JK Rowling - Harry Potter books [split topic]

[Black Ship]

Nobody knows what plagiarism is anymore.

Nobody knows what plagiarism is anymore.

[popcorn]

^^^ Thought about making that post all day.

[Ferris]

Nobody knows what plagiarism is anymore.

Plagiarism - nobody knows what it is anymore

[Bronzy]

Phimosis - nobody knows what it is anymore

[Twonty Gostelow]

What it reminded of more than anything was the Jennings books.

"This Potter chap's ozard."

[touchingcloth]

The problem for me was, if you've read reasonably widely as a child.  Some Tolkein, some Alan Garner, Ursula le Guin and so on, JK Rowling is like watching Disney when you're looking for Grimm.  It's a pale plastic plagiarism.

I'm just using your post as a jumping off point as there are many similar ones in the thread.

I don't think Rowling is a plagiarist at all, other than dipping into genre tropes. Buellers you mentioned that the first book is a bit shit, and even as a fan I'd agree - I got the second book for my thirteenth birthday and that was the first time I'd heard of or read any of the series, but the first book is very different tonally and narratively from the rest of the series, kind of similarly to how The Hobbit reads differently to LotR.

I think Rowling's biggest strength is in character rather than world building, so the opposite to Tolkien in that sense: in Rowling's works you get the sense that the world has been neglected in favour of the characters, and vice versa in Tolkien's.

[Buelligan]

That doesn't happen in the Harry Potter books.

As pointed out above, you can cherry-pick story details and shave off context to make two dissimilar books look similar. It doesn't mean they're actually like one another in practice, though - as is the case with Harry Potter and Earthsea.

The stuff about Troll is even more of a stretch. "It's got a kid called Harry Potter in it, and some supernatural creatures." That's it. Rubbish.

Nobody knows what plagiarism is any more.

As I pointed out, I haven't read the HP books, I read the first few pages of the first one, was struck by the similarity to other books I'd already ready and thought the writing was poor, as Mango Chimes said, more like one of those iffy 1950s school stories, so left it there.  I come here purely to put forward that opinion, based on my own childhood experience, as a valid opinion.  You can't prove to me that I shouldn't hold it because you like HP books.  I do know what plagiarism is thanks, you cheeky patronising cunt.

[evilcommiedictator]

I was 20 and finished Uni exams and read the first 4 after my 14 year old sister got them, half of the fourth one is the bloody triwizard tournament, nothing happens in it apart from that. I think I've seen the first four movies and maybe the fifth but I just don't care.
They're very easy to read and it's the great trope of "get the adults out of the way and let kids play" from all the old literature and it works, I guess the class analogy is a lot more apparent in the UK than rest of the world though, and my sister's generation aligning themselves with Hogwarts houses seems silly, since one of them is only ever looked at and the other one is for the pantomime fascist villains, "I'm a Hufflepuff because of the two line description once in the books" ffs

[touchingcloth]

I was 20 and finished Uni exams and read the first 4 after my 14 year old sister got them, half of the fourth one is the bloody triwizard tournament, nothing happens in it apart from that.

I've often wondered what happened with the length of book four - it's over 900 pages I think - whether she was encouraged by her editors to make it massive, or if she had enough clout at that point that they didn't whittle it down. The Triwizard Tournament is fine as the main plot of the book I think, but from memory the quidditch world cup - which takes place in the summer so before they even go back to school - doesn't finish until after p100, and there's a blind alley of a subplot about emancipation for house elves. I reckon you could chop a good third out of that book with no harm done.

I'm a Hufflepuff because of the two line description once in the books

You sound more like a Ravenclaw.

[Buelligan]

I reckon you could chop a good third out of that book with no harm done.

Heh.  I'd go a great deal further.

[touchingcloth]

I was so cool I read all of the appendixes in the lord of the rings.

One of the appendices in my copy was an dwarvish rune alphabet, where an 'a' was some sharp lines, a 'b' was some different sharp lines with some dots above it, and so on. Aged 11 or so I learned the fucking thing and could write whole (English) sentences in dwarf runes. Needless to say I had no sex until my twenties.

[bgmnts]

Hufflepuff sounds fat and jolly, I'd like to be a Hufflepuff.

