Posted by DRD #37 at adsl-217-54-2.asm.bellsouth.net on December 11, 2003 at 13:27:29:
In Reply to: I always knew I didn't like J. Rowling.... posted by GTJDorris on December 11, 2003 at 12:59:57:
: Why would anyone sign 7 copies of one book to their father? Wouldn't, I don't know.....4 suffice? I could see writing a little something to your pops and giving him a copy to keep. But 7???
Okay, the first four books named in the article are understandable, because they're different books in the series. The three at the end I would normally consider extreneous, but that really all depends. The reprint first edition of "Philosopher's Stone" might have been inscribed by Rowling because the first edition had errors in print (thus the reprint) and she decided she wanted her father to have the better copy. The "Sorerer's Stone" copy she might have wanted to give him because of the new title or the artwork (the art and covers of each book is different in nearly each country in which it's sold - for instance, the cover and artwork inside the American and British editions are always different). As for the German edition, who knows? Maybe her father speaks German. The point is, there are circumstances to her inscribing all these books to her father that no one really knows.
:And even better yet, the guy is auctioning them off. Obviously he has no need for any of them, let alone the entire lot of 7.
Okay, that I don't excuse. If I inscribe a copy of my forthcoming novel to my father (let alone 7) he'd better fucking hang on to it/them, especially if I write in one of them "Guard it with your lives!!!"
:The interviews I've seen with this chick really annoy me. She's very arrogant, and that's something I just can't look past in a person. And it's a damned shame too, because I'd really love to like the person that's getting so many kids reading again today (though I personally don't understand the appeal to this character).
She does seem rather arrogant, and I don't much like her either, but I believe it goes without saying that if you live in England and are wealthier than the Queen, you're bound to become at least a little arrogant. And the appeal of the character is that the books (the first two, at least) are purely escapism - they take not just children, but all who read them into a world that's filled with new and fascinating things. Everything is colored with alliteration and odd made-up words. Everyone's name has a double meaning, and education in this world is fun and exciting (one of the things that personally turned me on to the books). It's much like "Star Wars" and "Lord of the Rings" - it's different, epic, and escapist. It's fantasy in its purest form.
:She's done something positive, though all the evidence points to it as purely miserly intent, not trying to write something good for kids to read, or even to get kids to read at all. Apparently she just wants to sell ass loads of books and who cares about anything else. She's a British Martha Stewart, that's exactly what she is!!!
In your opinion, she's a British Martha Stewart. In other opinions, mainly those of religious activists, she's a tool of the Devil. In the opinions of many critics, she's a passing fad. In those who have read and understood the message behind her books, she's a literary pioneer. I believe she said in one interview that the reason she writes her books isn't for the money or the fame or her fans, but so she can tell a good story and have fun doing it. And if you had seen the way she read the first few chapters of "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" to a group of fans after a live online interview after the book's release, you'd see the passion she puts into telling the story, not the passion she puts into selling it.