# JK Rowling: Love or loathe?



## BlackWolf

You got to give the woman this; she drives people to extremes. You either adore her unreservedly :-D or spit on her name :-x. Personally, I swing between the two :-D:-x, but one thing I have never thought about the Harry Potter series is 'meh'.


----------



## enron1982

I actually just started the first Potter book, and i wish i had started it ten years ago. it's pretty entertaining. I always thought it was "just a kids book". people are right when they say that it's for people of all ages. I'm enjoying it. As for Rowling herself, she's created an empire and i think anybody who's pursuing the field of writing should have the utmost admiration and respect for her. she's created real magic out of an idea, and i think that's something that everyone as a writer really strives for.


----------



## mandax

I love J.K. Rowling.  So what if it's not the finest literature of our time?  If you don't enjoy it, you should still respect it.  She has so many fans because her books are so entertaining to many people and they bring a magical environment to life.  That's a huge accomplishment, in my opinion, so she shouldn't be hated at all.


----------



## Truth-Teller

She can kiss my fat ass.


----------



## RonGreen

Eh, she is quite the inspiration for anyone. Not just writers.

She literally went from a welfare single Mother to a billionaire. Of course, that didn't come without hard-work and a passion for writing. But that is probably the coolest thing ever. 

The books get people to read. Not just children, but any demographic. It descends across age boundaries. I for one find them the most entertaining books I've ever read. They are a lot deeper than people give them credit with. They deal with real life issues just with a magic twist to it.


----------



## Shawn

I was impressed with the themes in this last book. But she has only constructed a very successful series. She's pretty much a genre of her own.

At least until she writes another book.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Shawn said:


> I was impressed with the themes in this last book. But she has only constructed a very successful series. She's pretty much a genre of her own.
> 
> At least until she writes another book.



You're actually Ms. Rowling, aren't you.  I can't prove it now, but I shall someday.


----------



## Shawn

While I would love to be a woman that's richer than the Queen... no. I've never had any real desire to be filthy rich, anyway.

I'm saying, the Potter books are a genre to themselves, since they sell so much... but Rowling will write another children's book, and it will probably be the epitome of cliche.


----------



## free style

she singlehandedly revived the book industry.  thanx to her we are cruising here as  a writer not getting too depressed about our prospects.


----------



## Amour

mandax said:


> I love J.K. Rowling.  So what if it's not the finest literature of our time?  If you don't enjoy it, you should still respect it.  She has so many fans because her books are so entertaining to many people and they bring a magical environment to life.  That's a huge accomplishment, in my opinion, so she shouldn't be hated at all.



^bump


----------



## Mike C

free style said:


> she singlehandedly revived the book industry.



Uh... no. She single-handedly revived Bloomsbury. The rest of the industry got by just fine without her. 


I've not read the books, so won't comment on them, but I respect her achievement.


----------



## enron1982

Yeah, i guess the bottom line of this thread would be: While J.K. Rowling may not be the most talented or hard working writer, her worldly achievments should be something any aspiring writer should look up to and strive for.


----------



## Rob

BlackWolf said:


> You either adore her unreservedly or spit on her name.


There's another option, one which applies to many people, I suspect. I don't care about her one way or the other. My kids haven't read her books and nor have I.

Cheers,
Rob


----------



## Stewart

BlackWolf said:


> You got to give the woman this; she drives people to extremes. You either adore her unreservedly or spit on her name.


 
Actually, no. I don't adore her and I don't resent her. Hell, I've never even met her so I don't know what I think of her. If anything, I admire her achievements but I am saddened that adults contributed to her fortune, except those adults legitimately buying for their kids.


----------



## 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.


----------



## RedKnight

Love. Love, love, _LOVE_.

Altough this will undoubtably earn my the ire of some members, I put _Harry Potter_ right up there with LOTR, _Narnia_ or childrens' classics like _Alice In Wonderworld._ 

I could explain my reasoning until I turn blue in the face, but let's cut to chase: JKR provides a unique story in a unique voices, gracefully juggling Dahl-esque humor and Tolkien-style scope. In doing so, she has successfully tackled humanity's greatest equalizers, love and loss and made a statement on power in the process. While none of these themes are exactly uncommon in literature, many attempts at dealing with them fall flat for any number of reasons. JKR, however, has masterfully woven these three threads together into a powerful story, preaching words of wisdom without ever seeming preachy.

That's why I love her work.


----------



## Lyonidus

Im a mix. 

I do love the harry potter books, but i also think that she is slightly overrated. 
I read the harry potter books and i cant help but feel that she has borrowed alot from other authors and that some of her stories are a bit weak. But despite all this i love the potter series and still think she's a great author (but not the best)


----------



## WordWeaver

Loathe.


----------



## evlddd

I like her writing style, but the Harry Potter books are overated in my opinion. That may just be that I am older that I was when the first book came out, so my book preferences have changed alot since then.


----------



## movieman-c

I love the entire series. But it's all a matter of perspective. I find her stories to be undeniably imaginative, leaving the reader guessing. I also find the emotional level in the series to be infinitely more developed than that of average children's literature. However, I find that at times, certain segments give way to a slightly amateurish leaning.


----------



## MelodyLeigh

I love the books, but neither love or hate the author. I love books for their material, not who wrote them.


----------



## wmd

I read the first two books when they first came out in paperback, and while I kept up with purchasing the books, I never kept up with reading them... so now that the last one is out I figured, hell I better catch up.

So I am reading the entire series straight through and am in the third book right now. I have noticed a lot of things that she does that most writers would not do. 

She uses a lot of dashes in her work for some reason. She also describes how the characters say something... he said sadly.. or she whispered quietly.. he said angrily... that gets a little annoying. There are quite a few more but I wont nitpick everything.

I do enjoy the stories though. I also am a fan of series such as this. Something to keep you going over the course of multiple books, and one of the smartest things Rowling did was to limit the series. She planned out 7 books and is not doing any more.. a lot of successful series can get dragged out and they jump the shark pretty quick.

One of the things that Rowling has done that I admire is get people reading again. Especially kids. When was the last time you saw a fifteen year old read a 700 page book in less than a weekend?

I think Rowling is a better story teller than she is a writer, but I like her. She has created a huge amount of success for herself, and I think that many people who "hate" her actually hate her success. or they are jealous of it.

I just hope that the kids who enjoyed Harry Potter, now seek out other books that they may like, and this is just the gateway to greater works.


----------



## BlackWolf

wmd said:


> When was the last time you saw a fifteen year old read a 700 page book in less than a weekend?


 
The last weekend before my sixteenth birthday :book:, but I see your point.


