Eric the Orange:

The_root_of_all_evil:
kidult

Is that an actual term?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidult

Yep. Portmanteau from '85, I think.

Yoshisummons:
Why can't she create a book with a bunch of stories such as the Tale's of Three Brothers" Seriously that short story was the shit. I think she did a great job creating a good fanciful world with mechanics worthy of a good children's book. Then some cracks were showing in the later books as the story tried to take a more serious and teenage audience tone. To some that's probably really negative but, overall I have not been very impressed with any literature aimed at teenagers written by anyone so nothing personal there.

If anything I feel bad for her with all the expectations. If I was her though I'd just write "The Poop that Took a Pee" and donate the money to charity. But that's assuming the opinion of someone on the internet was actually worth 2 cents.

Are you refering to the tales of beedle the bard? if so then yes i enjoyed that more than the HP series

OT: I'm looking forward to this, it will be nice to see what else she can acheive, hopefully fans won't trash this because it's different to HP (but i don't hold much hope)

antipunt:
adults...book

*immature snicker*

*runs away*

You just had to do this, didn't you. Can't blame you though, made me smile a bit.
Thanks for that.

On topic: Well I was never into Hairy Potter (haha), but I'm actually kind of interested in what she is going to do with this, but I will stay a bit skeptical...

kiri2tsubasa:
What ever it is will probably will be better then Twilight.

Don't tempt fate.

No matter how bad things are...

Gizmo1990:

And why does the fact that it is a kids book excuse bad writing? If you enjoy Harry Potter then fine. Good for you. I just never throught that it was anything special. As a story I did not think it was bad I just did not think it was all that good either. In terms of writing I throught it waa bad.

P.S
Ron is the single most irritating character in the history of fiction.

I literally never said anything about it being a kid's book being an excuse for bad writing. I was merely saying that it was a kid's book. I doubt that every time someone said "It's a kid's book" to you they were using that as an excuse. I think they were merely informing you that it being a kid's book would mean that certain subjects are off limits, and there are restrictions on the kind of details that she could go into. Having a book catered towards kids because of the subject matter will do that.

She wrote 7 (well, more like 6) very good books. She did sort of write herself into a corner in the last book, but while her way with writing may have been a little lackluster, she told one of the best stories ever told. She created a unique and awe-inspiring Universe that I and millions of other kids fell in love with.

She's no Shakespeare, but calling her a bad writer? Ridiculous

Good to know. Hope it works out for her.

Gizmo1990:

In terms of writing I throught it waa bad.

I laughed.

JoesshittyOs:

Gizmo1990:

And why does the fact that it is a kids book excuse bad writing? If you enjoy Harry Potter then fine. Good for you. I just never throught that it was anything special. As a story I did not think it was bad I just did not think it was all that good either. In terms of writing I throught it waa bad.

P.S
Ron is the single most irritating character in the history of fiction.

I literally never said anything about it being a kid's book being an excuse for bad writing. I was merely saying that it was a kid's book. I doubt that every time someone said "It's a kid's book" to you they were using that as an excuse. I think they were merely informing you that it being a kid's book would mean that certain subjects are off limits, and there are restrictions on the kind of details that she could go into. Having a book catered towards kids because of the subject matter will do that.

She wrote 7 (well, more like 6) very good books. She did sort of write herself into a corner in the last book, but while her way with writing may have been a little lackluster, she told one of the best stories ever told. She created a unique and awe-inspiring Universe that I and millions of other kids fell in love with.

She's no Shakespeare, but calling her a bad writer? Ridiculous

OK I do not think that I am explaining myself very well.
I know that, as a kids book, it cannot go into details about certin things. I am not saying that this is why I think it is a bad series. I personaly thinks that it is not well writen, I do not think that the story was anything special. I think that some of the characters had potential but that most were just irritating. People have asked me before why I dislike Harry Potter and I have told them what i have just told you and they have said 'yes, but their kid's books so cut them some slack'. That was what I was trying to say.

There are people who still love Harry Potter because of nostalgia and rather than admit that they do not like it as much as they used to they use Its a kids book as an excuse to ignore some of the problems with it.

You are not one of these people. You still enjoy Harry Potter. If you think that JK wrote 6 good books then fine. Good. That is your opinion. All I was doing was saying that in my opinion they are badly writen and that she is not a good writer.

