Why is the BBC wasting our money on JK Rowling’s socialist misery porn?
That’s a question I also asked myself when I read that the BBC are making a film based on Rowling’s latest effort…..Rowling publishes her book and the BBC are straight in there with their cheque book, and our cash, to produce a film that will no doubt be a ‘damning indictment’ of Cameron’s Britain…not the one produced by 13 years of Labour squandering and social destruction but a Britain reduced to misery and ruin by Tory Austerity policies….the youth a lost generation, the old robbed of their pensions, the poor abandoned and grannies robbed to pay the millionaire’s tax break.
James Delingpole has it sussed:
‘It’s no wonder the BBC has just forked out God knows how much licence-fee payers money for the rights to stage the TV version of The Casual Vacancy. Never mind that the book was universally panned by the critics for being schematic, depressing and unreadably dull. The reason we’re going to get it on our screens, whether we like it or not, is because its vision of the world conforms so perfectly with the BBC’s.’
Its not about serving the needs of the viewer at all is it? Its about a rich socialist peddling a book panned by the critics and needing the help of her friends at the BBC to boost sales by making a dramatisation of the book. Rowling is a darling of the left and as such has to be helped by the BBC, its a form of mutual support. The book revenues are a loss and so the BBC subsidises Rowlings bulging bank account and rescues her ego. Crappy book for a crappy BBC producing a crappy drama.
How ironic it is, given her supposed left wing nature, that the H Potter series was such a great advert for right of centre thinking – maybe its been pointed out to her and shes trying to make amends?
Somebody has pointed out in the comments that she is from a middle class background, and effectively made a choice to live on benefits in order to write a book, writing in up market, arty coffee shops.
Not really working class at all.
Have you read it?
Jim – As Theo of Dragons’ Den is fond of saying, I’d rather stick needles in my eyes!
It’s possible that this novel could be reasonably interpreted as having a right-wing message, but I think we both know that’s extremely unlikely…
Have you read it? I’d have thought it would be right up your street…
Jeff
I’ve not read it. I have four bookcases (count ’em) full of wizard novels though.
What like ‘the wizard of lemuria’?
I’ve read it. Rather more Joanna Trollope than Anthony, but hardly the socialist screed that the idiots who believe whatever Delingpole vomits out what have you believe.
It’s never going to win any prizes for originality, but it was an engrossing read. Far and away more fun to read than anything Span Ows, Preiser, Vance or the countless other sneering ninnies on this site could ever manage.
So if this bull //it book is what you like to feed your prejudiced mind then leave! no one keep you here scrot!
There’s nowhere like Biased BBC for accumulating people for whom engaging with source material must never be allowed to get in the way of forming prejudice based on ignorance, is there?
Always a delight to see you here again, my friend.
Got to be some research from a Beeb funded Institute of Studies to tell us when you`re likely to be back among us…didn`t have you down for this one…but that element of surprise keeps us fascinated!
Reckon when we moan about the BBC weeping over Copenhagen going belly up, you`ll be back…hope you prove me right…bets are to be made and won here!
I haven’t read fiction since I was a child. I have four bookcases of factual books.
So I would never engage with fictional source material, because it would form a prejudice based on ignorance.
A problem that middle-class morons with Art degrees at the BBC/Guardian and M Scott, have.
Ever tried Middlemarch?
NO
You should. A harder read than the Haynes Manual, but more rewarding.
Factual accounts are more informative than Middlemarch.
Read George Orwells essay on Dickens in “Inside the Whale” as well as his political satires “Animal Farm” and “Nineteen Eighty-Four”.
You may then understand why a BBC production of “Oliver” with a Black Nancy is more a reflection of modern day left-wing ideology than the original Dickens novel with an East European Jew called Fagin as the ethnic.
But then as a BBC moron, you think that I may have more than one Haynes Manual.
source material? lol now scrot that goes I don’t read your propaganda so I must be wrong ! you don’t read my’n so you must be virtuous ?
whats the word oh yes hypocrite!
Ps I don’t do fiction as it’s not >real< it has no relation to real events or the real world no matter how you bleat or dress it up that's why it's called ' fiction' remember Father Dougal's reality chart and therefore not something you should base your views or politics on !
Yay! Gratuitous ad homs! If that’s all that energizes you to grace us with your presence these days, Scott, what’s the point?
Speaking for myself, since when was I trying to entertain? Silly.
You seem to be a bit of a sneering ninny yourself.
don’t waste oxygen engaging with the trolling imbecile with delusions of intelligence
“delusions of intelligence” …………….. pot, kettle and black sprang to mind when reading this comment.
oooooh
put that handbag away albumen
🙂
blah blah Albarama so your argument goes
‘ my mum think s me clever so you must be fhick ‘!
How we missed Scott in the 28gate thread. But perhaps he finds AGW less intellectually appealing than Harry Potter.
And oh how we’ve missed his hissy fits and temper tantrums.
The BBC must feel proud to have his unwavering, bile-spitting, name-calling, infantile support.
