Rowling's Latest Book - 7 Copies in Print

[Andy]

http://omg.yahoo.com/rowling-completes-post-harry-potter-book/news/3619

She's gone and written a book called Tales of Beedle the Bard, which is the book Dumbledore leaves Harry for clues as to the Horcrux locations. My question is: why write something if you're only going to print 7 copies??

[Imelda]

I thought that was an ACTUAL book? WAAAAAAAAAH! Now I want it, but I'm not rich yet. *Sobs*

Actually, she's now starting to bug me a bit. Dumbledore didn't do it, but this and suing an unofficial guide guy really annoys me ...

[Carraka]

Only seven copies. I've just been split again.

-rages-

She should have kept that one a secret. The unofficial guide thing also annoys me. Ahr.

[Andy]

Yeah, I mean, what does she have to lose if that guide gets published? Money? :D

[secretly-broken]

I'm annoyed now. -_- I want that book.

[Andy]

Really, why did she even make the news about the book public? Is she trying to poke fun at everyone who would go and buy it?

[secretly-broken]

Probably. She wants all her fans to suffer...

[Carraka]

Well, since she's auctioning off a copy, I guess it has to be public.

[Ichigo]

As if she isn't already rich enough....that's so irritating! $62,000 I mean COME ON!

Well at least it's for charity...but she could've easily made MANY copies and made even more...

[Nyx]

Ouch that number of dollars is outrageous..

[Ichigo]

I know eh. It's bogus! But I really want a copy now....:rolleyes:

[Shaun]

I'm just going to post the text from my post on this very subject from my blog...because it sums up my feelings about her real good.

More Reason Why I Hate J. K. Rowling
You'd think it would be incredibly hard to do, but J. K. Rowling has once again pissed me off by doing something that no respectable writer would do in her position. You can find the story here.
The short version is that Rowling is going to publish seven copies of a new book called The Tales of Beedle the Bard. Yes, only seven. We'll get back to that in a minute. Six copies are going to her friends and family, and the last copy is going to be put up for auction for charity--the bid starts at $62,000. Okay, now the only good side to this is that she's raising money for kids. Here is my problem.

You are the richest damn person in England and practically the richest woman in the whole freaking world. So, instead of saying "thank you fans for making me filthy stinking rich" you're going to take a nice dump right in the face of everyone that supported you by not making this book accessible to everyone. Gee, thanks Rowling. I appreciate it. I mean, goodness, I spend over $200 of my hard earned money buying your books, reading them, and then spending another $300 going to the movies and buying them on DVD. But, your reward to me as your fan is to slap me in the face and make what could be a very interesting reading experience impossible.
Now hold on before you think I'm a horrible grumpy man ignoring that she's donating to charity. Take this into account. What if Rowling had simply gone to her publisher, who presumably wouldn't think twice about this, and said "I'd like to publish this book from the HP series, but I don't want any royalties. All royalties should go to such-and-such charity"? Think about that. The publisher gets its profit and that little charity gets millions of dollars to help kids in Europe. The seventh HP book sold millions of copies. We can assume that a couple million would be sold of this other book. If 1$ from every purchase goes to unfortunate kids, that's easily a million dollars, if not more. If she donated her advance too, which would probably be considerable anyway, just imagine? So not only is she spitting in the face of her fans, she's also spitting in the face of all those unfortunate kids in Europe by telling them "well, I don't care enough about you to actually do something that could bring you considerable money".
So, Rowling has spit in the face of gay people, spit in the face of fans (twice), and now spit in the face of unfortunate European children. Congrats Rowling, you earn the Worst Person of the Month Award. Keep it up and you might get Worst Person of the Year.


Yeah...

[Andy]

*Thanks Shaun*

I really wish that last paragraph you posted wasn't true, but unfortunately it is...

[Shaun]

Yes, I'm really rather livid with her because as far as I am concerned, at this moment, she doesn't deserve her success. She's using her influence poorly.

[Guessed]

I'm not a big fan of Rowling. Frankly I thought the last few Harry Potter books were so awkward that I can hardly even consider them part of the whimsical, happy-go-lucky series I grew up with. But I don't see anything really wrong with this new development. She acts pretentiously about her work, but that's only because she has the right, seeing as the HP franchise attracted countless people to books.
So she decided to write this children's book and didn't release it to the general public? So what? Undoubtedly the press was bumbling over one another to report on this, so you can't call this off as a contemptuous action against her fans.
"So, Rowling has spit in the face of gay people..." Wait, she did something anti-gay? o.0 I actually didn't read any articles on that Dumbledore thing, so I wouldn't know. But from what I heard she just offhandedly dubbed him gay in an interview. It's her work, she can do what she wants with it. Frustrating to us, maybe, but not deserving of the "Worst Person of the Month Award". :P

[Nyx]

It's her work, she can do what she wants with it. Frustrating to us, maybe, but not deserving of the "Worst Person of the Month Award". :P

I can't agree. Yes, it's her work and she can do what she wants with it but to what extent? She knows that everything she does influences her fans, when you have fans you have responsibilities and she isn't being responsable.

