Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: House of Mustard on June 27, 2006, 11:21:11 AM
-
This was in the news this morning.
From an interview with JK Rowling:
Miss Rowling, 40, who is putting the finishing touches on the final book, said she could understand why authors kill off their main characters to stop imitators from writing sequels without their permission.
"I've never been tempted to kill him off before the end of the book because I've always planned seven books, and I want to finish on seven books," she said in a rare interview with Richard and Judy on Channel 4.
"I can completely understand, however, the mentality of an author who thinks, 'well, I'm gonna kill them off because that means there can be no non-author written sequels' as they call them.'
"So it will end with me and after I'd dead and gone they won't be able to bring back the character.
"Agatha Christie did that with Poirot didn't she? She wanted to finish him off herself."
Asked why she would not commit herself to saying exactly whether or not she was going to kill him, she added: 'I'm not going to commit myself because I don't want the hate mail!'
Also:
While one character will now get a reprieve, "two die that I didn't intend to die". Asked by Judy if it will be any of the much loved characters, she said: "A price has to be paid, we are dealing with pure evil here. They don't target extras do they? They go for the main characters...well I do. This is a world where some pretty nasty things can happen."
-
Sorry. Linky: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=392634&in_page_id=1773
-
How likely would that be? Someone else writing about Harry Potter without her permission?
-
As likely as someone writing about Peter Pan without permission, actually. Which is relatively often (Peter and the Starcatchers, Hook, etc.). She's talking about someone using the character after she dies and copyright expires. Plus, there's a lot of fan fiction out there (though I don't think that's what she means).
-
Ahh, well I was more talking about while she lived since I doubt the copyright would expire in her lifetime.
-
75 years here in the uk. Too long.
-
I'm sorry, "two die that I didn't intend to die?" You're the author. You wrote it. Nobody dies unless, at the time, you intended them to die.
-
I'm sorry, "two die that I didn't intend to die?" You're the author. You wrote it. Nobody dies unless, at the time, you intended them to die.
But the Devil made her do it.
-
As an author I can absolutely understand where she's coming from. Things often happen in my books that I didn't "intend" to happen.
-
Sprig: How likely would that be? Someone else writing about Harry Potter without her permission?
Stacer: As likely as someone writing about Peter Pan without permission, actually. Which is relatively often (Peter and the Starcatchers, Hook, etc.). She's talking about someone using the character after she dies and copyright expires. Plus, there's a lot of fan fiction out there (though I don't think that's what she means).
Sprig: Ahh, well I was more talking about while she lived since I doubt the copyright would expire in her lifetime.
You'd be surprised. This is really bizzare, but just today I read in some old blog on the Internet about a disgruntled fan who wrote and published a "corrected" version of HP and the Half-Blood Prince. I can't find the exact blog, but here's another link.
http://www.watleyreview.com/2005/072605-3.html
A disgruntled Harry Potter fan has released a "corrected" version of J.K Rowling's latest installment in the series, The Half-Blood Prince, prompting a storm of curiosity and support from many fans who disliked the direction of the story in the book. It has also, not surprisingly, prompted a storm of legal activity from Rowling's publishers.
"Whenever an author puts a work out into the universe, it is no longer their exclusive property anymore," said Mary Sue Pembroke, who is credited as the author of the modified book. "Harry Potter belongs to all of us, not just Rowling. She took some liberties with the story in this latest book that really weren't faithful to the logic of the narrative. My version is, I think it fair to say, much more faithful to the true Harry Potter mythos."
"Rowling seems to think the relationships she's described in Half-Blood Prince were clearly telegraphed in previous books," sniffed Pembroke. "All I can say is, if that's what she thinks, she clearly doesn't understand Harry Potter like I do."
"The only way for an author to keep a piece of writing completely their own is to never have it published," insisted Pembroke. "J.K. Rowling, you asked for this."
What a blithering idiot!
As a writer, this really bothers me. You, a fan and NOT the author of the work, cannot take it and change the book to suit your liking and then *publish* it (granted, it was on the Internet, but still). And you, a fan, are not in a position to say whether or not the author has followed "the true Harry Potter mythos." She created Harry Potter--it's her mythos, loser!!! She can do with it what she wants! And claiming that if you publish it the world and characters become the property of the people is just baloney. What about copyright? This sort of thing makes me really leery of fanfiction--and the people who write it. (If you read in the article about her version, you'll probably laugh at how stupid it is. I did.)
No wonder J. K. Rowling is tempted to kill off her characters--with pyscho fans like this woman!
But, all this aside, it does kind of sound like, with that "hate mail comment" discussed in the first post, that Harry might be in danger. And I'm getting pretty worried about Ron and Hermione, too.
-
Wow. I read the rest of that article and that person sounds legitimately crazy.
-
Ah. That makes more sense. The article is completly fictional. I thought she sounded a little too crazy, even for a Harry Potter fan.
-
The name should have tipped you off - Mary Sue Pembroke.
