Log In | Register
DIGITAL NOBODY
Just another digital nobody.
Articles Posted: 2; Links Seeded: 40
Member Since: 10/2007Last Seen: 4/13/2008
Member Since: 10/2007Last Seen: 4/13/2008
50 Comments
Printadvertisement
Rowling this week outed Dumbledore as being "gay".
Oh I bet she @!$%#ing did!
I hate this women.
I know hate is a strong word, but I do. I am not proud of it either. It's just how I feel about the chick. Why? Let me explain...
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.
Not as gobsmacked however, as I am sure Pratchett was when he first read or heard about Potter though - the man is the king of paper back fantasy tat (with a hat) for decades and along comes Rowling - her literary guns (such as they are) aimed at kids and loaded with material Hollywood can churn out in movie form with relative ease. Played for and got, score one Rowling.
Pratchett did come back rather well with the 'Wee Free Men' et al., but at least those books teach some interesting lessons to kids - and were not motivated soley by greed as I am to explain I feel Rowlings writting is. I get the feeling they were more of a two fingers up to Rowling than a ploy to make the man more money. Score one Pratchett, congrats on the film deal.
Back to the point at hand, my feelings on Rowling's writing skill is summarized thus; if she handed the Potter books in as original works to many university's in the United States and they were thus entered into the national plagiarism database, quite simply they'd come up as plagiarised - if we must judge them on their own merit, they are at best completely derisive.
They are also written extremely badly. Like my articles. Not that that bugs me as much as the the non-owned up to plagiarism - if she admitted that a lot of her work was a homage to this or that, it wouldn't be so bad in my eyes - just extending a fine fantasy tradition (everyone owes something to Tolkien), but the arrogance of 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. That gets my goat.
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!
Harry Potter was quite obviously her meal ticket, a function for which the formulaic epic has performed exceedingly well - however, despite this unprecedented and more importantly planned for, marketed for and written for, success, Rowling will still do almost anything to get some extra attention to her franchise.
"Dumbledore is gay," she says, adding he was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, who he beat in a battle between good and bad wizards long ago.
Ok, If that's the case, and it's not, as I suspect, something you've just thought will get you some headlines and maybe a whole new demographic (Rowling appears to live for that) post the release of the final book, why the @!$%# was it not mentioned in the books?
Either Rowling,
a) you are making it up as you go along, and you thought this'd get some attention for you, and it is thus part of your overall cynical marketing plan.
or
b) you were too afraid to put a gay guy in a kids book for fear of certain more conservative interest groups going mad and boycotting your books (they would have, and they would have done it hard) - something you don't have to worry so much about now, because you have more money than God.
or
c) You planned to wait until every child who was going to buy all of your books had done, before announcing that one of the main characters was gay, and thus opening the franchise to a whole new market, ie. the gay community.
Which one of these people do you want to be Rowling? They are all pretty @!$%#ty.
Rowling is quoted as saying "I would have told you earlier if I knew it would make you so happy". Yeah sure, right, you didn't think that would make a bit of an impact? Stop playing dumb - this was yet another cunning marketing ploy. You're brilliant, I admit it, but you are too sly for even me luv...
Now the gay community will feel obliged to support her - the pink lobby now on board, is Rowling going to make a bid for real world power or what?! Seriously. Using fringe groups to expand your demographic influence is cynical beyond belief.
"Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell welcomed the news about Dumbledore and said: "It's good that children's literature includes the reality of gay people, since we exist in every society."
Pete, while I support your sentiment, gays are not "Jedi" or some secret society. "Existing in every society" is a bit of a dramatic way of saying some guys and gals have always liked guys and gals.
Perhaps he got caught up in the mysticism of Rowlings constructed, well arranged and marketed, magical world?
Just watch her the next time you see an interview. She hates kids - I think she even admitted that in an interview. She just wanted to get paid. She constructed, from bits of other stories - other peoples work, a plot and characters to facilitate this nefarious goal.
And that, is why I hate her.
