Rowling too successful?

[PennLady]

So I came across this article at Jezebel.com, in which a female writer wrote a column published at HuffPo opining that JK Rowling should stop writing. Rowling is successful enough, says the writer, and she should move aside to make room for up-and-coming authors.

I am a bit befuddled but mostly bemused, I think. It's ridiculous. And the writer undermines her credibility with me and with commenters (based on a few comments I read) when she says she's never read the Harry Potter novels, but pities the adults who read them for themselves, as opposed to just read them to their kids. Geez.

ETA: Here's a follow-up at The Guardian.

 

[lovecraft68]

So I came across this article at Jezebel.com, in which a female writer wrote a column published at HuffPo opining that JK Rowling should stop writing. Rowling is successful enough, says the writer, and she should move aside to make room for up-and-coming authors.

I am a bit befuddled but mostly bemused, I think. It's ridiculous. And the writer undermines her credibility with me and with commenters (based on a few comments I read) when she says she's never read the Harry Potter novels, but pities the adults who read them for themselves, as opposed to just read them to their kids. Geez.

That's nuts.

There is room for plenty of successful authors. Rowling only has so many books and once you're done you buy other books.

If there was any argument to be had with "making room" for other authors it would be aimed at the publishers none of whom take unsolicited manuscripts and are pretty much just publishing the same stable of authors and any new ones have connections that get them in the door.

So if new authors are held back its at that level.

 

[PennLady]

I would think, too, that in the wake of the success a series like Rowlings', or Suzane Collins', etc., publishers would be looking for the next one and that would seem to create opportunity.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

That's nuts.

There is room for plenty of successful authors. Rowling only has so many books and once you're done you buy other books.

If there was any argument to be had with "making room" for other authors it would be aimed at the publishers none of whom take unsolicited manuscripts and are pretty much just publishing the same stable of authors and any new ones have confectioner that get them in the door.

So if new authors are held back its at that level.

The best part of Sophies Choice is when the editor rejects the all time best-seller, and is thrown out the door. Editors have no clue whats good, they know whats hot with the competition.

 

[lovecraft68]

I would think, too, that in the wake of the success a series like Rowlings', or Suzane Collins', etc., publishers would be looking for the next one and that would seem to create opportunity.

You would think, but on that note where is the next 50 shades? The theory was it was going to open the floodgates, that should have spawned a lot of copy cats of the copycat but hasn't.

so strange yes. You would think they would be racing to copy each other like TV networks do.

 

[sheablue]

You would think, but on that note where is the next 50 shades? The theory was it was going to open the floodgates, that should have spawned a lot of copy cats of the copycat but hasn't.

so strange yes. You would think they would be racing to copy each other like TV networks do.

Actually there are a lot of copycats. I noticed when I was at the bookstore recently. They haven't gotten the attention, maybe because once people read 50 shades, they were afraid the others would be just as bad?


I did read that jezebel article and thought it was ridiculous. Sour grapes, I say!

 

[lovecraft68]

Actually there are a lot of copycats. I noticed when I was at the bookstore recently. They haven't gotten the attention, maybe because once people read 50 shades, they were afraid the others would be just as bad?


I did read that jezebel article and thought it was ridiculous. Sour grapes, I say!

Shame is they are most likely better.

My wife was talking to a woman in work and shades came up and the woman said she stopped after 30 pages saying it looked like it was written by a 15 year old for ten year old.

I am still amazed(and a little frightened) at its success.

 

[glynndah]

That's nuts.

There is room for plenty of successful authors. Rowling only has so many books and once you're done you buy other books.

If there was any argument to be had with "making room" for other authors it would be aimed at the publishers none of whom take unsolicited manuscripts and are pretty much just publishing the same stable of authors and any new ones have confectioner that get them in the door.

So if new authors are held back its at that level.

So, all I need is a really good box of chocolates?

 

[Blind_Justice]

Yep, that one book will, msrk my words, skew the perception of erotica. And not in a positive way. I just came back from dinner at my inlaws and my wife's mom asked me what we've been up to lately. So far I've told her that I've started publishing stories on the Internet (alien country for her), but today my wife let slip what exactly I'm writing. Her reaction? "Erotica? Like that 50 shades thing with the butt plugs and all?"

