It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
low rated
So, how did JK Rowling succeeded & how did she make all that money? By selling average written books?
Post edited April 22, 2019 by BeatriceElysia
People don't want great, they wouldn't even recognize great if it came to kick them in the ass. If you want to succeed in any field of culture, you better produce something mediocre that appeal to the lowest common denominator.

To end on a more positive note, she probably introduced tons of kids to reading. Even if they start mediocre, they might end up finding better stuff later on.
Post edited April 22, 2019 by user deleted
avatar
BeatriceElysia: So, how did JK Rowling succeeded & how did she make all that money? By selling average written books?
You know kids gobbled those average written books up right?
Then those same kids gobbled up those average ass movies too.

And now those same kids who are now adults still gobble her money grab sequels cause nostalgia.

She can release some book 20 years from now and still make money. The Harry Potter Universe is pretty profitable.
avatar
BeatriceElysia: So, how did JK Rowling succeeded & how did she make all that money? By selling average written books?
In a nutshell; yes!

Her back-story, as a white, upper-class single mother, was gold dust to the media, who wrote fawning articles about her and her average books, which in turn fuelled further sales, and thus further articles. Adults who found grown-up books too difficult also took this as a licence that they were now allowed to read children's books, and even be proud of that fact instead of ashamed. Even the basic idea ("witches/wizards go to school") was far from original (Google "The Worst Witch" for one example) yet an uninformed, lazy media presented it as the most innovative thing ever.
Post edited April 22, 2019 by servobeupstry
She did two very important things, as far as I can tell.

1. She incorporated any mythological or mystical real-life occurence she could lay her hands on. Nothing too insignificant, nothing too big. Even Harry Potter and his owl was scrounged from somewhere else:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/before-harry-potter-meet-magic-boys-england-947990

2. She created an ensemble of characters you care about. This is of vital importance. If HP died somewhere in the series, and the next book was called Ron Weasley and the Goblet of Fire, would it have been as interesting to read? Well, maybe. But how about Neville Longbottom and the Order of the Phoenix? Well, perhaps that too, somehow. But how about Kevin Jones and the Prisoner of Azkaban?

Free advice. But now that it's out in the open, you better be quick.
Post edited April 22, 2019 by StarChan
I love those books.

I love the movies.

I love her.
high rated
By doing more productive and ambitious things with her time than begrudgingly brooding over other people's success stories.
But I don't agree to the notion that there is anything 'average' about those books. The language, even though not too complex, is rather accomplished. And the story is captivating. In a sense it is 'just right'. Goldilocks literature, as it were. And I don't think hitting all the right notes necessarily equals mediocrity. Sometimes, what's popular can also be exceptional.

But there's another trope she used, that of 'good vs evil' which seems to be another of those ingredients for success, unfortunately. (Unfortunately because it confirms an age-old us vs them type of thinking we should have outgrown.) So in order to truly succeed, you should:

3. Include a 'good vs evil' type of conflict, and

4. Keep it simple. Simple can be good. Evidence: Haikus.
Wanted to add something after reading the 5-6 first messages.

Gave up, my bitterness is damn too high and I couldn't end up saying things I didn't really intend to say.

And it's not even about whiteknighting J.K. Rowlings, because I can understand some people might love her books and some people might hate her books. It's normal.

No, it's about spewing definitive sentences like "these books are average". NO. Just NO. This is no scientific statement. You find something you dislike and you want to bitch about it? Fine, you are totally allowed to! But please, for the love of [any deity/supreme being/philosophical thinking you might follow] say it "I FIND this is mediocre" and not "This is mediocre".

Words mean things, you know.
Post edited April 22, 2019 by xa_chan
It should be obvious to anyone on the internet which statements are opinions and which ones are facts.
avatar
pkk234: It should be obvious to anyone on the internet which statements are opinions and which ones are facts.
my opinions are facts, they are factually my opinions
Do I think her books are good? Not really. Do I begrudge her her success? No way. She took the time to write them, and hit that spot were they sold well.
Like just about anything else that's popular, one can find a "better" version of same.

I don't think they're the best books ever (even compared to the Narnia series which I grew up on), but they're entertaining enough on a certain sort of wintry day.

In my experience the economics of anything "pop" (music, books, movies, Kardashians) is ultimately not about quality at all, but sometimes about having the right promoter or just about being in the right place at the right time.

That said, I got the books from the library and have at least not directly provided any of her vast wealth. I've seen one or two of the movies on tv and they were fine, I guess.
avatar
BeatriceElysia: So, how did JK Rowling succeeded & how did she make all that money? By selling average written books?
avatar
servobeupstry: In a nutshell; yes!

Her back-story, as a white, upper-class single mother, was gold dust to the media, who wrote fawning articles about her and her average books, which in turn fuelled further sales, and thus further articles. Adults who found grown-up books too difficult also took this as a licence that they were now allowed to read children's books, and even be proud of that fact instead of ashamed. Even the basic idea ("witches/wizards go to school") was far from original (Google "The Worst Witch" for one example) yet an uninformed, lazy media presented it as the most innovative thing ever.
Why in hell would you be ashamed of reading and enjoying 'children's books? I read the HP series and enjoyed the hell out of them. They're a great, fun adventure. What the hell is there to be ashamed of? Is it the fact hat it's popular, so must therefore be garbage? Or is it because as an adult you have to read 'literature' exclusively?
avatar
StarChan: But there's another trope she used, that of 'good vs evil' which seems to be another of those ingredients for success, unfortunately. (Unfortunately because it confirms an age-old us vs them type of thinking we should have outgrown.)

...

4. Keep it simple.
Yes and no. While it is true that there is a 'good vs. evil' conflict that isn't all that complex, it's not as simple as it appears at first sight either. There are some clichéd characters, but I wouldn't say that on the whole the novels promote an "us vs. them type of thinking we should have outgrown". They actually go out of their way to show that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, that there's good in who you thought were "them/evil", and bad sides to the behaviour and thinking of "us/good". And most characters do have reasons for what they're doing. On the other hand, sometimes you just can't relativize anymore, sometimes it is "us vs. them", not for who "they" are but for the inexcusable things "they" choose to do.
Post edited April 22, 2019 by Leroux