http://omg.yahoo.com/rowling-completes-post-harry-potter-book/news/3619
Unfortunately, it is also true that only seven are being published. Now, I'm not a JK Rowling fan, have never read any of the Harry Potter books, nor watched any of the movies completely through, but I was wondering what some of you Harry Potter fans think about this. To me, it seems a poor way to pay back all the loyal readers of the series, as some may want the book, but will never be able to get it.
What do you think?
quote:
To me, it seems a poor way to pay back all the loyal readers of the series, as some may want the book, but will never be able to get it.
Bingo.
Seems she's been abusing her fans a lot lately. Dumbledore's gay, but I won't tell you until after you've read the book. Now, here's a cool fairy tale book, that no one can read. Ha ha.
[This message has been edited by RMatthewWare (edited November 01, 2007).]
On one hand, she isn't obligated to publish everything she writes just because she's a famous author. She's raising money for charity, which is also very good of her. It's a personal work, and she is entitled to do personal work.
On the other hand, why not publish it? Why withhold it from the fans who would love to read something like that? Being in the Potter-verse makes it really desirable. She could at least do a PDF download version or something. And if she wants to raise money, she could publish it and donate all the proceeds to charity.
So, I guess it's her right, but I don't understand why.
quote:
On one hand, she isn't obligated to publish everything she writes just because she's a famous author.
Oh, I agree. She doesn't HAVE to do anything. But as a writer you should care about your fans. I understand the charity angle, why not open it up to all your fans? Wouldn't charity benefit even more? It's her choice, but I feel she's been making some poor ones lately.
I also just saw that A website called the Harry Potter Lexicon is publishing a companion book called the HP Lexicon. They aren't the first to publish a companion book, in fact I own one companion book myself. Rowling is suing the owner of the website, though, for copyright infringement. Isn't that interesting? Rowling herself said she used that website to help keep her facts straight while writing the Potter books. She even awarded the site as a great Potter fansite. I guess now that she doesn't need them anymore its time to sue them. Why not sue them before? Didn't the site infringe on copyright? What about all the fan fic? What about all the other Potter companion books? Why as a writer would you risk alienating your fans, fans that have helped push the books?
Jayson Merryfield
I guess I'm cynical, but Wolfe_boy seems to have the best answer, in my opinion. And that is the saddest thing of all. For Rawling's sake, as well as all the Harry Potter fans, I hope she hasn't turned that greedy.
I agree with Jayson. It's a publicity stunt. Either this book will be released later, as a second printing, or she's trying to boost the value. Else, why would she even mention it? You don't make a Big Deal out of it unless it rewards you in some way.
As to the issue of whether or not she's being bashed because of her fame, it's the other side of the using your fame to your advantage coin.
At a petty 5% royalty with no upfront cash she'd still make more publishing ten million copies and taking her $500,000 check instead of inflating one book's value to 30,000 pounds and selling it at auction.
If she really wanted to help charity she'd auction them all and give them all to charity, or better yet publish 10 million copies and donate all profits, after cost, to charity. And raise somewhere in the millions of dollars instead of thousands.
This is stupid and I can't identify a motive here, except maybe to keep her in the limelight. But if mentioning offhandedly that a character you made up is gay is world news, then I'm not sure what she thinks she's missing.
I mean, seriously. What do you but for you Harry Potter obsessed kid when you're a billionaire and already own everything Harry Potter in existence? What silver-spoon kid wouldn't want this in their stocking? Could you imagine that, on Christmas morning?
Jayson Merryfield
quote:
Well I hate to break it to you, but she isn't doing this to boost the value to benefit her. Unless she's a moron.
That's naiveté speaking. It's like in chess: Would you give up a queen to protect a pawn? Now, how about if that pawn's next move puts the opposing king in checkmate?
It's not this move that profits her, but her next. Build up enough hype, and it won't even matter if that book is complete garbage, you've got another record-breaking bestseller.
quote:
...I can't identify a motive here, except maybe to keep her in the limelight.
Hmm. Building up her mythos and unlimited, publicized suspence couldn't be one--could it?
quote:
That's naiveté speaking. It's like in chess: Would you give up a queen to protect a pawn? Now, how about if that pawn's next move puts the opposing king in checkmate?
quote:
It's not this move that profits her, but her next. Build up enough hype, and it won't even matter if that book is complete garbage, you've got another record-breaking bestseller.
