antishurtugal_reborn | I found this article.

Don't delete it - this looks interesting!

really?

Definitely! I'll post a proper comment once I've read the rest of the article. 😀

Ok. I'll be waiting.

Interesting! I'll have to read it properly later.

On the headline, though, I think there are a lot of similarities between HP and older works because HP is merely the latest in a long and grand tradition of English boarding school stories, and a slightly less long sub-tradition of magical boarding school stories. It leans heavily on established genre tropes developed by writers like Enid Blyton, Sarah Fielding, Talbot Reed, the Jennings and Billy Bunter serieses, and so on.

There is also a tradition of "magical orphan discovers they're special and escapes from abusive situation" stories, one of which I distinctly remember involved a character named Harriet being locked in a coal cellar by her uncle when she refused to eat a disgusting rice pudding.

That said, I would be absolutely not surprised at all if it turns out JKR intentionally and knowingly committed plagiarism. One of the stories I read before HP was Groosham Grange, which is eerily similar in many oddly specific ways, but was published almost 10 years before the first Harry Potter book.

One of my favourite critiques of the series goes like this:

Far from being the plucky orphan underdog, Harry is the rich and famous trust fund jock who receives blatant favouritism from almost the teachers and then marries his high school sweetheart.

In any other school story, he would be a minor villain, in the style of Johnny from The Karate Kid (even though arguably Daniel is the villain of that story).

Far from being the plucky orphan underdog, Harry is the rich and famous trust fund jock who receives blatant favouritism from almost the teachers and then marries his high school sweetheart.

He only receives favoritism from Madam Hooch for his skill, and Hagrid's favoritism extends to Ron and Hermione due to them being friends. However, Snape irrationally and obviously bullies him cause of reasons that the author later tries to get him sympathy for.

However, Snape irrationally and obviously bullies him cause of reasons that the author later tries to get him sympathy for.

Oh, his mother wouldn't date you because you were a slimy little creep who publicly called her by a particularly nasty slur? How terrible for you. Seriously, fuck Snape. Anyone who thinks he's some sort of Byronic hero (and especially when it includes that he should have gotten together with Hermione) is out of their damn mind.

Oh, his mother wouldn't date you because you were a slimy little creep who publicly called her by a particularly nasty slur? How terrible for you. Seriously, fuck Snape. Anyone who thinks he's some sort of Byronic hero (and especially when it includes that he should have gotten together with Hermione) is out of their damn mind.

I argued with my English teacher about this exact thing. Imagine a white guy calling his black friend the n-word, and then joining an alt-right group. Snape is that creep who thinks you being nice to him is flirting. He's still creepily pining after a girl from school. This is not healthy and weird as hell. Also, Snape is responsible for Harry being an orphan. He should have the decency to have SOME guilt around that.

The writer Neil Gaiman has called Rowling’s depiction of boarding school a “weird and idealized” vision of something that’s “really all about bullying, torture and [in deference to any children who might be reading this, let’s just say that the last word he mentioned refers to an activity usually practiced alone

Idealised? Hogwarts is a horribly run nightmare of unchecked bullying and abuse at the hands of both students AND at least one teacher, none of whom are disciplined for their behaviour. Snape TORTURES his own students and goes completely unpunished when he should have been fired a long time ago. Or not even hired in the first place because he was a member of the Wizard Nazi Party. The number of injuries and deaths are off the charts. Hard to believe so many fans are so desperate to go there, really.

“I, of course, used a time machine to ‘get the idea’ of Unseen University from Hogwarts; I don’t know what Paul [Kidby, the illustrator] used in this case. Obviously he must have used something.”

LOL! Good ole Sir Terry. It's always nice to see him aim his snark at a deserving target.

Talent does not excuse Rowling’s ingratitude, her vanity, her greed, her bullying of the little guy, and her pathetic claims of emotional distress.

It's becoming depressingly more and more apparent that JKR was a nasty piece of work even before she went all TERF on us.

