Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Page 3 - Writers Forum

Saponification · 07-17-2005, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a15haddad

It's not that I don't like her. It's that she receives far, far, more praise than she deserves. The two most acclaimed writes of the 21st century thus far are most likely J.K. Rowling and Dan Brown. It is pathetic that this is the best the world can muster (it's not, I know; there are hundreds of superior writers out there, but that seems to be what many people think).

Doesn't mean they'll be the ones people look back on in a hundred years, but.

a15haddad · 07-17-2005, 11:31 AM

I speak to you as somebody who loved the first four Harry Potter books when he was 8 and then read the fifth one and enjoyed it a little because he had nothing to do when it came out, and I personally admire her talent for storytelling (she's certainly better than Dan Brown, for what that's worth), but I don't like how she has completely monopolized the reading of children and gotten so much praise for it. Thousands upon thousands of people are obsessed with her books; sure, it encourages children to read, but it mostly encourages them to read Harry Potter books. I've never read the Lord of the Rings books, but from many people I hear that Rowling basically stole many of Tolkien's ideas(Gandalf's original name was Dumbledore and the two are essentially the same character, the Dementors were taken off of some invention of Tolkien's whose name I forget, etc. etc.). They are good escapist novels, certainly- but are they classics? I think not. The Chronicles of Narnia and Roald Dahl's work can be classified as art- Harry Potter can't.

Destany · 07-17-2005, 11:53 AM

Alright, confession time... I'm a twenty-six year old mother and wife and probably one of the biggest HP fans you're ever likely to meet... But I'm sane about it, don't worry. I don't dress in costume or run around saying "Alohamora" at random.

Having said that, I don't think she's the most skilled or gifted writer in the world. I happen to believe that for me, that title goes to Anne Rice (and I'm sure it's different for everyone). But we're talking about concept here, it's the characters, ideas, settings; that people are in love with here, not her prose abilities.
And the ideas are from her. Not that she's the only person to ever come up with great ideas, but she's certainly qualified enough of a writer to set those concepts to paper. Don't like it? Don't read the books.
Incidentally, all of the "spin-offs" proceeds go to charity. And as far as authors go, it's told that she is one of the most modest and humble for all her success.
Before she sold HP One, she was waitressing and a single mother scraping by on 70$/week. Or at least, I believe that's what it translates to in American money. She was living with her sister and wrote HP on her way to and from work. Some of you may find it interesting, but it was almost never published.
The book was sent to every single publishing agency in Britain, one by one the rejection letters came. On the very last one, the editor got the first chapter of the ms, and rather than read it over, gave it to his eight year old daughter to read. Only after several months of her hounding him for the second one, did he agree to request the full. Incidently, as you know, he signed her. He payed her a whopping $2600.

I just thought some of you (especially ones with stars in their eyes about being the next big thing) might like to know that. And just one more thing. Those who like to say the books are overrated or not that good, perhaps if you were to take the time to read them...
Only six chapters left on HBP, gotta go

thedarkboots · 07-17-2005, 12:03 PM

Im 24 and i love the HP books too. I dont think it matters if you are old or young if you enjoy it then you enjoy it. My mum bought the book yesterday and she is in her 50's.

I think she has been very creative in developing the world for her characters and has shown character development as they get older.

Wyndstar · 07-17-2005, 02:52 PM

Well, I'll say that there's nothing unique in her books---the concepts are all pretty cliche when you think about it; a bunch of stupid adults running around like decaptiated chickens while the kids are the ones getting the job done. We have your typical myths, monsters and magic with no realistic explanation of how they all coincide with the modern world (would there be an area 52 next to that area 51 business?). The responsible or smart adults are either evil (Snape and Voldemort) or dead (the Potters, Sirius and, well---). It isn't brilliantly written, but I think that whatever it lacked, publicity made up for it. Would it have become the fantastic success without the hype? I don't know. I do know that kids are swapping TV time to read it, we have a successful woman author, for me, its a quick, uncomplicated read (I finished this last one in 4 hour---this one however didn't impress me. It seemed filled with a lot of pointless fluff) and playing it calms my little terrors down. And that if she can write something that hit it so big, perhaps someone here can make it as well, and send me an autographed copy with maybe a little blurb "Not like MY stuff, huh? Well, for your $15 worth..."

I can have Penelope do that aleady I think...

Hodge · 07-17-2005, 03:22 PM

London: Rowling has turned a book into a money making scheme—not art or something that's purely for the enjoyment of children. A huge line of Harry Potter products exist just so little kids can bug their parents to put some more money in Rowling's pocket.

It stinks. Writers are supposed to have integrity. They're supposed to focus on the craft, the writing, not the monetary aspect of it. And they're certainly not supposed to take advantage of it.

There are authors with far more altrusitic motives, better ideas, technical skills, and more soul than Rowling does, yet they don't get a billion dollars. This is just another example of an author selling out and trying to make as many bucks as she can before she quits writing entirely (and I bet that after Harry Potter she'll be done).

semtecks · 07-17-2005, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Londongrey

Well, I have just finished the book and have to say it was well worth waiting for. .

In two days! The books about five hundred pages, i'm a fast reader but thats ridiculous.

Any plot spoilers?

Londongrey · 07-17-2005, 04:40 PM

Hodge,

You seriously need to read up on the history of art and art for arts sake, the definition has changed many times.

If you look at art before and after the French Revolution you will find the heart of modern art and the attitude that it was given after the patrons of fine art were disbanded, namely, the Royalty and Aristocracy of France.

Art for arts sake happened purely and simply because the patrons were no longer there to commission art work and literary pieces are included for entertainment and therefore art for arts sake came about. Along with it the pretentious attitude and the 'academics' of art.

The history of art is a social history of change and influx. Unfortunately the vast majority of 'artists' today do not or will not attempt to understand the social changes which altered art into what we know today. The Bohemian movement and the Aesthetic movement being prevelant among them.

Don't be under the false impression that commercialised art is a new concept, it has existed since the late 18th Century.

So all these people claiming that Harry Potter isn't art I'm afraid are rather misled. Everything around us that is man made is art, from a tap to a windscreen wiper. It is up to the individual to ascertain whether for them it is 'good' art, that is the distinction.

Anything else I'm afraid comes from the attitude of the poor merchants and peasants of Europe before the Royal Houses collapsed because they could not afford the art of the day. This is expressed quite clearly in the film 'Girl with a Pearl Earing'. Art was for the ruling classes, not for the poor. Then social change brought with it art that was accessible to the poor.

When Samuel Beckett wrote 'Waiting for Godot', the ruling classes of Paris did not understand the play, they hated its repitition and existentialist message. However, the prison inmates of a Paris jail understood it, they understood the endless circle and that you ended up where you left off, of course they would.

After the destruction of the strict class system in Europe, art became accessible to more and more people, the merchants and the newly forming Middle Classes who were gaining affluence in the Victorian era.

Not many people know this but Andy Warhol's Pop Art was taking the piss out of mass produced art and the people who bought it, he laughed hard when everyone lapped his work up not realising he was making a joke at them. The famous four coloured pictures of Marilyn Monroe are nothing more than a poke at commercial art.

But it is still art, and it inspires beyond all age and class boundaries, that is what makes it art, but you may think it is 'good' art.

If anybody respects the art of writing, and respects themselves as writers, would do well for their own inspiration and development to not give yourself boundaries in what you expose yourselves too. That is what makes an 'artist'.

Kikster · 07-17-2005, 04:42 PM

I really don't understand why some of you are getting so bent out of shape because rowling has a lot of imagination and uses it to write succesfull children books...

I like her books. they might not be literature masterpieces, but they are fun, and they entertain me. what is wrong with having some fun? what is wrong with writing successful books?

you can bitch all day about how you an dother talented writers have more integrity, or better ideas, or deeper meanings in your novels, but the truth is that she is the one who gets published, she has millions of fans around the world, and she looks pretty happy with herself.

I have to laugh at how serious and bitchy people get about a childern's book...

Londongrey · 07-17-2005, 04:46 PM

Ditto,

Although I do have to say peoples who call themselves 'artists' and restrict their view are only hurting themselves, the message got lost somewhere.

Hodge · 07-17-2005, 04:47 PM

But what has she done? Why does she get a billion dollars to have a little "fun" while others who are trying to make the world a better place to live barely make enough to get by?

Entertainers are overpaid.

Londongrey · 07-17-2005, 04:52 PM

Hodge,

What did most of the Literary Canon do? Nothing!

Art isn't always about being deep, it has always been about entertainment, yes there is serious art, but the producers of such work hardly have the 'common touch' and are normally so pretentious you would rather bash them over the head than listen to their ilked voice.

Hodge · 07-17-2005, 05:07 PM

I'm not talking about art. I'm talking about people who are trying to change the world. Authors who, instead of publishing books intended for childrens' entertainment, publish books and stories with the hopes of bringing serious problems that face our species as a whole into the light, and how to fix them. What do they get? Do they get a billion dollars? Can you even name one of them? You have a degree in sociology—you can see how this reflects and impacts our society. It shows that our values lie in entertainment—hedonism. And the impact is a perpetuation and increase of it—children will now grow up with her as a role model, causing lots of children to write meaningless drivel meant solely to entertain.

If she didn't have all the merchandise I wouldn't care, like I said. Stephen King has made a ton of money from his books—but just the books. No It backpacks, Tommknocker brand candy bars, or The Shining shoes.

LensmanZ313 · 07-17-2005, 05:18 PM

I wish JKR all the best in the world. If she wants to write books for entertainment, so be it. let her do it and more power to her. Will the Potter books stand the test of time? Well, we'll have to wait and see. She's a storyteller and she's done a damned good job of it.

Is she out to change the world? Well, she's been able to get kids to read. Hell, kids and their parents both read the Potter books and that's a great thing, if you think about it.

I think a lot of people bashing JKR are jealous. Get over it and write something.

LensmanZ313 · 07-17-2005, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodge

But what has she done? Why does she get a billion dollars to have a little "fun" while others who are trying to make the world a better place to live barely make enough to get by?

Entertainers are overpaid.

Did Shakespeare set out to make the world a better place? Or, did he wanted to tell stories? Yes, some of the stories might have had a "message" but nonetheless Shakespeare was a storyteller.

And, a damned good one.

Dumas was a good storyteller--but he was in it for the money too. Does that make Three Musketeers or The Count of Monte Cristo bad reads? No, I doubt it.