The fact that J.K. Rowling is a mid writer should probably matter less than the fact that she's Lady Hitler, but it STILL bothers me that we gave a mid writer enough money to become Lady Hitler
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Marketing an unusual viral moment with children’s books. It wasn’t any exceptional quality of the books, it was their availability and a community or their readers they created that was effectively marketed and then turned into well-made movies that kept the interest high (more marketing).
We didn't. Warner Brothers did, and gave her most of it a decade before she came out as the worst person ever.
It's mostly people reading her awful conversion therapy approved crime books and the new Trump-supporting WB that give her money now. The HP audience avoided Fantastic Beasts, after all.
Lots of mainstream writers are mid - just like lots mid musicians are mainstream. They appeal to the masses. The issue with her is that her wealth has twisted her to the complete opposite of her writing - friendship, loyalty, embracing differences. It is wealth corruption at its most extreme.
I think people were willing to give her a pass on so many things because at first she seemed like a decent person. A lot of her support came because she seemed generous at the time. Still a shock sometimes!
100% to this, that being said, is she even good enough to be mid? The more I think about those books the more problematic bullshit and generic storytelling I remember
The struggle to get food every morning is indescribable. This link is the only source for income and getting milk to two-moth child. I am an english language teacher who was living with dignity but all my life has turned over because of the war. Every donation makes difference.🙏🙏🙏 https://gofund.me/ba3f414f
There’s a (rapidly diminishing) part of me that is grateful for a book series that almost single-handedly taught an entire generation to love reading. No matter how “good” the books actually were. But we’re like twenty years past that being a point of contention.
You are the one providing the benefit when you talk about her like this. She doesn’t get the benefit of “teaching a whole generation to love reading” if you don’t repeat it ad nauseam under posts about her. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not (it isn’t) repeating it is granting her that benefit.
I’m gonna need you to take it down a notch. I don’t repeat anything about that hag “ad nauseum”, and whether I do or not has no bearing on how much money she already has. And I’m also not crediting her with anything other than being the benefit of a perfect storm of circumstance.
“Woah, take it down a notch” to a perfectly calm comment. Would you prefer I be lethargic?
Rowling benefits from cultural capital just as much as she does financial. By legitimising the idea that she has done any good — and yes, saying that she “taught kids to love reading” is doing that — you
But the question is, did she teach them to love reading anything other than Harry Potter? For a lot of adult fans on the internet, the answer looks to be, not so much.
At the risk of sounding dismissive, I don't know if that matters. Learning/loving to read has massive downstream effects on a child's ability to learn. Whether or not they chose to only read a mediocre book series about wizards.
I do wonder what that means for the type of adult they turned into.
I don’t think those people are typical. Most of those kids moved into other books. You can see this from the big boost to YA lit that came after. Nobody became as huge but there were many more series that hit afterwards.
So much of YA “lit” is formulaic garbage though. Or not garbage actually—garbage at least implies an organic origin. So much YA is silicone knockoffs of real books.
Like all writing. Some is bad, some is good—I think the experience for the young people that read can be more significant than consistent high quality. It gives them a framework to think about the world. Even the simplest stories do this. Though high quality writing does it much better, of course.
That’s what I’m talking about. Reading builds perspective and helps form your inner voice. You don’t have to read the classics to benefit from reading. And reading anything by choice is better than reading nothing at all.
OK. I watched the entirety of the first film, never having read the books, and found myself legitimately hoping that the one kid died during the wizard's chess bit because otherwise it was a dull Mary Sue power fantasy without any real stakes.
Nah publicly decrying her shit as bad and enjoyment of it as bad is good actually. More of it please. The people who talk abt how they “used to love the books or movies as a kid/adult with bad taste” are the annoying ones
I thought the first one was surprisingly bad given the chatter about it so didn’t read the rest—but a child’s response will make use of their imaginations.
I read the books years ago before I knew anything about her and enjoyed them then, but there is no reason they should have captured the imaginations of millions of kids, and I still don’t get it. Then again, I was never a child and will never grown up.
Basically there was a huge wave of kids aren't reading, their brains are all rotting!" that was mostly pushed by Pokemon's mega-popularity (since the cartoon was a glorified commercial and there was a not-insignificant xenophobia angle to it being Japanese)
Ah that makes sense. I'm just reporting what I saw on the ground as a seven year old who got the version of Philosopher's Stone with the mystery wizard on the back
There are remarkable authors who are also best sellers. People read Harry Potter cuz there was strong marketing behind it. That's why people still care, cuz WB tells them to.
Depends which list. Some are bought by the publishing house, some are just some guy's opinion, some are algorithmic and at least try to be objective. That what you mean?
Comments
It's mostly people reading her awful conversion therapy approved crime books and the new Trump-supporting WB that give her money now. The HP audience avoided Fantastic Beasts, after all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/07/opinion/harry-potter-and-the-childish-adult.html
https://gofund.me/ba3f414f
Rowling benefits from cultural capital just as much as she does financial. By legitimising the idea that she has done any good — and yes, saying that she “taught kids to love reading” is doing that — you
I do wonder what that means for the type of adult they turned into.
That fair enough for you?
(the game, which yall lost(luckily) is irrational hatred)
Her writing is like, marginally better than Stephanie Meyers'
being mid is way more marketable
Yeah she’s mid as fuck, those books suck ass.