I loved the Potter books as a kid, but the whole thing has soured for me to the point that I got rid of my copies and the few bits of merchandise I owned. Initially I did it on a point of principle because I was so disgusted by Rowling's behaviour, but over the years I've realised the series really doesn't hold up that well. It's extremely unoriginal and has some pretty nasty stuff lurking in there amongst all the exciting adventures and whatnot. YouTuber Sheep In The Box covered it quite well in a series of video essays. https://www.youtube.com/@SheepInTheBox

Harry Potter was a big part of my upbringing. The movies started coming out when I was 10 or so, so my brother and I got to watch them in a weird way where as we grew up so did the characters in the movies. Before that my mom would read the books to us. It was kind of a big family thing and still is, alongside the Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings movies.

I know I dreamed of getting a mysterious letter when I was 11, of learning magic and finding out the world was so much more wondrous than anything I could possibly imagine. Of seeing dragons and basilisks and angry trees and being part of the world that JKR put to paper (Whether she was original or not, whether she did a good job or not).

So for me, finding out that in no uncertain terms that I was not welcome in that world on account of my transness was devastating. But I was raised to respect myself and I knew that when someone shows you disrespect you disconnect and find someone who will treat you like a person. It was hard and hurt but I did it. I pulled myself away from something I loved dearly that clearly didn't love me back. Meanwhile my family has steadfastly continued to pretend that Rowling has not chosen to define herself as my enemy so the Harry Potter movie marathons and Harry Potter themed parties - for the nieces and nephews of course, of course, not to exclude you IgnoreSandra - and book readings and shit has continued.

Rowling is not solely responsible for the state of my family. My place with them has always been questionable because frankly my needs have never been a priority. But what Rowling has chosen to make of herself and her work has accelerated a process that ends with my family torn asunder, a process that could maybe have been reversed without her. With me thrown aside as "the daughter who's too sensitive and too wrapped up in social media to be rational" and I just. This topic hurts.

I don't like these books anymore. I re-read them as an adult and I don't like what Rowling thinks is funny and I think her books are mean-spirited in general. I think the most egregious thing for me is how Rowling treats the use of love potions. How it's a silly ha-ha gag or whatever when it's in reality one of the most horrifying things she's ever written not on twitter.

There comes a time when you have to decide what matters more: your integrity, or some silly book series you enjoyed as a kid. And quite frankly it should be a no-brainer. Anyone who picks the book has just shown you their true colours.

Unfortunately I have a family member who's been successfully fooled into thinking JKR has been unfairly treated and just has "perfectly reasonable concerns" and is motivated by "feminism". But that's the thing, isn't it? People like that always start out sounding perfectly rational, reasonable and concerned. That's how they sucker you in, just as with any cult. Scientology doesn't open immediately with all that BS about Lord Xenu and aliens in volcanoes. They start by offering you mental healthcare and stress tests, and once you've fallen for that they start slowly reeling you in. Now JKR has progressed to Holocaust denial and apparently doesn't tweet about anything other than that and other bigoted crap any more (I refuse to go and see for myself). It's just appalling.

I don't like these books anymore. I re-read them as an adult and I don't like what Rowling thinks is funny and I think her books are mean-spirited in general. I think the most egregious thing for me is how Rowling treats the use of love potions. How it's a silly ha-ha gag or whatever when it's in reality one of the most horrifying things she's ever written not on twitter.

Same here. If you read the series again with a more experienced eye there is some REALLY problematic stuff in there. Date rape drugs (why was Lavender Brown or whoever it was never punished for slipping a mickey to another kid??), blatant anti-Semitism (the goblins), heroes who stoop to torture and mind control which goes unpunished, racism, sexism (all women want BEBBES!), child abuse which is treated very casually, and you can make a case for homophobia as well in that there is no gay representation (retcons years after the fact don't count) and the werewolves as a metaphor for AIDs sufferers is horribly mishandled.

I really think it's beyond past time we put the franchise to bed (along with Twilight, which also refuses to go away) and move the fuck on already. It's had its time and so has the awful woman behind it.

