You are writing children's books, you need to be a ruthless killer.

[Chang Style Novice]

For the Harry Potter freaks (I'm not one, but I know many, and I'll bet someone here qualifies.)

http://us.imdb.com/PeopleNews/#2

[ZIM]

Rowling has also confirmed there will just be two more Harry novels after the Order Of The Phoenix - taking the total to seven. :eek: Where to hide the bodies, then? This is going to be bloodbath, I'll tell you right now..

[shaolin kungfu]

Harry Potter makes me want to put a pistol to me eyeball and pull the trigger.:mad:

Rowling sold her soul to the devil, and I can't wait till he collects.

[MasterKiller]

Rowling is a chick, and she was a poor single mom on welfare before she sold the first book. She makes no claims about being a prolific artist, so don't expect her to be. She was just trying to feed her kids.

[BSH]

I am a fan. Not afraid to admit it.

Why all the anger for a poor single mother who made it and is now giving back.

[Chang Style Novice]

I've never read one of the books, never seen one of the movies. I think it's a little too bad that a self-admitted hack is the wealthiest author ever, but I'm too used to hacks outselling geniuses to get worked up about it, or to bear her any ill will.

But I thought it was a HILARIOUS quote!

[BSH]

Which was the HILARIOUS quote I missed. I must have misplaced my sense of humor.

[MasterKiller]

You are writing children's books, you need to be a ruthless killer.

[shaolin kungfu]

The books sucked more ass than david hasselfhoff, and the movies unleashed a horrible plaque against humanity. I don't care if she was " just trying to feed her kid". If she wanted to do that, she should have gotten a job at mcdonalds and not tried for years to write a book, while her kid and her lived on welfare.

That woman is satans bltch, and should be treated as such.

[Judge Pen]

MK,

In your professional opinion is she a hack or not?

[MasterKiller]

In your professional opinion is she a hack or not?
I've never read any of the books, or tried to. Generally, I find that most successful mainstream writers tend to suck @ss because they appeal to the widest market base---stupid people. But with children's books you have to have a different approach. Kids like things for completely different reasons than adults, and the huge popularity of these novels seems to be more than just good marketing. These books are like 700 pages. I guess anyone who can get 7 year-olds excited about reading 700-page books deserves some recognition.

[Shaolin-Do]

.
Ive never read one of those books. Or seen the movies. Hear they are cool on hallucinogens or lack of sleep.



































indeed.....

[Laughing Cow]

Watched a movie in the series, while nothing particularly new or ground breaking it seems to appeal to kids.

IMO, anything that rips them away from the TV, PC or game station is a good thing.

Most Writers started of as hacks, so what. Perfect example Terry Pratchet, Douglas Adams. and most SF writers.

Now many gotten so famous and popular that they are required to release mediocre books just to fill the demand.
ex.: Stephen King, etc.

I think there are very few people out there that ahd a goal of attending university so that they could become book authors.

Cheers.

[MasterKiller]

Most Writers started of as hacks, so what. Perfect example Terry Pratchet, Douglas Adams. and most SF writers.

Started implies they eventually became something else...


I think there are very few people out there that ahd a goal of attending university so that they could become book authors.Half the people I went to school with went to college to become writers. Problem is, writing is a lot like kung fu....Lots of people want to know how to write, but not too many people want to learn how to write.

That, and every other single mom in the world thinks they can write because their teacher liked their short-stories in kindergarden.:D

[Chang Style Novice]

Well, I think Adams was better than a hack. Pratchett writes a hell of a lot, and never seems to come up with anything really lasting, so I'll say hack for him, but a very funny hack. Way better than Stephen King, who pretty much defines hackalicious hackmaster hack.

And yeah, LOTS of people go through liberal arts or fine arts degrees but precious few make a living at it, and even fewer ever create anything that will last through the ages. Is anyone who fails to produce works of genius a hack? No. The difference, IMO, is mainly intent. If you want to write a bestselling book, and write in such a way as to maximize your chances of bestsellerdom, you're a hack. If you write a bestselling book as a result of trying to write the best, most insightful book you can, you're not. Unless you're just shallow in which case you ARE a hack, but you had to work very hard to get to be a hack, and I admire that effort.

[Serpent]

The first Potter book is really badly written and mostly rehashed ideas. The thing is that she hit a couple of original gems and targetted the right audience at the right time. That, and she obviously managed somehow to get someone in the industry to push the book for her (luck or blow jobs, you decide). That book would never have made it normally. Then, in the second book, you can almost hear the editorial help she got. Her voice changes and her writing style and story, while obviously from the same source, is carried by a heavy editorial support team.

