Home > The Book Page > Archives > 2007 > November > 28 > Entry
J.K. Rowling as Entertainer of the Year
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Entertainment Weekly magazine has named author J.K. Rowling as “Entertainer of the Year,” which is pretty cool, because it’s the first time in the 17 years they’ve been doing that that they have chosen a novelist for the top spot.
The honor has gone to actors, singers, even cartoon characters (Bart Simpson), but never to an author, which indicates, really, how little influence authors have on the huge juggernaut that is the Entertainment-Industrial Complex.
EW notes all the usual numbers, like the 400 million Harry Potter books sold worldwide, and has a decent critical overview of the seven-book series, which will surely be known for years as one of the great events in both children’s literature and fantasy literature.
But here’s what caught my eye: “In an era of videogame consoles, online multiplayer “environments,” and tinier-is-better mobisodes, minisodes and webisodes, she got people to tote around big, old-fashioned, printed-on-paper books as if they were the hottest new entertainment devices on the planet.”
So hooray for books, and one more hooray for Rowling, who doesn’t need the acclaim, but deserves it nonetheless.
Here’s a link to EW’s Rowling piece online.
Did EW get it right? Is Rowling overrated as an author? What do you think?
Permalink | Comments (12) | Categories: News and Reviews
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Jeff
November 28, 2007 8:16 AM | Link to this
Personally, I feel that Rowling has ALWAYS been overrated. There have been better books out there, and always will be.
Indeed, even the infamous Without Remorse takes one on just as an emotional ride - if not more so - than anything Rowling has put out.
And I could name several other books that fit that category. (SM Stirlings T2 series, virtually anything by Sparks, and Dale Brown’s Mclanahan series come easily to mind)
What I DO applaud Rowling for is, as the indicated paragraph from EW states, at least she has “got people to tote around big, old-fashioned, printed-on-paper books as if they were the hottest new entertainment devices on the planet.”
After all, reading is ALWAYS a good thing, even if you’re reading the crap Rowling puts out.
By One
November 28, 2007 8:43 AM | Link to this
NO!!!
By RUChinaDoll
November 28, 2007 9:22 AM | Link to this
Granted, they are fanciful stories that aren’t the most well-written, but look what they’ve become. It can’t compare to Dickens, but nothing in this day and age that could would ever sell. But she has captivated children of all audiences to read not one, two, or even three books but seven with hundreds of pages. I think she’s more than worthy of the award. More so than Bart Simpson.
By Bob Mills
November 28, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this
If not Rowling—whom? 2007 will be remembered as the Year of the Dearth anent “entertainment” unless W qualifies.
By ron
November 28, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this
I don’t believe I’ve ever thought of an author as an entertainer.I don’t believe they fit that category.After giing the matter some serious thought,I still don’t see J.K.Rowling competing in the same sphere as Brittany Spears.An author supplies the story line and the characters,also the setting.It’s up to me to determine what the characters actually look like.I supply the entertainment,I guess.Without my imagination,every book would be exactly like reading a company memo.No,I don’t believe authors are entertainers,they have transcended that.
By Prootwadl
November 28, 2007 10:58 AM | Link to this
Entertainer? She’s an author!
By One
November 28, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this
W only qualifies for azzhole/idiot/lying, greedy, jerk of the year!!!
By Kat
November 28, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this
I’ve been mulling this over since this morning. I tend to think of entertainers as performers, which Rowling is definitely not. She rarely even makes public appearances. So the question is, can a person entertain without performing? The entertaiment value of her books is indisputable, whether you like them or not. The movies based on the books definitely fall into the entertainment category. Then I thought about all the “Harry Potter” events that accompanied the release of each new book in the series. The releases gave book stores and libraries a great way to promote reading with parties, trivia contests, magic shows, costume contests, etc., and they were definitely entertaining. Then you have the spin-off games and toys (Legos, Scene It). While most of these activities didn’t directly involve her, but rather the efforts of actors, directors, producers, librarians, booksellers, and countless others, none of it would have happened without the the author of the books. JK Rowling is an author first, but an entertainer by proxy. So I would say yes, it’s fair and accurate to name her entertainer of the year.
By erinanne
November 28, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this
You people haven’t thought of authors as entertainers? Novelests were entertaining people long before the likes of Britney Spears. Story telling is the way people have entertained each other for millenia. And in a day where children would rather find out whether or not your beloved Britney wore panties when she walked out of her front door, J. K. Rowling got children and adults to turn off the computer, turn off the TV and sit down and turn the pages of a book.
The author only supplies the story line and the characters and the setting? And you provide the entertainment? You’re kidding me, right? Where would you be without the author?
No, J.K. Rowling is not the be all end all of writers. Yet she has managed to change the face of literature (New York Times Children’s Best Seller List, anyone?), spark controversy, and make more money than the Queen in the process. In other words, she’s the Elvis of publishing. I think she deserves the title.
By Matt
November 28, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this
I agree with erinanne’s sentiments exactly. While I’ve read much better authors than J K Rowling, what she has done for reading in general can’t be denied. Congratulations to her for being named Entertainer of the Year.
By itsme
November 28, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this
It may not be great literature, but J. K. Rowling’s books have entertained me for many hours. That’s more than I can say for most of today’s so-called entertainers. How wonderful that the Entertainer of the Year is an author!
By Billy Gerkin
December 12, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this
I agree that Rowling can not be in the same category with Brittney Spears…thankfully.
I’m glad she received this recognition in a day and age where idiocy seems to glorified.