<p>Awwww… let the OP enjoy the books! People don’t read for fun enough any more (says the high school librarian ;-)</p>
<p>
Lol, that is such complete and utter BS. Barring the ‘game played in the air’ bit, that is one of the most common plots. For example, it fits almost perfectly with Star Wars.</p>
<p>
I haven’t read any of the book in an age, but I don’t remember the writing being overly simplistic. Besides, as you say, it’s a children’s book.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Haha, you’re right. Now that I read it again I realize that the reason I liked it was that he called her out for being a total *****. He wasn’t even being serious about her stealing his plot, he was just using hyperbole to demonstrate how unreasonable she was being about the whole lawsuit thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely. This was a relatively minor issue for me, especially since it makes for great light reading.</p>
<p>I just want to reiterate that I really like the books. I am by no means bashing them, but to call them genius goes too far.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see any evidence of passing ideas off as her own, and it certainly wasn’t a quick buck. Since it’s obvious that the entire plot wasn’t copied, your point rests entirely on baseless assumptions about her motives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I saw one of those sites. Most of them pick on minor details that could easily be explained but aren’t explained because taking the time in the book would’ve completely disrupted any sort of flow. The rest tend to complain about choices various characters make, which kind of reminds me of when I watched Les Mis in class and everybody thought Jean Valjean was stupid for … (don’t want to give away the ending, lol).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, she’s certainly not giving credit, but you’re focusing on the wrong things here. I’m not saying that she should be lynched for literary theft. I’m not even saying that she “stole” anyone else’s ideas. I’m just saying that she doesn’t deserve to be called genius for doing something that has clearly been done before.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure. I haven’t actually been to any of those sites, so I’m certainly not vouching for their credibility, but if you want to deny that there are no plot holes, then you’re just deluding yourself.</p>
<p>Also, I love Les Miserables, and I don’t think that what he did was stupid at all. It just shows that he values other things (honor, ethics, other lives, etc.) above his own life. A side note: if I were gay, Liam Neeson would probably be my celebrity crush.</p>
<p>Actually, I think JK Rowling’s writing is great. She knows exactly what words and actions to leave out or put in to create a particular setting or tone. I especially love the dialogue in the Harry Potter books–a lot of the time it’s funny, but it also perfectly conveys feelings and tone without being too wordy or pretentious. Modern writing is all about brevity and clarity. Sure, Harry Potter is no intense analysis of human nature or a literary work meant to showcase beautiful prose, but I think there is a certain depth to the ideas expressed in the series. Plus, JK Rowling has managed to create something universal, which makes it in my opinion, quite brilliant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I still don’t see how you can say it’s “been done before” when the reason the books are popular goes well beyond the general plot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The issue isn’t the existence of holes in the plot. That’s a problem in just about every book. The issue is whether we’re talking a minor inconsistency in a backstory, a small detail that goes unexplained, or an actual problem that’s central to the story. If you can come up with an example of the latter type, I’d be interested to hear it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I completely agree. They’re good; they’re entertaining; they’re actually quite compelling. But they are not genius, nor are they great literature.</p>
<p>I actually just forced my 13-year-old sister to start reading them on Wednesday. Today she started Book 3 lol… It’s about time!</p>
<p>Man, wait until you get to the 4th book!</p>
<p>The 1st-3rd… great but kid-like. They actually get way more serious and complex.</p>
<p>You know, it is entirely possible for something to be both unoriginal and genius simultaneously. As far as the the coming-of-age hero archetype is concerned, yes, Harry Potter is far from original. But at this point in literature, there aren’t many unexplored character archetypes or general plot lines remaining. The way JKR went about writing Harry Potter, I think, is what makes the series genius. First of all, no one can deny her imaginative prowess. Sure, I can concede that certain elements of the Harry Potter universe are derivative, but together they comprise a product that is completely original. You’d be hard-pressed to find a fictional world that she “stole” from in its entirety. Secondly, she took this vast imagination and made it accessible. Lord of the Rings was genius, but it’s not exactly the easiest story to get into. I can’t imagine many eight-year-olds could pick up a copy of LOTR and immediately become enthralled with Middle-Earth. Even if Harry Potter has been done before, in some way or another, JKR managed to turn the story into something that defined a generation. That in itself is worthy of some recognition.</p>
<p>Is the writing and prose Nobel Prize-worthy? No. Is the plot and character development entirely original? Most would argue not. Does this make the series not genius? It’s debatable, but I would say certainly not. Literature doesn’t necessarily have to explore some profound existential truth to merit such a title.</p>
<p>This is an awesome argument. I love it. :)</p>
<p>Anyone want to have a discussion on The Clique series? I’m reading that one too…for laughs.</p>
<p>JK</p>
<p>^I used to love The Clique series. Even though the writing is …eh and the characters are …eh. It’s quite good. The author basically is just making fun of adults that she’s known in her life… and if you think of it that way, it’s really quite good. haha</p>
<p>JK Rowling is a genius, because she wrote 7 books and made tons and tons and tons and tons of money off of it. And then she got to sell movies… and then merchandise. Man. I wish I could write something that sold that well.</p>
<p>Besides… I like all of the symbolism in Harry Potter. You could easily argue that purebloods v mudbloods is a symbol for racism. And all of the character’s names are symbolic, even if obviously so. (Remus Lupin anyone? XD) Oh… And there’s number symbolism…</p>
<p>And I just don’t see how Quidditch is unoriginal… (Which… Another Genius thing… People are playing quidditch now and they’re trying to make it a NCAA sport…) She literally created a college sport.</p>
<p>I don’t know if Quidditch is original or not, but it’s probably Rowling’s worst invention.</p>
<p>I agree with TCBH on the plot holes. I believe the site that you’re referring to is mugglenet, and the “holes” there are mostly minor, contradictory errors.</p>
<p>I just looked it up and most of the errors go like this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Geesh, dude, way to ruin the magic. Now you can’t even reasonably delude yourself that you’ll get the letter someday lol.</p>
<p>Great morals and themes. It’s a lot deeper than most people think.</p>
<p>Oo, this thread is interesting. I read the series in 2nd and 3rd grade, and the seventh the summer it came out. I was perfectly enthralled with it.
Now… I acknowledge that there are flaws. Some of the plot is overly-cliche, and there are a few weak spots. Even so, I love the series. Compared to the alternatives for this age group (<em>cough</em> Twilight <em>cough</em>) these books rock. The symbolism, the depth of the plot… Great for kids’ books.
As for Rowling herself? She may be genius, she may be greedy, she may be just another author. It doesn’t matter. What she is shouldn’t affect how people view her books.</p>
<p>Stephen King loves Harry Potter. 'Nuff said.</p>
<p>^Harry Potter scared Stephen King.</p>
<p>I forgot to mention that in my post, but that really is 'nuff said.</p>