----------



## SFeigley

My opinion on this is, great technical writers will all be disgusted by her work as they are much of the "popular" fiction out there. I myself, being not the greatest writer, enjoy her work immensely because she succeeds in the same fashion that I hope to be able to. Essentially, I know I'll never be the greatest writer, but I would hope to one day be one of the greatest storytellers. 

I would say that whether you like her writing style or not, you have to respect her ability as a storyteller.


----------



## ClancyBoy

SFeigley said:


> I would say that whether you like her writing style or not, you have to respect her ability as a storyteller.



You mean her ability to recognize and adapt already successful stories?


----------



## SFeigley

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

However, whether her work contains themes that can be found elsewhere or not, it is the first books I ever read that contained that particular story.

You have to look far and wide to find a story that is completely 100% original. If the day comes that you write one, kudos to you. Unfortunately, in order to get it published, you will most likely have to change it to conform more with the standardly accepted genre classifications and proven plot lines.

But then again, I may be wrong and you may be the next Dostoyevsky.


----------



## k3ng

Loathe too.


It's gets worse when you're surrounded by people who have only EVER read Potter. And then they go on and claim, 'OMGWTFLOLBBQ! THIS IS DA BEST BOOK EVERZZZ!!11LOL!!11'. This happens alot where I come from where the book reading community is tiny.


----------



## SFeigley

k3ng said:


> Loathe too.
> 
> 
> It's gets worse when you're surrounded by people who have only EVER read Potter. And then they go on and claim, 'OMGWTFLOLBBQ! THIS IS DA BEST BOOK EVERZZZ!!11LOL!!11'. This happens alot where I come from where the book reading community is tiny.


 
Ha! I have to admit that I think you could substitute any name in there and if that's how people were going crazy about it, I'd get tired of hearing it too. Kudos to you for not being insane.

The Potter books are in my opinion a good, fun story. But that's all, certainly not worthy of a OMGWTFLOLBBQ! [-(


----------



## raven hope

I don't love or loathe the author.

But I hate her poor writing style in the last two series.

And yeah, it's tiring to hear ppl screaming "I LOVE POTTER!" around me. It's really annoying to hear them talking about nothing except Harry Potter. I'm really sick of it.


----------



## k3ng

It's fine if they're screaming it after they've read maybe what 30-50 different books? It's the people who only pick up Potter and nothing else and still scream its awesomeness..


----------



## TinyMachines

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.)


----------



## HarryG

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.


----------



## 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.


----------



## Kest

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


----------



## enron1982

Hodge said:


> 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.


----------



## Hodge

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


----------



## ClancyBoy

SFeigley said:


> 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.


----------



## wmd

ClancyBoy said:


> 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...


----------



## 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. 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.


----------



## wmd

SFeigley said:


> ...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.


----------



## ClancyBoy

SFeigley said:


> 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.


----------



## SFeigley

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.


----------



## TinyMachines

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.


----------



## SFeigley

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.


----------



## ClancyBoy

SFeigley said:


> 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.


----------



## SFeigley

ClancyBoy said:


> Ah, money.
> 
> In that case I wish you much success. I mean that sincerely.


 
Thank you. I also wish you luck in your pursuit of completely original ideas and the creation of an enduring classic. Also meant sincerely.


----------



## raven hope

k3ng said:


> It's fine if they're screaming it after they've read maybe what 30-50 different books? It's the people who only pick up Potter and nothing else and still scream its awesomeness..


 
Agreed. For your info, those ppl I'm talking about are those who only pick up Potter and nothing else without even reading it at all.


----------



## raven hope

SFeigley said:


> 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.


 
Erm, that's not a fair compairison, obviously.


----------



## enron1982

Yeah, Clancy's comparison is much more accurate. It really is the same story told in a different way. I still don't "loathe" Rowling though, as she still made a name for herself. She may even have unconsciously did this, i don't know, and the story just came out like that. i wonder if she planned it or not....


----------



## dedhorse

Star Wars is actually a near remake of Akira Kurosawa's film, The Hidden Fortress, of which Lucas was a huge fan. But that's beside the point.

JK Rowling lived the dream we all have. She had a story in her head, wrote it during whatever opportunity life gave her, got rejected by a number of publishers before one publisher took a chance on her, and now she's able to make a living off her writing. I admire her for that.

The fact that she's the richest writer in the world is just gravy, so good for her.


----------



## Joelle

love. Lovelovethricelove.

Style-wise, she's not the best. And yes, she may have borrowed from other writers (..not unheard of, since every writer borrows from every other writer..), but the series was entertaining, the idea was one-of-a-kind in a lot of ways, the themes rang true, etc etc etc. *sigh* I wuv Harry.


----------



## enron1982

Joelle said:


> love. Lovelovethricelove.
> (..not unheard of, since every writer borrows from every other writer..)
> 
> Ahem, read rest of thread....
> that's def. not always true.


----------



## raven hope

enron1982 said:


> Joelle said:
> 
> 
> 
> love. Lovelovethricelove.
> (..not unheard of, since every writer borrows from every other writer..)
> 
> Ahem, read rest of thread....
> that's def. not always true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but more or less most writers do have similar theme, writing style, etc. But the most important thing is, the writer can really pull the readers into their fantasy.
> 
> Anyway, I think that it's much fairer to compare Potter with Eragon or The Lord of the Rings. Star Wars is almost way off the theme.
Click to expand...


----------



## Joelle

enron1982 said:


> Ahem, read rest of thread....
> that's def. not always true.


..actually, it is. Every author borrows from other authors in ways.


----------



## enron1982

If by "ways" you mean influence, then yes, i concur. But def. not in terms of ideas. Not every writer anyway.


----------



## Joelle

You can, and do, get your ideas from a thousand different sources. Not one idea is completely original. Everything has stemmed from everything else.


----------



## raven hope

Joelle said:


> You can, and do, get your ideas from a thousand different sources. Not one idea is completely original. Everything has stemmed from everything else.


The main point is: there's nothing wrong about getting ideas from other people for a book. OK, many writers want to protect their rights of thier book, but aren't they violating those who had created almost a similar story like their's rights? Even with the copyrights protection and etc. could not stop people from using their ideas - because the writers also used some others' ideas anyway. Of course, I agree with Joelle that no one's idea is completely original - hey, it's a small world, isn't it?

Anyway, there's no right or wrong answers for this. Maybe it's the way different people see it.


----------



## Funkeh

I read them, and thoroughly enjoyed them. I started a few years ago, when I was about nine, and was hooked on them ever since. The fact that she created so many creatures, a whole book of magic speels and how they work and a magical world to go with it just amazes me. The thing that bothered me about it was the long period of time in between the books, as it made me forget about certain things. I may read them again, if I feel up to it. She may not even write another book as she is set for life, but I think she will, for the fans.