Edited 2024-04-15 08:42 (UTC)

There comes a time when you have to decide what matters more: your integrity, or some silly book series you enjoyed as a kid. And quite frankly it should be a no-brainer. Anyone who picks the book has just shown you their true colours.

I agree. People thought I was being a hard ass about Hogwarts Legacy, but I wasn't. I can't stop someone from continuing to engage with things that make Rowling stronger but I can sure as hell understand that to them my safety is not a priority.

What gets me the most are the people who are vaguely aware that Rowling is trash but pretend that doesn't matter so they can have the thing they like. It's a level of cowardice I simply cannot respect. Like let's pretend that Tolkien was trash (Sorry professor!). Tolkien's been dead for decades. It doesn't matter how odious he might have been in his personal life because his personal life is in the past tense. Rowling is alive. Rowling is rich, and Rowling is using her money and fame to nudge humanity towards another Dark Age.

People like that always start out sounding perfectly rational, reasonable and concerned. That's how they sucker you in, just as with any cult.

Or they just like ask you to pay them $18,000 to be flown out to a secretive compound where sweaty men will yell at you as you crawl through mud. Grifts are fascinating sometimes.

But yes. It always starts reasonable - how do we recover Germany's economic position in the wake of a devastating war that we lost? How do we recover our national pride since this treaty basically doesn't let us have a military? And then two years later its all "Obviously all this is the fault of homosexuals and jews and has nothing to do with mistakes made by previous generations of leadership."

I am comparing Rowling to Hitler to highlight that the tactics really are the same. I am not meaning to imply the personages are the same because they aren't.

Date rape drugs (why was Lavender Brown or whoever it was never punished for slipping a mickey to another kid??)

Not just this, but Fred & George (Who we're supposed to like and be rooting for) sell date rape drugs when they open a shop (Which only women are interested in for some reason) in one of the later books and no one says anything. Voldemort's mother also used said drugs on her husband and iirc the book doesn't really go into that and treats it as tragic when the guy runs for it the one time he is not constantly being dosed.

So this is a consistent pattern in Rowling's books. Sexual aggression is okay (in general) but especially when (cis) women do it.

heroes who stoop to torture and mind control which goes unpunished

I can see this in a more adult story. Protagonist uses torture and mind control to win, no one punishes them for it, but because they're basically a good person it haunts them for the rest of their life. Kinda like what Suzanne Collins did. Arguably The Hunger Games is about PTSD. Anyway that's not what Rowling did. Harry uses these things that are forbidden for good reasons and then is just basically fine. Which is both morally bad and bad storytelling.

Knda like what Suzanne Collins did. Arguably The Hunger Games is about PTSD.
Interesting.
Personally, and please don't kill me, the truth is that I have never liked the hunger games. For me, they are an example of how not to write in the first person (not to mention that it was indirectly responsible for creating a subgenre that should never have existed).

From there on out, I understand what you feel. I'm not trans, but it's understandable that, after years of enjoying a book series, you no longer feel welcome in a place you previously thought was safe.

I don't know if I explain myself

Personally, and please don't kill me, the truth is that I have never liked the hunger games. For me, they are an example of how not to write in the first person (not to mention that it was indirectly responsible for creating a subgenre that should never have existed).

It's fine to not like the Hunger Games. Personally, I do like them, as I believe that Suzanne Collins works interesting themes in her work, and is clearly educated (for example, in the prequel, the Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, there is a discussion woven into the book of how humans are in their natural state, without civilization, with enlightenment philosophies drawn upon.)

However, I do believe the hunger games ripoffs miss the point. For example, the love triangle in the Hunger Games is not about romance, it's about how Katniss has to act a certain way, and play a part that is not authentic in order to survive. However, in a lot of knockoffs, they are just straight-up romances that aren't very interesting.

Personally, and please don't kill me, the truth is that I have never liked the hunger games. For me, they are an example of how not to write in the first person (not to mention that it was indirectly responsible for creating a subgenre that should never have existed).

It's okay not to like a book lol. It's been a minute since I've read the series so I can't comment on Collins' writing style. I don't think it's necessarily fair to blame Collins for the copycat books that followed The Hunger Games and I think you agree because of your use of the word "indirectly".

