ROBUST discussion
Book Talk & Exchange of Views
>
JK Rowling's odd deception
date
newest »
newest »
Well, most of the earlier reports that I saw suggested generally good critical reviews, just very modest sales.Given the way a lot of people couldn't get over that fact she'd written a book that wasn't a fantasy, I'm not surprised she'd want to go with a pseudonym with her next book.
I don't begrudge her the fact that she wants people to judge her books on their individual merits rather than bringing all the baggage from their Potter expectations.
Sure, she's wealthy, so not going to cry for too much, but success is its own cage for an artist.
Mod
On the Kindle Boards they seem to think you need a pen name for every genre. I'm of two minds on this topic. On one hand, she is who she is - on the other she wants to write for adults.
I say shoot the lawyer and take HIS identy.
Seems fitting.
Mod
I just say, Shoot the lawyer.
Mod
There are many MANY other authors over the years who have gone from one genre to another. I think that instead of focusing on who might not like your book because it isn't what you would normally write, focus instead in breaking down barriers in a new one using your own identity.
There isn't any reason she still can't use it. Nora Roberts has J.D.Robb.
Mod
Maybe she's read her bad reviews?She's only human after all.
Strikes me as somewhat over-sensitive to potential criticism.
Andre Jute wrote: "This is probably more about Rowling's self-image, i.e. a psychological question, than about the fact of the matter. Though I really don't know why Rowling might feel she has to prove anything."Yeah, I mean the woman did do personally do a lot to revitalize reading among millions of young people, so even if she spends the next forty year churning out total drek or whatever, she can take that and her ridiculously large pile of money for comfort.
Mod
Not to mention their parents.
I can't read her -- too slow -- but...
We have endless movies, standing in bookcases on an upstairs landing. The only movies permanantly kept on the player stand are the Harry Potter set and the Lord of the Rings set, to be played when there is nothing on the BBC channels (roughly PSB in the States) that we want to watch.
...so, Rowling is slow because her books are richly layered and that, together with good scriptwriters, designers and directors, give the movies a depth that make them worth watching repeatedly.
We've got a standing order for Christmas with my parents: the full 7 book HP set. We want to start reading them to the kids. (Probably this spring, when the second is about 18 months. He should get more out of it by then.)I haven't read the other books she's written. Admittedly, I haven't read all the HP novels. (They're below the level of my average read. But they're not aimed at me, as I was already well above MG when the first ones came out!)
We should all be grateful for really giving people something to read that they wanted more of, because any author who does that is a boon to all the rest of us.
And I agree with you J.A., if she turns out shite (any it's likely not, just not megasupercrazygoodpopular) for years now, it won't matter. Her contribution to the industry is sufficient.
Mod
Literature is not a competition. These sudden-death playoffs are created by little people who have never, nor will ever, create anything of their own.
I more mean she's unlikely to have something take off like that again, and for HER it might be difficult to be less successful, particularly seeing as how she's pretty much done something no other author has.I think she should just not give a fuck about what people think and write away. :)
Andre Jute wrote: "Mathew wrote: "just not megasupercrazygoodpopular"Literature is not a competition. These sudden-death playoffs are created by little people who have never, nor will ever, create anything of their..."
They are creating friction and a sense of self-importance (in them)! :)
As I pointed out on Facebook, the claims of great reviews and high sales in this Guardian article don't match earlier reports that the book was a flop. Not that I have any great authority to remark upon Rowling since 9 out of 10 reviewers of my books begin by comparing/contrasting them with hers, but I think a narrative is being constructed here to make her look good after the fact. Certainly Rowling has respectable authorial skills, but she can't seem to get over her desire to prove that she doesn't need the Harry Potter brand to please readers.
Comments, anyone?