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

I'm a Harry Potter fan, and I'm starting to get excited about J K Rowling's new book, The Casual Vacancy, which will come out on the 27th. Here's a link to an article about it http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012...casual-vacancy

I'm a bit aprehensive actually - a non-magical book for adult Muggles? How's that going to work? But I think it's brave of her to write another book when she knows it's not going to be as great as Harry Potter and when she could have just rested on her laurels, and I'm hoping for interesting characters, good plot and humour, and just maybe a little of that quirkiness that made Harry Potter so special.

Good luck to her! :cheers2:

She sets up a plot that leaves itself open for a series of eccentric characters, and this is where she shines. She does not have much going for her in terms of writing style, but her characters are enjoyable enough that this book may be good.

"and just maybe a little of that quirkiness that made Harry Potter so special."

Which is present in the first three books (decent books for children) and then fades into the absolute worst four books I've had the displeasure of reading.

If books 4 and 5 were so horrible, why'd you continue on?

Book 5 was horrible. I read book 6 hoping the series would redeem itself: it was slightly better but not by much. I considered not reading book 7, but had to know how it ended - also poorly.

With H P, K R wrote infinite books. That' how I look at it.

Five says it is a generic romance.

I didn't read any of the Harry Potter books, but I recently saw all 8 of the movies, in order, one per evening, since my daughters have all the movies (as well as at least one copy of each of the books). I found them entertaining and regretted most of all what happened to Dobby, although it looked like something like that was going to happen to him.

So I hope she is equally successful with her new book. An evening will come when I will want something either good to read or good to watch. I glad there are people eager to fulfill that need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis

If books 4 and 5 were so horrible, why'd you continue on?

---

I like to finish what I start. And the books take one to two days to read so it's not as though I wasted a big chunk of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Five says it is a generic romance.

---

What is the meaning of generic romance? If it's like Harlequin romances, then no, I'm willing to bet anything she wouldn't try that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

She sets up a plot that leaves itself open for a series of eccentric characters, and this is where she shines. She does not have much going for her in terms of writing style, but her characters are enjoyable enough that this book may be good.

---

I agree with you about her writing style. But since she has almost everything else going for her (wonderful characters, realistic character interaction, great story telling, humour ranging from childish scatalogical to sophisticated dark humour), I still have hopes for this book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

Book 5 was horrible. I read book 6 hoping the series would redeem itself: it was slightly better but not by much. I considered not reading book 7, but had to know how it ended - also poorly.

---

For me, I liked books 1 and 2, loved 3 and 4, was a bit disappointed with 5 because the dark evil-ness of Voldemort seemed to be replaced by the unpleasantness of Umbridge's Orwellian regime and I didn't like that at the time. Then came book 6. Its unexpected and horrific ending gave me such a shock that I became an instant Harry Potter fan. You can't be that moved by something and not be a fan! :)

I mean one of those generic ripoffs of Jane Austen that centre around a plot concerning a heterosexual romance that ultimately culminates in marriage.

It is certainly a brave thing to do - let's face it, the chances are it will not match up to the success of the HP books, if only because almost nothing ever could. Even if her new book is merely 'good', people will be disappointed. It's a hell of a lot to re-deliver.

That said, I'm sure her bank account is stable enough! That'll never come under threat. And kudos to her for trying something different - it would have been very easy to write a whole new set of novels based around the universe already created.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

I mean one of those generic ripoffs of Jane Austen that centre around a plot concerning a heterosexual romance that ultimately culminates in marriage.

---

You mean a love story?

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


No me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

You mean a love story?

---

Yes, but one without anything fresh to offer. And nothing but the love story.

She's got a big enough fan base to keep the money rolling in no matter how crap it is. As for being brave---people have convinced her, and she's convinced herself, that she's a great writer, so no bravery involved in crossing genres. Scotland's a funny place, our two best known living writers JK and Ian Rankine, are both journeymen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lokasenna

It is certainly a brave thing to do - let's face it, the chances are it will not match up to the success of the HP books, if only because almost nothing ever could. Even if her new book is merely 'good', people will be disappointed. It's a hell of a lot to re-deliver.

