Some fair points there, but that's because you like the books - you seem to be as vitriolic about Dan Brown as some have been about Rowling so what's the difference? (I think DB's style is about as enticing as an old wet rag by the way but I don't begrudge him his success.) I'm not bitter about Rowling being successful - good for her - and as I said earlier in the thread I think it was a journalist who said she'd reinvented the genre, not her, I don't think she's that arrogant. I read a lot of contemporary children's books, and I just think it's a shame that there aren't more people exploring what else is on offer at the moment - adults as well as children - and that's where the hype annoys me (and I don't mean Pullman either). I'd rather read Jenny Nimmo's 'Midnight For Charlie Bone' any day. Or has anyone read the wonderful 'Bambert's Book of Missing Stories'?

I guess both these series, Rowling and Brown, do exactly what they say on the tin. But neither exceed this.

Brown is an accomplished thriller writer. I'm a thrid of the way through Da Vinci Code and haven't been able to put it down. However, I realise it is a thriller, and it doesn't pretend to be more than that. Unlike Rowling, he doesn't take 100 pages to get to the point and I appreciate that.

JB

I'll take your word for it that he's an accomplished writer of thrillers - personally I find the prose so lacking in elegance that I couldn't make it past the first chapter. I need the combination of excellent prose and good story to make me a fan... But that's just a personal preference in terms of style. It doesn't mean I don't think it should be a bestseller.

Davey, your points are valid, intelligent and well argued, but you've missed one major point. Us Brits just lurve to shoot down the big guy, the success story, to somehow prove that they're nothing special, not any better than us, as if this will somehow convince us that we're not so small, pathetic and nerdy as we know we really are. And it's fun; it's fun to look at the Turner winner and say, "call that art, cos I don't". I don't believe there could ever be a piece of artwork, music or literature that sells a squillion and has everyone agreeing, "By jove, they've really got it there."

JK Rowling and Dan Brown are common ground for a lot of people. Standing up and discussing the drawbacks of Neil Gaimon or HP Lovecraft will have a lot of people saying "who?"

Colin

Davey,
A - as they say - men!

Yes, but in reality, Dav is right to say there is a lot of inherrent jealousy about, and that contributes to us knocking the success stories. It's what most of us aspire to, that same level of recognition.

I knock Rowling, because I reckon I'm a far better writer, but there you go.

JB

<Added>

I'm ready for the backlash.;)

Fair point Myrtle. I kind of said that to myself as I posted, then thought "Well sod it, JK needs an ally here". The thing is Dan Brown couldn't write even if it was for the very last Toffee in Toffeeland. What he does is visualise a badly written screenplay, and tries to make it into a novel. This then reads like a cheesy Hollywood movie, only one with no budget and actors like the bloke that plays Screech in Saved by The Bell, or Luke Perry or sommik. The acting is so wooden you can actually tell how shit the movie will be when it is inenvitably made by Richie Cunningham, and starring Tom Hanks and that bloke who's always in Tom Hanks films (he has no legs in Forrest Gump and pretends to fly Apollo 13 so he can save Hanks and Bacon - you know the one). And if that's a talent, the geezer is very talented. If however, that sucks massively, Brown sure sucks a big one.

Soz, went off on one there, doing exactly what you said Myrtle, so maybe I should shut it. And don't get me wrong, I haven't even read the new Potter thing yet, I'm not crazy about them, I just think they're good stories, well drawn characters and thoroughly enjoyable.

Colin, I like that, and very true I guess. Though we prefer to knock Yanks surely, so Brown is fair game, and given the extraordinary rubbishness of that idiotic Englishman with ginger hair (Lord Awfullynice-Crumpet or something) I'd say he is a very very poor writer who comes up with some great ideas (as in the whole Da Vinci code stuff - great premise, shame about everything else you've ever done) but has no concept of the reader havin an i.q. of above 12.

Oh dear, I'm gettin bitchy again...

As it goes, you probably are as good a writer JB, but JK has more practice and time to do it

She should be an inspiration to us all, whereas Brown should be a grave warning...

