Here's an article making it seem like Warner Bros was actively courting her for the movie deal. I wish you'd source the things she says. I'm not going to feel bad for her spending millions on a country estate. I already said it's good she gives to charity but it doesn't dismiss Harry Potter as a cash cow. She's getting a good chunk out of whatever deal she gets and she's doing it largely for profit. I get the feeling you are taking it extremely personally and can't accept that.
It still seems to me like you're condemning the play just a bit too much. Maybe we can wait to see whether it's any good before saying that Rowling is just selling out to make profits?
The original post asked if people thought this was just milking the cash cow and I said it was. I already sourced why I think so from some of Rowling's actions. I think it's naive to believe that continuing the Harry Potter franchise isn't at all motivated by profit, or that other people are somehow taking advantage of a very successful author who is worth millions. Everyone loves the underdog. I'm glad at what Rowling's achieved, but she has to be savvy to have done this much. It's my opinion, so I guess I'll leave it at that since we seem to disagree.
Right. Firstly: if 'milking the cash cow,' was her only motivation then writing another book and/or letting another movie be released set in the Potterverse would have been a far easier way to do so. Compared to that, a play won't earn her nearly as much. As for the scriptbook being released, that is irritating, but seems to be a result of the thousands of people complaining that they won't get a chance to see the play as so far at least it's only being released in London. I'm more irritated that the media are constantly talking about it as another Harry Potter book, which it absolutely isn't. As far as Fantastic Beasts is concerned, somebody wants to make a movie based on a book you've already written, and there's obviously demand for it; do you say no? Rowling seems to get a lot of flack for 'milking it,' despite her actions (choosing to stay in Scotland, putting her money behind various charitable causes, etc,) proving that cash is nowhere near her main concern. It's also relevant that she's given us an awful lot of completely free content on Pottermore, which she absolutely did not have to do. One of the examples cited for her milking it is her announcing Dumbledore is gay after all the books were released. Personally, I see that more as a clarification; I at least read Deathly Hallows and the accounts of his friendship with Grindelwald and noticed that theme. I'm not sure how obviously you'd have preferred it to be included. It's not really her fault that society's default assumption is that a character is straight.
I have yet to read a harry Potter book, I think I have seen maybe one or two of the movies. I do plan on reading them, all of them someday there is just to much other stuff I want to read first.
I wouldn't prioritize it too much, unless you like Young Adult books. Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality might be worth a try if you're willing to give a well-regarded fanfic written by an extremely good writer a try. Very good points. There's nothing wrong with speculating whether it is going to be a selling out or not, and I do agree that there are a lot of people making a lot of money off of it. Just not necessarily everyone involved in the process (the author in particular). Dumbledore is gay? I think I missed that!
I'm not going to respond to the other part of your post because I've already laid out my reasoning. If you don't think converting a Harry Potter reference book into three movies isn't milking, I don't think anything I say can convince you. As for this... Because his sexuality was made to be invisible. It's never discussed, only hinted at, alluded to. Society's default assumption of "straightness" is a result of people staying in the closet and not talking about it. It's this: In fact, recently I was in a script read through for the sixth film, and they had Dumbledore saying a line to Harry early in the script saying I knew a girl once, whose hair… [laughter]. I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter, “Dumbledore’s gay!” Marginalization. It's a choice. Maybe she didn't mean anything by it, but she didn't say a word about it until after all her books were written and sold. Why?
I still think you seem to be determined to see this is as milking it rather than a fair response to a demand, and you didn't reply to my point that if she truly wanted to use Potter as a cash cow then a play would be the least efficient way to do it. However. As for your point about Dumbledore's sexuality; how on earth is it relevant? She implied his sexuality in the 6th book. Nobody is asking her to clarify any of the other characters' sexualities; those you never see with a significant other; because it's assumed that they're straight. Dumbledore's was not relevant to the plot any more than, say, Hagrid's was, so why on earth is her not including it proof that it was 'made to be invisible'?
