Why I hate JK Rowling.

The Potter books do make great movies, I won't argue there - but they were supposed to. I am positive that was part of her financially driven money making plan in the first place!

Well, I guess she miscalculated, then -- even without the movies, she'd be a billionaire.

I dunno, I guess I can't decide whether her "sudden reveal" is any worse than getting too worked up about it. Ultimately, who cares?

If she were to have written him into the book as gay, she would have been criticized for that. Ultimately, his sexual orientation doesn't really fit into the book anywhere, nor does any real mention of a sex life of any kind.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but weren't people speculating (as people are wont to do) that he might be gay? I have no problem with her answering the question, and if it was a shrewd marketing decision, so be it. If I don't like it (I don't really care, but...) I can go on pretending he beds wiotches.

Let me start by saying that first and foremost I consider the Harry Potter works bordering upon plagiarised. Where from? Lets start with Lord of The Rings (monsters, high concepts), Star Wars (basic plot), The Worst Witch (downtrodden kid; nerdy kids love to empathise, something I am sure was a major element in Rowlings cynical plan right from the outset) - mix in Terry Pratchett's entire 'Unseen University' concept, for a summary of that check out Page 170 or there abouts in his novel "Equal Rites" - or as I like to call it 'the entire concept of Hogwarts' - I've shown this to people and they've been literally gobsmacked by the similarity's.

First, learn what plagerism is. Second if this your concept of plagerism then everything is plagerized. The Lord of the Ring takes its monsters and hight concepts from various mythologies (not to mention Wagner's Ring Cycle, Beowulf, etc), wraps them up into the tale of the heroes journey (another mythlogical archetype). George Lucas himself will tell you Star Wars is not an original story. In fact its basic plot and story structure mirrors - The Lord of the Ring. Sorry, Pratchett didn't invent the concept of magic schools. I haven't read The Worst Witch but I bet I kind find the links to fairy tales she barrows from.

You may not understand how Harry has become mega-popular but it isn't any more plagerized then anything else on the market. It has all been written before, and told before that..................the only thing that changes is the details

I don't really agree with the whole plagiarizing concept. I think her contemperaries would have pointed this out by now if it really was the case.

For my part, gay straight, it doesn't make any difference.

As far as the money goes, good for her. Whether or not she is rich doesn't affect me in any way so her personal wealth is of no consequence to me. I am glad to say I contributed to her wealth by purchasing all of the books in hardback.

I highly recommend Richard Posner's Little Book of Plagiarism for a very insightful discussion of Plagiarism in today's society. Maybe it will set you straight on what it actually is.

All I have to say is that the Harry Potter series got my son to read! After he read the Harry Potter series he read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia and is now interested in world mythologies and histories. So you can "hate" JKR all you want but she's my heroine.

I have to agree with all the comments up here. Every fantasy author has borrowed something from Tolkien, but Rowling has a certain style (and I emphasize the word style) of writing that is her own and in my opinion, her books are written very well.

On the subject of Dumbledore, I don't care if he's gay or straight, it has nothing to do with the books. He's not the main character and his personal life barely gets acknowledged in the series. I think she might be doing it for the publicity and people have really latched on to the idea that such a well-read series has an important character that is supposedly gay.

That being said, the series is one of my favorites and I've read it through twice. Anyone who reads a lot of fantasy can see the similarities throughout the genre, but you can also notice the differences and the unique writing style of all the authors that are popular or obscure. If the series gets more kids to read, how can you say that it's bad?

Uh, yeah... what everyone else said. Maybe we can break this down, point by point.

Let me start by saying that first and foremost I consider the Harry Potter works bordering upon plagiarised. Where from? First, they're not plagiarism in the legal sense. Second, they're not even plagiarized in a broad sense, unless all writing is plagiarism in that sense.

Lets start with Lord of The Rings (monsters, high concepts), Star Wars (basic plot), The Worst Witch (downtrodden kid; nerdy kids love to empathise, something I am sure was a major element in Rowlings cynical plan right from the outset), - mix in Terry Pratchett's entire 'Unseen University' concept Rowling's fantasy universe synthesizes a number of fantasy sources-- this does not constitute plagiarism. There have been tales of giants, trolls, dragons, etcetera since long before Tolkien. Did he "plagiarize"?

There are roughly a dozen or so plots that 90% of all novels follow. I think Stephen King alludes to that fact in his On Writing, as do numerous other books on writing. You cannot plagiarize "basic plot" unless, of course, all writing is plagiarism.

Downtrodden kids are a staple of literature for kids, precisely because they can identify. hell, the downtrodden hero is a staple of ALL literature, for that matter. Does that make every writer making use of the archetype a cynical schemer, or only Rowling?

