One of the most vindictive artiles on JK Rowling

[Amy Westwood]

Lynn Shepherd a writer who is struggling to sell her published work wrote a very vindictive article in the Huffington Post the other week urging JK Rowling to stop writing. So that she can give other writers room to breathe.

To me this stinks of jealously, bitterness and self-entitlement. JK Rowling is successful because her books are not only good, but they tapped into something. To suggest that a successful author should give others "a chance" is wrong-headed, self-centred and, to be frank, obnoxious. Lynn Shepherd is not entitled to have publishing deals, or to have people buy her books. The Casual Vacancy was brought by people because they liked the author; they grew up reading Harry Potter. And they will make judgements on the book and if they want to read any future adult books by JK Rowling.

It is not for anyone to dictate if someone should or should not carry on writing, especially for reasons to entitlement. Would she have called for Charles ****ens to stop writing? Asked The Beatles stop playing? Just because they were successful? No I don't think she would.

Also she goes on to criticise adults who read the Harry Potter novels (as they are for children), and mocks The Causal Vacancy for being "no masterpiece". Despite never having read any of them. Even if The Casual Vacancy is "no masterpiece" , and I don’t recall anyone ever claiming it was, it still sold more books than any of hers ever have.

Which is what is it all about when it boils down to it. This, to me, seems to be about someone who is jealous of the success of a fellow author and is blaming that success for her own short comings


Link to Article

 

[Nicolas King]

I think I can appreciate where Shepherd is coming from, though. The fact of the matter is that Rowling is now a novelist superstar in a way that I'm not sure we've seen in literature - at least not while an author is still (very much) alive. Harry Potter was a new level in book selling (by all accounts an industry that had been diminishing over the years of her writing) and she ran counter to that trend. Then, at the peak of fame, her series was finished and everybody wanted in on whatever she would be writing next.

You are, of course, right that nobody can tell anybody else what to do - but the fact of the matter is as the article's author put it: if JK Rowling writes something and it becomes known as hers, it sells tonnes and becomes all the talk of, at the very least, the genre she has written in. She wants to spread her wings and not be defined by Potter, but when she does that she (unintentionally) takes attention away from authors who are working hard to eek out a living - and when a paper does one Crime book review in a week and they have to choose between Rowling and a possible up-and-comer their focus goes on Rowling. She can't control that, but it's the sad fact of things.

To your points on the Beatles, ****ens, and Rowling: Rowling is venturing into whole new areas and her following goes with her as does tonnes of publicity, crowing out niches which were not hers. A smooth jazz artist was never threatened by the Beatles, they were Rock. ****ens wrote serialized novels, in periodicals, and his stories sold periodicals. He would likely have been published side by side with other author's serialized work - so his fame helped others, and didn't hurt them.

While we cannot control the culture that wants to read every word Rowling ever puts to page, we can try to encourage Rowling to be even more earnest in her attempts to be anonymous in her continued writing. I think she would prefer honest readership and honest reviews - and I'm not sure how many of her subsequent novels would have been published if her name hadn't been associated with the work to the publisher (and always had the option of selling hugely once her name was 'leaked' to the public). The Casual Vacancy sold not because it was a great work, but because it had a name attached to it - so your comment that it sold more than Shepherd's works goes without saying and is, really, her point. Whereas for the times when Rowling's crime novels were still anonymous they did not sell nearly as well.

I don't think the article's author is necessarily bitter or vindictive. She admits to being jealous: I think many authors naturally would be jealous of Rowling's success. Shepherd has aired a problem that I can see as being legitimate, and which I had never considered before. What possible solution there is to it is beyond me. Rowling should be free to write, but other authors should have their fair chance at gaining notoriety (or even just humble reviews and sales!) without needing to compete with a popular-literature juggernaut head to head in a marketplace that is shrinking every day.

 

[Olivia Drage]

I can understand where the author's coming from, but she's coming from a very childish place. The article could be dumbed down to "Waaah! The publishing market isn't fair to all writers!" *stomps foot*

Personally, I think her beef should be with the publishing companies, not Rowling. She's not the only mega author out there (Stephen King, anyone?)

I also think the dig at the Harry Potter series is immature. Fine, you don't like it, you think it's for kids, but putting down the adults who do is not a very good strategy. Not to mention she completely ignores the universal, sometimes adult themes in these books.

I'll make a point not to read Shepherd.

 

[Maya Fergusson]

I agree with Amanda in this. What she is saying is often immature in nature. The fact that she tells us that she has never read a word of Harry Potter or seen a minute of the movies so she can't comment, but then goes on to say that adults should only read them to their children tells me that she is completely ignorant of what she is even saying. She shouldn't be commenting on something she doesn't understand. I get that she is upset that JK Rowling gets published just because of who she is, but that's not her fault. JK is just doing what she loves and its up to the readers to be fair, not the writers. I for one, don't read a book based on the author or I would have read every Stephan King novel, or Casual Vacancy (which I haven't read because I don't like the story outline). I like to read a book based on my own preferences. I think this Shepherd needs to take a step back and think about what she is saying. I'm surprised this got published to be honest. If I was the editor, I would have told her to rewrite it. My journalism professor always told me that you can't contradict yourself in a journalistic article, it makes for bad reading. And that's exactly what she did. She has every right to be jealous, heck, I'm jealous of JK, but that doesn't mean I'm going to write an article about the fact that I think she should stop writing, that's just wrong.
​