OH my gosh, can someone please convince this billionaire to go back to what she is great at - children's novels.
I realize she has a ton of money to throw at movies and plays but she is literally destroying her own creation. I have always thought of her writing as weak but her imagination soars when she is writing her novels. Someone has to get her off the screen and back onto the page. I realize she wants a golden globe, a Oscar, and a tony. but for heaven's sake she is trying to redo her world so as to make up for whitewashing the first seven books. She could have easily made up for it with writing a new set of children's novels, with the main protag as an african girl, middle eastern, LGBT, or whatever. But to back track and say, I never said Hermione was white, and I never said Dumbledore wasn't gay is just insane.
What she is doing now on the screen is just a travesty. She is literally trying to over explain and vindicate herself for white washing the books by rewriting the histories, And in her theater play of the future literally rewrite the main characters. Why, oh Why???? Just start with something new, JK, Something new!
After seeing fantastic beasts two I was just floored at how bad it was. And God's honest truth I don't care if Dumbledore is straight or gay. If it would have advanced the story line I would have been cheering, But it's just a mesh-mash of **** With story arcs that make no sense to the original books. She didn't even stay on point to fantastic one. The four new houses in america. Which a huge core of her children followers loved. They are not even mentioned in two. Instead its in France, and really only deals with adult issues. It doesn't even seem like a kids movies. This movie actually has two child deaths in it.
The truly sad part is- And I am going to use this rant as a moment of advice to my fellow writers of the fantastic,
Rowling has lost in this movie the one thing that made her truly stand above others.
She lost her wonder and wow.
Never once during this movie was there a bright moment of wonder or wow. The essential spark that has endeared her to so many children's hearts, her majesty of imagination left us only murder and mayhem. There wasn't even a moment of hope that love was stronger than evil. There was only power defeats power which completely contradicts the moral of Harry Potter.
But what should I expect from a billionaire woman who will charge children 500 pounds for a ticket to see a depressing play about the future of harry potter, in two parts. so really 1000.00.
Someone please send her a copy of a christmas carol before it's to late.
The craziest part is, I have nothing against Rowling trying to tackle adult subject matter, but she needed to take a page from Hayao Miyazaki and learn how to mix the wonder and wow back in with the subject matter.
And fellow writers of the fantastic, if you don't understand what I mean by Wonder and Wow, I suggest you ponder it for a while.
I am so not looking forward to three and am hoping she will take a ten year break before doing it.
posted
You think so? I never read or saw anything past the first novel. But I am suspicious of writers who become media moguls, from George Railroad Martin to the late Stan Lee.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
J. K. Rowling, exhausted, jumped the shark the sixth Potter novel. The hunger that drove her passion and attention to detail evaporated. Plan momentum carried her through the end of the Potter saga.
Runaway success, fierce hunger satiated, Rowling became bulldozed by and bulldozer of fans and market commodification forces. Her identity transformed, turned most upon her monodimensional public fame persona, she consciously and nonconsciously balked under pressure, halfhearted self-sabotaged. Jumped the shark. Wishes perhaps she could again be the free-spirited, multidimensional identity private person she was before and answer to no one.
Preparation for success -- beware of success's manifold unsavory side effects.
posted
Likewise J. D. Salinger. Hatrack rules proscribe psychoanalysis posts about members. Otherwise, psychoanalysis is a longstood literary school of thought tradition, since Sigmund Freud at least, still strong or stronger at present.
Rowling wrote the Potter saga about middle grade and young adult moral maturation, a psychoanalysis topic ripe for literary analysis of method, intent, and meaning, and ripe for craft approach study, to subtext at least.
Maturation and moral aptitude subtext are closer to the surface hypertext of the saga, the age-phase-related coming-of-age form overall, than later adult literature's mien, also about moral maturation though developed into deeper subtext layers, therefore, also about audience targets and fittest fitness of content to subject matter, to each the others, to occasion, and audience, or rhetorical decorum.
Has part of Rowling's aesthetic lost touch with the satire facet of moral maturation? Childlike "wow and wonder" uses to instruct, caution, and adjust through subtle literary and rhetorical subtext persuasions? Or did she intuitively use social persuasion for the Potter saga and underrealize its subtle uses for later works? Yes, less confident anyway, and Stephenie Meyer, among others whose craft lost touch with social rationales for their ascendant popularity, that literature's truest social function is satire's exposure of human vice and folly for social adjustment from instruction of the wisdom of the ages.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rumor has it that Salinger wrote a great deal and just never published again. (Stephen King, another example of media mogul writer, threatened to do just that but reneged on it.)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't under the impression that The Fantastic Beasts series is intended for children. For the children who grew up with the Harry Potter series, maybe, but not children now.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Also, as far as I'm aware, Rowling has stated that Dumbledore was gay for many many years, long before the Fantastic Creatures films.
I've only seen the first ones of these, but I get a feeling that they are meant, in part, to tell the rather darker history of Harry Potter's world.
Personally, I see Rowling's writing, especially her plot skills, as very strong. But to me, she's really more like a mystery writer than a fantasy writer. While the fantasy elements present are well done, and there is a strong sense of wonder, the books lack a lot of the backstory and worldbuilding many fantasy readers tend to expect-the magic is never really explained or even much talked about directly, nor are the origins of magical ability, why some people are Muggles, some wizards and some Squibs(and the weird heredity of it) or why the wizard world went underground in the first place.
My main hope for these films is that they may offer a bit more of that.
By the way, what is that liony-looking creature in the previews? It seems like I should know what it is but apparently I don't...
Posts: 226 | Registered: Oct 2018
| IP: Logged |
I don't know how I myself would behave, or write, if I became one of these media mogul writers. (Well, anything's *possible*.) How would any of us react or behave if we were in that situation?
Perhaps I should be kinder to them. Be a little more forgiving, taking into account circumstances forced on them, not necessarily of their own making, not necessarily anticipated. (I have other reasons for loathing Stephen King, but we need not go into that here.)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A litany of celebrity writers and their several eccentricities shows that a greater likelihood of misbehaviors transpires due to fame and fortune obtainment. Constant adulation, the public hangs on their every word, and spare money to buy whatever, whenever, distorts the sense of self-worth. Celebrity brat writers is a recent phenomena and is proportionate to amount of money gained and spare to squander on public self-projection for a large fraction of celebrities.
Before mass production, very few writers heads swelled as much as present, low money in the vocation because of low production numbers. Also, before copyright laws erupted teeth and prevented copyright piracy, ten percent of two thousand total paid copies sold amounts to a bare living income for a time. Fame, though, accompanied, and writers toured a public engagement circuit, upon which they were feted by benefactors and fans.
Proverbial They say, however, breeding will out, regardless of fame or fortune. The saying means folk of upper class distinctions are suited to their station in life, by accident of birth, often meant to justify abuses and exploitations of lower station folk. Yet true "breeding" is noble honor, social integrity, and empathy toward all.
I've met more than a few celebrities, due to menial hospitality services work. Most were brats, about ninety-nine out of one hundred. The few that weren't . . .
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Chemist (2016), by Stephanie Meyer, was good, and I don't say that about many books. I thought she had grown as a writer and wasn't following her sub-genre. Kudos for that.
What if famous writers let other people write their books? I went into a bookstore at the airport, bought a book by an author I really liked, then didn't particularly like the book. It wasn't the author's style of writing, in content or grammar. And I felt taken advantage of.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Apr 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
Other writers have been known to write books published under a famous author's name, but usually the publication is listed as a collaboration between the two authors. (Not to mention ghost writing - a whole nother situation.)
Other reasons why a famous writer may produce a sub-standard book include 1--bringing out something the author wrote before becoming famous (aka "trunk story"); 2--editors changing publishing houses and not taking their authors with them (you might be surprised at how often a famous author's voice may be due to that author's editor more than to the author); 3--famous author insisting on publishing something the author loves that isn't up to standard quality (some authors do one kind of story better than another).
Famous authors are under tremendous pressure at times to produce more for publishers to make money off of and for readers to enjoy, and writing great stuff may take more time than the publishing schedule allows for (and/or for the author's life and family demands - and sanity demands, for that matter - may allow for).
I recently heard of one author who discovered a love of another kind of work, but because of contracts and publishing demands (as well as fan demands), that author is unable to dedicate as much time to that other kind of work (or make a decent living compared to what writing brings in).
It's not all that glamorous all the time.
And I agree about Meyers' THE CHEMIST. I really liked that book. Very interesting thriller with interesting characters.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jack London's Martin Eden, 1909, is a "must-read" for any writer struggle, about the journey out of struggle toward fame and fortune's zenith, consequent disillusionment, and decline, a satiric critical commentary of industrialism and individualism's alienations. No individual is an island unto the self.
Eden recycles "trunk" stories when he can no longer keep up with demand, in reverse chronological order from submissions initially before his publication debut and success to his less and less accomplished, earlier works.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember Martin Eden as being an unpleasant read in college. But I'm hard-pressed to name many books that have influenced me more. (And, in case the Gods are listening, Wyrms might come in first.)
I don't know what is fraud versus bad ethics. Sine I will buy a book based on author, it seems to be that the listed author should be the author.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Apr 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
By copyright law, if a story is written within a creator-writer's milieu, the original's writer created it and owns it, regardless of if solely written by a so-licensed and authorized writer, a co-writer, under bylines thereof, or a ghost writer in the blind. Marketplace forces favor the process; name recognition appeals enhance revenue performance.
By definition, such works are derivative, the facet of copyright law that protects an original creator's milieu from intellectual property infringement. Derivatives are all too often weak dilutions, too.
Dragonvalis written for hire by Philip K. Dick under contract to Anne McCaffrey, Dragon Riders of Pern, long-rummored, long-denied, purported valid, and unpublishable until McCaffrey's copyrights expire, is an authorized though withheld example of a perhaps derivative that stands far apart from its original yet an undiluted original creation. (RevolutionSF.com article.)
posted
The mystery writer Ellery Queen, who was two guys, actually, had several later novels ghostwritten by others---I believe one of the originals provided the plots. Curiously a lot of them were by science fiction writers---I thought one ghostwritten by Theodore Sturgeon was particularly fine.
(Also there were some original paperbacks under the Ellery Queen name---in the end, I think these weakened the brand. Ellery Queen never became as wealthy as Agatha Christie, as famous as Dashiell Hammett, or as iconic as Perry Mason.)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do realize it isn't fair to just pick on Rowling, and true, it's hard to say how any of us would act with billions in our pocket, but she obviously has control issues. I mean think of the ego a writer has to have to publish a script as a book?
A script is suppose to be a pliable outline to fuel the directors imagination, not something written in stone. Does she give credit in the script's book to actors, editors, or the director for changing a line? Some of the best movies have major changes or omissions to the script. So how does that work, wait for all the rewrites and then claim it as your own? And now that the movie is a big flop how does that effect the script book? Hey guys, lets get this book and learn how not to write an award-winning script.
I mean, who is going to stand up and tell Rowling in the writers room it needs a complete rewrite. Or fire her and get a better screenwriter to save the movie. It unfortunately can't happen, yet it happens every day to famous directors and screenwriters, but Rowling is immune. Two flops later, and she will still get to write number three; hopefully she will come to her senses.
She's taking a lot of bad press for this car wreck.
But even my example of Hayao Miyazak, look at his work ethic. He treats his workers like sh*t. Forces them to work night and day for little to no pay. Never says it was a team effort, just claims all the credit for himself. And yet most of his movies are based on someone else's book.
so it's not just Rowling, but she has to much power for anyone to talk some sense into her. I mean, come on, werewolves are a metaphor for HIV now in her books? This is from her own mouth. She does realize that the werewolf legend has been around long before we understood HIV, and she didn't invent werewolves, right? UGGG!
Best thing to happen to game of thones, distance RR martin from the scripts.