----------



## wmd

Joelle said:


> ..actually, it is. Every author borrows from other authors in ways..


 
Actually every writer gets influenced by other writers, and many use the same themes as other writers... but not all writers borrow from other writers...

I do not get my ideas from other books or writers, I get them from the world around me... from a little seed that will pop into my head while driving down the street..  sure writers inlfuence my growth as a writer, but my ideas come from other sources.


----------



## enron1982

wmd said:


> Actually every writer gets influenced by other writers, and many use the same themes as other writers... but not all writers borrow from other writers...
> 
> I do not get my ideas from other books or writers, I get them from the world around me... from a little seed that will pop into my head while driving down the street..  sure writers inlfuence my growth as a writer, but my ideas come from other sources.



^^Word up.


----------



## MafiaMaster

I wouldn't say that writers get their ideas from other writers, but you need to consider it like this...There are only so many things that one can write.  I mean, my friend was complaining about these romance novels she reads because all the author does is take the same plot line and change it around a little bit.  I think that writers are influenced by other writers and that some things people like are taken from other writers, but overall, I think each author is its own unique author.


----------



## Mira

Ok, I've given the 7th book a lot of thought, and I've come to the conclusion that all in all, it wasn't that great. Simply put, it lacked the magic (no pun intended) of the other books. I believe there can be several reasons for this. First of all, look at the thickness of the other books, there's only so much a person can come up with in terms of a story, before they start repeating themselves, or fail to come up with something new and creative. I found that this book did not have a single element of surprise in it. As someone previously said, all the other books have contained new elements, new people, etc. This book, simply didn't. Also, for me, it really ruined the book that the set was not set at Hogwarts. For me, living myself into the world of Hogwarts was part of the charm. This book was instead a bunch of teenagers running around in the woods, doing very little. Secondly, I feel like I've grown too old for the series. When HP came out, I was much younger, and much more intrigued by the world of magic. Now, I feel like its much harder to be mesmerized by what is at times an extremely simplicitic plot. Ok, all in all, a lot of criticism here. But I must say that J.K. did let me down a little with her last book


----------



## HarryG

Book sales of 700 million, earnings of over one billion (Pounds, twice that in American Dollars), how the fuck can anyone criticise the books? 

  I’m sorry, but those that have are unthinking, ununderstanding, unfeeling, emotioinless,  unloved arseholes.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Joelle said:


> You can, and do, get your ideas from a thousand different sources. Not one idea is completely original. Everything has stemmed from everything else.



Ahem, no.  

People get their _styles_ from a thousand different sources.  Voice, how to construct the narrative, language, etc.

Good _stories_ are inspired by life.  I can't think of an exception.


----------



## wmd

HarryG said:


> Book sales of 700 million, earnings of over one billion (Pounds, twice that in American Dollars), how the fuck can anyone criticise the books?


 
The same way people criticize the Da Vinci Code... just because a book makes millions of dollars does not make it exempt from criticism... quite the opposite actually.


----------



## ClancyBoy

HarryG said:


> Book sales of 700 million, earnings of over one billion (Pounds, twice that in American Dollars), how the fuck can anyone criticise the books?



Online porn brings in $20 billion a year.

BangBus > Harry Potter.

If you disagree you're an unthinking, ununderstanding, unfeeling, emotioinless,  unloved arsehole.

Edit:
Hell, child porn pulls down $5 million.  That makes it at least twice as good as Harry Potter.  I wonder how much better heroin is.


OR maybe we should dismiss earnings as a measure of merit?


----------



## SFeigley

ClancyBoy said:


> Online porn brings in $20 billion a year.
> 
> BangBus > Harry Potter.
> 
> If you disagree you're an unthinking, ununderstanding, unfeeling, emotioinless, unloved arsehole.
> 
> Edit:
> Hell, child porn pulls down $5 million. That makes it at least twice as good as Harry Potter. I wonder how much better heroin is.
> 
> 
> OR maybe we should dismiss earnings as a measure of merit?


 
Clancy, I know we haven't completely seen eye to eye on this subject, but I have to admit this post was hilarious and quite a good argument to boot.

Kudos.


----------



## HarryG

ClancyBoy said:


> Online porn brings in $20 billion a year.
> 
> BangBus > Harry Potter.
> 
> If you disagree you're an unthinking, ununderstanding, unfeeling, emotioinless,  unloved arsehole.
> 
> Edit:
> Hell, child porn pulls down $5 million.  That makes it at least twice as good as Harry Potter.  I wonder how much better heroin is.
> 
> 
> OR maybe we should dismiss earnings as a measure of merit?



 The obvious response would be that the porn mentioned wasn’t created by one person.  

  However, I did some research, and, forgetting illegal child porn, it does appear that porn is uppermost on our collective minds.

  I don’t believe in creationism, so I can’t blame anyone, but is it all that unusual?  We are here to procreate our species and that can only be achieved through sex, and the porn peddlers are ahead of the game.

   Hanging my head in shame, I confess that I would rather watch a sensible porn clip than Fox news, or Al Gore banging on about global warming.


----------



## Mira

Well, I contributed to that book sale, and I didn't like the last book. It's as simple as that. Just because a book is a bestseller doesn't mean that necessarily everyone has to like it. I liked the six first books, but not so much the seventh. I think that it's my right to express what I feel, and that it in no way makes me a "unthinking, ununderstanding, unfeeling, emotioinless, unloved arsehole."


----------



## ClancyBoy

Mira said:


> that it in no way makes me a "unthinking, ununderstanding, unfeeling, emotioinless, unloved arsehole."




I love you, if that helps.


----------



## raven hope

Mira said:


> Ok, I've given the 7th book a lot of thought, and I've come to the conclusion that all in all, it wasn't that great. Simply put, it lacked the magic (no pun intended) of the other books. I believe there can be several reasons for this. First of all, look at the thickness of the other books, there's only so much a person can come up with in terms of a story, before they start repeating themselves, or fail to come up with something new and creative. I found that this book did not have a single element of surprise in it. As someone previously said, all the other books have contained new elements, new people, etc. This book, simply didn't. Also, for me, it really ruined the book that the set was not set at Hogwarts. For me, living myself into the world of Hogwarts was part of the charm. This book was instead a bunch of teenagers running around in the woods, doing very little. Secondly, I feel like I've grown too old for the series. When HP came out, I was much younger, and much more intrigued by the world of magic. Now, I feel like its much harder to be mesmerized by what is at times an extremely simplicitic plot. Ok, all in all, a lot of criticism here. But I must say that J.K. did let me down a little with her last book


Hear, hear. I agree to full extent.
1: There's nothing new in the last book - except that we know what is the "something of Ravenclaw's" was a dialem.
2: The repetitation of the use of Polyjuice Potion really infurates me. And the Elder Wand, Resurrection Stone and Invisibility Cloak when combined will make that person the master of Death - big deal.
3: The first chapter was unecessary. The second was lame. Seven Potters? Really.
4: The way she describes the characters' feelings were hollow; empty - you won't actually cry for them (but you may probably loathed them) unlike in the first few series.

