tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post3755567420507239181..comments2024-03-26T10:41:35.852+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: Has Harry Potter crossed the line?Marie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-72552022042578678792010-10-19T23:35:52.971+01:002010-10-19T23:35:52.971+01:00An excellent article but to escape the knit-pickin...An excellent article but to escape the knit-picking it is wisest to use common sense and aske the right questions. <br />http://www.iposgoode.ca/2010/10/harry-potter-and-the-plagiarist-author/<br /><br />Why should what is common cultural heritage decide the issue? Should it not be the unique borrowings which Rowling may not have created and can be proven not to have created and their relative significance in the success of the story? It’s a bit like a burglar showing you around his house. He is not going to make a big deal about the Hi-Fi he bought legitimately in Woolworths but the sketch by Picasso he nicked from the mansion he robbed in Crete. He knows full well the common store of goods in his house do not make his house unique. The presence of the Picasso alone does that. So should it be with plagiarism suits. Which unique elements were taken from the work of another and deliberately so? And what significance or contribution to the success of the story do they consititute? From that point of view Rowling could indeed be in very big trouble as the character and whacky nature of the wizarding world created by Jacobs and which has generated so much success seems to have been lifted bodily from the mind and soul of his work. Did she know he was dead and could do nothing about it? That would mean she had access to his work and that Little her agent has possibly lied to the court. That raises a much more serious question. Did Little know Rowling before he "discovered" her?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />WAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com