to books for adults though we are far more picky. Such an angle of judgment is of course biased against children's literature, and not one I would hold to myself (as I am dismissive of almost all of Rowling's work in general) however seems to be the dominant train of thought amongst critics of her work.

JBI, as much fun as it is to read your rant about JK Rowling - seriously, it still hasn't gotten old after all these years - I am not sure what your point is.

Any writer who has published with some success runs the same risks and I haven't read anywhere that she has complained or taken it in bad grace.

Do I think she is a good writer? I would say she is a good storyteller for children. Can she make the switch into adult literature? That is yet to be seen, which is why I would like to give her other books a chance. Will I buy her books? No. I am pretty sure she does not need my fiver to support her. So, library it is for me where her books are concerned... But then again, whenever is it not?

Which reminds me, are you still collecting rare edition books, JBI?

Scher abd Qimi, I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good old-fashioned sort of detective story like Agatha Christie, the Father Brown stories, P D James etc.

Quote:

---

Do I think she is a good writer? I would say she is a good storyteller for children.

---

I was going to call her a competent writer, but I guess the writers of Mills and Boon romances and such are also competent in their way, and she far outclasses them, so that doesn't work. I think she's like P G Wodehouse or Agatha Christie - not 'literary' but with a special appeal even for those who generally read far more complex and challenging books and that has enabled them to survive to this day, even though they were both somewhat dated right from the start. So is Rowling, with her medieval pre-computer world in Harry Potter, and her private detective in this book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Well, that is one way to look at it. Another way is to suggest the book probably would not have been printed, and certainly not in such a large volume had it not been written by an already well known author. There are quite a great number of books left unpublished of equal or greater quality that just couldn't get the presses to print them. The fact that she had such a great chance to publish again after Potter is already a somewhat large privilege in the cutthroat world of publishing.

As for this new read - without the fame machine behind it, a modest sale of 1500 copies is not surprising (her agent also knew who she was, as to probably how she secured the printing in the first place, given how hard it is to break into a market). Though we can expect now the mass printing that will bring this new one to best seller.

---

You've got to give her points for trying. She did try to remain anonymous this time. and it is not her fault that she was outed and sales increased by 150,000% in a day (LOL what a figure!). I think good reviews and 1500 copies in about 3 months is not so bad for a completely unknown author, even if she had the advantage of getting the book published without any problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

JBI, as much fun as it is to read your rant about JK Rowling - seriously, it still hasn't gotten old after all these years - I am not sure what your point is.

Any writer who has published with some success runs the same risks and I haven't read anywhere that she has complained or taken it in bad grace.

Do I think she is a good writer? I would say she is a good storyteller for children. Can she make the switch into adult literature? That is yet to be seen, which is why I would like to give her other books a chance. Will I buy her books? No. I am pretty sure she does not need my fiver to support her. So, library it is for me where her books are concerned... But then again, whenever is it not?

Which reminds me, are you still collecting rare edition books, JBI?

---

I don't collect rare editions really but generally hard to come by out of print books. As for these 1500, they will sky rocket in price momentarily, and stay there for a little while, given there are only 1500.

As for my point, it is that all criticism is somewhat justified and not harsh in the sense that she still has her voice communicating through her books, and if people don't like them they will simply stop buying them, thereby showing the truth of the criticism. A critic against Rowling is a rather useless pursuit, given that her reputation amongst those who like her work is unwavering, and there are always going to be supporters.

As for the switch to adult literature, I just want to point a sort of double standard here if I may be nitpicky (in as unantagonistic way as possible I hope), Why such a distinction? In the sense, are we to say her style is essentially developed for children, or are we to say she lacks the ability to write mature works? this is an interesting question into the nature of Children's literature, and genre writing in general - can someone, in a sense, outgrow Rowling, or is writing the same regardless of the age of the reader?

In that sense, I personally feel we are more liberal in judgment of children's literature, in the sense where we think "well as long as the kids are reading it is OK." As for me, I would never pick up a general mystery novel in the first place (I do not care for anything plot-driven really, and narrative is generally of secondary importance to me), and in that sense what is to separate Rowling from the other greats of the Genre (who I cannot name besides maybe Cristie and Doyle as classic examples).

Should we then put her against the criteria of the genre, and judge her amongst the ranks of its greats, in that mode? And perhaps subject her to the presses' standards, without the fast-lane for already established-out-of-genre authors? In that sense I am interested to see how Rowling can make such a transition, as an author and as a product. It won't be easy to be accepted in that vein, especially since those who like Potter will not necessarily care for Mystery novels, or identify with such characters in the way they identified with their magical vicarious selves.

I am not trying to blast Rowling here mind you, as I have come to terms with almost all genre workers of any sort that go famous (as not even needing my dismissal, as I simply will let time do the judging, and let those who enjoy the work be as long as they don't tell me how wrong I am for not reading such works). It's just interesting to see how marketing goes with these works. It is also interesting to note her Sex Change (again, J.K. Rowling being chosen to appear more Masculine in the first place). Why go male? Coincidence or calculated ploy, to create a back-story for a male genre? This is something I find interesting, especially since she claimed the new work based on personal experiences, which in a sense is complete nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

After all, the Ivory Tower did not like Potter as much as other favorites in the first place. Literary fiction is far more dangerous a field, as lack of proper style in prose cannot be dismissed with "well the book was just written for kids, so of course it is simple." As far as I am concerned, she uses far too many adverbs (almost on every sentence) which is a mark of amateurish writing (in the sense that she cannot convey attitudes or the implied meaning of the adverb through the basic narration or tone of dialog). We call such writing redundant in literary fiction, but we let it slip with Potter because the books are cute. When it comes to books for adults though we are far more picky. Such an angle of judgment is of course biased against children's literature, and not one I would hold to myself (as I am dismissive of almost all of Rowling's work in general) however seems to be the dominant train of thought amongst critics of her work.

---

Of course, Kenneth Grahame's The Wind in the Willows, which is often put forward as an example of great children's literature, use of adverbs makes J. K. Rowling's use look restrained.

True maybe, I have not read that book in 15-odd years so I cannot say anything about it now, but that wasn't my point. My point was had the Wind in the Willows been an adult book, more people would have commented on the adverbs.

That is not a judgment on my part, as unlike most I do not like the idea of a children's literature of such sorts, however I will suggest that there is always a double standard when it comes to kids.

Such an argument should also be examined in adaptation - how does kid's cinema really work - is the appeal toward children shared with adults, or are they two different levels of understanding (such as Shrek's sexual and inappropriate innuendo).

The same could be said for levels of literary fiction - for instance Umberto Eco is known to write with both public and academic audiences both held in his mind (Baudilino for instance, is quite loaded with very specific obscure references only a medievalist would catch). Is children's literature required to play to both fields?

Take an example of Christina Rossetti's Goblin Market, at once a children's poem, yet also one interpreted as a sort of sexual allegory, or feminist manifesto. How are we to interpret this work - can we value it while holding it up as something specifically written for children, or must we find/identify other meanings to make the text more palatable.

If we say Potter is Children's literature, as most certainly the first three books are, then when we evaluate their worth, are we judging them as to their appeal toward children, or their appeal toward adults - in that sense how do we judge language? is language age-dependent, and should we make excuses for "less than literary" language in the genre?

Ursula K. Leguin wrote an interesting essay on language in fantasy literature as required to fit the setting and mode of the writing. She writes mostly that epic fantasy requires a properly done epic language. Such an argument is of course valid - the absorption into a new world requires a specific idiom, and certainly Leguin, like other greats in the field have managed to achieve this.

Yet when we deal with Children's literature we are faced with a rather strange genre confine - what is the appropriate language of children's literature, and by extension, is someone proficient in such language able to be taken seriously outside of it, and are such skills transferable. I am not so surprised she is writing mysteries, given the nature of her formulaic writing in much of Potter (the red herring being her favorite literary device), and her love of narrative exploration through revealing clues (Harry and friends must unlock the new mystery every year, mind you), yet what of language - this is the interesting part.

As it is, I will not read the books, as I do not have the time or energy, but I will suggest one thing - those who love Potter may not necessarily like this new work, and those who like this new work won't necessarily be crazy about Potter. If the reviews are not hyperbolic and she has written something of worth, even amongst lovers of the genre only, then the work should be judged without the notion of Potter in the background. The same way we can judge a steak cooked by a chef well known for their desserts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

As it is, I will not read the books, as I do not have the time or energy, but I will suggest one thing - those who love Potter may not necessarily like this new work, and those who like this new work won't necessarily be crazy about Potter. If the reviews are not hyperbolic and she has written something of worth, even amongst lovers of the genre only, then the work should be judged without the notion of Potter in the background. The same way we can judge a steak cooked by a chef well known for their desserts.

---

Isn't this true for all writers even when they remain within the realms of the same genre? One might enjoy one author's some works very much while feeling disappointed with the other works of the same author. I am not sure that you take it upon yourself to make particular points about JK Rowling.

As for Children's Literature as a genre... There is certainly a different genre, one desirable characteristic of which, in my opinion, is the capacity to engage particularly the younger readers and to make them willing readers in the long term. This is not having double standards or lower expectations of the writers who concentrate on this reader group but offering what is suitable/appropriate/desirable (I do realise these are judgemental adjectives and I will get picked on for using them).

Any book written within this genre should be measured and evaluated within its boundaries. Using your food analogy, I will suggest that any food prepared for toddlers lacks salt for health reasons and we cannot say they fail to make an impression on the grown up palate because they do not have salt (as they are not expected to).

And within this genre there are many junk (as in any others)... Did you read The Messenger by Lowry? Now there is some sugar-coated, condescending piece of... literature for you.

All genres seems more about marketing than style, but leaving this aside, some so called children literature writers are going to survive the criticism. We had Nathaniel Hawthorne, Lewis Carroll and Robert Louis Stevenson. Their works were created to children, specific children, to whom those writers used to tell stories, not to a market that demands genre specific language to target their public, which is what Rowling probally aimed when she started. Neither seem to dumb down the reader, even if sometimes they do avoid some themes or imagenery.

I think Walt Disney is a good example, He got the appeal of faery tales, which is neither for children or addults, just universal enough to appeal to the parent and the children at same time, one appealing to the memories, other to starting building references and symbologies. The same i recall the Richard Donner Superman, we see it today, we see how it was a children movie. Superman is always smiling with the corner of his lips, it is clearly learning how to deal with the world and Gene Hackman is obviously just having fun as Lex Luthor, yet, I recall, parents along with us kids (i was one that time) because the obvious appeal of Superman, that works much as modern faery tales. Carroll and Stevenson seems to have reached the same kind of success, addults would not leave them or anything else. Addults enjoy Alice as much as anything written by other victorian writers. And of course, everyone love pirates.

My understanding was Treausure Island appeals to the childish nature in everyone, rather than children per-say. Still, the Victorian genre was quite different from the contemporary.

What of the notion of the "tale" itself as a sort of in marketable genre now. There were thousands of stories written throughout history but it is hard to name a worker of that genre today, in the sense that we have moved toward first novels then series of novels.