Finally, Pratchett (despite my affection for his writing) did not "invent" the idea of a school for wizards. I'm not sure who did, but there are a number of authors who pre-date Pratchett who used the concept-- the most famous, perhaps, being Ursula K. LeGuin in her Earthsea series, where the Wizard's school on the Isle of Roke has a gatekeeper, and the common folk are not allowed in. Other authors who used the concept include Robert Jordan and Stephen R. Donaldson.

They are also written extremely badly. By the general lights of juvenile fiction, they're actually written pretty well. When you think about the fact that the intended market centers around 12- and 13-year olds, you have to admit that your expectations shouldn't be terribly high. Yes, the woman is no Ursula LeGuin, but if that were a crime, there'd be lots of guilty writers of juvenile fiction.

the women seems to think she can erase much of that which came before Potter - placing it in prime market position as the benchmark for all fantasy fiction (especially to those who hadn't read the genre previous to Potter), something which is put plainly; a lie. Seriously, what the hell are you talking about. She can't "place" it in any position. The market places it. Whatever her own thoughts about her work, the public will ultimately be the group that decides whether it becomes a benchmark for fantasy fiction. For instance, who the hell nowadays even knows the name James Branch Cabell? And yet, at one time in America, he was THE name in fantasy fiction.

Harry Potter was quite obviously her meal ticket So what?

And that, is why I hate her. And that is why you need to go take a walk and breathe some fresh air.

Seriously, your one legitimate complaint seems to be that the "Dumbledore is gay" admission might be less than honest. I agree, it probably is less than honest. The books just really don't get into anything about Dumbledore's sex life. They generally ignore the sexual orientation of pretty much ALL the characters, for that matter, with the exception of the kids in regards to their high school soap opera-ish drama. I just don't think it's worth getting particularly worked up about. Dumbledore's "gay"? Awesome. Glad to hear it. Bully for him. Thanks for stopping by, MS. Rowling. How's the new book coming? We're looking forward to it.

And for our next guest...

You forgot the 'satire' tag.

Whoa there, mister. There's a big difference between influence and plagiarism. You think Tolkien's ideas came out of thin air? The guy was a linguist and a historian--the Lord of the Rings books were an amalgam of folk stories and ancient myths. Would you chide J.R.R. for "ripping off" Medieval English when he created Elvish?

Oh for crying out loud. Thanks to everyone who addressed the essential critique above. Really this comes off - in distilled form:

Waa - she more popular than my favorite fantasy author. Waa - I really don't know what plagarism is but I'll bet it's nothing like I'm describing. Waa - you didn't warn me that Dumbledore (whom I secretly hero worship to my shame and vague sense of betrayal of my favorite author) was gay. At all. Even in the books. At all. Waa - she has made scads of money from her talent and efforts, none of which I have. Waa!

I may have missed something, but this was a synopsis not a critical analysis. Don't even get me started on a critical analysis of this rather dubious effort.

Otherwise nice visceral first effort in the 'Vine - look forward to your profound learning experience and the positive influence the other writers here will have on you.

Good points on the outing of Dumbledore. I found that revelation a bit suspicious myself.

Regarding Rowling's series, it is what it is. I'll admit to having read her books, but I have never gotten too excited about them. I read the new one a month after it came out, because I was bored and a friend had a copy handy. I also found myself shielding it from public view the time I took it to the beach.

Rowling never wowed me with her style at all, probably because of that cautious eye she had on medium transferability. She has the distinction of having created a work that doesn't notably exceed its' motion picture counterpart in quality.

I hadn't made the Unseen University connection before, but I can see where it may have been on her mind when she came up with the Hogwarts premise. As far as comparing her with Terry Pratchett in general, one shouldn't. Pratchett writes literature. Rowling wrote movies.

i've heard rumors that an upcoming biography of theodore geisel will reveal some shocking facts about the kind of socks that knox was really supposed to be wearing.

The whole idea of "she's just doing it to boost sales" is kind of silly since her series is already incredibly popular, I can't imagine tacking on another thousand book sales would make any difference to either her publisher or to Ms. Rowling.
The idea that she's trying to broaden the appeal of the series (broaden by making something more specific...anyway) especially to homosexuals doesn't really carry because, even before her acknowledgement, the Harry Potter books were doing very well in the "queer" community (just look at the "slash" fan fiction out there that preceded Rowlings "outing"). Perhaps she wanted to throw the queer fans a bone, as it were.

If she really wanted to broaden the appeal, why not claim that Harry was black? I mean, there's nothing in the book that says he's not, so you could just say he was (also negating the film version, haha!)

The fact that Dumbledore is dead kind of detracts from that though, because there is a fairly well established line of queer characters getting killed either directly or indirectly due to their 'difference'. It is unfortunate that she didn't claim one of the surviving characters as gay, though there's no reason she couldn't.

