Woman of the Week #2 - Joanne K. Rowling

[Robert Maxwell]

She made way too much money and gained way too much fame for something, that while entertaining and well written was nothing in comparison to other literature.

But yeah, fair play to her because she took an idea and made it into a franchise whilst struggling with the realities of life.

Hm, and what have you done to contribute to popular culture, or even just humanity in general?

You could direct that question at many people on this forum, including yourself. The point is, she has received a heck of a lot of recognition for something that pales in quality to many writers of fiction - both past and present.

I guess I'm just saying that I think she's overrated and simply got lucky, although I thoroughly respect the fact she has used her fame to raise awareness for charities and other important world issues.

Luck is a big part of most people's success. So what?

And I don't have to talk about my contributions, because I didn't come in here and denigrate someone for their success because I don't think they "deserve it" or whatever horseshit rationale you're using here.

I am sick to death of people lazily dismissing the accomplishments of others, accomplishments the people hurling the jabs could never have made. It's irritating and, more than that, it's a bit pathetic.

So, you know, come back to us once you've made a billion dollar empire out of your own creative efforts and tell us about how inconsequentially easy it is.

And there is even a question of whether she created Harry Potter or not.

There is quite a bit of evidence that she stole most of the concepts from Neil Gaiman.

Link? Never heard this.

(Note that I'm not a Harry Potter fan, though I saw the movies and thought they were okay.)

 

[PlainSimpleJoel]

Never really been interested in the universe of Harry Potter. When the novels first came out, I had a believe that were kids books. But one day I might read them - but have thought about watching the movies at one stage later in the year.

 

[Mr Silver]

I am sick to death of people lazily dismissing the accomplishments of others, accomplishments the people hurling the jabs could never have made.

Too bad, the world doesn't bend to your will, people can be however critical or praiseworthy as they like.

It's irritating and, more than that, it's a bit pathetic.

Maybe so, but I'm just being honest as to how I feel about somebody writing a series of books (which aren't anything that special) and then being flooded with money, celebrity and power.

So, you know, come back to us once you've made a billion dollar empire out of your own creative efforts and tell us about how inconsequentially easy it is.

Bah, such a finality. But that's to be expected, because it forces an argument into a stalemate. Fair enough, you have your opinions on the subject and I have mine.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Admiral M, It's your tone that seems so ridiculous.

There are plenty of ways to actually criticize her work. If you've read the initial post you'll have noticed that I'm not really a fan.

I don't like the constant use of stereotypes and clichés in her work.
I don't like the use of certain plot devices that come up again and again (like Harry telling his friends: "We can't tell Dumbledore about this!". Dude, yes you can. Idiot. A psychopathic mass murderer is back and you're worried about not convincing Dumbledore? Talk to the guy.)
I think the plot structure is very off in the first 2-3 books. The suspense develops very weird, with breaks, or not at all.
I think her prose surely isn't really up to Nobel Prize standards (I know, right?!).

See? Valid criticism. I'm sure there's more.

Yet I don't just dismiss her arrogantly like you do. Saying her novels aren't anything special or easy to write is as condescending as it is naive. If it was that easy, many more people would do it. And apparently millions of people think that her world and the characters are "something special".

Even if I'm not a real fan myself I can't help but respect what she has achieved and how she managed to captivate so many readers. "Something" must be special about it if it resonates with so many people.

What you did was intellectual laziness.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I am sick to death of people lazily dismissing the accomplishments of others, accomplishments the people hurling the jabs could never have made.

Too bad, the world doesn't bend to your will, people can be however critical or praiseworthy as they like.

You're also not entitled to have to an audience for your uninformed, lazy opinions, nor for them to go unchallenged as the thoughtless trash they are.

It's irritating and, more than that, it's a bit pathetic.

Maybe so, but I'm just being honest as to how I feel about somebody writing a series of books (which aren't anything that special) and then being flooded with money, celebrity and power.

Here's a tip: when you have an opinion that's not backed up by anything interesting, intelligent, concrete, or thoughtful, how about keeping it to yourself? It can help maintain the illusion that you have even the slightest idea what you're talking about.

