From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Tue Sep 05 2000 - 16:08:53 MDT
hal@finney.org wrote:
>
> Mike Lorrey writes, regarding the Harry Potter books,
> > > On Tuesday, September 05, 2000 10:30 AM Michael S. Lorrey
> > > retroman@turbont.net wrote:
> > > > Of course they are good books, they were written by two people. JK Rowling
> > > > copied the work of an earlier author and rewrote them.
> > >
> > > Who was this earlier author she used?
> >
> > Don't recall the name, but there is/was a plagiarism lawsuit going on filed by
> > the offended party.
>
> I found some information on the web about this. Rowling is being sued
> by American author Nancy K. Stouffer, who alleges that Rowling borrowed
> language and ideas from her 1984 book, "The Legend of Rah and Muggles".
>
> http://mrshowbiz.go.com/news/Todays_Stories/317/potterplagiary031700.html:
>
> Stouffer's litany of similarities begins with "muggles." In Rowling's
> Potter books, "muggle" is the word used by wizards to mean ordinary
> humans. Stouffer's muggles are Lilliputian little people who care
> for two orphaned boys. More to the point, Stouffer says she owns a
> trademark on the word "muggle."
>
> Additionally, The Legend of Rah and Muggles features characters
> named Larry Potter and Lilly Potter, and Stouffer also writes about
> characters called "Keepers of the Gardens." In addition to the obvious
> Larry/Harry link, Rowling also has a Lily (mind you, that's with
> just one "l") Potter, and her books include a "Keeper of the Keys"
> character.
>
> IMO even if these similarities prove to be more than coincidence, it would
> hardly be fair to say, as Mike did, that "JK Rowling copied the work of
> an earlier author and rewrote them". His suggestion that such a practice
> would "of course" lead to a good book is a non sequitur, as well.
I had read an article a while ago that gave a far more detailed list of many
similarities. It is actually rather stunning the level of 'coincidence'. My non
sequitur was 'of course' a rhetorical jest... though I do agree with the rule
that in general, the purpose of editors is to polish up the writer's product to
make it better. Whether Rowling was merely an editor of Stouffer's work as is
typical of authors and editors like Joan Collins supposedly had, or merely
cribbed details out of Stouffers work is obviously debatable. I have not read
the work of either author, myself, and tend to shy away from corporate writers
like Rowling in any event. Reading someone like Rowling is kinda like listening
to REO Speedwagon....
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:30:47 MST