[Shaun]

First off, without her FANS she wouldn't exist in our world of writing. She would still be on welfare. It's because of us, her fans, that she has the millions of dollars she has. It's because of us that she was able to publish all seven books, was able to have the movies made, etc. Without us fans, she would have nothing but a dusty manuscript. So, when she does things like this by not releasing the book to everyone she shits, yes I'm using that word, on all her fans' faces. She is shitting on us. That's what she's doing. She's telling us "you're not important enough for me to care that you would really want to read this book, you're not important enough for me to care about the fact that without you I would be nothing". Not to mention that the whole charity thing is a bunch of crap. The one person who could truly affect charity income decides not to go the route that would please everyone all at once.
Sorry, she's getting worst person of the month. If it was me, I would have gone to my publisher and donated my royalties to charity. End of story. My fans would get a new book to drool over, and thousands of sick little kids in Europe would get proper care. Everyone is happy.
She's just being a jerk.

And the whole gay thing, yeah I wrote a post on my blog about that too...

[Imelda]

Well I still don't see a problem with Dumbledore being gay, and I don't understand what all the fuss is about ...

But yeah, this whole auction thing ... Shaun's solution would have been the best idea.

[Shadow]

As everyone else did, well most, I agree with Shaun. But how is Dumbledore gay, really?

[Shaun]

The problem with Dumbly being gay is that it wasn't written in the books. Rowling telling us he was gay after the fact basically says that she's a crappy writer because it wouldn't have been hard to put it in the book. Also, people are all getting excited because it's a big step in the right direction for gays, when it's actually going backwards. How exactly is it a good move for gay rights to have a character that is gay that a) hides the fact that he's gay, a.k.a. is ashamed to be gay, and b) is not expressed as being gay in the books. Sorry, but if a character is supposed to be gay, write it. Don't leave it out because you're afraid you won't sell books. It's cowardly and pathetic. It's all just P.C. bullcrap and media grubbing. There are plenty of books already that involve homosexual characters in high positions, so why Rowling decided to hide the fact in this way makes me think that she really never thought of Dumbly as gay, she just made it up to get people even more excited. Not to mention, SHE HATES EROTIC FAN FIC! If you hate it, why the bloody hell would you release information that is going to spawn hundreds of thousands of naughty, erotic, dirty gay Dumbly fan fic?

See? I don't buy it. I love the books, but I think Rowling is a disgrace to writers everywhere.

[Eve]

Seriously, $62,000 is not a big sum. I bet most of us could afford it. It'd be just like spending one cent. Oh, come on! Who under the whole wide world would buy a book for $62000?

[Andy]

Well, The Tales of Beedle the Bard has been finally sold. You can read a good deal about it and its contents here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=amb_link_6059972_2?ie=UTF8&docId=1000179911&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-0&pf_rd_r=13RAFHHSS9ESZGFEDY0W&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=340739801&pf_rd_i=507846

[Shaun]

And this is my response to all the idiots praising her:
First off, anyone praising Rowling for this move is being a complete idiot. $4 million (roughly) dollars to a charity is nothing compared to what she could have pulled in if she had decided not to be an evil, heartless, callous, and vile human being, which she has proven to be over and over again in these last couple of years in her actions worldwide not only to 'protect' her works, but to just shove her presence in the faces of her fans.
Her FANS are the reason anyone gives a flying fig about her. Without her fans, she would still be some welfare mother living in England struggling to survive. Without her fans she wouldn't be the richest woman in England. This is a nice "well screw you" to all her fans. What would have been the harm in doing the following?:
She could have gone to her publisher and said "I'd like to print a new book", and the publisher would have been super excited because that means lots of money for them. Then Rowling could say "I want all my royalties and advances to go directly to such and such charity" and the publisher could go "well that's a good PR move and your fans will be excited".
The result? Well Deathly Hallows sold at least 11 million copies, and probably a lot more. The only figures I could find were for 11. Now, Rowling probably gets around 15% in royalty payments since she is a big-selling author. A hardback of this book could be sold for say, $20, just to be conservative, and since it's for charity it's okay to mark up the price a bit for a small book. Do the math and you get $33 million.
That's a lot more than the measley four that Rowling actually gave.
This is selfish PR crap. If she cared about those European kids she would have used her intelligent brain to think of the better solution.

And Rowling hasn't given any of us anything other than a good read. She owes thank yous to all of us for making her filthy rich. Without us, she would be a nobody. I think some people think too highly of Rowling. She's a horrible human being. Just admit it and we'll all be better off.