I think she's a d@mn lucky writer, more than a talented one, but I got to agree with MK - she got 7 year olds reading novels instead of playing video games. For that she deserves her millions. Good for her.

(And some of her ideas are great, once every few hundred pages anyway...)

[Becca]

The first Potter book is really badly written and mostly rehashed ideas.
I found the book to be fairly well written. What exactly did you find to be badly written? The language is simple, but it was written for kids. The plot was simple, but well developed. There was not a whole lot of early character development, but that is also something you don't find much in adolecent's books.

Go reread some classic children's book. They are written pretty much the same way. Blakc Beuty, a Hourse Name Flicka, The Black Stalion, Ann of Green Gables. All good books, and some of them aren't even as well written as the first of the Potter Books.

[Serpent]

Her use of grammar and sentence construction is clumsy, her descriptions vary greatly in detail, character development is often rather "uneven" (betwen characters). The general flow of the writing is stilted, especially compared to the second book.

As for the story, if you've read a lot of fantasy fiction and suchlike, there are really very few new ideas in there. Just old ideas in a new setting.

The biggest coup she pulled was setting it in a wizard's school (which in itself is not a new idea) but she designed the school like a regular high school meaning that Harry would be there for seven years. The first book was year one. Therefore, success of the first book guaranteed a seven-book deal! Genius! ;)

[Becca]

As for the story, if you've read a lot of fantasy fiction and suchlike, there are really very few new ideas in there. Just old ideas in a new setting.

When I was in school, the theam was horses.:rolleyes: Notice the selection of children's books I listed.

And it is easier to get kids to read if they have some way to relate to the material. reinventing the wheele may not be very high-minded, but it is what kids relate to best.


Her use of grammar and sentence construction is clumsy, her descriptions vary greatly in detail, character development is often rather "uneven" (betwen characters).

Ok, can't argue with that one. It was (all of those things, to some degree)


The general flow of the writing is stilted, especially compared to the second book.

It may not have had as good a flow, but it was not stilted. I had a hard time putting tat book down, just as I did with the others. I'm the kind of person who gets boared with a book if it is too stilted or choppy, or just plain unimaginative, in the first few chapters. By the end of the second chapter, I was hooked.

It may not be the best example of good literary workmanship, but it was an enjoyable read. And most writters get better with practice... That doesn't meen the editors did all the polishing.

[PHILBERT]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Rowling is a chick, and she was a poor single mom on welfare before she sold the first book. She makes no claims about being a prolific artist, so don't expect her to be. She was just trying to feed her kids.

Agreed. I haven't read any books, seen both movies though. I agree though, she was a dirt sucking poor single mother who wrote a book and got millions. Rags to riches, all you folks that diss her are just jealous because she did something you haven't even tried to do.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Becca
It may not be the best example of good literary workmanship, but it was an enjoyable read. And most writters get better with practice... That doesn't meen the editors did all the polishing.

Fair comment. However, I still maintain that she had a lot of editorial help after the first book.

[Becca]

Have too tried to do that!:mad: Not my faut those silly editors couldn't understand my hand-wriiten napkin scribbles!
















:D

[MasterKiller]

As for the story, if you've read a lot of fantasy fiction and suchlike, there are really very few new ideas in there. Just old ideas in a new setting.
The last new idea occured about 1,200 years ago. Everything since then has just been a rehash. I'm actually based off of a 10th century peasent who sold horse dung for a living. But in the remake, they made me a writer. Very similar.


Fair comment. However, I still maintain that she had a lot of editorial help after the first book.
Editors re-write a great deal of any book they want to push. It's the Tao of Publishing. Usually, the find someone they can market, then worry about what they wrote later.

[Merryprankster]

What's up with the Haterade on this thread? Great, fun, light books. What were you expecting? Relevatory insights on the nature of man?

Of course the themes aren't new. Christ.


Just a friendly reminder--today's pop culture is tomorrow's classic.

[BAI HE]

Archetypes, mythical story... Joseph Campbell Hers of a thousand faces.....

It's all the same.

[Budokan]

MK hit the nail on the head. Rowling is catering to the lowest common denominator: stupid people. Therefore she doesn't have to write well (she doesn't) or often (she doesn't) to hit it big and make a lot of money.

