Nur bevor Leute sagen, sie haben nie was gewusst, warum JKR allgemein zu hinterfragen ist:
WHY IS it felt that the continued elevation of J K Rowling can only be achieved at the expense of other writers (Mistress of magic, News Review, last week)? Now we learn that prior to Harry Potter the world of fantasy was plagued with “knights and ladies morris-dancing to Greensleeves.”
In fact the best of it has always been edgy and inventive, with “the dark heart of the real world” being exactly what, underneath the top dressing, it is all about. Ever since The Lord of the Rings revitalised the genre, writers have played with it, reinvented it, subverted it and bent it to the times. It has also contained some of the very best, most accessible writing for children, by writers who seldom get the acknowledgement they deserve.
Rowling says that she didn’t realise that the first Potter book was fantasy until after it was published. I’m not the world’s greatest expert, but I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds, jumping chocolate frogs, owl mail, magic food, ghosts, broomsticks and spells would have given her a clue?
Terry Pratchett
Salisbury, Wiltshire
2005
Und Neil Gaimans Sicht darauf für die Extra Portion Salz
Lots and lots of letters this morning along the lines of,
Hi Neil,
Just wondering whether you’d seen the BBC’s piece today titled ’ Pratchett anger at Rowling’s rise’: BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Pratchett takes swipe at Rowling
Seemingly Terry was rather peeved by a panegyric to Rawling in ‚Time‘ magazine (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1083935,00.html), and wrote to today’s ‚Sunday Times‘ saying:
'WHY IS it felt that the continued elevation of J K Rowling can only be achieved at the expense of other writers (Mistress of magic, News Review, last week)? Now we learn that prior to Harry Potter the world of fantasy was plagued with „knights and ladies morris-dancing to Greensleeves.“
In fact the best of it has always been edgy and inventive, with „the dark heart of the real world“ being exactly what, underneath the top dressing, it is all about. Ever since The Lord of the Rings revitalised the genre, writers have played with it, reinvented it, subverted it and bent it to the times. It has also contained some of the very best, most accessible writing for children, by writers who seldom get the acknowledgement they deserve.
Rowling says that she didn’t realise that the first Potter book was fantasy until after it was published. I’m not the world’s greatest expert, but I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds, jumping chocolate frogs, owl mail, magic food, ghosts, broomsticks and spells would have given her a clue?’
Is this a complete storm in a teacup? Or is he venting a frustration felt by many a contemporary fantasist?
Hope all’s well,
Greg Daly.
P.S. - on a wholly unrelated note, having once linked to William Shatner’s remarkable rendering of ‚Common People‘ on your site, have you ever seen his interpretation of Elton John’s ‚Rocket Man‘ at the 1978 Science Fiction Film Awards? You can watch it here: http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2654003?htv=12
Er, dunno. I read the Time article and thought it was astonishingly badly written and worse researched. The bit that puzzled me the most was that I remembered interviews with Ms. Rowling where she loved the Narnia books (it was a few seconds of Googling to find a 1998 Telegraph interview where she says, " Even now, if I was in a room with one of the Narnia books I would pick it up like a shot and re-read it." ) as opposed to the Time version of ‚Rowling has never finished The Lord of the Rings. She hasn’t even read all of C.S. Lewis‘ Narnia novels, which her books get compared to a lot. There’s something about Lewis’ sentimentality about children that gets on her nerves.’
The version of the history of „fantasy“ that the article’s writer paints is utter bollocks, and I assume Terry decided that needed to be said. I didn’t see it as a swipe at Ms Rowling, though, but as a swipe against lazy journalists – but „Pratchett Anger At Shoddy Journalism“ is a much less exciting headline than the one the BBC came up with.
(I remember when Terry said some very sensible and good-natured things about the power of fantasy at the Carnegie Medals (in this speech, read it first), the headlines were all along the lines of „Pratchett takes swipe at Rowling, Tolkien“ [here’s an example].)
Mostly what it makes me think of is the poem in Kingsley Amis and Robert Conquest’s NEW MAPS OF HELL, which went, from memory,
„SF’s no good!“ they bellow till we’re deaf.
