Thread: JK Rowling: Love or loathe?

Originally Posted by Hodge

No. The author can not say something is so about a work and have it be so—once it's written, the text stands alone.

The author's intention is irrelevant if it's not reflected in the text.

Just quoting you cause you were the closest reference hodge.


Dumbledore certainly doesn't seem not gay. It looks possible. And what all you may not have heard is that the reason she said he was gay is because the director of one of the movies wnated to mention an old flame (a girl obviously) so JK said no cause DD is gay... At least, that's what I heard. Don't see how it really matters much though. The writing as pretty mediocre, but at least the story was entertaining for a while.

J.K. Rowling is a genius. Harry Potter was the most interesting book(s) I've ever read. I remember, once I couldn't sleep at night, woke up at about 5 o'clock. Since I had nothing else to do, I read almost 200 pages of The Deadly Hallows. The next day I finished it.

Both; extremely jealous.

Personally, I don't think J.K. Rowling is a very talented writer; just a talented story-teller, which is a pretty important thing to be when you're writing a story.

I'd say I adore her... she's created an amazing world with fascinating characters, fantastical settings, and best of all, magic. To me, she's a symbol of what can come of writing. You know, the fame and fortune and dedicated fans. I give her a 9.9 out of 10.

I definitely bounce between the two as well.

Love:

Her creativity

Her personal drive and motivation.

The way she is able to write stories that capture all generations.

Loathe:

How her novels are considered "literature" by some. I taught a HS English summer school course and cone day used a chapter of HP2 as an example of how NOT to write correctly. We edited it in class : ).

Her success (I am SO JEALOUS!)


Other than that I'm pretty ambivalent towards it. I whole-heartedly congratulate her and wish her well.

Her kids are set for life, LOL!

Racheal

I believe that the Harry Potter series caught me at just the right time in my life that I could fall in love with it. I read the first three books when I was something like 10 years old, the age which I believe the books should be geared towards. As I matured, so did the subject matter of the series. Nobody can deny that after the third book, the series took on a marked change. The second half of the series seems more appropriate for an older (though not necessarily adult) audience.

When I first read the series, I thought Rowling was god, but around two years ago, my younger brother started the series. Because he has a little more difficulty that most with reading, I picked up my copy of Sorcerer's Stone and read it with him in order to help him where he had difficulty. My initial reaction was surprised disappointment that the novels were not quite what I had remembered, but then it began to make sense that my 10-year-old self had different taste in literature than I do now.

While I can understand the Harry Potter phenomenon with the younger audience that grew up with the novels, it's a bit harder for me to understand how it attracted such an adult audience. I can understand how an adult might find the second half of the series exciting, but wouldn't that have required reading the first half of the series, which I believe is nothing more than a children's book?

Rowling, I believe can be described as a brilliant businesswoman as she is responsible for an entire empire surrounding her work, but beyond that, she seems no more than a mediocre author who got lucky.

Ive read the complete Harry Potter series and to be honest i'm not overly impressed. The first book was dull in terms of the mystery that had to be solved but it was fun to explore a new magical world.

The second and third books were my favorites - they were fast paced and kept me wanting to read on to find out what was going to happen even though i had figured out Lupin was a werewolf from pretty much his introduction.

The rest of the series i just read for the hell of it. The last book was just awful - half of the book was about two characters stuck in a tent and i felt went on for an age.

What i found interesting was that she managed to take on a lot of characters from folklore e.g. Kerberos or cerberous or whatever the three-headed dog was originally called and weave them into a new story.

I thought she lacked originality in other places - werewolves for one. How many times have we heard/read/seen the whole man-howls-at-moon-and-turns-into-a-wild-beast-from-hell routine?

Another thing - the series starts out pretty traditional and then just for a reaction she throws in that Dumbledore (spelling?) is gay. Was there any need for that? What do his sexual preferences have to do with saving the magical world from the hands of a dark lord?

plus the ending was to predictable - if it were me writing, i would have either

1. killed Harry

2. let Harry live but his friendship with Ron was never repaired because he held a grudge towards Harry because his brother died

3. Put Harry and Luna as a couple

or

4. have Harry die; Ron grown up as a recluse and scarred and Hermoine (spelling again?) hook up with...i forget his name - but the one who lost both his parents too and at some point was thought to be 'the one' who would stop Voldemort

I soooooo have a life

I just finished reading the first book of Harry Potter and even though it isn't the best written story, I admit that I loved it very much. Maybe because the characters are so real? They have struggles and problems of their own, and instead of being fantasy problems they're real life problems (except maybe a couple of broken wands or such, ha). I really think J.K. Rowling is an amazing person, she created it by chance and for that I just want to thank her. The woman has talent.

- Hexx.

Rowling is a big deal because she gives people what they want, whether she actively realizes it or not. She gives people pure and unadulterated escapism. Magic spells, being "the chosen one," fairies, unicorns, an insular school life where you are accepted: it's all the stuff of dreams. Adult or child, it resonates with your inner dreamer. Her characterization is wonderful and she tells a very good single-book story. You feel for these people, you relate to these people and you want to hear every detail of their lives. She has a good sense of humor and her language is accessible (if not profound). She draws on a lot of classic themes that sit well with our most-instilled morals as a culture. At least the ones we hold on the surface, anyway.

But in the later books she got ahead of herself as a writer. Entire story lines went nowhere, things happened just for shock value and large chunks of the story should have been edited out. The last book felt phoned-in to me, with awkward sentences and a lack of active character motivation. I think what happened is that Rowling herself lost the need for escapism, so the books themselves lost the finer attention they deserved. Rowling has a history of depression and hardship, so it was clear she was using her creative writing to escape her own world. Hence the extreme detail and realism. Later her life involved riches, fame, mansions, a loving husband and three kids. She clearly lost that intense focus born of the need to escape. And so her writing fell to the level of all the others on the best seller list needing to write for money: Sparks, King, Grisham, Roberts, etc etc.

That being said, I owe a lot to this woman, even through I will never meet her. I read the Potter books so extensively that I was able to pick up the finer skills of crafting a novel, as well as what to do and not to do. I learned the craft of intense characterization and back story by reading her interviews. But mostly those books lived in my own imagination and helped me through fall outs with friends, loss in the family and the general angst of the teen years. We all need that level of escapism sometimes.

I deeply apologize for reviving a dead post, but this is a subject near and dear to me. Plus the last DVD just came out, so it's sort of relevant...I guess.

Originally Posted by Jam

I read the first three Harry Potter books (purely because everyone told me too) and I have to say that they were extremely entertaining. I do respect Rowling as an amazing story teller, but when you actually analyze her writing...it's nothing special, which can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you look at it. I do think she's a formidable writer but, at the same time, I don't understand the amount of fame that she's accumulated as there are many other authors that are just as deserving.

She writes for children - What level should her writing be at? Hemmingway? Conrad? Steinbeck? I'm just grateful that she got millions of children reading who would otherwise be watching television or playing on their computers. How many of those children will have been inspired to write? I don't suppose she ever intended to get rich, she just wanted to write and make a living at it. Occassionally a writer strikes lucky and produces a series of books which inspire a generation, and as a by-product of that luck, get extremely rich. I don't see that as blameworthy, it's not as if she is ripping people off by producing shoddy products at high prices and she has certainly donated millions more to charity than the overpaid bankers who have wrecked the economies of most of the countries of the world. I see a lot more for the future of the children who queue outside a bookshop for hours than those who worship at the door od the iPhone 4x or whatever the next iteration of that particular lifestyle accassory happens to be called.

I disagree with her politics, but that has nothing to do with her writing. The only reason I can see for the dichotomy of opinion is that between the admiring and the jealous...

From a personal point of view - i have read none of her novels as the general theme of her novels do not excite me.

However, you cannot deny her talent and she has done extremely well, my hat is taken off to her without question

She has never appealed to me. Wrongly or rightly I tend to think of her as an author for children. This is purely my own impression. I did begin one of the Harry Potter books but it did nothing for me.

Otherwise I am such a book person, I cannot live without reading. Still, we each have our own tastes and I do keep an open mind. Maybe one day I will give JK another go.

Different books have different targets and uses. Some are for learning, some for entertaining. JKR is entertaining. She gave me hours and hours of entertainment. I do read for different reasons, but sometimes I just want to relax and not have to think. I just want someone to tell me a story in a simple way. JKR delivers. It also helps that I love fantasy and magic so she hit the spot.

I often get criticized for reading books like hers, or cheap romance novels. Yes, her style and structure may not be the best, but she gives me what I'm looking for, and that's what I paid for

Harry potter was the book series that really got me into reading as a kid, so in that sense I would have to say love.

Originally Posted by Bloggsworth

She writes for children - What level should her writing be at? Hemmingway? Conrad? Steinbeck? I'm just grateful that she got millions of children reading who would otherwise be watching television or playing on their computers. How many of those children will have been inspired to write? I don't suppose she ever intended to get rich, she just wanted to write and make a living at it. Occassionally a writer strikes lucky and produces a series of books which inspire a generation, and as a by-product of that luck, get extremely rich. I don't see that as blameworthy, it's not as if she is ripping people off by producing shoddy products at high prices and she has certainly donated millions more to charity than the overpaid bankers who have wrecked the economies of most of the countries of the world. I see a lot more for the future of the children who queue outside a bookshop for hours than those who worship at the door od the iPhone 4x or whatever the next iteration of that particular lifestyle accassory happens to be called.

I disagree with her politics, but that has nothing to do with her writing. The only reason I can see for the dichotomy of opinion is that between the admiring and the jealous...

HEAR,HEAR.

From a personal point of view I will say this , that her books (yes , I have read all of them) , are a lot of fun. The stuff of her books are also the staff of our dreams (fantasies). , no wonder they enjoy a so huge mass appeal.
I like her way of story telling . And yes, while I feel it is true that the theme of her stories is simplistic. That however does not necessarily make her a bad author or story teller.