http://omg.yahoo.com/rowling-completes-post-harry-potter-book/news/3619

Unfortunately, it is also true that only seven are being published. Now, I'm not a JK Rowling fan, have never read any of the Harry Potter books, nor watched any of the movies completely through, but I was wondering what some of you Harry Potter fans think about this. To me, it seems a poor way to pay back all the loyal readers of the series, as some may want the book, but will never be able to get it.

quote:

---

To me, it seems a poor way to pay back all the loyal readers of the series, as some may want the book, but will never be able to get it.

---

Bingo.

Seems she's been abusing her fans a lot lately. Dumbledore's gay, but I won't tell you until after you've read the book. Now, here's a cool fairy tale book, that no one can read. Ha ha.

On one hand, she isn't obligated to publish everything she writes just because she's a famous author. She's raising money for charity, which is also very good of her. It's a personal work, and she is entitled to do personal work.

On the other hand, why not publish it? Why withhold it from the fans who would love to read something like that? Being in the Potter-verse makes it really desirable. She could at least do a PDF download version or something. And if she wants to raise money, she could publish it and donate all the proceeds to charity.

quote:

---

On one hand, she isn't obligated to publish everything she writes just because she's a famous author.

---

Oh, I agree. She doesn't HAVE to do anything. But as a writer you should care about your fans. I understand the charity angle, why not open it up to all your fans? Wouldn't charity benefit even more? It's her choice, but I feel she's been making some poor ones lately.

I agree with Jayson. It's a publicity stunt. Either this book will be released later, as a second printing, or she's trying to boost the value. Else, why would she even mention it? You don't make a Big Deal out of it unless it rewards you in some way.

At a petty 5% royalty with no upfront cash she'd still make more publishing ten million copies and taking her $500,000 check instead of inflating one book's value to 30,000 pounds and selling it at auction.

If she really wanted to help charity she'd auction them all and give them all to charity, or better yet publish 10 million copies and donate all profits, after cost, to charity. And raise somewhere in the millions of dollars instead of thousands.

I mean, seriously. What do you but for you Harry Potter obsessed kid when you're a billionaire and already own everything Harry Potter in existence? What silver-spoon kid wouldn't want this in their stocking? Could you imagine that, on Christmas morning?

quote:

---

Well I hate to break it to you, but she isn't doing this to boost the value to benefit her. Unless she's a moron.

---

That's naiveté speaking. It's like in chess: Would you give up a queen to protect a pawn? Now, how about if that pawn's next move puts the opposing king in checkmate?

It's not this move that profits her, but her next. Build up enough hype, and it won't even matter if that book is complete garbage, you've got another record-breaking bestseller.

quote:

---

...I can't identify a motive here, except maybe to keep her in the limelight.

---

quote:

---

That's naiveté speaking. It's like in chess: Would you give up a queen to protect a pawn? Now, how about if that pawn's next move puts the opposing king in checkmate?

---

quote:

---

It's not this move that profits her, but her next. Build up enough hype, and it won't even matter if that book is complete garbage, you've got another record-breaking bestseller.

---

She doesn't need to make some strange, bizarre tactical maneuver that you seem to think she's doing in order to get another best seller, she's effing JK Rowling, the best selling fiction writer of all time! Anything she publishes will be a best seller!

Dispute my figures if you want to, but the fact remains that publishing a large volume of books and selling them will generate more than having only one book, even if the individual book's value is raised.

Why?

Because there is demand that isn't being satisfied and that is generating dead-weight-loss. And I'd love to go into further depth if you dare :-P

quote:

---

Hmm. Building up her mythos and unlimited, publicized suspence couldn't be one--could it?

---

In any case, whatever "unlimited, publicized suspense" means, I don't see any reason why she would crave that. At least, not enough to forgo setting up a better charity effort.

quote:

---

she's effing JK Rowling, the best selling fiction writer of all time! Anything she publishes will be a best seller!

---

By that logic, Dan Brown's next book will outlast every other novel ever on the New York Times' bestseller lists, right? After all, The Da Vinci Code was on it for over (a record) two years.

And, as far as the best selling fiction writer of all time, someone was the best before, and will be the best after--that's life. Funny how many authors do well with their initial characters/series, but are not sot hot when they don't do what their fans have come to expect.