„But this is good.“ „Well, then it’s not SF.“And it’s an odd double-standard that applies to all genre work as much as to SF. It’s always been easier for journalists to go for the black and white simplicities of beginning with the assumption that the entire body of SF (or Fantasy, or Comics, or Horror, or whatever the area is under discussion) is and always has been fundamentally without merit – which means that if you like someone’s work, whether it’s J.G. Ballard or Bill Gibson or Peter Straub or Alan Moore or Susanna Clarke or J.K. Rowling – or Terry Pratchett – it’s easier simply to depict them as not being part of that subset. I’m not sure that writing letters to the Times will ever fix that, though.
(And yes, I’ve seen the "Rocket Man"clip, and it was one of those things that sort of made me feel faintly embarrassed to be part of the race that produced it*. Not really funny, more sort of argh please scrub my mind out with wire wool. Especially when the third William Shatner comes out with his tie undone.)
*the human one, I mean.
Oder die Geschichte, dass Ponder Stibbons eine Kopie von Harry Potter sein soll
„Terry Pratchett“ <tprat…@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:[email protected]…
I will treasure, for all the wrong reasons, the following exchange that
took place on this tour.A young lady opened TLH at the picture of Ponder Stibbons and said
triumphantly:„That’s a blatant reference to Harry Potter, right?“
That’s what I would have thought, too, if I hadn’t known better.
I politely referred her to The Pratchett Portfolio, pub.1996. She gave
them some thought, and then said:„Okay, then it’s a coincidence.“
The logic is impeccable.
es ging weiter:
Point 1 - is it just me or do the drawings of Ponder Stibbons look like
Harry Potter - or vvDid Kidby’s Ponder appeared in the Discworld Portfolio? (don’t have it
to hand). That was '96; Harry Potter didn’t appear until '97.But no, it’s not just you. Ponder looks just like Harry Potter would
if he were to lock himself away in the lab to do pure research and go
out of his way not to have any adventures.
Ponder Stibbons was indeed first drawn in 1996. I, of course, used a
time machine to ‚get the idea‘ of Unseen University from Hogwarts; I
don’t know what Paul used in this case. Obviously he must have used
something.As far as I know, Paul designed the Kite (Leonardo Da Vinci’s ‚Great
Bird‘ from first principles, bearing in mind we wanted to use a sea
eagle design to allow it to ‚realistically‘ hold the huge ‚salmon‘.
Then we had a model made up from his original sketches, for him to use
as a drawing aid. If you want something that can do the things the Kite
does, you end up with a design pretty much like that!–
Terry Pratchett
und tiefer
Aye. In a later thread talking about the first quote, Terry said:
and it seems to me that the young lady does use logic. Like it or not, Terry does make a habit of making references to otherworks. J.K.Rawling doesn’t. Therefore with the possibility of reference being made impossible, coincidence is far more logical than assuming that Rawling was making a blatant reference to Ponder instead.
You weren’t there. I’ve been fairly kind to the woman. I somewhat underemphasised the way she persisted in finding similarities, kept smirking at the (embarrassed) fans behind her, and the sheer powerless malice she felt when presented with the evidence of the Portfolio, which I’d clearly forged. It’s only a matter of time before she finds afp.
I’d never claim that Harry was based on Ponder. Good grief. They both look like nerds. End of similarity. But the lady seemed to encapsulate of tendency of keen Potterites – at least, those that contact me – to believe, or prefer to believe, that everything flows from Potter and nothing has ever flowed the other way. JKR doesn’t make reference to other books? It depends on what you mean. It would be more realistic to say that the world of Potter is made up of references to lots of books in the school stories/fantasy genres.[1]
There are differences. DW was written not just for adults but for its expected market, which was adults that’d read other fantasy. And it was poking fun at some other fantasies, too, so the references were practically signposted. Someone thinks there are Pern references in The Colour of Magic? Wow, well spotted.
The ‚problem‘ with HP is that children who in any case have the attention span of a moth in a strobe-light factory probably haven’t read, say, Jill Murphy or Diana Wynne Jones yet, and it’s quite likely that many of the adult readers drawn in by the hype have not, either.