So, you know, come back to us once you've made a billion dollar empire out of your own creative efforts and tell us about how inconsequentially easy it is.

Bah, such a finality. But that's to be expected, because it forces an argument into a stalemate. Fair enough, you have your opinions on the subject and I have mine.

Your opinion is worthless, not because it disagrees with mine, but because you've put precisely zero thought into it.

 

[Mr Silver]

@ { Emilia } They aren't anything special, it's not like Harry Potter will ever be spoken about in the same vein as Great Expectations or Othello or War and Peace. I don't say this in the sense that "I can do better", I say it in the sense that Harry Potter isn't defining literature, which captures the essence of humanity and remains timeless. Sure, it's a bit soon to measure that, but I honestly can't see people studying Harry Potter hundreds of years from now.

I did say that I respected the fact she made something of herself whilst facing the same trials of life like regular people do, but I honestly don't think her novels warrant the amount of fame, riches and glory that she has received.

 

[{ Emilia }]

I say it in the sense that Harry Potter isn't defining literature, which captures the essence of humanity and remains timeless.

It's fantasy literature. A bit of escapism.
It doesn't even try to capture the essence of humanity.


Neither does The Lord of the Rings.

Or Star Trek.

Yet I still respect the people responsible for it. It's just really good entertainment. Nobody here claimed it's amazing literature that we should send into space to educate the funny blue insect-furries on Alpha Centauri.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

@ { Emilia } They aren't anything special, it's not like Harry Potter will ever be spoken about in the same vein as Great Expectations or Othello or War and Peace. I don't say this in the sense that "I can do better", I say it in the sense that Harry Potter isn't defining literature, which captures the essence of humanity and remains timeless. Sure, it's a bit soon to measure that, but I honestly can't see people studying Harry Potter hundreds of years from now.

I did say that I respected the fact she made something of herself whilst facing the same trials of life like regular people do, but I honestly don't think her novels warrant the amount of fame, riches and glory that she has received.

The general public disagrees with you, which apparently makes you envious, otherwise I can't imagine why you'd care to be so vocal about it.

Well, sorry.

 

[Mr Silver]

@ {Emilia} I agree, it's really good entertainment.

I dunno, I just find it really hard to appreciate incredible success when the catalyst of that success pales in comparison to really big achievements, like those who have revolutionised the way we live our lives with technology and science or those who have dedicated their lives to creating peace and comfort where war and suffering exists.

I might be really critical of J.K. Rowling and the like, but that is nothing compared to how critical I am of myself - for those who think that my criticism is selective and that I have an incredibly high opinion of myself and an overinflated ego.

@ Robert Maxwell - Please shut the %*%$ up, you are overcomplicating this when I'm trying to be rational and explain my reasons for criticising something.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

@ {Emilia} I agree, it's really good entertainment.

I dunno, I just find it really hard to appreciate incredible success when the catalyst of that success pales in comparison to really big achievements, like those who have revolutionised the way we live our lives with technology and science or those who have dedicated their lives to creating peace and comfort where war and suffering exists.

I might be really critical of J.K. Rowling and the like, but that is nothing compared to how critical I am of myself - for those who think that my criticism is selective and that I have an incredibly high opinion of myself and an overinflated ego.

@ Robert Maxwell - Please shut the %*%$ up, you are overcomplicating this when I'm trying to be rational and explain my reasons for criticising something.

That's a total non-argument. "There are things happening in the world that deserve more money to be spent on them, money that JK Rowling shouldn't have!"

Spend your money on what you value. The rest of us will do the same.

I never said her books were high art or anything like that, but the bottom line is, she came up from poverty into wealth through her own perseverance and hard work. It's not like she was born into money and just sat around turning it into more money. She worked for this. I thought, as a culture, we valued hard work... but I guess hard work is invalid if you're not a Dickens or a Shakespeare.

 

[sojourner]

The irony is that if she had authored a "Great Novel" she probably wouldn't be 1/10th as rich today or well known at all. She tried to write something that would be entertaining and popular to a wide audience. She succeeded.