I started to read the first book and gave up after the first two pages. The writing was simply awful, but of course a tween doesn't know good writing from bad and that's her main audience. Come to think of it, neither do a lot of adults, else how could you explain the stupefying success of Jean Auel, Harold Robbins, Sisters Collins and the like...?

I'm a professional writer. In my professional opinion she's a hack, but sadly that's not enough in our culture to deny success to someone.

As for her making a lot of money by writing tripe? Well, get used to it; that's the society we live in. I don't like it, either, and neither do most of the science fiction/fantasy writers I know, but short of putting out a contract on her there's not much anyone can do about it.

But her writing sure does s*ck....:rolleyes:

[Budokan]

Oh, and even that quote of hers wasn't all that original. It echoed the famous "In writing you must kill all your darlings" quote.

[Merryprankster]

MK hit the nail on the head. Rowling is catering to the lowest common denominator: stupid people. Therefore she doesn't have to write well (she doesn't) or often (she doesn't) to hit it big and make a lot of money.

Ah yes. And Shakespeare was writing for who again?

[Budokan]

He wrote for your average everyday common cumwad. But at least he had some literary talent...

[MasterKiller]

Sometimes the author's work transcends his intent. I would say Shakespeare is a great example of this.'

Besides, a lot of his plays blow. You only read the good ones in highschool.

[Budokan]

God, isn't that the truth? Try reading Cymbeline sometime. It'll put you right to sleep...

Only about a third of his stuff is truly good: the tragedies, most of the comedies and a handful of his historical plays. The rest is plumb forgettable.

[Black Jack]

Yeah well, I bet none of you mooks are being forced to take your god-child to that midnight opening for her newest cowpie, I wonder if marketing ever considered that some adults work?

I can picture it now, a field of overweight soccer moms with unisex haircuts in neverending lines, holding their screaming brat by the paw for a 700 page book they will never read, just because its the in thing.

[KC Elbows]

I've never read her stuff, so I haven't the slightest idea what her writing is like. My impression is that her books sort of mark the era when it is not longer geeky to read Elric books in school. The genre is acclimated.

As for the hack argument, I dunno about all that. I know too many people who can tell you exactly what's wrong what someone else is doing, but can't actually write anything that lives. In the grand scheme, they're missing something that most hacks have, a modest amount of intuition. But they sometimes make great editors and are exactly who you want to proofread your stuff, in my limited experience. But then there ARE hacks. But to me, a hack is someone I think has never cared in their writing. I think Steven King has had moments in writing where he cared and I felt it, so I can respect him. That's why I could read Moor****- it's sometimes kind of campy, the whole champion eternal thing and all, but i think it lived for him, and thus for me. That's why the Xanth novels, the Mission Earth books, etc. all seem so oatmealy to me. If there was something in it the writer cared about, they sure the heck didn't care enough. It's like the Dune books. I really liked the beginning as its own story, but then it became an issue of mimicking the beginning to produce a franchise, and that's not really putting an effort forth, it seems to me. However, it does pay the bills, and if it paid well enough to guarantee that I could write all I wanted and eat, I'd have to seriously think long and hard about whether or not I'd do it a little too, under a pen name, of course, so that the neighbors wouldn't know. Perhaps a romance based around a hollywood office, yeah. That'll fund my upper crusty stuff.

I mean, it's beneath me, but then, I've seen Battle Beyond the Stars, so really, I'm already pretty much damaged goods.

[Becca]

KC, that's about myimpression of a hack, too. I have to admit, i have a hard time disrespecting ANYONE who is successful in writting industry. It's just too darn hard to make it that high and there is little chance for them to get to that point with out lotts of effort and hard work.

I won't say I'm a professional writter, but I do write. It's a good release. Some times I submit my work in those "writting contests" Have even gotten some of it published, but only in stupid periodicals that no one reads. And have never gotten paid for it.

My point is, though, that even if they ARE hacks, they still had to work for it.

[ntc]

As a matter of fact, a lot of Chinese martial artists in ancient China were both scholars and fighters. Most were fantastic calligraphers, and were well known for their artwork. They also wrote poetry and classic texts. The scholarly aspect represented the "Yin" part of the martial art, and the fighting aspect the "Yang" part. It was said that to be whole, you had to be a master in both.

Writers should be respected just as much as martial artists are respected.

[Chang Style Novice]

No way! Royce would totally choke Norman Mailer out!:rolleyes: