Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]
| Just a Person 411th Post
 
Gold Customer
   
    
|  "Harry Potter is coming back ..."
, posted Sun 27 Oct 16:31
Although he wasn't appearing much recently,Harry Potter will be back in November . With the second movie ("Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets) and SEVEN games based on the second book (in GC,PS2,PSX,Xbox,GBC,GBA and PC),Harry Potter fans can be finally happy . Also,hopes are still up that J.K.Rowling may launch this year the fifth book of the HP series .
Sorry,but I just felt like expressing this (especially because I loved all the HP books,the movie and my cousin and I STILL play "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" in PlayStation) .
I can be any person in the world...Maybe I'm this person right in front of you...or not!
|
|
Replies:
|
| TiamatRoar 284th Post
Copper Customer
| "Re(7):Harry Potter gaming madness!" , posted Mon 28 Oct 00:44:
quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1224264.stm
thats the first article about the authors books written apparently before HP
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2268024.stm
this is the outcome. Apparently the court ruled she falsified documents, but that still does not mean her books were not written before Rowlings. Though from the reviews, the original books are supposed to be poorly written as it is. But while I find the lawsuit silly as it is just the stealing of names, I just find it silly that people want to call Rowling a literary genius with a great imagination yet she can't come up with original names for her characters. Incidentally Rowling claims she never even heard of Stouffers books, guess the names Larry Potter and Muggles together in one book she has never heard of is too coencidental lol.
Although it "still does not mean her books were not written before Rowlings", it doesn't mean that they actually WERE, either, you know? Er... you realize that if Stouffer DID write Larry Potter first, she wouldn't have had to falsify documents in the first place, right?
Well... sometimes I go to Kabalarians to get names for my characters for my original stories. Does that make me uncreative? Heaven forbid that someone decide not to pull a name out of their ass, because we all know that if you can make up a name out of no where, you must be a genius!
Seriously, when it comes to criteria to judge someones' creativity towards a storyline, I'd think that the names should be the least of your concerns. If anything, I think Rowling was extremely creative with the names, judging by the various symbolisms in each of them when you look at their historical references. Any idiot can pull a random name out of their head, but to actually research into the meaning of a name or dig up historical studies of figures around it takes actual brain power.
Besides, there are several flaws in Stoufer's argument. For one thing, she claims the illustrations in the HP books are similar to the ones in her own, but from what I heard, the original Harry Potter DID NOT HAVE any illustrations. It's only the American versions of the book that got them. In Canada and I believe Britain (the country where they were first published), there are no illustrations whatsoever, besides the cover, which A) differs significantly from the American ones, which are the ones I believe Stouffer is arguing about, and B) being only cover illustrations, don't give a large enough sample size to judge such a thing, anyways, especially given the CRAPASS 'drawn by a six-year old' artwork sample shown of what Larry looked like.
Also, really, I see no similarities between the muggles of Rowling's book and the muggles of Stoufer's book whatsoever. Last I checked, Rowling's muggles were NORMAL people, while Stoufer's were the MIDGETS of a fantasy land. Heck, the way it appears, Rowling's muggles are the OPPOSITE of Stoufer's, they're so different. And the storylines DEFINATELY are. Harry Potter doesn't make the land of the wizards a happier place at all (at least, although he helps it out by fighting Voldemorte, the place actually was pretty happy before he came along, too), nor does Stoufer's magical land secretly work behind the scenes of the real world, either.
I think Larry Potter rhyming with Harry Potter is suspect, but that's about it. Muggles is a term anyone could have thought of for a fantasy setting and Potter is a pretty common name, so I don't think the two being together is very coincidental at all. Even including the rhyming thing, I've seen and heard of much crazier coincidences than that in my still-rather-young lifetime. Considering that Stoufer's books supposedly suck, I really doubt that someone like Rowling, who lives in Britain, not America where the book originated, would have ever heard of such a little known series in the first place. It looks like we've already entered the hating-boy (opposite of fanboy) land of "Anything Rowling claims has to be a lie" now, huh? But Rowling's not the one that was proven to have falsified documents. On a side note, claiming that Rowling won only because she was popular when she wasn't the one that was proven to have falsified documents is very grossly and falsely misleading.
Judging by what I remember of the interviews with Rowling about how she came up with Harry Potter, I believe HP was in the making long before Larry Potter was published.
I don't think Rowling's literally a god, but that court case and accusing her of being completely uncreative for POSSIBLY stealing names where someone actually had to falsify documents to claim that she wrote Larry Potter first (again, why would she have to falsify them if she really DID write it first?) is pretty silly. You're basically just forgeting about the entire setting, storyline, mystery, magical spells, and societal functions of Harry Potter (all of which differ 100% from that Larry Potter stuff from what I can see) and boiling down the creativity of the author to coming up with NAMES, for crying out loud. That just sounds incredibly irrational to me. If you asked ANY Harry Potter fan what their favorite aspect of Harry Potter was, or what aspect they thought was the most creative, I don't think any single one of them would even REMOTELY think of replying "Names", and whatever their reply would be, it would not be similar AT ALL to Larry Potter.
Nevermind the fact that even if she did take the names from Larry Potter (which I still HIGHLY doubt, since HP was in the making in Rowling's mind for nearly all of Rowling's adult life and thus long before LP was published), you might as well also call Tolkien uncreative just for using dwarves, elves, and hobbits. Those racial names weren't made up by him, after all.
[this message was edited by TiamatRoar on Mon 28 Oct 01:32] |
|
|