Took us almost all afternoon to explain that I'm not writing BDSM light but Dungeons and Dragons where I don't cut away when the kissing starts
Interesting afternoon, I was afraid my wife would get disowned, but instead I got asked for a slice of the pie once I dethrone Stephanie Meyer. As if that's ever gonna happen.

As for Rowling? Apart from some gaps in her world-building and a hero who's outdone by his peers for most of the tale, I don't see too many faults with her writing. Right time, right place.

 

[jezzaz]

Rowling really isn't that great of a writer - she's not bad either and certainly makes the quality bar in terms of "you need to be this good to be successful" - although it's also worth pointing out that you can track her progress just by reading the books.

The last one doesn't feel like it was written by the person who wrote the first one, but that's inevitable bearing in mind her amount of experience she had when she wrote the Sourcers Stone.

What Rowling does better than most is tell a story. She has a good(ish) story, sympathetic characters, and her dialog isn't totally atrocious.

In terms of her success, why on earth would you begrudge it? Her success is part quality and talent and part luck at hitting the public zeitgeist when she did. It's not like she doesn't deserve it - but there are plenty of other people out there just as good as her, producing just as good product, and they aren't rolling in the money hats - so why Rowling?

Because life is random. That's it. She hit at the precise moment, she had enough talent and enough of a story and she was there.

And good luck to her, I say. She just proved it's possible for the rest of us. It's unlikely any of us will hit that kind of success, but at least it's there to chase after.

I don't begrudge her her success. I just recognize it for what it is.

 

[lovecraft68]

So, all I need is a really good box of chocolates?

I just saw that! LOL

The weird thing is auto correct on my phone usually only picks words I have already used and I am dying to know when I was talking about confections.

 

[Handley_Page]

No, I've not heard of Lyn Shepherd.
I have read all of the Harry Potter books; some were better than others, IMO.

I think Sheperd is either a complete twerp, was gulled into saying it, or she's part of Rowling's publicity machine (which I doubt). Shepherd might at least have read one of them; she seems to have ignored that the Harry Potter books were never intended for adults; they were for older kids.

 

[lovecraft68]

No, I've not heard of Lyn Shepherd.
I have read all of the Harry Potter books; some were better than others, IMO.

I think Sheperd is either a complete twerp, was gulled into saying it, or she's part of Rowling's publicity machine (which I doubt). Shepherd might at least have read one of them; she seems to have ignored that the Harry Potter books were never intended for adults; they were for older kids.

This is why I never harp on Meyers. Her writing might be juvenile, but her audience was supposed to be teens. There are many adult "twihards" but it is still mostly a teen girl demographic and for that market I think she does okay.

Shades gets ripped for its writing because it is supposed to be aimed at adult women and reads at a worse level than Twilight.

 

[StrangeLife]

Rowling is a much better writer than most people give her credit for. You can tell from the very first line of Harry Potter book 1:

"Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much."

By adding that little "thank you very much" to the end of that sentence Rowling just delivered a more comprehensive characterization of the Dursleys and their life than she could have accomplished with an entire page of writing. That's skill,- and Harry Potter is full of details like that.




As far as the need for an established writer to step aside goes, Jim Butcher (Dresden Files and Codex Alera) said it perfectly at one of his writers seminars:

"You young and upcoming debutantes are not competing with us old established and published authors. You are competing with other young and upcoming debutantes, because the publishing world needs a constant influx of new talent. So you don't have to beat Stephen King or J. K. Rowling - you just have to beat the guy next to you."

 

[sheablue]

Shame is they are most likely better.

My wife was talking to a woman in work and shades came up and the woman said she stopped after 30 pages saying it looked like it was written by a 15 year old for ten year old.

I am still amazed(and a little frightened) at its success.

They would HAVE to be better. Nothing could be worse than those books. Yeah, yeah, I read all three of them. It was like watching a train wreck.