She did it for the money, not for the drama, not for the story, not even for the kids. And I think if you are gonna write a kids book, you should probably, morally, have them in mind.
Not your bank balance.
You'll end up giving out a very twisted messege when they find out the person who wrote their hero's did it for the cash.
18 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Digital Nobody's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: none
- Regions: none
 | Entertainment: K Rowling outs Dumbledore as gay | BBC News | Wed Oct 24 | 1 |
| J.K. Rowling outs Hogwarts character | fresnobee.com | Tue Oct 23 | 4 |
| DUMBLEDORE'S GAY!!! (I knew it all along.) | Juliet | Sat Oct 20 | 6 | |
| Rowling dubs Dumbledore of 'Harry Potter' books as gay | NY Daily News | Sat Oct 20 | 1 |
| JK Rowling: Albus Dumbledore Is Gay | Newsweek | Sat Oct 20 | 1 |
- Public Discussion (50)
- Public Discussion (0)
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
58
16
1.9
{"commentId":1120135,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
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.
{"commentId":1120135,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"brianford"}
- 14 votes
#1 - Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:45 AM EDT{"commentId":4409670,"authorDomain":"lexistibz"}
She also stole ideas, names, and even the physical apperance from Troll, a 1980's film about a mythical aparment and a boy, Harry Potter jr., who discovers newly found powers and determines to save the day and The books of magic, a book series in which a boy (who looks almost identical to harry potter) goes to a school of magical kids and leanrs to play a game that involves flying broom sticks and of course The Legend of Rah and muggles, with another boy who looks like H.P. with name of Larry Potter.
With all of the ideas she did steal she still has the balls to sue over a harry potter dictionary from a man who wasn't claiming he wrote harry potter at all.
point prooven JK rowling is a @!$%#
{"commentId":4409670,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"lexistibz"}
{"commentId":1120170,"authorDomain":"fdbryant3"}
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
{"commentId":1120170,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"fdbryant3"}
- 21 votes
#2 - Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:59 AM EDT{"commentId":1120174,"authorDomain":"jasonford"}
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.
{"commentId":1120174,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"jasonford"}
- 14 votes
#3 - Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:01 AM EDT{"commentId":1120179,"authorDomain":"jasonford"}
Oops, misspelled contemporaries.
{"commentId":1120179,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"jasonford"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1120245,"authorDomain":"vincitveritas"}
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.
{"commentId":1120245,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"vincitveritas"}
- 13 votes
#4 - Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:23 AM EDT{"commentId":1120267,"authorDomain":"evilgenius"}
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.
{"commentId":1120267,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"evilgenius"}
- 16 votes
#5 - Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:28 AM EDT{"commentId":1120327,"authorDomain":"rocknsupergurl83"}
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?
{"commentId":1120327,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"rocknsupergurl83"}
- 11 votes
#6 - Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:44 AM EDT{"commentId":1120621,"authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
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...
{"commentId":1120621,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
- 19 votes
#7 - Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:09 PM EDT{"commentId":1120659,"authorDomain":"stevetherobot"}
You forgot the 'satire' tag.
{"commentId":1120659,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"stevetherobot"}
- 10 votes
#8 - Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:24 PM EDT{"commentId":1120728,"authorDomain":"stolte-sawa"}
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?
{"commentId":1120728,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"stolte-sawa"}
- 10 votes
#9 - Mon Oct 22, 2007 1:54 PM EDT{"commentId":1120737,"authorDomain":"stolte-sawa"}
P.S., if you're going to talk about gays and women as "niche demographics," you might not want to use the word "chick" in your introduction.
{"commentId":1120737,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"stolte-sawa"}
- 8 votes
{"commentId":1121246,"authorDomain":"moarinternets"}
{"commentId":1121522,"authorDomain":"biggerthebetter"}
You speak like that, and then you have the nerve to criticize Rowling's writing? Seriously? LMAO!
{"commentId":1121522,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"biggerthebetter"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1121546,"authorDomain":"moarinternets"}
{"commentId":1122185,"authorDomain":"stolte-sawa"}
{"commentId":1852300,"authorDomain":"strangesindex"}
That takes out juuust about everyone. You can talk to yourself if you want to.
And, of course, I'd like to echo everyone else's comments that you have no idea what plagiarism is. And I'd also like to point out that a professional writer does NOT write in the same manner that she or he speaks.
{"commentId":1852300,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"strangesindex"}
{"commentId":1120948,"authorDomain":"masternav"}
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.
{"commentId":1120948,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"masternav"}
- 8 votes
#10 - Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:46 PM EDT{"commentId":1121111,"authorDomain":"everycoolidistaken"}
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.
{"commentId":1121111,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"everycoolidistaken"}
- 2 votes
#11 - Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:42 PM EDT{"commentId":1121160,"authorDomain":"moarinternets"}
In response to everyone's comments - which I thank you for...
1. I did miss the satire tag. My bad.
2. "Plagiarism" - If Rowling ever acknowledged her influences, even just once, I wouldn't refer to her borrowing and blending as "plagiarism". Perhaps I didn't make that clear. As it stands I've never heard her discuss "influences." As far as she is concerned, I think she thinks it's all her - nothing she's ever said or done has convinced me otherwise. She never read fantasy, so she claims. In any case; Tolkien and Pratchett have repeatedly acknowledged their influences. Everyone should.
3. Terry Pratchett is pretty far from favourite author. That would possibly be (where fantasy in concerned) Robert Rankin.
4. Importantly; I like Harry Potter, I hate Rowling :) Maybe that wasn't clear, despite the fact I said it.
5. "Seriously, what the hell are you talking about. She can't "place" it in any position." <-- You have a very nieve view of modern marketing - especially where kids are involved. With the right backing and business plan you can place yourself anywhere in any market, look at the size of the firms involved with the movies and the books. My whole criticism of her revolves around the fact Potter is a business plan, not a labour of love or even something she earnestly thought kids would hold dear.
6. This whole thing was just my opinion, you're all welcome to yours, perhaps you should explain what you think, rather than go for what I think guns a' blazin'?
7. "You'll end up giving out a very twisted message when they find out the person who wrote their hero's did it for the cash." <-- No one's commented on that yet, which was kinda the whole conclusion of the article. Go tell one of your kids the person who write Potter just did it for money. See the reaction now; more importantly see the reaction when they understand what that means!
We all know how we felt when Lucas did The Phantom Menace, imagine that feeling without Empire Strikes Back.
A say day indeed.
Additionally, as to Rowlings character...
"J K Rowling, author of the Harry Potter Series of books, has sued the organizers of the Indian festival called Durga Pooja, through Penguin India. The suit alleges the festival organizers violated the author's copyright on the book and its characters, by building temporary paper mache structures modelled after locations and characters from the Harry Potter books.
While regular news outlets like Yahoo, BBC and CBC, have their staid reportage on this, Indian bloggers has a more blunt take — The grinch who stole Durga Pooja, or per this.
So if this suit bears merit, and Christmas '07 comes around, wonder what would Jesus Christ's family do to all those Nativity Scene enacters? After 2000+ years living in abject poverty, would They sue the pants off their flock, get rich and emulate J K Rowling in some aspects?"
http://greatbong.net/2007/10/12/the-grinch-who-stole-durga-pujas/
Come on, she could have let that one go no?
{"commentId":1121160,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"moarinternets"}
- 3 votes
#12 - Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:02 PM EDT{"commentId":1121298,"authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
In order, but not necessarily complete (since some of your points I don't disagree with)
2. There's no requirement or obligation to acknowledge influences. In fact, if I were an author, I probably wouldn't acknowledge my influences, or even talk about other authors unless directly asked. Why this should be considered nefarious, or why everyone "should" talk about their influences, I don't know.
3. I'm a big fan of Pratchett. However, I sure wouldn't call him the King of Fantasy, nor what he writes "literature" in any sense different from Rowling's work. Bit different aim, but no more nor less "literary," as far as I'm concerned.