Secondly, because JK Rowling's track-record of success--no matter what her next book is--it will be a best seller. Period. If that book falls flat on its ass then possibly the next, next book will not be successful.

But the fact is if JK Rowling put something out again, which she likely will, millions and millions of people will be dying to get their hands on with the hope it'll be as good as Harry Potter. Will it?--doesn't matter. People will try it out anyway. They'll turn out in the millions, and to think they won't is sheer stupidity.

quote:

---

(has anyone skipped a Star Wars film because they liked Star Wars fanfics so much, they didn't care what Georgie did in his own world? I don't think so. Same with Star Trek, Harry Potter, etc.)

---

#1) Chess (strategy) can be used as an analogy. Maybe you didn't like--or more likely didn't want to--my example, but chess involves maneuvering pieces into to positions that are not threatening (or do not appear relevant) until several moves later. That is the essence of my original analogy. Strategically, her move may not better her checkbook now, but don't think it won't later. And don't think that the limited copies of her book (especially now that it's been made public)won't drive up the value or collectibility.

#2) Harper Lee is entirely relevant, because we were discussing follow-up works in relation to the success of the originals. It would be difficult (for Harper Lee OR Rowling) to live up to the success of their original work. It's nice to know that you worship "effing JK Rowling,the best selling fiction writer of all time!", but not everybody does. If she holds true to writing the mystery it could be detrimental to her speculative audience sales. There were a lot of variables that made the Potter Books a success, not just her name. AND she disappointed a lot of people with the end of the series, and that too will effect some of her fans' trust.

#3) You haven't adressed Dan Brown's record success. His book outlasted Rowling's on the NY Times (and nobody else even compares), does that guarantee the next one will? With all the bitterness that's generated, probably not. Point is, statistics don't mean everything. There are a lot of angles to view it from.

Actually, I'm ambiguous about Rowling's success. I'm not going to buy her next book. I haven't bought any of them, nor have I forced myself to finish the first, but, I don't have anything against her being successful. But, regardless of who she is, the rich have a way of getting greedy and scheming to make their successes greater than they would have been. Is she immune? You have to admit (well you'll probably argue this too) that she's been acting wierd lately.

quote:

---

What I'm really interested in here is how to hype a seriously bad piece of work into a bestseller!

---

Eragon.

Jayson Merryfield

And can you hype the NYT Book Review to say, "''Eragon,'' for all its flaws, is an authentic work of great talent. The story is gripping; it may move awkwardly, but it moves with force. The power of ''Eragon'' lies in its overall effects -- in the sweep of the story and the conviction of its storyteller."

quote:

---

#1) Chess (strategy) can be used as an analogy. Maybe you didn't like--or more likely didn't want to--my example, but chess involves maneuvering pieces into to positions that are not threatening (or do not appear relevant) until several moves later. That is the essence of my original analogy. Strategically, her move may not better her checkbook now, but don't think it won't later.

---

If she really thinks she's making some kind of tactical checkbook gambit, she's mistaken. Which is why she likely isn't doing this to generate money or hype her next book, which means you are mistaken.

Because in either case she's wasting her time.
1. If she wants a lot of money now (which she already has enough of) she'd open this project up to wide publishing, or else auction off more than just one. Both of these options will generate a lot more sales and dough.
2. If her "game" is to make her next, next book a best-seller, well, her current publicity stunt is pretty irrelevant. Her next book will be a best seller anyway because of who she is, not what dictionary she's auctioned for whatever charity.

I'm pretty sure she's pat and secure that any publisher will publish anything she possibly decides to write next.

So now you understand why I am forced to roll my eyes and fart in the general direction of any notion that this is a strategic maneuver to amplify the success of her next, next book....

quote:

---

And don't think that the limited copies of her book (especially now that it's been made public)won't drive up the value or collectibility.

---

I wish I could draw a graph for you.

