[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 34 KB, 470x379, a1-00-25-06.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1932228 No.1932228 [Reply] [Original]

Please /lit/, tell me your honest opinion of JK Rowling.

>> No.1932237

She is a mediocre, but not terrible, writer that got lucky and has a damn awesome PR team.

>> No.1932243

Her voice is so kind. I want her to read to...just not the books she's authored.

>> No.1932257

My subjective opinion is that she's an author who knew how to tailor her story to her target audience and had great commercial success. To me, that qualifies as a good author.

>> No.1932267

Would fuck her.

>> No.1932269

Harry Potter series was cute, I'll give her that. It's a good first series. Definitely at least "entry level."

>> No.1932275

It's like reverse fan-fiction.

>> No.1932279

i found that she's able to write addictive stuff. But that was about 6 years ago. Can anyone recommend me other 'addictive' writing, or at least tell me the techniques to write addictive stuff?

>> No.1932281

>>1932257
I'm not saying anything against her as a writer, but I think your point makes her a good businesswoman rather than a good writer.

>> No.1932304

>>1932281
I believe that an author is a mix between a businessman and a writer. You can write amazing things that never garner attention and still be a great writer, but you can't be a great author. You can sell loads of shitty books and be a great author, but not a great writer.

In my opinion, Rowling is a good writer and a great author. I'm using these terms rather loosely, so don't bother picking apart my usage. I'm sure someone could explain it better than I.

>> No.1932316

>>1932304

This is what capitalism has done to artistry. You're not "great" unless you're a good salesman.

Sad days.

>> No.1932320

Well I just got back from watching the last movie and am rereading the first novel, for nostalgia's sake - literary merit put aside, Harry Potter was important for me during a pretty big chunk of my childhood/early teens.

There's a lot more thought put into the series than it might seem at first glance. Loads of random stuff during the first book is only answered in the middle or last books, which shows a lot of planning ahead in JK's part. So kudos for that.

Ooon the other hand, she has always been a lot better in creating a mystery than in actually playing it through. The beginnings of her books are usually way better than the ending - and that's also true of the series as a whole, in my opinion it peaked around book three or four, then it was a bit downhill.

Also the ending to the series sucks. Big time. JK pretty much killed off half the cast offscreen to give some emotional impact to the climax, but the whole thing only lasts like ten pages. The movie "sort of" fixed that, at least the final showdown between Harry and Voldemort was more like an actual fight.

And, just to crown the "JK's not good with endings" thing which I think it's the main problem with her work*, that 19 Years Later thing? C'mon.

*which, let's face it, IS a children's tale during the first few books, then after book 4 changes to YA-fiction at best. It's not adult literature no matter what angle you analyze it from.

>> No.1932321

She knows how to write for her audience and do it well, as opposed to other "famous" writers who followed on her coattails in the rush to find "The Next Harry Potter." Sure, you've got some new fantasy franchises to become popular, but they're not as cleverly written as her books.

>> No.1932324

>>1932316

I agree. When I studied music they drilled the same concept into us, that to be a good musician you had to please the audience and sell records. Naturally I left.

>> No.1932329

>>1932316
You're twisting my words. You're not a great 'author' unless you're a salesman. You could certainly qualify as a great 'poet' or 'writer' or 'artist' even if your goods don't sell.

I don't think it's sad, I think it's merely a reason to explore off the beaten path of best sellers and hyped books. Go pick something off a shelf you've never heard of, you might be surprised by what you find.

>> No.1932345

>>1932329

The state of being an author doesn't not imply selling things. An author is simply someone who writes things.

>> No.1932351

>>1932320

My English was less than perfect there, sorry guys, not a native speaker. I believe I got my point across though.

>> No.1932354

>>1932345

does not

>> No.1932357

>>1932345
Well then, using your terms I shall clarify what I meant.

I believe Rowling is a good author.
I believe Rowling is a great salesman.
I believe that people aught to read books by horrible authors, good authors and great authors.
I believe that people aught to read books by horrible salesmen, good salesmen and great salesmen.

>> No.1932359

Terrible writer. She'll be completely forgotten about in a couple generations.

>> No.1932363

>>1932357

>Great salesman

Do you know something we don't?

>> No.1932365

I don't you could say that she's a particularly good business man or marketer or whatever. Her books were decent enough to get noticed and preteens control pop-culture. Once the books became somewhat famous they exploded the same as everything else. It's easier to sell shit to children and they are the most monolithic demographic.

The books are ok but it was luck and timing that caused them to fill the void POPULAR CHILDRENS BOOK for a while. The value of name recognition is obscenely inflated nowadays.

>> No.1932370

>>1932363
Oh, whatever. Saleswoman. Now you're picking at my usage again, and it's making me giggle because you know what I mean anyways.

>> No.1932372

>>1932359
>implying terrible writers are forgotten
>>1932357
good point. also its splet ought.

>> No.1932380

>>1932372
Wow, I didn't even notice what I was typing. Thanks for pointing that out, I ought to go check some rough drafts I have to make sure I didn't misuse that.

>> No.1932383

>read first 4 books as they come out as a kiddo
This is pretty cool, but I like ASOUE better so I'll read all of those

>read beginning of 5th book at urging of coworker (The last movie is coming out and you haven't finished the series!?) at age 20.
JESUS CHRIST THIS WRITING

Maybe it was because he spends the first chapter angsting about being an orphan (you've ALWAYS been an orphan dude, you don't know what it's like to not be one.) but I couldn't take more than 10-20 pages.

>> No.1932392

>>1932372
>implying terrible writers are forgotten

They are. Just try to name a terrible writer from like the 18th century, one that people actually still read and enjoy.

>> No.1932398

>>1932392
This is the part where I name some popular writer I dislike out of spite to start an argument, right?

>> No.1932407

>>1932398
No, I'll just laugh at you

>> No.1932421

>>1932407
Oh, alright. I won't bother then.

>> No.1932446

Never really gotten into the books. The first movies we're okay, i haven't managed to see anyone later than the fourth one without falling asleep/losing interest and walking away.

Also, i hate HP-fanboys/girls. They get SO fucking frustated whenever you mention the tiniest flaw about it. Try telling a HP-fan Rowling stole alot of shit from Tolkien.

>> No.1932455

>>1932392
I've met people who feel strongly about the likes of Jonathan Swift or Alexander Pope.

>> No.1932467

>>1932446
from my very limited exposure, it seems like HP doesn't really invent anything fantasy-wise. It just uses every cliche she could think of. I don't mean that as an attack, it's for kids and it's not meant for those who enjoy most other fantasy.

>> No.1932472

It's going to be difficult to forget Harry Potter completely seeing as there's a full theme park dedicated to him.

>> No.1932474

>>1932455
Whoah, I fuckin' LOVE Swift. What do you have against him?