Anyone else hate J. K. Rowling?

Sep 9, 2008 at 4:16 AM Post #31 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I dont understand how the idea of a Rich boy travelling all his life on a Broomstick still amuse people in year 2008..

She's making money by fooling emo & sissy kids..

if u wanna read good fiction then Dan Brown is your answer



I was hoping for some emoticon so I knew you were being sarcastic!

I don't agree with perpetual copyrights but certainly here she is well within her rights and since HP is not that old, I figure yeah, sure sue if you have to based on principle. Do I personally think she should have? No. I think she should have been thrilled some OCD fan took the time to painstakingly reference anything and everything there is to know about HP. In fact, I'd wager he knows more than she does, at least at his fingertips.

I would have liked to know they had struck a deal. He knew the consequences though going on, even with her "praise."

Now, as for her writing? I'm not a fan, it's pretty well trash in my mind, but comparing her to Dan Brown is like comparing Bach with Britney Spears (and Spears doesn't write her own music! See how bad this is!) Dan Brown may well be the worst author ever. I too read his books because so many were reading it and stating it was the bees knees. Bleh. Every single person who loved these books, I lost quite a bit of respect for them. I wasted a day reading every one of his novels because each time I would finish, I would be told "no no, they get better as you go!" Heh, no, no they don't. They get much worse, oooh so much worse.

Dan Brown should never be permitted to publish again and having anyone read that should be considered a form of mental torture. No, seriously, I must have lost more than a few brain cells reading that utter crap. HP though, those books have kids reading and reading LOTS. Not only are htey reading the series which as I'm told, each novel gets bigger and bigger, the kids are branching out and reading other series. This is positive in my mind. Unlike Duggeh, I think Tolkien was a master and he wasn't writing to impress anyone. He was writing to create a world for his children in the way he knew how. Being a linguist...that means quite a lot of dry parts and being a hobbiest historian...that means pages of details. Regardless, the language used, the themes and the rich characters keeps people thinking. Good stuff!

Anyhow, copyright...she was right legally. Morally she was too given the law, but in an ideal world, no way.
 
Sep 9, 2008 at 5:03 AM Post #32 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I dont understand how the idea of a Rich boy travelling all his life on a Broomstick still amuse people in year 2008..

She's making money by fooling emo & sissy kids..

if u wanna read good fiction then Dan Brown is your answer



Wo... Have you even read harry potter?
confused_face_2.gif
 
Sep 9, 2008 at 5:18 AM Post #33 of 65
U.S. judge halts unofficial Harry Potter lexicon - Yahoo! News


"The proposed book took an enormous amount of my [JKR's] work and added virtually no original commentary of its own."
"Many books have been published which offer original insights into the world of Harry Potter. The Lexicon just is not one of them," her statement said.

So the judge finds: "But Patterson's ruling in favor of Rowling's position said that 'because the Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide, a permanent injunction must issue to prevent the possible proliferation of works that do the same and thus deplete the incentive for original authors to create new works.'"

If Steve Vander Ark had done something more original than collate all of her original "art" into a single book, it would probably be fine.
 
Sep 9, 2008 at 6:26 AM Post #34 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMarchingMule /img/forum/go_quote.gif
LOL!

Wooow, did you just say Dan Brown after what was just discussed?



c'mon Dan Brown ... i have read Dan Browns all 4 books btw.. & i couldnt finish JK Rowling..

Lets not even put all these authors in a Literature category...


okay ...seriously..now look at Frederick Forsyth & the Robert Ludlum ..these guys have an intellectual depth in what they write.

they take some facts & weave them with their fiction.

Anyone read any books by Forsyth or Ludlum?

Now what is this JK Rowling? ...she uses this age old idea of Witches & Wizards and tries to scare little kids by over-obessing it... thats fine...but when it comes to 18 year teens enjoying harry potter fearing the Lord Voldemort (JK rowling must have been tortured as a kid)...its funny how they enjoy this Wizard crap.

for me ..it doesnt work...its too dumb an idea .


WHY does it take 7 Books for her to kill one faceless clown called Voldemort?

BECAUSE by killing him in the 4 books itself..she wouldnt have earned the Sales... Leaking of First page of 7th book was just a Hype to create the Sensationalism....cheap publicity stunts.

...its just a Viral marketing & the wannabe teen attitude which has promoted & led to success of Harry potter....
Kids think its cool to read Harry potter...same as it is to wear Skullcandy.. ..it works the same way..creating a trend.




i remember when first 4 books came out..we used to have 'Harry Potter' quiz contests in school... all these dumb emo kids used to win it.

the millionaire kid who cant afford a Car or jet..but travels by Broomstick..he must be having balls of steel.. or maybe he doesnt have any? coz sitting on a Wooden Rod and accelerating at high speeds gotta hurt something.
 
Sep 9, 2008 at 6:33 AM Post #35 of 65
Heheh, as long as I've been at head-fi, any contemporary literature discussion always ends up with a bunch of people attacking Dan Brown!
 
Sep 9, 2008 at 6:41 AM Post #36 of 65
This is not literature ...

These are Bestsellers.

Dan Brown is also a bestseller & JK Rowling as well.

Now Dan Brown is not a great author in a literature sense..but compare him to JK Rowling then its little grown up writing... he creates a world in which some aspects can be digested ..

He finishes his story in one book ..whereas JK Rowling has to ridicule her fav characters by making them look Gay (Dumbledore rite?) just so she can sell more.

What World for Children are u talking about ? the Children gotta have a better imagination.



Lets talk about writers like Frederick Forsyth & Robert Ludlum...

How many have read ' The Afghan' ???
 
Sep 9, 2008 at 6:56 AM Post #37 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
This is not literature ...

