JKR Pulls a Paolini

[epistler]

Well, at least in one important respect.

NOTE: THIS IS ABOUT ROWLING'S HORRIBLE WRITING AND NOT HER HORRIBLE OPINIONS. So let's not get side-tracked with arguments about that, okay?

Now we've got that out of the way, you may have heard that Rowling's new "Robert Galbraith" book is - to put it mildly - an embarrassing trainwreck. A couple of things jumped out at me from this article which sounded both pertinent and familiar:

If you become an extremely successful author, your publisher is less likely to care about the quality of the books you write. If everything you write is guaranteed to sell well because you have built a large audience, then the editor may be disinclined to reject a new manuscript even if it is obviously terrible. Perhaps they will try to offer some constructive suggestions. Or perhaps they will just print whatever you submit, knowing that the purpose of a for-profit publishing company is to sell as many books as possible, not to sell the best books possible.

In other words this is why Rowling was able to publish a novel that contains pages upon pages of fictitious tweets bullying her painfully obvious self-insert*, and also why Paolini was able to publish an excruciatingly long and boring mediocre Star Trek episode with Venom shoehorned in mostly in order to give his latest Sue lots of pointless superpowers.

[*Seriously, if you can make it to the end of the extracts presented in the linked review without losing the will to live you're a stronger person than I am]

I think we can take a few lessons from The Ink Black Heart: First, every writer needs a good editor who can tell them when they have produced something that shouldn’t be published, and as you become more successful and sycophants begin telling you that your farts smell like roses, it is more important than ever to have people around who can say “no.”

Indeed.

Comments

[sassyelfby]

Yeah, her new book looks pretty awful, even by her Robert Galbraith standards. Her writing quality has rapidly declined since she wrote the last Harry Potter book, and I honestly don't think she's had a single good idea since. It's nice to see that people are finally starting to realize that instead of letting her coast along on her past success.

[epistler]

How the mighty have fallen. If only she'd quit while she was ahead she could have spent the rest of her life as the adored idol of readers everywhere. Instead she seems determined to destroy her own legacy and reputation in every way possible.

[sassyelfby]

If only she'd quit while she was ahead she could have spent the rest of her life as the adored idol of readers everywhere. Instead she seems determined to destroy her own legacy and reputation in every way possible.

My thoughts exactly. Before her horrible opinions came out, I remember complaining that her attempts to ret-con diversity that clearly didn't exist in the actual text into Harry Potter felt shallow and insincere, and feeling like a cynical killjoy about it because I assumed her heart was in the right place and I was reading too much into things. Now I miss those days, because I genuinely hoped she'd prove me wrong and do better in her subsequent writing projects. My disappointment knows no bounds.

[epistler]

Before her horrible opinions came out, I remember complaining that her attempts to ret-con diversity that clearly didn't exist in the actual text into Harry Potter felt shallow and insincere, and feeling like a cynical killjoy about it because I assumed her heart was in the right place and I was reading too much into things.

I likewise assumed that she "meant well", and gave her a pass on the Suddenly Gay Dumbledore thing because, well, it came up as a response to a direct question and we don't learn all that much about him in canon so it seemed okay to me. Now I'm missing those days too, sigh. Back when it was still possible to give her the benefit of the doubt.

[ignoresandra]

I was shocked when I found out that the book was about being mad at literal fictional tweets making fun of her self insert. Like. There's nothing there. That does not a plot make.

I cannot wait for her to tumble off her throne. There truly is no reason to root for her at this point.

[sassyelfby]

I was shocked when I found out that the book was about being mad at literal fictional tweets making fun of her self insert. Like. There's nothing there. That does not a plot make.

Seriously. Say what you will about Paolini, but To Sleep at least told an actual story. And Paolini deliberately ignoring online criticism is a much better approach than... whatever she's doing here.

[ignoresandra]

Yeahhh. Ignoring criticism at least lets you preserve some vestiges of your dignity.

On the topic of criticism and dignity, I'm having difficulty deciding what to say in my next sporking section. It's just standard adventure book stuff in the next chapter and I'm not sure how to comment on it because it's not terrible. I also worry about my objectivity in general, so...yeah. I intend to finish the book, but still.

[sassyelfby]

I can't speak for everyone, but I'd personally be fine with something along the lines of "here's a summary of what happens in this chapter, it's more-or-less competently written, now let's move on to more interesting things" if there isn't anything particularly noteworthy in it. Your usual in-depth analyses are awesome, but if there just isn't much to comment on, I think it's fine to acknowledge that and move on.