People are also forgetting that if Rowling wanted to give $4 million to charity, she could have done it out of her own pocket. She's rich enough. This is all a load of bologna and just more examples of why Rowling doesn't deserve to be where she is because she lacks the class to be a big-time author.

[Andy]

Not only that, Shaun, but JK Rowling is a pagan witch! :D According to some of the comments on amazon. :rolleyes:

I think a much better business move, borrowing from Shaun, would be to mass-publish it, and then make a few hand-written awesome-looking copies, if she was so intent on doing so. Granted, it looks cool, but slapping all her fans in the face like this, just to give $4 million to a charity which she helped create, and could easily donate out of her pocket to, isn't worth it at all.

[Imelda]

She really should have published it. I mean, it's all very well writing a small book and doing it for charity, but as you've said, she'd've made far more by publishing it, AND there wouldn't be this miniature clique with access to the book. Amazon have said they're going to tour it round schools and stuff ... which makes it worse because kids will see it AND WON'T BE ALLOWED TO READ IT! It's crazy. And it annoys me. And she might be moving off my favourite books shelf because of it. Philip Pullman got kicked off for being an arrogant pig ... Rowling's going the same way, to be replaced by Catherine Webb and Alison Croggon, methinks.

Shame on her. :P

[Shaun]

Rowling is evil, end of story.

[Nyx]

Aw...but the pictures look so nice and so does the book, I want to read it so bad...:(

[Steak-Ums]

Books with that much artwork, usually don't have the plot to back it up...I never did like HP, and doubt I'd read BB even if I got a free copy.

[Nyx]

You didn't like Harry Potter?:O -dies from shock-

[Shaun]

Well another thing that irritates me about this whole book thing is that it wouldn't be all that hard for her to offer up a digital version of this book to the public, for free. If she's really not interested in turning it into some mass market paperback, then at least give her fricken fans a bone on this. The fans are what made her rich, not her publisher, not her friends, not anyone. Without us, her fans, she would be nothing. I don't think people realize how brutal the publishing business is. If Rowling's first book hadn't sold enough to earn out her advance, she likely would have been dropped by the publisher without even a tear. She would have disappeared off the writing market and that would have been it. And the chances of her books not selling well at all were so astronomically high that her success is nothing more than pure luck. She managed to hit the market at the right time, with the right book...

Without the fans...none of her success would exist...

[Eve]

How very true, Shaun. It's really sad to see that the last book has just been sold, 4 million dollars just for being lied at. The stories aren't even true and people are paying millions just to get their hands on it.

[Crocolyle]

I hate to disagree - but so what? First off, she was right to not include Dumbledore's homosexuality in the books. I'm not against homosexuality - I have some gay friends and support gay marriage - but don't think it belongs in a children's book, especially a book that will be read by 10- and 11-year-olds. Secondly, none us know her personally, so what right do we have to judge her? Even if we did know her personally, I don't think we'd have a right to judge her. You can self-righteously dub her the worst person of the month, but it's not like she's murdered anyone. Maybe there was a reason she didn't want it to be published. We don't know and it's unfair to make such assumptions.

And honestly, she's not a disgrace to writers. It's not like she plagiarized so much that that her mere references to popular speculative fiction have moved past mere allusions (like she creates a character that has the name of for the messiah in Frank Herbert's DUNE series, except spelled backward). She outs a main character and her charity isn't good enough in your eyes. How does that disgrace our craft? It barely has anything to do with the product.

[Shaun]

Writers have a responsibility once they become published that goes beyond writing. That's the way it is. They have an obligation to keep fans happy and to maintain a positive appearance in the media. Rowling is failing to do this.
Children should be exposed to reality, because they live in reality. Literature has a moral obligation to address issues appropriately, and writers have an obligation to do their jobs. Rowling admitted that she couldn't do her job as a writer when she just randomly made Dumbledore gay. If she intended to have him be gay it should have been in the books. Obviously Dumbledore's sexuality isn't important enough to be written about, but either way children are exposed to homosexuality, so the whole "it shouldn't be in the book" stuff doesn't count anymore.
And we all have a right to judge as we see fit. Otherwise none of us can ever get upset when a politician does something wrong, or when someone else does wrong because if we don't judge them for those actions we won't affect change.

And no, her charity isn't enough for me because if you have the means to do more, you should do it. The fact that she didn't tells me she doesn't really care that much. It's just another PR stunt to keep herself in the limelight. Sooner or later she's going to sue someone for saying "Harry Potter" at a PTA meeting...

[Steak-Ums]

Shaun Ftw.

She was in it for the money, otherwise she would've just published it, and turned in all the profits to charity.

