Hack
While the term "British literature" has, over the last few centuries, descended to the level of a non-sequiter, that island which breeds such valiant creatures has hit literary rock bottom by voting J.K. Rowling as Britain's greatest living author. To call her a derivative hack would be an insult to romance writers.
For those of you fortunate enough not to have attempted to read Rowling's "works," this accolade is roughly equivalent to having America name "50 Cent" its greatest living composer.
If you really must read juvenile development fantasy, (and I admit to still enjoying the genre myself), there are far, far better examples available--all of which were around a long time before Rowling ever terrorized the world by setting pen to paper. Look into the works of David Eddings, Raymond Feist, and Terry Brooks. They're better written and more original. And those authors, at least, are capable of writing involving characters who have some degree of separation from a cardboard advertising cut-out.
If there is one true evil of modern socio-capitalism, it has to be the momentum of marketing hype. Once it gets rolling, it can be very difficult to stop. It can make the consumer repeatedly bite into a cow pattie, chew thoughtfully, and then exuberate over the delicate palate required to enjoy such fine fare. Think I'm full of it? Then explain the Dada movement. Or Stephen King.
On a contemplative note, however, perhaps the likes of J.K. Rowling and Man Ray are really just adherents of P.T. Barnum. In that case, I suppose they deserve my applause, because there are few things more inherently satisfying than observing a scam from afar. Before the Rowling aficionados get torqued up, I should advise you to take your justifications elsewhere. I've tried to read her--in good faith, I hasten to add--and was left utterly unimpressed. She's a hack. A rich hack, beyond doubt. But a turd in a tuxedo remains a turd.
For those of you fortunate enough not to have attempted to read Rowling's "works," this accolade is roughly equivalent to having America name "50 Cent" its greatest living composer.
If you really must read juvenile development fantasy, (and I admit to still enjoying the genre myself), there are far, far better examples available--all of which were around a long time before Rowling ever terrorized the world by setting pen to paper. Look into the works of David Eddings, Raymond Feist, and Terry Brooks. They're better written and more original. And those authors, at least, are capable of writing involving characters who have some degree of separation from a cardboard advertising cut-out.
If there is one true evil of modern socio-capitalism, it has to be the momentum of marketing hype. Once it gets rolling, it can be very difficult to stop. It can make the consumer repeatedly bite into a cow pattie, chew thoughtfully, and then exuberate over the delicate palate required to enjoy such fine fare. Think I'm full of it? Then explain the Dada movement. Or Stephen King.
On a contemplative note, however, perhaps the likes of J.K. Rowling and Man Ray are really just adherents of P.T. Barnum. In that case, I suppose they deserve my applause, because there are few things more inherently satisfying than observing a scam from afar. Before the Rowling aficionados get torqued up, I should advise you to take your justifications elsewhere. I've tried to read her--in good faith, I hasten to add--and was left utterly unimpressed. She's a hack. A rich hack, beyond doubt. But a turd in a tuxedo remains a turd.
posted by Jar(egg)head at 08:09
6 Comments:
I have to somewhat disagree
KR Rule #182 clearly states any medium containing zombies becomes a highly regarded work of art. HP book 6 contains re-animated corpses and therefore applies to KR Rule #182.
I’ll agree the title “Britain's greatest living author” is laughable, but you have to admit, it does have Zombies.
I find it odd that you would call Rowling unoriginal in comparison to Eddings. Isn't that the guy that released the exact same 5 book series twice by just changing the character names? Also, I'm not sure I would classify using the same character traits over and over as "involving." And sure, Brooks was entertaining... if you like your stories completely predictable. He has a good sense of humor and a great writing style, though.
The fact is that there have been enough works of fiction published by now very few new works can be considered completely original. You can always find similar themes and ideas in other works if you look hard enough. If you don't like a particular author's style, that is simply a matter of taste. But calling a book (or movie, or TV show, or whatever) unoriginal is like saying that politicians are crooked… it goes without saying.
Successful authors are able to visualize an interesting world, populate it with interesting characters and involve them in interesting plots. Its entertainment, plain and simple, and what appeals to one person doesn’t necessarily appeal to the next. Personally, I enjoyed Rowling’s books. Even though they are intended as children’s books, they are much more sophisticated than most that have been published. In fact, she originally had trouble finding publishers because they were afraid the books were too “literary” for most children.
Even more importantly, the marketing hype behind the Harry Potter books has helped increase interest in reading substantially among children and young adults. While you may not personally like her writing, you can't deny that it has re-kindled an interest in reading. That alone is an impressive achievement in the days of Tivo and broadband internet access.
BTW – the greatest living composer is John Williams, hands down. You may submit your apology for even suggesting that 50 cent could compete in that category at your leisure. ;-)
You want that cow pattie with or without sprinkles, Banduar?
=oP
What type of crap award is “Britain's greatest living author” anyway? I hold that prestigious title right next to the lozer who won American Idol.
I do like the HP books, I eat the cow pie sprinkles and all. They are just missing the hot chicks. Rowling could take that Kitiara chick from Dragonlance, the one who doesn’t wear cloths under her armor and sleeps with everybody, and have the Zombies chase her. Also ditch the kids. Then we’d have an author deserving of the “Britain’s greatest living author” title.
Wow. Naked, zombie, armored, super-slut chicks. Freud would be ecstatic.
Luv ya, Kenny. (In a manly, hunter, sports-fan sorta way, of course. GO YANKEES!)
/shower
=oP
I'm going to echo Banduar on one point here.
Even more importantly, the marketing hype behind the Harry Potter books has helped increase interest in reading substantially among children and young adults. While you may not personally like her writing, you can't deny that it has re-kindled an interest in reading. That alone is an impressive achievement in the days of Tivo and broadband internet access.
I teach high school history, but taught high school English for many years and still teach it in summer school (until one of the summer school history teachers quits, dies or retires). One of the frustrating things about teaching English is that many kids don't like to read. I've been told by students that "books today are called movies."
But with Harry Potter, I've watched kids literally vibrating with anticipation in the days before an 800 page book comes out, because they cannot wait to read it. That, in my book, says that JK Rowling has accomplished something -- and that it is more than marketing and hype, given that the first book or two did not have the hype of the more recent works.
"Greatest living writer"? I don't know about that -- the term great is rather subjective and lacks objective criteria for making such a determination. But when you consider that Shakespeare was looked down upon as a hack during his lifetime, I don't feel that such contemporary judgements are really relevant.
Post a Comment
<< Home