I will say that Collins was very concerned with acting, pretense, and trauma. She wrote one of the few love triangles I find acceptable and it's because it's not really a love triangle - it's a corner and Katniss has been backed into it and it's stressing her out. The constant unrelenting scrutiny of Katniss' behavior and the fact that the only time she really gets to take her own back is when she's performing an act of violence - shooting at the judges, everything that happens in the arena, destroying an aircraft with an arrow, killing President Coin - seem perfectly calculated to create a character who can never know peace, and Collins follows through with that in the end instead of trying to give her an uncomplicated happy ending.

I don't know if I explain myself

You're fine!

I agree. People thought I was being a hard ass about Hogwarts Legacy, but I wasn't. I can't stop someone from continuing to engage with things that make Rowling stronger but I can sure as hell understand that to them my safety is not a priority.

If you don't stand for something then you stand for nothing, and it's not even just a matter of principle when it's your own life being actively endangered by that fool and her lies. With me I'm just doing it to be supportive. I can in theory walk away. But I'm not going to do that.

What gets me the most are the people who are vaguely aware that Rowling is trash but pretend that doesn't matter so they can have the thing they like. It's a level of cowardice I simply cannot respect.

SAME. 100% SAME. Grow a damn spine! People are being MURDERED! But a stupid video game is more important to you? Seriously?

I am comparing Rowling to Hitler to highlight that the tactics really are the same. I am not meaning to imply the personages are the same because they aren't.

They're both people who spread or are spreading bigotry, so of course there are parallels. Disturbing ones.

Harry uses these things that are forbidden for good reasons and then is just basically fine. Which is both morally bad and bad storytelling.

I can understand that the rest of the wizarding world lets him off the hook (the winners decide what the warcrimes were, after all), but yeah, he definitely shouldn't be at all comfortable with himself after what he did. One of my characters (mistakenly) believes he committed genocide and is so tormented that he voluntarily turns himself in and says he accepts whatever punishment is handed down to him. Harry just goes off and becomes a magical police officer. When the trauma he went through should quite frankly make him ineligible.

SAME. 100% SAME. Grow a damn spine! People are being MURDERED! But a stupid video game is more important to you? Seriously?

It's at the point where I can't actually say anything about it without murdering my social relationships and gaining a reputation as the stop having fun girl (Which is exactly the position I was in with Cyberpunk 2077 so it's not unfamiliar). The ability of reactionaries to reframe women of conscience as some kind of demon out to make everyone miserable really pisses me off.

The key takeaway here is that for Death of the Author to apply, the author must actually be dead.

Harry just goes off and becomes a magical police officer. When the trauma he went through should quite frankly make him ineligible.

In Rowling's little fantasy land where being a wizard cop or indeed any kind of cop is an okay thing to be, you're right. Harry's warcrimes and trauma should make him ineligible because they indicate he won't do the job with the strict rigor it requires. (Although I would argue that even within Harry Potter, wizard cops do not do good things and should not be idolized)

However I don't think cops are good. I think they're lazy at best and actively malicious more often. Under that view, the fact Harry tortures people and feels nothing about it makes him an ideal police officer precisely because police officers are bad and it's not okay to want to be one.

The ability of reactionaries to reframe women of conscience as some kind of demon out to make everyone miserable really pisses me off.

It's just gaslighting when all is said and done, not to mention misogynistic. Once when I made a stand about something objectionable the response I got (from another woman, no less) was being called "nasty" and "arrogant" and she hoped I would "learn to be kind". Ugh, it was eight years ago and thinking about it still enrages me.

I didn't even hit back; just blocked her. I don't like confrontations, and no doubt it's a learned behaviour. First they tell you to be quiet and polite and don't make a fuss, and then a few years later they complain that you're not assertive enough! Well maybe that's because I never really learned how? Ugh.

The key takeaway here is that for Death of the Author to apply, the author must actually be dead.

And therefore no longer making money off the work. Lovecraft was a vicious racist, but he's also been dead since 1937. Rowling is actively giving money to anti trans organisations.

