Pop Author and Horror Novelist Offer Literary and Moral Advice
| HT Cubeland Mystic who emailed me this laughable article. King and Irving say they feel like "warm-up bands" for Rowling. They "feel" more like roadies to me. I'm not going to grace any of their other comments (about kicking dogs and "being fair" to Harry) in what I think is an obvious publicity grab. Think people. Do authors really expect they can sway another author to change her book based on their ardent pleas? Let alone a feisty red-haired lady who's book sales have smoked their own numbers? But this stunt got them some press, so good for them -- I'm sure their publishers can play at least 9 holes with their colleagues at Scholastic without as much pain and embarrassment now. Maybe they'll pick up a few curious readers. They've accomplished their purpose, they have their reward and I seriously doubt they really care what happens to Harry Potter. I mean, for crying out loud -- look at what King does to his characters! Or on second thought, don't look. Read a real book. The article quotes Rowling's sensible comment on the fate of her characters: "We're working toward the end I always planned but a couple of characters I expected to survive have died and one character got a reprieve," she said, declining to elaborate.But the article saves the best quote for last: "When fans accuse me of sadism, which doesn't happen that often, I feel I'm toughening them up to go on and read John and Stephen's books," she said. "I think they've got to be toughened up somehow. It's a cruel literary world out there."Ain't it the truth, Ms. Rowling, a cruel world indeed. And envy "shoots at others yet wounds itself" as the old English proverb states. This goes along with recent comment thread on "backfiring" -- you can read much from three wise and poignant sentences about what she really thinks about who needs to be toughened up. My final thoughts about this: Irving and King have talent, but I believe their success has depended upon the bar being set rather low for what's fit for literary consumption. Rowling has written "kid's books" with more substance, success and staying power than theirs -- add to that an enormous appeal to the adults comprising their audience -- and they know it. I'll say it again -- this is a stunt in the purest form designed to provide a piggyback ride for Johnny and Stevie on the success of J. K. Rowling. Oink, oink, guys, enjoy the ride. |
Comments on "Pop Author and Horror Novelist Offer Literary and Moral Advice"
-
Merlin said ... (August 02, 2006 2:42 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (August 02, 2006 3:15 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (August 02, 2006 4:41 PM)
:
-
jkr2 said ... (August 02, 2006 5:31 PM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (August 02, 2006 9:56 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (August 03, 2006 8:52 AM)
:
post a commentI dunno, I liked certain aspects of A Prayer For Owen Meany ... of course I read it in a class setting, so that may have affected my reading ... definitely a gritty book in places, though, no 2 ways about that. I thought it had valid insights in places and enough genuine style to keep my sympathy involved till books end, interesting use of imagery and theme (I thought the movie they made of it ["Simon Birch" I think] might as well not have been made at all). Didn't really do enough though to get me reading more of him, I guess, and I haven't really read anything else by Irving, or about him.
Actually, I haven't actually read anything at all by King. I have liked some of his stuff that has made it through to the screen though, specifically "Shawshank Redemption" and "The Green Mile" (which fall more along the "psychological healing thriller" and the "mystical thriller" lines I guess, rather than his more properly Horror stuff)
Wished so bad I was alrady living in NYC for this one though ... mainly because of Rowling. I agree that the event, as concerned King and Irving, is piggy-backing. Oh well, such is the world of calculation :)
I've heard others praise Irving's stuff, esp. "Owen Meany", as well. And, like I said, King isn't horrible to read. But I can't go easy on king after I read a patronizing review of HP after the 4th or 5th book. He mentioned the adverbs and the thing had the overall tone of "she'll get the hang of writing yet." Wish I knew was publication it was in, typical doctor's office incident....
This incident has the same overall tone, IMHO. But I might just be biased toward JKR and her style of literature, i.e., stuff with enormous depth. True, "Shawshank" translated beautifully to screen and the "Green Mile" was great also. But Harry's hot right now and the books have caused a virtual revolution, and the "sherlock holmes" remark was a way to get King into the news.
And I'm just pointing out how cheesy it was to do it that way. Look -- here are 2 guys who are absolutely successful in their medium, but they admit they feel merely opening acts for Rowling. I think it's really hard to deal with that with classiness.
Yeah, I forgot about the "too many adverbs" thing.
Actually, I got the feel like they were trying to be a little bit humorous with the "please don't kill Harry!" ... but it was that proverbial "s**t eating grin" kind of humor ... like they know they're taking back seat on this one ... and in truth maybe somebody like King wouldn't have to be eating so much crow from that if he hadn't read his own press kit so much and started to formulate his thoughts around "Stephen King" (which is what it seems to me like he has going ... and now a little bit of sting from not being king lol)
In then end I think somebody like King is probably a little burned out, "one too many deals" (to quote Al Pacino's character in "City Hall"). Somewhere the machine of "Stephen King" took over and maybe he lost other stuff to believe in or something so he started to read his own press kit a little too much
(For the "adverbs" comment I would use the example of Tim Robbins' Norville Barnes character in "The Hudsucker Proxy" when Buzz the elevator boy shows him his idea for the flexi-straw ... the drunken pomp rant on it lacking the greatness of his own invention etc etc)
I also agree that without some of what Rowling has to believe in in the first place (ie the fact that she advocates the world-view that underlies the medieval literary alchemy and symbolist perspective) - it's easy to get burnt out ... Ie if you buy the stuff about "maturely realist literature" vs "Rowling/Tolkien/Lewis/et al as only kid's lit" you really set yourself up for that kind of getting burnt out, to where you feel like an "opening band" rather than a contemporary on a mutual stage ... and find yourself saying stuff that comes out just sort of silly, with a mix of a sheepish grin and being ticked off that people are going to read it for what it really is rather than a "mysterious worldly-wiser" smile ... all the while kind of nervously fidgeting trying to think of your "next line"
see i heard that stephen king is a massive HP fan and i took it all as good natured, light hearted peer ribbing...
*shrug*
I wasn't upset by it because I read in another article that King set the whole NYC event up and invited Rowling because she would draw a crowd and raise some serious cash for his pet charity, a fund for artists who fall on hard times through illness, etc. I gather she accepted on the condition that she could raise money for Doctors Without Borders, hence the two evenings of readings. King had read for Irving a few years ago at a charity function Irving set up in Vermont, so Irving was paying King back with this NYC reading. King said in one interview that they knew they'd be the warm-up act for Rowling and they were discussing the challenge of finding something to read in front of a crowd much younger than their typical readers.
I admitted in an email to Merlin that I over-reacted to the article in this post. Upon closer reading, it appeared that the story author was deliberately trying to accentuate the concern of King and Irving about the fate of Harry Potter and present her response as a knock-down. It was from Reuters, so I didn't expect this, I guess (I mean, the press trying to inject bias into a story? Whodathunk it?) The other Hollywood-style gossip rags were even worse in this category.
I'll just never get over that King "review" of a Potter book where he was really patronizing. The bottom line is this: I don't like Stephen King as a person. I think he's smug and self-satisfied. Some people no doubt think this about me. I should be glad and accept the fact that he's a fan of Harry Potter in his own way. I should be more careful not to confuse the art and artist by mixing critiques of his work with criticism of his actions. Doing this too much in the "positive sense" is dangerous as well (e.g., Mel Gibson.)