---

Just ask Lewis Carroll. After becoming famous with the Alice books, he couldn't give Sylvie & Bruno away.

I'm surprised she's even putting another book out, I thought for she was just going to be a one-trick pony . . . and this new book may still prove me right.

I agree with Lokasenna. I feel pretty certain people will express disappointment. I'm kind of prepared to be disappointed myself. I wondered if she'd try to write anything else, and if she did how it could compare.

I enjoyed the Harry Potter books. I know she's not a great stylist, but in terms of character and plot she does quite will, I think. And in terms of style, s-o-o-o much better than Twilgiht author Stephenie Meyer.

All of these people citing good characters must be having a laugh. Which character is well written? None of them is the correct answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hallaig

She's got a big enough fan base to keep the money rolling in no matter how crap it is. As for being brave---people have convinced her, and she's convinced herself, that she's a great writer, so no bravery involved in crossing genres. Scotland's a funny place, our two best known living writers JK and Ian Rankine, are both journeymen.

---

While most adult fans of the HP books will go out and buy the book, there's no guarantee that they'll like it or finish it or recommend it to anyone, or that it'll get good reviews, and she knows this. I've heard her saying in some interview that HP was a sort of phenomenon and that she'd never be able to match it.

BTW, I think she's a good writer, so - let's see how it goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clopin

Which character is well written? None of them is the correct answer.

---

I'd say all of the characters are well written, even the minor ones. The only exceptions are a couple of Mary Sues, and Voldy himself, who's more or less a cardboard-cutout psychopath villain.

How dare anyone write beyond their famous cash cow? Damn the woman to obscurity. Leave off from her. She has had her moment of being special. No need for a second, old lady.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

How dare anyone write beyond their famous cash cow? Damn the woman to obscurity. Leave off from her. She has had her moment of being special. No need for a second, old lady.

---

Relax, we still have ground to criticize, now it is just speculation. If you don't want your work looked at, don't publish it. That's my two sense.

As for damning her to obscurity, she will get her chance in 10 years. I had a professor in China rip on her quite a bit, and he doesn't even read English. It's happening already, people know they are cardboard cut-and-paste novels, there was never any denying it.

The question is, will this card-board cutting remain fresh, in the sense that Dickens' cuttings remained fresh for a century already after his death. Likewise, will we still find the same comical quirkiness in them?

The answer is probably no. The magical world is cute, but it is too eccentric to justify itself altogether. As for the characters, some are cute, but the writing has been clunky, and also the fact that we so associate characters to their movie equivalents is a headache that gives them over to much stronger characterization (for instance, Alan Rickman has in a sense, overacted and overhumanized his character, and it has had an affect on the interpretation of him within the novel).

As for the new book, she is not Dickens, but will need to be, or at least vary her already developed style significantly away from the cartoonage that characterizes such a style. She will ultimately be looked at to do something new and creative that isn't just copy and paste, which is hard. The expectation is high, because everyone in the industry knows, she is marketable as a brand, and a brand is required to deliver.

She is no longer writing for money, she doesn't need it. She is no longer writing for her children fans, they have grown up. She is going to be required to address an adult audience, with a mature text, which is what readers look for in mature books. If she writes a generic romance, which I suspect she did, readers will ask plainly why her and not some other author who perhaps has been writing them for longer, and is more creative with them.

I suspect sales to be ok, but not nowhere as great as the previous books. There has not been any stirring of it on this continent, which means the release will require great acclaim if it will be translate into an international seller (very unlikely, as magical world works, but realism of any sort does not work in a Chinese, or Asian market, reality is too different).


Some will claim this expectation is unfair, but it is completely fair, in that the reason the book is probably published in the first place is that she is an established author - the book wasn't even properly processed and was skipped along in secret, according to the original post. That being true, a product is a product, the question is, does it deserve any recognition based purely on its author's background? I doubt it, but we will need to read to find out.