Under that view, the fact Harry tortures people and feels nothing about it makes him an ideal police officer precisely because police officers are bad and it's not okay to want to be one.

And lest we forget, anyone he brings in alive gets sent to a nightmarish freezing cold dungeon and subjected to torture.

The ability of reactionaries to reframe women of conscience as some kind of demon out to make everyone miserable really pisses me off.

Women's anger is something to be ridiculed, men's anger is something to be feared. People like that, who dismiss valid concerns, don't want to learn. Many women have internalized misogyny, for their part, and don't care about women's problems because they see those things as a part of life, to be dealt with. For their part, many men just don't get what women face, how women have live their lives.

The key takeaway here is that for Death of the Author to apply, the author must actually be dead.

Rowling's done so much messed up stuff. I find it so interesting how Rowling talks about the violence that cis women face, and then doesn't care about the violence that trans women face. It just shows that this isn't just "defending women" or whatever she says. I genuinely do not know how someone could have so much hate for trans people.

or indeed any kind of cop is an okay thing to be, you're right

I disagree on this point. I do not think cops are inherently bad, and I do think we need police. Of course, there needs to be regulation and oversight, and a mandatory body cam law.

Edited 2024-04-19 02:46 (UTC)

werewolves as a metaphor for AIDs sufferers is horribly mishandled

I still can't get over that, in this metaphor, Fenrir Greyback is basically a sexually-active gay man who deliberately spreads AIDS to little boys, who are is preferred prey. I MEAN. WTF. That's so bad.

Date rape drugs

That they casually sell at a joke shop.

I remember when I was first reading Goblet of Fire, a character mentioned a law that only humans could have wands. I remember thinking how horrible that was and that the main character should fix it, but neither Harry nor Hermione, who haven't been raised in the wizarding world, and thus shouldn't think of this as normal, register this as a bad thing. (Hermione's only activism is trying to free some house elves.) Nobody tries to fix this magical caste system at all. I was younger than Harry Potter was in the book, and younger than the author was when she wrote it, and yet I saw a problem that neither did.

This isn't to say you can't have injustices in your world, or characters who have bigoted beliefs, but neither those beliefs nor the injustices should be supported by the narrative, in a meta sense.

I still can't get over that, in this metaphor, Fenrir Greyback is basically a sexually-active gay man who deliberately spreads AIDS to little boys, who are is preferred prey. I MEAN. WTF. That's so bad.

Oh yeah, it's the old gay = paedophile nonsense with fur on. She's not even trying to hide it.

That they casually sell at a joke shop.

And because Voldemort was conceived on the things Rowling said she had this idea that he couldn't feel love because he was made without love. So, yeah, if you were the result of a rape that makes you an evil psychopath! What sort of a message is that??

Hermione's only activism is trying to free some house elves.

And she's painted as foolish and misguided for doing it, and the house elves are shown to resent her for trying to set them free! Because, you know, slavery is just the natural order of things and they're better off that way.

This isn't to say you can't have injustices in your world, or characters who have bigoted beliefs, but neither those beliefs nor the injustices should be supported by the narrative, in a meta sense.

Yeah. They get rid of the bad guys but don't do anything to change the system that created them in the first place. I think it's pretty damn obvious it's all just going to happen again sooner or later. Just like how the Varden got rid of Galby but didn't do shit to make sure the next generation of Riders wouldn't be just as bad as the last lot and inevitably give rise to another Galby (which if you look at Eragon has arguably already happened).

Oh yeah, it's the old gay = paedophile nonsense with fur on. She's not even trying to hide it.

How does this slip past someone? I don't even think she did it deliberately. I just think it was unconscious.

And because Voldemort was conceived on the things Rowling said she had this idea that he couldn't feel love because he was made without love. So, yeah, if you were the result of a rape that makes you an evil psychopath! What sort of a message is that??

I remember that. WTF?

And she's painted as foolish and misguided for doing it, and the house elves are shown to resent her for trying to set them free! Because, you know, slavery is just the natural order of things and they're better off that way.