She doesn't need to make some strange, bizarre tactical maneuver that you seem to think she's doing in order to get another best seller, she's effing JK Rowling, the best selling fiction writer of all time! Anything she publishes will be a best seller!
Dispute my figures if you want to, but the fact remains that publishing a large volume of books and selling them will generate more than having only one book, even if the individual book's value is raised.
Why?
Because there is demand that isn't being satisfied and that is generating dead-weight-loss. And I'd love to go into further depth if you dare :-P
quote:
Hmm. Building up her mythos and unlimited, publicized suspence couldn't be one--could it?
In any case, whatever "unlimited, publicized suspense" means, I don't see any reason why she would crave that. At least, not enough to forgo setting up a better charity effort.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited November 01, 2007).]
quote:
she's effing JK Rowling, the best selling fiction writer of all time! Anything she publishes will be a best seller!
By that logic, Dan Brown's next book will outlast every other novel ever on the New York Times' bestseller lists, right? After all, The Da Vinci Code was on it for over (a record) two years.
And, as far as the best selling fiction writer of all time, someone was the best before, and will be the best after--that's life. Funny how many authors do well with their initial characters/series, but are not sot hot when they don't do what their fans have come to expect.
Remind me, how did Harper Lee's follow up book do?
As for the HP Lexicon, it is all based on text from her works. It's more of an index than an encyclopedia. The keepers of the site seeme to be very conscientious about it, and they respected the release silence around book 7. I have difficulty sympathizing with her. I guess I've gone full circle from being disinterested in the books, but curious about her personal success, to where I love the books but think she's gotten drunk with power.
Secondly, because JK Rowling's track-record of success--no matter what her next book is--it will be a best seller. Period. If that book falls flat on its ass then possibly the next, next book will not be successful.
But the fact is if JK Rowling put something out again, which she likely will, millions and millions of people will be dying to get their hands on with the hope it'll be as good as Harry Potter. Will it?--doesn't matter. People will try it out anyway. They'll turn out in the millions, and to think they won't is sheer stupidity.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited November 01, 2007).]
This lawsuit against Stever VanderArk (who created and owns the Lexicon) is strange. His publisher seems to be at fault for claiming to need more time to respond to the suit due to a death in the family, while pushing forward with marketing the book to overseas publishers during the time WB gave him to deal with the "death" in the family. (Warner Bros. is the one bringing the suit for the most part, from the way things read, but I'm no lawyer.) VanderArk's lawyer responded to WB by complaining about the Lexicon's timeline being used in some DVD stuff. I thought I'd read earlier that VanderArk was even interviewed for a DVD thing. And now they're all fighting! It isn't going to do anyone any good, and it certainly is NOT making JKR more popular with fans. It's leaving a seriously bad taste in THIS fan's mouth, anyway. I believe in protecting your copyrights, sure, but some of the stuff she's doing is way over the top. And it's not the website the suit is against, it's a print book version of it. To add insult to injury (or something), when WB asked for a print version of something, VanderArk's publisher told them to ask someone on the staff to show them how to print things out from the Lexicon online!! This all sounds very unprofessional and petty in many directions. Argh.
quote:
(has anyone skipped a Star Wars film because they liked Star Wars fanfics so much, they didn't care what Georgie did in his own world? I don't think so. Same with Star Trek, Harry Potter, etc.)
As for the Lexicon lawsuit, I think I read that what they are trying to do directly conflicts with a similar, or almost identical, book JK plans to publish.
Having never gotten to the point where anything I've written needed a sequel, I'm an innocent in the writing of them. I've read and enjoyed multiple-book series, of course...but how do you, the writer, keep yourself interested in the characters, and writing about them, over several stories? Anybody got an opinion?
#1) Chess (strategy) can be used as an analogy. Maybe you didn't like--or more likely didn't want to--my example, but chess involves maneuvering pieces into to positions that are not threatening (or do not appear relevant) until several moves later. That is the essence of my original analogy. Strategically, her move may not better her checkbook now, but don't think it won't later. And don't think that the limited copies of her book (especially now that it's been made public)won't drive up the value or collectibility.
