Until now. If I'd have known the famous author actually feels weird and awkward, I would have read Rowling's books years ago. Outcasts are my thing. And what's more outcast than a famous outcast? I had avoided Rowling's work because I assumed she was another rich, famous diva. I am such an incorrigible snob I can only read popular stuff if the author feels uncomfortable in her popularity.
So, thank you Salon, for your nice tribute to a regular human being who happens to have lots of people's attention. I have much more respect for her now. Funny, my warm feeling towards Rowling's impenetrability makes me want to pay more attention to her.
Here are my favorite quotes from Mary Elizabeth William's critique of The New Yorker's profile of Rowling:
"If you can attempt to read the New Yorker story with a modicum of empathy for a very rich, famous woman with legions of obsessive fans and a British press that’s hacked her phone and camped outside her door, Rowling comes across as a human being who happens to be just as shy and vulnerable as, say, a writer."
"Maurice Sendak was notoriously cranky. Harper Lee has spent the vast majority of her life as a famous recluse. And L. Frank Baum, a man who created one of literature’s other great wizards, was in favor of exterminating the Native American population. He was not great and powerful. He was a flawed individual..."
"J. K. Rowling is not Hermione Granger or Minerva McGonagall or even Bellatrix Lestrange. She never said she was. She never promised to stay at Hogwarts forever. She is, behind the curtain, just a person, one who happens to have created a fantastic world but who remains stubbornly life-size."
How dare a famous fantasy writer act like a real human being.
I'd put a hold on The Casual Vacancy, but I'm afraid it might ruin my reputation as a bestsellerphobic librarian. I better wait a decade or so for that bandwagon to clear.
No comments:
Post a Comment