And I don't think the book thickness has anyhing to do with how well-written the book is. I don't give a damn how thick her book is - so long as they really drives me to read on till the end.


----------



## raven hope

Mira said:


> Well, I contributed to that book sale, and I didn't like the last book. It's as simple as that. Just because a book is a bestseller doesn't mean that necessarily everyone has to like it. I liked the six first books, but not so much the seventh. I think that it's my right to express what I feel, and that it in no way makes me a "unthinking, ununderstanding, unfeeling, emotioinless, unloved arsehole."


 
Yeah, Mira, you totally rocked.:afro:

Well, since there's a Harry Potter Fan Club, but quite a no. of ppl don't like it either, I wonder anyone is in favor of starting an Anit-Potter Fan Club?:mrgreen:lols.


----------



## meldy

I enjoyed the books, except for the last one which I found just had too many holes for my taste.
I think the storytelling it great and I agree that there are very few totally original ideas out there.
I think the difference between good writing and bad is a writer who can take a very used formula and spin it into something readable, enjoyable and that stands alone enough to be not directly comparable.

That being said I have never read the Star Wars books.

And I dont think LOTR's is even remotely comparable to the HP books. I think Tolkien was in a league all his own.
Nor have I read Eragon.

And for the record it took Rowling 17 yrs to write the series not 14 months a book as someone else on here said. 
I admire the fact that she did what she did. She could have just as easily given up with the first few refusal letters from publishers. Or never bothered to write the story down at all.


----------



## Hopeful_Author

*Fabulous!*

Lover her.  She rocks what can I say.  An inspriation to be sure but she pretty much just writes a damn good book.  I'll be interested to see what her next venture is.


----------



## raven hope

meldy said:


> I enjoyed the books, except for the last one which I found just had too many holes for my taste.
> I think the storytelling it great and I agree that there are very few totally original ideas out there.
> I think the difference between good writing and bad is a writer who can take a very used formula and spin it into something readable, enjoyable and that stands alone enough to be not directly comparable.
> 
> That being said I have never read the Star Wars books.
> 
> And I dont think LOTR's is even remotely comparable to the HP books. I think Tolkien was in a league all his own.
> Nor have I read Eragon.
> 
> And for the record it took Rowling 17 yrs to write the series not 14 months a book as someone else on here said.
> I admire the fact that she did what she did. She could have just as easily given up with the first few refusal letters from publishers. Or never bothered to write the story down at all.


At least you've read the book thoroughly enough to find those gaps...and I do agree with you.

LOTR and Eragon are much more comparable to HP books compared to Star Wars - both plots and settings are much more closer towards the fantasy type. Star Wars has much more sci-fi elements in it.

OK, Rowling at least was a woman that we can look up for - she does show peserverence. But does she really spend _17 years_ to write the series? Is quite unbelievable.


----------



## Raging_Hopeful

Meh. I read the series obsessively (and part of me is relieved it is over, just so I can finally move on with my life!) but the last book was... well, I liked the beginning with the instant deaths and chaos... but that middle part, with them mucking about in the forest... it was pretty dreadful but then again, maybe that was the point. It was SO awful to experience that as a reader, that is must have been even WORSE to experience it in reality. So there is a measure of sympathy... a very small measure but still.

I liked the book as it continues on from the forest but the epilogue... oh...my....god... it was pretty awful methinks. So all in all, there are things that I really loved about the last book (go Neville!!!) and things that I loathed (but I thought you had a PLAN Harry!) 

But JK Rowling IS a good writer IMO, and there are millions of kids who'll back me up on that! 

Cheers,
Linz


----------



## howowiginal

Things became very messy after Order of the Pheonix. Still, I remained hopeful until the last chapter of Deathly Hallows, which I would rather not have read. I felt very betrayed after that, but I can't say I loathe her. She's been my hero for so long it's hard to let go.


----------



## raven hope

Raging_Hopeful said:


> Meh. I read the series obsessively (and part of me is relieved it is over, just so I can finally move on with my life!) but the last book was... well, I liked the beginning with the instant deaths and chaos... but that middle part, with them mucking about in the forest... it was pretty dreadful but then again, maybe that was the point. It was SO awful to experience that as a reader, that is must have been even WORSE to experience it in reality. So there is a measure of sympathy... a very small measure but still.
> 
> I liked the book as it continues on from the forest but the epilogue... oh...my....god... it was pretty awful methinks. So all in all, there are things that I really loved about the last book (go Neville!!!) and things that I loathed (but I thought you had a PLAN Harry!)
> 
> But JK Rowling IS a good writer IMO, and there are millions of kids who'll back me up on that!
> 
> Cheers,
> Linz


I doubt that the awfulness of the beginning has to do with "experience in reality" - if you just skim and brose through, yes, probably a little and small measure of sympathy, but if you do read it in depth, you might loathe it. OK, the part on Harry and Voldemort's fight in Hogwarts might be the most interesting climax in the whole book, but it's quite hollow - too much gaps in between, occasionally break the tension she had build up quite nicely. And yep, the epilogue was horrible. Though Neville did save the bokk slightly - to me, he's the real hero in the book. Harry is just to fustrate me from continuing the book.

All I can say is she does has to polish her writing skills further - because I just don't understand why her first three was good, but the last three went downhill. The fourth? It's neutral.


----------



## raven hope

howowiginal said:


> Things became very messy after Order of the Pheonix. Still, I remained hopeful until the last chapter of Deathly Hallows, which I would rather not have read. I felt very betrayed after that, but I can't say I loathe her. She's been my hero for so long it's hard to let go.


I don't idolize her, btw. I neither like nor loathe her - but I merely hate her last book.


----------



## S-wo

I respect the woman profusely. She is an inspiration to me because her books were the first that I really most connected too and she is a symbol of success as I saw on the today show list her as the 2nd or 3rd richest woman in the world with Oprah Winfrey in first. I read books before hers, mostly all of them childrens books, but her books had stood apart most to me than all the others as a pillar of literary grandeur. As I seek the road to glory I will look at her as a compass to guide me.


----------



## Athlynne

Love.  I didn't much like "Half-Blood Prince" (it read almost like fanfic), but other wise, love the Harry Potters.  It's the only series of books/movies that everyone in my family has ever loved, from my parents to my little niece.


