Chris Higgins
J.K. Rowling on Failure & Imagination
by Chris Higgins - February 17, 2010 - 2:44 PM

J.K. Rowling gave a killer speech at the Annual Meeting of the Harvard Alumni Association last year. This speech is very much worth your time. How did J.K. Rowling go from an unemployed, near-destitute single parent to one of the richest women in Britain? By failing, giving up on others’ dreams for her, and embracing her own. “Rock bottom became the solid foundation on which I built my life,” says Rowling around the 9:30-mark in the speech. Here’s a bit more:

Ultimately, we all have to decide for ourselves what constitutes failure, but the world is quite eager to give you a set of criteria if you let it. So I think it fair to say that by any conventional measure, a mere seven years after my graduation day, I had failed on an epic scale. An exceptionally short-lived marriage had imploded, and I was jobless, a lone parent, and as poor as it is possible to be in modern Britain, without being homeless. The fears that my parents had had for me, and that I had had for myself, had both come to pass, and by every usual standard, I was the biggest failure I knew.

… So why do I talk about the benefits of failure? Simply because failure meant a stripping away of the inessential. I stopped pretending to myself that I was anything other than what I was, and began to direct all my energy into finishing the only work that mattered to me. Had I really succeeded at anything else, I might never have found the determination to succeed in the one arena I believed I truly belonged. I was set free, because my greatest fear had been realised, and I was still alive, and I still had a daughter whom I adored, and I had an old typewriter and a big idea. And so rock bottom became the solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life.

Just watch. And then lose your job and write the Harry Potter books!

J.K. Rowling Speaks at Harvard Commencement from Harvard Magazine on Vimeo.

Read the full text of the address from Harvard Magazine.

« Previous Post   -   Next Post »
Click here to get a Risk-Free issue of mental_floss magazine
Comments (23)

  1. J.K. Rowling has said outright that she stayed on (essentially) welfare to support herself, while writing the Harry Potter books. She planned it that way; she intentionally let her government support her so she could fulfill her dream, rather than supporting herself during that time.

    So yes, she reached rock bottom–but rather than going out and looking for a job, she took welfare instead. It was her choice to remain unemployed.

    How nice for her, but really, not something that everyone should plan to pursue.

    posted by G on 2-17-2010 at 3:38 pm

  2. She was only destitute and unemployed because she DECIDED to quit working and take advantage of Britain’s welfare program to focus on her writing. I’m sick of her being elevated to saintly status because of this myth that she overcame great obstacles. We should all be so lucky as to get rich while living off the public dime. I wonder: how much of that welfare money has she given back to the British taxpayers?

    posted by Craig on 2-17-2010 at 4:19 pm

  3. One more thing: If I invent something on company time, my employer owns my invention. So if JKR wrote Harry Potter while living on public welfare, then the public should own the franchise.

    posted by Craig on 2-17-2010 at 4:21 pm

  4. Well, well, well,,, aren’t we self righteous today?? I’m glad this short story and movie has given you so much insight into Ms. Rowlings that you can disparage her like this. Did either of you do ANY research as to what she has done for Britain since she became wealthy??? I didn’t think so. You simply decided that you must speak out against her to protect the British welfare system. People who act as you have are simply ignorant of the facts and too lazy to learn. Sad really. All in all it seems you two are plainly jealous. I would guess you have neither the drive nor the competence to achieve what she has.

    posted by Brad in Canada on 2-17-2010 at 4:47 pm

  5. Dreams have been written about for many, many years. The courage to go for your dream, to fight the stigma of being selfish, misguided, and of all kinds of dubious character flaws have rarely been talked of. I wonder how many of us there are out there who are looked upon as succesful but have never come close to recognizing much less realizing our dream.

    recaptcha: The nosedive

    posted by Prism on 2-17-2010 at 4:48 pm

  6. Jeez, guys. What’s with the vitriolic comments lately?

    First off, Rowling isn’t the first person to write or do other important work while on the dole. I’m not saying she’s a saint or trying to elevate anyone’s “myth” — the point of her talk is to recognize what is important to you, rather than what your parents or others tell you is important. That’s a simple message, and I hope you can look past your apparent anger at Rowling to see that.

    Second, Rowling has given back thousands of times more than she ever received in benefits — check out Wikipedia’ info on her philanthropic work:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._Rowling#Philanthropy

    Craig, to answer your question, Rowling has given back millions of pounds to British taxpayers — vastly more than she ever “took” from the system. Looks to me like it’s around 5 million pounds per year she’s currently shelling out.