Certainly when the hype began, there were some journalists (who as a class don’t read much) who greeted as the ‚marvellous inventions‘ of JKR some fantasy tropes that have been common property for years. I remember talking to a journalist who was praising Potter, and this lady (amazingly, I think) had not heard of The Worst Witch. Harry is a lot more than Mildred with a sex change [2] but, nevertheless that was worrying.
Personally, it mostly passes me by. I pick up new readers, and generally surf on the increase in general interest in fantasy caused by HP and it’s spin off, TLOTR. But I won’t laugh it off when mouth-breathers tell me that I’ve pinched stuff from JKR and yet regard as totally impossible any suggestion that maybe JKR has read any another fantasy book.
[1] and as I’ve said here before, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this. It’s how genres work. DW started off almost as a patchwork; it hasn’t stayed that way.
[2] Okay, die Hervorhebung kam von mir, aber sie würde den Hass der Autorin gegen trans Personen erklären, schrieb sie ja mehr oder weniger nur einen trans Mann 
Würde auch erklären, warum Myrtle ihn ohne Probleme auf das Mädchenklo lies 
Menschen in anderen Zeitzonen
zum Glück gibt es auch sehr tolle Allys
Bild zum Tweet auf den sie sich bezog:
Kennt ihr eigentlich die wunderbare Welt von Gail Simone, die seit gut 30 Jahren die Comic-Superhelden-Geschichten so schreibt, wie ihr es eigentlich wolltet. Sei nicht wie Joanne. Sei wie Gail.
Servicepost
PS: LoL und natürlich wieder gelöscht, niemand versteht diese arme, missverstandene Frau, die nie was böses twittert 
Update:
Danke JKR. Und immer dran denken, wenn ihr das Spiel doch kauft. Ihr unterstützt aktiv diese Hetze.
PPS:
Danke an @Kraehe, dass das nicht untergeht. Hier nur falls wieder wer kommt und meint, er findet in ihrem Twitterverlauf nix anstößiges
das hat nie jemand hier gemeint…
Seriously?
Statement zu Harry Potter & Legacy
tl;dr: es gibt keine show oder größeres drum herum aber wer von unseren streamer will streamt es.
d.h. nur das geld was durch abos reinkommt…oh no how devastating
Wir machen also Werbung dafür lassen uns dafür aber nicht bezahlen? 
und damit is es dann in ordnung 
(mir persönlich is es grundsätzlich egal witzig find ichs trotzdem)
Las das eher so, dass es einen Bericht auf G2 und Gametalk und Konsorten geben wird und es den einzelnen Streamern freigestellt ist, wie sie mit der Sache umgehen
PS: Trans Frauen sind Frauen, trans Männer sind Männer und nicht binäre Personen existieren.
Eh, aber das ist es ja im Endeffekt. Es wird gezeigt aber rbtv bekommt kein Geld dafür.
Ich verstehe schon die Idee dahinter, aber es ist schon ein bissi lustig. 
Gabs doch schon. 
Aber ja nur vor Release, es wird ja denke ich noch genug über das Spiel als Spiel zu berichten geben, wenn es da ist
Ist im Prinzip die gleiche Entscheidung die sie Anfang Dezember fürs WM-Studio getroffen haben. Bin zwar auch hier der Meinung, dass es ein wenig inkonsequent ist, andererseits sind sie bzgl. der WM letztlich sehr gut damit umgegangen und haben dann aus eigenem Empfinden damit aufgehört. Darum vertraue ich darauf, dass es hier genauso laufen wird.
Dass RBTV den Einzelstreamern keine Vorgaben macht und die das jeweils selbst entscheiden müssen, finde ich selbstverständlich. Allerdings habe ich hier mehr Bedenken bzgl. einer vernünftigen Einordnung. Ich denke da nur an Marahs 7 vs. wild-Streams zurück, wo es zu Beginn sinngemäß hieß „Ich habe kein Social Media und das Thema nicht verfolgt, darum schaue ich das jetzt ohne Einordnung von mir“.***** Hier etwas Ähnliches wird für die Außenwahrnehmung, egal bei welchem Streamer, schwierig werden.
*****Nachtrag: Siehe Marahs Beitrag unter mir, so wurde es von Marah nie gesagt.