Harry Potter was her one hit wonder. I dont expect anything special out of this new book

The_root_of_all_evil:
Hairy Puta and the Whores of Babylon?

I don't know. Rowling isn't a great author; she's good - don't get me wrong - but I've yet to see the depth that will take her into the adult market. Most adults enjoy the teenage market for fluff, and specific authors for the hard-hitting material.

I think she could still do some great kidult books, but she's left it very late to re-build a fan base. Someone like Rachel Caine has 3 good series on the run, as have Jim Butcher and Laurell K Hamilton.

If I remember rightly, her non-Potter books have been widely avoided. Now, if she put her mind to detailing Hagrid's role, without Lucasizing it, that could be a money-spinner.

She's only ever written Harry Potter books, and all have sold well.

And why does she have to build a new fanbase? Even if only a tenth of the people who read Potter try out the new book it'll be more than most authors ever achieve. Add in people who stayed clear of Potter because they aren't secure in their maturity and she's laughing.

What exactly do you mean by kidult? Because the term actually refers to adults who enjoy childish things, not stuff for children and adults (like Disney) or stuff for adults that kids enjoy (like porn) I'd have thought Harry Potter is very definitely a children's book, it's just enjoyed by adults, not written for them as well.

And finally, Laurell K Hamilton? That's your example? Rachel Caine is basically unknown outside America and Hamilton is a joke who writes mediocre erotica for middle aged house bound women.

MelasZepheos:

She's only ever written Harry Potter books, and all have sold well.

And Dan Brown's books have all sold well as well.

And why does she have to build a new fanbase? Even if only a tenth of the people who read Potter try out the new book it'll be more than most authors ever achieve. Add in people who stayed clear of Potter because they aren't secure in their maturity and she's laughing.

Because her fanbase love Potter - not Rowling. That's why a lot of them violently disagree with some of her choices (Harry/Hermione for one)

What exactly do you mean by kidult?

Halfway between kid and adult. Context should have given that.

And finally, Laurell K Hamilton? That's your example?

An example, not the example. Getting your books turned into graphic novels by Marvel does tend to mean you're quite popular though.

Rachel Caine is basically unknown outside America

At this point, I'll leave you to your fantasies: See, I work in a bookshop. I've sold thousands of the Morganvilles (11), hundreds of the Weather Warden series and the new Ressurectionist series sold out within the week.

The_root_of_all_evil:

Most adults enjoy the teenage market for fluff, and specific authors for the hard-hitting material.

I think she could still do some great kidult books, but she's left it very late to re-build a fan base. Someone like Rachel Caine has 3 good series on the run, as have Jim Butcher and Laurell K Hamilton.

Jim Butcher's stuff isn't hard-hitting? The end of Changes made me feel ill for about a day.

Kakashi on crack:
Finally, less pottergasms perhaps?

Unfortunately, while I know what you mean by Adult, the term "Pornography" comes to mind every time I hear it... XD

Exactly what I was thinking :)

I don't think I'll get it, I have loads of books to read other.

NikolaiK:

Jim Butcher's stuff isn't hard-hitting? The end of Changes made me feel ill for about a day.

Christ, Butcher's stuff shakes you to the bone; but it's written as a "fluff" book. Pratchett is a "fluff" book as well - but tell me that any of his haven't made you stop and think.

Genre/"fluff" fiction has a very unfair stereotype; just because it's written towards tweens doesn't mean it's not a lot better than some of the 'adult' books out there. Good Omens is worth far more than The Number One Detective Agency or Alex Cross imho.

The_root_of_all_evil:

NikolaiK:

Jim Butcher's stuff isn't hard-hitting? The end of Changes made me feel ill for about a day.

Christ, Butcher's stuff shakes you to the bone; but it's written as a "fluff" book. Pratchett is a "fluff" book as well - but tell me that any of his haven't made you stop and think.

Genre/"fluff" fiction has a very unfair stereotype; just because it's written towards tweens doesn't mean it's not a lot better than some of the 'adult' books out there. Good Omens is worth far more than The Number One Detective Agency or Alex Cross imho.

I agree with you, Good Omens is one of my favourite books, but how do you define fluff?
Is it anything that isn's a philosophical or political treatise?

The_root_of_all_evil:

MelasZepheos:

She's only ever written Harry Potter books, and all have sold well.

And Dan Brown's books have all sold well as well.

Does that not count as a Potter book, what with being part of the extended Potter canon and all..?

The_root_of_all_evil:

MelasZepheos:

Rachel Caine is basically unknown outside America

At this point, I'll leave you to your fantasies: See, I work in a bookshop. I've sold thousands of the Morganvilles (11), hundreds of the Weather Warden series and the new Ressurectionist series sold out within the week.

I'm outside of America, and I have to admit I've never heard of it.
(I don't wish to disagree with anyone here, I just wanted to provide a second opinion.)

OT: I think I'll be buying it, but... possibly only to see what it's like compared to Harry Potter. Could turn out to be brilliant of course.

NikolaiK:

I agree with you, Good Omens is one of my favourite books, but how do you define fluff?

"Fluff" is genre fiction - anything that makes up it's own canon/logic as it goes. With fiction like 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest', even though some of it is a little hokey (Electroshock is massively unlikely to vegetate someone), it's based on "reality". It came from Pulp, but as that's a term sliding into the history books - "fluff" helps. If a lonely young spinster wanders into a coffee shop and bumps into a shadowy man, you know that they're going to be engaged by the end of the book - that sort of idea.

snappydog:

I'm outside of America, and I have to admit I've never heard of it.
(I don't wish to disagree with anyone here, I just wanted to provide a second opinion.)

Pop into your local Waterstones, Smiths or Works and have a flick through. They're quite fluffy teenage vampire books with a strong narrative, likable characters and a good storyline. Jim Butcher likes them, so they can't be all bad ;)

'We'd suggest dumping Stephenie Meyer's vapid Twilight books and replacing them with these' SFX Magazine

Oh, ok. Thanks root. Guess that means I only read fluff. Little bit crushing.

EDIT: After reading the wiki entry on genre fiction, I remain secure in my reading habit snobbery.
Apparently literally everything is genre fiction - fantasy, sci-fi, horror, whatever the hell Pratchett's stuff is (comedy/sci-fi/fantasy/philosophy?)

So Rowling is not working on Harry Potter and the Difficult Tax Return? In all seriousness what is known about the book? I can do without a title but what of the genre?

I'm a bit worried over this one. Rowling is not a good writer; she has a fantastic imagination. She created a world that inspired millions, but she didn't do a lot with it: in the later books especially, she had protection from editors and got away with gaping plot holes and characterization failures (what did Ron ever do that made anyone think he was loyal?), and a decent amount of fanfic is higher quality writing than anything she's ever done. I wonder if she can really ever come close to that world again, because her success never had anything to do with her abilities as a writer and I'm not convinced that there's an editor in the world who is willing to risk millions of dollars guaranteed to tell her that her story is lacking. There's nothing preventing her from writing more adult-oriented stuff in the Potterverse to see if she can do it, and though I understand she might be sick of it, I don't think anyone can simply cast off their life's work and try to match it.

edit

SpiderJerusalem:

Gizmo1990:

JoesshittyOs:

And the fact that they are actually kid's books doesn't click with you? Because they're kid's books. Kid books that adults can enjoy, but still books for children.

And hell, the best selling series of all time sort of means that she did something right

OT: Interesting. I honestly thought she was just gonna call it quits. Though it's pretty much guaranteed to sell by the gazillions, so why the fuck not?

And why does the fact that it is a kids book excuse bad writing? If you enjoy Harry Potter then fine. Good for you. I just never throught that it was anything special. As a story I did not think it was bad I just did not think it was all that good either. In terms of writing I throught it waa bad.

P.S
Ron is the single most irritating character in the history of fiction.

Judging by your age, spelling and ability to construct a sentence, I'd predict that Harry Potter might just be the only book you've read.

Besides, Rowling, nor her audience, haven't used the "kid's books" excuse ever. She has been one of the few authors who never felt the need to condescend her audiences. The books matured with their author and readership. If there was one thing that was nearly universally agreed upon, it was the quality of her writing. Lightning in a bottle doesn't cover it either, only if the first book had been great, not seven consecutive novels.

I did not explain myself very well in that post and managed to a bit better in a later post on this thred and I cannot be bothered to do it again but I would just like to say that reading is by far my favorite pass time and I have read alot of books. To name my favorites:

The Dresden Files, Codex Alera, The night angel trillogy, the sword of truth series, The nightside series and The Hobbit/the lord of the rings. Also how does me being bad at spelling have anything to do with reading?