-
So yes, obviously fake, but there are several points here I agree with. I do beleive that any public work becomes part of the public mind and, as such, is open to interpretation by others. How many works of art would we be without if people were not allowed to reinterpret Shakespeare, for example? Reinterpretations of Harry Potter are inevitable, wether she kills him or not, and she needs to deal with it.
-
ya but Shakespeare was hundreds of years ago we're talking about something that's only been around for 10 years.
-
Wait, the article is a fake? How do you know?
I feel used.
-
I liked the response from S. O'Crates.
-
Well, I finally had a chance to look again at the article and the Watley Times in general, and I have to say I feel very dumb. Oh, well. Should've checked my sources.
Although now I really wish I could find that blog I originally read it in--because it was a blog filled with news bits from all over, and I doubt they were all fake. So someone else thought it was real, too.
At least I wasn't the only one who believed it, I guess. :-[
-
That doesn't mean people won't copy her, just that she still has 60 years left before it's legal. The idea that the public has no claim on media is silly no matter how old that media is.
-
the problem with that exception, sprig, is that Shakespeare himself was openly co-opting other works his whole career. His material was being published and performed within months of his death. 10 years or 400, it makes almost no difference.
-
Well the big fuss now-a-days is that Shakespeare didn't write anything but was a producer that put his name on everything.
-
if you consider the last 150 years "nowadays."
It doesn't matter much. SOMEONE wrote them, and Shakespeare was the name on it. Thus you can say "shakespeare" and won't be wrong.
-
Are you ready for this?
Ok.. I have noticed a rather large amount of similarity between Gollum and Wormtail.
Dumbledore believes that he still has some part to play, just like Gandalf, Wormtail hates what he has become. My money is on the idea that in the end, he somehow saves Harry and at the same time sacrifices himself making it possible for Harry to kill Voldemort.
That's just me.
-
if you consider the last 150 years "nowadays."
It doesn't matter much. SOMEONE wrote them, and Shakespeare was the name on it. Thus you can say "Shakespeare" and won't be wrong.
Slate had an article about it a few weeks ago about new evidence that he never wrote anything, didn't bother to read it though since I don't really care.
-
You'd be surprised. This is really bizzare, but just today I read in some old blog on the Internet about a disgruntled fan who wrote and published a "corrected" version of HP and the Half-Blood Prince. I can't find the exact blog, but here's another link.
http://www.watleyreview.com/2005/072605-3.html
What a blithering idiot!
As a writer, this really bothers me. You, a fan and NOT the author of the work, cannot take it and change the book to suit your liking and then *publish* it (granted, it was on the Internet, but still). And you, a fan, are not in a position to say whether or not the author has followed "the true Harry Potter mythos." She created Harry Potter--it's her mythos, loser!!! She can do with it what she wants! And claiming that if you publish it the world and characters become the property of the people is just baloney. What about copyright? This sort of thing makes me really leery of fanfiction--and the people who write it. (If you read in the article about her version, you'll probably laugh at how stupid it is. I did.)
Heh. This isn't unheard-of. I posted a rant back in January about a guy that I met who was almost militant about his fanfic and complained about how HBP didn't go the way he wanted it to.
Here's the link (http://yedijoda.livejournal.com/). It's about halfway down the page: "Happy New Year! Enjoy it Responsibly."
-
I think that he'll die right at the end of the seventh book.
But in doing so saves the world from voldemort or something similar.
It's so steriotypical, why can't they make a book where the main character dies half way through and his best friends get eaten by a large chicken, that would make a great book.
PS. When Potter does die, they should make a spin-off called Ginger Weasley, where Ron is the main character
-
How about no. Spin offs like that are evil.
-
why can't they make a book where the main character dies half way through and his best friends get eaten by a large chicken, that would make a great book.
So what happens in the second half?
-
The Chicken travels to Memphis and becomes an Elvis impersonator but then finds out that his mentor's brother was the main character's best friend he ate.
-
yeh.......... sure
-
The Chicken travels to Memphis and becomes an Elvis impersonator but then finds out that his mentor's brother was the main character's best friend he ate.
That's brilliant; can I have you autograph?
-
I'm serious, here. Rak, please tell me, if the main character and his friends die midway through the book, what happens for the rest of the book?
-
I have an idea! J.K. Rowling types a few more pages about how the world is after the deaths of all the main characters and then makes the book triple-spaced with 1.5 inch margins and kills more trees than her previous books combined! ;)
-
I think that he'll die right at the end of the seventh book.
But in doing so saves the world from voldemort or something similar.
It's so steriotypical, why can't they make a book where the main character dies half way through and his best friends get eaten by a large chicken, that would make a great book.
PS. When Potter does die, they should make a spin-off called Ginger Weasley, where Ron is the main character
But Ron would be dead; "...his best friends get eaten by a large chicken...".
Although a spin-off starring someone dead would certainly be original. And boring.
-
But Ron would be dead; "...his best friends get eaten by a large chicken...".