[Old Nehamkin]

RE: the coherence of Harry Potter's worldbuilding, I think the issue is partly just that the first couple of books have a much more light, whimsical tone than the later ones, and the wizarding world is constructed with a certain eccentric irony that leans more towards the sensibility of Douglas Adams or Terry Pratchett in those early volumes than the later ones. I think Rowling does a decent job of handling the transition as the series becomes gradually darker and more emotionally involving, but there's definitely a bit of tension that develops as it becomes harder to reconcile some of the wackier elements of the universe that were established earlier. I remember when I was reading the last book, when Dumbledore has died and Harry is wishing he could talk to him for advice, I kept wondering why they didn't just find somebody to make a painting of Dumbledore, then do the spell that makes paintings into sentient, talking avatars of the subject like paintings have always been portrayed in the prior books. At a certain point you have to just accept that this isn't a universe that was designed to hold up under very rigorous scrutiny, and that's fine.

All of this is part of why comparisons between Rowling and Le Guin don't ring true to me. Le Guin's writing had a far more sober, scholarly tone and her fantasy worlds were constructed in a very detailed, methodical, anthropologically-minded fashion. She belongs to a very different tradition of fantasy writing (more the speculative, sociological mould of Isaac Asimov or perhaps Frank Herbert) than Rowling does.

[touchingcloth]

^ I often think that the first book in the series shares elements with The Hobbit, in that one comparison to later books in the series it's much more clearly written as a children's book, and you're dead right that the later books are in some ways hobbled by the corner she had written herself into in book one, so there's retconning in the later books, and stuff in the first book which leaps out as quite mad on a re-read. There's stuff like a whimsical school song and speech from Dumbledore in the first book which are both in the mould of a lot of children's literature, but which wouldn't fit into any of the later books. I think she had a younger audience in mind for that first book than for the rest of the series - I think it's fair enough to not like the books, but you can't write off the whole series based only on the first book or vice versa.

[Phil_A]

That doesn't happen in the Harry Potter books.

As pointed out above, you can cherry-pick story details and shave off context to make two dissimilar books look similar. It doesn't mean they're actually like one another in practice, though - as is the case with Harry Potter and Earthsea.
.

Also all the wizard school stuff in Earthsea is over and done in the space of about two chapters, the rest of the book is Ged journeying about having adventures on his own, so it's a bit a of a stretch to claim Potter is entirely derived from it.

Not that there's anything particularly original about the Harry Potter universe mind, it's a mish-mash of pretty much every popular school-based children's media up to that time, with some Dahl and Dickens thrown in. Rowling's skill was synthesising all that into something that had a broad enough appeal to find a global audience, written with just the right amount of wit and panache to pull it off.

I think if you separate the books from all hype and nonsense around the franchise they're perfectly fine for what they are, solid traditional fantasy adventure stories. I think the bloat that afflicts the later books would put me off ever revisiting them though. Book 5 is the point the padding becomes absurd, there's absolutely nothing in it to justify it being the length it is.

The arc of HP adheres to the tenets of The Heroes Journey so closely I suspect Rowling had a copy of The Hero With A Thousand Faces propped open by her computer at all times while writing. Or at the least, a diagram like this one:

[Mister Six]

As I pointed out, I haven't read the HP books, I read the first few pages of the first one, was struck by the similarity to other books I'd already ready and thought the writing was poor, as Mango Chimes said, more like one of those iffy 1950s school stories, so left it there.  I come here purely to put forward that opinion, based on my own childhood experience, as a valid opinion.  You can't prove to me that I shouldn't hold it because you like HP books.  I do know what plagiarism is thanks, you cheeky patronising cunt.

You're welcome to hold whatever opinions you like, it's just odd to make a point of holding one that's demonstrably wrong and based on admitted ignorance.

"I am of the opinion that the light sabre fight in Jaws 3 was ripped off of Star Wars."

"There isn't a light sabre fight in Jaws 3."

"Yeah well I haven't seen Jaws 3 and anyway it's only my opinion, you FASCIST!"

Mental.

[bgmnts]

'I do prefer to criticise things from a position of ignorance.'

