J.K. Rowling's new book

[PosthumanHeresy]

A cynical part of me says: Most people who donate money do it because they like feeling better about themselves; making the world the best place possible is a secondary concern at best. Without an in-depth look at her giving habits, this suggests she is purchasing those same fuzzies from writing books outside the shadow of the behemoth that is Harry Potter.

A second part of me, concerned with the fairness of the situation, says: It seems odd to criticise JK Rowling for not maximising the amount of money she donates to charity when she's donated far more, both in relative and in absolute terms, than most people.

The rest of me does not necessarily endorse either of these positions but refuses to step up and say anything.

While, in both relative and in absolute terms, she has donated more than most people, she is also lucky enough to be in the unique position to be able to. I doubt it's just to make her feel better, because she was homeless at one point, and often empathy is grown out of experience. However, while she may not see it this way, I feel that, in a way, this is depriving these charities of money, because if she rode her fame, she'd make more, and therefore be able to donate more. In a recession (aka, a depression but we don't want panic), that's even more important than usual.

[Flying Mint Bunny!]

A cynical part of me says: Most people who donate money do it because they like feeling better about themselves; making the world the best place possible is a secondary concern at best. Without an in-depth look at her giving habits, this suggests she is purchasing those same fuzzies from writing books outside the shadow of the behemoth that is Harry Potter.

A second part of me, concerned with the fairness of the situation, says: It seems odd to criticise JK Rowling for not maximising the amount of money she donates to charity when she's donated far more, both in relative and in absolute terms, than most people.

The rest of me does not necessarily endorse either of these positions but refuses to step up and say anything.

While, in both relative and in absolute terms, she has donated more than most people, she is also lucky enough to be in the unique position to be able to. I doubt it's just to make her feel better, because she was homeless at one point, and often empathy is grown out of experience. However, while she may not see it this way, I feel that, in a way, this is depriving these charities of money, because if she rode her fame, she'd make more, and therefore be able to donate more. In a recession (aka, a depression but we don't want panic), that's even more important than usual.

I think it's ridiculous to expect J K Rowling to base her career decisions on how much she will potentially be able to give to charity.

She doesn't write books for charity, she writes books because she is a writer and enjoys writing. Being able to give tonnes of money to charity because of that is just an unexpected bonus.

[Sixth Monarchist]

The problem is when people have a unique writing style that follows them no matter the genre. If she'd been able to switch her writing style around, it probably would have been enough to keep her hiding under her pseudonym.

But yes, if I were in her position I'd want my book to sell by its merits, not because I'm a household name.

It's not just that. It seems like nearly every review that panned The Casual Vacancy compared it unfavorably to Harry Potter. Maybe she feels that people would be able to appreciate her work more if they weren't colored by expectations of magic and whimsy.

To be fair, the Daily Mail went apeshit because the book implied that conservatism is bad. Of course, Exhibit A of British conservatism's badness is the Daily Mail.

[PosthumanHeresy]

A cynical part of me says: Most people who donate money do it because they like feeling better about themselves; making the world the best place possible is a secondary concern at best. Without an in-depth look at her giving habits, this suggests she is purchasing those same fuzzies from writing books outside the shadow of the behemoth that is Harry Potter.

A second part of me, concerned with the fairness of the situation, says: It seems odd to criticise JK Rowling for not maximising the amount of money she donates to charity when she's donated far more, both in relative and in absolute terms, than most people.

The rest of me does not necessarily endorse either of these positions but refuses to step up and say anything.

While, in both relative and in absolute terms, she has donated more than most people, she is also lucky enough to be in the unique position to be able to. I doubt it's just to make her feel better, because she was homeless at one point, and often empathy is grown out of experience. However, while she may not see it this way, I feel that, in a way, this is depriving these charities of money, because if she rode her fame, she'd make more, and therefore be able to donate more. In a recession (aka, a depression but we don't want panic), that's even more important than usual.

I think it's ridiculous to expect J K Rowling to base her career decisions on how much she will potentially be able to give to charity.

She doesn't write books for charity, she writes books because she is a writer and enjoys writing. Being able to give tonnes of money to charity because of that is just an unexpected bonus.

I understand that, it just feels, I don't know, somewhat wrong. Like, either options is badness.

[MadmanJohnson]

But what about the fundie responses?

[Askold]

Rowling has donated her share to charity and more. She stays in UK and pays her share of taxes rather than fleeing into tax haven, purely because she received help from the country and it helped her have the time to write the books and she feels that it is right to pay back for the help she received.

Based on what I know she is a nice person.

And even if she wasn't she would still have the right to choose how she releases her books and I certainly understand wanting to know how her book would succeed on its own merits.

After all, there are people who will buy her books simply because they have been written by J.K. Rowling and on the other hand reviews would always compare the books to HP rather than judge the book on its own.

[Shane for Wax]

A cynical part of me says: Most people who donate money do it because they like feeling better about themselves; making the world the best place possible is a secondary concern at best. Without an in-depth look at her giving habits, this suggests she is purchasing those same fuzzies from writing books outside the shadow of the behemoth that is Harry Potter.

