Harry Potter sucks

[Marvolo]

That post was by a real published author?

*Laugh* And do I really have to defend my position about "most" fantasy authors now?

[Rane Longfox]

Marvolo, I can't agree on your criteria of mastery. As is every artist's bane, quality doesn't equal popularity. And mastery is, by definition, being of a higher quality than anyone else. Having absolute control over your field. This is why I cannot say Rowling is masterful, because I remain unconvinced she can write anything else except Harry Potter. A literary career is not one series of books. To judge these kind of things, she needs to have written, I would say, two or three series, addressing different issues.

If she does that successfully, then I might accept it. But only if they're also very good.


edit: The guy who started the thread was self-published. No agent would touch him with a barge pole, I suspect

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by Rane Longfox

Marvolo, I can't agree on your criteria of mastery. As is every artist's bane, quality doesn't equal popularity. And mastery is, by definition, being of a higher quality than anyone else. Having absolute control over your field. This is why I cannot say Rowling is masterful, because I remain unconvinced she can write anything else except Harry Potter. A literary career is not one series of books. To judge these kind of things, she needs to have written, I would say, two or three series, addressing different issues.

If she does that successfully, then I might accept it. But only if they're also very good.


edit: The guy who started the thread was self-published. No agent would touch him with a barge pole, I suspect

Aye, but you must agree to a certain extent that if the quality was really as good as most authors think their own is, they would be more popular than they are. Quality does equal popularity if you ask me. Also, some of the very authors mentioned as being of higher quality, Harper Lee for one, only wrote one novel, or very few.

[Rane Longfox]

Well, I never mentioned Harper Lee

It's the variety of subjects that is the key, whether the author's medium is in series, trilogies, single novels, short stories or whatever. Judging by HP being a series, thats what I went for as an estimate.

Yes, I imagine most authors think themselves to be a lot better than they actually are. They guy who started the thread is a prime example. He thought that he was a better writer than Rowling, which is clearly bovine residue, but he still believed it. We will, however, have to agree to disagree about quality being the same as popularity, I'm afraid. For one thing, that would mean Dan Brown was a good author, which is a simply laughable idea.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by Rane Longfox

Well, I never mentioned Harper Lee

It's the variety of subjects that is the key, whether the author's medium is in series, trilogies, single novels, short stories or whatever. Judging by HP being a series, thats what I went for as an estimate.

Yes, I imagine most authors think themselves to be a lot better than they actually are. They guy who started the thread is a prime example. He thought that he was a better writer than Rowling, which is clearly bovine residue, but he still believed it. We will, however, have to agree to disagree about quality being the same as popularity, I'm afraid. For one thing, that would mean Dan Brown was a good author, which is a simply laughable idea.

The Da Vinci Code wasn't a bad fiction novel. Fiction being the key word there. The quasi-historical aspect of it got blown way out of proportion. But it was a good read, to me at least.

[j. d. worthington]

No, Marvolo, popularity and "being masterful" have next to nothing to do with each other, save by rare chance. Good writing is not just about telling a story in plain and unambiguous language ... else the level of writing would never exceed that done for five-year-olds; you can't get much more plain and unambiguous than that. Telling a story... well, that depends on the type of book, the type of story, and so on. If you're referring to plot, there are many, many books where plot is a minimal element; yet they are some of the greatest books in human history.

"Mastery", or what sets one writer above another, has to do with several other factors; but the main one is how well that writer's work resonates with genuine human emotions and thoughts over a period of time. Many, many writers have been enormously popular in their own time, but have no relevance whatsoever to people of a later generation. Great writers, on the other hand, are able to address the human condition in such a way that, even with the changes in language, with the complete incomprehensibility of cultural references without a gloss... they still speak to people long after that writer is dust. And the ambiguity you so dislike is a large part of that because no human experience is ever straightforward or uncomplicated or unambiguous! Any experience, from the least to the most important, has a complex of emotions attached to it; the more significant things, the more rich and complex those emotions will be. The more a writer can capture of that, the better they reflect genuine human thought and feeling, and thus the better they resonate with people for a prolonged period. Also, the more finely crafted their presentation, so that it also reflects beauty in language, symmetry, form, structure, the more it resonates because of our human tendency toward seeing or creating patterns. These things help to crystallize genuine human emotion and experience into patterns that contain complex, multifaceted reflections of those emotions and experiences.

