The Sword and Laser discussion
anyone reading J.K. Rowling's new book?
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Tamahome
(new)
Sep 28, 2012 10:07PM
Anyone reading The Casual Vacancy? It's mainstream, I know...
reply
|
flag
I will probably get to it at some point but not yet...
I'm the same, probs pick it up at some point. I'm the sort of person thats not interested in something surrounded by hype, for some reason it puts me off.
I got it on Thursday and am currently reading it. Do the cool kids disapprove?It's actually nice enough, not a hit so far but a well-written small-town portrait.
I'm not a cool kid and don't disapprove. My queue is just rather long right now.
the book sounds as dull as dishwater.. i will gladly give this one a miss
The reviews are slamming it as dull proto-political invective. Maybe I'll take a look when it's the 20p Kindle Deal of the Day, but I'm not wasting £9 to add it to the end of my TBR queue.
It's on the way. Though more as a gift for my wife than as a hurry up and read for me. I will get to it during winter break maybe.
Too expensive for me right now, $37 at the bookstore.
Rainer wrote: "Too expensive for me right now, $37 at the bookstore."for a women that spends £190K on a tree house for her kids, while pleading about poverty in scotland i will pass on making her any richer. She is a constant contradiction.
Pickle wrote: "for a women that spends £190K on a tree house for her kids, while pleading about poverty in scotland i will pass on making her any richer. She is a constant contradiction."I don't see the problem -- spending money gives people jobs. 190k for a tree house may seem frivolous, but I bet the construction workers who built it were happy for the paycheck.
Mod
The problem she faces is that Harry Potter was insanely popular making the amount of criticism and pressure for her to do something as good or better over the top.
She might write a perfectly descent book, but be panned because it's not as good as Harry Potter.
Pickle wrote: "the book sounds as dull as dishwater.. i will gladly give this one a miss"Sorry but me too :)
I'll get to it eventually. I'm a huge HP fan but I have no expectations for this book.
Pickle wrote: "Rainer wrote: "Too expensive for me right now, $37 at the bookstore."for a women that spends £190K on a tree house for her kids, while pleading about poverty in scotland i will pass on making her..."
Pretty weak to begrudge someone, who made her fortune on honest work, and has donated over £100 million* of that fortune to charities and MS research, splurging on her kids.
*(Which was around 15% of her total value. Did you donate 15% of your money to charities?)
I like these sort of in-depth character studies, so I will probably read it eventually. I don't see any hurry though. I mean even if it fails it succeeds. There was a display at my local supermarket for Hagrid's sake! I assume there will be enough copies floating around in a few months to get a used copy on the cheap.
I really would like to read it. I think JK Rowling is a very talented story teller, I especially love how she approaches characters. It will be interesting to see her writing something a little more adult. No it wont be as fantastical as Harry Potter, but i'm not going to dog it until i read it.Oh and i dont understand this trend of instantly hating something because of it being popular. How is it logical not to like something simply for the fact that other people like it? Seems silly to me. I'd rather judge by, you know, actually reading it?
John Crace has reduced the novel to a manageable 400 words in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/... Spoilers!
Sean wrote: "Pickle wrote: "for a women that spends £190K on a tree house for her kids, while pleading about poverty in scotland i will pass on making her any richer. She is a constant contradiction."I don't ..."
in scotland we have or where until recently:
murder capital of the world (glasgow)
the worst cancer rates in the world
the worst cases of alcoholism in the world
high rates of obesity
large scale child poverty
etc etc
She is always in the papers trying to highlight child poverty yet gets press about building a £190K tree house. I find her a wee bit too condescending when she talks about child poverty
Pickle wrote: "in scotland we have or where until recently:murder capital of the world (glasgow)
the worst cancer rates in the world
the worst cases of alcoholism in the world
high rates of obesity
large scale child poverty
etc etc"
are you sure you aren't mixing up scotland and detroit? Har Har Har har...............
I'll show myself out.
Pickle wrote: "in scotland we have or where until recently:
murder capital of the world (glasgow)
the worst cancer rates in the world
the worst cases of alcoholism in the world
high rates of obesity
large scale child poverty
etc etc
She is always in the papers trying to highlight child poverty yet gets press about building a £190K tree house. I find her a wee bit too condescending when she talks about child poverty"
None of which addresses the point that the money she spent on that tree house went into the local economy, letting the construction workers she hired put food on the table for their kids. What would you prefer she did with that money? Keep it in a bank? Invest it in the stock market?
