Portrait of the Wizard as a Young Lady with an Education in the Classics
John
forums . . .
>Bitchin'.
Yo, dude. (Jesus! Did I really say *that*? Somebody should drive by and
shoot me dead where I sit.) Hey, did you watch the A&E bio tonight on J.K.
Rowland? Blew my mind. That chick has a degree in Classics. Who knew? What
faddish public idolatry would make of a person and what she really is at
core are once in a while, thankfully, two different things. She writes in
longhand, and that first book took five years? Five years to write a silly
little children's book? Not so silly at that speed, I guess. I mean, how
"silly" is the *Wizard of Oz*? So, there's something quite a bit more than
just ordinary success going on there with that lady, that her work should
become classic in its own time. She showed the stacks of revisions she'd
gone through for that first chapter, trying to get it right.
William Penrose
>longhand, and that first book took five years? Five years to write a silly
>little children's book?
Not little.
Not silly. Nothing that makes that much money is silly.
I still see adults reading them on the commuter train.
Bill Penrose
John
"William Penrose" <wpen...@customsensorsolutions.com> wrote in message
news:3dd3c352...@news.anet.com...
| On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 02:31:49 -0600, "John" <jpd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| >longhand, and that first book took five years? Five years to write a
silly
| >little children's book?
|
| Not little.
| Not silly. Nothing that makes that much money is silly.
What about Beanie Babies? But, you didn't allow me to finish what I was
saying in which my own question stands refuted in the next sentence--not on
the basis of the money, the financial success, for that cannot be the
measure of quality or the lack thereof as has been shown far too often to
bear mention. As posted to the said www forum, here are the revised and
extended remarks . . .
Rowland writes in longhand, and that first book took five years? Five years
to write a silly little children's book? Not so silly at that speed, I
guess. I mean, how "silly" is the *Wizard of Oz*? So, there's something
quite a bit more than just ordinary, faddish, Beanie Baby mob mania going on
there with the sales of that lady's books, that her work should become
classic in its own time?
It's something sort of--but not exactly--like what old Honest Abe used to
say: you can fool some of the people, all of the time, all of the people,
some of the time--but you can't fool the kids any of the time unless it's
strictly according to their fancy.
She showed the stacks of revisions she'd gone through for
that first chapter, trying to get it right. The lady is indeed, a writer.
For once, the market was generated by quality, not a quantity of hype.
--
And that was prefaced by these remarks . . .
Yo, dude. (Jesus! Did I really say *that*? Somebody should drive by and do a
Frank Nitti on me, drop my face into the fettucini right here where I sit.)
Hey, did you watch the A&E bio tonight (Nov. 14) on J.K. Rowland? She has a
degree in Classics. Who knew? What faddish public idolatry would make of a
person and what she really is under the flash and polish of hype and
promotion, are once in a while, apparently, not in conflict. I have a
tendency, most usually, to regard anything or anyone with such immense
popularity with much guarded skepticism, knowing how comically or tragically
misplaced such adulation can so often be. I kind of hate to put Oprah,
Hitler, Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Springer in the same category, but you get
the point--popular is popular.
--
|
| I still see adults reading them on the commuter train.
As a quick look at the work of Phillip Roth will show, there is no
accounting for what adults might do on a commuter train, or city bus let
alone under the table at the public library. ;-)
In any case, we must be agreed on one thing: she's a pretty neat lady.
--
JP David
PButler111
>Classics
>From: "John" jpd...@hotmail.com
>Date: 11/14/2002 4:24 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <ar17r9$ekups$1...@ID-167346.news.dfncis.de>
Then she probably deserves you to get her name right: Rowling.
John
"PButler111" <pbutl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021114190718...@mb-mm.aol.com...
| Then she probably deserves you to get her name right: Rowling.
Butler, you are always such a fly in the soup. I had the "J.K." part right,
didn't I? That's good enough. Now if I had been talking about Oscar Wilde,
and had left out the 'e', then you might have something worth bitching
about.
Yes, I know how superior it makes your sort feel to correct others in their
little errors of spelling and the like, but it really never comes to the
issue of anything truly profound or worthy of discussion, does it?
No, it never does.
--
JP
John
| >Yes, I know how superior it makes your sort feel to correct others in
their
| >little errors of spelling and the like, but it really never comes to the
| >issue of anything truly profound or worthy of discussion, does it?
| >
| >No, it never does.
| >
| >--
| >JP
|
Yeah, well . . .
You get the last word. I can't argue with that.
How's the Manilow book going? Any new projects in the works?
P.S. Don't get out your spiked boots and whip. I'm genuinely interested.
--
JP
John
| >Yes, I know how superior it makes your sort feel to correct others in
their
| >little errors of spelling and the like, but it really never comes to the
| >issue of anything truly profound or worthy of discussion, does it?
| >
| >No, it never does.
| >
| >--
| >JP
|
Yeah, well . . .
You get the last word. I can't argue with that. ;-)
How's the Manilow book going? Any new projects in the works?
--
JP
John
| >
| >How's the Manilow book going? Any new projects in the works?
| >
| >--
| >JP
|
| It's going fine and yes, there are.
Something real secret, dark and Gothic, I see.
Well, that's real good.
--
JP
PButler111
>Classics
>From: "John" jpd...@hotmail.com
>Message-id: <ar1p55$ead0u$1...@ID-167346.news.dfncis.de>
You mean unlike your deeply important tribute to Harry Potter? Right.
PButler111
>
>Yeah, well . . .
>
>You get the last word. I can't argue with that. ;-)
>
>How's the Manilow book going? Any new projects in the works?
>
>--
>JP
It's going fine and yes, there are.
Alan Hope
>For once, the market was generated by quality, not a quantity of hype.
I take it you haven't actually read any Rowling.
Its gestation time is no measure of its worth, incidentally. If it
were, they'd be giving the Nobel to Palmjob for DESOLATION AVENUE or
whatever his mag op is called.
--
AH
PButler111
>Classics
>From: "John" jpd...@hotmail.com
>Message-id: <ar1u14$eehrr$1...@ID-167346.news.dfncis.de>
If it makes you feel good to project that, then you go right ahead.
David Streever
her is spot on eh? I mean it's not like she's ever contributed anything
worthwhile to the world and her "book" is a piece of shit anyway.
"John" <jpd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ar1sjs$e6e1o$1...@ID-167346.news.dfncis.de...