This woman did not deserve her success. Her success is an achievement of her marketers, PR and publishers...

This woman did not deserve her success. Her success is an achievement of her marketers, PR and publishers, who spent tens of millions of dollars to launch her. i just hate how she walks around like this literary figure.

Have you read Harry Potter?

I enjoyed her books. They got me into reading

Who gives a fuck. Shut the fuck up and stop spending so much time worrying about wizard fiction for ten year olds.

If any of you need any further evidence, here is what happened when she attempted to publish under a secret identity:

Before Rowling's identity as the book's author was revealed, 1,500 copies of the printed book had been sold since its release in April 2013,[6] plus another 7,000 copies of the ebook, audiobook, and library editions.[8] The book surged from 4,709th[9] to the best-selling novel on Amazon after it was revealed on 14 July 2013 that the book was written by Rowling under the pseudonym "Robert Galbraith".[10] Signed copies of the first edition are selling for $US4,000–6,000.[11]

The book received almost universal critical acclaim. Most of the reviews came only after Rowling became known as the author, but the early reactions were generally complimentary as well.[12] After the revelation of the author's identity, Declan Burke of The Irish Times gave a very positive review, particularly enjoying its "satisfyingly complex plot that winds through the labyrinth of London’s vulgar rich" as well as its characterization, and deeming it to be "easily one of the most assured and fascinating debut crime novels of the year."[13] Writing for USA Today, Charles Finch echoed this sentiment, also writing: "In both its broad strokes and in dozens of flairs of perception like this one, The Cuckoo's Calling shows that all great fiction — even if it only concerns our workaday world — has its own kind of magic."[14] Slate's Katy Waldman also reacted favorably to the book, lauding its narration and characters and drawing parallels between the book and the Harry Potter series.[15]

....
1500 books total!!!

This applies to almost all famous people. Piss off.

Not really, Kafka didnt publish one book in his lifetime.

>don't worry about the path literature is taking lol loosers do that
Go away.

Zero percent chance they spent tens of millions promoting the first book.

so not only are you raging against a childrens author for no reason you are also making shit up

>Her success is an achievement of her marketers, PR and publishers, who spent tens of millions of dollars to launch her.

And how do you convince great publishers to do that? How do you walk out from the status of a) another obscure nobody who wrote a book to b) a new author with a new book that is worth investing thousands of dollars to promote?

There are countless new writers wanting to jump from stage “a” to stage “b”, so what determinates who wins the lottery and who doesn’t?

it's all politics, and ass-kissing.

To be frank I think that you need to at least convince the editors that your book is best-selling material: that’s not an easy feat. Competition is great, and there are thousands of people willing to stomach the ass-kissing part.

Now, I try to write good quality literature when I work, but I don’t think that looking down on bestsellers is a wise move. I don’t think I would have a great idea for a bestseller that easily. I don’t think we can say that “Oh, if we wanted we could do the same thing” with supreme confidence, because it might well be that if we tried to write a bestseller we would end up with a book that is not only flat, but also low in commercial value.

>entertaining books for children
>the path literature is taking
Wew

You are literally jealous.

Tears dripping in your apartment as you look at your rejection letters which are haphazardly piled before your computer, the fantasy novel that you've been writing stopped at mid sentence by your crushing loneliness.

You stop for a moment, wiping tears from your eyes and you open a Google chrome tab, where you've bookmarked Veeky Forums.

The tears come again, hot wet tears trailing down a face that's already been reddened by cry you had early in the day when you discovered that someone called Stephen King a "good writer."

"Why is she more famous than me?" You cry, to absolutely nobody. Your cat, who has been watching this entire affair, has decided that he would like a new owner, and he flees the apartment from the open window where you've stockpiled your stuffed animals.

"Don't go, Poe!" You shout. The cat is gone, and only trailings of his shedded black fur remain.
Then you post this.

you know as well as everyone else in this board that just as many adults read it and YA literature nowadays. It's a lot stranger to see an adult reading dickens then it would be john greene or rowlings.

