She's telling it as she sees it because she's actually seen it.
She knows what it's like to be a struggling single parent on benefits.
Politicians born into wealth who have never been poor have no experience of that. That's why they view the poor, the disabled, the vulnerable, single parents etc....with either contempt or cluelessless.
Sorry but that's rubbish. The first 4 books were published before the movies were made. The Goblet of Fire had to have a special release date on a Saturday and simultaneously in the US and UK because the franchise was so huge by then they didn't want kids taking time off school to buy the latest book. It had a record-breaking first print run of 3.9 million copies. It was also twice the length of previous books. - all before the first film!
I'm not a fan of JKR's actual writing. I find it quite pedestrian and she has a lot of problems with pace etc (the last book was pretty bad) BUT I think she's incredibly clever. She was able to take elements of great literature and put it all together to make a hugely captivating and exciting world.
The detail she's put into Harry Potter's world is astounding and shows HOW MUCH work she put into this series - she didn't just churn out 50,000 words and hope it was a success. She crafted every detail of a world - animals, plants, history, names, mythology - and made it totally real for kids and adults alike. That takes real skill. If you don't think so, I suggest you go and try to do it yourself.
And then, once she becomes a multimillionaire, she doesn't just bugger off to a foreign country, keeping every penny of her money for herself and do nothing. She pays full taxes, she gives MILLIONS to charity, she is socially and politically active and tries to use her wealth, fame and power for the good of those struggling. I applaud that.
it would be a amazing achievement if John Ronald Reuel Tolkien had not of done that long before her and in much much more detail .
Okay, so there is nothing new in its basic ingredients under the Sun, but you can have new variants on old themes. I find it pretty unique the way Rowling combined banal everyday schoolyard concerns with the most profound mythic themes of good versus evil and coping with life.
Okay, so there is nothing new in its basic ingredients under the Sun, but you can have new variants on old themes. I find it pretty unique the way Rowling combined banal everyday schoolyard concerns with the most profound mythic themes of good versus evil and coping with life.
Quite. That was why I said "was able to take elements of great literature" - there is no denying she used a lot of the great successes before her to build on, but that doesn't means he didn't create something unique.
She didn't steal Tolkien's world or Terry Pratchett's, she created her own. Why does the fact that another great author created an entirely fantastical world before her lessen what she created? Does Pratchett get accused of being talentless and simply stole everything from Tolkien?
Facts! What facts? There's nothing to support your 'facts'. :rolleyes:
LOL you mean the fact that the 4th book is twice as long as the other 3, the fact that it had a simultaneous US and Uk release because it was so massively popular, the fact it had a record breaking 3.9 million print, and the fact that all this happened before the first film came out - none of those are real are they?
Nor is the fact that she pays more tax than Google and Starbucks combined, lives in Scotland, gives millions to charities? None of that's real either?
Wow, hatred for this lady really does blind people.
LOL you mean the fact that the 4th book is twice as long as the other 3, the fact that it had a simultaneous US and Uk release because it was so massively popular, the fact it had a record breaking 3.9 million print, and the fact that all this happened before the first film came out - none of those are real are they?
Nor is the fact that she pays more tax than Google and Starbucks combined, lives in Scotland, gives millions to charities? None of that's real either?
Wow, hatred for this lady really does blind people.
I don't dispute the second part of your post. You raised that issue not me. Sweeping staments like hate are untrue and are not simply necessary.
On the point of the books/films, the fact is she signed for the films in 1999. Her 4th book was published after that. So you are wrong!
I don't dispute the second part of your post. You raised that issue not me. Sweeping staments like hate are untrue and are not simply necessary.
On the point of the books/films, the fact is she signed for the films in 1999. Her 4th book was published after that. So you are wrong!
The fourth book was published before any of the films were made so your claim that they were only doing "very nicely" until they were made into films is rubbish. They were massively, hugely, record breakingly successful before any of the films came along. Why is that so hard to admit?
Firstly ...well done JK Rowling for speaking up for single parents and telling how it really is.. Through no fault of my own I became a single parent and believe me it was no picnic..I didn't have the life of luxury the media are claiming those on benefits are having. It was bloody hard and some days I didn't eat because I couldn't afford to..but I made sure my son did...
Secondly DariaM
I'm sure JK isn't losing any sleep about those missing qualifications
Unless you were attacked what do you mean 'through no fault of your own'? It takes two to tango?
Thousands of women were living on their own in rooms after WW2, they never got themselves pregnant until they were married.
The fourth book was published before any of the films were made so your claim that they were only doing "very nicely" until they were made into films is rubbish. They were massively, hugely, record breakingly successful before any of the films came along. Why is that so hard to admit?
