J.K. Rowling set to write "crime" novel

[eyez0nme]

hahahahhahahahahah!!

I am going to laugh at her atrocious writing, and at her galls of trying to dapple in noir fiction.

I wonder if she's going to keep the same pseuydonym.

 

[Mrs Pacino]

Well she's made more than I have out of writing so I'd be reading it without any pre-conceived ideas.

I'm guessing she's made more than you have too.

 

[Stewart]

I'm guessing she's made more than you have too.

Not that I like jumping to eyez's defence, I don't quite see what making money from writing has to do with appreciation of an author's work. JK Rowling may have made loads of cash from books but they are still nothing more than floss.

Fair eough if she wants to write a crime novel. It's nice that she wants to be more protean in her writing career. But I don't see it being any good purely on the strength of her writing in the samples I've read.

 

[Mrs Pacino]

The point being, what does she care now? She's made her money, she now has time to have some fun and use her name to get whatever she wants published. I'd love that kind of opportunity.

And having seen her books turn lots and lots of kids onto reading, I cannot give her anything but praise. I'm an english teacher, and trying to get kids to read is a huge part of my work. Once they get into books, there's no stopping them. J K Rowling has done this for many children and I can't fault her in any way for this, even if her books are "floss".

 

[opalescent]

Floss you say

I agree with Mrs.Pacino, you may call it "floss" but it has fueled the minds of many many children. And changed young adult fiction like no one has ever seen. Diverse quality is now flooding the market and kids are reading by the droves.
I say yea for Rowlings and I'll read anything she writes. And yes I'm a 45 year old Harry Potter fan...
I'm the Director of our small town Library and if Harry Potter gets them in the door then I'm all for it.

 

[eyez0nme]

Fueled fantasy, not literature.

Literature is dead (in this era).

Give a kid a classic novel, and they'll burn it on the spot, calling it heresy.

 

[Stewart]

The point being, what does she care now? She's made her money, she now has time to have some fun and use her name to get whatever she wants published.

But that's clearly not the point because you forced the issue of money onto a fellow reader, as if meaning that unless you can prove yourself a writer capable of gargantuan sales then you are unfit to pass comment on another, which is blinkered tosh.

And having seen her books turn lots and lots of kids onto reading, I cannot give her anything but praise.

I'm sure she has. Personally I've never truly bought into the whole argument that she (since it's she singlehandedly that gets this credit) has done anything. I daresay it's the heavily financed machine behind her that has pushed the product into the hearts and minds of children (and, unsettlingly, adults) and she has just provided the battery to start it all.

I would like to think that the greater percentage of children are going on to read new things, whether it be Pullman's His Dark Materials or the highly regarded classics. Perhaps after Harry Potter the pack mentality falls away but in this day and age should we not be expecting another to be reaching sales similar to Rowling now that Potter fixes are no more? Are children actively reading beyond Rowling? Certainly not in the scope that the Rowling-turned-kids-on-to-reading argument wants us to believe.

And it seems as if the man who brought us Rowling in the first place now wants to kill of any notion of reading, given that he's pushing The Highfield Mole, rebranded as Tunnnels, which is a supposedly lack-lustre novel originally self-published in 2005.

I'm an english teacher

Then you should know that English has a capital e.

 

[SFG75]

hahahahhahahahahah!!

I am going to laugh at her atrocious writing, and at her galls of trying to dapple in noir fiction.

I wonder if she's going to keep the same pseuydonym.

Rumor is: Harry Batter and the Man with a knife in his back is to be released soon.

 

[Anamnesis]

Maybe she'll try writing in a different style this time . . .?

I think it's great that she wants to try new genres. I never read any of the Harry Potter books (I don't plan to, either) but I am curious to see how Rowling handles the crime fiction genre.

One question: do you think her new work will be a bestseller or will it receive meager sales?

 

[Angelini]

I think whatever she writes will become a bestseller simply because it has her name attached to it.

I like Harry Potter books, but I didn't expect them to be fantastic literature. I read them as an escape from all the literature that I had been reading for my degree. Sometimes you need a break, and Harry Potter is great for that.

As for JKR 'turning kids onto reading' ... it was her story, yes, but she had a lot of people cramming HP down the throats of everyone. It's frightening how much people are influenced by good marketing.

 

[Zolipara]

I agree with Mrs.Pacino, you may call it "floss" but it has fueled the minds of many many children. And changed young adult fiction like no one has ever seen. Diverse quality is now flooding the market and kids are reading by the droves.

Thats a statement thats repeated many times, but booksales are not skyrocketing outside of harry potter books. Kids dont read more or advance much beyond harry potter.

 

[Violanthe]

The way I see it is that there's literature and there's commercial fiction. There's a place for both, and some very cool writers manage to combine the best of both.

J.K. Rowling writes commerical fiction. It's meant to entertain. Most "crime" and "mystery" fiction is also commercial fiction that's meant to entertain.

I don't see what's so remarkable here. An author of one type of commercial fiction is simply switching to a different genre of commercial fiction.

 

[Stewart]

The way I see it is that there's literature and there's commercial fiction. J.K. Rowling writes commerical fiction. It's meant to entertain.

Are you suggesting that literature is not meant to entertain. Surely that's the purpose of fiction, commercial or otherwise?

 

[steffee]

The way I see it is that there's literature and there's commercial fiction. J.K. Rowling writes commerical fiction. It's meant to entertain.

Are you suggesting that literature is not meant to entertain. Surely that's the purpose of fiction, commercial or otherwise?

I would disagree and say the purpose of literature is more to educate than entertain. There is less of a story, as such.

 

[abecedarian]

I would disagree and say the purpose of literature is more to educate than entertain. There is less of a story, as such.

How about a middle ground: Good literature should both entertain and educate. The world is full of printed material that merely entertains, and we've all survived the printed works that were educational, but failed to entertain. The memorable works are those that satisfy on both counts.

 

[Stewart]

I would disagree and say the purpose of literature is more to educate than entertain. There is less of a story, as such.

Is Dickens literature or commercial fiction?

 

[steffee]

Dickens is literature, I expect. But I do believe Dickens educates. He educates the reader on his times, such as with workhouses and whatnot; and he educates us on the scope of human nature. His books contain characters from the rich to the poor, from the malevolent to the kind, lucky and unlucky, etc.

I probably agree with ABC, decent literature probably involves a healthy mix of the two.

 

[sparkchaser]

So by your reasoning Dan Brown is literature.



I cringed when I typed that.

 

[abecedarian]

So by your reasoning Dan Brown is literature.



I cringed when I typed that.

Who me?
I didn't learn a thing from Dan Brown, and I was poorly entertained..

 

[sparkchaser]

Who me?
I didn't learn a thing from Dan Brown, and I was poorly entertained..

No, not you. Steffee.

Brush aside his horrible writing (and even worse plots) and you will find some educational material. Not much but it's there.