Eragon vs Harry Potter

[Shea]

Anyway, Prospero leaves his magic powers there when he leaves just as the Hogwarts student must leave their magic at the school, not being allowed to use it outside.

The first years crossing the lake by boat- isn't this some kind of rights of passage river styx thing?

Then of course you have the creatures like the pheonix or the unicorns or the centaurs. Note how the centaurs notice that Mars is bright that night in the forrest in the first book. Mars being the god of war.

I don't have time to keep going at the moment.

[Shea]

What would you consider as "borrowed", EAP?

[EAP]

Harry's scar - borrowed from the Odessy; resembles a badge of honor

Harry's scar resembles a 'lightening bolt', not a badge of honour. It is never alluded in that capacity in the books either.

Minerva - Roman Goddess of wisdom for McGonagoll; I saw her statue in the Shambles in York. She was next to a pile of books, as her character represents book study and knowlegde. (That's why she contrasts with Trelawney)

Eh. Minerva is a name. If somebody uses Jack or Will or Athena or David in their works, does it mean they have borrowed those names from dozens of authors that have used them in their works in the past, who in turn 'borrowed' the name from countless other authors.... I think you can guess where this type of reasoning leads us to.

Anyway, Prospero leaves his magic powers there when he leaves just as the Hogwarts student must leave their magic at the school, not being allowed to use it outside.

The students do not 'leave' their magic at the school. They just aren't allowed to perform magic 'officially' because they are underage. Comparing this to Prospero is worse than grasping at straws.

The first years crossing the lake by boat- isn't this some kind of rights of passage river styx thing?

I suppose you could make an arguement for the right of passage element, with the students having left their homes and childhoods behind to begin their studies etc. but the circumstances in which they do so are completely different from the 'river styx thingy'; the context just doesn't match.

Then of course you have the creatures like the pheonix or the unicorns or the centaurs. Note how the centaurs notice that Mars is bright that night in the forrest in the first book. Mars being the god of war.

Unicorns and Centuars and Pheonixes are fantasy creatures. They are also present in a thousand other fantasy novels. What does Mars being the god of war in the greco-roman mythology got to do with Rowlings' 'borrowing' stuff? How is this relevent at all?

What would you consider as "borrowed", EAP?

Extremely similiar storylines. Characters, objects, societies, dialogue
or world-building which, with a little bit of tinkering can pass off as another, already published work.

Here's a little example*:-

Dialogue,

- Lucas (original):
"Search your feelings, you know it to be true." - Darth Vader

- Paolini (plagiarism):
"Look inside yourself, you know it to be true." - Murtagh


Names:

Tolkien's: Paolini's:

Isengard Isenstar
Mithril Mithrim
Angrenost Angrenost
Morgoth Morgothal
Elessar Elessari
Fornost Furnost
Harad Desert Hadarac Desert
Melian Melian
Valinor Vanilor
Eriador Eridor
Imladris Imiladris



Furthermore, there's a major difference between borrowing from myths - which have become woven into the fabric of our cultures over the centuries - and borrowing from contemporary works; the later often hovers extremely close to plagiarism.

* - (I found that through a short search on the web, there are several sites dedicated to pointing out the 'similarities' betwen Paolini's and his superior's works)

[kilted exile]

I seem to remember some court case against ROwling to do with plagiarism after she wrote the first Potter novel - Does anyone remember this/able to provide details as to what the case centred on?

[Shea]

Harry's scar resembles a 'lightening bolt', not a badge of honour. It is never alluded in that capacity in the books either.

From Sparknotes: "Like the famous scar of Odysseus in Homer’s epic poem the Odyssey, Harry’s forehead lightning bolt is a badge of honor, an emblem of having survived a great battle and of being destined to wage still more battles in the future."

Eh. Minerva is a name. If somebody uses Jack or Will or Athena or David in their works, does it mean they have borrowed those names from dozens of authors that have used them in their works in the past, who in turn 'borrowed' the name from countless other authors.... I think you can guess where this type of reasoning leads us to.

Rowling chooses names specifically for characters either because of the meanings in the words for example again from Sparknotes:
"The Latin word draco means “dragon,” and the French words mal and foi mean “bad faith.” We sometimes suspect that Draco Malfoy may indeed be a “bad faith dragon,” a monster of ill will. "

Professor McGonogal incidentally, "Rowling named her after a notoriously bad nineteenth-century Scottish poet named William McGonagall who was nevertheless highly confident of his own talents."

She also got Nicholas Flammel and his wife from actual historic figures.

The students do not 'leave' their magic at the school. They just aren't allowed to perform magic 'officially' because they are underage. Comparing this to Prospero is worse than grasping at straws.

Whatever.

Unicorns and Centuars and Pheonixes are fantasy creatures. They are also present in a thousand other fantasy novels. What does Mars being the god of war in the greco-roman mythology got to do with Rowlings' 'borrowing' stuff? How is this relevent at all?

Yeah, they're used in thousands of other works. That doesn't mean their not borrowed. My point is as I said before, it's the way she strings it together that makes it great. Mars represents the battle Harry is getting ready to face.

