JK Rowling reveals Hogwarts secret

[jester47]

It is interesting how people consider Dumbledore. For most of the series he is considered the upstanding scholar- which is simply Harry's perception.

Spoiler

As Harry finds out more about him, it seems that he was an any means necessary sort of guy, even willing to sacrifice harry. Sure he had a theory that Harry might survive, but all in all his actions behind the scenes in the last book indicate that he was a fairly duplicitous fellow.

 

[Mallus]

...get a good review and a good pr person...

Reviews and PR cannot account for the international phenomenon that the Harry Potter books became. Things just don't work that way. You simply have to accept that those books struck a real chord in an enormous number of readers.

 

[Mark Chance]

With Rowling though even those not in the know raise an eyebrow or two. How else does an unsuccessful, previously untalented woman get soo good overnight. What sells more, a bunch of old writers who wrote a lot of fantasy and teen fiction a few decades ago, or some new innovative woman from England.

She's not "soo good". She's mediocre at best. Likewise, she's not terribly innovative, but then few writers actually are. The idea of a "magic school" is hardly new. I've got a high threshold for boring writing, but Rowling literally puts me to sleep. The movies are just as bad. Harry Potter is mostly hype, marketing, and making a buck off that age-old tendency of teenagers to be conformists.

A decade after the last book and/or movie, few will be reading Harry Potter anymore. What appeared to be "instant classics" that "redefined a genre" will go the way of Clive Barker and other pop fiction pan-flashes.

 

[Rykion]

Hey, its not like anyone's making news of this. This is pretty common knowledge among authors. There's no suckage too it, they get paid a good day's penny for staying in the background. With Rowling though even those not in the know raise an eyebrow or two. How else does an unsuccessful, previously untalented woman get soo good overnight. What sells more, a bunch of old writers who wrote a lot of fantasy and teen fiction a few decades ago, or some new innovative woman from England.

What? :\ It's a lot easier to sell books as an established author rather than as an unknown.

Why would a group of authors turn a nobody into the richest woman in England? Ghost writing makes sense when the credited author is a celebrity, or when a popular author decides they need help. It makes no sense to ghost write for an untalented unsuccessful person so that they can get all the credit and most of the money. If an author wants a fresh start he or she creates a pen name.

I find the Harry Potter books enjoyable and creative, but none of them have been particularly well written from a professional standpoint. I would expect a lot better from a crack team of ghost writers.

 

[DonTadow]

What? :\ It's a lot easier to sell books as an established author rather than as an unknown.

Why would a group of authors turn a nobody into the richest woman in England? Ghost writing makes sense when the credited author is a celebrity, or when a popular author decides they need help. It makes no sense to ghost write for an untalented unsuccessful person so that they can get all the credit and most of the money. If an author wants a fresh start he or she creates a pen name.

I find the Harry Potter books enjoyable and creative, but none of them have been particularly well written from a professional standpoint. I would expect a lot better from a crack team of ghost writers.

Its easier to sell fantasy to fantasy lovers, its hard to sell it to those who don't like it unless you put a spin on it. Rowlings is that spin. And its not like she's not writing something in the book, but she's not the final one who puts it together. Notes are taken, things are changed and a couple of ghost writers are usually pulled in.

 

[Harmon]

I am really confused by the fact that it matters to anyone, he's a pretend character in a now done series of books. If JK had it in her mind that her character was gay then so what? If its that important then place in your mind that whats her name was gay too and that will balance the scales.

Not sure I understand the prejudice against gays anyways? Why is it important to hate people because of their sexual orientation.

 

[Relique du Madde]

Reviews and PR cannot account for the international phenomenon that the Harry Potter books became. Things just don't work that way. You simply have to accept that those books struck a real chord in an enormous number of readers.

Actually it does to some extent. If a book doesn't get good reviews (be it through word of mouth, or in the media, or on the web) then there would be no interest in the product. Given that there are thousands of books in the average bookstore, PR and reviews do come into play because those are the factors that allow for a book to be placed in a prominent location that everyone would see it.

If it wasn't for the accolades that the books earned or the PR her agents gave her (through their dealings with various publishers and book retailers) no one would have known about her product and the book would have been buried in the fantasy section of the local book store and never been prominently placed in a store. In essence, the book would have "died" or would have picked up as following similar to that which the average Science Fiction/Fantasy novelist receives.

Sadly, marketing, PR, accolades, and word of mouth reigns supreme in corporate marketplace and without all of those elements working in unison, no product would ever become a phenomenon. I'm not saying she's a bad writer, all I'm saying is that things would be extremely different if her series wasn't as aggressively marketed. Hell, she would have mentioned dumpledore was gay and no one would sound an alarm or make a fuss.

 

[Relique du Madde]

I am really confused by the fact that it matters to anyone, he's a pretend character in a now done series of books. If JK had it in her mind that her character was gay then so what?

[Snip]

Not sure I understand the prejudice against gays anyways? Why is it important to hate people because of their sexual orientation.

Those questions could only be answered by alluding to thousands of years of dogma within three of the world's most prominent religions. It also can not be answered without alluding to many people's inherent dislike of things which are "strange, unusual or different". Nor can it be answered without alluding to those who believe in mankind's "evolutionary prerogative."

In short, to answer your question you have to delving into hundreds of taboo subjects most of which would cause this topic to be locked.

 

[Mark Chance]

Why is it important to hate people because of their sexual orientation.

There's more of that shoddy logic. Who is this thread, other than you, has mentioned anything about hating homosexual persons?

Those questions could only be answered by alluding to thousands of years of dogma within three of the world's most prominent religions.

So, IOW, religious folks are haters?

No one in this thread who thinks "outing" Dumbledore was at least a silly thing to do has mentioned anything about hating homosexual persons, yet now we're told their motivation is based on prejudice and hatred which in most cases is rooted in religion.

Relique du Madde is right about one thing: Any effort to explore this train of thought would get the thread locked. In fact, any effort to dissent from the conclusion of Particle_Man's deeply flawed syllogism above would result in the thread being locked. IOW, those who feel free to laud homosexual persons for their orientation are allowed to do so, but the other side which is more critical of the morality of homosexual activity isn't.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, mind you. After all, this thread isn't about homosexual activity's morality. It isn't about thoughtless accusations of hatred and prejudice based on "thousands of years of dogma".

This thread is about Dumbledore being "outed" by Rowling, and what her motivations for doing so were, whether such a step is warranted by the texts themselves, and whether Rowling is actually a good writer. For my part, she did it for the publicity/money, the step is unwarranted, and Rowling is only somewhat more talented than the average hack.

 

[Mallus]

Actually it does to some extent.

I didn't say marketing and professional reviews were irrelevant, I said they couldn't account for the Potter phenomenon.

Sadly, marketing, PR, accolades, and word of mouth reigns supreme in corporate marketplace and without all of those elements working in unison, no product would ever become a phenomenon.

You've neatly removed 'the consumers actual response to the product' from the equation that determines the products success. Do you see the problem with this?

I'm not saying she's a bad writer, all I'm saying is that things would be extremely different if her series wasn't as aggressively marketed.

Hell, I'm not saying she's a good writer, I'm saying you're treating marketing as some kind of magic bullet, which it isn't. Or at least that's what my wife who owns a small marketing company tells me.