Popular anything tends to be shit. This is not news, OP. Why does Britney Spears sell millions of albums while operatic performers or contemporary classical composers go mostly unnoticed? The average consumer doesn't necessarily have the emotional or intellectual drive to delve into a thought-provoking piece - they just want to get their cheap thrills and move on.

And Kafka was a fucking whiny loser who started writing because I hate muh daddy

This pleases me.

Thanks

I can smell your jealousy.
It smells pleasant.

Pretty much this

OP is a stinky baby

Agreed OP. Only the Great Gatsby is worthy of being successful!

Made me laugh

>you know as well as everyone else in this board that just as many adults read it and YA literature nowadays
Who cares? It's not as though adults who read YA would suddenly read real novels if YA didn't exist.

I read Harry Potter had a kid in middle school and then again in college has part of Religion class, here is what I can tell you, its sub text is biblical. And to argue that harry potter is only entertainment is not lit is foolish has people who said Dickens and Twain were were a passing fad in there days.

This is in comparison to the Twilight saga, it has its ties to the book of Mormon and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However it is nowhere nearly has well written, and will likely fall by the wayside has time moves ever forward.

Sounds like you're jealous about being poor as fuck and unsuccessful

The commercial value of books is purely incidental unless there's already a brand name.

No shit? There are lots and lots of books published all the time. Obviously being famous gives you attention.

>deserve

What are you, 12?

And McDonalds doesn't deserve its success. Quit being hung up on who 'deserves' what

I give you a 1/10 for effort m8. Have a (you) as well.

What's happening is part of a phenomenon I wrote about a couple of years ago when I was asked to comment on Rowling. I went to the Yale University bookstore and bought and read a copy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." I suffered a great deal in the process. The writing was dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs." I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing.

But when I wrote that in a newspaper, I was denounced. I was told that children would now read only J.K. Rowling, and I was asked whether that wasn't, after all, better than reading nothing at all? If Rowling was what it took to make them pick up a book, wasn't that a good thing?

It is not. "Harry Potter" will not lead our children on to Kipling's "Just So Stories" or his "Jungle Book." It will not lead them to Thurber's "Thirteen Clocks" or Kenneth Grahame's "Wind in the Willows" or Lewis Carroll's "Alice."

Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

Our society and our literature and our culture are being dumbed down, and the causes are very complex. I'm 73 years old. In a lifetime of teaching English, I've seen the study of literature debased. There's very little authentic study of the humanities remaining. My research assistant came to me two years ago saying she'd been in a seminar in which the teacher spent two hours saying that Walt Whitman was a racist. This isn't even good nonsense. It's insufferable.

>but the early reactions were generally complimentary as well.
They weren't. They weren't outright bad reviews but middle of the road verging to bad.

Sure thing kid. You sound 12 years old.

Her books aren't completely dreadful but they're unoriginal and generally FAR too long.

Diana Wynne-Jones did the whole 'kids at magic school' thing far earlier and far better than Rowling.

>all thesd people supporting Rowling
sadbloom.jpeg
When will summer end?

That would make me the perfect age to properly criticise her work then surely?

>all these faggots trying to be edgy and trying to fit
Simbly ebic

She writes books for children. If children love her books then why doesn't she deserve her success?

This shit's been going on for hundreds of years. "The path literature is taking" has been well-trodden. Get over it, dude.

>why does Britney Spears sell millions of albums

Dad, you're embarassing me. Go to /r/books if you want reading recommendations.

Also contemporary classical a shit

Is it? Rowling is fairly comparable with Agatha Christie I suppose in a lot of respects but she didn't write Stephen King prep books for kids.

Stop calling everyone your mom sleeps with your dad bro, it comes off as desperate

Except he did.

She does deserve success, she wrote a book series that resonated with literally millions of people. I personally got in to reading because of her, and I still reread her books from time to time.