I don't think HP fans should buy the book just because JK Rowling wrote it. If the story looks interesting to you, then read it. Otherwise a lot of people will buy a book that can never compare to the series they loved. Or maybe, people who would have loved the new novel will never read it, because they didn't like the HP series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

It's happening already, people know they are cardboard cut-and-paste novels, there was never any denying it.

---

Rather a sweeping statement! Which people? Cut and pasted from where?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

The magical world is cute, but it is too eccentric to justify itself altogether. As for the characters, some are cute, but the writing has been clunky, and also the fact that we so associate characters to their movie equivalents is a headache that gives them over to much stronger characterization (for instance, Alan Rickman has in a sense, overacted and overhumanized his character, and it has had an affect on the interpretation of him within the novel).

---

Sometimes it's cute, sometimes it's brutal, and mostly it's just a reflection (sometimes a parody) of our own world. The only 'cute' character I can think of is Dobby.

I agree with you that Rickman overhumanized his character, playing him as a strict schoolmaster, but one who has everyone's best interests at heart. But in the books Snape is a far stronger, far more fascinating character, repressed, immmature, petty - with greasy hair, yellow teeth and eyes like cold empty tunnels. Somehow people still find him a ladies man - ah, well...:ladysman:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

She is no longer writing for her children fans, they have grown up. She is going to be required to address an adult audience, with a mature text,

---

I never understood this. Why did she have to shift to young adult fiction or late teen fiction when her initial batch of readers reached that age? Are there not more children being born in England and America who will want to read more childrens books? Did the works of Beatrix Potter grow up with her radiance?

I enjoyed the HP series. Did not think I would and was surprised.

I may or may not read the next book. It depends what I am into at the time. I am surprised many have strong feelings either way. I don't care enough to bother. Good luck to her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

I'd say all of the characters are well written, even the minor ones. The only exceptions are a couple of Mary Sues, and Voldy himself, who's more or less a cardboard-cutout psychopath villain.

---

Harry - Total *******, complains constantly about his incredibly privileged life to his best friend who is comparatively poor, suffers from low stature in the minds of most people and is generally incompetent. Harry only seems to notice this when it prompts Ron to fly into some sort of rage, or tantrum which generally allows harry to fall back on his "MY PARENTS ARE DEEEEEEEEAD" routine that got old on its first utterance. He has a very pigheaded and stupid idea about the "right" thing to do and tends to have very bad, cringe worthy lines of dialogue.

Voldemort - Makes no sense. Supposedly the most powerful evil wizard of all time, never really does anything impressive, loses to Dumbledore repeatedly, he and his entire army can't defeat a school of young adults. Wants to purge muggle borns, is a muggle born (ham fisted reference to Nazi Germany, I guess Hitler wasn't Aryan or something), somehow takes over the ministry and everyone just goes along with it? Despite he and his followers parroting the exact same rhetoric as before, as if Hitler had risen from the dead - but in secret - and had like 6 Neo Nazis take over Germany. Makes perfect sense.

Ron - Actually not too bad, all of the Weaselys are kinda cool.

Malfoy - "WE VILLAIN NOW". A complete **** who acts like a **** because he's a ****! GREAT CHARACTER.

Hermione - She's alright I guess. Bland Archetype.

Dumbledore - Cluster**** of retarded. None of his motivations or ideas make any sense, for some reason doesn't get involved in anything serious despite Cornelius Fudge smoking some serious herb for his entire term.

Snape - He's aight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

If she writes a generic romance, which I suspect she did, readers will ask plainly why her and not some other author who perhaps has been writing them for longer, and is more creative with them.

---

It isn't a romance, blurb for the book is as follows:

Quote:

---

When Barry Fairbrother dies in his early forties, the town of Pagford is left in shock.