[Crocolyle]

Writers don't have a obligation to keep fans happy. If that were true, Herman Melville could never have written and published Moby Dick, now critically acclaimed as one of the best novels of the 19th century. Fans were offended that it wasn't a mere, frivolous adventure tale, like his earlier novels. Oscar Wilde's A Picture of Dorian Gray was considered pornographic in its time. Even though writers owe their success to fans, they don't have any obligation to them. Aren't you the one against writers who write merely as a commercial entity?

Writers don't have any moral obligation, especially not a moral obligation to address issues appropriately. Often by portraying issues such as homosexuality realistically or appropriately they alienate their fans and make them unhappy, actually going against the responsibility you have assigned them.

The only obligation a writer has is this: to write what he or she wants, the way he or she wants to. And only the individual writer whether or not they fulfilled their obligation.

No, we do not have a write to judge the integrity of someone's character. It is immoral to do so. How would you like if I used any one action of yours to create a judgement about your character? Let he without sin cast the first stone. I think it's immoral to do that to politicians and religious leaders, though more acceptable because you do realize politicians are the ones who create policies that can affect your day-to-day life.

You also forgot that she did publish two books entirely for charity (Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them). 80% of the cover price went directly to the Comic Relief organization, ultimately raising 15.7 million pounds.

[Shaun]

Writers don't have a obligation to keep fans happy. If that were true, Herman Melville could never have written and published Moby Dick, now critically acclaimed as one of the best novels of the 19th century. Fans were offended that it wasn't a mere, frivolous adventure tale, like his earlier novels. Oscar Wilde's A Picture of Dorian Gray was considered pornographic in its time. Even though writers owe their success to fans, they don't have any obligation to them. Aren't you the one against writers who write merely as a commercial entity?

Umm, maybe I should be more specific. Writers TODAY have an obligation to keep fans happy. Back in the day the publishing industry wasn't at all like it is today. You used to get published based entirely upon literary merit, for the most part, whereas a lot of mediocre (from a writing perspective) work is published.
Yes, I am against writers who write as a commercial entity, which is what Rowling is doing. Writing for your fans is entirely different, especially since she could have mass produced this new book in a lower quality version and still kept everyone happy and kicking. And she could have given all her royalties to charity, which would take away the commercial side of things because she wouldn't be writing to earn money for herself, but to earn money for someone that needs it.
You write for yourself first, you write for others second, and you write for the market last. If the first is met and the second is met, then you shouldn't have to worry about three at all. If you jump straight to three you don't deserve to be published.

Writers don't have any moral obligation, especially not a moral obligation to address issues appropriately. Often by portraying issues such as homosexuality realistically or appropriately they alienate their fans and make them unhappy, actually going against the responsibility you have assigned them.

Then don't bring up the issue after the fact. If you aren't going to write about it, then don't bring it up as if it were always there from the beginning. Dumbledore wasn't gay until she said "well, even though the books are written, he's gay". Writers also have a responsibility to do their jobs as writers, especially writers like Rowling.

No, we do not have a write to judge the integrity of someone's character. It is immoral to do so. How would you like if I used any one action of yours to create a judgement about your character? Let he without sin cast the first stone. I think it's immoral to do that to politicians and religious leaders, though more acceptable because you do realize politicians are the ones who create policies that can affect your day-to-day life.

You do realize we judge people all the time in this country, regardless of religious affiliation, right? If it is immoral then all of us on this planet are going to hell because we judge all the time.
That and I don't believe in the Bible, so that argument doesn't work on me at all. I'll judge people all I want, because it's human nature to do so. We judge all the time and always will judge.
And you can judge me all you want. That's fine. You have the right to do so. You might be very wrong, but you can certainly judge. And I won't call you immoral for doing so. It's not harming me personally, so to me it's not a sin or immoral or anything of that nature. I get judged all the time. I still smile every day and enjoy life.

You also forgot that she did publish two books entirely for charity (Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them). 80% of the cover price went directly to the Comic Relief organization, ultimately raising 15.7 million pounds.

All this proves is that in this instance, she really doesn't care. She obviously KNOWS how to bring in the most money for her charities, and she made the decision not to do that. If you have the means to affect change, then do it. Don't just stop because it's convenient.

[Crocolyle]

Umm, maybe I should be more specific. Writers TODAY have an obligation to keep fans happy. Back in the day the publishing industry wasn't at all like it is today. You used to get published based entirely upon literary merit, for the most part, whereas a lot of mediocre (from a writing perspective) work is published.

That is untrue. Haven't you heard of any Dime Novels and Penny Dreadfuls from the 1800s and early 1900s? And even though Cooper, whose Leatherstocking Tales created the archetypal western hero, is still read, his writing is not of incredible literary merit. The publishing industry has always relied on stories of little literary merit. Also the introduction of the novel was actually first seen as the decline of society, oddly enough. Sure, we to this day read the novels of literary merit from "back in the day," but that doesn't mean that all books from that time were good. There were plenty of terrible ones.