    So please, chill out. Do your homework and dial down your righteous anger. The internet is a great place to vent your anger, but on this one I think the core premise that J.K. Rowling did something bad by writing Harry Potter while on the dole is frankly uninformed BS.

    Look at what she has done after getting rich, and ask yourself which would be better — if she had gotten a square job and not written the books, or if she did what she did and then donated boatloads of cash to charity?

    posted by Chris Higgins on 2-17-2010 at 5:00 pm

  7. My point is that her route is not a reasonable one. Yes, she made a lot of money by following her dream.

    However, she unfairly took advantage of the system in order to follow that dream. She made the decision to not even seek employment, and just let herself be supported while she wrote. It’s not that she was unemployable, she just chose to ignore any employment possibilities.

    And how many people, really, are going to make millions by choosing to remain on welfare in order to follow their dreams?

    No, I’m sick of hearing how she went through such trials and tribulations, and how she clung to her dream despite it, and how this makes her a success story. This was not a success story *despite* being a welfare mother–this was a success story BECAUSE she was a welfare mother.

    And in my opinion, it’s not something that she should advocate for anyone else. It’s not a path that will lead everyone to riches and fame if they just dig in and pursue it. It’s an abuse of the system. It doesn’t matter that SHE got rish, nor that she’s given back now; it’s wrong that she did it in the first place.

    The ends do not justify the means. And now she’s out there advocating for the “means” she used, on top of that? Or just glossing it over and trying to pretend that her choices were more ethical and laudable than they really were?

    posted by G on 2-17-2010 at 5:47 pm

  8. There are hundreds of thousands of ‘welfare mothers’ who never do anything. And why should she go to a minimum wage job, still not be able to pay her bills, and be missing out on any time with her daughter?

    posted by Mrs.Arno on 2-17-2010 at 6:22 pm

  9. G — I think our first disagreement is over whether the ends justify the means. I think yes, they do. You say they don’t. So there’s the first problem.

    When I look at this story, I see someone who chose to take advantage of the options available to her and made it work. She used the system, she benefited, and then she gave back. Does that mean that everybody should stay on welfare and not work? Hell no, and that’s not what we’re talking about here. (Well, perhaps it’s what YOU’RE talking about, to be fair.)

    Having said that, this first issue is a moral decision. I totally see why you’d think it’s wrong for her to have done this. I don’t agree, but I respect your position here, and I think it makes sense.

    The second problem is that you seem to be saying that Rowling is advocating (your term) that people emulate her behavior by living on the dole and writing books. I don’t get this point. If Rowling was walking around advocating that everybody live on welfare and write books, I would say that’s a bad idea. But I don’t see where she’s saying that. I think you’re ascribing this “advocacy” to her (or to the media?) without evidence. Where does she advocate this? Show me. I’m open to seeing the evidence. It certainly isn’t in this talk. Is it somewhere else?

    I think that on this second issue, Rowling is not advocating any specific course of action — she’s relating her experience and encouraging people to generalize a lesson from it (in this case, I think the lesson is adequately described in the original blog post above). I can only assume that our disagreement about whether her actions were “wrong” or “justifiable” is what colors our opinions on this second issue. I don’t think they’re linked (the first and second issues), but I’m guessing you do based on your statement that she’s “advocating for the ‘means’ she used.” Sorry, but I don’t see either that she’s advocating that people use her means nor that her means were morally wrong. Your mileage may vary. :)

    posted by Chris Higgins on 2-17-2010 at 6:23 pm

  10. Craig, do you know how much people are TAXED in Britain? She’s probably put tens of millions back into the economy. Plus she donates to charities and her books get kids and adults to read. Not too shabby.

    posted by kate the great on 2-17-2010 at 7:52 pm

  11. As one of the massively unemployed I don’t think there’s anything wrong with what she did.

    Also, while she may have stayed on the DOL while writing, she was actually doing something and not just sitting on the sofa waiting for something to come along or continually going from soul emptying job to soul emptying job until she figure out what she really wanted to do.

    Finally, she was on assistance only as long as necessary.