As for Paolini, again, I haven't gotten far enough to judge it. What you say may be true. Fine. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy his story.

[Shea]

I seem to remember some court case against ROwling to do with plagiarism after she wrote the first Potter novel - Does anyone remember this/able to provide details as to what the case centred on?

This is from Wikipedia

In 1999 N.K. Stouffer quietly began to allege copyright and trademark infringement by J.K. Rowling of her 1984 works The Legend of Rah and the Muggles and Larry Potter and His Best Friend Lilly.[30]

The primary basis for Stouffer's claims lie in her own invention of Muggles, non-magical elongated humanoids of sorts and the title character of the second work, Larry Potter, a bespectacled boy with dark, albeit wavy hair (Rowling's Potter is characterised as having all of those, though with unruly instead of wavy hair). Stouffer contended (and still does to this day) that it is not just these examples and similar names but that it is "the cumulative effect of all of it combined" with the other comparisons she lists on her real muggles website.[31]

Rowling, along with Scholastic Press (her American publisher) and Warner Brothers (holders of the series' film rights), pre-empted Stouffer with a suit of their own seeking a declaratory judgment that they had not infringed on any of Stouffer's works. Rowling, through the use of expert witnesses who brought into question the authenticity of Stouffer's evidence, won the case with Stouffer's claims being dismissed with prejudice and Stouffer herself being fined $50,000 for her "pattern of intentional bad faith conduct" in relation to her employment of fraudulent submissions, along with being ordered to pay a portion of the plaintiffs' legal fees.[32] Stouffer is currently appealing the ruling. [33]

[EAP]

From Sparknotes: "Like the famous scar of Odysseus in Homer’s epic poem the Odyssey, Harry’s forehead lightning bolt is a badge of honor, an emblem of having survived a great battle and of being destined to wage still more battles in the future."

First of all, that's Sparknotes' subjective interpretation. Harry's scar is in no way a badge of honour, unless the death of your own mother is considered honourable. Harry didn't survive a great 'battle', there was no battle - his parents were killed without too much fanfare.

Rowling chooses names specifically for characters either because of the meanings in the words for example again from Sparknotes:
"The Latin word draco means “dragon,” and the French words mal and foi mean “bad faith.” We sometimes suspect that Draco Malfoy may indeed be a “bad faith dragon,” a monster of ill will. "

In this case the name 'Draco' is internally consistent - the family Malfoy is aristocratic and racist to a fault, Slytherins feel a natural affinity towards dragons which are usually associated with visions of gradeur and splendour, hence it isn't inconcievable at all that a Malfoy father would name their first born child Draco.

The name Draco has a root in mythology and history, it isn't a random borrowing like 'Arya' or a hideous distortion like Mithrim or Vanilor. Not to mention flat out copying like Melian and Angernost. (both of which are Tolkien's creations)

Professor McGonogal incidentally, "Rowling named her after a notoriously bad nineteenth-century Scottish poet named William McGonagall who was nevertheless highly confident of his own talents."

She also got Nicholas Flammel and his wife from actual historic figures.

While the McGonagall in the books is a highly competent tutor who never shows off, and doesn't think too much of show-off's either. Can't see the relevent of the quoted passage.

There are quite a few authors who write whole stories about historical figures; the genre is called historical fiction. Again, what's your point?

My point is as I said before, it's the way she strings it together that makes it great.

Obviously. If that's the extent of your point then you'll hear no arguements from me but obviously there's more.

Yeah, they're used in thousands of other works. That doesn't mean their not borrowed.

Very well, have it your way. Rowlings and thousands of other authors borrow, Paolini steals and plaigarises.

[Matilda]

I have only read the beginning of Eragon, so I can't say much about the plot. The reason I didn't continue reading, however, was that I couldn't stand the language and style of writing. At least in the swedish translation, it seemed so flat, almost like a parody of some fantasy book.
Harry Potter, on the other hand, I think has a great language, really unique and innovative.

[Niamh]

I seem to remember some court case against ROwling to do with plagiarism after she wrote the first Potter novel - Does anyone remember this/able to provide details as to what the case centred on?

It had to do with some russian writing a spoof book about Harry potter. I think you can still get it. it's Barry Trotter and The Philosophers Scone.

She didnt like it that someone was messing around with her book. besides you can get The Soddit and Bord of the Rings aswell. They're all under alias'.

[Shea]

I give up EAP. I just want to enjoy the story.

[Odysseus93]

I'd like to say a few things. First, EAP, I agree with you that the Eragon books start out being quite predictable and similar to other book and movies: e.g Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc. However, as the series progresses Paolini diverges from other books to a very great degree. I found that the first book was very predictable, the second less so, and in the third I had virtually no idea what was going on.

[spiponrup]

ya it will be great if they both get active on this forum...and share their exp. with gaming...

__________________
Conseil financement immobilier pret achat | Plan de financement immobilier travaux simulation | Plan de financement immobilier

[Alexandra S.]

I believe that J.K.Rowling is a master in writing,just that. Only the fact that her writing amuses me so much and keeps me thrilled and stuck in each of her books it is just enough for me to prefer it from Eragon.I think she's way too far!