Even in fantasy, we're dealing with metaphorical treatment of such things: mythmaking, in other words. One of the great strengths of myths is that they often allow us to approach universal experiences in ways that abstract some of the core elements of those experiences, distilling them so that they have an immediacy and approachability that, if presented in more realistic terms, would be much more diffuse and therefore less powerful. I'm speaking of well-written fantasy, not that which does not try to rise above stereotyped tropes and symbols; in other words, I'm speaking of fantasy that draws on a writer's own experiences and emotions for the core of their being -- without which there is no art ... only technique. And, once again, the richness supplied by ambiguity allows for more genuine emotion and more genuine thought and experience to be reflected; it allows a work to touch on more levels, and with much broader scope, than a simplistic "certainty". This, in turn, allows one to revist such a work almost endlessly, and to get new layers of meaning each time... and also allows one to bring their own experiences in life to the experience of reading; it becomes more of a writer-reader liaison and less of a schoolmasterly lesson-by-rote. Understanding of authorial intent is, of course, important... but it is by no means the only way in which to read or experience a writer's work -- because no writer is fully aware of everything which they are saying with something as complex as a created work of fiction (i.e., a "secondary world", to use Tolkien's phrase) which the writer constructs, much of which is done by "feel" rather than conscious picking and choosing of symbols and phrasing; and which is much more than very simple sentences stuck together in linear progression... after all, we don't think in linear progression; our minds skip back and forth, we make connections that go off the track, we make circular connections, etc.... and emotions are stirred up with each of these, in varying degrees, from the extremely light, elusive, and evanescent to the deep and physically debilitating. (And a secondary world does not have to be fantastic in nature; it can be a reflection of the everyday world; but it is a created reality, not the genuine article; hence a "secondary world".) Often the greatest part of a work -- that with the most relevance to succeeding generations -- are the very things a writer is least conscious of putting into his or her work; these are the things that resonate the most because they are below conscious thought and touch on those subterranean streams of emotion we are often not aware of, but which are in fact the very dynamic from which our actions and thoughts emerge. And, once again, because of their nature, they must be ambiguous and multiform; else they are made to be false and stereotyped rather than deep and genuine.

This is not addressing JKR in particular, but rather your general comments. While I do not think JKR is at all a masterful writer, I do think there are some aspects here that she does command, and that her work does resonate with people to some degree. I do not think it is something that will last that long, frankly (certainly not as long, say, as Lovecraft, Dickens, Poe, or Mary Shelley -- let alone Shakespeare!) but that should not take away from what resonance (and relevance) she does have now. Time will tell how deeply that runs and -- while I expect to live long enough to see her fade to a minor luminary in the literary firmament -- in the end, that really is the final arbiter of who is or is not "masterful".

[Dave]

Being "masterful" would imply that they are a master of their art; that they can apply a range of different arts rather than being an apprentice in their trade. In context, it would imply that they could write in a variety of genres or styles. I agree with the above comments that JKR has not shown she can do that, but there is plenty of time yet, so foretelling if her books will last the test the time or not is rather pointless. As for "Harry Potter Sucks" I don't think it does, it does what it is meant to do; it fits a niche in a very young adult market, and it's popularity is an indication of how well it does that, just as Clifford the Big Red Dog fits another niche, and Danielle Steel fits another.

I'm not clear why so many people want to knock JKR. Is it jealousy because she has made millions without being "masterful"? Is it because of oft reported comments about fantasy writers that I'm fairly sure will have been mis-quoted, taken out of context, and exaggerated by the journalists just to make a good headline? Certainly, as the thread starter was banned from Chronicles, I wouldn't take any stock in his views.

[pyan]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

Also, to the Big Mac comment: Aye, millions buy them. But that is food and this was a discussion on which authors we consider masterful. How Big Macs equate into this is only for Pyan to understand.

The point I was making, was that large sales aren't always an indicator of discrimination or good taste, or even the quality of the merchandise. It's called a metaphor.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

No, Marvolo, popularity and "being masterful" have next to nothing to do with each other, save by rare chance. Good writing is not just about telling a story in plain and unambiguous language ... else the level of writing would never exceed that done for five-year-olds; you can't get much more plain and unambiguous than that. Telling a story... well, that depends on the type of book, the type of story, and so on. If you're referring to plot, there are many, many books where plot is a minimal element; yet they are some of the greatest books in human history.

"Mastery", or what sets one writer above another, has to do with several other factors; but the main one is how well that writer's work resonates with genuine human emotions and thoughts over a period of time. Many, many writers have been enormously popular in their own time, but have no relevance whatsoever to people of a later generation. Great writers, on the other hand, are able to address the human condition in such a way that, even with the changes in language, with the complete incomprehensibility of cultural references without a gloss... they still speak to people long after that writer is dust. And the ambiguity you so dislike is a large part of that because no human experience is ever straightforward or uncomplicated or unambiguous! Any experience, from the least to the most important, has a complex of emotions attached to it; the more significant things, the more rich and complex those emotions will be. The more a writer can capture of that, the better they reflect genuine human thought and feeling, and thus the better they resonate with people for a prolonged period. Also, the more finely crafted their presentation, so that it also reflects beauty in language, symmetry, form, structure, the more it resonates because of our human tendency toward seeing or creating patterns. These things help to crystallize genuine human emotion and experience into patterns that contain complex, multifaceted reflections of those emotions and experiences.

Even in fantasy, we're dealing with metaphorical treatment of such things: mythmaking, in other words. One of the great strengths of myths is that they often allow us to approach universal experiences in ways that abstract some of the core elements of those experiences, distilling them so that they have an immediacy and approachability that, if presented in more realistic terms, would be much more diffuse and therefore less powerful. I'm speaking of well-written fantasy, not that which does not try to rise above stereotyped tropes and symbols; in other words, I'm speaking of fantasy that draws on a writer's own experiences and emotions for the core of their being -- without which there is no art ... only technique. And, once again, the richness supplied by ambiguity allows for more genuine emotion and more genuine thought and experience to be reflected; it allows a work to touch on more levels, and with much broader scope, than a simplistic "certainty". This, in turn, allows one to revist such a work almost endlessly, and to get new layers of meaning each time... and also allows one to bring their own experiences in life to the experience of reading; it becomes more of a writer-reader liaison and less of a schoolmasterly lesson-by-rote. Understanding of authorial intent is, of course, important... but it is by no means the only way in which to read or experience a writer's work -- because no writer is fully aware of everything which they are saying with something as complex as a created work of fiction (i.e., a "secondary world", to use Tolkien's phrase) which the writer constructs, much of which is done by "feel" rather than conscious picking and choosing of symbols and phrasing; and which is much more than very simple sentences stuck together in linear progression... after all, we don't think in linear progression; our minds skip back and forth, we make connections that go off the track, we make circular connections, etc.... and emotions are stirred up with each of these, in varying degrees, from the extremely light, elusive, and evanescent to the deep and physically debilitating. (And a secondary world does not have to be fantastic in nature; it can be a reflection of the everyday world; but it is a created reality, not the genuine article; hence a "secondary world".) Often the greatest part of a work -- that with the most relevance to succeeding generations -- are the very things a writer is least conscious of putting into his or her work; these are the things that resonate the most because they are below conscious thought and touch on those subterranean streams of emotion we are often not aware of, but which are in fact the very dynamic from which our actions and thoughts emerge. And, once again, because of their nature, they must be ambiguous and multiform; else they are made to be false and stereotyped rather than deep and genuine.