#2) Harper Lee is entirely relevant, because we were discussing follow-up works in relation to the success of the originals. It would be difficult (for Harper Lee OR Rowling) to live up to the success of their original work. It's nice to know that you worship "effing JK Rowling,the best selling fiction writer of all time!", but not everybody does. If she holds true to writing the mystery it could be detrimental to her speculative audience sales. There were a lot of variables that made the Potter Books a success, not just her name. AND she disappointed a lot of people with the end of the series, and that too will effect some of her fans' trust.
#3) You haven't adressed Dan Brown's record success. His book outlasted Rowling's on the NY Times (and nobody else even compares), does that guarantee the next one will? With all the bitterness that's generated, probably not. Point is, statistics don't mean everything. There are a lot of angles to view it from.
Actually, I'm ambiguous about Rowling's success. I'm not going to buy her next book. I haven't bought any of them, nor have I forced myself to finish the first, but, I don't have anything against her being successful. But, regardless of who she is, the rich have a way of getting greedy and scheming to make their successes greater than they would have been. Is she immune? You have to admit (well you'll probably argue this too) that she's been acting wierd lately.
quote:
What I'm really interested in here is how to hype a seriously bad piece of work into a bestseller!
Jayson Merryfield
[This message has been edited by Wolfe_boy (edited November 02, 2007).]
And can you hype the NYT Book Review to say, "''Eragon,'' for all its flaws, is an authentic work of great talent. The story is gripping; it may move awkwardly, but it moves with force. The power of ''Eragon'' lies in its overall effects -- in the sweep of the story and the conviction of its storyteller."
'Cause if you can, tell me how, and I'll do it! 
quote:
#1) Chess (strategy) can be used as an analogy. Maybe you didn't like--or more likely didn't want to--my example, but chess involves maneuvering pieces into to positions that are not threatening (or do not appear relevant) until several moves later. That is the essence of my original analogy. Strategically, her move may not better her checkbook now, but don't think it won't later.
If she really thinks she's making some kind of tactical checkbook gambit, she's mistaken. Which is why she likely isn't doing this to generate money or hype her next book, which means you are mistaken.
Because in either case she's wasting her time.
1. If she wants a lot of money now (which she already has enough of) she'd open this project up to wide publishing, or else auction off more than just one. Both of these options will generate a lot more sales and dough.
2. If her "game" is to make her next, next book a best-seller, well, her current publicity stunt is pretty irrelevant. Her next book will be a best seller anyway because of who she is, not what dictionary she's auctioned for whatever charity.
I'm pretty sure she's pat and secure that any publisher will publish anything she possibly decides to write next.
So now you understand why I am forced to roll my eyes and fart in the general direction of any notion that this is a strategic maneuver to amplify the success of her next, next book....
quote:
And don't think that the limited copies of her book (especially now that it's been made public)won't drive up the value or collectibility.
I wish I could draw a graph for you.
About your Harper Lee fetish,
Harper Lee was never anywhere near as successful as JK Rowling. And that's extremely relevant. Because I'm not suggesting Rowling's next book will be as wildly good as Harry Potter. But because everyone knows her name and everyone loved her other work her next book will sell. And it will sell in the tens of millions or higher. And hundreds of millions of people world-wide are going to get their hands on it hell or high water. And with demand like that... profits. Big profits. How good it is only matters for the long-run. And for her to sabotage herself with a head-start like she has, well,she'd have to make her next book be 300 bound pages of nothing but a xerox of her ass, and she'd still probably come out ahead. Trust me, its simple market behavior. People are more predictable than you give them credit for. Go to college 
quote:
Actually, I'm ambiguous about Rowling's success. I'm not going to buy her next book. I haven't bought any of them, nor have I forced myself to finish the first,
But yes, she has been acting weird lately. But gives her wins and losses, and makes very little difference for the kind of math I'm talking above.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited November 02, 2007).]
quote:Ok, was that another joke going over my head?
Remind me, how did Harper Lee's follow up book do?
