LOL her daughter must be of marriageable age by now She was about ten when Potter first came out. Bet she has a reasonable dowry Have to say I found my ideal house in Holland Park last night Thanks to Rowling and authors like her I can but dream Without her I wouldn't be able to.
Amen, sister friend. I love JK Rowling, and I love her writing. I know people who agree with me, and I know people who don't, but fortunately, the opinions of others don't have to change mine. I can keep rereading the Harry Potters and enjoy them more every time I do.
When you say that she's a good businesswoman, you have to admit that she's at least talented. There are plenty of people that know exactly what people want--whether it be in music, tv, clothing, whatever--but are not talented enough to deliver that product. J. K. Rowling knew what kids wanted to read better than anyone in a very long time and delivered a story that was perfectly written for them. Can she write for a more sophisticated audience? I don't know. Maybe. But, she can write for kids better than just about anyone else right now. That has to say something. Finally, anyone who says, "kids are stupid" must be living on a different planet. People in general are unintelligent. There's no easier way to identify this than looking at the screenplays for box office hits compared to screenplays for Oscar nominees. Being good isn't good enough. J. K. Rowling was able to be good and be appealing, that's something that is obviously difficult.
I agree for the most part. I wouldn't say "isn't great," though. If talents were a point system, I would trade points in writing skill for points in imagination any day. And, I think you were spot on with everything else you said.
I haven't actually read any of the Harry Potter books on account of my being a grown man, but I did take my kids to see one of the films at the cinema and can say without hesitation that it was one of the worst films I have ever seen. Had I not been there with the kids I would have got up and walked out after 30 minutes or so. I honestly don't understand the fuss about it all. It's not exactly original or particularly inspired. I really don't get it.
Don't forget she has also done a lot for charity too, both through her own donations and from the endorsements of her work. A lot of people that wouldn't be able to read otherwise, are now learning.
Talent, in writing, is a very subjective matter. All the technical ability in the world will not make your writing interesting without the imagination that is required to conjure a compulsive story. It is sheer snobbery to belittle the achievements of someone like JK Rowling by picking faults in her grammar or construction, or any other technical aspect of her artistic endeavours. She has brought pleasure to millions of readers through her writing. I'm sure she can afford a wry smile towards a few disapproving experts on an internet writer's forum who prefer something a little more highbrow. At the end of the day she writes for readers, not for frustrated writers, and in my humble opinion, her success is richly deserved.
JK Rowling shows us that you can make a boring story great by its execution. I don't see her work as exceptional or emotionally powerful that would classify her as an excellent author at this point. And before anyone says so, just because she was writing for children doesn't mean she couldn't make a masterpiece. Chronicles of Narnia was written for children and I consider it to be a classic. Along with Wizard of Oz and so on and so forth. But she knew how to present the story well and I think she deserves credit for that.
Its one example of films where you need to read the books first - a lot is missing from the films. The humour isn't as good - Fred and George were unfortunately marginalised etc - maybe read the books and then watch the films.
I'm by no means a HP obsessive, but I'd agree that the films are a poor barometer for the books. The latest film is the only one I'd actually describe as "good", and that's only because it's so deliciously bleak...
Setting and immersion win first prize in the Harry Potter stories I think, and probably has the best shout if you're looking for a reason as to why the books became such a phenomenon.
See it varies but actually I think she develops that well through the series you see how Voldemort made himself that way based on his background with his parents - it is contrasted with Hagrid who had a similar background and made different choices.
I often get the feel that Voldemort is actually based on someone - the others less consciously so. Think her own feelings sometimes get in the way when she talks about him. I think her autobiography would be really interesting - I am not a massive Harry Potter fan, I love the stories but none make it into my top ten (I have only just read the Half Blood Prince and yet to see the Order of the Phoenix movie). Do think they are as good as other books that become immortal classics. Little Women, Heidi, What Katy Did etc none are that original, but they are wonderful to read. What for me makes a classic is a book that actually you feel safe curled up reading on a Sunday afternoon - it doesn't take a huge amount of brain power it just tells you a wonderful story. I read the first Harry Potter one night several years after it's release finished it in around two hours and went out to buy the other three (Chamber of Secrets, Prisoner of Azkaban (which is my favoruite) and Goblet of Fire). Wonder if the issue is the difference between a storyteller and a writer? I don't really see myself as a writer and I never look at a book as a piece of writing I am searching for a good story. That doesn't have to be fiction - Shadow of Forgotten Ancestors by Carl Sagan, Richard III by Michael Hicks and several others are amazing and do the same for me.
Can someone tell me how JK Rowling is a not a talented writer? An example or two of poor writing from a Harry Potter book would help.
I stopped reading the Potter series after the first few pages of the first book. I just couldn't believe Mr. Dursley's actions when seeing all the people dressed as wizards. It was just silly. I'm not sure if I can dismiss Rowling after that for 'bad writing', but what I have read was bad. I've not really looked at them for a very long time however.
Okay, but is that any worse than Charles Dickens? He too was big on hyperbole and is nevertheless considered a great writer.
I'm not a fan of Charles Dickens. I've read a few of his books, and enjoyed them, but they are in no way what I consider to be good writing either.
Can we henceforth stop using the names "JK Rowling" and "Charles Dickens" in the same post? Love him or hate him, you cannot deny that Dickens was one of the most influential English-language fiction writers, ever. You can most certainly deny this of Rowling.
I think she is as good. I think her stories are as enduring. Include a certain amount of social commentary and deserve to be listed right next to him. Her storytelling ability is as good.