This is not addressing JKR in particular, but rather your general comments. While I do not think JKR is at all a masterful writer, I do think there are some aspects here that she does command, and that her work does resonate with people to some degree. I do not think it is something that will last that long, frankly (certainly not as long, say, as Lovecraft, Dickens, Poe, or Mary Shelley -- let alone Shakespeare!) but that should not take away from what resonance (and relevance) she does have now. Time will tell how deeply that runs and -- while I expect to live long enough to see her fade to a minor luminary in the literary firmament -- in the end, that really is the final arbiter of who is or is not "masterful".

This is literary snobbery and exactly illustrates my point. Being masterful is the ability to tell a story in an understandable way so that many people can read and enjoy it. People enjoy bashing popular writers because they want to believe that they are either better or smarter than those who enjoy them on a wide scale. Of course there is beauty to language, but the author needs to be careful that they aren't just self indulging in complex sentence structure for the sake of it. Aye, there are diverse tools to use within written works, but the author needs to realize that the base boards comes first and the drapes second (that one is for you Pyan). When an author sits down in front of the quill and parchment, pen and paper, typewriter, or word processor, the task at hand is telling a story. No matter how many important things the author might have to say, how many amazing insights into the human existance the author might have, how many wonderful metaphors, similes, or symbols that author might have in mind, the task at hand is telling a story. If the author fails to tell an enjoyable story where the people who read it can understand it, then who cares about all those important things the author had to say? They are lost.

Popular fiction often comes under fire from folks like you J. D., who feel that they are above it because so many people read and enjoy it. When all is said and done, that is what resonates with people the most. They read the newest King book and enjoy talking about it with their fellow workers and family. Or they go out at midnight along with millions of other people to buy the new Harry Potter book and read it along with their kids. These are the experiences that truely masterful authors bring us.

I firmly believe that JKR and SK will never descend to a minor footnote in the literary history, unless folks like you get to decide. We all need to remember that the definition of mastery is decided not by the millions who read and enjoy these books, but by the few who dislike them but run literature departments at colleges or write insultingly critical reviews to attempt to bring down these successful masters.

This is the sort of snobbery that I talked about in my previous posts, firmly illustrated and of course well thought out. In the end, all it says is this: JKR can't be a master because my less intelligent co-worker, or perhaps my twelve year old son, or perhaps my boss who I find a dullard, enjoyed it. IF THEY ENJOYED IT AND I CONDONE SUCH WORK I MIGHT BE LIKE THEM. But I can't be like them, I'm smarter than them.

Dave is absolutely correct. People like to dismiss JKR because they are jealous that she has recieved such amazing success without fitting their definition of masterful. This challenges their perceptions of good fiction. So arguments like the one J. D. just made are the defense of this, saying that *assume smarmy lit professor voice*, "Of course she isn't a master! Good lord boy, are you insane?"

But she is, oh, she is.

Edit: Dave, due to your avatar, whenever I read your post I hear Leonard Nimoy. I just wanted you to know that. It makes reading the posts a bit like watching Ancient Mysteries or Star Trek or even Futurama.

[j. d. worthington]

Marvolo: You're making one hell of a lot of assumptions about who and what I am, and what my opinions are. I'd suggest you go back and look at my other posts before doing so. I've nothing against popular writers -- I don't denigrate them. But I do recognize what is popular and ephemeral is not the same as what stands the test of time and that -- no single group, from professors to plumbers -- makes that decision. Generations of readers decide.

However -- a broader and deeper exposure to all kinds of literature, popular and classical, helps one to detect the things that tend to stand that test, just as a broader and deeper range of experience with wine allows someone to tell what is truly fine wine and what is average at best. The average wines sell the best, too -- but they aren't the best wines to be had.