Yes, I am against writers who write as a commercial entity, which is what Rowling is doing. Writing for your fans is entirely different, especially since she could have mass produced this new book in a lower quality version and still kept everyone happy and kicking. And she could have given all her royalties to charity, which would take away the commercial side of things because she wouldn't be writing to earn money for herself, but to earn money for someone that needs it.
You write for yourself first, you write for others second, and you write for the market last. If the first is met and the second is met, then you shouldn't have to worry about three at all. If you jump straight to three you don't deserve to be published.

By not selling this book to her fans makes her a commercial entity? And she has always wrote what she wanted to the way she wanted to - or then she's lying in her interviews. She goes into detail about how parents have attacked her for the dark nature and themes of her books (such as a time when a parent didn't like the ending of the the third book and wrote, "I'm sure you can think of a better ending for your next book" and Rowling said that they are her books and she will write them the way she wants to.)


Then don't bring up the issue after the fact. If you aren't going to write about it, then don't bring it up as if it were always there from the beginning. Dumbledore wasn't gay until she said "well, even though the books are written, he's gay". Writers also have a responsibility to do their jobs as writers, especially writers like Rowling.

He is her character. I personally don't think she should have outed Dumbledore, but she can say what she wants about her characters and she did not bring it up, someone asked her about Dumbledore's romantic past and she gave an answer. And, if you had read the 7th book clearly, it was relatively obvious Dumbledore had a crush on Grindelwald. There was also a reference that the wizarding world suspected it - evident in Rita Skeeter's biography. Rita Skeeter wrote a chapter about Dumbledore and Harry having a gay love affair.


You do realize we judge people all the time in this country, regardless of religious affiliation, right? If it is immoral then all of us on this planet are going to hell because we judge all the time.
That and I don't believe in the Bible, so that argument doesn't work on me at all. I'll judge people all I want, because it's human nature to do so. We judge all the time and always will judge.
And you can judge me all you want. That's fine. You have the right to do so. You might be very wrong, but you can certainly judge. And I won't call you immoral for doing so. It's not harming me personally, so to me it's not a sin or immoral or anything of that nature. I get judged all the time. I still smile every day and enjoy life.

Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right. People all over the country kill, steal, and cheat because those, unfortunately, are aspects of human nature. I am an athiest myself, but I do still believe there is some wisdom in the teachings of the Bible. If I may digress, it is important for someone in the west to be familiar with the Bible in order to understand the allusions and archetypes used in literature.

On a side note, none of us personally know J. K. Rowling, so none of us can accurately judge her person. I prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt and because I do not know her reasoning, I don't want to venture any guesses, but I guess not everyone is that kind to people they do not know.


All this proves is that in this instance, she really doesn't care. She obviously KNOWS how to bring in the most money for her charities, and she made the decision not to do that. If you have the means to affect change, then do it. Don't just stop because it's convenient.

No it doesn't. She could've auctioned the book off and not given the money to charity. It's her book, she can do what she wants with it. Maybe there's a reason she did it with those books and not with this one. Also, there isn't exactly a lot in this one - like 5 short tales based off Chaucer's.

[Shaun]

That is untrue. Haven't you heard of any Dime Novels and Penny Dreadfuls from the 1800s and early 1900s? And even though Cooper, whose Leatherstocking Tales created the archetypal western hero, is still read, his writing is not of incredible literary merit. The publishing industry has always relied on stories of little literary merit. Also the introduction of the novel was actually first seen as the decline of society, oddly enough. Sure, we to this day read the novels of literary merit from "back in the day," but that doesn't mean that all books from that time were good. There were plenty of terrible ones.

The difference is that by the standards of the literary academia, all the classics are still of literary merit, but anything published today isn't. Most everything you see today, in their eyes, is the equivalent of those dime stories. And the industry didn't rely on those sales as much as you think. The rotary press didn't get full steam until the late 1800s, so those cheap books didn't really take effect until the early 1900s when it was realized you could print a lot of books for cheaper cost and make money at it. Prior to the rotary press books were a little more difficult.



By not selling this book to her fans makes her a commercial entity? And she has always wrote what she wanted to the way she wanted to - or then she's lying in her interviews. She goes into detail about how parents have attacked her for the dark nature and themes of her books (such as a time when a parent didn't like the ending of the the third book and wrote, "I'm sure you can think of a better ending for your next book" and Rowling said that they are her books and she will write them the way she wants to.)

Why does she have to sell it? Couldn't she offer it for free online? She could put a little button on it that would donate money to her charity. Or she could offer an online version that requires a donation to get.
And I was talking about Rowling's HP series and the various things she has done that make her look like a money fiend.