About your Harper Lee fetish,

Harper Lee was never anywhere near as successful as JK Rowling. And that's extremely relevant. Because I'm not suggesting Rowling's next book will be as wildly good as Harry Potter. But because everyone knows her name and everyone loved her other work her next book will sell. And it will sell in the tens of millions or higher. And hundreds of millions of people world-wide are going to get their hands on it hell or high water. And with demand like that... profits. Big profits. How good it is only matters for the long-run. And for her to sabotage herself with a head-start like she has, well,she'd have to make her next book be 300 bound pages of nothing but a xerox of her ass, and she'd still probably come out ahead. Trust me, its simple market behavior. People are more predictable than you give them credit for. Go to college

quote:

---

Actually, I'm ambiguous about Rowling's success. I'm not going to buy her next book. I haven't bought any of them, nor have I forced myself to finish the first,

---

But yes, she has been acting weird lately. But gives her wins and losses, and makes very little difference for the kind of math I'm talking above.

quote:

---

Remind me, how did Harper Lee's follow up book do?

---

I assume you ARE aware that Harper Lee never wrote another book. She helped Truman Capote research In Cold Blood and wrote (if memory serves) two essays. She worked on two additiona books both of which she destroyed unpublished. How this relates to JK Rowling's acts escapes me. Harper Lee is one of the world's most publicity shy authors, right up there with JD Salinger.

I felt that Rowling had no reason for needing or wanting additional publicity so ascribing that motive to the Dumbledore hoopdedoo was illogical. But I have to say this is odd. Why deny this to her millions of loyal fans? I honestly can't imagine her motives. She doesn't need the publicity.

Zero is right. Whether it is wonderful or horrible, her next novel WILL be a best seller. That is a given. This won't affect that one way or the other. Which still leaves me wondering. Simply attention hungry for some unfathomable reason? Possibly? Making a serious error in judgment? Possibly. I dunno.

THAT is what makes this move so odd and rather annoying to me. True, it is good that she is donating money to charity, but she could donate the leather bound, jewel encrusted, hand illustrated copy to charity and it would still make big money. The rest of us could just buy the standard mass printed version. I'm sorry, but no one can convince me that this was the only, or even the best way to make money for charity. This reeks of a publicity stunt.

An even if you discredit the entire Dumbldore issue, saying she never really imagined that it would get as much publicity (a stretch) it still did give her publicity. And now this. I am starting to wonder what is going on in her mind. As the hoopla over the final book started to fade, did she start going through withdrawals of being the front page news? Does she have to be the here and now?

Rowling said she was working on a new book, "a half-finished book for children that I think will probably be the next thing I publish."

I think if she was so starved for attention, she would have been doing things like this between the seven books, too. She did a good job of staying out of the light between books. If she wanted attention, mass-producing this would be much better.

As has been said, if it was about money (for herself or charity) there are better ways to get it.

Maybe I'm naive, but to me it seems plain and simple. She did it for personal reasons. It was therapeutic. It revisited themes from the books, but not the characters. Sort of a summary--for her, not us. That's why the book is only being given as gifts to friends and family. The charity copy was probably an after thought or a nice gesture, but not the "Point" of the book.

I think these mysteries are still best explained as attention starvation, which is my diagnosis until more information is available

Not just any charity, but one she helped to found -- The Children's Voice. There are kids in Eastern Europe who are mentally handicapped and kept in cages. The aim of The Children's Voice is to remove these kids from such barbarism and bring them proper care and treatment.

She works with several charities. They say that she's not just name and money, but a patron who works with them actively.

I don't think it's at all naive to wish her well with this.

Since the books are handwritten, and she's an imaginative lady, I bet they're all a little different, with a line, a joke or even a character specially written for the person who will receive the book. I think spending her time writing a book by hand is a fabulous way of saying 'thanks' to friends. It's far more meaningful to spend time and imagination on friends than money.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/fict ion/article2789069.ece

Pat

Edited to add:

As has been said, she's a smart lady. I doubt she needs us to tell her how to raise money because she's worth 280 million and richer than the Queen.

The bookmakers think the auction will make half a million pounds. Against her 280 mill that's peanuts, so it's not about the money. The auction has surely generated tons of publicity for The Children's Voice. It seems to me that this publicity will help its work by increasing awareness of the problem and generating public sympathy and polical will to help the kids.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2979033.stm

[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited November 03, 2007).]

[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited November 03, 2007).]