 

[SamScribble]

In my experience, publishers tend to be a fairly risk-averse lot. And why wouldn't they be? Their costs are relatively high; and their returns are often relatively uncertain. To make a bet on an unknown author is quite brave - especially when they have a 'banker' in their stable. Jane Zebbidy-Jones may be a half-decent writer, but both the book-sellers and the book-buying public are going to feel more comfortable splashing their cash for a new yarn by JK Rowling. For the moment anyway, that's life.

 

[Acktion]

Gotta agree with StrangeLife on that one.

If you read Rowling's books carefully, what you will find is they are tailored to the experiences of a reader the age that Harry is in the book. And the writing is tailored to that reading level. The writing is actually excellent when you consider that she was confining herself to vocabulary and concepts of the age market she was reaching for. (Ten years old for "Sorcer's Stone".)

On the quote from Butcher, I had not heard that he said that, but it does sound like him. And, oh, so true.

<glances around>

Hey, wait a minute...

 

[glynndah]

I just saw that! LOL

The weird thing is auto correct on my phone usually only picks words I have already used and I am dying to know when I was talking about confections.

I knew exactly what you meant. I just couldn't resist.

 

[HeyAll]

That's like a Literotica author saying, "The popular authors on here should stop writing, so that the newer, and younger writers can have a turn in the spotlight."

The problem with that is, if the "popular" authors stop writing, there will be less viewers. Therefor, the newer writers will have less of an audience.

There's enough room for everyone.

If Rowling stops writing kids books or whatever, there will be less kids reading. If kids read less, then other authors in the same genre will suffer as a result.

 

[jezzaz]

Gotta agree with StrangeLife on that one.

If you read Rowling's books carefully, what you will find is they are tailored to the experiences of a reader the age that Harry is in the book. And the writing is tailored to that reading level. The writing is actually excellent when you consider that she was confining herself to vocabulary and concepts of the age market she was reaching for. (Ten years old for "Sorcer's Stone".)

On the quote from Butcher, I had not heard that he said that, but it does sound like him. And, oh, so true.

<glances around>

Hey, wait a minute...

Yeah, like a lot of people, they read into Rowlings work a lot of what isn't there.

She didn't 'target' any group, at all. She simply wasn't that good of a writer and it comes out looking like it's a plan. There's no plan there at all. She sat in a coffee shop and churned it out - taking most of her idea's from other stories at that time, like writers are wont to do.

I love this conceit that she's a good enough writer to be targeting an age group. She's not. Read the rest of them, or that other book she wrote. You'll get an idea of how good she really is.

She's not bad, as I said originally, but in terms of the suggestions being made here, no, she doesn't have that talent or ability. Hell, almost no one does.

 

[lovecraft68]

In my experience, publishers tend to be a fairly risk-averse lot. And why wouldn't they be? Their costs are relatively high; and their returns are often relatively uncertain. To make a bet on an unknown author is quite brave - especially when they have a 'banker' in their stable. Jane Zebbidy-Jones may be a half-decent writer, but both the book-sellers and the book-buying public are going to feel more comfortable splashing their cash for a new yarn by JK Rowling. For the moment anyway, that's life.

Interesting point, but not sure it holds true these days

Again look at Shades. That book was not edited, not even touched. The covers could not have been cheaper if they deliberately tried and I'm sure they didn't pay James a lot upfront.

The publishing industry has cut so many corners, that huge expense is no where near what it used to be.

 

[Swilly]

Interesting point, but not sure it holds true these days

Again look at Shades. That book was not edited, not even touched. The covers could not have been cheaper if they deliberately tried and I'm sure they didn't pay James a lot upfront.

The publishing industry has cut so many corners, that huge expense is no where near what it used to be.

That's not entirely true, LC. Paper, printing and distribution costs are quite high. Digital books add in a variable that layer complexities into settling on print orders. Most books will print fewer copies than they might have in the past. The marginal cost of those fewer copies are the lowest, so the savings aren't as much as one might think. Cutting corners is necessity. There has been a sea change in the industry.

 

[PennLady]

This is why I never harp on Meyers. Her writing might be juvenile, but her audience was supposed to be teens. There are many adult "twihards" but it is still mostly a teen girl demographic and for that market I think she does okay.