5. I don't think I'm at all naive. There have been plenty of marketing plans that went nowhere. Plenty of good writing has subsequently vanished from the public eye. Plenty of good writing goes unnoticed. Etcetera, etcetera. This really should need no comment. If you think all it takes is a business plan, please tell us the name of your upcoming blockbuster book, which, since a good business plan is all you need, and you apparently have some idea of the difference between a good one and a bad one, you'll undoubtedly be marketing to supersede Rowling's work. The motivation speaks for itself-- billions of dollars. What's your estimate for how long it will take you to succeed?
Maybe Rowling's whole effort has been a cynical capitalization on children, as you suggest, but you've certainly done nothing to prove that.
7. Provide some evidence, and maybe we can discuss it. As is, it's an unsupported assertion. And I think the assumption that a motivation for pay automatically poisons any artistic endeavor is, itself, pretty naive. People can both write what they desire and hope to get paid well for it, simultaneously, without either motivation (artistic or monetary) necessarily corrupting the other. What you've got going is a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. "She got rich, therefore she did it to get rich" is a bad argument, without other support.
Re: Durga Puja, Rowling is an industry, now. It's naive to think that Rowling is huddled in her mansion, wearing a Dalmation-fur coat, plotting Cruella DeVille-style to spoil the festivities of poor benighted Indian children. If anything, her publisher does that for her. To maintain one's copyright, one has to show that one is taking steps to protect one's copyright. See Lucas' lawsuit against a laser scalpel manufacturer over use of the term "light saber." Or check into how much money Disney makes of of its marketing. People and organizations will go to a lot of trouble to protect their intellectual property. It may seem mean-spirited, but no, "she" couldn't have let that one go without damaging future claims against less noble infringers.
What I'd really like for you to substantiate is your claim that Rowling's books have been a cynical ploy from the outset-- that she hates children, plagiarizes her material, and cares only about getting paid. Where's the proof of those contentions?
{"commentId":1121298,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":1121370,"authorDomain":"moarinternets"}
{"commentId":1121474,"authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
I've read Pratchett, and enjoyed the experience. haven't read the "Wee, Free Men" books, though. The last Pratchett I read was The Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents, which was truly enjoyable, and (IMO) totally marketable as a Pixar property, if he were ever interested.
At any rate the whole; "if you think it's so easy you do it argument" is childish, Rowling was in the right place at the right time, you cannot emulate such circumstance.
On the contrary, it is exactly to the point-- you claimed that Rowling, as a literary nobody, manipulated the system to put out a series of books which had no other purpose than to enrich her bank account-- penning a "formulaic epic" which she placed "in prime market position" which she did "for the money, not for the drama, not for the story, not even for the kids." That's a pretty specific claim, and quintessentially different from the one you just made-- "Rowling was in the right place at the right time, you cannot emulate such circumstance."
So, which is it? Cynical manipulator who gamed the system, or author who just happened to be at the right place at the right time?
Other than suggest it and back it up with my thoughts on her marketing and storytelling tactics?
Are you actually asking? How about providing any evidence whatsoever: clipped passages, and actual aside she may have made at a conference, insiders' thoughts on the subject, anything relevant to the claims that doesn't just boil down to "I hate her."?
She doesn't want. She doesn't appear to care.
Or, possibly, you're reading an awful lot into the situation.
Re: Chuck Nice's thoughts on why Rowling hates children-- that is laugh-your-ass-off funny.
"800 pages and there's no Cliff Notes."
Cheers,
{"commentId":1121474,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1121530,"authorDomain":"biggerthebetter"}
Yeah, Rowling has several children, but she hates them.
Ooooooookay.
{"commentId":1121530,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"biggerthebetter"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1121920,"authorDomain":"morwynd"}
There's no requirement or obligation to acknowledge influences. In fact, if I were an author, I probably wouldn't acknowledge my influences
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources" - Albert Einstein
{"commentId":1121920,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"morwynd"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1121469,"authorDomain":"firsty"}
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.
