What I really love about Stephen King's criticism is that he doesn't invalidate her success - he acknowledges that she appeals to a particular set of feelings in her audience that the audience likes to indulge. So it's not like "yeah, she didn't write about anything deep and meaningful so she sucks," it's "yeah, she touched a human place in her audience, and that's great for her and bravo for her success, but it doesn't mean she's a great writer." Whereas JKR can both appeal to that human place, and write your socks off.
Because that's what I think frustrates me most about SMeyer's fans. She's like the BEST WRITER EVER OMG because I LOOOVED her books and that automatically makes you a great writer.
Bull - it makes her a popular writer, but that doesn't mean she's a good writer. Just like there are plenty of really good writers who will never be popular. And that's okay, if that was what you aimed for, but dude, own it either way (which SMeyer kind of does, actually, I think she knows the writing isn't very good, but she got her story out there and that was what mattered to her, but her fans, not so much).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-02-04 03:50 pm (UTC)Because that's what I think frustrates me most about SMeyer's fans. She's like the BEST WRITER EVER OMG because I LOOOVED her books and that automatically makes you a great writer.
Bull - it makes her a popular writer, but that doesn't mean she's a good writer. Just like there are plenty of really good writers who will never be popular. And that's okay, if that was what you aimed for, but dude, own it either way (which SMeyer kind of does, actually, I think she knows the writing isn't very good, but she got her story out there and that was what mattered to her, but her fans, not so much).
::falls off soapbox, sprains ankle:: Oops.