The point I made was that the franchise turned HP into a massive worldwide hit. The books were of a much shorter length until the franchise, then they became much longer. A simple point. Why is it that you can't understand the point? What was the point of the rant? I can only assume you are supportive of JKR. That's fine. But please spare the posters on DS and the throughout forums - the hysterical, hell-bent tirades when others don't agree with you.
Unless you were attacked what do you mean 'through no fault of your own'? It takes two to tango?
Thousands of women were living on their own in rooms after WW2, they never got themselves pregnant until they were married.
And plenty of women have a child whilst in a committed relationship and that relationship breaks down. How is that hard to understand?
The point I made was that the franchise turned HP into a massive worldwide hit. The books were of a much shorter length until the franchise, then they became much longer. A simple point. Why is it that you can't understand the point? What was the point of the rant? I can only assume you are supportive of JKR. That's fine. But please spare the posters on DS and the throughout forums - the hysterical, hell-bent tirades when others don't agree with you.
The fourth Harry Potter book was the first book to be of significant length and that was before the first film.
I don't dispute the second part of your post. You raised that issue not me. Sweeping staments like hate are untrue and are not simply necessary.
On the point of the books/films, the fact is she signed for the films in 1999. Her 4th book was published after that. So you are wrong!
Signing a contract to make the films - something the public would not have even been aware of - would not have had any effect on the publication of the books or their success. Only after the release of the films could the books have benefited from them, and at that point, they were already a literary phenomenon.
As for her last book, the leak was certainly not a ruse. She sued the legal firm responsible for revealing her as the author of the book as well as the woman who leaked it to the press. It's damaged the reputation of the firm, so there's little chance of them being 'in on it'. The publishers also had to urgently print more books at a great cost in order to meet demand. It's widely believed within the publishing industry that they planned to reveal her identity after the release of the second book in the series, therefore being able to capitalise on the sale of two books at the same time in the new financial year. They were in no way prepared for the leak and they had no reason to pull this stunt anyway. Her name alone sells an incredible amount of books. She had said many times in the past that she may in the future quietly release a book under a pseudonym, it was her preference.
Signing a contract to make the films - something the public would not have even been aware of - would not have had any effect on the publication of the books or their success. Only after the release of the films could the books have benefited from them, and at that point, they were already a literary phenomenon.
As for her last book, the leak was certainly not a ruse. She sued the legal firm responsible for revealing her as the author of the book as well as the woman who leaked it to the press. It's damaged the reputation of the firm, so there's little chance of them being 'in on it'. The publishers also had to urgently print more books at a great cost in order to meet demand. It's widely believed within the publishing industry that they planned to reveal her identity after the release of the second book in the series, therefore being able to capitalise on the sale of two books at the same time in the new financial year. They were in no way prepared for the leak and they had no reason to pull this stunt anyway. Her name alone sells an incredible amount of books. She had said many times in the past that she may in the future quietly release a book under a pseudonym, it was her preference.
Thanks but my point was that after the franchise signing she wrote longer books. The books were not a phenomenon before the film franchise. The franchise was well publicised with interactive web sites etc. well before the first film and HP mania was a result of this. I'm not criticising the franchise as such just making a point that it was the turning point for HP and as a clonsequence the books became longer.
Yes but the books were always going to get more darker and more detailed as Harry got older, that's why they increased in length. The first 3 books were light, the fourth book is the point where things get a lot darker, and more serious, and more adult in nature. She didn't write them longer because she signed up for the films. It makes no difference to the films if the books are long or short, they cut so much out. They aren't even that good really, when compared to the books.
I like the way the first few books aren't that long, sort of gets you into them. I read the first book when I was around 19/20 I think, so it made no difference to me whether they were long or short, but I imagine to children it might put them off seeing a big thick book.
Yes but the books were always going to get more darker and more detailed as Harry got older, that's why they increased in length. The first 3 books were light, the fourth book is the point where things get a lot darker, and more serious, and more adult in nature. She didn't write them longer because she signed up for the films. It makes no difference to the films if the books are long or short, they cut so much out. They aren't even that good really, when compared to the books.
I like the way the first few books aren't that long, sort of gets you into them. I read the first book when I was around 19/20 I think, so it made no difference to me whether they were long or short, but I imagine to children it might put them off seeing a big thick book.
I agree the books are far better than the films. I had already bought the first 3 for my son. So I remember the big publicity for the films way before they came out. This built up a 'head of steam' for the 4th book and for the release of the films.
The books have certainly changed. As you say it could have been because HP became older. I don't dispute that thay are great books for kids not just because of the characters but because of the construction of the texts.