So what I am stating is not "literary snobbery", but the experience of the history of literature -- good, bad, and indifferent. JKR aside (about whom I'm more or less indifferent, frankly, neither greatly admiring nor terribly incensed about) -- the fact is that 99% of the popular writers (and, for that matter, 99% of those so highly praised by academics and critics in their lifetime) simply won't stand that test as more than a footnote. That is especially likely to be the case with our time, where the plethora of writers means that, by definition, an enormous amount of what is put out there is going to be sheer dreck. You yourself have said as much where fantasy is concerned. And -- if I were the literary snob you seem to think -- if that were the case, I'd hardly be defending fantasy as a genre, now would I?

I certainly have my favorite lesser lights, popular writers I enjoy greatly. Popular storytellers are just fine and, when they've got the skills and the artistry to actually climb up there with the greats -- more power to 'em. Most don't. Never have, never will. Ever hear of Seabury Quinn? He was the most popular writer of the Weird Tales circle. His work is rather scarce these days. Why? Because it was popular froth; dreck. I, personally, enjoy them. But they were crap, plain and simple. Some nice ideas, excellent ability to tell a story simply and straightforwardly ... and artificial hackwork done by the numbers. But fun. However, they are now at best quaint, in most cases ("Roads" stands out a bit more, but only just). And this certainly wasn't decided by the academics, as practically none of the writers of that circle were considered by them to be anything but trash -- but there are those who have stood the test of time: Lovecraft, Howard, Smith, Kuttner, Moore.... It is only in the last 20 years or so that academics have considered them worth even a glance at all; and there's still a long, hard slog ahead before they are viewed as anything more than a "literary underworld". Some won't make it. Others will. It depends on how much they continue to resonate with readers as time goes by.

Again, this is not literary snobbery -- this is the cold, hard truth of the matter. I will hate to see some of my favorites become forgotten (many already have); but it will happen, and I'm pretty good at being able to detect which is which, by dint of reading broadly in many different fields, and constantly trying to broaden even more.

There is also a vast difference between writing beautifully, and being self-indulgent. I've no patience with the latter, but I admire the former. And there are plenty of tales which are not plot-based, but which are among the great works of literature; from the prose-poem and vignette to the character study, to the "slice-of-life", to the study of mood, to... And those require subtleties and ambiguities, as they attempt to capture something very delicate and nuanced in a medium which is often refractory at best.

Originally Posted by Marvolo

Popular fiction often comes under fire from folks like you J. D., who feel that they are above it because so many people read and enjoy it. When all is said and done, that is what resonates with people the most. They read the newest King book and enjoy talking about it with their fellow workers and family. Or they go out at midnight along with millions of other people to buy the new Harry Potter book and read it along with their kids. These are the experiences that truely masterful authors bring us.

Again, an assumption -- quite off-the-beam -- is being made here. I do not bash popular fiction because it's popular. I go after bad writing, slipshod writing, writing that is poor because the writer simply didn't take the time to learn their craft well, or because they became lazy, or didn't know how to edit themselves to trim the fat (one of King's worst vices, frankly), etc. Now, while I'm no fan of Stephen King, I have read and enjoyed some of his work. King is a good storyteller -- sometimes a wonderful storyteller -- but he is only intermittently a good writer. However, my only real complaint with King is that I've seen him do some things that are remarkably fine, and I'd simply like to see him do so more often.

I firmly believe that JKR and SK will never descend to a minor footnote in the literary history, unless folks like you get to decide. We all need to remember that the definition of mastery is decided not by the millions who read and enjoy these books, but by the few who dislike them but run literature departments at colleges or write insultingly critical reviews to attempt to bring down these successful masters.

And this is a species of inverted snobbery. Yes, there are snooty academics such as you describe. There are also no few who are quite willing to give popular literature as much of a chance as any "high-brow" stuff you care to name, because they recognize that there's always potential for greatness to emerge at any level. And, once again, your model of such being the ones who decide what becomes "literature" and what doesn't, is 'way off-base. Again, it is the readers of succeeding generations, to whom the work continues to speak, that make that call.