----------



## Luzici

Neither really. I read the HP books, liked them, but decided not to go crazy over it. I cannot understand that hype, and think it's pretty annoying. Yes, they are good, but they are certainly not _that_ good. Nice entertainment, but nothing I would consider literature.


----------



## Nillani

love the books. brilliant. i've read them all at least 3/4 times (the 1st and 5th one probly bout 7 tho lol).


----------



## RomanticRose

I admire her, as I would admire anyone who went from unknown to a household name in a very short period of time.  Other than that, I am pretty much indiffrent to her, neither loving not loathing.  I couldn't make it very far into the first book and never tried any of the others.  Just not my genre.


----------



## eiran

I have loved Harry Potter since it first came out when I was 7 - I'm simply of the Harry Potter generation. I think JK Rowling is one of the most amazing writers who can suck you straight into her story. I understand why some people are disappointed with book 7 but I loved it!


----------



## Athlynne

For those who read "Deathly Hallows", did you, like me, dissolve into a puddle of tears at the end?

S-wo, I must comment on your avatar, I love it.  Cloud!!!!


----------



## raven hope

Athlynne said:


> For those who read "Deathly Hallows", did you, like me, dissolve into a puddle of tears at the end?


Yes, I did.

But angry tears.

There's nothing touching about the last book anyway. Or rather in my opinion not that I know of. Please enlighten me: where that would be?


----------



## Athlynne

SPOILER ALERT:




For one, the part in the last chapter, when Harry is talking to his son and tells him not to worry if he gets sorted into Slytherin, because he was partly named for a Slytherin who, Harry said, was one of the finest men he ever knew.


----------



## cinder and smoke

Rowling's ability to create this world of sheer magic makes me completely overlook the flaws, the plot holes, etc. I just don't CARE because I LOVE being transported into the world. 

She has a knack at taking a very simple concept and turning it into this alternate reality. I love it.

I've never cried so hard for fictional characters. In fact, there has not been one book that has made me teary-eyed, nevertheless SOB. 

I admire her a lot and I'm excited to see what she has after HP.


----------



## The girl left behind...

when i was younger, my neighbor told my mom Harry Potter was evil and had Satan worshiping in it.  My mom never read it before and so took the lady at her word, and told me never to read it.  Well, one day mommy-dearest makes me mad.  (never ever get in the way of a mad 9 year old)  So, I pick up the first harry potter book i can find and read it at school. (the second one)  I hated reading then, so I was dreading it.  well, after i got finished reading it (a good 4 weeks later) I was hooked.  I brought the book home and told my mother about it, she believed me about the no satan whorshiping crap, (partly cause our neighbor was a known gossip).  That series was what made me fall in love with reading.  To this day, i love Harry Potter and am very greatful to J.K. for helping me to see the side to reading, not everyone can see.  A place of magic.


----------



## fishman

cheesey twee twaddle marketed to death...

writting imo is not about making money, j.k.rowlings is about making money

do the maths.......


----------



## Mike C

fishman said:


> writting imo is not about making money,



If this post is indicative, I don't think you'll ever need to worry much about making money. At least, not through your writing. I hear flipping burgers pays quite well.

Regardless of the gravy train the HP books have become, if you're suggesting she wrote the first one with plans of world domination (any more than anyone else does with their first novel) you're even stupider than your post suggests.

Which would be difficult.


----------



## fishman

wow...

what can i say in my defence?

For starters, i have had a million plus readership for a regular column in the newspapers, journalistic integrity alway grated though, it was about my dyslexia, not making money. I chose my media as it was taken by my english master who called me a dunce becuase i could not spell, he hit me with a walking stick too, but thankfully the days of corpral punishment and christian brother run schools are behind me.

Secondly are you serious, harry potter the novel? erm, its pulp fiction my friend, ok nice for the kids, but to be honest, twee, cheesy and twaddle are my opinion, and whats more i am entitled to it without being mocked or given career advice.

And, your not meant to start a sentence with and, let alone a paragraph, but to be honest i have no problem with people who flip burgers, writting is a talent, not a process, just like cooking, we all have to start somewhere. j.k rowlings started with a demographic not the fervered need to express her emotions, thoughs or dirrection, next your going to tell me budgie the helecopter has a sub-text...........=;

Raymond E fiest, magician, plagurised, maybe huh......?


----------



## Patrick

SFeigley said:


> 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.




Perfectly reasoned.


----------



## Patrick

fishman said:


> wow...
> 
> what can i say in my defence?
> 
> For starters, i have had a million plus readership for a regular column in the newspapers, journalistic integrity alway grated though, it was about my dyslexia, not making money. I chose my media as it was taken by my english master who called me a dunce becuase i could not spell, he hit me with a walking stick too, but thankfully the days of corpral punishment and christian brother run schools are behind me.
> 
> Secondly are you serious, harry potter the novel? erm, its pulp fiction my friend, ok nice for the kids, but to be honest, twee, cheesy and twaddle are my opinion, and whats more i am entitled to it without being mocked or given career advice.
> 
> And, your not meant to start a sentence with and, let alone a paragraph, but to be honest i have no problem with people who flip burgers, writting is a talent, not a process, just like cooking, we all have to start somewhere. j.k rowlings started with a demographic not the fervered need to express her emotions, thoughs or dirrection, next your going to tell me budgie the helecopter has a sub-text...........=;
> 
> Raymond E fiest, magician, plagurised, maybe huh......?



I won't point out the glaring mistakes in your writing. I wouldn't dream of it... Everbody else on this board is intelligent enough to do that for themselves.

JKR is a successful author because she is a good one. Her writing style is not perfect, but that's because "She holds the pen with a loose hand and let's it slip sometimes." It's what makes any style unique and "sellable", and not that of a common journalist.

I don't think I need to say anymore. By the way, my dad was a journalist as well, so your occupation is not in question. Just your attitude.


----------



## SevenWritez

I enjoyed the series, but never went completely batshit for any of the books, save for the last because I had hoped Rowling would end it with a bang. I cried at the end of the last book, and not because it was emotional. 

Come on. Screaming "I AM T3H ELDER WANG'S MASTAH!" and Voldemort poofing away? I had to read over the page three times before I could accept the stupidity of it all.


----------



## penforhire

I love her books. They make good fire on cold winter nights....