These are Bestsellers.

Dan Brown is also a bestseller & JK Rowling as well.

Now Dan Brown is not a great author in a literature sense..but compare him to JK Rowling then its little grown up writing... he creates a world in which some aspects can be digested ..

He finishes his story in one book ..whereas JK Rowling has to ridicule her fav characters by making them look Gay (Dumbledore rite?) just so she can sell more.

What World for Children are u talking about ? the Children gotta have a better imagination.



Lets talk about writers like Frederick Forsyth & Robert Ludlum...

How many have read ' The Afghan' ???



How is making someone look gay ridiculing them? And it wasn't until after all the books were out that she mentioned that she 'always thought of Dumbledore as gay'. I don't think she did that to sell more...
 
Sep 9, 2008 at 7:00 AM Post #38 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by archosman /img/forum/go_quote.gif
U.S. judge halts unofficial Harry Potter lexicon - Yahoo! News


"The proposed book took an enormous amount of my [JKR's] work and added virtually no original commentary of its own."
"Many books have been published which offer original insights into the world of Harry Potter. The Lexicon just is not one of them," her statement said.

So the judge finds: "But Patterson's ruling in favor of Rowling's position said that 'because the Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide, a permanent injunction must issue to prevent the possible proliferation of works that do the same and thus deplete the incentive for original authors to create new works.'"

If Steve Vander Ark had done something more original than collate all of her original "art" into a single book, it would probably be fine.



i heard the same thing about the lexicon. there were entire passages in the lexicon that were taken verbatim from rowling's book...so much so that some large percentage of the lexicon was entirely jk rowling's writing and not varder ark's.

people might argue over rowling's motives - whether they were to protect other authors in the future or halt production of this encyclopedia because she is also writing her own "scottish book"...but she has not tried to halt other efforts that use her characters and storylines, only ones that copy her work verbatim.
 
Sep 9, 2008 at 7:58 AM Post #39 of 65
I read that the court ruled on a "print out" of the website rather than a finished book (which Rowling put a kabosh on through this lawsuit). Warner Bros demanded a copy of the book (no the Potter books aren't loving hand printed by little dwarfs) but Ark's publisher didn't have one, so they printed out the website. Had he finished a proper book, it might have been quite different. We'll never know.

And my opinion of J K Rowling as a Greedy Witch with a capital "B" stands. Consider this news nugget.

In 2004, Rowling gave HPL (Harry Potter Lexicon) one of her “fan site awards”. On her own website, she said: “This is such a great site that I have been known to sneak into an internet café while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter which is embarrassing.”

• The site is said to have earned only £3,000 in advertising revenue.

I guess now that these peasants actually want to make more than chickenfeed, Rowlings decides to sue over what she herself once enjoyed. Wow. What’s more interesting to me is how the media has been so gentle to Rowling and her howling over this.
 
Sep 9, 2008 at 10:18 AM Post #40 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
WHY does it take 7 Books for her to kill one faceless clown called Voldemort?


Because Rowling would like to kill some other characters as gala warmer -- and made big fusses along the way, like how she cried for days and days when she offed that guy. Sensitive soul, that woman.
 
Sep 9, 2008 at 10:56 AM Post #41 of 65
Dan Brown... Anything controversial about religion sells nowadays, it seems. Dan Brown's novels are about as good as the Left Behind Series, IMO. And I've read a good dose of both, sadly. Then James Cameron and Richard Dawkins jumped on the bandwagon, the former with a doco of Jesus's tomb the latter with bad philosophy of religion (atheists, read Mackie instead. Dear God, if I discuss theology with another Dawkins fanboy...).

Time to defend Rowling. It's not bad stuff to read to kids, I don't think. It's easy-going, and enjoyable. Is the plot original and gripping? No. Is the character development psychologically sophisticated? No. Is the language eloquent? Heck, no. But the HP series is not boring, nor are the characters cardboardish, nor is the writing terrible. So, while it's not art, it's decent entertainment. If you borrow it from a library or friend.
 
Sep 9, 2008 at 2:32 PM Post #42 of 65
Come on guys. If you don't like it thats fine. But a lot of people like Harry Potter's series (myself included), as well as Lord of the Rings and others. Why should I hate her? no reason at all. It is within her rights. If you try to make money out of her intellectual property, it is just plain robbery, whether you like it or not. Intellectual property is difficult to protect, and many people in countries without proper laws (i.e. China) steal at their heart's contempt. (music, movies, books, etc).
 
Sep 9, 2008 at 2:58 PM Post #43 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
c'mon Dan Brown ... i have read Dan Browns all 4 books btw.. & i couldnt finish JK Rowling..

Lets not even put all these authors in a Literature category...



Why not? It is "literature" afterall. Good literature? No. Pulp fiction? For Dan sure, but Rowling writes for children and as such (even if for the now tweens and teens) her books are LEAPS and BOUNDS better than Dan Brown.

Like /. where everything can be broken down to a car analogy, if the likes of Chaucer are a Rolls Royce, Rowling is a Honda Civic and Dan Brown is that beat up carboard box one uses to drag their friend with.
 
Sep 9, 2008 at 3:03 PM Post #44 of 65
Quote:

Originally Posted by Zanth /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Like /. where everything can be broken down to a car analogy, if the likes of Chaucer are a Rolls Royce, Rowling is a Honda Civic and Dan Brown is that beat up carboard box one uses to drag their friend with.


Can the cardboard box be rotting and on fire? Maybe with banana peels hanging off of it?
 
Sep 9, 2008 at 3:18 PM Post #45 of 65
Hate is such a strong word!
...I clearly don't hate here, but I don't read any of her books...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top