Stop with this annoying literary snobbism, it doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look like a cringeworthy teenager trying to look smarter than he is.

>I personally got in to reading because of her, and I still reread her books from time to time.
> Harry Potter got me so into reading that I reread Harry Potter
That is one solid argument right there bud.

>so what determinates who wins the lottery and who doesn’t?

The whims of the demiurge.

I didn't like Harry Potter as a kid and I didn't like the movies when I watched them with a friend. Good acting though, I will say.

Some people don't deserve their success, yeah. There's nothing that can really be done about it though except hope the retarded masses don't gobble the shit in front of them. Unlikely though.

True. I watched the movies and it was boring. There's no real story to Harry Potter. It's basically a setting and there was no competition in the 2000s. It happened at the right time. If she had written Harry Potter ten years later none of this would have happened.

What's been published since 2010+ that could qualify as 'competition'?

The movies were dank.
The first book was pretty good when I was a kid.

When did the last Twilight get published?

YA if you haven't noticed has become a big industry. John Green is chugging away in that genre space now. I try to ignore the whole thing tbqh.

There was also the whole "it's okay to like fantasy guys" thing with that Lord of the Rings movie.

There wouldn't be YA as we know it today (Twilight, Green) without Harry Potter. If HP was published today it still wouldn't have competition.

I'm sure somebody else would come along. The kids lit was dire when I was growing up tho (and I'm p much the perfect demographic for Harry Potter age wise so I remember before it was a big thing). Jacqueline Wilson was like state mandated reading for pubescent youth in the UK p much. Now that is some real shitty writing.

I think fantasy wise T Pratchett was really on the ball with his kids lit but he spread himself too thin in a way (I don't think you could have had a Science of Harry Potter and a bunch of "harder" novels as well and still had the same critical success). There's also this whole boarding school fantasy shit that she tapped into a romantic notion of, and I don't think that many writers were too far away from that either. I think that's what really took hold of the chattering classes 2bh.

Don't think she's the only one they were trying to push tho. She just happens to be the most successful.

I always read the new harr potters. I had been into it for years since I was 8 or 9. It's pretty interesting story. But jkr has since become a sjw and make a fucking nigger Hermione

He's so right

The fantasy part is so true.
Kids fantasy shit was so weird before hp

He published half of his short stories in books.

The movies are absolute garbage compared to the wonderful books. The ONLY, and I mean ONLY movie which is of comparable quality to its source material is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

yeah im into reading harry potter 1984 stephen king im such a quirky nerd xddddddddd
see that shit on so many okcupid profiles

noice

No, he's a lying assclown. The phrase appears once in the book. Bloom's gone senile.

wouldn't you think that people who tend to be on the intelligent side would be drawn to great works, simply because they are great?

you can't force people to like something, classic literature included.

The exact phrase appears once. A couple of more variation (it's something like stretching and their at the appropriate positiins) appear 3 times I think. The characters do spend a massive amount of time stretching or having their legs commented on as they move after no moving for a while.

>There wouldn't be YA as we know it today (Twilight, Green) without Harry Potter.
Bull-fucking-shit

I don't know, man. Harry Potter is pretty good.

You're a retard. Harry Potter is one of the best-researched, tightly written and most entertaining stories ever written for children.

i thought she got no PR help with the first book?

No, they don't. It's utterly not worth commenting on, and Bloom was straight-out lying. Rowling uses fewer cliches than most YA authors, not more. He decided on a diatribe and disregarded any facts.

he's not comparing Rowling to other YA authors, though.

I enjoy her books, they got me into stretching my legs.

>1500 books total!!!
Most first time authors would struggle to sell that much.

I'm noting that most of really successful books published this minellium have been by people with ready access to lolis.

Are lolis a neccesity for anyone who wishes to make it "big" off of writing?

I hate her, but do you really think an unknown author is gonna sell 100,000 books the first week or something?

Literally no one actually believes she's some great literary figure, not even her. You're projecting.

Haha, would read the sequel post.

cats suck