Pagford is, seemingly, an English idyll, with a cobbled market square and an ancient abbey, but what lies behind the pretty facade is a town at war.

Rich at war with poor, teenagers at war with their parents, wives at war with their husbands, teachers at war with their pupils... Pagford is not what it first seems.

And the empty seat left by Barry on the parish council soon becomes the catalyst for the biggest war the town has yet seen. Who will triumph in an election fraught with passion, duplicity and unexpected revelations?

---

I'm not particularly interested in the book, but I do think the curiosity factor will carry this one. I think the measure of Rowling's 'success' as a writer for adults will be in the next book (assuming there is one).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

Rather a sweeping statement! Which people? Cut and pasted from where?

---

From her own model? Book 1. The kids arrive at school, attend lessons, face some magical problem related to voldemort or something, solve it. Book 2. Back in school, attend lessons, face some magical problem related to voldemort or somethig, solve it. Book 3. The kids arrive at school, attend lessons, face some magical problem related to voldemort or something, solve it. Book 4, etc etc etc

Hi Clopin.
Please don't forget Harry was an abused child forced to live in a cupboard. Hardly a nice life living with people who resent you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sydneysider

Hi Clopin.
Please don't forget Harry was an abused child forced to live in a cupboard. Hardly a nice life living with people who resent you.

---

But there never was a big deal made of this, was there? At the end of most books, character X says something to the effect of "it's a shame he has to go back to those people, but I guess he must"" with no regard for the fact that he was abused, beaten, starved (probably). And I'm sorry, but if you were an abused child, you don't go rushing headlong into the situations he does.

Edit: of course, I realize analyzing Harry Potter for psychological realism is absurd.

Hmmm.... J K Rowling with a new book. I heard her in an interview sometime ago saying that she was writing a political fairy-tale (don't know what that means) but this seems to be different.It would be interesting to see how the book is taken by the masses. I'm looking forward to reading the book because I liked the Harry Potter series, merely for the magical world created in them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sydneysider

I enjoyed the HP series. Did not think I would and was surprised.

I may or may not read the next book. It depends what I am into at the time. I am surprised many have strong feelings either way. I don't care enough to bother. Good luck to her.

---

I too am surprised by some of the extreme negative reactions this series provokes. I don't see anyone going out on a limb trying to 'prove' just how awful the Dan Brown or Twilight books are, but reputed critic Harold Bloom and excellent author A S Byatt have made fools of themseves with their completely asinine criticisms of HP.

Professional jealousy. :-)

More Harry Potter???

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/...926-26ljl.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

I too am surprised by some of the extreme negative reactions this series provokes. I don't see anyone going out on a limb trying to 'prove' just how awful the Dan Brown or Twilight books are, but reputed critic Harold Bloom and excellent author A S Byatt have made fools of themseves with their completely asinine criticisms of HP.

---

I think the difference is that popular society has done a great job on its own of tearing apart Dan Brown and Twilight. Harry Potter's place, however, seems to be "this miraculous series that turned a generation onto reading" - and this is what irks critics, I think.

Here's an early review in the Chicago Tribune.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...,1197037.story

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

I think the difference is that popular society has done a great job on its own of tearing apart Dan Brown and Twilight. Harry Potter's place, however, seems to be "this miraculous series that turned a generation onto reading" - and this is what irks critics, I think.

---

If Twilight enjoyed anywhere near as close to the size of the market share, it would have. Dan Brown has been ripped into a lot as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calidore

Here's an early review in the Chicago Tribune.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...,1197037.story

---

I don't know about the book, but the Chicago Tribune should fire her, she is a terrible reviewer. What a prosaic and dull reading, I bet you she didn't even read/finish the book. It seems like something anybody could have cooked up by reading the blurb on the back (the summary seems word for word).

Seriously what a tedious review - the deep emotional complexity? Harry Potter? Even my professor in China knows they are stick-figure heroes, and he reads Chinese stick-figure heroes for a living.

Dreadful review. It read as a press release. Way too much fawning over the author.