JK Rowling: The Greatest Living British Writer?

JK Rowling - author of the Harry Potter series of books, just in case you’ve been living under a rock for the last few years - has been voted “the greatest living British writer” in a recent poll in The Book Magazine.

Discworld author Terry Pratchett came second, but received just a third of the total number of votes bestowed upon Rowling.

Christine Kidney, editor of The Book Magazine, says this “provides a fascinating insight into what the British public thinks makes a ‘great’ writer”.

I’m can’t say I’d describe myself as fascinated, rather astonished. In fact, I might even go so far as to describe my current state as horrified.

For Rowling to be given this accolade above such talented - and accomplished - writers as Iain Banks, Philip Pullman, and Salman Rushdie is nothing short of outrageous. For her share of the votes to be three times that of Pratchett is downright appalling.

Rowling’s prose is deeply unimaginative when compared to the vast majority of the other authors on this list. Her content is unoriginal, even if she is dismissive of her peers and cites other sources as the inspiration for her work.

And she’s not exactly the most prolific author in the world.

But who am I to question to writing ability of Britain’s greatest? The public have spoken. It’s clear that the public are convinced, thanks to the popularity of her books, that she’s the best writer we’ve got.

Rowling has received this award simply because her books have achieved a far greater amount of publicity. If Iain Banks’ Culture novels had been successfully adapted into Hollywood movies, would his name be top of the list? If a wizard named Rincewind had graced our screens, instead of a wizard named Harry, would Pratchett be crowned the greatest?

It’s hard to dispute Rowling’s status as Britain’s most popular author, but she’s a long way from great.

Some people are never happy…

It's posts like this that make it worth coming into work in the morning. Seeing Rory's post during my regular morning trawl through blogworld has brightened my day immeasurably. I salute him for having the patience to tolerate what is undoubtedly "a tardathon". He doesn't hold back with the language either, so if you're offended by naughty words, close down your browser and back away from the internet.

Everquest too?

The Psychotic Monkey has posted of his love for games, specifically Everquest 2.

I played Everquest for quite a while, getting several characters to (around) level 20, and one character up to the lofty heights of level 28. For those that don't know, the higher the level, the more experience your character has. With higher levels, comes more powerful skills and abilities, and the potential to use more powerful (and ideally cooler) equipment.

My higher level character in Everquest was a short, stocky Dwarven fellow called Belvin. Belvin was an agreeable sort for his first few levels of existence, and even managed to be reasonably personable up until level 20, at which point he could buy himself a new, shiny suit of armor. Soon after, Belvin got bitter.

Belvin, you see, was a healer. He was gifted with the ability to soothe the ills of his companions, restoring lost hit points, and making sure everyone spent more time on their feet than off them. Being a healer meant that Belvin got virtually no new cool abilities, no cooler weapons to use, and very little cool armor once he climbed into his tin-can at level 20. "Exciting" new abilities comprised mainly of improved heals, that meant that a greater amount of health was restored with each use.

As a player's level increases, so too does the challenge they face. This means the healer spends more time healing, and less time doing anything else. The "new and cool" healing abilities rapidly become lacking in usefulness, and the healers companions take more and more damage. As a result, Belvin's life became very, very dull. What began as a happy, jovial sort of adventurer soon turned into a grouchy, unpleasant little creature with poor personal hygiene and no desire for further adventure.

I've cancelled my Everquest account now. Releasing an expansion pack that catered solely for a player level that I felt I could never (reasonably) reach given the amount of time I can play, and that I had no desire to achieve, meant that a distinct lack of "new and cool" drove me away. For me, computer RPG's (since the old days of gold box D&D adventures, and The Bard's Tale) have always been about acquiring exciting new abilities or equipment, and Everquest really didn't satisfy that expectation.

Blessed

Blessed is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most excruciatingly unfunny sitcom I have ever had the misfortune to see. Twice.

It's quite an achievement to strip Ardal O'Hanlon of his capacity to be funny, but Ben Elton has done just that. It's bad enough that O'Hanlon's character spouts large chunks of Elton's stand-up routine, but so do all the other characters. Having Mel Giedroyc read Elton's script turns her, uncannily, into a female version of Chris Barry's Gordon Brittas character. Dressing her character in a milk stained nightie (two large damp patches around her breasts) isn't even funny once, let alone funny for two whole episodes.

The whole thing tries to pass off the most cliched, abysmal baby jokes as being hugely comic, and sports the "clever" device of having the characters play a game of "most appropriate song" at random moments (in which Ben Elton demonstrates how clever he is, that he knows all these songs AND the person that wrote them).

Perhaps I'm too close to the subject matter, but how anyone could find this amusing is beyond me. The BBC really need to find some new comedy writers. Pretty much every recent BBC SitCom has been utterly abysmal ("The Green, Green Grass", and "According to Bex" to name but two, even if the later did have Jessica Stevenson in it).

Maybe it's time to write a zombie SitCom and pitch it to the BBC? People liked Shaun of the Dead…

When is a watershed not a watershed?

The BBC have apparently received complaints (and have been slapped by OFCOM) because they showed Tarantino's Pulp Fiction ten minutes after the (9pm) watershed. Excuse me? What's the point of even having a watershed if you have to wait for sufficient amount of time before showing adult content! Perhaps we need to have layered watersheds, which allow increasingly extreme content as the evening gets later /sarcasm.

Who’s in need?

It looks like I might have to force myself to watch Children in Need this year. According to Gallifrey One (the leading Dr. Who news site, imho), there'll be a short episode screened during the evening. This should give viewers the first real chance to see David Tennant's take on the good Doctor. Looks like Who did well at the National TV Awards too, winning the all 3 of its nominated awards (for best Drama, Best Actor, and Best Actress).