    If I could make a living making pottery, I would.

    posted by hannah on 2-17-2010 at 8:59 pm

  12. G and Craig both just sound jealous.
    Go have a pity party, kids.
    Let us be happy for Rowling, her family, our families, the charities she’s supported, the speech, and all the other millions of people she’s benefited in one way or another.
    pbbbblllth. so there.

    posted by V on 2-17-2010 at 10:54 pm

  13. It never occurred to you neanderthals that this is exactly the reason why there is a social support system in place in civilized countries? To prevent the talented from falling through the cracks.

    posted by Deacon Jones on 2-18-2010 at 1:18 am

  14. Someone posted if she has given back to the British people after having taken advantage of welfare- of course she has through taxes! With her vast wealth, I am sure the amount being taxed on her income alone supports much of the NHS funding :P

    posted by a on 2-18-2010 at 8:50 am

  15. What about the millions of people who are getting government money to finish college, or getting grants to start their own business? A lot of people have taken advantage of a situation for their own benefit, just because she got really rich doesn’t make what she did any different. She has given back a lot more than what she took and it allowed her to raise her own child.

    I would prefer what she has done to the millions of people who live on welfare and make no attempt to change that. Not to mention those on welfare who are drug addicts.

    I think your anger is misplaced.

    posted by hockey zombie on 2-18-2010 at 10:27 am

  16. I have to say that one thing I find rather ironic (if it is true) is that she talks about imagination and is recently accused of plagiarism regarding another author who wrote a book about young wizards. not saying its true, I believe in innocence until proven otherwise, but I do find it someone ironic.

    posted by Chris on 2-18-2010 at 10:30 am

  17. oops. meant somewhat ironic. don’t i have egg on my face : )

    posted by Chris on 2-18-2010 at 10:40 am

  18. Deacon, are you insane??!! Or are you joking? Welfare has never been justified by claiming one has talent, and therefore deserves to leech off of the welfare system, and by proxy, the citizens paying for it. If you’re talented at something, just do it, but don’t go crying if you can’t earn money with your talent. Some people have talent nobody cares about. Just because people have done what she has done, before her, does not make it right. People capable of working, who choose not to, at the expense of the taxpayers, are scum. If she happened to not succeed, someone or something else would have come along anyway. BTW, I heard about the lawsuit this morning on NPR this morning.

    posted by Bubba on 2-18-2010 at 1:15 pm

  19. Rowling turned a bad situation good. That’s what makes her story so inspiring. She used welfare in the exact way that it was intended – she allowed the government to assist her in not only strengthening her financial situation, but improving her employment opportunities. When we have no support, we are forced to do whatever we must to stay alive. Welfare gives people the opportunity to make more of their lives – to focus on goals rather than on subsistence.

    posted by Avani on 2-18-2010 at 1:25 pm

  20. What a bunch of whiners. Grow up. Rowling’s got talent AND luck. Bet you don’t.

    posted by John on 2-18-2010 at 1:38 pm

  21. Along with all she has given and continues to give financially, think of the millions of children (and adults) who have been inspired by her writings, and have fostered their own imaginations. I imagine that we will see many a writer, amateur and professional, emerging from the Harry Potter generation and perpetuating its legacy with their own children.

    posted by MYoung on 2-18-2010 at 2:22 pm

  22. As a recent college graduate who has been unable to find work with student loans hanging over my head, I found this speech incredibly inspiring.

    Thanks for posting it.

    All the haters are just jealous! Harry Potter is awesome.

    posted by Sarah on 2-18-2010 at 6:37 pm

  23. I am very intrigued by where this conversation has gone, and even more amazed by how all of the comments here have oddly had little to do with the actual speech given and more so with external influences. With that said, I have two things to say.

    1. It appears to me that some people feel that Rowling took advantage of the system, while others feel that she was liberated by the system. I feel that the issue is much broader than what has been noted above me.

    If the system allows for such a route to be taken, then should individuals see this as a flaw in Rowling’s character, or in the system itself? Also, if welfare is not the route to use in order to have time to embark on a creative venture, then should there be another form of assistance for that?

    Finally on this subject, I’ve heard Rowling reference her \welfare\ during that period of time very rarely. In this speech itself she never went into the subject, she just referenced being poor, never how she accomplished staying afloat. With that said, I don’t feel that we can assume that she is endorsing that lifestyle. Also, I would venture to say that most people do not know how she made it through that period of her life, so I think that its safe to say that her story is still an inspirational one.

    2. On the matter of the speech itself: I felt that it was amazing, and that the parallels between her life and the book itself were amazing. Every time I read or hear something new about Rowling or the series I am more amazed by how amazing the texts actually are.

    posted by jenacular on 2-19-2010 at 12:32 am

Comment

commenting policy