As for the reaction of her fans, you might read down a few comments on that link you provided. There are more than a few, including some posting there, who consider what she has done a slap in the face to them. I'm not a big fan of hers, so I have nothing vested in it. As far as I'm concerned, Rowling has every right to do whatever she pleases with her own work, but with a celebrity as big as she is, you can expect people to comment when she chooses to do something this strange.

Edit: And I have to repeat that writting something, publicizing it, and refusing to allow the millions of fans who have made her a millionaire to purchase and read it is strange.

Remember hope?

Edit:

She may indeed just be an odd duck, annepin. That would be a valid explanation for what seems to us strange decisions.

I also read that her fortune was over one billion, but honestly once you have over a quarter of a billion does it really matter? Yeah, what you said, Zero. lol

But I don't think JKR's strange. And I'm certain she's not a duck. I think that to think she's strange is strange.

Strangely,
Pat

No one has said a word about her personal life. I don't know what it is, and I don't care. Harper Lee's work will stand up whether she ever writes a novel or not, and I assume she will not. Are you criticising her for that? I beg your pardon but that seems out of line to me.

Would I write more novels than Harper Lee? Not that it matters, yes. But I would never have the colossal nerve to compare myself to her either.

There are a couple of reasons why what Rowling has done is viewed as strange. 1. Rowling has a large fan base that she has stated many times she cares about yet she is putting out a work that she is refusing to allow them to read. 2. She says she is doing this to raise money for a charity and yet if she simply gave the charity the royalties for publishing it, it would make MUCH more money for that charity.

No one has said she is a bad person. In fact, whether she optimises the income from it or not, it will be needed money for an excellent charity and one she was instrumental in starting. And if she is an "odd duck" so are a lot of writers. (Edit: Honestly, if you are offended by someone being called an odd duck, you need to get a grip.)

I would say getting all bent out of shape because an author is referred to as an "odd duck" or because people speculate on her reasoning is reacting WAY out of proportion. It is actually rather light hearted speculation on the reasons for her decisions and in no way an attack or even really a criticism of her. (Well, some fans have been pretty critical but that's not a big issue in this thread).

My question is: Why are you getting so defensive on the subject?

Edit: Ok, let me add this to what is rapidly turning into a bit of a rant. I try not to know anything about celebrities lives. All too often, if I know about them they are such jerks I can never enjoy their work again.

I know absolutely nothing about Rowling's personal life, EXCEPT that as a writer she "paid her dues." I do know that she started from nothing, sat her butt down in a chair and struggled through writing first book and then put it out there through rejections until it was published. And the first one was NOT a raving success (unlike the much mentioned Harper Lee). She kept writing anyway. If memory serves, she was not a big best seller until the THIRD book.

So as far as I'm concerned, she earned what she got just like we all hope to. I have no criticism of her whatsoever (except that I'd like her to be a better writer. I find comparing her with the "greats" a little unjustified, but people enjoy her work so even there I won't be too harsh.)

That still doesn't mean that I don't find this decision odd. It is and if you're all upset at people speculating on why she'd put out a book but not publish it for the public, I don't know what to say except don't read the thread, because I reject the accusation of having been mean or judging her "life".

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 05, 2007).]

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 05, 2007).]

quote:

---

When it came to finding “thank you” presents for the people who have been most closely involved with Harry Potter over the years, nothing shop bought seemed personal enough. I therefore decided to handwrite a limited number of copies of “Beedle the Bard”.

---

She went on on to say that there were only six people she really wanted to give them to, but for production reasons there had to be seven books. What to do with the last one?

She decided to auction it.

Edit: Fair enough, I reckon.

Anybody 'round the SF / Fantasy field ever "run into" Rowling before the fame and fortune bit? Harry Potter seemed to spring into public consciousness without much notice---I don't recall hearing of it until I saw a display in a bookstore and noted it was published (in the US) by a publisher not noted for fantasy.

She may not have worked at it as long as some of us but she wasn't like Paolini who is much criticised (rightfully imo) for having it handed to him. She earned what she got. I admire any writer who sticks through the rejections and snarky reviewers to make it.

Like I said, beyond the little I have read about her history as a writer, I know nothing about her personal life. It's none of my business and I don't even want to know. She seems from the little I do know like a decent person, but that doesn't mean I won't speculate when she does something that strikes me as strange.

Edit: There are plenty of people who become an overnight success after working for years at it.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 05, 2007).]