Although a spin-off starring someone dead would certainly be original. And boring.
Not if J.K. pulled something where Ron is a ghost. Even that would be a rip off of some other stories, though.
-
Or she could just have Harry die and his spirit go back in time and start a new series about that, thus being in full compliance with her "only seven books" thing
-
or maybe hermione becomes amazingly powerful and finishes off voldemort herself! ;D ha that would be funny
-
I think he will die but that is just what i think
-
Yes, but when someone rights something that extends on what is already wrote, all they have to do in order to be able to publish it is put 'Based on the book such-and-such by so-and-so', and it is legal.
-
Okay, my personal theory is that in trying to kill Harry Voldemort accidently made Harry his seventh horcrux. This could be what caused him to lose most of his power. This would also explain the profecy which said that one cannot die as long as the other lives, or something along those lines.
So in order for Harry kill Voldemort, he himself will have to die.
-
Miyabi, please don't double post unless it's been like 30+ minutes between posting times, it's something that annoys the regulars around here and they'll point it out to you in probably less pleasant ways.
As I mentioned in your Hello thread there's a FAQ that would be a good idea to look through. It's written mostly by EUOL so you could consider it a prequel of Elantris if that makes reading it easer.
http://www.timewastersguide.com/boards/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1080380396
-
You'd be surprised. This is really bizzare, but just today I read in some old blog on the Internet about a disgruntled fan who wrote and published a "corrected" version of HP and the Half-Blood Prince. I can't find the exact blog, but here's another link.
http://www.watleyreview.com/2005/072605-3.html
What a blithering idiot!
As a writer, this really bothers me. You, a fan and NOT the author of the work, cannot take it and change the book to suit your liking and then *publish* it (granted, it was on the Internet, but still). And you, a fan, are not in a position to say whether or not the author has followed "the true Harry Potter mythos." She created Harry Potter--it's her mythos, loser!!! She can do with it what she wants! And claiming that if you publish it the world and characters become the property of the people is just baloney. What about copyright? This sort of thing makes me really leery of fanfiction--and the people who write it. (If you read in the article about her version, you'll probably laugh at how stupid it is. I did.)
No wonder J. K. Rowling is tempted to kill off her characters--with pyscho fans like this woman!
But, all this aside, it does kind of sound like, with that "hate mail comment" discussed in the first post, that Harry might be in danger. And I'm getting pretty worried about Ron and Hermione, too.
Oh, that just made me crack up. "She just doesn't know Harry Potter like I do"
She's the author. She made him up. She is his creator. That is so fatuous, I cannot believe.
-
I think it would be wonderful if Harry is about to be killed by voldemort and dobby goes and kills him instead.
-
As I mentioned in your Hello thread there's a FAQ that would be a good idea to look through. Â It's written mostly by EUOL so you could consider it a prequel of Elantris if that makes reading it easer.
LOL. That's a good one, Sprig. ;)
-
The Chicken travels to Memphis and becomes an Elvis impersonator but then finds out that his mentor's brother was the main character's best friend he ate.
"You wear a disguise to look like human guise, but you're not a man you're a chicken, Boo."
I had a flash of the Animaniacs with the mention of the Elvis impersonating chicken.
-
I heard that the character who play Hermione in the moive wants to quit. By the way everyone knows Shes going to kill an important charater.
-
Malfoy sure seemed uncertain about killing Dumbledor. Perhaps there will be some redemption of Malfoy?
And Professor McGonagal will end up being on Voldemorte's side.
And Dumbledor told Snape to kill him if he had no choice. So Snape will end up helping Potter at the end.
Or more likely Snape was tied up in the basement and the Snape that killed Dumbledore was Mrs. Weasley using a polyjuice potion.
Isn't part of her style to get you questioning everything? I enjoy the stories, immensely, but since Rowling used polyjuice potions and had MadEye Moody be a bad guy, I don't trust her anymore. Too much like Mission Impossible - Tom Cruise pulls off his face and he's really the bad guy with a rubber mask and a voice modifier.
I do like the Harry is a Horcrux idea. But she'd get better tension if Ron were the Horcrux so that Harry has to kill Ron to be able to kill Voldemort.
-
The publisher announced today that the official title of Book Seven will be "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows". Weird.
-
I don't think they will kill off Harry Potter, or if they do they will leave it till the last minute. I for one hope they do kill him stupid dork, why can't I have magic. Wait, If I had magic that would make me.... Super Magic Monkey Man.... COOL!
-
I know that Emma Watson, Hermione, has mentioned wanting to do other things I don't think that they have an official word about it yet. The last time I heard anything it was still just being talked about.
As for the title, perhaps it points to plot location rather than anything else. I am only speculating though, I don't have any insider information.
-
As for the title, perhaps it points to plot location rather than anything else.
Well, they did the chamber of secrets where the ending was part of the plot location and a good portion of the main scary thing in the book. I think it will probably be like the others where the title has just a little to do with most of the book but is very important in the end... maybe...