Same with King, when he is involved things go south. Kubrick's shinning brilliant. Kings later version/movie cr*p, but King complained and complained Kubrick didn't understand his vision and got to remake it. Who cares King! Kubrick chose your book as an outline and made a masterpiece of horror!
posted
Werewolves or lycan, vampires, zonbi, witch, mage, etc., each entails a distinct and perpetual folk topos. Werewolf derives from highway marauders, once athletic elite, low-rank soldiers who were discharged or deserted in the field, who bay at and prey on the unwary sojourner under a full moon ambush. Garlic is less so the food matter itself and more so about arsine, flammable and poisonous AsH3, arsenic hydride, the scent of peasant garlic eaters, who developed the folk type for a caution tale against unwary travel. Silver bullet's role is numinous Scripture allusion to the metal's several New Testament portents.
Effective revenant or any topos from folklore faithfully portrays all of a type's representative conventions though for different, fresh expression of a human condition.
HIV and folklore more so, to me, evokes lepers, mindless, soulless boucan servants, and vedic caste untouchables; therefore, social sensitivity and responsibility substitutes zonbi. Now zonbi . . .
posted
I thought "The Shining" was a difference between a guy who *went* crazy (King), compared with a guy who *was* crazy (Kubrick).
Been reading the long-awaited second volume of Gary Giddins's biography of Bing Crosby. (Yes, it finally came out after seventeen long years.) Along the way, it details Crosby's efforts to remain of the flock when others insisted on treating him as the shepherd.
It's a great risk, for any of these media darlings, to keep their heads on straight, and often it has to be done by rejecting some, or all, of it.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I thought "The Shining" was a difference between a guy who *went* crazy (King), compared with a guy who *was* crazy (Kubrick).
Are we talking the book and movie or there creators? lol
let me step back one step also. It's not that I mind Rowling stretching her talent to take on a script, but it has become painfully obvious she feels her money/imagination can replace actual study of the craft. The scriptwriters of the first novels had a ton of source material to pull from. Taking the best parts of the books to make the script. Where when she is writing, she is just inventing off the cuff and assuming the parts in her head are of course the best things to throw in, with only an inner editor to make corrections. No one can give her advice because all the extra information is secret in her brain, which now she is changing around to be PC.
To paraphrase: She has become the fool who thinks she can do a better job being a lawyer than a person who has had decades doing it, and goes to trial in the highest court in the land to start, with her own life on the line. There is no higher court than that of public opinion.
Others spend years tagging along with the experts to learn the craft, and she is proving theory true, that money can't buy everything.
Don't even get me started on the plays.
Now I'm interested in reading the chemist. Never really liked Meyers, but maybe this stand alone will shine, or should I say SPARKLE. Only fair to give it a try.
posted
One of the more often than otherwise misspelled writer names: Stephenie Meyer. Google Search asks, did you mean ---- ?
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So okay, here is the thing. Kubrick's "The Shining" is visual amazing and well acted and a great movie. That being said, every Stephen King fan I've ever known pretty much agrees with King's opinion of the film-that it looks great, but he left out very nearly the entire story, and in particular makes the father seem pretty unlikeable and/or crazy from the beginning while more or less ignoring the fact that in the book he's a loving father struggling against his alcoholism and temper. Also, Kubrick killed Dick Hallorann and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has a problem with that.
Posts: 226 | Registered: Oct 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I thought King and Kubrick were *both* crazy. (I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist so I can bandy about these terms as a layman would.)
I'm limited on what I can say about Rowling's art, I've only read the first book. It struck me as an imaginative reworking of those books about British public schools, like "Tom Brown's School Days." Some of her inventions seem spot-on, equally imaginative. The beginning of a promising career.
As for the arc of her career...well, I think she had a tough time just finishing the final books of the original series (they were noticeably longer). Then she tried her hand at writing a couple of other kinds of works, which sold well once she was "outed" as the writer. And then, given demands, she kind of returned to her original created world, I think somewhat reluctantly, and has been there ever since.
(One thing, too. If I recall right, Rowling stated she wasn't influenced in any way by J. R. R. Tolkien. I think that's a lie, chiefly because the name of one prominent character suggests a fairly deep dive into Tolkien's works. Writers often disclaim influences on their work, though---Tolkien himself did.)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