He is her character. I personally don't think she should have outed Dumbledore, but she can say what she wants about her characters and she did not bring it up, someone asked her about Dumbledore's romantic past and she gave an answer. And, if you had read the 7th book clearly, it was relatively obvious Dumbledore had a crush on Grindelwald. There was also a reference that the wizarding world suspected it - evident in Rita Skeeter's biography. Rita Skeeter wrote a chapter about Dumbledore and Harry having a gay love affair.

Yes, he is her character, but what she is doing with outing Dumbledore is not only pulling a PR stunt to keep her in the limelight, but also trying to push an agenda on kids, rather than doing it the proper way and including it in the books.
And Rita Skeeter was intended to be a character nobody would believe. That's why those silly stories came from her. She was shown to make stuff up in the books, so you obviously have to take anything she says with the same seriousness you do with tabloids. Not to mention, the problem wasn't so much that Dumbly was gay, but that he was having an affair with a student. That's where the problem is.


Just because everyone does it doesn't make it right. People all over the country kill, steal, and cheat because those, unfortunately, are aspects of human nature. I am an athiest myself, but I do still believe there is some wisdom in the teachings of the Bible. If I may digress, it is important for someone in the west to be familiar with the Bible in order to understand the allusions and archetypes used in literature.

The difference between passing judgment and killing, stealing, and cheating is that passing judgment only hurts people who let it hurt them, whereas the latter hurts people even if they don't want it to. If someone kills you, that's it, you're dead, a life is lost and you felt pain. You were hurt. If someone says "you suck", well, if you're not mentally sound enough to shrug it off, then you'll be hurt by it, but that's your problem, not the person who said "you suck".
The Bible has good ideas, but it's manipulated and used for evil all the time. I don't believe it is the word of God. I've read it. It has nice little stuff in it, but it's not something I will base my life on. I use logic and reason. Logically it is wrong to kill people. Logically it is wrong to steal. Logically it isn't wrong to pass judgment. And not everyone kills, steals, cheats, rapes, etc. Most people don't.

No it doesn't. She could've auctioned the book off and not given the money to charity. It's her book, she can do what she wants with it. Maybe there's a reason she did it with those books and not with this one. Also, there isn't exactly a lot in this one - like 5 short tales based off Chaucer's.

Yes, she can do whatever she wants with her work, and I have every right to ridicule her for being selfish and hoggish. The charity auction was a joke in comparison to what could have been brought in. I'll do a little math for you.
If 11,000,000 copies of this book were to be sold at $20 each, and Rowling received a 15% royalty rate. 11,000,000 x $20 x 15% = 33 Million. Compare that to the 4 million she brought in...yeah. Chump change. I have a higher expectation for authors like Rowling, who have such a tremendous influence on people, mainly children, to act like proper role models. Rowling has so much influence she could easily have done a million different things and brought a load of money to that charity. But she didn't. She decided to make a public fiasco of the whole 7 copies thing, rather than keeping it secret, and took a route that would provide a smaller sum than a better route could provide. The mass market example makes everyone happy. But she's ignored her fans here and she's ignored innocent European children by pulling this crap. She's a terrible person in my book and wins the award for worst person of the year.

[Rafael Domination]

First of all...what's Ftw?

And next...It's obvious that she's planning something. I mean...why only severn copies? No normal author would do that...

[Shaun]

Well Rowling isn't really normal to begin with. Normal 'authors' don't really make much money from publishing their work.

[Crocolyle]

There I guess isn't much point to continue arguing, but

The difference is that by the standards of the literary academia, all the classics are still of literary merit, but anything published today isn't. Most everything you see today, in their eyes, is the equivalent of those dime stories. And the industry didn't rely on those sales as much as you think. The rotary press didn't get full steam until the late 1800s, so those cheap books didn't really take effect until the early 1900s when it was realized you could print a lot of books for cheaper cost and make money at it. Prior to the rotary press books were a little more difficult.

Somehow this has digressed to something completely off topic. I think the original question was whether or not she is obligated to keep her fans happy. I don't think she has to. You think she does (because of the way the publishing industry is today). Somehow through the digression, we ended up arguing whether the quality in books has declined from the time Moby Dick was written to the present day. And somehow, even though books of no literary merit preceded Moby Dick, because of the general mediocrity of present day writing and dependency on their readership, you feel writers are more obligated to keep their fans happy, and I don't. Difference of opinion.




Why does she have to sell it? Couldn't she offer it for free online? She could put a little button on it that would donate money to her charity. Or she could offer an online version that requires a donation to get.
And I was talking about Rowling's HP series and the various things she has done that make her look like a money fiend.