If you want to blame someone for her success, blame the masses for their taste.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

If you want to blame someone for her success, blame the masses for their taste.

Why "blame" anyone, though? Why not credit Rowling with writing books with a vivid world and vibrant characters; that are, if nothing else, engaging page-turners?

The thing is, though, the Harry Potter books are *more* than just popular books - they've inspired millions of kids (and adults!) to read. Rowling's lasting legacy - if not for the epic story itself - will be just how much she influenced the literacy of children worldwide; in how she influenced the industry of children's literature. Does anyone think Percy Jackson, or Twilight, or The Hunger Games, or any other modern MG/YA series out there (Series of Unfortunate Events, Mortal Instruments), would exist, or be as popular, without Rowling's work?

True, there are very legitimate literary criticism that can be leveled at Potter as a series and at Rowling as an author. But Rowling's achievements toward increasing the scope of literacy for readers of all ages cannot be dismissed. It's not a question of how "tasteless" the populace might be and is, rather, a question of how Rowling crafted an epic that has nearly universal appeal to a diverse, worldwide readership (not to mention single-handedly forging and/or expanding that readership).

As for Rowling as a person, I can't say much. I know she was once in an impoverished situation. And her current fortune is based on the success of her own creativity and productivity. I also know there are questions as to the "originality" of her work. But even if she did, somehow, "borrow" elements of her story from someone else, she still managed to craft a series of books that have depth, humanity, and wonder.

Put simply, we should all be as fortunate to do what Rowling as done: Use our talent, our drive, our creativity and our perseverance to be a positive influence on this world - and to be compensated handsomely for our efforts.

 

[M'Sharak]

...when I'm trying to be rational and explain my reasons for criticising something.

Sorry, I'm afraid I've completely missed the bits where you were being rational - were those in this thread? All I find are unspecific blather about how what she wrote isn't special and repeated statements to the effect that you think too many people bought her books.

Or something. There's no real criticism to be found in any of your posts; it's all just empty posturing.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

really big achievements, like those who have revolutionised the way we live our lives.

It's obvious just how much Harry Potter has revolutionized how we live our lives. Millions of children and adults are more literate, thanks to the incredible popularity, success, and entertainment of Rowling's efforts. While it may be problematic to compare Rowling to Dickens or Shakespeare on a purely literary level, there's no such difficulty in comparing Rowling to Dickens in terms of revolutionizing how we live our lives.

Children's literature was ... well, literally ... revolutionized by the Harry Potter phenomenon. And while one could argue that Rowling's success may have been, in part, due to being in the right place at the right time (a point with which I disagree), the fact remains: Rowling conceived and executed a literary epic that captured the imagination of millions of children and adults throughout the world. It wasn't happenstance that led to Rowling's success. It was effort and creativity.

Personally, I have many criticisms of the Potter series. But none of them take away from Rowling's accomplishments as not only an author, but as a profoundly positive influence on literacy - on how we live our lives - today.

 

[sidious618]

I also think it'd be inaccurate to write the Harry Potter books off as fluff or even entertaining fluff. I'd call them young adult literature as they not only changed the young adult fiction world, they also touched and inspired many, many young people which I think is a very worthy cause. To be frank, the Potter books are infinitely better than the Hunger Games novels or the godawful Twilight novels or the provocative (and quality) Golden Compass series because they have a level of empathy in them that is hard to find and I think it comes from Rowling's poor economic background.

Now did she end up with more money than she deserved? I'd say yes because I don't think anyone "deserves" that much money when we have such income inequality. But if that amount is going to end up in someone's hands I'd rather it end up in Rowling's than some CEO's.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The Potter books are not my cup of tea, but I won't knock fans of them. I remember what it was like, back in the day, to be knocked for liking Star Trek (before TVH and TNG) and Tolkien (before the Jackson films). No matter how much her work rubs me the wrong way, and it does, I'd be hypocritical, at the very least, to look down on the fans.