{"commentId":1121469,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"firsty"}
- 6 votes
#13 - Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:33 PM EDT{"commentId":1121507,"authorDomain":"moarinternets"}
So, which is it? Cynical manipulator who gamed the system, or author who just happened to be at the right place at the right time?
I think I am suggesting that she had the plan, and just happened, by a degree of luck, to pull it off. So both.
Fortune favours the brave, or those with ice cold hearts in her case.
I just wonder what the parents of those Indian kids say to them when the festival has no money for alternative displays etc. because 'Harry Potter' sued them! It's just... horrible.
Aside from this Rowling discussion (you are quite right, I do hate her... that does influence the logic of my arguments some what!), the "Wee, Free Men" books are really very different from the other Discworld novels - he uses chapters and everything. I was very surprised at how good they were. Check them out if you ever get a chance, they made me think of Pratchett in a different way.
{"commentId":1121507,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"moarinternets"}
- 2 votes
#14 - Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:47 PM EDT{"commentId":1122780,"authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
Wiki's J.K. Rowling bio.
Bits I found interesting:
- the first book was rejected by twelve publishing houses before getting a green light and a 1500-pound advance (about $3,000)
- She withdrew her fourth book from a competition, after having won it three times running with the first three novels, because she wanted to give other books a fair chance
- When Coca-Cola won the rights to tie-ins in the movies, she demanded they donate $18 million dollars to Reading Is Fundamental
- She contributes substantially to charities, organizations to aid children and one parent families, and to multiple sclerosis research. She's now President of the aid group One Parent Families. She has done extensive work raising funds for other charities, as well.
Yeah, she totally seems like a cynical, cold-hearted hater of children, who sued a tiny Indian village because she wanted to ruin the kids' celebration, and who manipulated the publishing industry to place her books in prime market position, as the epitome of the fantasy genre. What a @!$%#.
Just sayin'.
{"commentId":1122780,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":1122875,"authorDomain":"moarinternets"}
{"commentId":1123027,"authorDomain":"brianford"}
Denying that verifiable statements of facts are true is a great example of grasping at straws as your argument slips through your fingers.
I won't deny that wikis can't be compromised, but it's a bit of a stretch to deny the information in 14.1 simply because it doesn't work with your argument.
It works about as well as labeling those that rebut your points as "fanboys" simply because they disagree with your views.
{"commentId":1123027,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"brianford"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1121591,"authorDomain":"moarinternets"}
Gay Dumbledore sparks debate about motives of J.K. Rowling.
I'm not the only person suspicious about her motives.
{"commentId":1121591,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"moarinternets"}
#15 - Mon Oct 22, 2007 6:16 PM EDT{"commentId":1121800,"authorDomain":"mrben"}
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.
{"commentId":1121800,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"mrben"}
- 2 votes
#16 - Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:59 PM EDT{"commentId":1122346,"authorDomain":"vincitveritas"}
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.
Or, like many authors, Rowling has much more complete biography/backstory for her characters than she ever could have included in the actual novels, but when pressed on the issue after the series was finished she was happy, neé thrilled, to reveal this bit of detail she had thus far kept to herself.
{"commentId":1122346,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"vincitveritas"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1122732,"authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
she was happy, neé thrilled, to reveal this bit of detail
[chuckle] She was born thrilled? I wonder if she needed any medical treatment for that, as a child?
{"commentId":1122732,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"iarnuocon"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1124792,"authorDomain":"celestina"}
Or, like many authors, Rowling has much more complete biography/backstory for her characters than she ever could have included in the actual novels,
This was my assumption. As to why she would let it out now, well, why not? As so many other people have mentioned, she has made all the money she will ever need, and therefore has nothing to lose by filling in some (controversial) background.
You know, the stories weren't brilliantly written, but they weren't awful. And what they did have was a way for modern children to recapture a sense of magic and wonder. That was the power of her story, and that is why it has sold so well. We live in a technical age, where everything seems to come down to gears and factors. Kids (and many adults) want to believe in magic, want to believe in something outside the predictable. Older magical mythologies couldn't co-exist with our modern era, but Rowling provided a way for people to imagine, even within their every day construct. It doesn't matter what her influences are, she managed to take the idea and transform it for the modern era, make it relevant again. That's why so many people love her.