As to why the books suddenly became longer, we can only surmise.
The point I made was that the franchise turned HP into a massive worldwide hit. The books were of a much shorter length until the franchise, then they became much longer. A simple point. Why is it that you can't understand the point?
I understand the point perfectly, you're simply wrong. The 4th book was written before the franchise. She didn't just sign the movie rights and then write a longer novel. it was already written, it was only published after the movie deal was signed (a deal which was only for the first 4 books by the way).
And at the point the movie deal was signed the books were already a world wide phenomenon. Why can't you understand that?
You can't state that the signing of a deal to possibly make 4 movies turned something into a world wide phenomenon, that's just ridiculous. The online hype and publicity came because people were already fans and generated a huge amount of hype because they had read the books.
What was the point of the rant? I can only assume you are supportive of JKR. That's fine. But please spare the posters on DS and the throughout forums - the hysterical, hell-bent tirades when others don't agree with you.
The point of my "rant" - as you call it - is that you seem "hell-bent" on belittling JKR's success based on summations that aren't true.
And thanks for the advice, but I'll carry on posting how I please and if the mods have a problem with it, I'm sure they'll let me know.
As to why the books suddenly became longer, we can only surmise.
Huh, but I thought you were stating as a fact in earlier posts that it was because of the franchise? Now you're admitting you're just taking a wild guess? Well done.
I understand the point perfectly, you're simply wrong. The 4th book was written before the franchise. She didn't just sign the movie rights and then write a longer novel. it was already written, it was only published after the movie deal was signed (a deal which was only for the first 4 books by the way).
And at the point the movie deal was signed the books were already a world wide phenomenon. Why can't you understand that?
You can't state that the signing of a deal to possibly make 4 movies turned something into a world wide phenomenon, that's just ridiculous. The online hype and publicity came because people were already fans and generated a huge amount of hype because they had read the books.
The point of my "rant" - as you call it - is that you seem "hell-bent" on belittling JKR's success based on summations that aren't true.
And thanks for the advice, but I'll carry on posting how I please and if the mods have a problem with it, I'm sure they'll let me know.
Huh, but I thought you were stating as a fact in earlier posts that it was because of the franchise? Now you're admitting you're just taking a wild guess? Well done.
No. You're wrong. You did rant. You made stupid assumptions. End of. Do continue posting.
Try re-reading the original comments I have made. Then compare with your rant. It's easy enough. Also you might like to re-read your first sentence.
In light of what you've attempted to say, it's rather funny and terribly humiliating on your part. :D:D
Well, as I'm apparently I'm a moron, perhaps you'd like to spell it out for me because the only assumptions i see being made were by you - wrong ones, about when the Harry Potter films became a success.
Oh and there's no humiliation on my part, believe me.
Probably did more to encourage kids to read than governments did.
She's absolutely amazing and I don't say that easily. I love how she managed to get kids reading & not only that, there's many teens/young people/adults who are massive fans of her series too. Not an easy thing to achieve I should imagine....:p
Comments
She knows what it's like to be a struggling single parent on benefits.
Politicians born into wealth who have never been poor have no experience of that. That's why they view the poor, the disabled, the vulnerable, single parents etc....with either contempt or cluelessless.
it would be a amazing achievement if John Ronald Reuel Tolkien had not of done that long before her and in much much more detail .
And Terry Pratchett.
Okay, so there is nothing new in its basic ingredients under the Sun, but you can have new variants on old themes. I find it pretty unique the way Rowling combined banal everyday schoolyard concerns with the most profound mythic themes of good versus evil and coping with life.
Quite. That was why I said "was able to take elements of great literature" - there is no denying she used a lot of the great successes before her to build on, but that doesn't means he didn't create something unique.
She didn't steal Tolkien's world or Terry Pratchett's, she created her own. Why does the fact that another great author created an entirely fantastical world before her lessen what she created? Does Pratchett get accused of being talentless and simply stole everything from Tolkien?
Facts! What facts? There's nothing to support your 'facts'.
LOL you mean the fact that the 4th book is twice as long as the other 3, the fact that it had a simultaneous US and Uk release because it was so massively popular, the fact it had a record breaking 3.9 million print, and the fact that all this happened before the first film came out - none of those are real are they?
Nor is the fact that she pays more tax than Google and Starbucks combined, lives in Scotland, gives millions to charities? None of that's real either?
Wow, hatred for this lady really does blind people.
I don't dispute the second part of your post. You raised that issue not me. Sweeping staments like hate are untrue and are not simply necessary.
On the point of the books/films, the fact is she signed for the films in 1999. Her 4th book was published after that. So you are wrong!
