Potter.
It's come to my attention that the Harry Potter books are doing pretty well - you could say that they're moderately succesful.
Some figures to back this up: nearly 300 million books have been sold in 63 languages; 116 million of those were sold in the US alone. The sixth and latest book in the series, Harry potter & The Half-Blood Prince, which kept the world waiting for two years, is outselling all five its predecessors, and the fact that it sold almost seven million copies in the first 24 hours of release makes it the fastest-selling book ever (source).
On the basis of this alone, Miss J.K. Rowling deserves my utmost respect. Her novels have made reading hip and cool again, and people are flocking back to the bookstores by the millions. Which is a good thing.
But then there's this.
Don't get me wrong, I have never written fiction in a professional environment, which was to be published (and probably won't ever), so I don't really know what I'm talking about here, but still; how can you put a time limit on such a creative process? How does that work? Can you switch creativeness on and off?
Can you say, "Starting next month, I'll be creative for some two years, and that'll be it."?
It would seem to me that a creative process such as writing a novel -and especially the final novel in a series as popular as this one, a fact that brings about all kinds of added pressure- should be a natural proces, not forced by the restraints of time. I would think that a time limit such as this would turn the writing proces from a natural and unrestricted flow of creativeness which manifests itself as prose on paper into .. well .. conveyor belt work; just popping out another one of those novels.
Or am I wrong here?
Cheers
Some figures to back this up: nearly 300 million books have been sold in 63 languages; 116 million of those were sold in the US alone. The sixth and latest book in the series, Harry potter & The Half-Blood Prince, which kept the world waiting for two years, is outselling all five its predecessors, and the fact that it sold almost seven million copies in the first 24 hours of release makes it the fastest-selling book ever (source).
On the basis of this alone, Miss J.K. Rowling deserves my utmost respect. Her novels have made reading hip and cool again, and people are flocking back to the bookstores by the millions. Which is a good thing.
But then there's this.
"Author J.K. Rowling expects to begin writing the seventh and final Harry Potter book as early as the end of this year. It should land in bookstores in about two years."And I don't get that. I honestly don't.
Don't get me wrong, I have never written fiction in a professional environment, which was to be published (and probably won't ever), so I don't really know what I'm talking about here, but still; how can you put a time limit on such a creative process? How does that work? Can you switch creativeness on and off?
Can you say, "Starting next month, I'll be creative for some two years, and that'll be it."?
It would seem to me that a creative process such as writing a novel -and especially the final novel in a series as popular as this one, a fact that brings about all kinds of added pressure- should be a natural proces, not forced by the restraints of time. I would think that a time limit such as this would turn the writing proces from a natural and unrestricted flow of creativeness which manifests itself as prose on paper into .. well .. conveyor belt work; just popping out another one of those novels.
Or am I wrong here?
Cheers
5 Comments:
Okay, hear me out. Commercial creativity has a deadline. By definition it must. There is an audience waiting. Accounts needing balance. Markets managed. Etc. etc. etc.
I always tell my theatre classes that yes, it is true, you could rehearse and rehearse from now until doomsday and it would be different 9 times out of 10. The art would continue to morph. But tickets are sold and opening night is advertised.
And sometimes, a public deadline makes the product better. Sometimes constraints bring out the best in people.
Besides, specific to J.K., I believe she said she already knew how the series would end. She just had to put pen to paper. That shouldn't take too long for her. The rest is all editing (well, they don't do that much) and production/promotion.
Signed,
The Devil's Advocate
Theatre Chick beat me to it. That's exactly what I was gonna say.
Very well put, TC, you make a couple of very valid points.
Thanks for that.
Cheers
It works for a lot of successful writers. And it doesn't for others. Look at the Left Behind books - incredibly popular, sell like hotcakes... and horribly written. I don't know a fiction writer worth her ink who thinks the series was close to well-written. But the thing became such a marketing empire that the authors had to keep churning it out at a frantic pace.
I haven't read the Potter books - I may one day, but the Left Behind experience has left me a little leary.
Look at other authors who have multiple books, but who aren't writing a "series". Amy Tan, for instance - because she isn't writing a series, she turns out much higher quality work when her work is published, and each one has actually improved on the one before. I fear that's the exception.
To give you another for instance, Stephen King - I think he's a prime example of a writer whose "brand" has become so important that the fact that his work is really not that good no longer matters.
But that's one writer's opinion. Take it for what it's worth.
Toodles,
Becky
Fuck, is everybody a writer here?
I'm so out of my league!
Cheers
ps: I don't know Amy Tan (though I think Snake recommended her to me once), but I fully agree with you on King.
Post a Comment
<< Home