----------



## penforhire

fishman said:


> wow...
> 
> what can i say in my defence?
> 
> For starters, i have had a million plus readership for a regular column in the newspapers, journalistic integrity alway grated though, it was about my dyslexia, not making money. I chose my media as it was taken by my english master who called me a dunce becuase i could not spell, he hit me with a walking stick too, but thankfully the days of corpral punishment and christian brother run schools are behind me.
> 
> Secondly are you serious, harry potter the novel? erm, its pulp fiction my friend, ok nice for the kids, but to be honest, twee, cheesy and twaddle are my opinion, and whats more i am entitled to it without being mocked or given career advice.
> 
> And, your not meant to start a sentence with and, let alone a paragraph, but to be honest i have no problem with people who flip burgers, writting is a talent, not a process, just like cooking, we all have to start somewhere. j.k rowlings started with a demographic not the fervered need to express her emotions, thoughs or dirrection, next your going to tell me budgie the helecopter has a sub-text...........=;
> 
> Raymond E fiest, magician, plagurised, maybe huh......?




YOU ARE A LIAR! STOP LYING! I HATE LIARS! WHY YOU LYING! GOD, WHY CAN'T PEOPLE JUST STOP LYING!!!!

Nah I'm just kidding. Anyone who can't spell "writting" must be a journalist.


----------



## sam_kempton

i totally admire JKR, she took an idea (that she invented on a train) and turned it into a world wide hit.
An idiot can write a childrens book, it takes a genius to make that kids book appeal to adults.
in my view there are two kind of people who hate JKR, those who are jealous of her success (and millions she has made) and those who read her books and say "thats the kind of crap my ten year old son would read".
AHEM well DUH they are kids books after all.
i just hope she can move on to other things without a troop of literacy nazi's following her around shouting "that new ideas no where near as good as HP, give up JKR your a has been"
i expect she will shock us with many great works in the future.


----------



## Mr Write

The first six are quite cool (especially the 3rd and 6th one, cant wait for the film to come out)

But then I read the 7th one and I think it was the worst one yet, not the fact that it’s a different setting and a different theme but the fact that, judging on her other books she could have done so much better, nothing really happens and the things that do arnt that interesting also I hated that 19 years later bit as well, I’m not saying I could do better but I think she could. 

So to sum up, I neither love or loath her or her books, I just don’t think much of the last one, sorry.


----------



## Thoth

free style said:


> she singlehandedly revived the young adult book genre.


fixed your post. I admire that she worked hard to achieve her dreams and that she encouraged children to want to read.
She is certainly a rags to riches person but what will she do now that the series is over?


----------



## Destroyer

Harry Potter must die. I don't actually mind the books, but I get annoyed by hearing about the git all the time.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Mike C said:


> If this post is indicative, I don't think you'll ever need to worry much about making money. At least, not through your writing. I hear flipping burgers pays quite well.



Tisk tisk, master Mike.  I didn't expect you to resort to the false dichotomy.  If he can't spell, he could well be a business major.



> Regardless of the gravy train the HP books have become, if you're suggesting she wrote the first one with plans of world domination (any more than anyone else does with their first novel) you're even stupider than your post suggests.



The first few I'm sure she wrote because she enjoyed them.  The last couple... iffy.

There are many many writers far guiltier than she is at milking their audience though.  Robert Jordan for one, and (having just finished the Hogfather) I'm afraid I have to include Terry Pratchett as well.


----------



## Patrick

I don't think it always comes down to the fact that they are trying to exploit their audience. I think in a lot of cases, they just write some good books and some not so good ones. Of course, I am not ruling out the possibility they were only interested in financial gain.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> I don't think it always comes down to the fact that they are trying to exploit their audience. I think in a lot of cases, they just write some good books and some not so good ones. Of course, I am not ruling out the possibility they were only interested in financial gain.



Authors who crank out 1000 page books in mere months don't do it for love of the craft.


----------



## mdlegend17

Personally, I'm of the generation who have grown up with the Harry Potter books. When Philosopher's Stone came out, I was 8, and with being 18 when the final one came out, it was like a rite of passage in many ways.

I think that someone who has sold more books in the last 10 years than anyone else has to be doing something right. She's brought a generation to reading like no author before, and you need to give her credit for that, even if you don't like her.

Personally, I've always liked her books. I re-read them all recently, and stil found them to have their appeal. Her style is a little raw at times, even after 7 books, but that's one of the things I like about it, especially towards the end, when it helps to bring the emotions home. She represents someone of just a little younger than myself in a way most authors could never hope to, something I can recognise because I am that age.

Just my opinions, but I hope they're worth something.


----------



## Damian_Rucci

I love her series, I feel that her writing evolved over the coarse of her books as well as her characters. The mere fact that her characters actually grow up is a plus. I like the way she handles action and drama.


----------



## Gamoc

I love the Harry Potter books. Oddly enough, as the characters got older, so did the books - the later books are much darker and more adult than the first few. The 7th is a work of art, she handles the battle scene spectacularly, and I didn't expect such a good battle in a Harry Potter book. And the plot is full of twists and turns, some you might see coming, some that will surprise you.

The Harry Potter books are very, very good, no matter what anyone says.


----------



## Damian_Rucci

Yes that is true, the way the books became darker and deeper amazed me. There is more trouble in the later books and more life or death decisions


----------



## Athlynne

Possibly off-topic, but did you guys hear that Dumbledore is gay?  Pretty awesome.


----------



## fishman

schoo she has found a sub-text, dumbledorf played by richard harris in the film is gay, surely she is just using the similarity between the fact that guy who played tolkiens wizard was played by a gay man....except whatever, she is derranged and cheesy marketed twee, she has climbed above herself taking a swipe at tolkien...

to be honest i would not wipe my bum with her stuff, and thats the way i feel, and before i get anymore grief about my spelling, i am dyslexic, i am not stupid, quite the reverse i have an very high i.q. and play speed chess internationally, do we have questions or is the gay wizard theme a bit too much for even the most devoted of female sister hood of twee excriment served with a pink feather boa...........


----------



## Damian_Rucci

Athlynne said:


> Possibly off-topic, but did you guys hear that Dumbledore is gay?  Pretty awesome.


I heard about that everyone is making a big deal about it. It's not a big deal, it doesn't matter a characters race just their content. Where did I get that from *cough* Martin Luther King *cough*


----------



## Eli Cash

You can't help but be grateful for her redefining the economics of a best-seller. She's richer than the Queen. Who would have ever thought that was an achievable goal for a writer?


----------



## Damian_Rucci

Eli Cash said:


> You can't help but be grateful for her redefining the economics of a best-seller. She's richer than the Queen. Who would have ever thought that was an achievable goal for a writer?


Yeah I know she is extremely rich it would really be bad for her if her next series was a flop :-({|=


----------



## abbeyd21

I have to say that I was very reluctant to read any of the Harry Potter books.  I always thought they were to easy, and not really worth the time.  I even tried to read the first book one time when I was home from school for vacation and had nothing to read.  I picked up my sisters copy that was on the shelf and started to read it.  I got about 10 pages in before I closed it and decided I would never waste my time.  The thing that surprised me though was that all of my friends who I consider very intelligent were reading them.  I finally broke down about a month ago ad bought the second book.  I'm now into the fourth.  It isn't about the writing with the stories, they aren't written tremendously well.  The things that's great about them is the content of the stories.  She created characters and a world that is easy to love.  I don't think I'll ever list them as my favorite books.  But I've developed an appreciation for the books.


----------



## raymondstary

fishman said:


> i have an very high i.q. and play speed chess internationally


You've found a topic less interesting than a gay fake wizard.

Congratulations.


----------



## futurewriter18

I like Rowling as well as all her books, even though the last one i felt was missing something. Overall i think she is a great writer.


----------



## Patrick

I didn't see anything in the text that suggested Dumbledore is gay. And I don't care if he is. Guess what... he's not real.


----------



## Damian_Rucci

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> I didn't see anything in the text that suggested Dumbledore is gay. And I don't care if he is. Guess what... he's not real.


I know! But also I think these claims were based on the actor who plays Dumbledore and Gandalf is in fact gay but this is only a rumor I heard from other people


----------



## Patrick

Yes, all old wizards in literature are gay. There, start spreading that rumour and let's see how far it spreads.


----------



## Damian_Rucci

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> Yes, all old wizards in literature are gay. There, start spreading that rumour and let's see how far it spreads.


Wait are you mocking me?:scratch: Ha ha I'm confused


----------



## Patrick

Damian_Rucci said:


> Wait are you mocking me?:scratch: Ha ha I'm confused




No, I am knocking the people who will inevitably believe it.


----------



## Damian_Rucci

Mermaid on the breakwater said:


> No, I am knocking the people who will inevitably believe it.


Oh I see 8)


----------



## Eli Cash

I mean, you have to look at it from the perspective of an English 101 class trying to disassemble it on the uni level (not that I think this ever should or would happen).

From Dumbledore's relationship with that one, bad wizard, could you maybe say he was "seduced?" Probably. He did some stupid stuff and bought into some stupid shit because he was really into somebody. That sounds a lot like love to me and because it was somebody of the same gender if there was a physical attraction there as well it's homosexual love.

BUT, is there conclusive, undeniable proof IN THE TEXT that Dumbledore is gay? No? Then Dumbledore isn't gay. You don't get to go back, _ipso post facto_, as the author and add shit that's not there. If you wanted him to be gay, you should have put it in the text. If not, then it's open to interpretation.

Once the book is out, it's part of the canon. Rowling has no more right to interpret the words as they are than some undergrad doing a "Queer reading" of the work. She's just another interpreter now. The work stands on its own, as they all do eventually.


----------



## Patrick

Yes.




When I read the book I didn't pick up anything, not a single thing, that might indicate that Dumbledore is gay. His relationship with the wizard, whose name I forget, just came across as friendship. Not at one point did I stop and think it might be a homosexual relationship. And on reflection, I still don't see it. So, I think that proves conclusively that there was nothing directly in the text that alludes to it.

Yes, it's open to interpretation but I find it strange that anyone can interpret a homosexual relationship simply because two like-minded young men (who are very unique to everyone else) take great pleasure in each other's company. I don't think that is sufficient evidence to suggest that they were both gay.


----------



## Shawn

I got it.

I don't think it's very fair to knock Rowling for not putting that little detail into her book; because if she had, we would have knocked her for inserting extraneous material that wasn't important to the story.

There are, of course, lots of things about characters in books that we don't know. Just because the author gives them another attributes, doesn't mean it's not true... or that it's just a marketing ploy.


----------



## Patrick

Shawn said:


> I got it.
> 
> I don't think it's very fair to knock Rowling for not putting that little detail into her book; because if she had, we would have knocked her for inserting extraneous material that wasn't important to the story.
> 
> There are, of course, lots of things about characters in books that we don't know. Just because the author gives them another attributes, doesn't mean it's not true... or that it's just a marketing ploy.




Nobody is knocking Rowling. But the whole notion of Dumbledore being gay is just daft. There's nothing which even alludes to it. I wouldn't care if he is gay. It certainly wouldn't have changed my response to his brilliant character. I just don't see how anybody can interpret him being gay from what little evidence there is. It's more a case of people interpreting his lonely lifestyle, and lack of a female partner as, of course, indicating homosexuality. Which is the wrong way round; evidence, by it's absence, is not evidence.

Why would it have been extraneous to state that Dumbeldore's relationship with the other lad was a homosexual one? It would have certainly allowed me to understand why he stood by him so much instead of fobbing me off with all this nonsense about the "Greater Good".


----------



## raven hope

To me, the best part in the last book is about Snape. It's the only part that I feel it's well-written.


----------



## misterchris

Let me start by saying that I enjoyed the whole series.

I think Rowling's announcement that Dumbledore is gay is out of character for the entire series.  There is a certain simplicity and charm in the books.  Nothing wrong with being gay, but the announcement is more than we needed to know.    

It is somewhat hypocritical too.  If this was no big deal, then she should have written it into the stories. 

I believe that the movie studios latched on to the books and are the primary reason for her success.  The movies are actually better than the book, IMO primarily because JK can't write action. (but she can write relationships.)

Harry potter is a marketing phenomenon.  Greater minds than JK were at work making this a success.  She made billions which is a fraction of the entire HP revenue.   I would not be surprised to find out in several years that there was a team of ghostwriters involved.

Not unlike Brittney Spears.


----------



## Eli Cash

> But it is possible that Ms. Rowling may be mistaken about her own character. She may have invented Hogwarts and all the wizards within it, she may have created the most influential fantasy books since J. R. R. Tolkien, and she may have woven her spell over thousands of pages and seven novels, but there seems to be no compelling reason within the books for her after-the-fact assertion. Of course it would not be inconsistent for Dumbledore to be gay, but the books’ accounts certainly don’t make it necessary. The question is distracting, which is why it never really emerges in the books themselves. Ms. Rowling may think of Dumbledore as gay, but there is no reason why anyone else should.


-Edward Rothstein

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/arts/29conn.html?_r=1&ref=books&oref=slogin


----------



## Buddy Glass

It seems like a last-minute attempt to make the novels a little more fashionably controversial. A sudden "oh by the way"... using the plight of homosexuals for her own gain. Awful.