The fourth book was published before any of the films were made so your claim that they were only doing "very nicely" until they were made into films is rubbish. They were massively, hugely, record breakingly successful before any of the films came along. Why is that so hard to admit?
Unless you were attacked what do you mean 'through no fault of your own'? It takes two to tango?
Thousands of women were living on their own in rooms after WW2, they never got themselves pregnant until they were married.
The point I made was that the franchise turned HP into a massive worldwide hit. The books were of a much shorter length until the franchise, then they became much longer. A simple point. Why is it that you can't understand the point? What was the point of the rant? I can only assume you are supportive of JKR. That's fine. But please spare the posters on DS and the throughout forums - the hysterical, hell-bent tirades when others don't agree with you.
And plenty of women have a child whilst in a committed relationship and that relationship breaks down. How is that hard to understand?
The fourth Harry Potter book was the first book to be of significant length and that was before the first film.
But not before the franchise was signed.
As for her last book, the leak was certainly not a ruse. She sued the legal firm responsible for revealing her as the author of the book as well as the woman who leaked it to the press. It's damaged the reputation of the firm, so there's little chance of them being 'in on it'. The publishers also had to urgently print more books at a great cost in order to meet demand. It's widely believed within the publishing industry that they planned to reveal her identity after the release of the second book in the series, therefore being able to capitalise on the sale of two books at the same time in the new financial year. They were in no way prepared for the leak and they had no reason to pull this stunt anyway. Her name alone sells an incredible amount of books. She had said many times in the past that she may in the future quietly release a book under a pseudonym, it was her preference.
Thanks but my point was that after the franchise signing she wrote longer books. The books were not a phenomenon before the film franchise. The franchise was well publicised with interactive web sites etc. well before the first film and HP mania was a result of this. I'm not criticising the franchise as such just making a point that it was the turning point for HP and as a clonsequence the books became longer.
As for the ruse - who really knows?
She already has, and if someone in the publishing world hadn't leaked the fact that Robert Galbraith was JK Rowling, nobody would have been any wiser.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Cuckoos-Calling-Cormoran-Strike/dp/1408703998/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379785427&sr=8-1&keywords=the+cuckoo%27s+calling
Yes but the books were always going to get more darker and more detailed as Harry got older, that's why they increased in length. The first 3 books were light, the fourth book is the point where things get a lot darker, and more serious, and more adult in nature. She didn't write them longer because she signed up for the films. It makes no difference to the films if the books are long or short, they cut so much out. They aren't even that good really, when compared to the books.
I like the way the first few books aren't that long, sort of gets you into them. I read the first book when I was around 19/20 I think, so it made no difference to me whether they were long or short, but I imagine to children it might put them off seeing a big thick book.
I agree the books are far better than the films. I had already bought the first 3 for my son. So I remember the big publicity for the films way before they came out. This built up a 'head of steam' for the 4th book and for the release of the films.
The books have certainly changed. As you say it could have been because HP became older. I don't dispute that thay are great books for kids not just because of the characters but because of the construction of the texts.
As to why the books suddenly became longer, we can only surmise.
I understand the point perfectly, you're simply wrong. The 4th book was written before the franchise. She didn't just sign the movie rights and then write a longer novel. it was already written, it was only published after the movie deal was signed (a deal which was only for the first 4 books by the way).
And at the point the movie deal was signed the books were already a world wide phenomenon. Why can't you understand that?
You can't state that the signing of a deal to possibly make 4 movies turned something into a world wide phenomenon, that's just ridiculous. The online hype and publicity came because people were already fans and generated a huge amount of hype because they had read the books.
The point of my "rant" - as you call it - is that you seem "hell-bent" on belittling JKR's success based on summations that aren't true.
And thanks for the advice, but I'll carry on posting how I please and if the mods have a problem with it, I'm sure they'll let me know.
Huh, but I thought you were stating as a fact in earlier posts that it was because of the franchise? Now you're admitting you're just taking a wild guess? Well done.
No. You're wrong. You did rant. You made stupid assumptions. End of. Do continue posting.
Ah "End of", the song of the intellectually deficit. Do tell what "stupid assumptions" I made, I'm intrigued.
Try re-reading the original comments I have made. Then compare with your rant. It's easy enough. Also you might like to re-read your first sentence.
In light of what you've attempted to say, it's rather funny and terribly humiliating on your part.
Well, as I'm apparently I'm a moron, perhaps you'd like to spell it out for me because the only assumptions i see being made were by you - wrong ones, about when the Harry Potter films became a success.
Oh and there's no humiliation on my part, believe me.