Really? I wasn’t aware you had read any of my books or epistles; you also say her latest was fun and an engrossing read, well that’s great I am happy for you but how can you say it is far better than a, b or c could manage unless you had read their works? I may well be a sneering ninnie – or not – but it certainly sounds like you could join us.
P.S. I haven’t commented – as yet – on the content of her books.
Well, I can extrapolate based on your extensive mutterings here that you have a far greater belief in your own opinion than it deserves.
Give us a reading list, then. Show us how amazing your writing is. Convince us that you’re a top flight novelist, rather than a down-at-heel nihilist who sneers at all and sundry from the comfort of Biased BBC’s comments in order to compensate for the lack of any self-fulfilment.
GAY TIMES ^^^^^
end of reading list 🙂
I prefer to read factual books. Especially old ones that are pre-PC books.
Down at heel? Would that it were so young Scottie, truly.
…who sneers at all and sundry
Really? Perhaps that more my cynicism than any nihilistic tendency.
BBBC comments? Perish the thought! I spread my wondrous wisdom throughout the Internet, left and right. It’s easily traceable.
I can understand your close relationship with lack of any self-fulfilment, but you’re right: by now I expected to be Master of the Universe.
“It’s easily traceable.”
Point me at the erudite stuff: I’m having trouble wading through all the rest…
Erudite, that’s better, when you said top flight novelist I wondered. If you know Elsevier you can have a look around…
So what are your views on Mein Kampf and when did you read it all?
Touché !
Scott, I’m still interested in your views on Mein Kampf. Please share them.
Or at least don’t criticise others for knowing pretty well what would be in a book without reading it from cover to cover. I haven’t read every Agatha Christie book but I have a pretty good idea what is inside them, even if I don’t know the detailed stories. If someone is as predictable as Agatha Christie or JK Rowling then you can have a pretty good idea of their writings without wasting your time reading it yourself.
There does seem to be a bit of an obsession with Mein Kampf around here. Quite revealing, really.
So that’s the best you can do. Your whole argument has crashed and burned just by refusing to answer. No comment about the Agatha Christie reference either. Scott you are clearly out of your depth in a puddle.
you see what he did there?
nice bit of failed projection
Bringing Mein Kampf into the discussion wasn’t part of “my argument” – it was somebody else’s failed attempt to derail the topic.
If you’re going to claim to criticise other people’s arguments, it would help everybody – yourself included – if you could acquire at least a modicum of common sense.
Scott in a “Still not answering valid points” shocker. His lack of response indicates he knows his arguments was shot out of the water.
Shot out of the water? Oh please. You made an irrelevant reference to Mein Kampf and now are throwing your toys t of the pram because your own argument made no logical sense whatsoever.
When people walk away from you because they think you’re a jerk, do you always assume you’ve bested them intellectually, or does the truth creep in from time to time?
I clicked like on your post because it made me laugh. You are so unintentionally funny. You obviously haven’t walked away as you claim. The comment about Mein Kampf was neither irrelevant nor was it answered. You have indeed responded but not replied, one would assume because you know your arguments are false. You even ignored the comparison of Rowling’s predictability to Agatha Christie, and it’s this aspect of Rowling which people were commenting at the top which caused you to start having your tantrums. I think your handler at the BBC is wanting his Scott Mk.1 back as it’s malfunctioning again.
Please don’t stay away for as long next time because you provide much amusement and merriment on this site. But best to think your arguments through logically next time before you inflict them so excruciatingly on others.
Jeez Demon, you have a really high opinion of yourself for no reason. Get any more deluded and you’ll reach David Preiser proportions.
Have I read Mein Kampf? No. But nor have I commented upon it, nor have I claimed it contains something which it does not. So your raising it has no relevance at all, other than to highlight your own particular obsession with it. Did Delingpole write something about it without really understanding it himself? That’s usually enough for the usual Biased BBC commenters to believe they know everything they need to know about something…
he’s up his own arse demon
makes a change from some sweaty bloke on a saturday night
I think those of us who’ve not read Mein Kampf can perhaps judge Hitler on his deeds. Most criticism of Hitler doesn’t derive from his literary career.
Jk Rowling is a writer, not a genocidal lunatic. Let us judge her on her books. And where we do that, let us have read them.
Jim, like Hitler we can judge JK Rowling by her actions. She gives money to the Labour Party and has many times spouted left-wing bilge on television. That is the comparison, of course she is not a genocidal maniac and no-one claims she is but her actions speak louder than all her millions of words.
Why not check out Scotty’s own handiwork instead….should be child’s play to fisk this ‘un:
http://matthewman.net/
Why CBBC is my desert island channel
Posted on October 28, 2012 19
Imagine if your television developed a weird fault. Whatever channel you tuned to next would be the only one it would ever receive again. Which one would you choose?
