If JK Rowling Cares About Writing, She Should Stop Doing It

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

You must be reading a different article that I did. While it definitely is attention-bait, it was anything but tongue in cheek. It was whining that Rowling has entered *her* genre and is *stealing* readers from her *just* because of her name and should just quit writing and give other folks a chance.

Your second article (the answer) points out that Rowling might actually make her Fantasy fans aware of the Crime/Detective genre, saying that if this happens, Rowling can't possibly write enough books to keep these people reading continuously.

That would mean that Rowling fans might actually start to buy Crime/Detective novels by other writers in between the Rowling books.

It's not an or/or market; even if Rowling enters a new genre, nobody who buys in the Crime/Detective genre will start buying Rowling books exclusively disregarding all other authors in that genre forever. That's ridiculous. People who buy books in this genre already will either buy Rowling books *alongside* the books they'd be normally buying, or no Rowling books at all.

The suggestion that the genre will receive a part of Rowling's Fantasy fandom, which will later (possibly) boost the sales of other authors, seems by far more plausible.

Spoiler:

PS: I'm not a fan of Rowling or Harry Potter, but I'm not against them either. I haven't ever read an HP book or seen one of the movies, so at this point in time, my opinion is neutral. The only thing I don't like about Rowling and Harry Potter is that some of the fandom behaves as if they have experienced the be-all and end-all of Fantasy after reading the books and seeing the movies, wailing that now that there won't be any HP anymore, "no good Fantasy will ever be written anymore".

[covingtoncat73]

I read this and Wendy Pini's and Ann Rice's responses to it yesterday. It is definitely sour grapes.

I was already well into my 20s when the Harry Potter books started getting big. I enjoyed them, though I admit that, until the last two books, I listened to the Jim Dale narration as an audiobook (I did read a physical copy of the first book before the first movie). The series does hit its stride or start doing so with the third book. I enjoyed them. I do wish I could have read them when I was a kid.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Ironically, I've often thought things would be better if a lot of the editorial writers for the HuffPo just stopped writing

Yeah.. HuffPo is *not* on my recommended reading list. Came across this gem through reddit (which is also not the most enlightened place for news )

[Namekuseijin]

a literary kinda guy rant. And I agree with it, but doesn't matter: Idiocracy is too entrenched already in global society.

I'd say we're back to pre-Renaissance times: after all the contrapuntal excesses of the XIX century, nowadays bards rule in the music camp with simplistic songs and in the literary camp cavalry fantasy and legends with moral parables for kids and grownup kids alike. Soon enough we should get back to single gutural grunts around a bonfire with burning pork meat. Then mankind reboots and marvel at the people who raised the ancient concrete skyscrappers.

Twitter literature is a right step in that direction.

[crich70]

No doubt some of the contemporaries of Charles Dickens felt the same way about how well he was doing compared to their own books. And I wager some probably were jealous of Issac Asimov's diversity of writing as well. What makes this different though is that they didn't throw a pity party in front of millions like this author seems to be from the quoted passages. It sounds like the 'Oh woe is me (author's name) is writing more or better than I can at the moment and denying me my dues,' sort of rant. A lot of books (from what I understand) were written because someone read another author's book and thought "I can do better than that." But instead of doing that this author threw a pity party. I wager it does more harm than good to their own career as an author. People can have a long memory about other people who act out like this. Especially when it's on the net where anything that goes up can never really be taken down. The original poster may delete it but you can bet it will be archived somewhere by someone.

[DiapDealer]

And by "literary guy" rant you mean "crime fiction girl" rant?

No. She's not claiming Rowling should quit because she's lowering the literary bar. She's saying Rowling should stay out of her genre so her own work has a better chance of getting noticed. Did you even read the same article?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And by "literary guy" rant you mean "crime fiction girl" rant?

No. She's not claiming Rowling should quit because she's lowering the literary bar. She's saying Rowling should stay out of her genre so her own work has a btter chance of getting noticed. Did you even read the same article?

Agreed, she's she's not exactly a shining light of high-brow literature. She's just angry because someone else is getting sales that she thinks are her property. And even if it was a "literary guy" rant, "popular literature" has always been, well, popular. That's the reason they call it popular. But I suppose if you stare at the alleged high-brow literature until your eyes bleed, you'll start to see the emperor's new clothes too. The alleged high-brow literature would be worse off if the popular literature were done away with. Take away the books that people actually enjoy reading, and reading stops.

[Ranny]

Were there no alarm bells ringing about the cuckoo calling before it was revealed? A first time author, eBook at premium rates and never in sales, very quick audio book. I used an audible credit for it but only listened after it was revealed.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

http://mark---lawrence.blogspot.co.u...sing-tide.html

This avoids the self-destructiveness of Lynn Shepherd, but is less plausible. People have a limited book budget, and if they buy more by one author, they will tend to buy less of others. Success by one author no more lifts the incomes of others than a great year for Walmart helps Target.

