It doesn't to me! Of course there are shoddy children's books ...
Sure. But I do strongly think it's still 'easier' to write a 'childrens' book than that for adults. And I think part of Rowling's failings is that she doesn't have the brains/temperament to deal in the 'logic' and substance that's required of the latter.
They both require smarts, but there's more required of an adult book than that for a child, IMO.
What many of us think of books 1-3 is that they were "edited". Books 4-7, and especially books 6 and 7, don't seem to have been.
Yes, I strongly agree; that's been a sub-topic of discussion about the failings of DH in particular. Rowling did have an editor ... just one, I think. Or maybe a token one on the other side of the Atlantic. That was highlighted in the press hoopla with regard to the whole 'secrecy' of the book, only 3-4 got to read it - Rowling, the managers in the UK and USA, the sole editor, something like that.
In all of her interviews and press releases it was clear that Rowling was 'going it alone' in writing her books - she resisted assistance from any other source. I do think that was actually cited in an interview or two, or at least certainly implied in her various "Harry is mine", "I write what I want to read" and other utterances. I wish I could remember the exact quotes, they really did show that the books were 100% Rowling. Those long years between books, it was just Rowling sitting there and going it alone.
And that single editor ... she spoke up once or twice, they interviewed her. And her examples of her 'editing' were more along the lines of a 'continuity girl' in a film ... checking that a classroom hadn't moved between books, things like that.
But when it came to 'real' editing, someone sitting down and saying "uh, Jo, you're really breaking the barriers on the last-minute dei ex machina for this book, and the brand new wand lore actually doesn't work, plus it contradicts your earlier books (yes, Jo, I know you don't re-read your own books), and by the way the plot sucks :-)" ... there was nothing. And Rowling was too big to have any such editing forced on her. More's the pity.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 11:15 pm (UTC)Sure. But I do strongly think it's still 'easier' to write a 'childrens' book than that for adults. And I think part of Rowling's failings is that she doesn't have the brains/temperament to deal in the 'logic' and substance that's required of the latter.
They both require smarts, but there's more required of an adult book than that for a child, IMO.
What many of us think of books 1-3 is that they were "edited". Books 4-7, and especially books 6 and 7, don't seem to have been.
Yes, I strongly agree; that's been a sub-topic of discussion about the failings of DH in particular. Rowling did have an editor ... just one, I think. Or maybe a token one on the other side of the Atlantic. That was highlighted in the press hoopla with regard to the whole 'secrecy' of the book, only 3-4 got to read it - Rowling, the managers in the UK and USA, the sole editor, something like that.
In all of her interviews and press releases it was clear that Rowling was 'going it alone' in writing her books - she resisted assistance from any other source. I do think that was actually cited in an interview or two, or at least certainly implied in her various "Harry is mine", "I write what I want to read" and other utterances. I wish I could remember the exact quotes, they really did show that the books were 100% Rowling. Those long years between books, it was just Rowling sitting there and going it alone.
And that single editor ... she spoke up once or twice, they interviewed her. And her examples of her 'editing' were more along the lines of a 'continuity girl' in a film ... checking that a classroom hadn't moved between books, things like that.
But when it came to 'real' editing, someone sitting down and saying "uh, Jo, you're really breaking the barriers on the last-minute dei ex machina for this book, and the brand new wand lore actually doesn't work, plus it contradicts your earlier books (yes, Jo, I know you don't re-read your own books), and by the way the plot sucks :-)" ... there was nothing. And Rowling was too big to have any such editing forced on her. More's the pity.