JK Rowling, the obstacle to greatness (#SFWApro)

Lynn Shepherd an author of “mysteries with a literary twist,” apparently feels J.K. Rowling is killing her career. In a Huffington Post column (not a direct link) she bemoans that while it was fine when Rowling wasted her time on those silly kiddie fantasies, now she’s written a mystery, Cuckoo’s Calling (under a pseudonym but it soon leaked). And because JK Rowling, perfectly good books that deserve to be successful can’t get reviews or PR or readers! Hence Shepherd’s proclamation that “If JK Rowling Cares About Writing, She Should Stop Doing It” and give other writers a chance to succeed.
This sounds like a variation on an old writerly complaint: If only my publisher would give me the kind of attention Stephen King/Michael Crichton/Tom Clancy/Neil Gaiman gets, I could be just as successful! Well, maybe; I haven’t read Shepherd’s stuff so it’s quite possible she’s wonderful. And certainly if her publisher puts out a book right when Rowling does, she’s not going to get the attention she might otherwise (at the link, however, Damyanti points out several reasons Shepherd’s argument doesn’t hold up).
But guess what? That’s how the reading world works. Some books get more attention than others. Sometimes the reasons are lousy: The author’s a celebrity, the book has a movie option attached (I saw several of the latter when I worked in a bookstore. The movie never materialized and the books were rarely good). Rowling, though? If her name gives her an edge, she’s earned it (contrary to Shepherd’s lament that unlike Rowling, other writers can’t “wave a wand and turn our books into overnight bestsellers merely by saying the magic word.”). And I’m sorry, an argument to Rowling that “you’ve had your turn” and should stop is just … daft. Like just because she’s phenomenally good at what she does, she has an obligation to step down? Just what is the cut-off point? Is Shepherd guaranteeing that if she hits a certain level of success she’ll do the same?
Of course, Shepherd isn’t actually making a blanket statement about best-selling authors, she’s fixated on Rowling. Presumably it’s because Stephen King (for example) who certainly sucks up a lot of readers’ dollars, doesn’t compete directly with Shepherd’s books. By her own statement, she’d be fine if Rowling kept writing children’s books, it’s just writing on Shepherd’s turf that upsets her.
And maybe too because Shepherd is something of a literary snob regarding Harry Potter: “I’ve never read a word (or seen a minute) so I can’t comment on whether the books were good, bad or indifferent. I did think it a shame that adults were reading them (rather than just reading them to their children, which is another thing altogether), mainly because there’s so many other books out there that are surely more stimulating for grown-up minds.”
Yes, the classic look-down-your-nose sneer that readers should find something better than That Tripe. Which made me think of the NYT reviewer Ginia Bellafante who likewise bemoaned that HBO was airing Game of Thrones with its “Dungeons and Dragons aesthetic” instead of stuff that would be more stimulating for adults who appreciate Great TV like she does.