A second part of me, concerned with the fairness of the situation, says: It seems odd to criticise JK Rowling for not maximising the amount of money she donates to charity when she's donated far more, both in relative and in absolute terms, than most people.

The rest of me does not necessarily endorse either of these positions but refuses to step up and say anything.

While, in both relative and in absolute terms, she has donated more than most people, she is also lucky enough to be in the unique position to be able to. I doubt it's just to make her feel better, because she was homeless at one point, and often empathy is grown out of experience. However, while she may not see it this way, I feel that, in a way, this is depriving these charities of money, because if she rode her fame, she'd make more, and therefore be able to donate more. In a recession (aka, a depression but we don't want panic), that's even more important than usual.

I think it's ridiculous to expect J K Rowling to base her career decisions on how much she will potentially be able to give to charity.

She doesn't write books for charity, she writes books because she is a writer and enjoys writing. Being able to give tonnes of money to charity because of that is just an unexpected bonus.

I understand that, it just feels, I don't know, somewhat wrong. Like, either options is badness.

I'd hate to become a famous author and then have someone deride me for not maximizing my profits when I write a new book that isn't part of the books that made me famous.

[Sleepy]

A cynical part of me says: Most people who donate money do it because they like feeling better about themselves; making the world the best place possible is a secondary concern at best. Without an in-depth look at her giving habits, this suggests she is purchasing those same fuzzies from writing books outside the shadow of the behemoth that is Harry Potter.

A second part of me, concerned with the fairness of the situation, says: It seems odd to criticise JK Rowling for not maximising the amount of money she donates to charity when she's donated far more, both in relative and in absolute terms, than most people.

The rest of me does not necessarily endorse either of these positions but refuses to step up and say anything.

While, in both relative and in absolute terms, she has donated more than most people, she is also lucky enough to be in the unique position to be able to. I doubt it's just to make her feel better, because she was homeless at one point, and often empathy is grown out of experience. However, while she may not see it this way, I feel that, in a way, this is depriving these charities of money, because if she rode her fame, she'd make more, and therefore be able to donate more. In a recession (aka, a depression but we don't want panic), that's even more important than usual.

I think it's ridiculous to expect J K Rowling to base her career decisions on how much she will potentially be able to give to charity.

She doesn't write books for charity, she writes books because she is a writer and enjoys writing. Being able to give tonnes of money to charity because of that is just an unexpected bonus.

I understand that, it just feels, I don't know, somewhat wrong. Like, either options is badness.

Rowling has been kind enough to donate insane amounts of money to charity. To say that she's depriving charities of more donations because of a career choice is ridiculous. She deserves wide recognition for such generosity, not criticism for making a choice that doesn't maximize every bit of profit.

[PosthumanHeresy]

A cynical part of me says: Most people who donate money do it because they like feeling better about themselves; making the world the best place possible is a secondary concern at best. Without an in-depth look at her giving habits, this suggests she is purchasing those same fuzzies from writing books outside the shadow of the behemoth that is Harry Potter.

A second part of me, concerned with the fairness of the situation, says: It seems odd to criticise JK Rowling for not maximising the amount of money she donates to charity when she's donated far more, both in relative and in absolute terms, than most people.

The rest of me does not necessarily endorse either of these positions but refuses to step up and say anything.

While, in both relative and in absolute terms, she has donated more than most people, she is also lucky enough to be in the unique position to be able to. I doubt it's just to make her feel better, because she was homeless at one point, and often empathy is grown out of experience. However, while she may not see it this way, I feel that, in a way, this is depriving these charities of money, because if she rode her fame, she'd make more, and therefore be able to donate more. In a recession (aka, a depression but we don't want panic), that's even more important than usual.

I think it's ridiculous to expect J K Rowling to base her career decisions on how much she will potentially be able to give to charity.

She doesn't write books for charity, she writes books because she is a writer and enjoys writing. Being able to give tonnes of money to charity because of that is just an unexpected bonus.

I understand that, it just feels, I don't know, somewhat wrong. Like, either options is badness.

Rowling has been kind enough to donate insane amounts of money to charity. To say that she's depriving charities of more donations because of a career choice is ridiculous. She deserves wide recognition for such generosity, not criticism for making a choice that doesn't maximize every bit of profit.

I know it's unfair to criticise her, and she certainly does deserve recognition. It just also bothers me. I'm not saying it's fair, logical or kind. Just what my brain's doing.

[Shane for Wax]

Look what I found~



Nobody should write books about the military unless they've enlisted before. New rule.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Look what I found~



Nobody should write books about the military unless they've enlisted before. New rule.

Considering is name, he's likely Air Force. You know what he's certainly got? Tons of experience as a foot soldier deep in the shit. Wait, no, no he doesn't (and I get that the Air Force can end up fighting on the ground, but he still lacks major experience there). Yet somehow I bet he'd say he could write military fiction, even if it wasn't about his branch.