This is the sort of snobbery that I talked about in my previous posts, firmly illustrated and of course well thought out. In the end, all it says is this: JKR can't be a master because my less intelligent co-worker, or perhaps my twelve year old son, or perhaps my boss who I find a dullard, enjoyed it. IF THEY ENJOYED IT AND I CONDONE SUCH WORK I MIGHT BE LIKE THEM. But I can't be like them, I'm smarter than them.

This has nothing to do with being smarter than anyone... it may have to do with exposure to more types of literature, and a willingness to read any sort of literature as long as it interests me, regardless of whether it's high-brow or low. A good example would be Neil R. Jones, with his "Professor Jameson" stories, from the sf pulps. I love those old stories -- they charm the socks off me. They're also (to be brutally honest) complete b.s. They're popcorn, and have about as much value to the system. But I enjoy carnivals and fun-house rides, too. I just recognize that such things aren't anywhere near the level of quality of a Beethoven symphony (albeit I'm not really that fond of Beethoven, either) or even a music score by Bernard Herrmann or Jerry Goldsmith. And intelligence has little to do with age... I've known kids that could run rings round me where intelligence is concerned. It's experience of which I have had more than they, and even that gap will narrow with time. Besides -- kids (not yet thinking inside the box) often have marvelous insights into things that adults miss. So I don't disparage their taste, either. I do, however, recognize that their experience is less, and their level of ability to discriminate is less highly developed -- but will grow more so, the more they mature.

So, once again, I would caution you to not jump to such conclusions about someone's taste or opinions because they differ from you. Take into account that they may well have a broader, deeper base for comparison in this area (just as you may have in some other areas, where I would be out of my depth). My opinions are solidly based on literary history, not my own likes or dislikes, and have nothing to do with snobbery, but experience and slow, hard acquirement of learning.

[Lith]

Often the greatest part of a work -- that with the most relevance to succeeding generations -- are the very things a writer is least conscious of putting into his or her work; these are the things that resonate the most because they are below conscious thought and touch on those subterranean streams of emotion we are often not aware of...

(Emphasis mine)

Ironically, this works directly against an author's mastery of writing. There's something in both longevity and immediate popularity that simply defies explanation, as there are some seldom-read authors that are masterful, and yet for one reason or another, are not as well known as others. And some popular authors without much artistic value do remain popular. Whether JKR becomes one of them, we'll find out.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Lith

Ironically, this works directly against an author's mastery of writing. There's something in both longevity and immediate popularity that simply defies explanation, as there are some seldom-read authors that are masterful, and yet for one reason or another, are not as well known as others. And some popular authors without much artistic value do remain popular. Whether JKR becomes one of them, we'll find out.

No, not really. Mastery also includes those unconscious elements -- because the unconscious element is the initial writing. The mastery aspect is not only the initial writing, where all those elements are brought together by the unconscious combining numerous elements by a sort of "instinct, but the "feeling" (for reasons which the writer may or may not be able to describe in detail) upon doing editing that these elements belong or not, and how better to improve the phrasing and presentation of them. Again, they're often acting on things that rely on unconscious observations and a deep, unconscious understanding of emotions and motivations, of the human condition, rather than things they could clearly explain, even if closely questioned on these things.

[Lith]

I don't know that I would attach the word mastery to unconscious or semi-conscious instincts, because it implies control over the subject, and control and understanding go together. If it's half-understood, then it's only half-controlled. If it "feels right" then I wouldn't really consider it unconscious, just half-understood.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Lith

I don't know that I would attach the word mastery to unconscious or semi-conscious instincts, because it implies control over the subject, and control and understanding go together. If it's half-understood, then it's only half-controlled. If it "feels right" then I wouldn't really consider it unconscious, just half-understood.

