Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts with the label J.K. Rowling

On J.K. Rowling

I don't think an artist has to be a terrific person to crank out works worth reading. One of my all-time favorite writers, Richard Yates, was, I'm certain, really repugnant on a regular basis. But something seems to be missing from the current J.K. Rowling discussions. Why aren't people pointing out that her writing is generally pretty bad? (OK, Laura Lippman pointed this out on Twitter, but that's the one example I can think of. Oh, also, Alison Lurie once said it's a bit strange and not really suspenseful to unmask your villain so quickly. Voldemort isn't exactly Sondheim's Mrs. Lovett, in terms of surprising-us-and-generating-suspense. But Lurie likes other aspects of Rowling's work.) Among the most painfully-slow novels I've read in recent history was Rowling's "Career of Evil." This is about a group of people who want to be disfigured; the thought of losing a limb is a source of excitement. It's also about a murder...

Harry Potter

One more part of "Wild Things" I loved: the Harry Potter discussion. (Because who doesn't love thinking about Harry Potter?) Sieruta et al. point out: Harry Potter changed the shape of the NY Times. "Sorcerer's Stone" remained the number-one bestseller for ages. Finally, the NYT created a separate "children's fiction" list, so an "adult" book had a shot at topping the Times list (or at least *one* Times list) yet again. The success of Harry Potter taught writers that kids would read kids' books, AND ALSO *adults* would read kids' books. Two markets, one book. So Grisham began writing "for kids." And James Patterson started, as well. (I wonder if Maile Meloy had the "two markets" thought when she started her "Apprentice/Apothecary" series.) J.K. Rowling doesn't live in the United States--so my understanding is that she wouldn't ever be up for a Newbery. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) ...