Rowling herself isn't really on my radar. She's just kind of there in the world, and I don't really think anything positive or negative about her. Basically, it's the same as most celebrities whom I know only by their names.

 

[sojourner]

If you want to blame someone for her success, blame the masses for their taste.

Why "blame" anyone, though? Why not credit Rowling with writing books with a vivid world and vibrant characters; that are, if nothing else, engaging page-turners?.

That's what I basically said. Rowling wrote a book. People bought it. You can't blame her for how much money people spend.

 

[nightwind1]

really big achievements, like those who have revolutionised the way we live our lives.

It's obvious just how much Harry Potter has revolutionized how we live our lives. Millions of children and adults are more literate, thanks to the incredible popularity, success, and entertainment of Rowling's efforts. While it may be problematic to compare Rowling to Dickens or Shakespeare on a purely literary level, there's no such difficulty in comparing Rowling to Dickens in terms of revolutionizing how we live our lives.

Actually, in a way, you CAN compare her to Dickens or Shakespeare.

Shakespeare didn't write high Art. Shakespeare wrote for the masses in the cheap seats.

Dickens wrote for weekly publications, which probably were the forerunners of the pulp magazines of the thirties. Again, writing for the masses.

 

[nightwind1]

And there is even a question of whether she created Harry Potter or not.

There is quite a bit of evidence that she stole most of the concepts from Neil Gaiman.

Cite?

Because here is Neil himself on that question:

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/04/fair-use-and-other-things.html

I'm fascinated by the "new rumour" that seems to have sprung up on this -- I noticed it on the Guardian comments page today, when someone began their comment with:

There is a story that Neil Gaimen was paid not to express criticism of Rowling for some of the similarities to his work.​

I thought, "if there is, I haven't heard it". As far as I know the only person who ever claimed that was the mad muggles woman, Nancy Stouffer, at,

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/01/author_stouffer032801.htm

and

Actually, what I said, on the Dreaming website, long before this place existed, back in 1998, when this nonsense first started, was,

Thursday, March 19, 1998
Neil on Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling
Posted by puck at 3:00 AM PST | Comments (3)
There's a rumour going around that Neil is upset about the Harry Potter books being too similar to The Books of Magic. Neil asked me to post this to clear things up:

"I was surprised to discover from yesterday's [Daily] MIRROR that I'm meant to have accused J.K. Rowling of ripping off BOOKS OF MAGIC for HARRY POTTER.

Simply isn't true -- and now it's on the public record it'll follow me around forever.

Back in November I was tracked down by a Scotsman journalist who had noticed the similarities between my Tim Hunter character and Harry Potter, and wanted a story. And I think I rather disappointed him by explaining that, no, I certainly *didn't* believe that Rowling had ripped off Books of Magic, that I doubted she'd read it and that it wouldn't matter if she had: I wasn't the first writer to create a young magician with potential, nor was Rowling the first to send one to school. It's not the ideas, it's what you do with them that matters.

Genre fiction, as Terry Pratchett has pointed out, is a stew. You take stuff out of the pot, you put stuff back. The stew bubbles on.

(As I said to the Scotsman journalist, the only thing that was a mild bother was that in the BOOKS OF MAGIC movie Warners is planning, Tim Hunter can no longer be a bespectacled, 12 year old English kid. But given the movie world I'll just be pleased if he's not played by a middle-aged large-muscled Austrian.)

Not sure how this has transmuted into "Gaiman has accused Rowling of ripping him off." But I suppose it's a better story than the truth.

The internet: where facts are just a keystroke away.

 

[Owain Taggart]

I find her quite inspiring. Here's a woman who was trying to make ends meet. She had ideas and she put those ideas together and wrote a best-selling series where she'll never have to worry about money again. Her books may not be masterpieces, but they don't need to be. She gave children a gift. She made them excited about reading in a time when there's lots of competition between computers and videogames to steal their time. I think that's a pretty good accomplishment. Sure, she's not the best writer, but I don't think she ever expected the books to be as popular with adults as they were with kids, who tend to be far less discerning.