Any my point is this: All that crap doesn't matter. More people have read JKR's books. That is literary history. You can write the most deep, philosophical BS in the world and it doesn't matter when a few professors and a handful of others golf clap on its merit, artistic quality and whatnot, while millions read another book the day it comes out. Which has greater impact?
Other than Shakespeare, can you name an author who has the amazing reader base JKR does, or has ever had?
Honestly, do you think most people actually read the sort of work you tout as being masterful or insightful or purposefully ambigious? They don't? They are busy reading Koontz, King, and Rowling to name a few.
This is what kills me about the whole debate. You fail to see the most important point. People like you always assume that you or your academia brethren decide what is literary history, or what has merit. You're just another critic. The popular writer is the traveling poet of today's world, and you're missing the show.
Also, just because you read "tripe" from ages ago doesn't mean it somehow validates your argument that JKR is going to slip into being a footnote later on. Unless each of those stories sold more copies than any other book except the Bible, did they?
Edit: P.S. The books sold the films. It worked in reverse after the films ramped up. But the books were already amazing hits.
1. My reference to the "tripe" was not intended to validate my arguments about JKR, but to refute your ad hominem attack -- an assumption based on no evidence whatsoever -- that I feel it necessary to see myself as "superior" to those who read "popular" books. Point being: I enjoy quite a few "popular" writers and always have. I'm a big fan of a good, enjoyable story. So your assumptions on that score are completely off-beam.
2. My "academia brethren"? Once again, a rather huge assumption. I'm not a member of academe -- never have been. And, once again: No, academicians do not decide this; I've already dealt with that earlier. What does is how the writer's work appeals to people over a long period of time, and I'm basing my judgment on those things that have survived as well as those which were immensely popular (often with academe) and are now largely forgotten, and looking at Rowling's work in that light. Could I be mistaken? Certainly. But I do tend to have a pretty good feel for these things based on intense and searching reading over a very wide (and sometimes deep) variety of writing, and I stand by my judgment. Again, though, only time will tell.
3. Yes, a huge number of people have read her books. A huge number of people have read books by many writers... and then those writers are forgotten, as time goes on, or are remembered only by a much smaller number. As I said above, I expect this to be what happens to JKR, because I'm basing my view on the long-term perspective. All the points you raise are based on the short-term. Popular writers that continue to last tend to have more "meat" than JKR does in her work. Hers suits the current taste, but will it continue to resonate with people 30, 40, 50, 100 years down the line? On that, I have very serious doubts.
4. On her place in literary history: When I say she'll be a minor footnote, I mean just that. In comparison with (as you note) Shakespeare, Dickens, Tolstoy, Dostoiefsky, Poe, Faulkner (only a few of which, by the way, were considered worthwhile by academicians during their day or for some time after), etc., my contention is that she simply won't be in that rarefied a strata. She will be remembered for the number of books sold, and because she was a popular writer for a brief span of time, and possibly for once again engaging young readers. That really is a minor thing in perspective -- valid, and something to be proud of but (once again looking at the big picture) nonetheless minor.
5. As for which has greater impact? The one that lasts. The one that influences other writers, and upon which they call for inspiration in their writing -- the one which continues, over a long period, to resonate with readers. Damned few writers at all achieve that, popular or otherwise. Beaumont and Fletcher were upon everyone's lips during their day. They wrote wonderful plays -- witty, sparkling, dialogue, more than slightly scandalous, and were honored by the best of their generation as well as the populace in general. Now they are read chiefly by academicians or specialists in the theater of that period. Shakespeare underwent a decline for nearly a century before once again being recognized as a great writer. Poe would have been almost forgotten had not European writers recognized what he had to offer. The problem is that people in general have a notoriously short memory about such things, and the hottest sellers in history are most often the ones most quickly forgotten and replaced by the next hot seller. That's a fact of history. Just go look up the immense bestsellers of the past, and see how many people remember
at all. Once again, it isn't just what people read, but what they remember -- what continues to touch those deep emotional chords over time -- that matters. Those are the ones that are most influential, and that last.
And as for this bit:
Honestly, do you think most people actually read the sort of work you tout as being masterful or insightful or purposefully ambigious? They don't? They are busy reading Koontz, King, and Rowling to name a few.
What are you assuming I'm referring to? Shakespeare is one. Poe is another. Lovecraft, Dickens, Shelley (both Percy and Mary), Keats, Defoe, Heinlein, Faulkner, Eddison, Doyle, Byron, Baudelaire, Borges, the Brontës (especially Charlotte and Emily), Bierce, M. R. James, Henry James.... these are a few, and all of them continue to be read decades or centuries after their deaths - and not just by students assigned them in classes, but by average people who enjoy good books -- and that is because the richness and complexity of what they had to say allows for continued application for readers long after they themselves are gone. They also continue to inspire other writers, and to influence popular culture in various ways -- many of them have introduced terms, concepts, or characters that are a part of common language, from Frankenstein to Cthulhu, from David Copperfield to Wuthering Heights, from Robinson Crusoe to the classic English ghost story. Unless Rowling hits such a chord over time... she, like Edward Bulwer-Lytton (who was possibly the most popular writer of his day, and who did influence writers of his day, and who remained a bestseller for some decades) will end up a minor footnote, having very little lasting impact. And, because of the type of stories she writes, and the (necessarily) somewhat simplistic way in which those stories are presented... this is likely to be the case.
Again, time will tell. But, judging from my experience with literature and, again, an historical overview of the whole... my estimation is that she's a worthy, but minor writer who, like many others in the past, caught the public fancy for a short time... and then is largely relegated to a footnote in history. This is a brutal fact of the way it tends to work, whether we like it or not. Popularity -- even
immense popularity -- in the short run means absolutely nothing in the long term. It just doesn't, and never has.
As for "The popular writer is the traveling poet of today's world, and you're missing the show"... well, I won't dispute that. But how many of the traveling poets of the past are remembered? Out of all the trouvères and troubadors, how many names -- or how many of their songs -- have remained a part of our culture? As for being a critic -- you say that as if it's a bad thing. While I'm not a professional critic, I
do use my critical faculties when I read (or watch a film, or listen to music, or what-have-you), as I discriminate between enjoyable fluff and something that truly "hits the spot" emotionally on a deeper level. However, I am not an unduly harsh critic, as I have a high regard for storytellers and wish them well, am always happy to see people reading more, and I agree with you that they fulfill an important role in our lives.. they spin their webs of dream, and allow us to see their handiwork; and one who does so conscientiously deserves respect, in my opinion. But that does
not keep me from seeing the flaws, or from seeing them against the larger background and making a fairly good judgment on how likely they are to survive in the long run.
While I'm not drawing a parallel here between their talent, what I see happening with Rowling and her popularity is similar to what happened to H. P. Lovecraft following his death, when it got to the point where no one could say anything against him or his work without raising the ire of his fans, who could see no wrong in either the man or what he wrote. It took a long time to reach a more balanced appraisal of his proper place (and even now, it is still somewhat uncertain) -- largely
because of that idolatrous view, which tended to repulse those with more discriminating taste. Such things tend to do a writer's reputation considerable harm, as it raises bad blood. A more objective view, noting both faults and strengths, serves them better.