Alan Moore

[Mister Six]

Not that there's anything particularly original about the Harry Potter universe mind, it's a mish-mash of pretty much every popular school-based children's media up to that time, with some Dahl and Dickens thrown in. Rowling's skill was synthesising all that into something that had a broad enough appeal to find a global audience, written with just the right amount of wit and panache to pull it off.

I think if you separate the books from all hype and nonsense around the franchise they're perfectly fine for what they are, solid traditional fantasy adventure stories. I think the bloat that afflicts the later books would put me off ever revisiting them though. Book 5 is the point the padding becomes absurd, there's absolutely nothing in it to justify it being the length it is.

I'd agree with this, except I'd substitute book four for book five. I got through that one and thought "Right, her editors didn't bother reading this stuff so neither will I."[NB]I've seen the films since, and even in their pared down form - no house elf union shit from Dobby - it's bloody obvious that she didn't really have stories for the fifth and sixth books, just a lot of arc ideas that needed to be set up for the final volume.[/NB]

Like you, I think they're solid kids'/YA adventure stories. I'm not really a fan, but I feel the need to defend them here because they're being subjected to such hacky, lazy criticism that comes across as a reaction to their popularity rather than an honest appraisal of their quality.

[touchingcloth]

I'd agree with this, except I'd substitute book four for book five. I got through that one and thought "Right, her editors didn't bother reading this stuff so neither will I."[NB]I've seen the films since, and even in their pared down form - no house elf union shit from Dobby - it's bloody obvious that she didn't really have stories for the fifth and sixth books, just a lot of arc ideas that needed to be set up for the final volume.[/NB]

I don't know about that. Book five is definitely bloated, but it feels like the point where she started setting up a lot of the more political themes which carry on as through lines for the rest of the series. Books 1-4 have Voldemort as an embodiment of a nebulous kind of evil, and books 5 onwards start including much more human, institutional forms of evil, whether its teachers who are authoritarian rather than petty, or corrupt politicians.

[Mister Six]

Yeah but there's not much of a story there. Bad pink lady becomes headmaster, Harry trains the kids, she's seen off. Harry has to go to get a lost prophecy, he does, one of his mates dies. That's basically it.

[touchingcloth]

And lots of stuff with the Ministry folks tying themselves in knots. I agree that it's overlong, but I think there's interesting themes in there which do more than just set things up for the final book.

The caveat is that I haven't re-read the later books many times due to their length.

[Mister Six]

My caveat is that I haven't read the later books at all.

[evilcommiedictator]

You sound more like a Ravenclaw.

What's even more baffling are people who self describe as Slytherin. You're saying you're a selfish puritanical snob who'd sell your Granny for a dollar, with only your own interests at heart in every decision you make? And entirely ignoring the whole ethnonationalist side of it? Cool, thanks, bye!

[Buelligan]

You're welcome to hold whatever opinions you like, it's just odd to make a point of holding one that's demonstrably wrong and based on admitted ignorance.

"I am of the opinion that the light sabre fight in Jaws 3 was ripped off of Star Wars."

"There isn't a light sabre fight in Jaws 3."

"Yeah well I haven't seen Jaws 3 and anyway it's only my opinion, you FASCIST!"

Mental.

I didn't call you a fascist, I called you a patronising cunt.  I didn't say I was ignorant, simply that reading a few pages was enough to let me know that the writer was not a writer I wished to read and the contents of those pages were unoriginal (and horribly twee).  Don't call me mental and don't misrepresent what I said.  Thanks.

[Mister Six]

I didn't misrepresent anything - you were trying to point out a supposed similarity between Earthsea and Harry Potter that wasn't actually there, and threw a wobbly when I pointed that out.

I won't call you mental if you don't call me a cunt.

[Buelligan]

You absolutely did.  You pretentious and disingenuous person.

[gilbertharding]

I haven't read a word Rowling has written. I have seen approximately 30 minutes of one of the films (I can't remember which one).

Lots of people seem to really like it though.

[Mango Chimes]

_{I didn't say anything about the writing of Harry Potter.}

[Phoenix Lazarus]

_{I didn't say anything about the writing of Harry Potter.}

'Scruffy almost to illegibility.  Potter really must try harder'-Hogwarts School report: Harry's first year.

[Mister Six]

You absolutely did.  You pretentious and disingenuous person.

Go on then - what did I misrepresent?