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

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

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.

Except for the fact that these Rowling-people are possibly buying less fantasy now. If these people are not reading more after crossing over to the new genre, someone has to lose something; in this case, the fantasy authors. (I'm assuming that these Rowling-readers buy more fantasy than only the HP books.)

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

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.

I have made no such claim. I have not claimed that book sales increase, only that it is not demonstrated that sales of other books will decrease as a result of a big name author moving into a new genre, that it is not demonstrated that people have a fixed amount of money that they will spend on books. The money has to come from somewhere, but it doesn't have to come from other books.

[kyteflyer]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Except for the fact that these Rowling-people are possibly buying less fantasy now. If these people are not reading more after crossing over to the new genre, someone has to lose something; in this case, the fantasy authors. (I'm assuming that these Rowling-readers buy more fantasy than only the HP books.)

Why does it have to be either-or?

[QuantumIguana]

Should popular restaurants be closed so that less-popular ones can do better? Or should restaurants instead try to win over customers? Should blockbuster movies be shut down in the hopes that less-popular movies could do better? How about popular lines of clothing? Would any of these moves actually be good for the respective industries?

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by kyteflyer

Why does it have to be either-or?

Because one cannot read an infinite amount of books.

If people who read 50 books a year, mainly in the Fantasy genre because of Rowling, are now reading (some) Crime genre books, also because of Rowling, they will read less Fantasy if they keep reading 50 books a year.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I have not claimed that book sales increase, only that it is not demonstrated that sales of other books will decrease as a result of a big name author moving into a new genre, that it is not demonstrated that people have a fixed amount of money that they will spend on books. The money has to come from somewhere, but it doesn't have to come from other books.

I'd have to agree that nothing much has been demonstrated.

In my country, we do know that book reading, while it does go up a bit some years, is in long-term decline:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...-lover/283222/

My link ends with this less than stirringly optimistic summary of the data:

Perhaps the worst of the fall is over.

Of course, people can read less but still buy more books. Lots of things are possible. Including that when someone buys your book, they are choosing not to buy another book. I admit that it would take a lot more careful analysis of the data (and a lot more data access) than I have to prove who is right -- whether it be the optimists (everyone else in this thread), or the pessimist (me).

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Because one cannot read an infinite amount of books.

If people who read 50 books a year, mainly in the Fantasy genre because of Rowling, are now reading (some) Crime genre books, also because of Rowling, they will read less Fantasy if they keep reading 50 books a year.

Or maybe, people who read five books a year will read six or seven.

My wife hardly read anything for 10 years after graduating from nursing school. She got turned on to a cozy mystery five years ago, and now reads a consistent 2-3 books a month.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

What a twit.

And if she hasn't read any of the Harry Potter books, how does she smugly decide that it's oh-so-unfortunate that adults enjoyed them? How does she know that adults couldn't find something worthwhile in these books?

I say this as someone who read exactly one Harry Potter book, thought it was just "eh," and have no desire to read JK Rowling. But such jealousy of a writer who has entertained millions upon millions of people is just incredible.

Agreed. I read parts of the article and some of the replies. *snort*

I didn't see anywhere where she claimed that if she was as successful as Rowling that she would stop writing. I must have missed that part.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Should popular restaurants be closed so that less-popular ones can do better? Or should restaurants instead try to win over customers? Should blockbuster movies be shut down in the hopes that less-popular movies could do better? How about popular lines of clothing? Would any of these moves actually be good for the respective industries?

Exactly.

[soulfuldog]

I haven't read the article in full, the quotes were enough to put me off wasting two minutes of my life doing that, but it sounds more like a schoolboy argument than anything else. It's not fair, wah!

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by soulfuldog

It's not fair, wah!

That's a perfect summary, actually.

[hardcastle]

The article was simplistic and myopic. Few facts, reactionary, terribly unconvincing.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Because one cannot read an infinite amount of books.

If people who read 50 books a year, mainly in the Fantasy genre because of Rowling, are now reading (some) Crime genre books, also because of Rowling, they will read less Fantasy if they keep reading 50 books a year.

It's not about ONE PERSON. It's about the industry. If Rowling's continued success keeps people interested in books in general, they stay relevant and maintain better profits.

It's not just a fight between books, it's a fight between every form of entertainment for everyone's free time. Even if Rowling's books hog the attention span of the populace, it's at least directing their gaze in the direction that the industry wants. It's not Rowling's fault that authors and publishers can't harness that correctly.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by 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.

[DiapDealer]

Thank goodness there's always a few willing to elevate themselves above their mortal contemporaries in order to safeguard the flickering embers of literacracy.

[samhy]

So basically, authors only write for the money? And when they get enough, they quit so others can have their share of the pie?
Suuure, no idea, no value, no story is worth sharing for its own sake. No, no, no. And no book has ever changed someone's life