We may be talking at cross-purposes. Let me try explaining it this way: The writer may not (frequently isn't) sure why something is effective, but knows it is. They can't explain it, but their experience plus their writer's "instincts" (their understanding of people's motivations and emotions, itself often not consciously explored) acts as a gauge to let them know whether this is effective or not. However, when it comes to editing, a conscious choice is made whether or not to leave that in the text, or to rewrite, recast, or otherwise alter it (by means of shifting punctuation, which can entirely alter not only emphasis but subtleties of meaning and association, conveying a different idea, from vaguely to completely different). Once again, the choice they make is something that very few could sit down and explain without giving it considerably more thought -- if then; but they do know it works, and know which works best. Therefore, there are an enormous number of unconscious factors at work here... just as with manipulative behaviors we all see in our daily lives: most people aren't even consciously aware when they're indulging in such; these are things they picked up over the years on a nonverbal, even preverbal level, but which worked for them. There was little or no conscious acknowledgment of such, but it registers on a much more primal level. So with a lot of the writer's instincts: They have a feel for what strikes a chord with people because of their experience with people, but it is seldom ever thought out consciously... yet it guides their work. The better an understanding they have on that emotional level, and the better they are able to convey it by use of language, the more effective they are, and therefore the more masterful.

I'm afraid that that's true in just about any field that requires any creativity. There's a lot that's conscious, but an enormous amount that is unconscious yet no less (in fact often more) important in such work; that's the way human psychology works -- the vast amount of our thinking is below the conscious level; the psychology behind art (even the world's masterpieces) is no different. Even Lovecraft, who was a painstaking craftsman who debated with himself over practically every word (not only the particular word, but its placement in relation to every other word within a text), who constantly sought the mot propre, acknowledged that fact. So did Cornell Woolrich, who was much the same. The choice of metaphor, of coloring, of particular descriptive phrases, etc., come almost unbidden on first writing, and a conscious choice is made to refine them on editing ... but the reasons why such a particular choice is made would, in the majority of cases, escape the writer without what amounts practically to a psychoanalytic session (or several such sessions). The conscious choice is there, but is guided by numerous unconscious factors. Yet, the more ability one has in that area as well as the conscious ones, the more one has a mastery of one's craft.

[The Pelagic Argosy]

Yesterday, I read in the latest edition of Wired magazine a blurb about J.K. Rowling. It described her as: "The first person on the planet to become a billionaire by writing books." And Forbes magazine calls her the second richest female entertainer in the world, behind Oprah Winfrey.

Rowling's detractors all have their pet theories as to why she, ahem, "sucks." Harry Potter is unoriginal, full of cliches and plot holes. The characters are annoying. The books are underwritten, or possibly overwritten. Rowling just can't hold a candle to this writer or that.

So where are the theories explaining why, with the possible exception of God, she is the most successful writer since the invention of papyrus? (I can hear you "literary snobs" scoffing at my definition of success, favoring the unsophisticated gauges of popularity and money over artistic merit. But please humor me for a moment.)

So what was Rowling's secret formula for success? I'd like to know because, if I can't be a masterful writer, I'd like at least like to console myself in a mansion.

Before the Harry Potter phenomenon, conventional wisdom stated that you don't become a best seller by writing either children's literature or fantasy. Safer bets would have been romance, horror, courtroom dramas, or something with dinosaurs or vampires. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was rejected several times before it was published...and with good reason. It was a gamble.

So, apparently, Rowling did not jump on the "wizard school" craze that was sweeping the children's fantasy shelves during the mid '90s. What was it then?

It must be the romance the permeated the pages of Philosopher's Stone. No? Hmmm...All the cool graphic violence that makes video games so popular? The sex? The car chases? Bisexual vampires?

The theory that she is a hack who got lucky by luring the masses with some sensationalistic drek doesn't hold up.

So what was her secret then? Here's my theory. Harry Potter does not, in fact, suck. Rowling's style is engaging. The characters are well drawn. It's suspenseful. It's just the right mix of humor, horror, romance, suspense, whimsy, myth, and teen angst. (There's even courtroom drama, if you count the scene in Order of the Phoenix where Harry is questioned by the ministry. No bisexual vampires, but then, that's been done to death.)

I know it's radical, but this is my working definition of "good writing."