{"commentId":1124792,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"celestina"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1126203,"authorDomain":"brashmonkey"}
...Rowling provided a way for people to imagine, even within their every day construct. It doesn't matter what her influences are, she managed to take the idea and transform it for the modern era, make it relevant again. That's why so many people love her.
I think that's spot on. My daughter (age 9) read through the entire series in two months, and so I figured it was time for me to make my way through them having previously abandoned them after book two. As someone intensely interested in stories, from the mechanics to the meta, I have been reading her books with half my mind on figuring out why her books are so successful. Her imagination is great and manipulation of minor and major story arcs is skillful. Though her use of language leaves a bit to be desired she does improve over the course of the books. But none of that really matters to the reader, especially the young reader. What matters is that she, well, provides a context for those who want to believe in something outside the predictable
. I think that's exactly it, Celestina. And it's why adults like them too. She takes something mundane and really pushes the symbolism. Portraits, for example. Portraits are a means of both remembering someone and allowing them to live on. So Rowling does just that by bringing them to life as characters. As kids, many of us have come across trees with muscular trunks and limbs. Rowling just takes it the next step and gives the tree motivation.
As for Dumbledore. It's hardly the first controversial aspect of her book, and to me it seems to fit right in. She also presents issues of racism (house elves) and class (Malfoys v Weasleys). She demonstrates the abuse of power (Dolores Umbridge). The only other that comes to mind which I don't recall addressed are gender issues (though the girls' dormitory stairs will repel boys while the boys' will not; hmmm).
{"commentId":1126203,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"brashmonkey"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1126466,"authorDomain":"jasonford"}
BrashMonkey,
Very well put.
{"commentId":1126466,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"jasonford"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1122276,"authorDomain":"ajzzz"}
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?
{"commentId":1122276,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"ajzzz"}
- 3 votes
#17 - Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:12 AM EDT{"commentId":1144325,"authorDomain":"denniswright"}
Interesting thoughts on plagiarism by JK Rowling Claus, but I'm sure I've read some similar comments about her before somewhere ...
{"commentId":1144325,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"denniswright"}
- 1 vote
#18 - Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:04 AM EDT{"commentId":1235936,"authorDomain":"trueopinion"}
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.
{"commentId":1235936,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"trueopinion"}
- 1 vote
#19 - Sun Dec 2, 2007 8:54 PM EST{"commentId":1302018,"authorDomain":"mrs-billy-gilman5"}
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!
{"commentId":1302018,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"mrs-billy-gilman5"}
#20 - Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:35 AM EST{"commentId":1302023,"authorDomain":"mrs-billy-gilman5"}
Wow I just went through and read some of the other comments. Wow. People are so rude and hateful. You could express your opinons without acting like little kids! I really, truly hate it when people post that kind of crap all over other people's work! I hope you all are proud that a 15-year-old is more mature than you are.
{"commentId":1302023,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"mrs-billy-gilman5"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1691277,"authorDomain":"montchoisy2002"}
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.
{"commentId":1691277,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"montchoisy2002"}
- 1 vote
#21 - Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:31 PM EDT{"commentId":1691324,"authorDomain":"swade"}
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.
{"commentId":1691324,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"swade"}
#22 - Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:54 PM EDT{"commentId":1691960,"authorDomain":"nilesh-tailor"}
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!
{"commentId":1691960,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"nilesh-tailor"}
#23 - Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:14 PM EDT{"commentId":1852317,"authorDomain":"strangesindex"}
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!
{"commentId":1852317,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"strangesindex"}
#24 - Thu May 29, 2008 12:02 AM EDT{"commentId":4007664,"authorDomain":"olivergray89"}
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.
{"commentId":4007664,"threadId":"165415","contentId":"1041316","authorDomain":"olivergray89"}
#25 - Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:10 PM EST{"canLink":false,"threadId":"165415","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