Maybe she doesn't feel it's worthy of being published. Maybe she just wants it to be something special, like a gift, for her family and the one person who bought a copy at the auction. I think it is unfair to make assumptions about someone you don't personally know. Some wealthy authors don't give any money to charity, while J. K. Rowling has contributed a significant amount of money to multiple sclerosis research and a large amount of European charities. If you feel she should give away all her money and live as a mendicant in order to be considered moral, that's fine, and you're entitled to your opinion. I don't think it's hurting anyone and I don't think it's necessarily immoral to donate some, but not all, money to charity. Yes, she can do more, but she does more than most.

Yes, he is her character, but what she is doing with outing Dumbledore is not only pulling a PR stunt to keep her in the limelight, but also trying to push an agenda on kids, rather than doing it the proper way and including it in the books.
And Rita Skeeter was intended to be a character nobody would believe. That's why those silly stories came from her. She was shown to make stuff up in the books, so you obviously have to take anything she says with the same seriousness you do with tabloids. Not to mention, the problem wasn't so much that Dumbly was gay, but that he was having an affair with a student. That's where the problem is.

I don't think it was a PR stunt. Someone asked a question and she gave an honest answer. And it's obvious from the first book that she is pushing an agenda on kids. The books are about PC, racism, slavery, and discrimination. Having Dumbledore gay, is inline with those general themes of the book, but perhaps she neglected to mention it because of the amount it would offend her readership and confuse the 10- and 11-year-old readers. When they were making the movies in fact, if I remember correctly, the screen writer wanted there to be a reference to Dumbledore having a love affair with a woman, and Rowling asked for it to be taken out. And once again, his homosexuality isn't entirely random, she alludes to it in book 7.

Many characters do believe Rita Skeeter, even though she is considered inaccurate. And mentioning a possible affair with Harry still could be indicative that there was some speculation in the wizarding community, even though Harry's age is what the community would find more offensive.




The difference between passing judgment and killing, stealing, and cheating is that passing judgment only hurts people who let it hurt them, whereas the latter hurts people even if they don't want it to. If someone kills you, that's it, you're dead, a life is lost and you felt pain. You were hurt. If someone says "you suck", well, if you're not mentally sound enough to shrug it off, then you'll be hurt by it, but that's your problem, not the person who said "you suck".
The Bible has good ideas, but it's manipulated and used for evil all the time. I don't believe it is the word of God. I've read it. It has nice little stuff in it, but it's not something I will base my life on. I use logic and reason. Logically it is wrong to kill people. Logically it is wrong to steal. Logically it isn't wrong to pass judgment. And not everyone kills, steals, cheats, rapes, etc. Most people don't.

Difference in moral opinion. But, by your logic, if something is moral as long as it doesn't physically hurt someone, Rowling has done nothing immoral at all and therefore does not qualify as worst person of the year, which was an overstatement in the first place.



Yes, she can do whatever she wants with her work, and I have every right to ridicule her for being selfish and hoggish. The charity auction was a joke in comparison to what could have been brought in. I'll do a little math for you.
If 11,000,000 copies of this book were to be sold at $20 each, and Rowling received a 15% royalty rate. 11,000,000 x $20 x 15% = 33 Million. Compare that to the 4 million she brought in...yeah. Chump change. I have a higher expectation for authors like Rowling, who have such a tremendous influence on people, mainly children, to act like proper role models. Rowling has so much influence she could easily have done a million different things and brought a load of money to that charity. But she didn't. She decided to make a public fiasco of the whole 7 copies thing, rather than keeping it secret, and took a route that would provide a smaller some than a better route could provide. The mass market example makes everyone happy. But she's ignored her fans here and she's ignored innocent European children by pulling this crap. She's a terrible person in my book and wins the award for worst person of the year.

You're absolutely right on this point I guess. Donating some money is completely meaningless if you have an opportunity to donate more, even if the majority of your donations have not been publicized at all. Everyone who does not take a vow of poverty should join the Most Immoral People of the Century Club. I look forward to seeing you - and really everyone here, myself included - at the first meeting. :D

[Shaun]

Somehow this has digressed to something completely off topic. I think the original question was whether or not she is obligated to keep her fans happy. I don't think she has to. You think she does (because of the way the publishing industry is today). Somehow through the digression, we ended up arguing whether the quality in books has declined from the time Moby Dick was written to the present day. And somehow, even though books of no literary merit preceded Moby Dick, because of the general mediocrity of present day writing and dependency on their readership, you feel writers are more obligated to keep their fans happy, and I don't. Difference of opinion.


Certainly is a difference of opinion, but the way it works in the industry is brutal. If you don't please the fans, they won't buy your books. If you don't sell books, the publisher has no obligation to keep you on. And if the fans are the people who make you rich and famous, then you have an obligation to thank them. If you don't want to please fans, don't write books for publication. Write them just for the hell of it and never let them see the light. You publish your works to get them read by people, who become fans. Since Rowling published all her works the traditional route she is obligated to please her fans.


