i agree with your points about connecting to the readership...i just don't agree that readership offers a whole lot of info as to the author's skill... i won't deny that while i consider dan brown a total hack...his writing does provide a ripping escape... there are dangers to writing with the readership in mind as well...i write what i would like to read...and i just hope that at least a couple people enjoy it... but each writer has there own philosophy...and if it works, it works...
But that, again, depends on what you define as skill. Engaging the reader is a skill. In fact, that has to be the greatest skill a writer can have.
I think it is just as impressive to be successful in writing for either audience. Each has their challenges. Sure, Tolstoy's work takes more intelligence. But, who is to say that he could have done anything in comparison to what Rowling in children's writing?
i want to say that it seems like it would have a lot more to do with luck, the right marketing, and then establishing of the formula...
i was referring to tolstoy as an unfair comparison due to the fact that tolstoy's audience required a great deal mor elaboration and sophistication than rowling's...but you're right...i can't say that he'd have been a better writer of stilted, hackneyed children's books....just kidding...
That too. To acheive the phenomenal success that Rowling has, there has to be an element of luck. But before luck made its entrance, there were months and years of hard graft.
you try writing for teens see what they have to say - I did read Tolstoy as a teen have to say my view of him was probably old fart. Some authors I spoiled for myself by reading them too young (have never got past the idea that Heathcliff is a great big orange cartoon cat - which makes Wuthering Heights and interesting book to read). Writing children's book takes a good degree of skill - look at Enid Blyton amazing proflific, stunning world builder etc - she did try writing for adults but the children she taught liked reading it better.
i am pretty sure that if tolstoy watched twillight, he could probably figure out a teen book or two... btw, my comparison wasn't fair because neither is remotely similar...each wins in their category...but i think it would be hard to ever say that rowling is the better overall writer...
I'm not saying she is better - both are great. I think she deserves a place amongst other writers of classic childrens books: Johanna Spyri, Louisa May Alcott, Mark Twain, E Nesbit, Enid Blyton, Roald Dahl, CS Lewis, Charles Kingsley, Pamela Brown, Frances Hodgson Burnett, Judy Blume, Jacqueline Wilson etc
deconstructing a person's on physical terms is a practise that isn't too popular among the more politically minded of womyn
Oh, I've met women who think like that, and my impression is that they lack rationality, at least in this area. The kind of women who'll 1) complain if a man checks out their womanly attributes and 2) log onto Youtube and salivate over the latest shirtless hunk while typing in all caps: "TEAM EDWARD!!!" LOL
Personally I think the skills are more divided. I think an author has both imagination and technical writing ability.
Love her or hate her, she is astronomically better than Stephani Meyer - like a kindergartner (Meyer) next to Shakespeare (Rowling)