I’d find the temptation to stick with one of the more mainstream channels, such as BBC1 or ITV1, hard to resist. I might try and select a channel with a bit of culture in it – BBC2 would serve well in that regard (and would satisfy my QI cravings) or BBC4 (ditto, Only Connect).
But honestly, I think the channel with the widest range of enjoyable programmes at the moment is CBBC, the Corporation’s channel for children. It regularly produces output that is lively, engaging, challenging and fun.
or tweet him:
Tweets by scottm
Took a bit of surfing…but googling them ears was pretty easy in the end mate….twitter is a gold mine.
Be fair “context is everything”
Apparently
Took a bit of surfing? Really? You could have just clicked on my name above each comment. Would have saved you an awful lot of time. Time you could have put to use learning how not to act like a prat.
Blimey, I find that website more than a little disturbing.
No wonder the poor bloke has anger management problems.
Don’t know where you get the idea that I’m angry from.
Laughing at you and your cohort doesn’t come from a place of rage. It comes from a place of pity.
Funny how your laughing looks just like anger…
What an angry man you are Scez.
What a drearily consistent little man you still are, hippiepooter.
The name’s Scott, though. I’m not Dez, as you well know. For some reason, you refuse to acknowledge this, just as you refused to apologise for calling me anti-Semitic for no reason.
Not that I hold out any chance of you being adult, or intelligent, enough to even realise you should apologise.
Guys – Can I suggest we drop the namecalling, as it gives off far more heat than light? 🙂
Jeff
I don`t know Scott.
Why not campaign for our pool of writing talent to be given the vast compulsory license tax by way of advance so we could write something for the BBC?
That could bring out the best of us all- Muslim lesbian creating a wind farm on the Israeli border, but the ghost of Thatcher trying to convince her that she`s straight and ought to force beagles to smoke full strength, illegally imported from the good folk of Yemen.
As yet-a work in progress, but give us some Beeb largesse and it might just be crap…and therefore no worse than what this is going to be by Rowling.
Or …do better yourself Scott!
I haven’t. But then I haven’t read Mein Kampf or the Quran either.
remember that JKR is also a major, major Labour donor. Licence fee money goes to the BBC, then to JKR then to Labour. Just like the Union Modernisation Fund. Taxpayers’ money >>> Unions >>> Labour.
Of all the causes JK Rowling could donate £1,000,000 to, she chooses the bloody Labour Party!
Obviously, they need it far more than people like the unfortunate characters she writes about in this book, or the starving millions in Africa…
Rowling possibly views the Labour Party through rose tinted glasses, not realising that, beneath the rhetoric, there’s naff all difference between the three major parties!
Jeff
What a virtuous circle eh?
BBC—Rowling—BBC…and round we go again.
So much for money trickling down to the plebs…it stays firmly in tax havens and in pension pots for this lot of Guardian gollums…a closed system, and just as it should be for these lotus eating lollards!
One day we`ll appreciate their willingness to show us the dolce vita…but with sad cow eyes in marking our pain…thank you !
Spot on Sir.
This is my BBC then.
So much for “fairness” and worries about arts funding then!
Rowling is a billionaire likely as not, yet we poor saps in Dundee can do the night shift tonight, knowing that our license fee will buy Rowling another extension for her mansion.
Do tell me BBC…fat cats, to those who have, the old regime of privilege and patronage?…oh no…not applicable if its Hacked-Off loving, single mums, Labour donating Guardianistas wanting to hawk their consciences around, before the Tuscan villa beckons.
And like stumping up for Stewart Lees dreadful “Jerry Springer” opera…the BBC are rubbing our white trash faces in their lavender scented ordure yet again.
I predict a Riot…and let`s hope that we aim at the BBC, co they can`t blame the police, Thatch, grassing victims or Toricutz this time
I can’t help whether this book is Rowling’s bid to be taken seriously as an author – sort of the literary equivalent of George Michael going from producing bubblegum pop to making heavier stuff.
I guess it’s a noble aspiration, but there’s something to be said for sticking at what you’re good at. If you have the ability to write bleak stuff in the manner of Hardy, Dickens and Steinbeck, then great, do it, but from the reviews it sounds like Ms Rowling may have succeeded in being morbid without being interesting or inspiring…
Jeff
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7626589.stm
She’s a socialist because she can afford to be.
‘For Paul Morley this tale of social division and local government, set in the apparently idyllic, fictional West Country village of Pagford was “a very serious, 70s lefty sort of book”.’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n88f3
As they say, it takes one to know one.
It has been suggested hereabouts that this large bung to Rowling is a sound commercial decision by the BBC. What?! Then how come a commercial channel didn’t outbid the Beeb? There will be no income from the screening in the UK. We pay no matter what the BBC put on. The only return on the outlay might be from overseas sales. Once again, why didn’t a commercial organisation finance this? Warner Bros not bidding for this one?
This BBC Rowling deal is on a par with much of what we hear refered to as ‘arts funding’. The Beeb believe we ‘ought’ to watch this. I sense it has a lot to do with the politics of Rowling and of the BBC.