I don't really know why she did it, i think it's kind of nice that she did, but altering your story after the fact seems like either lazy writing or opportunism.

I don't think the series is great, but I find it strange to hate an author for trying to make money, I don't see anything wrong with what she has done. I don't think there's a problem with plagiarism, the series may be about as derivative and unimaginative as you could get, but it's not plagiarism from the works you cite that I have read. I don't see the problem with writing books for money.

If Rowling had taken ideas from Tolkien and Pratchett then her books would be vastly improved. I don't think enough children would be able to complete the hard grind that is the Lord of the Rings trilogy, or understand even Pratchett's young adults series. Harry Potter has its place, it definitely increased the reading population. People say Harry Potter books are going to be classics, but I doubt it very much, they'll be forgotten in time.

The announcement is definitely a cynical ploy to get publicity, but I like that kind of thinking. It's also going to piss off the Catholic League and other faithhead groups, bonus. Most of the time authors refuse to explain their works, leaving the reader to make their own conclusions. It's not a very big compromise of convictions to fail to mention the sexuality of a main character for fear of boycott. It's not Rowling's finest hour, but did she ever strike anyone as brave or particularly outspoken with her convictions before?

Interesting thoughts on plagiarism by JK Rowling Claus, but I'm sure I've read some similar comments about her before somewhere ...

I hate Rowling. She should be put to death for the senseless deaths of Sirius, Dumbledore and Hedwig.
What an evil woman....how does she sleep at night. My heart hurts whenever I think of the deaths. No glory at all, no reason.

Omg thank you higher power! There's someone in the world who thinks the same way I do! Thank you for posting that article, thank you, thank you, thank you so much!

I don't really have much to say because I do think this whole thing spawned out of jealousy at another person's ability to achieve better in life than you will. However I would like to mention that I think you ought to do better research into your argument because I have read many articles in which Joanne Rowling openly admits to drawing influence from C S Lewis' "Chronicles of Narnia". I only got halfway down the page of reviews and your responses before I got increasingly frustrated by the subject matter. If you don't like J K Rowling - actually I believe "hate" was the term used - then why spend so much time discussing her when you could be over at a Terry Prachett or Robert Rankin forum discussing the wonders of their literary talents? J K Rowling was able to single-handedly turn a generation of children - bombarded with television and video games and bring them back to one of the oldest forms of entertainment; reading. Perhaps you don't like her methods for making money - but anyone who can encourage a child to put down their PlayStation, GameCube etc. controller for more than five minutes is worth all that they can earn - and more.

Thank you.

I agree

I can't stand her, she tried to sue a japanese anime because she thought it ripped off harry potter...its about a wizard in an all girls school for crist sake, she needs that hot poker out of her ass.

I must admit I love her books, I love the films too but she takes things way to far!

The worst witch reminds me alot of harry potter and when i first read the book I was like "omg its the worst witch re-written" I don't mind but it pisses me off how she blows her ass off at people for writing something similar to her books.

So if she got ideas from other books and such she shouldn't go gutting other people for doing the same.

She's taking someone to court because they want to earn a few bucks by publishing the Harry Potter Lexicon ?!?

She is my heroine - how dare someone else make money when she herself hasn't finished counting her own dollars or pounds! She has obviously forgotten what its like to live in the real world.

She got lucky with volume 1. Vol 2, 3 etc.. were given to her on a plate... publishers instructions etc.. Intellectual property??? Thank god she didn't invent houses else y'all be on the streets !!!!!!

Still... There's plenty that've seen money go, that've seen money come! ;o)

There'll always be some nice hot Tea waiting for her in that lil old cafe where she started out - best she take her own cup to drink from though !

Oh - and like an earlier poster said - don't change my life one tiny bit if she rich or poor!

I also feel like I should mention that Rowling has cited C.S. Lewis as a heavy influence on the series, going as deep as the reason why there are seven novels in the first place. Also, you may have heard about the beginnings of Harry Potter, when Rowling was a dirt-poor single mother whose book was being rejected everywhere. She didn't start off planning for billions; she started off lucky to be published at all!

Honestly, I completely agree wiht the original Poster, the vast majority of her work is very similar to many other authors who published years in advance. The people that disagree can lok up some of the actual lawsuit refrences. Is it no suspicious to you that warner bros. bought up the 3 major rivals to Harry potter? Neil gaiman originally was yelling plagiarism at the media, warner bros. gave him a movie deal for sandman, now he is fine with it? Fox planned to resign sabrina the teenage witch, guess who bought the rights? Warner bros. thats right. and the last model in my showcase is "The Worst Witch" who's books and movies were published in the 80's before J.k. Rawling said she "dreamed up Harry Potter"(Whos name had been around before then in publications. The movie for "The Worst Witch" came out around the late 1980's right before J.K. Rawling "dreamed" up harry potter.