Pickle wrote: "Rainer wrote: "Too expensive for me right now, $37 at the bookstore."for a women that spends £190K on a tree house for her kids, while pleading about poverty in scotland i will pass on making her..."
Bingo!
The tree house funds may have gone to a relatively small part of the local economy. Or it may have gone to a firm of contractors anywhere.
The trickle down theory offers no crumbs of comfort for the homeless.
As to whether it is a good book the reviews I have seen are lukewarm. I won't be adding this to my reading list.
Paul wrote: "Bingo!The tree house funds may have gone to a relatively small part of the local economy. Or it may have gone to a firm of contractors anywhere.
The trickle down theory offers no crumbs of comfort for the homeless."
You misunderstand the flaw in trickle down economics. When anyone -- rich or poor -- spends money, it benefits the economy. The more people spend, the lower unemployment drops and the higher wages go. This is a good thing that benefits everyone, including the homeless.
But trickle down economics is more than that -- it's the theory that if you cut taxes on the rich, it'll stimulate the economy by giving them more money to spend. The theory is bunk because the wealthy end up investing the money instead of spending, and while that does have positive effects on the economy, it doesn't directly help workers the way spending on goods and services does.
So when J.K. Rowling decides to drop two hundred grand on the local economy instead of keeping the money locked up in the stock market, it's a good thing, regardless of what she spends it on.
Seriously, what would you rather she do with the money?
I'd read it if I liked that genre. I'll probably get it for my wife this christmas.
I'm giving it a miss too - the story line didn't grab me at all. I'm quite varied in my tastes, but it's premise as stated just leaves me cold... My TBR list is long enough already (probably a few years solid reading easily if I'm honest!)
SeanSeriously I don't misunderstand trickle down economics.
There was a drawing by the renowned cartoonist Rowe.
It is a stable scene with a cart horse, and a flock of sparrows rummaging through the manure for seeds.
That brilliantly illustrates the theory.
In the UK the chances are that any trickle down will be spent on consumer goods and services.
Since the 1970s consumer spending has increasingly meant purchasing imports.
The manufacturing base here was decimated during the 1980s accentuating the amount spent on imported goods.
Since the 90s there has been a tendency for firms to switch production abroad where labour costs were cheaper. This has also included the service sector.
The upshot is a proportion of the spending will get filtered out of the local economy and benefit the growing Asian economies. This does not stimulate a lot of jobs at home.
We are currently in recession with high unemployment, just as when Rowe drew his cartoon. Trickle Down theory is just a way of justifying increasing the gap between rich and poor.
Let them eat cack she said, just like Marie Antoinette.
ps The extravagance of a folly for her kids is galling at a time of house repossession and increasing homelessness.A treehouse that costs the same as a real house is a useless self indulgence. If she has so much dosh sloshing around that she doesn't know what to do with it all, she could take a leaf out of her new book and directly help people that are in a worse situation than she was herself when she sat in a cafe to pen a new book.
Paul wrote: "A treehouse that costs the same as a real house is a useless self indulgence. If she has so much dosh sloshing around that she doesn't know what to do with it all, she could take a leaf out of her new book and directly help people that are in a worse situation than she was herself when she sat in a cafe to pen a new book. "not to turn this into a discussion about cultural economics and systems. BUT....it's her money which she earned justly and legally. Why is it your business what she is doing with it. As long as she pays her legal taxes her obligation is done. If she wanted to burn all of it in a bonfire to keep her warm well, that is her choice.
If she wanted to help people as somebody pointed out up above she already has quite substantially that is also her choice. Why do you get to call her out on building a tree house with what amounts to probably less than a days earnings to her?
Being rich isn't a crime. And before anybody says it I am not even hard right leaning in my political affiliations. I actually think it's OKAY for rich people to pay more in taxes.
From what I understand, the new book deals with issues of class difference. This discussion started because someone pointed out the hypocrisy of her social commentary and her own actions. You might not like what I am wearing today but may have an opinion about it. I am likewise entitled to an opinion of the morality of her profligacy.
Sorry there are people without homes. There are children living in bed and breakfast accommodation.
It is not much better than a cupboard under the stairs.
Being rich isn't a crime. But being rich doesn't mean you HAVE to throw money at follies or bonfires of the vanities.
Micah wrote: not to turn this into a discussion about cultural economics and systems. BUT....it's her money which she earned justly and legally. Why is it your business what she is doing with it. As long as she pays her legal taxes her obligation is done. "
And in the days when she could quite easily become a tax exile as many of her income do she chose to stay in the UK and pay her taxes and has spoken out against tax evasion.
And you guys, it's a freaking awesome and incredibly wholesome treehouse. I'm sure celebrity parents buy worse things for their kids.
Paul wrote: "SeanSeriously I don't misunderstand trickle down economics.
There was a drawing by the renowned cartoonist Rowe.
It is a stable scene with a cart horse, and a flock of sparrows rummaging through the manure for seeds.
That brilliantly illustrates the theory."
A cartoon is not economics.
In the UK the chances are that any trickle down will be spent on consumer goods and services.
Since the 1970s consumer spending has increasingly meant purchasing imports.
The manufacturing base here was decimated during the 1980s accentuating the amount spent on imported goods.
Since the 90s there has been a tendency for firms to switch production abroad where labour costs were cheaper. This has also included the service sector.
The upshot is a proportion of the spending will get filtered out of the local economy and benefit the growing Asian economies. This does not stimulate a lot of jobs at home.
A) How is it Rowling's fault that the workers she hires are spending money in ways you dislike? Is she supposed to make them sign a "Buy British" pledge?
B) Even if the workers spend money on imports, they're buying them from businesses in Britain, right? The shopkeeper, his employees, the truck driver, and the stevedores are all in Britain and gain from the construction workers having more money to spend.
C) This isn't the 19th Century. The idea that international trade is a zero-sum-game is as discredited as phrenology. If some of Rowling's money ends up in China, that means the Chinese have more money to spend, which is itself a good thing for the world economy, including Scotland.
D) You still haven't said what Rowling should be doing with the money instead.
Let them eat cack she said, just like Marie Antoinette.
Marie Antoinette never said that.
Good grief There is no hope with the proles Winston.
Do you not understand the tradition of political cartoons Sean?
Do you not understand the concept of play on words?
If China benefits from her spending that does sod all good for the local economy and suffering that exists at home which was my point Sean. The new book is not about what is going on in Beijing sweatshops.
and I am not going to indulge in fantasy spending of other peoples' cash. J K Rowling is supposedly an intelligent and imaginative woman who is quite capable of better spending decisions that she displayed with the treehouse.
And in the days when the government gives tax breaks to the top income bracket they close free libraries or expect librarians to work for free, Kate.
Paul wrote: "Good griefDo you not understand the tradition of political cartoons Sean?
Do you not understand the concept of play on words?
There is no hope with the proles Winston."
Non-responsive.
(Political cartoons are many things, but they are not reasoned economic arguments.)
Paul wrote: "And in the days when the government gives tax breaks to the top income bracket they close free libraries or expect librarians to work for free, Kate. "
Yes...
You and Rowling both appear to be in favour of the rich paying taxes.
Paul wrote: "If China benefits from her spending that does sod all good for the local economy and suffering that exists at home which was my point Sean. The new book is not about what is going on in Beijing sweatshops."That's a horribly reactionary and nationalistic stance to take -- why are the Scottish more important than the Chinese? In any case, the British economy is not, will not be and never has been an autarky -- not only do you buy goods from overseas, you benefit from international business. So the more prosperous countries there are in the world, the better it is for you.
What's especially irksome about this attitude is that the British economy has been reliant on imports not since the 1970s but since the time you lot decided to go off enslaving half the world. It's just in the olden days you used to force your trading partners to do business exclusively through companies controlled by the Empire, at prices dictated through the barrel of a gun. Now that those people have escaped your oppression, you start whinging about how it's not fair that the money from the China trade is actually going to China instead of enriching British trading companies.
and I am not going to indulge in fantasy spending of other peoples' cash. J K Rowling is supposedly an intelligent and imaginative woman who is quite capable of better spending decisions that she displayed with the treehouse.
You are already engaged in a fantasy of spending her money when you say she shouldn't be building an expensive playhouse for her children.
Paul wrote: "A treehouse that costs the same as a real house is a useless self indulgence. If she has so much dosh sloshing around that she doesn't know what to do with it all, she could take a leaf out of her new book and directly help people that are in a worse situation than she was herself when she sat in a cafe to pen a new book. "She did. She spent over £100 million on various charities the past 2 years, ranging from MS research to poverty causes. That's a rough 15% of her total net worth at the time.
If she wants to splurge on her kids, who are you to begrudge her that? Jealous much?
I only read 53% of the book. It's technically well written, but it's dull, bland, the characters are flat and it smells of Ayn Rand.
who cares where or how she spends her money?? This thread is about whether your reading it or not.