I assume you ARE aware that Harper Lee never wrote another book. She helped Truman Capote research In Cold Blood and wrote (if memory serves) two essays. She worked on two additiona books both of which she destroyed unpublished. How this relates to JK Rowling's acts escapes me. Harper Lee is one of the world's most publicity shy authors, right up there with JD Salinger.
I felt that Rowling had no reason for needing or wanting additional publicity so ascribing that motive to the Dumbledore hoopdedoo was illogical. But I have to say this is odd. Why deny this to her millions of loyal fans? I honestly can't imagine her motives. She doesn't need the publicity.
Zero is right. Whether it is wonderful or horrible, her next novel WILL be a best seller. That is a given. This won't affect that one way or the other. Which still leaves me wondering. Simply attention hungry for some unfathomable reason? Possibly? Making a serious error in judgment? Possibly. I dunno.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 03, 2007).]
Grant
THAT is what makes this move so odd and rather annoying to me. True, it is good that she is donating money to charity, but she could donate the leather bound, jewel encrusted, hand illustrated copy to charity and it would still make big money. The rest of us could just buy the standard mass printed version. I'm sorry, but no one can convince me that this was the only, or even the best way to make money for charity. This reeks of a publicity stunt.
An even if you discredit the entire Dumbldore issue, saying she never really imagined that it would get as much publicity (a stretch) it still did give her publicity. And now this. I am starting to wonder what is going on in her mind. As the hoopla over the final book started to fade, did she start going through withdrawals of being the front page news? Does she have to be the here and now?
Someone can have billions of dollars and be a pop culture icon, but still need more attention.
So that leaves one falling back on explanations that indicate emotional motivations. It could be that she is hooked on media attention. God knows, she has received enough to get her hooked over the years. And we all act on an emotional level a good part of the time.
Rowling told the British Broadcasting Corp. that the book of fairytales had helped her say goodbye to Harry's world.
"It's not about Harry, Ron and Hermione, but it comes from that world," she told BBC radio in an interview broadcast Thursday. "So it's been therapeutic in a way."
Rowling said she was working on a new book, "a half-finished book for children that I think will probably be the next thing I publish."
I think if she was so starved for attention, she would have been doing things like this between the seven books, too. She did a good job of staying out of the light between books. If she wanted attention, mass-producing this would be much better.
As has been said, if it was about money (for herself or charity) there are better ways to get it.
Maybe I'm naive, but to me it seems plain and simple. She did it for personal reasons. It was therapeutic. It revisited themes from the books, but not the characters. Sort of a summary--for her, not us. That's why the book is only being given as gifts to friends and family. The charity copy was probably an after thought or a nice gesture, but not the "Point" of the book.
Rowling is smart and I imagine she has publicists and PR people advising her on things. If she was sitting at home trying to scheme up ways to get attention or money, this wouldn't be it.
I think these mysteries are still best explained as attention starvation, which is my diagnosis until more information is available
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited November 03, 2007).]
Not just any charity, but one she helped to found -- The Children's Voice. There are kids in Eastern Europe who are mentally handicapped and kept in cages. The aim of The Children's Voice is to remove these kids from such barbarism and bring them proper care and treatment.
She works with several charities. They say that she's not just name and money, but a patron who works with them actively.
I don't think it's at all naive to wish her well with this.
Since the books are handwritten, and she's an imaginative lady, I bet they're all a little different, with a line, a joke or even a character specially written for the person who will receive the book. I think spending her time writing a book by hand is a fabulous way of saying 'thanks' to friends. It's far more meaningful to spend time and imagination on friends than money.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/fict ion/article2789069.ece
Pat
Edited to add:
As has been said, she's a smart lady. I doubt she needs us to tell her how to raise money because she's worth 280 million and richer than the Queen.
The bookmakers think the auction will make half a million pounds. Against her 280 mill that's peanuts, so it's not about the money. The auction has surely generated tons of publicity for The Children's Voice. It seems to me that this publicity will help its work by increasing awareness of the problem and generating public sympathy and polical will to help the kids.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2979033.stm
[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited November 03, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited November 03, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited November 03, 2007).]
