J. K. Rowling, for her follow-up to Harry Potter, will soon publish an adult novel---novel for adults, I take it to mean, and not the other kind. Here's a link to a story about it:
...though there are doubtless lots of stories around the media. (Made the front section of my local paper, too.)
Not a word about whether it's fantasy or not...
Posted by Meredith (Member # 8368) on :
I saw that yesterday.
Posted by History (Member # 9213) on :
I read it is a mystery.
Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :
I saw it a day or three ago but didn't read the whole article.
But if she is a writer she will be writing more.
Was that the one they were keeping the content of secret?
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
I was wondering whether Rowling would put out more. Margaret Mitchell didn't write a followup to Gone With the Wind...Harper Lee has yet to write a followup to To Kill a Mockingbird...and J. D. Salinger gave it up after The Catcher in the Rye and a couple of short story collections. When you've got one thing that's incredibly successufl, where's the motivation to go back to work?
On the other hand, there have been frequent reports of Salinger writing and not publishing.
*****
I thought the Rowling "mystery" report was discredited...though there's no reason not to take it up as a suggestion...
Posted by KayTi (Member # 5137) on :
I'm thrilled, and hope she has a wonderful secondary post-Harry Potter career. As a writer of words, I think that's the best possible outcome (whether everyone loves her next work or not, I hope she continues to put it out.)
Posted by Merlion-Emrys (Member # 7912) on :
quote:When you've got one thing that's incredibly successufl, where's the motivation to go back to work?
If it was work we wouldn't do it, and the motivation is the stories won't let you do otherwise.
Whether it is marketed as a mystery or not, chances are it will be. The Harry Potter stories were, structurally, as much or more mysteries as they were anything else. Insofar as I go in for such designations I'd consider Rowling much more of a mystery writer than a fantasy writer. While I like the Potter series a lot, one of my biggest issues with it is the heart, the mechanics, the nature of the world and its magic were nearly unexplored.
Posted by Crystal Stevens (Member # 8006) on :
I think the reason she didn't go into depth on the world building was because it was a character story more than a miliue(sp?) story. If all fantasy stories were based on exploring the worlds they take place in, I'd really be in trouble. My stories center on my characters. The only time I say much about the surroundings is when they are essential to the story. I think Rawling did the same thing in the Potter books. JMO
Posted by rcmann (Member # 9757) on :
She could easily do what Tolkien did, and spend the rest of her career fleshing out her universe. It's big enough.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Even Tolkien wrote other things not involving Middle-Earth...
Posted by Merlion-Emrys (Member # 7912) on :
I don't really mean the surroundings...she did that well enough. I mean the magic and how the world works. Why are some people wizards and others not? Where does magic come from? How did the split between the "wizarding" and regular worlds occur and why is it so assiduously maintained? Why is there such bigotry between human wizards and other magical creatures? What role did other magical sentient play in the decision to separate the worlds? While detailed explanations of all these things certainly aren't necessary, what I am getting at is most fantasy writers go into these things and are interested in them and the often form important parts of the story. With a lot of the Potter stuff, the fantasy parts are basically window dressing on complex mystery-and-reveal plot lines. Leading me to say, in many ways she's as much or more a mystery writer as a fantasy writer, since the intricate plot lines are seemingly a greater focus than the magical elements.
She's even said she doesn't really care for fantasy (although she does seem to have a decent knowledge of it and of folklore and mythology.)
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
I remember something saying Rowling hadn't read Tolkien...I was somewhat dubious about that, as one of her characters was named "Dumbledore," a word Tolkien uses in one of his poems, a different version of one published in Lord of the Rings---which suggests Rowling hit more than the highlights of Tolkien's oeuvre. (Or is it oevre?)
Posted by angel011 (Member # 9765) on :
It doesn't have to mean that she read Tolkien, "a dumbledore" is an existing word, although rarely in use (a bumblebee). Thomas Hardy used that word too in one of his works.
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
But the coincidence of it all is inescapable...
Posted by Merlion-Emrys (Member # 7912) on :
I think it only has to do with Rowling and Tolkien both being English-types.