I'm glad you stuck up for her, because there was definitely some disappearing up rear ends going on before that, myself included no doubt. All good fun though.

I doubt she's had more practice actually, if her dull as dishwater and overwordy efforts are anything to go by. Lol. Personal taste. There is no accounting for it, and in reality, it's not really a realistic point people can argue about. One man's meat etc.

Dav, you mean Gary Sinise. I was a bit disappointed by Tom Hanks being selected for the movie, but I still think it'll be worth watching. I like conspiracy theories, and as much as I thought I wouldn't enjoy the book, I actually do.

JB

Let's just get back to kicking JKR for a sec. Personally, I believe she get's a lot of stick because she's read by adults who think she's great. Other adults pick it up and point out the characters are paper thin stereotypes, but if those first adults aren't keen readers then it won't matter because having complicated, multidimensional characters is quite an advanced form of fiction and would never work in a Fairy Tale. In fact, when better writers have tackled the old fairy tales and tried to update and expand them, they've fallen flat on their patronising noses, because children need simple stories where the good and bad characters are clearly defined and there is little argument about what is right and what is wrong. As they get older you can throw in more complications. ie. stealing bread is wrong, but what if the theif is trying to feed their starving sister, or take back something that is rightfully theirs?

I think what I'm getting at is there must be a learning curve for readers of fiction, starting with everything good and bad, black and white, moving up, bit by bit, to more advanced techniques. You're average Potter fan is probably beyond Goldilocks and the Three Bears, but would be lost with The Bell Jar, or The Catcher in the Rye.

Everyone accepts that, but we get a bit snobby that adults might be at the same stage, which is snobbery because lots of people don't read books when they leave school, so why expect them to have a higher appreciation?

(cos their adults goddammit!!)

Colin
(and my argument was going so well.)

..I really must try and keep away from this bait, but Colin-M, you and JB and others are suggesting here that people who enjoy HP are people who do not read 'proper' books as well!! That is so unbelieveably patronising and ridiculous, I've almost choked on my cuppa a few times. I'm not going to stoop to listing proper books wot I have read by REAL writers, but come on! Let's get a grip here and remove heads from rear-ends!Goodness. I have got quite steamed up!

Davey, I don't think it's jealousy or envy, certainly no more than being jealous of ANYONE who's had a novel published. I think it's frustration that something so bad/mediocre has done so well. I've felt jealous of many authors, thinking things like, "God, I wish I could have written that!" I don't feel that aout HP I'm afraid.

I think it is important not to invalidate what people are reading as an indicator of intelligence. My earlier comments were said in jest. I'm in the company of other writers, and would never take that attitude in real life. There is a huge illiteracy problem in this country, and any level of reading at any age should be encouraged.

The boring/mediocre thing feels like a fact in relation to JK's work, but one must remember that this is only a matter of opinion and taste, and that is purely subjective to the individual.


JB

Absolutely, JB. I am in complete disagreement that liking Potter has anything to do with intelligence, or is a reflection of the other matter on people's bookshelves. I also see nothing wrong with adults reading what are intended to be children's books - in fact a lot of prose written for children is a hell of a lot better than the guff churned out for adults these days.

James, you're right. I would never want to do that, and i maintain the apologies I made before for clumsily suggesting it.

I think all we are saying is whether we like it or not. Everyone's entitled to an opinion as much as they are entitled to like what they like and read what they read and I 'm sorry if any of my comments have suggested otherwise.

HP is not my cup of tea for many reasons, but that's my business and opinion and I don't want you all thinking I'm inflicting it on everybody else. I don't want to appear arrogant or as a literary snob. HP just doesn't do it for me. I'm sure there are books that I like that others will despise, and they're welcome to do that.

Must admit, I'm surprised at just how passionate people are arguing for and against young Potter! Didn't think we'd feel quite as strongly as we seem to!

I'll say it again, I hope I've not ofended anyone here. If I have then please accept my apologies.

Nik