[bookshare-discuss] Re: Colleen McCullough: JKR is a"lousy writer"
- From: Brenda Mueller <brendin@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: bookshare-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:29:07 -0500
Hold on a minute. What should be first in your minds as writers are readers.
We don't necessarily know about the rules writers fight about.
We don't know about all the rules you had to follow to get your book published.
I'm sorry for that, perhaps, but I've read here for at least a year. I've had
books that I read that just looped back to a previous event that I read about.
What Should I do? Condemn the scanner? Not likely. I thought about a word that
should be in the continuing story and just went for it. When I'm reading a
story, I'm not busy looking at your grammar. I'm a linguist, by the way.
Sometimes I just sit back and enjoy, so what's the fussing all about? If it's a
classic, you'll die before people are finished reading it. If not,and if
you're a writer who needs that money coming in, then let's hope it does.
I think the best a writer can hope for is that someone enjoyed the story. I
did enjoy hers. There's a reader's comment.
Just tell me a good story when I want to read, okay?
Brenda Mueller
> ----- Original Message -----
>From: talmage@xxxxxxxxxx
>To: bookshare-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:39:00 -0500
>Subject: [bookshare-discuss] Re: Colleen McCullough: JKR is a"lousy writer"
>Once again, it's not the justification behind the statement that was made,
>but rather the compulsion for believing it necessary to degrade another
>author's work. I would say that instead of regarding editing as necessary
>to writing as an art form, it should be essential to being considered as a
>technically proficient writer. I make the distinction because not all
>writing should be considered an art form. I,.e. a newspaper reporter, a
>technical writer doing manuals, etc. should be considered primarily a
>professional, not an artist, but they too should be held to a standard of
>proficiency. If writing were to be viewed solely from the perspective of
>an art form, than JKR should probably be considered an artist now, and not
>a technically proficient author. Art contemporary to its day always seems
>to push the envelope, breaking down traditional barriers, ignoring
>established rules and norms. I sited Jackson Pollack in an earlier post,
>but just as easily could have used Willem de Kooning. In the musical
>world, neither Woody Guthrie could, or can, Paul McCartney, read or write
>music. Would you say this is a limitation of their artistic prowess, or
>rather their technical ability?
>As for relegating monetary considerations to the position of secondary
>importance, that would seem to be a luxury afforded to the financially
>secure. I seriously doubt when JKR (I don't remember her real name) was
>homeless, do I think she intended to become the next Shakespeare, Poe,
>Twain, etc. After all, look at how well ignoring commercial considerations
>served Poe.
>I think we can safely say that JKR is a successful writer, perhaps not
>technically top notch, but how many authors do you know of with so many
>best sellers, with so few works? As the saying in the movie goes, "if you
>make it, they will come." (Don't remember, was that movie "The
>Natural?" If people didn't like JKR's books, imperfections and all, they
>wouldn't buy them.
>Dave
>At 01:47 AM 12/6/2004, you wrote:
>>The thought behind her caustic remarks was, as a writer I completely agree
>>with her, that the author herself needs to do some incredible editting.
>>It's allright to produce and chern out fiction that will sell, that as a
>>writer one has the duty to produce and chern out good writing. That is--if
>>JKR believes in writing as a form of art and not a method of making money.
>>A method of making money is a thought of secondary consideration.
>>Pratik
>>Pratik Patel
>>Interim Director
>>Office of Special Services
>>Queens College
>>Director
>>CUNY Assistive Technology Services
>>The City University of New York
>> ppatel@xxxxxx
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Duane A. Iverson [mailto:diverson@xxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 2:30 PM
>>To: bookshare-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [bookshare-discuss] Re: Colleen McCullough: JKR is a "lousy writer"
>>Hi Diane:
>>That "other thought" was apparently silent, or so deep my computer couldn't
>>think it.
>>But I will weigh in here with what I have affectionately called "The
>>Heinlein effect" I am tempted to call it the Anderson Effect, but Mr.
>>Heinlein has had the misfortune to have the effect illustrated in all its
>>glory with the two publications of Stranger in a Strange land.
>>Poul Anderson is, in my considered estimation, the gratest Science Fiction
>>writer of his generation. ;He wrote better about more things in more styles
>>then anyone else. Read, from this sight, The Night Face, then read one of
>>the books I uploaded Fantasy, then find, if you can, A Midsummer tempest.
>>and last read the stories The Longest Voyage and The Queen of Air And
>>Darkness and then there's Inside Strait, and ETC ETC.
>>Eventually, though, He was Poul Anderson Grand Master an no one would tell
>>him that the stories didn't "sing".
>>You see the same in Heinlein's last few works. The were over long and
>>Tedious, but RAH could sell anything he could write and the publishers new
>>this. Also Heinlein Threw enough weight that if one publisher displeased
>>him, he could go somewhere else.
>>Thus Stranger in a Strange land.
>>I had read the book several times beginning in the 70-s when I first became
>>a discerning reader.
>>Now! the publisher trumpeted, "Stranger in a Strange land will be published
>>As Heinlein originally wrote it!"
>>It turns out that the novel as published originally had been redacted by
>>sixty thousand words by the editors.
>>The Sixty thousand words after they were put back made the story longer, but
>>not better.
>>J.K.R. I think, had arrived at this plateau by the time Goblet of Fire was
>>published. No editor in his right mind was going to say, "J. K. Honey, this
>>book needs to be cut by forty-thousand words and Here, Here, and Here needs
>>a rewrite, and and you didn't properly develop the motivations of X. . ."
>>and so forth.
>>First, as an editor you know that what ever she writes is going to sell 30
>>million copies. And second if you make her mad and she leaves the firm,
>>your bosses are going to have you staked out for the red ants.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Diane Chalkier" <dkelker1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>To: <bookshare-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 11:03 PM
>>Subject: [bookshare-discuss] Re: Colleen McCullough: JKR is a "lousy writer"
>>> And yet another thought:
Other related posts:
- » [bookshare-discuss] Re: Colleen McCullough: JKR is a"lousy writer"