Yeah, but see that's still insulting on a few levels. Why should teens not have well-written books? Why should we say, oh, it's only for X group, so who cares if it's well done? I mean, I know it happens, I'm not saying I don't cut the occasional corner myself. But to say she gets a break because she writes for teens is pretty insulting to teens.

Writing can appeal to a younger demographic but it doesn't mean the writing gets a pass on being poor.

Now I say that and I've not read "Twilight." I tried and couldn't; it was less about the writing per se than the fact that I just didn't like the main character and stuff like that. My guess is the content appeal overrode the poor writing, and that can happen at any age (witness, I hate to say, 50 Shades).

Shades gets ripped for its writing because it is supposed to be aimed at adult women and reads at a worse level than Twilight.

Actually from reviews I've read, Shades gets rightfully ripped for its writing. There's too much repetition for one thing, both of phrases and words. But I think the blame here, seriously, resides with Random House and not EL James. She wrote fanfic that got picked up and I for one do not blame her in the slightest for grabbing the opportunity. Random House could have edited it -- hell, could have basically had it ghost-written, probably -- but they were likely in a hurry to not get scooped.

 

[PennLady]

Interesting point, but not sure it holds true these days

Again look at Shades. That book was not edited, not even touched. The covers could not have been cheaper if they deliberately tried and I'm sure they didn't pay James a lot upfront.

The publishing industry has cut so many corners, that huge expense is no where near what it used to be.

I think you're wrong. It's like television. There are so many more choice to read out there, in print and online, that publishers are probably even more risk-averse than they were a decade ago. Just because one publisher does a shoddy job with one (well, three) titles, doesn't mean that it didn't cost them money, or that they saved it from elsewhere so they could redirect it.

Printing, delivery, etc., all cost money and even if they are printing fewer books over all, gas costs (for delivering books to booksellers) are probably up, as may be production costs in general. It may cost more to buy paper, etc. And that paper has to be transported to the printing press/plant or whatever they call it.

Without some actual numbers, I wouldn't trust blanket statements like you make about a huge expense now being less.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

Rowling really isn't that great of a writer - she's not bad either and certainly makes the quality bar in terms of "you need to be this good to be successful" - although it's also worth pointing out that you can track her progress just by reading the books.

The last one doesn't feel like it was written by the person who wrote the first one, but that's inevitable bearing in mind her amount of experience she had when she wrote the Sourcers Stone.

What Rowling does better than most is tell a story. She has a good(ish) story, sympathetic characters, and her dialog isn't totally atrocious.

In terms of her success, why on earth would you begrudge it? Her success is part quality and talent and part luck at hitting the public zeitgeist when she did. It's not like she doesn't deserve it - but there are plenty of other people out there just as good as her, producing just as good product, and they aren't rolling in the money hats - so why Rowling?

Because life is random. That's it. She hit at the precise moment, she had enough talent and enough of a story and she was there.

And good luck to her, I say. She just proved it's possible for the rest of us. It's unlikely any of us will hit that kind of success, but at least it's there to chase after.

I don't begrudge her her success. I just recognize it for what it is.

Harry Potter.... I'm pretty much the IDEAL audience for it.

When I read the first book, I was still young enough to half-wistfully half-feverishly hope for some version of a hogwarts letter the summer after I turned 11 years old. The books got complex at the same rate in which I became complex, so that explains the untouchable status that HP has as far as all my old books.

I think one thing that JK has that no one else has much of is Continuity.

She knew what she was doing from the very beginning, and callbacks happen all the time. You can read the HP books for the tenth time and still realize something that you didn't before.

Like how Crookshanks is actually half kneazle, and that explains why he is so intelligent.

Or the sneakoscope in the third book, they thought it was broken, and that's why it kept flashing randomly. Then you find out that it was flashing whenever it was around scabbers, who was a man in disguise.

Or that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF TREWLAWNY'S PREDICTIONS CAME TRUE.

Do you know how strange that was? A character that was universally considered to be the biggest fraud, and then you go back and everything she said was true in one way or another.

The HP continuity was the best and most unique part of the series. That combined with timing and the public just deciding to love it the way it was loved.