You could interpret Lawrence in another way -- that he thinks Rowling is increasing the market for her own genres even if decreasing it in others. If so, why is that good?

Rowling seems to give an unusually high percentage of her income to charities. So from that standpoint, you could say that it's better for people to buy her books.

[covingtoncat73]

I don't know about that. If people buy books and they like them, they will buy more. Yes, people have limited budgets, but I believe JKR and Harry Potter is responsible for the explosion in YA literature. She encouraged a generation to be readers.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by covingtoncat73

Yes, people have limited budgets, but I believe JKR and Harry Potter is responsible for the explosion in YA literature. She encouraged a generation to be readers.

Exactly. Readers who just may follow her to another genre--where they could concievably get turned on to another author looking to make a splash.

[kyteflyer]

I read anything and everything I can get my hands on. I must confess I was slow to get started on Harry Potter, it was a few years after the first was released that I began. I loved it from the outset. I think when some people read this stuff they expect more of it than its intention. It was written for kids, about that age... 10-11 or so. The first book was an easy, enjoyable read. As the series matured, so did the books. As the characters matured, so did the books. She was still writing for the group she wrote for at first... but they were getting older. The books aged with them. I thought she did it brilliantly, and she does write well. Well enough for me to have then read The Casual Vacancy, and more recently, The Cuckoo's Calling. I will continue to read JK Rowling, but I'll also continue to read other authors as well. I tend to prefer sci-fi and murder/mystery/mayhem/spies... reading JK was a divergence, and a very pleasant one. I get fed up with seeing crits from people who havent ever read the books but who still manage to have an opinion about them. As for audiobooks, Stephen Fry's reading was far more pleasing (for me) than Jim Dale's.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Exactly. Readers who just may follow her to another genre--where they could concievably get turned on to another author looking to make a splash.

YES! I have a friend who is a complete NUTTER about anything Potter... but he is not limited to that, for his reading. His kids read the series when he introduced them to it, but they are moving on. One is now just in her first year at University and is spreading her literary wings. I'd hate to think there are people in the world who *only* read Potter/JK but really... i just cant imagine that those people exist. Bemoaning no more Potter isnt wrong or bad and doesn't signify incapacity to enjoy other genres. Any book/series that can get kids reading is GOOD. And for that, the Harry Potter series worked marvellously.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

This avoids the self-destructiveness of Lynn Shepherd, but is less plausible. People have a limited book budget, and if they buy more by one author, they will tend to buy less of others. Success by one author no more lifts the incomes of others than a great year for Walmart helps Target.

You could interpret Lawrence in another way -- that he thinks Rowling is increasing the market for her own genres even if decreasing it in others. If so, why is that good?

Rowling seems to give an unusually high percentage of her income to charities. So from that standpoint, you could say that it's better for people to buy her books.

People have a finite amount of money, but that doesn't mean they buy a fixed number of books. If they are led to a new genre by following Rowling, they may well simply read more books. The money has to come from somewhere, but it doesn't necessarily mean they will buy less books. Perhaps they stay home and read instead of going out to the movies. You can buy a couple books for the cost of a movie.

If someone is not a reader of crime drama, but buy Rowling's crime drama because Rowling wrote it, that doesn't lessen Shepherd's sales, these people wouldn't have bought a crime drama if it wasn't for Rowling, so Shepherd wouldn't have had the sale anyway.

Blaming your lack of sales on some other author selling books is what hacks do.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

People have a finite amount of money, but that doesn't mean they buy a fixed number of books. If they are led to a new genre by following Rowling, they may well simply read more books. The money has to come from somewhere, but it doesn't necessarily mean they will buy less books. Perhaps they stay home and read instead of going out to the movies. You can buy a couple books for the cost of a movie.

All of this could be true. There is some actual evidence that total books sales increase a bit when there are humongous best-sellers:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapt...rcent-for-2012

What I don't see in links such as the above is whether book sales increase, or even stay steady, in years of stupendous best-sellers -- subtracting out the super best-sellers. The optimists in this thread, like yourself, are making the latter claim.

How about this for a different criticism of the Shepherd thesis:

Just as some folks love to find unknown authors, others gravitate towards celebrities. If J. K. Rowling and Suzanne Collins bow out, others will fill their place, and the mid-list will remain the mid-list.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Just as some folks love to find unknown authors, others gravitate towards celebrities. If J. K. Rowling and Suzanne Collins bow out, others will fill their place, and the mid-list will remain the mid-list.

How about... Rowling puts out a book that everyone loves. It takes her a year or two or three to put out another book. In the meantime folks look around the genre to find something else that looks good. Other books are bought. New authors are discovered. Books are sold. Seems to me, as my second link in OP says, everybody wins. Rowling sells books and because she sells books, other people in the same genre sell books. Looks like win-win to me.