Objectivity-wise, I think all your criticism has been fair and warranted - there are a lot of things about the book that objectively don't work, and everyone's opinions are subjective to some extent. If there's anything in particular you're worried about, I'd be happy to look it over and offer a second opinion, but I'm also probably not the most objective person to ask.

[ignoresandra]

That's true, I could skip parts that aren't as important? But then it's like. What I think isn't important isn't always what isn't important. Regardless, thanks for what you've said. I've started at least, and I'm finding things to comment on with a closer reading.

I think I should start conceptualizing Cox's work as an onion. There's always going to be something.

[epistler]

Yeahhh. Ignoring criticism at least lets you preserve some vestiges of your dignity.

If I were him I wouldn't be making any sort of public response to it either. I might well do some soul-searching in private, but there's a BIG difference between that and throwing a public temper tantrum in the noble tradition of Anne Rice and Laurel K Hamilton, neither of whom ever fully recovered.

[epistler]

I was shocked when I found out that the book was about being mad at literal fictional tweets making fun of her self insert.

Same here. I mean obviously I knew about the horrible and stupid shit she had been saying on Twitter, but I never thought she'd stoop to this kind of pathetic nonsense.

I cannot wait for her to tumble off her throne. There truly is no reason to root for her at this point.

Same here. I am so DONE with that woman, and she used to be one of my greatest heroes.

[masterghandalf]

Same here. I am so DONE with that woman, and she used to be one of my greatest heroes.


I don't know if JKR is the reigning example of "early 2000s icons who've ruined their own reputations by their own awful actions" because, well, there's some pretty stiff competition - but she's got to be up there, and it makes me both angry and sad.

Also, I read the review Epistler linked, but my eyes glazed over at the wall of text (wall of tweets?) in the middle of it; dear God.

[epistler]

I don't know if JKR is the reigning example of "early 2000s icons who've ruined their own reputations by their own awful actions" because, well, there's some pretty stiff competition - but she's got to be up there, and it makes me both angry and sad.

Same here. I've started to feel like it's best not to risk giving anyone my admiration any more because it seems every time I do I end up regretting it. Can't I keep at least one personal hero without finding out they're a horrible person and/or watching them crash and burn??

Also, I read the review Epistler linked, but my eyes glazed over at the wall of text (wall of tweets?) in the middle of it; dear God.

Yeah, I really wasn't kidding about that. Dude, one or two tweets AT MOST. Summarise the gist of what's being said, and I'm sure we'll be fine! Good grief.

[torylltales]

I have acquired a digital copy, and it really is that bad. Just pages and pages of chat logs, tweets, bulletin board posts, newspaper articles, and so on. Entire pages of the stuff, and I don't know if the digital copy is formatted differently to the print copy, but there are some pages (for example page 44 in my epub version) that have only a handful of words on them, in the form of chatroom logs. 32 words in total including the date, but not including the lengthy Emily Dickinson quote at the top of the page.

Yes, the book is absolutely littered with quotes from classical women poets and novelists, including THREE separate poetry snippets at the start. an epitaph at the start of the novel, a quote at the start of the prologue, and then yet another quote at the start of the first section of the prologue. And at the start of every section and every sub-section thereafter.

115 quotes in total. On 212 pages (counting the epigraph and coda, but not the acknowledgements and other non-story materials), according to my epub version. That's roughly a quote every 2 pages.

[epistler]

I flipped through a copy at the bookshop yesterday and you really weren't kidding. D:

[dinogrrl]

...wat.

That's...that's all I can say in response to that.

[ultimate_cheetah]

This is also why the fantastic beast movies have massively tanked.

[epistler]

I enjoyed the first one. The second one less so, and I've now abandoned the series altogether. Mind you, I now avoid everything Rowling related on principle. I never want to read or think about the Potter books ever again, and nor will I be re-watching the movies. The whole thing just makes me feel angry and disgusted these days.

[torylltales]

Was it so hard to make a movie about a travelling magizoologist who goes around the world discovering and studying magical creatures?

Instead, just like Bilbo in the Hobbit movie trilogy, Newt got sidelined in his own story by a completely unnecessary Grindlewald and Dumbledore story, with a bit of WW2 thrown in because why not. The fantastic beasts barely even feature in the Fantastic Beasts movies.

[epistler]

Reminds me of the guy who said of The Dark Knight Rises that "there's surprisingly little Batman in this Batman movie".

[benjaminjoel84]

Well, the whole Depp/Heard drama didn't help either.

[epistler]

Ugh, thanks for reminding me that THAT was a whole thing.