The_root_of_all_evil:
Hairy Puta and the Whores of Babylon?

I don't know. Rowling isn't a great author; she's good - don't get me wrong - but I've yet to see the depth that will take her into the adult market. Most adults enjoy the teenage market for fluff, and specific authors for the hard-hitting material.

I think she could still do some great kidult books, but she's left it very late to re-build a fan base. Someone like Rachel Caine has 3 good series on the run, as have Jim Butcher and Laurell K Hamilton.

If I remember rightly, her non-Potter books have been widely avoided. Now, if she put her mind to detailing Hagrid's role, without Lucasizing it, that could be a money-spinner.

Totally agree with this post.

As for detailing Hagrid's role, he could have a new wonderfully dangerous creature each week for each of his 3rd through to 7th years, it could be a complete adventure for each of the various years rather then just an adventure for the so called golden trio.

She's certainly not a great author, However one doesn't need to be a great author to write something fun and that's what Harry Potter was a fun piece of fluff to read, even if I was just leaving my teen years when it was first brought out, I've enjoyed each of them even if I disliked some of the character portrayals.

-Al.

Sounds interesting, I'll have to check it out when it comes out...

The_root_of_all_evil:
Genre/"fluff" fiction has a very unfair stereotype; just because it's written towards tweens doesn't mean it's not a lot better than some of the 'adult' books out there. Good Omens is worth far more than The Number One Detective Agency or Alex Cross imho.

Um... I don't think all genre fiction is written for tweens. Nor that "fluff" is a fair term to use for genre fiction. Genre fiction is horror, fantasy, sci-fi, historical, alternate history, thriller, detective etc. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, if so then I apologize, but I got the impression that you suggested that genre fiction is written for children and literary fiction for adults. That's just not true.

mephet:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, if so then I apologize, but I got the impression that you suggested that genre fiction is written for children and literary fiction for adults. That's just not true.

Misunderstanding - sorry, should have made it clear that would have been a colon rather than a semi-colon. They're a bugger to use ;)

NikolaiK:
Oh, ok. Thanks root. Guess that means I only read fluff. Little bit crushing.

Nah, I love fluff. Which is why I get so angry when books like Twilight break out, despite being the worst of the current incarnation/

EDIT: After reading the wiki entry on genre fiction, I remain secure in my reading habit snobbery.
Apparently literally everything is genre fiction - fantasy, sci-fi, horror, whatever the hell Pratchett's stuff is (comedy/sci-fi/fantasy/philosophy?)

Yeah, it's a horrid convention because something like Dreadful Tales of Abusive Mothers, True Tales of Angels + Aliens and Jamie Oliver's Pot Noodle Surprise get treated as "real" books; while the genre fiction has to break out of it's tiny little "Paranormal Romance" box.

"The Dresden Files" was in "Paranormal Romance", for Harry's sake.

After reading "books for adults" repeatedly, all I can think about is...Adults books.

Not that that's BAD mind you, just not something one ought to be contemplating during the day.

The_root_of_all_evil:

Yeah, it's a horrid convention because something like Dreadful Tales of Abusive Mothers, True Tales of Angels + Aliens and Jamie Oliver's Pot Noodle Surprise get treated as "real" books; while the genre fiction has to break out of it's tiny little "Paranormal Romance" box.

"The Dresden Files" was in "Paranormal Romance", for Harry's sake.

Who put it there? Check to see if Lara Raith has been messing with one of the workers.

I'm currently studying English in university, and the other day our lecturer ripped a Harry Potter book up in a lecture, and I loved her for it. Don't get me wrong, I loved the books, and greatly enjoyed the story, and respect J.K. for getting millions of children reading; but she is not a good writer. She is mediocre, uses a repetitive writing style, and I can't see her being successful with an Adult audience (except for those who 'enjoy' it simply because it is her book) unless she drastically improves her writing style :)
I will almost definitely read the book either way, before I write her off.

I'm glad she didn't simply take the easy root and do more Harry Potter books. This should prove interesting.

Only just found out about this from one of those 'thingy read this news thing' Facebook things (why are they always things that happened ages ago) and was wondering, when you reached the point of 'more money than the queen' 3 or 4 books ago, why bother still writing more books? Out of some kind of charitable desire to make the publishers rich or something?