No, I don't. I already said I accept that. Imagination is a lake where many fish swim. Ideas are interchangeable and mutable, and don't truly belong to anyone.

However, if I saw a painting, and it inspired me to create my own picture, based on the aforementioned 'experiences', and thereby came up with an entirely new work of art, or a refreshing slant on an old one, that is one thing.

If I painted over the original painting, following the lines and forms and using more or less the same colours, and then signed it as a work of my own imagination, that is quite another.

JB

You need a good grounding in knowledge management and learning theory, my friend. It would be closer to the mark to say ideas mutate, are used and reused in different combinations and contexts. Each is not mutually exclusive.

I wonder if Crime writers suffer the same slings and arrows that JK has to endure. A prime example is Kathy Reichs, who is promoted as being very like the person she's copied. It even says on the cover "better than Patricia Cornwall" which is bollocks of course, but why not, "is a cheap copy of Patricia Cornwall". You can even use the same arguement with two dissimilar authors, ie, Ian Rankin clearly plagiarises Colin Dexter, because what is Rebus if not a perfect clone of Morse? Obvious innit? He's a detective that, like, solves crime and stuff.

Although I'm not a Potter fan, I do support JK Rowling for trying to better herself through writing. What we need are a shed load more books about kids going off to boarding school where they learn magic and spells. Once we've got enough of them we might get a better idea of why Rowling is so much more successful than Gaiman.

Arguing endlessly against JK Rowling, just because her writing isn't as good as it could be is like shouting that Betamax was a better system than VHS: correct, but tiresome.

Colin M

Well true, I'm not foaming at the mouth about it, I just have my own opinion. As I keep saying over and over, I can clearly see that the writing is utter crap. I really don't need patronising or given a 'business study' thank you - get a grip!

And if you count success in terms of money and shit merchandising (which, I'm afraid, you seem to), then you can say reasonably Rowling is more successful than Gaiman. If you count success in terms of adding something amazing and profound to the genre and furthering the art of creative writing, Neil Gaiman is far more successful.

Gaiman has also sold more books overall, and recieved more awards and recognitions.

JB

<Added>

I would also like to point out that I am not attacking anyone's opinion, but my own is under a constant barrage of invective! I am free to think what I like, you know! Just because you've been brainwashed by the hype, doesn't mean we all are. ;)

I'm a big fan of Harry Potter, but not fantasy in general. I can well understand why she said what she did, because I might have said something similar. I don't like what I see as traditional fantasy: elves, strange lands, battles, and so on. So, I'm not well-versed in that genre (as I imagine Rowling herself isn't, nor many of her readers), and my first thought on reading HP was not "this is fantasy". My first thought was "this is a charming fairytale".

Both my parents are intellectuals, and I hold a MA in literature and linguistics, so I've lived with high/quality/whatever-you-call-it literature. I've grown up with stuffy people who trash everything that's popular, and I don't like that kind of a snobby attitude at all. What's the reason for it? In my observation, it's often to make oneself feel better and more intelligent ("I'm clever enough not to be sucked into such a trashy pop phenomenon!"). Because otherwise, why care? Writers who hate Harry Potter so much should go and write that better book.

Frankly, I think it is incredibly silly to label some literature "good" and other "crap". I have no need to use labels like this or trash other people's writing. Rather, I see literature as having a myriad of different functions; some readers look for entertainment, others something that will give their brain something to chew, still others a delicately crafted, beautifully flowing literary text. And it's okay, whatever floats your boat. Why should we rock others' boats and try to make them hop over to ours? Live and let live!

Rowling has brought the joy of reading to many, many kids. I personally know several kids and teens who never read before HP. Now they're avid readers.
That's not crap.

Well, in the seven months since I first had this argument (which was never really about Rowling's popularity), I would now say I agree with you, at least in respect of knocking other writers.

There is still a thread of plagiarism is Rowling's work that is a little telling, but as has been discussed since this thread, there is no point in undermining what Rowling has achieved or that she is very popular.

JB

And I want to put in a word on the writing side, since we're all writers here. The argument against artistic snobbery is fine, as is its corollary, that there's nothing wrong with anyone reading whatever floats their boat. However, if you're a writer and you're trying to be a better writer in terms of technique and craft, then you have a duty to look closely at whatever you read to see what works and what doesn't. To not do so means you'll inevitably pick up bad habits. Of course, if you don't want to be a better writer, or don't see the point, that's your choice.

Now in music, bad technique is obvious whether you're a fan of Westlife or the songs of Richard Strauss, e.g. if someone's singing out of tune, or in a different time to the backing music, it will jar on the listener's ears, whether or not the listener understands the mechanics of music. But reading is largely silent and mistakes can be smoothed over by the mind (or the smooth tones of Stephen Fry), especially a mind that can't be bothered to look too closely, either because they're a fan of the writer or simply because they just want to know what happens next.

My argument is that there are objective good techniques to producing writing that 'sings' as well as good music does, and that writers who care about their craft need to learn them. The reason I no longer read HP is that JKR has demonstrated that, for whatever reason, she is not interested in learning good technique. That's her prerogative, of course; as it's mine to ignore her books.

Terry

Someone said to me the reason Potter works is because it takes the reader to a new world where everything is absolutely familiar.

As a distillation of every childhood tale you've ever read and loved I guess that's true?

I did enjoy reading the early books - the later ones are a chore - but am now disappointed every time I pick up another second hand idea.

In parenting terms there was a lot of competition over HP - what someone described as the "Camilla is reading Harry Potter in Catalan" effect.

One of my friends got very sniffy over my daughter reading the latest within 24 hours - accused her of giving out spoilers which she didn't - but said daughter now says she's outgrown HP!

Sarah