----------



## Tsuki

When i read her book, I didnt want to think it was good- (i tend to pull away from mainstream novels) but i couldnt put it down..Her books captured me in a way not many books have. I became one of the obsessed harry potter fans, and understanding me and my interests, it was bound to happen... Either way, the last book proved to me how good of a writer she is, everything came together, and every detail in her story had a purpose.

and on dumbledore being gay was actually old news, she had written down way before on a script when the director had dumbledore describing a woman in a desireable mannor. : P. She just answered a question, im sure she didnt mean to cause the uprise, and if she did- i dont question it at all, if you read her interview on what the books are morally about then you will understand the sub text in dumbledores coming out party. It goes to show how involved in her characters she gets. Dumbledores orientation didnt need to be expressed in the book, being gay or straight is rarely expressed by school principles, or headmasters in this case. Its just a trait of the character that was sort of hidden and predicted by several fans (in fan fictions for example) for his lack in romance//not lack in romance it became quite skeptical, but made sense for alot of people. Its unfortunite that it was taken out of hand so much, i ironically wish that dumbledore was expected to be gay but then confessed to be straight instead. : P


----------



## wheelz1138

I've only read 20 pages of one of the H.P. books, but I've seen the first four movies and enjoy them. I find the way the books were written to be distracting. not meaning to intentionally write about the Brits in two threads back-to-back, I get confused by some of the coloquilisms, relying on surrounding words to hopefully catch meaning. I don't think she writes poorly though.


----------



## Drezzal

Jk rowling is a brilliant author. I have read the harry potter books and she sure does know how to excite the reader. She is the highest payed author at over $1b so she must be good 8-[ The harry potter books are a lot better than the movies, far more detailed


----------



## heatherlouise

> *JK Rowling: Love or loathe?*


  absolutly love her, and her books.  follow them with unconditional love.  i have been reading her books for years now and she is the first person i have ever aspired to be like and her writing gave me a lot of the inspiration i use today.  so aye, i love the woman.  
Heather


----------



## wheelz1138

Drezzal said:


> She is the highest paid author at over $1b so she must be good



I'm from the U.S., where money is king, and even I don't believe that bull crap. Money does not prove how good you are at anything.

_Before I get too caught up in this inane debate, I'm leaving..._


----------



## ClancyBoy

I just discovered that Rowling lifted a lot of her descriptions of Dumbledore's office directly from Merlin's office as described in T.H. White's _The Once and Future King_.  Right down to the Phoenix and the name "Fawkes."

For shaaaaame.


----------



## raymondstary

wheelz1138 said:


> I'm from the U.S., where money is king


Money is king everywhere.


----------



## Shawn

ClancyBoy said:


> I just discovered that Rowling lifted a lot of her descriptions of Dumbledore's office directly from Merlin's office as described in T.H. White's _The Once and Future King_.  Right down to the Phoenix and the name "Fawkes."
> 
> For shaaaaame.



Perhaps she was trying to show continuity in the previous mythology about wizards by including specific details.

Who knows, it sells; and it's enjoyable, as long as you let go of the details.


----------



## Rambling Sage

i find that a lot of things in Harry Potter were either based off of or lifted directly from other works, while this could show continuity, it kind of takes away originality

but i still think the Harry Potter books are some of the best literature of this time because of Rowling's ability to draw the reader into the story and keep them entertained by having strong characterization that the reader can relate to. evidence is the millions of people who have read it


----------



## Rabid Euphoria

I've not read a single word of Harry Potter. Watched the first two movies...didn't like them. I can't say I hate Rowling for her work as I've never read it but I do loathe Harry Potter and thus, distain Rowling for creating him.  Sometimes I feel like the only person who doesn't like fantasy stuff.


----------



## ClancyBoy

Shawn said:


> Perhaps she was trying to show continuity in the previous mythology about wizards by including specific details.
> 
> Who knows, it sells; and it's enjoyable, as long as you let go of the details.



It's *all* about the details.


----------



## WTFtat

Jam said:


> 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.


 
When it comes to Rowling, it's not the words that matter.  It's purely the story and the characters.  I like how I don't have to look up the words she uses or have to interpret what she's saying 'cause it sounds like she shit it out after an acid trip.  It's all very plain and laid out which is perfect with a story like Harry Potter's because... well if you've only read the first three than you wouldn't know (unless you're into spoilers), but the later books require a lot of focus.

I don't know, somehow books four, five, six and seven seem more special to me.  One, two and three have more of the "kid" element to them.  Partially because nothing bad happened in them.

Okay, I'm done rambling.


----------



## WTFtat

Rabid Euphoria said:


> I've not read a single word of Harry Potter. Watched the first two movies...didn't like them. I can't say I hate Rowling for her work as I've never read it but I do loathe Harry Potter and thus, distain Rowling for creating him. Sometimes I feel like the only person who doesn't like fantasy stuff.


 
... But... the movies sucked.

They only get (semi-)good around movie four. Kind of like the books.  



Except the books got really good as opposed to semi.


----------



## BlueLucario

I'm a beggining writer and I copyed J.K Rowlings writing style, I keep hearing many times she's bad, Why is that..

Should I copy Jim dale's narrorating style?(Look up pushing dasies)


----------



## WTFtat

BlueLucario said:


> I'm a beggining writer and I copyed J.K Rowlings writing style, I keep hearing many times she's bad, Why is that..
> 
> Should I copy Jim dale's narrorating style?(Look up pushing dasies)


 
Well, she's not bad... she's just sort of plain.  Her sentence structures are pretty plain, her word choices are simple...

But really, you shouldn't focus on copying anything.  Just write whatever sounds good to you and work on it later.


----------



## Athlynne

You guys really never thought for a minute, before, that Dumbledore might be gay?  Really?


----------



## Horizon

Athlynne said:


> You guys really never thought for a minute, before, that Dumbledore might be gay?  Really?



As weird as it sounds, but he IS gay. J.K. Rowling said so herself at one of her book signings or something like that. It was all over the radio (for about a day)

I don't love J.K Rowling, but I don't loathe her either. So I guess I am just in the middle. ^.^


----------



## 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.


----------



## JenWriter

I love her. I think she has some brilliant moments of writing in her novels. No, she isn't perfect, but she's a lot better than I am at this point in my writing career.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa

Hodge said:


> 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.


----------



## Alex Kostin

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.


----------



## Vines

Both; extremely jealous.


----------



## Danzo

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.


----------



## RebelGoddess

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


----------



## Just Me

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.


----------



## lilacstarflower

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 =;


----------



## Hexx

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.


----------



## Astralwolf37

*I'm Mixed as Well*

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.


----------



## Bloggsworth

Jam said:


> 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...


----------



## GSBAINS

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


----------



## Lilly Davidson

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.


----------



## abuistrago

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


----------



## JimJanuary

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.


----------



## grimreaper

Bloggsworth said:


> 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.


----------



## stellar

k3ng said:


> It's fine if they're screaming it after they've read maybe what 30-50 different books? It's the people who only pick up Potter and nothing else and still scream its awesomeness..


Yup that's her magic. I know for the seasoned reader that reaction may seem childish, but wow for a person who otherwise would seem to have a phobia of reading. That book must really be something.


----------

