I am also a Potter fan. As I understand it there are many theories for who/what Rowling based her work - mostly Arthurian. I think Rowling has maintained it was all imagination and not "based" on anything. Which, to any student of the mind, is clearly impossible. So it was sub conscious in basis?
Writers take ideas from each others, nothing new and nothing wrong about it. But most at least admit they do it. J Rowling does not, and says everything came from her mind. A site that point out many similarities is this Geocities site.
If there are so many similarities you either got to admit you borrowed from works of others or be the evil witch that denies everything like Rowling is doing now.
Sure she did think of words herself, she imagined great sceneries and other things, and in that way she is brilliant. But wasting all the positive things she recieved by drowning it with simple denial is just sad.
I've seen the book, though I haven't read it. A friend gave me Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy which I also haven't read. But upon your post I shall look into the HP one and pick up and read the BtVS one! It sounds interesting.
Don't get lost in it. There is a difference between a book about a TV series who's only aim is creating ratings, and a mad genius like Nietzsche. When i skipped trough most of the books are fun to read and easy to relate to but have so little value to comparison a classic novel or a real philosophical work.
I found the Dumbledore character to be very endearing to me, though I wouldn't be able to fully outline why. I would be interested in reading the authors take on his character. (A characters 'character' hmmm...)
On the wikipedia page of Albus Dumbledore there are some remarks from the writer, and if you look up at google somethings like "J K Rowling Dumbledore Interview" you'd probably hit gold.
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Dr. Seuss is low level reading. For children's books, the Dr. Seuss material was brilliant.
The HP series wasn't supposed to rival Jane Austin's work or anything like that, the HP series is for children. And for a children's book, it isn't bad. Not great, but not bad.
You are making the mistake here that Harry Potter is a children's book.
I can agree that 1 & 2 are childeren books and suitable for kids. The tone darkened starting book 3. Book 6 for example is not one you read to your 4 year old kid. Dr Seuss is and always will stay a children's book. HP started out that way and still is regarded like that but is not any more.
It might have been the huge profits, it might have been her plan all along, who knows. Her books are not bad, but not something people will read even after 50 years.
Though the concern you present is valid. If we pick our reading material because Oprah suggests something or because of some other commercial advertisement (Oprah's show is a commercial ad) then we can't hold much hope for the quality of the reading. Media involvement was certainly a big part of the HP hysteria.
The problem I'm stating is that HP is fun to read even for a 50 year old, but should be a de facto standard for writing style. I expect people from that age, or below to have read some more books that have a higher, less childish writing style.
You are right about takinig Oprah for an example. She is nothing more than a living ad commercial - making her have more money than everyone on the forum together - that spews out product after product. I don't know HP has been featured by her, but I know that even I have seen the protests against the sale of the first HP book in America, making it interesting for many people to read because its so controversial, making it a bestseller. Same thing happened with other books, movies and recently games (GTA IV).