It could be argued that they don't want to be free because that's the only thing they know, which is exactly how a horrible system perpetuates itself.

They get rid of the bad guys but don't do anything to change the system that created them in the first place. I think it's pretty damn obvious it's all just going to happen again sooner or later.

Voldemort got alliances with lots of creatures like giants and werewolves because they felt persecuted. And this is ignored in place of some wand bullshit that lets Harry win.

Edited 2024-04-19 03:00 (UTC)

How does this slip past someone? I don't even think she did it deliberately. I just think it was unconscious.

Probably she just wanted to make Greyback seem extra creepy because, y'know, he's a villain and stuff.

It could be argued that they don't want to be free because that's the only thing they know, which is exactly how a horrible system perpetuates itself.

Which is what Hermione even says - that they're "uneducated and brainwashed". Does Harry have any thoughts about this? Nope. He couldn't possibly care less and even accepts his own personal slave at the end to make him a sammich.

Voldemort got alliances with lots of creatures like giants and werewolves because they felt persecuted. And this is ignored in place of some wand bullshit that lets Harry win.

More Galby parallels. There's no way in hell anyone's going to convince me that he won with just thirteen supporters rather than being the head of a mass uprising of disgruntled humans, wild dragons, and quite probably urgals and dwarves as well. All in order to overthrow the arrogant dictatorship of the original order who were the elves' puppets and not even trying to hide it. And okay, Eragon does at least add urgals and dwarves to the Rider pact thingy, but they're still going to be indoctrinated by the elves as soon as they get a dragon to hatch for them and the dragons are still being exploited and enslaved, and "the people" he allegedly fought for are considerably WORSE off than they were before. So in the end nothing has really been fixed at all. Going and murdering lots of people and putting a new dictator on the throne never fixed jack shit.

Probably she just wanted to make Greyback seem extra creepy because, y'know, he's a villain and stuff.

It did work.

Which is what Hermione even says - that they're "uneducated and brainwashed". Does Harry have any thoughts about this? Nope. He couldn't possibly care less and even accepts his own personal slave at the end to make him a sammich.

His personal slave, whose ancestors stuffed heads are hanging on the wall. In defense of the books, Sirius's treatment of Kreacher was shown to be bad, and did eventually lead to his downfall. And there is progress made at the end, with house elves having gotten their own representative in the Ministry of Magic. However, Harry/Rowling doesn't go all the way with it, and consider that, if even someone like Sirius could treat Kreacher badly, what does that mean for the rest of the house elves. Harry doesn't even have the decency to be uncomfortable about the whole thing.

More Galby parallels. There's no way in hell anyone's going to convince me that he won with just thirteen supporters rather than being the head of a mass uprising of disgruntled humans, wild dragons, and quite probably urgals and dwarves as well.

I think the thirteen supporters were the ones who mainly fought (and I do think that the wizard's duel thing makes sense for how Riders can be defeated by only 14), but I wouldn't be surprised if there were some humans and elves who wanted things changed.

So in the end nothing has really been fixed at all. Going and murdering lots of people and putting a new dictator on the throne never fixed jack shit.

One thing that Eragon didn't consider was that his presence would be a danger to the next person on the throne. If he could bolster a rebellion against Galby, then he could do the same against Nasuada. I wouldn't be surprised if Nasuada eventually used the Name of Names to bump off Eragon quietly.

One thing that Eragon didn't consider was that his presence would be a danger to the next person on the throne. If he could bolster a rebellion against Galby, then he could do the same against Nasuada. I wouldn't be surprised if Nasuada eventually used the Name of Names to bump off Eragon quietly.

Plus he seems to think that moving a couple of blocks away means he won't ever be tempted to interfere in Alaglag's affairs again now that he's "too powerful". Um, he's still in constant contact with Nausea, Arya and probably Roran as well. The moment he hears anything he doesn't like, what exactly is going to stop him coming straight back and fucking everyone over for a second time?

When I heard that he would leave Alagaesia and never return, I thought that meant that he would be going to the other continent. Not that he would just be going beyond the Eastern border. It seems a bit cheap to me.