As for the reaction of her fans, you might read down a few comments on that link you provided. There are more than a few, including some posting there, who consider what she has done a slap in the face to them. I'm not a big fan of hers, so I have nothing vested in it. As far as I'm concerned, Rowling has every right to do whatever she pleases with her own work, but with a celebrity as big as she is, you can expect people to comment when she chooses to do something this strange.
Edit: And I have to repeat that writting something, publicizing it, and refusing to allow the millions of fans who have made her a millionaire to purchase and read it is strange.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 03, 2007).]
Remember hope?
Edit: 
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited November 03, 2007).]
Not that it's especially relevant, our point is the same.
She may indeed just be an odd duck, annepin. That would be a valid explanation for what seems to us strange decisions.
I also read that her fortune was over one billion, but honestly once you have over a quarter of a billion does it really matter? Yeah, what you said, Zero. lol
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 03, 2007).]
But I don't think JKR's strange. And I'm certain she's not a duck. I think that to think she's strange is strange.
Strangely,
Pat
P.S. Hoptoad's right. This has been a very negative, cynical, disappointing thread.
No one has said a word about her personal life. I don't know what it is, and I don't care. Harper Lee's work will stand up whether she ever writes a novel or not, and I assume she will not. Are you criticising her for that? I beg your pardon but that seems out of line to me.
Would I write more novels than Harper Lee? Not that it matters, yes. But I would never have the colossal nerve to compare myself to her either.
There are a couple of reasons why what Rowling has done is viewed as strange. 1. Rowling has a large fan base that she has stated many times she cares about yet she is putting out a work that she is refusing to allow them to read. 2. She says she is doing this to raise money for a charity and yet if she simply gave the charity the royalties for publishing it, it would make MUCH more money for that charity.
No one has said she is a bad person. In fact, whether she optimises the income from it or not, it will be needed money for an excellent charity and one she was instrumental in starting. And if she is an "odd duck" so are a lot of writers. (Edit: Honestly, if you are offended by someone being called an odd duck, you need to get a grip.)
I would say getting all bent out of shape because an author is referred to as an "odd duck" or because people speculate on her reasoning is reacting WAY out of proportion. It is actually rather light hearted speculation on the reasons for her decisions and in no way an attack or even really a criticism of her. (Well, some fans have been pretty critical but that's not a big issue in this thread).
My question is: Why are you getting so defensive on the subject?
Edit: Ok, let me add this to what is rapidly turning into a bit of a rant. I try not to know anything about celebrities lives. All too often, if I know about them they are such jerks I can never enjoy their work again.
I know absolutely nothing about Rowling's personal life, EXCEPT that as a writer she "paid her dues." I do know that she started from nothing, sat her butt down in a chair and struggled through writing first book and then put it out there through rejections until it was published. And the first one was NOT a raving success (unlike the much mentioned Harper Lee). She kept writing anyway. If memory serves, she was not a big best seller until the THIRD book.
So as far as I'm concerned, she earned what she got just like we all hope to. I have no criticism of her whatsoever (except that I'd like her to be a better writer. I find comparing her with the "greats" a little unjustified, but people enjoy her work so even there I won't be too harsh.)
That still doesn't mean that I don't find this decision odd. It is and if you're all upset at people speculating on why she'd put out a book but not publish it for the public, I don't know what to say except don't read the thread, because I reject the accusation of having been mean or judging her "life".
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 05, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 05, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 05, 2007).]
Oh, and if you want to see a negative thread, read the one about Chris Paolini and Eragon . . . though, I agree with what people said. Truth is, Hatrackers are very nice and rather polite. I've seen forums where people are constantly spewing negativity about anything and everything.
quote:
When it came to finding “thank you” presents for the people who have been most closely involved with Harry Potter over the years, nothing shop bought seemed personal enough. I therefore decided to handwrite a limited number of copies of “Beedle the Bard”.
She went on on to say that there were only six people she really wanted to give them to, but for production reasons there had to be seven books. What to do with the last one?
She decided to auction it.
Edit: Fair enough, I reckon.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited November 05, 2007).]
Anybody 'round the SF / Fantasy field ever "run into" Rowling before the fame and fortune bit? Harry Potter seemed to spring into public consciousness without much notice---I don't recall hearing of it until I saw a display in a bookstore and noted it was published (in the US) by a publisher not noted for fantasy.
I gather from the backstory bit that she was unemployed and broke when she conceived Harry Potter...but if she were a struggling writer already, wouldn't there be, say, a collection of old MSS and rejection slips? Writers' workshops? Contact with other fans of fantasy?
She may not have worked at it as long as some of us but she wasn't like Paolini who is much criticised (rightfully imo) for having it handed to him. She earned what she got. I admire any writer who sticks through the rejections and snarky reviewers to make it.
Like I said, beyond the little I have read about her history as a writer, I know nothing about her personal life. It's none of my business and I don't even want to know. She seems from the little I do know like a decent person, but that doesn't mean I won't speculate when she does something that strikes me as strange.
Edit: There are plenty of people who become an overnight success after working for years at it.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 05, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 05, 2007).]
quote:
wouldn't there be, say, a collection of old MSS and rejection slips? Writers' workshops? Contact with other fans of fantasy?
It also seems Rowling is pretty reclusive. I don't see her sitting in a writer's workshop. In fact, has anyone seen her at a signing or a convention? She's done a few signings, but not many. And why should she? She's the richest writer of all time. She doesn't need to do anything ever again.
But aside from my dislike of her recent actions, I still would look forward to reading a future work.
It's difficult to say just where writers may, er, shovel with both hands about themselves. To cite another famous-in-SF-circles example, Robert A. Heinlein used to claim his first submission to Astounding was his first attempt at getting published---something that post-mortem information showed was a big crock, that he'd written a novel (since published) before that, and that that first submission wasn't even the first that MS had.
I've wondered about Rowling because in at least one write-up, she downgraded the influence Tolkien had on her, claiming she read The Lord of the Rings once as a teen and once after Harry Potter sold---I'm suspicious of that 'cause I thought-and-think some of her name-choices reflect a Tolkien-ian sensitivity...
I don't think Rowling would, say, pull a Piers Anthony and try to get all that earlier work published. Maybe doing a Ray Bradbury---burning your first million words---would be more likely.
Whether she wrote other books or not, it took a lot of trying to even get the first HP published.
People forget that the first HP was first turned down by almost every publisher in Great Britain before it was bought and then she didn't do earth-shaking sales with the first one.
As far as her age, I just checked and she was born in 1965.
I find myself amused at both kind of defending and researching Rowling since I'm no particular fan of hers.
Here is an amusing snippet from Wikipedia:
quote:
In 1995, Rowling finished her manuscript for Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone on an old manual typewriter. Upon the enthusiastic response of Bryony Evans, a reader who had been asked to review the book’s first three chapters, the Fulham-based Christopher Little Literary Agents agreed to represent Rowling in her quest for a publisher. The book was submitted to twelve publishing houses, all of which rejected the manuscript.[ A year later she was finally given the green light (and a £1500 advance) by editor Barry Cunningham from Bloomsbury, a small British publishing house in London, England. The decision to publish Rowling's book apparently owes considerably to Alice Newton, the eight-year-old daughter of Bloomsbury’s chairman, who was given the first chapter to review by her father, and immediately demanded the next. Although Bloomsbury agreed to publish the book, Cunningham says that he advised Rowling to get a day job, since she had little chance of making money in children’s books.
Edit: And she uses her initials because she was told that boys wouldn't buy a fantasy written by a woman. *rolls eyes*
Nothing to do with the subject but people do amazingly enough assume someone who uses initials are male. On another board (I frequently use my initials which are J. R.) I was recently told I obviously didn't understand women. *snerkles*
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 09, 2007).]
quote:
The two HP books? I think you mis-spoke.
If you're not referring to me, then I am currently misspeaking.
You don't understand women. I think that's funny. But I've heard similar advice saying a guy won't read a book where the hero is a woman (I try not to use the word heroine because it makes me think she's on drugs). Myself, I (a man, if that was not apparent) almost prefer female leads. My WiP was going to have a male lead until I though, "why does it have to be a guy?". So, I switched to female. If the question were, "why does it have to be a girl?", I don't know.
The advise that men (or boys) wouldn't read books about or written by women used to be very common and not all that long ago, obviously. It's slowly fading, but still rears its ugly head from time to time. At one time you could just plain forget finding any SF that had a female protag. It didn't happen.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 09, 2007).]
I was just told this (that it is "nearly impossible" to market a book with a girl protagonist to boys) by an agent I respect. Rather disappointing to me since I think boys will really like my WiP, a YA SF/adventure.
Frankly, I'm not convinced that boys actually don't want to read about a girl, but if the publishers still think that, then it becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, doesn't it?
I'm responding by marketing my book (and changing it slightly) to emphasize an ensemble cast, but I refuse to give my girl a sex-change operation because of this. She is what she is, and she tells my story well.
-amiya
Sorry to hijack the thread, but...
You hit the nail on the head, mitchellworks. It's not what the readers think and want, it's what the agents and publishers think and want. Unfortunately, that is the state of the market now. What they want, you have to deliver or they'll go with someone else. The sad fact is that there are more good writers and stories to choose from, and less readers every day.
The statement that a female protag is unsellable is false in so many ways. There have been female protags in sci-fi since its inception, they are just few and far between because usually an author can write the same story using either gender. There are very few exceptions to this being true.
One story that was very popular that had a female protag was Heinlein's novel Friday. It was nominated for the Nebula Award for Best Novel in 1982 and the Hugo Award for Best Novel in 1983, so it definitely can work, and work well. of course, the rules are different for an established author over an unpublished one. I doubt the book would even be in print if submitted today, and especially by an unknown author, but I could well be wrong.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...
The "boys won't read about girls" thing has lasted a lot longer in YA and children's than in adults. Why is a rather interesting question that I have seen discussed in several articles.
I tend toward the thinking that it is an unconscious part of the strong societal push to make sure that "boys act like boys." Look at the mind numbing efforts to make sure that "boy toys" are marketed to boys only, for example. (Accompanied by massively marketing mind numblingly inane toys to girls) While I don't think this is some kind of conspiracy, I do think it is part of a societal fixation that we need to inculcate male superiority and "male thinking" into boys.
By the way the 1980s wasn't all THAT long ago. It is recent history as far as Sci/Fi goes. Even into the '90s the number of female protags was tiny at best. That is now largely a thing of the past. No publisher or agent in their right mind would say the same thing about adult Sci/Fi. It will take at the least a few best sellers (and this will be hard to do since it's next to impossible to get them published) with female YA protags to get this changed. Then I think money will talk loudly enough to change that thinking.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 10, 2007).]
Watch the interviews on the first two movies. She's just absolutely thrilled to be working with an American director and screenwriter. The screenwriter says "I am dying. It's just going to take a while." Rowling laughs and then gives a look like she can't wait until it happens. Then, surprise, surprise! The screenwriter gets tossed for one of the movies. Also, the fans are stuck with a shitty fifth and probably sixth movie just because she wanted to have a British director.
On the second movie, she says what she thinks about the animation. She thinks Dobby is wonderful, and she loves the mandrakes. Then, she makes a "ugh" face afterwards as if to say that the rest of the creatures were not satisfactory. It's subtle stuff, but I've noticed it for quite a while.
Now, I realize that I am biased. I have never been a fan of hers. I love her work. She wrote a very fun children's story. I'll give her that. But...
...if you don't believe her greed, just look at the first three books. They are very tight and well-thought out. Then, you get to the fourth book, and things start popping out. The Crouch Jr. disguising himself as Moody seemed forced as if she thought about it half-way through the book. You could argue he was trying to gain Harry's trust and that he had to get close to Neville to give him the book for the gillyweed, but I just don't buy it.
Rowling says she loves the fans, but then they have to stalk her to get special information and such. Her website is there for all. But if you do not catch it when the door is opened, then you miss out on whatever she put on it. My brother would check her website everyday for stuff like that. He probably still does. It seems the only fans that are not outraged at her recent behavior are fans like my brother, the fans that worship her blindly.
I'm not one of her fans, in fact a long way from it, but everything I actually know about her as a person which is little enough is positive such as her work with charities. Judging someone on a passing expression on their face during an interview is a bit harsh. For all you know, she had glare in her eyes.
But you also have a right to your own opinion.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 10, 2007).]
quote:
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane...
The language being used now tells me that it's time to close this topic.