Thread: JK Rowling: Love or loathe?

I think Rowling is the Mark Mcgwire of literature.

Mark Mcgwire brought tons of fans back to baseball with the showmanship of homeruns. He wasn't that great of a player, but it was really exciting to watch him bat. Living in St. Louis, it's hard not to like him, but I really don't. I still look back fondly on the late 90's when he made every game worth watching. Who cares if he took steroids or not? It can't be proven either way. He doesn't have any records, so it doesn't affect anyone anymore.

Rowling writes overly emotional stories (especially later in the series,) that people are naturally attracted to. The writing is sub-par at times, but the plot line is really good and can keep you attached to the series. She brought tons of kids to reading that didn't otherwise enjoy it. You can't say she doesn't belong as a writer, because she obviously does. She does use plots that have already been used, but aren't there only 10 stories in the world anyway? I think she just has a very specified talent, where everything else she does being mediocre to average. It's wrong to deny that she has important for literature, though.
You may loathe Rowling, but she definately brought the national level of intelligence up a point or two on average. (In the US, that is.)

As a writer, I would find it crass to critise the most successful writer of my time, and if I did, if I dared to criticise her, it would only be out of jealousy. I would turn green while even objecting to one word she has written.

I’ve bought all of her books as presents for the younger members of my extended family, and by the time they reached their targets, they were ‘second-hand’ books, although I speed-read a couple of them.

Meh. Tried to read the first one, but it read too much like Roald Dahl, and I was (and still am) far too old for any of that except the Gene Wilder version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. No one is too old for that movie.

Hmmm I wouldn't claim loving JK Rowling, but yes, I do love her books.

Originally Posted by Hodge

Meh. Tried to read the first one, but it read too much like Roald Dahl, and I was (and still am) far too old for any of that except the Gene Wilder version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. No one is too old for that movie.

Despite popular belief, Roald Dahl was also a writer of some amazing adult stories too, they just never gained the publicity that they deserved.

I know. But I haven't read them. I wouldn't want to spoil the giant peach or take Matilda's innocence away.

Originally Posted by SFeigley

I'm not presumptious enough to not realize that most every story out there has been told in one fashion or another.

Why do people keep saying this?

Life and language are so infinitely complex and varied, how could you ever possibly believe that every story has been told?

This sounds like the mantra of a lazy writer to me.

I just read a story about a woman who embraced an iron pillar in the summertime to keep cool, got pregnant, and gave birth to an iron ball. Then the iron ball was made into a sword and stuff happens and it ends with two decapitated heads devouring each other at the bottom of a kettle of water.

There are an infinity of new stories out there, but they require effort to find.

Too many books are based on nothing but other books and movies. The Harry Potter series is one of these. You can see the authors thinking, "wow, I love this one story, I want to make a story just as cool as that but with my own twist on it." Which means a nearly perfect duplicate. The "twist" is writing it in a slightly different voice and a slightly different setting.

Harry Potter is a magical retelling of Star Wars. Star Wars is a sci-fi (and dumbed down) retelling of Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings has elements of old Norse tales, but plot-wise is a very original book. That's because Tolkien studied all his life and worked hard writing it over the course of 10 years, he didn't whip out 700 page novels every 14 months.

The problem is people consume way too much media. Too much of what they experience is in the form of books and movies. If that and the tedium of working as part of the industrial production system is all people have in their heads, then yeah, you might think that every story has been told.

In that environment, where would an original idea come from? New ideas can't pop into your mind or drop into your lap. You have to go find them.

Originally Posted by ClancyBoy

The "twist" is writing it in a slightly different voice and a slightly different setting.

And that works when it comes to selling books. I myself am writing a book that I believe is unique, but when other people read it I am sure they will find comparisons in it. I just hope that I can do it good enough to sell a lot of copies.

oh and Star Wars is actually fantasy disguised as Sci-Fi...

ClancyBoy, there's a reason that you see a common thread in most of the hugely successful books/movies/television shows out there. The reason is that they are what sells. There are very few true grammaticians and technical purists out there, but there are an abundance of people who wish to simply be entertained. With that being said, some common elements will parallel between multiple types of stories. However, to say that Harry Potter is a repackaged version of Star Wars or for that matter The Lord of the Rings, I think you are being a bit overly critical and extreme in your judgement. Each story while sharing some similarities are vastly different, not only in writing style, but also in actual plot devices and setting.

You can call anyone who shares my viewpoint a lazy writer if you would like, but if incoporating some common themes into my otherwise unique story allows me to find some amount of success and a wide spread audience, then I welcome your criticism. It doesn't matter in my opinion how unique or how long you struggle to write your fantastic literary masterpiece, if nobody wants to read it. Terry Goodkind, Robert Jordan, JK Rowling, R.A. Salvatorre and Terry Brooks, will never be Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky. However, they have millions of people who have taken the time to hear their story and along the way have therefore been able to make a comfortable living for themselves. That's what I want. I dont want my books to be read by english classes years from now and have the students dread every second of it. I want my book to be the one they read because they enjoy it.

I think that you just have a very different perspective on what goals you would rather obtain. Nothing wrong with that. But there's nothing wrong with any of the other "popular" authors fulfilling their goals either.

Originally Posted by SFeigley

...therefore been able to make a comfortable living for themselves. That's what I want. I dont want my books to be read by english classes years from now and have the students dread every second of it. I want my book to be the one they read because they enjoy it.

Very well said... I agree with you on this one.

Originally Posted by SFeigley

ClancyBoy, there's a reason that you see a common thread in most of the hugely successful books/movies/television shows out there. The reason is that they are what sells.

That reasoning sounds circular to me.

However, to say that Harry Potter is a repackaged version of Star Wars or for that matter The Lord of the Rings, I think you are being a bit overly critical and extreme in your judgement. Each story while sharing some similarities are vastly different, not only in writing style, but also in actual plot devices and setting.

I guess I'll roll out this old chestnut again.

You can call anyone who shares my viewpoint a lazy writer if you would like, but if incoporating some common themes into my otherwise unique story allows me to find some amount of success and a wide spread audience, then I welcome your criticism.

It doesn't matter in my opinion how unique or how long you struggle to write your fantastic literary masterpiece, if nobody wants to read it.

People not only read Tolkien, they copy every aspect of his writing that is not strictly copyrightable. The authors you mention can pump out tons of books because someone has already done the hard work for them.

Yes it's legal, yes you can get rich doing it. Don't for a second try to tell me it's not lazy though.

The fact remains that you could do something wholly original if you decided to work at it. Not every story has been told. Not by a long shot.

It would appear that you and I have different approaches to how we view this. I place more stock in the story itself instead of the mechanics and individual elements. I.E. Just because Tolkien wrote about people banding together to confront a great evil doesnt mean to me that anyone who writes about people banding together to confront a great evil is now lazy and copying him.

You seem to put more stock in completely new and uncharted areas. I.E. If I wrote a story about a great blizzard and told it from the point of view of one of the snowflakes falling.

Both of our views are accomplishable. Though I highly doubt that the success they will have would be comparitive. (Again depending on your definition of success. Mine being to entertain my readers and do it well enough that I can provide a better quality of life for myself and my family.)

To each their own.

That is stupid because you can do that for a lot of things.

try doing the star wars or lord of the rings comparison with books 3-6.

Star Wars vs Harry Potter comparison
Harry goes to school - Luke no school
Harry is a wizard - Luke no wizard
Harry is emo - Luke is emo (Got a match on this one)
Harry finds marauders map - Luke no map
Harry gets taught by a werewolf - Luke no werewolf
Harry's Godfather escapes - Luke no Godfather (although this does raise an issue about the fact that Mario Puzo wrote a book about a Godfather and clearly JK must have been copying him.)
Harry see's Patronus - Luke no Patronus
Harry finds out he had went back in time - Luke no time travel
Harry's friends mouse is actually a bad guy - Luke no bad guy mice
Harry entered into tri-wizard tournament - Luke no tri-wizard tournament
Harry world championships of quidditch - Luke no world championships of quidditch
Harry touches portkey placed by death eater impersonating his teacher - Luke no portkeys
Harry duels voldemort and is saved by dead parents - Luke no voldemort no wand
Harry hunted by dementors - Luke no dementors
Harry writing lines in his own blood - Luke no writing in blood
Harry see's voldemorts thoughts - Luke no seeing thoughts
Harry starts dumbledores army - Luke no dumbledores army
Harry battles at hall of mysteries - Luke no hall, no mysteries

Ok seriously, I dont want to do any more of this because I was never that adamant about defending Rowling anyway. My point is that saying the HP stories and the Star Wars stories are the same is a bit of an overgeneralization.

Originally Posted by SFeigley

Both of our views are accomplishable. Though I highly doubt that the success they will have would be comparitive. (Again depending on your definition of success. Mine being to entertain my readers and do it well enough that I can provide a better quality of life for myself and my family.)

To each their own.

Ah, money.

In that case I wish you much success. I mean that sincerely.