Harry Potter is not just a play. If you can't afford the play, you buy the script. Or you go to the theme park, or buy the books, or see the DVDs, or shell out money for a reference "textbook" that's going to be milked into three movies. Pottermore made millions through e-books. There are even coloring books. You pay for one thing, you'll probably pay for something else HP related. It's called synergy. Every romance mentioned is heterosexual. From Snape's unrequited love to Hagrid's own romance, but Dumbledore had his "friendship." Readers asked if Dumbledore had ever been in love. Rowling chose to reveal his sexuality after her books were out. Let's say it doesn't matter, but if she had chosen to say something earlier she would have faced controversy. Parents could have refused to buy her book because it was questionable for them. She ended up "clarifying" at a time when it was no longer a danger to her or her publishers. Some say, too late. Rowling made a joke after revealing Dumbledore was gay: “You needed something to keep you going for the next 10 years!” Guess a lot of people do keep HP going. I like the books, but not rabid fans who think Rowling and HP are everything and try to avoid the idea that they are paying into a profitable franchise. (This is sucking all the fun out of something I mildly liked. If people want to pay for a script of a play they'll never see, go ahead. I'm done.)
But then again, if you were in Rowling's shoes, and had a cash cow to even milk, wouldn't you do it? Also, most of us authors are guilty of falling rather in love with our own characters and universes and thus creating more and more books based on them (I mean, I don't think the fact that loads of writers write series have nothing to do with this, after all). Rowling might be just still enjoying her Potter universe on top of making more money because it's like, heck, why not? I don't mind the whole milking the cow. More power to her that she has a cow to milk - most of us can only dream of that. What I do mind is when the cow is milked but the products that come afterwards are shit - 'cause that just ruins all the good and fun that made whatever it was so awesome. Anime is very guilty of this in my experience!
I giggled at that - it sounds like she took up burglary or something. My mum's a very-hard-to-please crime reader and she said the Galbraith books were okay. From her, that's pretty high praise. I read A Casual Vacancy after a couple of false starts - it's very slow to get off the ground - and thought it was very good indeed.
Hehe I was aware of the phrasing, thought it was kinda funny too What's the Vacancy one about anyway? It's such a dull title! I should try Cuckoo Calling again. My current reading of Danish Girl as well as Raising Trilingual Kids are both a little dull...
Authors would, and do, do it even without a cash cow. That's what makes the criticism misplaced, in my view. When it comes to Potter and other popular, money-making series, people just assume that the author's motivations are primarily pecuniary while not batting an eye at authors who aren't on that level, financially, who put out 20 books with the same set of characters.
I personally think those who criticise such successful authors for milking the cash are just jealous, to be honest. It's one thing being pissed off if you feel the milking is ruining the series because of crappier products, but another to just be annoyed that someone likes and wants and can get money with their work.
I'm somewhat interested in a Harry Potters sequel. It's not bad, has it's impressive elements, Snape is quite a good character for example. But there are other books I'd prefer to have sequels. The one I want to hear about is the second Half-Continent trilogy by D.M Cornish. The Monster Blood Tattoo trilogy is a little hero's journey stereotyped, but it's got such a richly described and imagined world and written with such passion that it doesn't feel as juvenile as Harry Potter. Especially since I think it does a better job with mature themes like death and politics, and the story lacks blatant logical oddities. It also has beautiful art plates in the illustrated editions, which I have. I recommend the series over Potter. I'll probably only see the Potter sequel eventually as a movie/movie series. I'd buy the fuck out of Cornish's new trilogy right now if I could.
Basically, it's about middle-england mentality and hypocrisy; a small country village with its own internal arguments, small-town power-politics and self-interested bigots coming to a head when a member of the local council dies suddenly and they all scramble to get their preferred candidate elected in his place. A "casual vacancy" is the term for when a seat on an elected body becomes suddenly available in the middle of an electoral cycle, by death, resignation, etc.
Is it being primarily done to milk the cash cow? Maybe it's to milk the publicity cow? Many authors want their latest material read and appreciated as much as possible, right? Beyond a point she might not be desperate for more cash, but still want her name and work, being talked about in the media. There's no better way to do that than use Potter. There's people in this very thread who didn't know about Rowlings other works and now do after reading a thread entitled 'Harry Potter returns'. A clear demonstration of the knock-on-publicity in action
Wow, I wonder if any of the whiners actually considered she LIKES to write harry potter books. If you want to have any success as an author you best to like the shit you are writing.
Well, yes, but there's a limit to how much you can repeat the same thing before you're sacrificing your artistic intergrity and doing what I would think would be boring. Not saying she's necessarily doing that though. If she has a good sequel idea, she had a good sequel idea. We'll see how similar it is when it comes out.