Maybe she doesn't feel it's worthy of being published. Maybe she just wants it to be something special, like a gift, for her family and the one person who bought a copy at the auction. I think it is unfair to make assumptions about someone you don't personally know. Some wealthy authors don't give any money to charity, while J. K. Rowling has contributed a significant amount of money to multiple sclerosis research and a large amount of European charities. If you feel she should give away all her money and live as a mendicant in order to be considered moral, that's fine, and you're entitled to your opinion. I don't think it's hurting anyone and I don't think it's necessarily immoral to donate some, but not all, money to charity. Yes, she can do more, but she does more than most.

I'm not asking for her to donate all her money. I'm asking her to do what's right.
Couldn't she have offered a free online version of the book for her fans to read if she didn't want to print it out? Wouldn't that have sufficed? Her fans certainly would have been happy and nobody would have second guessed. And you keep bringing up her charitable actions, but all of that means very little to me if she does a lot of good and then suddenly stops. She doesn't have to give up all her money to charity, but if she has an option that can bring a lot of money to a charity, she should use that option, not avoid it. Saying "I care, but not enough to do something better" in the face of people that are sickly, dying, or homeless is immoral.

I don't think it was a PR stunt. Someone asked a question and she gave an honest answer. And it's obvious from the first book that she is pushing an agenda on kids. The books are about PC, racism, slavery, and discrimination. Having Dumbledore gay, is inline with those general themes of the book, but perhaps she neglected to mention it because of the amount it would offend her readership and confuse the 10- and 11-year-old readers. When they were making the movies in fact, if I remember correctly, the screen writer wanted there to be a reference to Dumbledore having a love affair with a woman, and Rowling asked for it to be taken out. And once again, his homosexuality isn't entirely random, she alludes to it in book 7.

Then she's even worse of a person I thought. "Well he's gay, but because being gay is so shameful and offensive I won't put it in the book, even though it is part of the character". That's what you're saying she did and that's unacceptable behavior for a writer. If you don't want to deal with the harsh issues, then don't, but don't bring it up later expecting that issue to be dealt with. If she didn't want it in the books, she shouldn't have mentioned it.
There is no legit allusion to Dumbly's gayness in the book. Just fanciful lunacy. And no, having Dumbly be gay wasn't inline with anything she was writing about. If anything, kids should be exposed to the gay issue more often. If parents don't like it, don't let your kids read the books. Kids aren't idiots and I don't know why people think that is true, especially not 10-11 year olds.

Many characters do believe Rita Skeeter, even though she is considered inaccurate. And mentioning a possible affair with Harry still could be indicative that there was some speculation in the wizarding community, even though Harry's age is what the community would find more offensive.

Yeah, but WE don't. We, the readers, know she's full of shit. What happened in the book isn't enough to offer true speculation on Dumbly's sexuality, and neither does it legitimize Rowling's announcement. She could have just said he was gay. That would have made things all well and good. But that never happened and the relationship with his former friend was never mentioned, which Rowling pointed out was really rather important.

Difference in moral opinion. But, by your logic, if something is moral as long as it doesn't physically hurt someone, Rowling has done nothing immoral at all and therefore does not qualify as worst person of the year, which was an overstatement in the first place.

Ah no, she has done something immoral. She's withheld the ability to provide considerable funds to help people who are suffering. So, by her actions those people are going to suffer more and more. She's hurting people as we speak.
Not to mention her continued copyright bullying that have destroyed the lives of a lot of people simply because she didn't like something they were doing that wasn't for profit. Like that festival in India she shut down by suing for the exact amount that their festival cost in the first place, which resulted in the whole thing being canceled, ruining the whole thing for a lot of people. All because they wanted a replica of Hogwarts for a bit of thematic fun. An author with morals wouldn't have done such a thing. A good author might have offered to show up and hang out for a while instead of shutting it down and ruining their lives. Especially since she practically bankrupted the town with that action.


You're absolutely right on this point I guess. Donating some money is completely meaningless if you have an opportunity to donate more, even if the majority of your donations have not been publicized at all. Everyone who does not take a vow of poverty should join the Most Immoral People of the Century Club. I look forward to seeing you - and really everyone here, myself included - at the first meeting. :D

Your health and welfare always comes first. Don't donate money if it is going to hurt your ability to survive comfortably. Rowling doesn't have that problem though. She has the means to affect serious change in the world and she is avoiding it. I just personal hate when people with power and influence squander it for personal means. Once you're in the public light there is a sense of duty there to do good. It wouldn't have taken her more than a flick of the wrist to do more.