More of Paolini's wussing out. To take it the whole way he should have had Ergy leave the entire continent, in a place where he can't be contacted for whatever reason, never to even hear from his friends again. But nope, just have him stay in shouting distance and thereby remove any real sense of tragedy there might have been.

It's like if someone left New York State but they moved one mile over the border to Canada. And Eragon can just go right back. There's nothing stopping him.

I am too tired and mentally spent right now to reply with anything too eloquent, so I'll just say, as a mod and as a long-standing member of the antishurtugal community:

You are welcome here. You are appreciated, you are valid, and you are valued. Thank you for being here with us as part of the antishurtugal family.

Thank you so much

I heartily second this, and if any of you ever need someone to talk to, I'm here to listen.

So for me, finding out that in no uncertain terms that I was not welcome in that world on account of my transness was devastating. But I was raised to respect myself and I knew that when someone shows you disrespect you disconnect and find someone who will treat you like a person. It was hard and hurt but I did it. I pulled myself away from something I loved dearly that clearly didn't love me back. Meanwhile my family has steadfastly continued to pretend that Rowling has not chosen to define herself as my enemy so the Harry Potter movie marathons and Harry Potter themed parties - for the nieces and nephews of course, of course, not to exclude you IgnoreSandra - and book readings and shit has continued.

This is awful. I am very sorry you have to deal with this. You are valid and welcome here.

How it's a silly ha-ha gag or whatever when it's in reality one of the most horrifying things she's ever written not on twitter.

And anyone half-decent at potions can just brew as much love potions as they like.

Thanks for sharing the post! It's a handy list of works I can recommend to people who "just can't give Harry Potter up". I read Charmed Life growing up. It's a good book.

No problem.

I had my doubts at first, but I guess the fact that Rowling “plagiarised” things was kind of logical, maybe.

And apparently everyone agrees.

That's certainly interesting and a well-made case, too.

For my part, I'm glad I never became that attached to the series. I got rid of the books years ago and have barely thought on it since. And if I hadn't, this would have decided it for me, even apart from Rowling's behaviour.

Some of the books in this list, like Chrestomanci series and the Dark is Rising series, are very different in feel and theme from Harry Potter and I believe their inclusion in this list is ridiculous. (The Dark is Rising draws heavily on Welsh mythology.) However, there is a very good case for some of the others, especially the Books of Magic series.

I think Rowling didn't intentionally steal ideas, I just think she is being quite derivative, and uses a lot of tropes in her work. For example, the evil blonde nemesis, the mysterious castle, the mysterious scar, the evil fat family that doesn't appreciate the poor, skinny protagonist, etc.

However, ideas are definitely covered under plagiarism, and I do wonder where the line shifts from "derivative" to "illegal".

Some of the books in this list, like Chrestomanci series and the Dark is Rising series, are very different in feel and theme from Harry Potter and I believe their inclusion in this list is ridiculous.

I kind of agree with that. However, even if it is not these specific stories, I believe Rowling did borrow ideas from older works. That's not weird at all. Literally every writer does it. Every story has been written before, every work is derivative in some way. But what you're supposed to do in that case as a writer is say that you were inspired by a previous work but took the idea in your own direction which is both intellectually honest and points your readers back at whatever it was that inspired you.

But then I suppose if Rowling did that with The Worst Witch I imagine the wheels on the bus would fall off because the stories are far too similar.

But then I suppose if Rowling did that with The Worst Witch I imagine the wheels on the bus would fall off because the stories are far too similar.

Yes. At the very least, Rowling should have mentioned her inspiration.

Yeah, I skimmed over that part. All it really proves is how heavily she relies on tropes.

I found this article.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

😢

Re: 😢

Re: 😢

Re: 😢

Re: 😢

Re: 😢

Re: 😢

Re: 😢

Re: 😢

Re: 😢

Re: 😢

Re: 😢

Re: 😢

Re: 😢

Re: 😢

Re: 😢

Re: 😢

Re: 😢

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject