Pratchett on Rowling, again, sort of

[noesy_parker]

He might have been trying to be funny, but it shows that he may not think
too highly of Rowling.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2508051_2,00.html

------------
Nevertheless, he must be delighted with the vogue for giving him honorary
degrees - partly, one suspects, because he always returns the favour by
making a faculty member of, say, Warwick University an honorary wizard of
Discworld’s Unseen University. It all sounds suspiciously Potter to me.
Wizards, werewolves, Hogfather, Hogwarts school . . . did Rowling copy the
lot off you?

"If my lawyer was here he’d say, ‘Do not open your mouth’," laughs
Pratchett, before making a visible effort to be conciliatory.

"Look, if Tolkien hadn’t written The Lord of the Rings I couldn’t have
written the Discworld series. It’s how a genre works. Everyone makes their
cake from the same ingredients."


Is Rowling’s cake too similar to yours? "I’m not answering that," he
squeaks. I’ll take that as a yes. He is not that bothered, though. Not
while the cheques keep rolling in, the fans keep yacking on the internet
and the movies get made. The only blot on his horizon is his health.

-------------

[Deevo]

Post by noesy_parker
He might have been trying to be funny, but it shows that he may not think
too highly of Rowling.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2508051_2,00.html

Hmm, interesting comments coming close to but not quite bordering on
accusations. One of the first things I learned when I began in my own
profession some years back was that it is the poorest of poor form to
publicly bag your opposition regardless of how seemingly justified or not
such criticism may be. At the end of the day you only harm yourself and
your own professional standing.



If an accusation of plagiarism is warranted then make it and make it
official. Otherwise shut up with the apparent snide little comments, they
aren't funny.

[homeboy465]

Post by Deevo

Post by noesy_parker
He might have been trying to be funny, but it shows that he may not think
too highly of Rowling.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2508051_2,00.html

Hmm, interesting comments coming close to but not quite bordering on
accusations. One of the first things I learned when I began in my own
profession some years back was that it is the poorest of poor form to
publicly bag your opposition regardless of how seemingly justified or not
such criticism may be. At the end of the day you only harm yourself and
your own professional standing.
If an accusation of plagiarism is warranted then make it and make it
official. Otherwise shut up with the apparent snide little comments, they
aren't funny.
--
Deevo
Geraldton Western Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie/index.htm

there is no way he could accuse her she has done the research behind the
names she gives charters and places that in the instance of
hogfather/hogwarts pratchett chose it cause his farther Christmas wannabe is
essentially a hog nothing more where jo chose hogwarts for totally different
reasons. ok she has used ideas that have been around for years and some from
semi truth the philosophers stone being the biggest example as it is written
in several texts that alchemists were trying to make one. the fact that she
has used terms close to his is purely coinsidence

[Matt Clara]

Post by homeboy465

Post by Deevo

Post by noesy_parker
He might have been trying to be funny, but it shows that he may not think
too highly of Rowling.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2508051_2,00.html

Hmm, interesting comments coming close to but not quite bordering on
accusations. One of the first things I learned when I began in my own
profession some years back was that it is the poorest of poor form to
publicly bag your opposition regardless of how seemingly justified or not
such criticism may be. At the end of the day you only harm yourself and
your own professional standing.
If an accusation of plagiarism is warranted then make it and make it
official. Otherwise shut up with the apparent snide little comments,
they aren't funny.

there is no way he could accuse her she has done the research behind the
names she gives charters and places that in the instance of
hogfather/hogwarts pratchett chose it cause his farther Christmas wannabe
is essentially a hog nothing more where jo chose hogwarts for totally
different reasons. ok she has used ideas that have been around for years
and some from semi truth the philosophers stone being the biggest example
as it is written in several texts that alchemists were trying to make
one. the fact that she has used terms close to his is purely coinsidence

I saw no accusations in anything he said. A journalist asked some questions
and he answered them gracefully, saying, in essence, we're all pulling from
the same pipe.

[Sirius Kase]

Post by noesy_parker
He might have been trying to be funny, but it shows that he may not think
too highly of Rowling.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2508051_2,00.html
------------
Nevertheless, he must be delighted with the vogue for giving him honorary
degrees - partly, one suspects, because he always returns the favour by
making a faculty member of, say, Warwick University an honorary wizard of
Discworld's Unseen University. It all sounds suspiciously Potter to me.
Wizards, werewolves, Hogfather, Hogwarts school . . . did Rowling copy the
lot off you?
"If my lawyer was here he'd say, 'Do not open your mouth'," laughs
Pratchett, before making a visible effort to be conciliatory.
"Look, if Tolkien hadn't written The Lord of the Rings I couldn't have
written the Discworld series. It's how a genre works. Everyone makes their
cake from the same ingredients."
Is Rowling's cake too similar to yours? "I'm not answering that," he
squeaks. I'll take that as a yes. He is not that bothered, though. Not
while the cheques keep rolling in, the fans keep yacking on the internet
and the movies get made. The only blot on his horizon is his health.
-------------

He was posed a question, "Did Rowling copy you?", that he honestly does
nt know the anwer to, only Rowling knows for sure. So he said his
thing about cake ingredients, where he describes the says Rowlling's
book are related to his books in a similar way to his books being
related to Tolkein. They build on ideas of the previous author. Then
the reporter asks almost the same question again, which Pratchett
refuses to answer. The helpful reporter tells us he "squeaks", which
apparently means "Yes" in the context of the article. My question, is
that what Pratchett meant to communicate? i wonder if he has reacted to
this interview?

[noesy_parker]

Post by Sirius Kase
He was posed a question, "Did Rowling copy you?", that he honestly
does nt know the anwer to, only Rowling knows for sure.

In which case the simple answer would be - "I don't know."

Or he could just say "I don't think so." But he chose not to.

Post by Sirius Kase
So he said
his thing about cake ingredients, where he describes the says
Rowlling's book are related to his books in a similar way to his books
being related to Tolkein. They build on ideas of the previous author.
Then the reporter asks almost the same question again, which
Pratchett refuses to answer. The helpful reporter tells us he
"squeaks", which apparently means "Yes" in the context of the article.
My question, is that what Pratchett meant to communicate? i wonder if
he has reacted to this interview?

Two of his answers -

"If my lawyer was here he'd say, 'Do not open your mouth',"
"I'm not answering that,"

basically tell us that he did think Rowling copied him, but would not
express it publicly. As I said, he might have been trying to be funny
about it, but I do find it extremely curious that plagiarism is something
he would even consider levelling against Rowling, since plagiarism is a big
sin in the world of books.

[Sirius Kase]

Post by noesy_parker

Post by Sirius Kase
He was posed a question, "Did Rowling copy you?", that he honestly
does nt know the anwer to, only Rowling knows for sure.

In which case the simple answer would be - "I don't know."
Or he could just say "I don't think so." But he chose not to.

Post by Sirius Kase
So he said
his thing about cake ingredients, where he describes the says
Rowlling's book are related to his books in a similar way to his books
being related to Tolkein. They build on ideas of the previous author.
Then the reporter asks almost the same question again, which
Pratchett refuses to answer. The helpful reporter tells us he
"squeaks", which apparently means "Yes" in the context of the article.
My question, is that what Pratchett meant to communicate? i wonder if
he has reacted to this interview?

Two of his answers -
"If my lawyer was here he'd say, 'Do not open your mouth',"
"I'm not answering that,"
basically tell us that he did think Rowling copied him, but would not
express it publicly.

It does seem that way

Post by noesy_parker
As I said, he might have been trying to be funny
about it, but I do find it extremely curious that plagiarism is something
he would even consider levelling against Rowling, since plagiarism is a big
sin in the world of books.

I would agree that the fact that there are similarities is a sore spot
for him. Especially since Pratchett's and Rowling's careers are
overlapping, unlike Tolkein's. Tolkein and Lewis overlapped - but they
were friieds. I've never heard of Pratchett and Rowling getting
together for an event such as the recent reading in New York by Irving,
King, and Rowling.

Still, though, this information is presented in an article which has
more speculation about Pratchett's body language and tone of voice
about a variety of subjects than actual quotes. It appeared to me that
the reporter had some preconceived opinions he wanted to support and
was not trying to report accurately. In other words, the reporter
demonstrates a strong bias towards wanting to stir up trouble at the
expense of accuracy.

[noesy_parker]

Post by Sirius Kase
I would agree that the fact that there are similarities is a sore spot
for him. Especially since Pratchett's and Rowling's careers are
overlapping, unlike Tolkein's. Tolkein and Lewis overlapped - but
they were friieds. I've never heard of Pratchett and Rowling getting
together for an event such as the recent reading in New York by
Irving, King, and Rowling.

King has always been generous towards Rowling, Pratchett has always been
the opposite.

Post by Sirius Kase
Still, though, this information is presented in an article which has
more speculation about Pratchett's body language and tone of voice
about a variety of subjects than actual quotes. It appeared to me
that the reporter had some preconceived opinions he wanted to support
and was not trying to report accurately. In other words, the reporter
demonstrates a strong bias towards wanting to stir up trouble at the
expense of accuracy.

Well, Pratchett is an adult who should know what he is doing, given his
past experience with journalist supposedly misquoting him.

As Lady Bracknell might have said - to have it happened once may be
regarded as a misfortune; to have it happened twice looks like wilful
mischief.

[Terry Pratchett]

Post by Sirius Kase

Post by noesy_parker
As I said, he might have been trying to be funny
about it, but I do find it extremely curious that plagiarism is something
he would even consider levelling against Rowling, since plagiarism is a big
sin in the world of books.

It is also very rare, and does not consist of using major plot elements
like magic schools and wizards; if it did, we'd all be in trouble. It
means, in short, ripping off lumps of text. No-one in their right mind
could believe I think that's happened.

Post by Sirius Kase
Especially since Pratchett's and Rowling's careers are
overlapping, unlike Tolkein's. Tolkein and Lewis overlapped - but they
were friieds. I've never heard of Pratchett and Rowling getting
together for an event such as the recent reading in New York by Irving,
King, and Rowling.

Pass; I've met JKR twice, got on fine.

Post by Sirius Kase
Still, though, this information is presented in an article which has
more speculation about Pratchett's body language and tone of voice
about a variety of subjects than actual quotes. It appeared to me that
the reporter had some preconceived opinions he wanted to support and
was not trying to report accurately. In other words, the reporter
demonstrates a strong bias towards wanting to stir up trouble at the
expense of accuracy.

Bingo! Thank you for that. One way or the other, there was going to be
a problem.

[Sirius Kase]

Post by Terry Pratchett

Post by Sirius Kase

Post by noesy_parker
As I said, he might have been trying to be funny
about it, but I do find it extremely curious that plagiarism is something
he would even consider levelling against Rowling, since plagiarism is a big
sin in the world of books.

It is also very rare, and does not consist of using major plot elements
like magic schools and wizards; if it did, we'd all be in trouble. It
means, in short, ripping off lumps of text. No-one in their right mind
could believe I think that's happened.

Post by Sirius Kase
Especially since Pratchett's and Rowling's careers are
overlapping, unlike Tolkein's. Tolkein and Lewis overlapped - but they
were friieds. I've never heard of Pratchett and Rowling getting
together for an event such as the recent reading in New York by Irving,
King, and Rowling.

Pass; I've met JKR twice, got on fine.

Post by Sirius Kase
Still, though, this information is presented in an article which has
more speculation about Pratchett's body language and tone of voice
about a variety of subjects than actual quotes. It appeared to me that
the reporter had some preconceived opinions he wanted to support and
was not trying to report accurately. In other words, the reporter
demonstrates a strong bias towards wanting to stir up trouble at the
expense of accuracy.

Bingo! Thank you for that. One way or the other, there was going to be
a problem.
--
Terry Pratchett

Hey, I guessed right. Thanks for coming on and confirming. Now, if
you could get with Rowling next time you see her and explain how you
can get on Usenet and not get impersonated. Rumor has it that anyone
who tries to impersonate you will die.

[Richard Eney]

<snip>

Post by Sirius Kase

Post by Terry Pratchett

Post by Sirius Kase
Still, though, this information is presented in an article which has
more speculation about Pratchett's body language and tone of voice
about a variety of subjects than actual quotes. It appeared to me that
the reporter had some preconceived opinions he wanted to support and
was not trying to report accurately. In other words, the reporter
demonstrates a strong bias towards wanting to stir up trouble at the
expense of accuracy.

Bingo! Thank you for that. One way or the other, there was going to
be a problem.
--
Terry Pratchett

Hey, I guessed right. Thanks for coming on and confirming. Now, if
you could get with Rowling next time you see her and explain how you
can get on Usenet and not get impersonated. Rumor has it that anyone
who tries to impersonate you will die.

No, they'll just get flamed to a crisp and have their access revoked for
breaking the contract with their ISP (impersonation is forbidden).
(Quite a few Pratchett fans are sysops and the like.)

=Tamar
not a sysop nor have I ever played one

[Terry Pratchett]

Post by Sirius Kase
Hey, I guessed right. Thanks for coming on and confirming. Now, if
you could get with Rowling next time you see her and explain how you
can get on Usenet and not get impersonated. Rumor has it that anyone
who tries to impersonate you will die.

No, but I could probably make their cassette record stop working, like
it said in the article. I admit it's fairly minor as super-powers go,
and very hard to get on a shirt.

There was the occasional low-grade problem in the early 90s, but things
have grown up a lot since then.

[richard e white]

Post by Terry Pratchett

Post by Sirius Kase

Post by noesy_parker
As I said, he might have been trying to be funny
about it, but I do find it extremely curious that plagiarism is something
he would even consider levelling against Rowling, since plagiarism is a big
sin in the world of books.

It is also very rare, and does not consist of using major plot elements
like magic schools and wizards; if it did, we'd all be in trouble. It
means, in short, ripping off lumps of text. No-one in their right mind
could believe I think that's happened.

Post by Sirius Kase
Especially since Pratchett's and Rowling's careers are
overlapping, unlike Tolkein's. Tolkein and Lewis overlapped - but they
were friieds. I've never heard of Pratchett and Rowling getting
together for an event such as the recent reading in New York by Irving,
King, and Rowling.

Pass; I've met JKR twice, got on fine.

Post by Sirius Kase
Still, though, this information is presented in an article which has
more speculation about Pratchett's body language and tone of voice
about a variety of subjects than actual quotes. It appeared to me that
the reporter had some preconceived opinions he wanted to support and
was not trying to report accurately. In other words, the reporter
demonstrates a strong bias towards wanting to stir up trouble at the
expense of accuracy.

Bingo! Thank you for that. One way or the other, there was going to be
a problem.
--
Terry Pratchett

Always nice to hear from you. Do you know why your newer audio books Don't use
that deep ecco the early ones did for death?
I ask because with out that, I can't always tell when he is talking. Like a
sighted person can as they read the text.

--
Richard The Blind Typer.
Lets hear it for talking computers.
Lets go for talking i-pods!

[David Harmon]

On 17 Dec 2006 08:39:35 -0800 in alt.fan.harry-potter, "Sirius Kase"

Post by Sirius Kase
It appeared to me that
the reporter had some preconceived opinions he wanted to support and
was not trying to report accurately. In other words, the reporter
demonstrates a strong bias towards wanting to stir up trouble at the
expense of accuracy.

He is probably just really steamed that JKR copied so much
of his style for Rita Skeeter.

[Jonathan Ellis]

Post by noesy_parker

Post by Sirius Kase
He was posed a question, "Did Rowling copy you?", that he honestly
does nt know the anwer to, only Rowling knows for sure.

In which case the simple answer would be - "I don't know."
Or he could just say "I don't think so." But he chose not to.

Post by Sirius Kase
So he said
his thing about cake ingredients, where he describes the says
Rowlling's book are related to his books in a similar way to his books
being related to Tolkein. They build on ideas of the previous author.
Then the reporter asks almost the same question again, which
Pratchett refuses to answer. The helpful reporter tells us he
"squeaks", which apparently means "Yes" in the context of the
article.
My question, is that what Pratchett meant to communicate? i wonder if
he has reacted to this interview?

Two of his answers -
"If my lawyer was here he'd say, 'Do not open your mouth',"
"I'm not answering that,"
basically tell us that he did think Rowling copied him, but would not
express it publicly.

Not in the slightest. It means he's not prepared to say anything
either way because, no matter what, there will be SOMEONE out there
who takes it as a "yes", even if only on the "methinks he doth protest
too much" principle. Unfortunately, silence when faced with a question
which can be perceived to be a loaded question, is also often taken
the wrong way as well.

He has posted in alt.fan.pratchett earlier today. I suggest actually
reading it.

I have also read the timesonline interview and failed to detect any
hint of either (a) belief that either he or Rowling have plagiarised
each other, or (b) wishing to in any way be considered as a rival. So
they both write works about wizards. So a central point of *some* of
Pratchett's novels is a wizard school - an idea which most certainly
did not originate with him, any more than it originated with Rowling.
So there is a coincidental similarity between the names of "Hogswatch"
(a winter festival, with no connection to wizardry) and "Hogwarts"
(the wizard school), possibly through the good old English word
"hogwash" which may have inspired both words.

SO BLOODY WHAT?

If anything, Pratchett's irritated by all the people, on BOTH sides of
the supposed rivalry, who insist that there are "sides" or an
"rivalry" at all. Not by Rowling, but by those of her fans - and those
of his own - who persistently misrepresent everything said, or not
said, by one or other of the authors, to suggest that there is, or
should be, a conflict between them.

Since it just so happens that some of the most avid fans of Pratchett
are also fans of Rowling, and the chances are also high that the
people who hate one most will also hate the other (often because they
despise the entire "fantasy" genre, whatever the reason, from thinking
it's frivolous to thinking it's diabolical)... it's dumb to even think
of a rivalry. Especially since both writers have made more money than
they know what to do with: neither is exactly taking business away
from the other. They're writing about different things, from different
viewpoints - Rowling has her stories set in a polarized world where
there is a major over-arching conflict between "good" and "evil":
Pratchett's stories are more "ordinary" in their setting, with
ordinary people having ordinary motives in a world which just happens
to be fantastical, magical and improbable.

And, both Pratchett and Rowling know that this is the real thing about
their works. The fact of wizards being involved, and in educating
other wizards too, is *neither more nor less than purely incidental to
it*. For either to be accused of "plagiarizing" the other would be as
stupid as J.S. Bach threatening to sue anyone who wrote a fugue after
him, especially as he didn't even invent the genre in the first
place...

Jonathan.

[noesy_parker]

Post by Jonathan Ellis
Not in the slightest. It means he's not prepared to say anything
either way because, no matter what, there will be SOMEONE out there
who takes it as a "yes", even if only on the "methinks he doth protest
too much" principle. Unfortunately, silence when faced with a question
which can be perceived to be a loaded question, is also often taken
the wrong way as well.
He has posted in alt.fan.pratchett earlier today. I suggest actually
reading it.

If that is the one that is cross-posted here, I think I will only said
that it is an odd but interesting comment. I'm not in an argumentative
or combative mood, with the season of good will and all that, nothing
more will be said. It shall be filed away into the back of the mind
where it will then eventually be forgotten.

Post by Jonathan Ellis
I have also read the timesonline interview and failed to detect any
hint of either (a) belief that either he or Rowling have plagiarised
each other, or (b) wishing to in any way be considered as a rival. So
they both write works about wizards. So a central point of *some* of
Pratchett's novels is a wizard school - an idea which most certainly
did not originate with him, any more than it originated with Rowling.
So there is a coincidental similarity between the names of

"Hogswatch"

Post by Jonathan Ellis
(a winter festival, with no connection to wizardry) and "Hogwarts"
(the wizard school), possibly through the good old English word
"hogwash" which may have inspired both words.
SO BLOODY WHAT?
If anything, Pratchett's irritated by all the people, on BOTH sides of
the supposed rivalry, who insist that there are "sides" or an
"rivalry" at all. Not by Rowling, but by those of her fans - and those
of his own - who persistently misrepresent everything said, or not
said, by one or other of the authors, to suggest that there is, or
should be, a conflict between them.
Since it just so happens that some of the most avid fans of Pratchett
are also fans of Rowling, and the chances are also high that the
people who hate one most will also hate the other (often because they
despise the entire "fantasy" genre, whatever the reason, from thinking
it's frivolous to thinking it's diabolical)... it's dumb to even think
of a rivalry. Especially since both writers have made more money than
they know what to do with: neither is exactly taking business away
from the other. They're writing about different things, from different
viewpoints - Rowling has her stories set in a polarized world where
Pratchett's stories are more "ordinary" in their setting, with
ordinary people having ordinary motives in a world which just happens
to be fantastical, magical and improbable.
And, both Pratchett and Rowling know that this is the real thing about
their works. The fact of wizards being involved, and in educating
other wizards too, is *neither more nor less than purely incidental to
it*. For either to be accused of "plagiarizing" the other would be as
stupid as J.S. Bach threatening to sue anyone who wrote a fugue after
him, especially as he didn't even invent the genre in the first
place...
Jonathan.

[wrendragon]

Jonathan Ellis wrote:
<snip> So a central point of *some* of

Post by Jonathan Ellis
Pratchett's novels is a wizard school - an idea which most certainly
did not originate with him, any more than it originated with Rowling.
So there is a coincidental similarity between the names of "Hogswatch"
(a winter festival, with no connection to wizardry) and "Hogwarts"
(the wizard school), possibly through the good old English word
"hogwash" which may have inspired both words.<snip>
Jonathan.

Their schools aren't particularly similiar, anyway. One is for
children, with a definite intent of education, and the other is a
University where the professors spend a lot of time avoiding doing any
educating. :) I also don't understand why 'Hogwarts' and 'Hogswatch'
sounding alike should freak anyone out, when one is a school and the
other is a winter holiday...

Post by Jonathan Ellis
He is probably just really steamed that JKR copied so much
of his style for Rita Skeeter.

Wha? Howso?

[Alex Clark]

Post by noesy_parker

Post by Sirius Kase
He was posed a question, "Did Rowling copy you?", that he honestly
does nt know the anwer to, only Rowling knows for sure.

In which case the simple answer would be - "I don't know."
Or he could just say "I don't think so." But he chose not to.

Post by Sirius Kase
So he said
his thing about cake ingredients, where he describes the says
Rowlling's book are related to his books in a similar way to his books
being related to Tolkein. They build on ideas of the previous author.
Then the reporter asks almost the same question again, which
Pratchett refuses to answer. The helpful reporter tells us he
"squeaks", which apparently means "Yes" in the context of the article.
My question, is that what Pratchett meant to communicate? i wonder if
he has reacted to this interview?

Two of his answers -
"If my lawyer was here he'd say, 'Do not open your mouth',"
"I'm not answering that,"
basically tell us that he did think Rowling copied him, but would not
express it publicly. . . .

If that is what these answers tell you, then you are the sort of chump
whom the interviewer was trying to take for a ride. He was playing fast
and loose with the rules of journalistic ethics by trying to make a
story out of his own agenda and conduct (BTW, that's why a lawyer would
advise against answering). If you can't see that, then it's kind of
ironic that you're being suspicious of anyone involved in this.

But by all means go on craning your abnormally long neck over other
people's hedges. Maybe you'll eventually spot someone who really is up
to no good.

[Terry Pratchett]

Post by Sirius Kase

Post by noesy_parker
-------------

He was posed a question, "Did Rowling copy you?", that he honestly does
nt know the anwer to, only Rowling knows for sure. So he said his
thing about cake ingredients, where he describes the says Rowlling's
book are related to his books in a similar way to his books being
related to Tolkein. They build on ideas of the previous author. Then
the reporter asks almost the same question again, which Pratchett
refuses to answer. The helpful reporter tells us he "squeaks", which
apparently means "Yes" in the context of the article. My question, is
that what Pratchett meant to communicate? i wonder if he has reacted to
this interview?

with annoyance. And that was one of the more subtle leading questions
I've had in the past month or so. One was particularly open in
attempting to start a row (with the implication that they'd hold my
towel, of course.) They would love a fight

Ye gods, we've all been though this before. In a genre, it all comes
out of the same big pot, yadda, yadda, And that's true. As a writer
you can dip it and pull out 'Magic school' or 'dragon riders' or
whatever, and you understand that someone else might do exactly the
same thing and that's okay provided everyone understands that they
should put their own skin on the idea. I have never accused JKR of
plagiarism, although I get the impression that some of her fans think I
do so all the time

Why clam up in that interview? Because I'd said my piece. It's the
only way to be sure. A wrong phrasing, the wrong tone of voice and
there's trouble. Silence, of course, can be misinterpreted, but at
least it's silence.

I've been getting stuff like this:

Did you get the name Hogswatch from Hogwarts?

No, I made it up in The Colour of Magic, out of Hogmanay and Watch
night.

When was that?

1983.

Ah, so you're saying she stole it from you?



Silence or changing the subject are the only safe ways out, and not that
safe, at that.

[Thomas Zahr]

Terry Pratchett posted:

... who plagiarised who - or why do they think so

Post by Terry Pratchett
Silence or changing the subject are the only safe ways out,
and not that safe, at that.

You're probably right there. AND, since there's no
controversy in silence, they'll sell less copies (or adds or
whatever), which serves them exactly right.

Anyway, hang in there and Happy Hogswatch ...

[Eric Jarvis]

Post by Thomas Zahr
... who plagiarised who - or why do they think so

Post by Terry Pratchett
Silence or changing the subject are the only safe ways out,
and not that safe, at that.

You're probably right there. AND, since there's no
controversy in silence, they'll sell less copies (or adds or
whatever), which serves them exactly right.

My experience is that you have to be careful with silence too when it
comes to print journalists. At least with broadcast media they can't
simply print the answer they wanted you to give even when you've refused
to answer the question.

[GaryN]

Post by Eric Jarvis

Post by Thomas Zahr
... who plagiarised who - or why do they think so

Post by Terry Pratchett
Silence or changing the subject are the only safe ways out,
and not that safe, at that.

You're probably right there. AND, since there's no
controversy in silence, they'll sell less copies (or adds or
whatever), which serves them exactly right.

My experience is that you have to be careful with silence too when it
comes to print journalists. At least with broadcast media they can't
simply print the answer they wanted you to give even when you've
refused to answer the question.

Unfortunately we live in a world where "No Comment" in any context is
taken to mean either "Yes I did but I'm not going to tell you" or "Yes
they did but I'll look bad if I slag them off" according to the
questioner's preconceptions.

The preconceived attitude is what will appear in the printed media.

I do not mean this to apply only to this particular instance - it's a
general phenomenom.


gary (Who has before now been selectively quoted by the local rag)

[Aidan Karley]

Post by GaryN
Unfortunately we live in a world where "No Comment" in any context is
taken to mean either "Yes I did but I'm not going to tell you" or "Yes
they did but I'll look bad if I slag them off" according to the
questioner's preconceptions.

I tend to return such questioning with questions about when the
questioner stopped beating his wife. Most people understand the
reference and understand that they've been rumbled and they aren't going
to get the answer they're looking for. And the ones who don't understand
it are already sidetracked.

[Eric Jarvis]

Post by Aidan Karley

Post by GaryN
Unfortunately we live in a world where "No Comment" in any context is
taken to mean either "Yes I did but I'm not going to tell you" or "Yes
they did but I'll look bad if I slag them off" according to the
questioner's preconceptions.

I tend to return such questioning with questions about when the
questioner stopped beating his wife. Most people understand the
reference and understand that they've been rumbled and they aren't going
to get the answer they're looking for. And the ones who don't understand
it are already sidetracked.

That's all very well provided there is no real intent from the
interviewer. For what happens when there is look at the Ken Livingstone
"concentration camp guard" saga. If a journalist working for one of the
rags that no longer bother with "outdated ideas such as objective truth"
decides to nail you then they will. There is nothing you can do about it
other than make a formal complaint afterwards which may lead to a two line
retraction buried deep down on page 27. I only know of one approach that
makes the slightest difference, and that's having a PR agent who is on
excellent terms with the relevant editor and who is seen by that editor as
a source of stories not worth upsetting over just a single minor scandal.
Everything else I've seen tried has failed more often then not.

In my experience most journalists are largely honest. Many are actually
very good and try hard to present their readers/listeners/viewers with
good and interesting information that is as close to the truth as the
journalist can get. However there are some newspapers where that approach
to journalism will get you sidelines or even dispensed with. What is
becoming the norm is that the basic story is developed as an idea, and
only then does the research begin. That means that anything that doesn't
advance the intended story will be dismissed as irrelevant or as
obfuscation. If you attempt any form of retaliation it will be treated as
the latter and you will be dealt with as if you were somebody trying to
stop the truth from being revealed. If the journalist works for a
reputable organisation then you will probably get away with a "no comment"
leading to nothing you have said being used to back up the intended story.
If not then "no comment" will be taken as permission for the journalist to
draw their own conclusions and often to include them in the story as a
quote.

The best example of this that I've seen was a while back on BBC News 24. A
tabloid had printed a rumour that Sven Goran Eriksson, the manager of the
England football team, was about to be appointed manager of Chelsea
football club. This was a story printed entirely as a rumour from an
anonymous source (probably the chap on the next desk). However at the
press conference a few days later on the eve of an international match,
almost all the questions Eriksson was asked were regarding that completely
unfounded rumour. When the News 24 sports correspondent had finished his
piece one of the studio anchors asked him whether there was really any
basis for the "story". "Probably not" said the sports correspondent "but
if it's true then it would be such a great story that we have to keep
asking questions about it".

As anyone who follows football knows, Eriksson remained manager of England
for a further year and Jose Marinho was soon afterwards given the job at
Chelsea.

In the last few weeks we've seen a huge feeding frenzy over a supposed
Labour Party internal memo that isn't signed or even dated and which first
emerged some months ago when it was dismissed as probably nor reliable.
Then it was brought up again when it fitted the "news agenda" and this
time was treated by many journalists as authoritative proof of a story
they were clearly going to write whether there was any evidence of it or
not. Quotes from various people within government and the Labour Party to
the effect that they don't know anything about the memo and don't see how
it could be what it is represented as are treated as if they are clearly
attempts to hide something. Thus a completely unattributed memo that had
at first been treated as completely unreliable is now proof that
named spokesmen are lying. The only thing that has changed is that the
press currently want to print stories about altercations between Blair and
Brown whilst before they were concentrating on the "cash for honours
affair" [1]. Now that's reached a hiatus and the intended story has
changed, so has the status of the evidence.

Has anyone outside of South London seen anything about the corruption in
Lambeth story this year? I've not seen a peep in any of the national
newspapers or on the TV news. Yet in the 80s there was a spell when rarely
a week went by without new "revelations" about corruption at Lambeth
Council. Then the news agenda was to find any way to attack the "loonie
left" so when investigations led by councillors unmasked fraud by council
officers it was presented not as a story about a newish council
administration unmasking frauds that had been committed under previous
administrations unknown to the councillors at the time, but as loonie
lefty council riddled with fraud [2]. Now we have a Lib Dem adminsitration
discovered to have "misplaced" around three million pounds and one of
their senior councillor found to have committed a six figure fraud
involving council properties, it's all just a local news story that nobody
is interested in. Yet this time it's serious enough that the police have
pretty much led the investigation.

Don't assume that facts affect what is presented as news. Most of the time
they do. However some of the time reality is treated as entirely
irrelevant. If that is happening then you have nothing to gain by
aggressive attempts to turn the tables on the journalist. It will only
upset them. The way Terry deals with attempts to portray some sort of
dispute between himself and JK Rowling is pretty much spot on. You can't
stop the spin, but you can make sure you haven't done anything to back it
up.

[1] Which appears to be a bit of a misnomer on the grounds that the people
who gave the cash didn't get any honours and there's no evidence that
anyone ever told them they would, though some were nominated for but
refused peerages. So what it really is looks like a "donations
misrepresented as loans scandal", but that wouldn't be as exciting a
story.

[2] Particulrly galling for those of us close to it because the councillor
responsible for leading the investigation had faced death threats when he
began it, and spent months having graffiti scrawled on his door and bricks
through his windows until he pretty much went into hiding. Which would
have made a great news story had anyone been interested in the truth ahead
of advancing the political agenda of their newspaper's owner.

[Peter Ellis]

Post by Eric Jarvis
[1] Which appears to be a bit of a misnomer on the grounds that the
people who gave the cash didn't get any honours and there's no
evidence that anyone ever told them they would, though some were
nominated for but refused peerages. So what it really is looks like a
"donations misrepresented as loans scandal", but that wouldn't be as
exciting a story.

If the donations are being misrepresented as loans for the purpose of
concealing them from the body that vets nominations for peerages, yes it
damn well is. And that's what appears to have been happening. Several of
the donors have explicitly said that they originally gave donations, which
they were then advised to change to "loans", so that they would not have to
be declared on the peerage nomination forms.

"You loan us money, we'll play fast and loose with the rules to give you a
better chance of getting a peerage". That's corruption and sale of honours,
whether or not they officially went out touting with a price list.

Peter

[Eric Jarvis]

Post by Peter Ellis

Post by Eric Jarvis
[1] Which appears to be a bit of a misnomer on the grounds that the
people who gave the cash didn't get any honours and there's no
evidence that anyone ever told them they would, though some were
nominated for but refused peerages. So what it really is looks like a
"donations misrepresented as loans scandal", but that wouldn't be as
exciting a story.

If the donations are being misrepresented as loans for the purpose of
concealing them from the body that vets nominations for peerages, yes it
damn well is. And that's what appears to have been happening. Several of
the donors have explicitly said that they originally gave donations, which
they were then advised to change to "loans", so that they would not have to
be declared on the peerage nomination forms.
"You loan us money, we'll play fast and loose with the rules to give you a
better chance of getting a peerage". That's corruption and sale of honours,
whether or not they officially went out touting with a price list.

Excpet that these are two separate sets of people. Those who made
donations and were nominated for honours and a few who made "loans" and
were not nominated for honours. The worst examples are a small few who
were able to be considered for honours in precisely the same way as they
would have if they hadn't made a donation. So far as I am aware nobody has
so far uncovered an example of somebody who made a major donation and then
soon after received an honour. I'm not saying there isn't a scandal there
because there most definitely is. However it is being labelled as a
scandal that hasn't happened but which initially journalists hoped they
could uncover, and thus we aren't being given a clear picture of the real
scandal.

The real scandal here is that the Labour Party, having set up rules to
make all political donations easy to scrutinise, then reacted to a
financial crisis by persuading some major donors to call the donations
loans and thus enable the Party to not declare them. That's not only
serious and it's not only hypocrisy of the first order, it's also
something nobody has done before. What it isn't is selling honours.

[Alec Cawley]

Post by Peter Ellis

Post by Eric Jarvis
[1] Which appears to be a bit of a misnomer on the grounds that the
people who gave the cash didn't get any honours and there's no
evidence that anyone ever told them they would, though some were
nominated for but refused peerages. So what it really is looks like a
"donations misrepresented as loans scandal", but that wouldn't be as
exciting a story.

If the donations are being misrepresented as loans for the purpose of
concealing them from the body that vets nominations for peerages, yes it
damn well is. And that's what appears to have been happening. Several of
the donors have explicitly said that they originally gave donations, which
they were then advised to change to "loans", so that they would not have to
be declared on the peerage nomination forms.
"You loan us money, we'll play fast and loose with the rules to give you a
better chance of getting a peerage". That's corruption and sale of honours,
whether or not they officially went out touting with a price list.

I don't see it at all attempting to hide them from the people who vet
honours - I see it as attempting to hide them from the people who vet
donations. The parties wanted big lumps of money to fund a general
election. They did not want to be seen as accepting big lumps of money
immediately before the election, but but the rules they made themselves,
they would have to declare donations. So they made them loans, whcih
could then quietly be converted into donations piecemeal after the
election was safely in the can.

As Eric said, the honours bit is is a distraction. For good reason, they
made rules enforcing the publication of large donations immediately.
When they did so, the boasted about their uncorruptness and how they
were cleaning up after predecessors misdemeanors. And with the ink
hardly dry on the Queens Assent, they found the new rules inconvenient
so simply found a devious bypass. Show them to be as disreputable as
their predecessors if not more so - they sold their virtue even faster,

[Sirius Kase]

Post by Eric Jarvis
In my experience most journalists are largely honest.

The can't lie, not in public, or they'd risk losing their job, get
sued, or both. And I'm not sure jounalist are any nicer than anyone
else.

Post by Eric Jarvis
Many are actually
very good and try hard to present their readers/listeners/viewers with
good and interesting information that is as close to the truth as the
journalist can get.

The top priority all too often is to be interesting. Useful, accurate,
truthful stories are intrinsically interesting, but all too often, the
journalist wants all too much to make it even more interesting. It
must be dull to write the same old stuff about Pratchtt and Rowling
every time. I don't know why they keep asking the question. Isn't it
enough just to get him to expound on Hogfather or Hogswatch or whatever
his latest creation happens to be? I mean, wasn't that the declared
purpose of the interview? But, no, he wanted his little piece to be
read by Rowling fans as well as Pratchett fans, and I guess stirring
the pot makes it all so much more creative. Frankly, I'm tired of
creative reporting. Fast and accurate reporting on useful subjects is
where it should stop. Some of these people would be better off writing
fiction. that's probaby it. the "reporter" is insanely jealous of both
Practchett and Rowling

Post by Eric Jarvis
Has anyone outside of South London seen anything about the corruption in
Lambeth story this year?

Nope, the Atlanta Urinal hasn't picked up on that one. Are you
relieved?

Post by Eric Jarvis
Don't assume that facts affect what is presented as news. Most of the time
they do.

You must always consider the source and everyone who handles the
product. This goes for news as well as food.

Post by Eric Jarvis
However some of the time reality is treated as entirely
irrelevant. If that is happening then you have nothing to gain by
aggressive attempts to turn the tables on the journalist. It will only
upset them.

And give them more material for an interesting story where your anger
is interpretted as anything but a reaction to their own tricks. It
will be proof that they were able to get some kind of nasty truth out
of you.

Post by Eric Jarvis
The way Terry deals with attempts to portray some sort of
dispute between himself and JK Rowling is pretty much spot on. You can't
stop the spin, but you can make sure you haven't done anything to back it
up.

Or you can explain yourself in another public forum such as usenet or a
rival newspaper.

Post by Eric Jarvis
[1] Which appears to be a bit of a misnomer on the grounds that the people
who gave the cash didn't get any honours and there's no evidence that
anyone ever told them they would, though some were nominated for but
refused peerages. So what it really is looks like a "donations
misrepresented as loans scandal", but that wouldn't be as exciting a
story.

A very simplified version made it to Atlanta, looks like honors are for
sale, which makes the whole honors system look even more stupid than it
already does. Makes it more important for honorable people to refuse
to accept them. They make the British Government look like part of the
Entertainment industry, since the only recepients who make the news are
entertainers. It should be more like the Medal of Honor, where you
actually have to do something above and beyond the job you were hired
to do. The current system looks like patronage, even before the
scandal.

Post by Eric Jarvis
[2] Particulrly galling for those of us close to it because the councillor
responsible for leading the investigation had faced death threats when he
began it, and spent months having graffiti scrawled on his door and bricks
through his windows until he pretty much went into hiding. Which would
have made a great news story had anyone been interested in the truth ahead
of advancing the political agenda of their newspaper's owner.

You are right. When a public official is threatend, that IS news,
bigger news than a lot of stuff that graces the front page of the BBC.
(Yeah, I know it's really a broadcaster, but to me and most of my
frineds, it's a webpage)

Post by Eric Jarvis
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

[Richard Eney]

Post by Eric Jarvis

Post by Thomas Zahr
... who plagiarised who - or why do they think so

Post by Terry Pratchett
Silence or changing the subject are the only safe ways out,
and not that safe, at that.

You're probably right there. AND, since there's no
controversy in silence, they'll sell less copies (or adds or
whatever), which serves them exactly right.

My experience is that you have to be careful with silence too when it
comes to print journalists. At least with broadcast media they can't
simply print the answer they wanted you to give even when you've
refused to answer the question.

But virtually every tv "interview" is done by filming the answers and
later on, filming the presenter asking "the" questions, which have been
manufactured to make the presenter sound brilliant to have "elicited"
the answers. The camera can lie just as much as print media can.

Since this now has no specific relevance to Harry Potter, I have
set Followups to alt.fan.pratchett.

=Tamar

[Pip R. Lagenta]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:43:49 +0000, Terry Pratchett
<***@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]

Post by Terry Pratchett
Did you get the name Hogswatch from Hogwarts?
No, I made it up in The Colour of Magic, out of Hogmanay and Watch
night.
When was that?
1983.
Ah, so you're saying she stole it from you?
Silence or changing the subject are the only safe ways out, and not that
safe, at that.

Heh! Indeed, not all that safe! People with an agenda can get a lot
of mileage out of just silence.

I am reminded of when some creationists accosted Richard Dawkins in
his own home. The creationists got a *huge* propaganda victory out of
just the silence that resulted when Dawkins realized that he had been
had.

Details:
<http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm>
--
¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°

-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)

[Richard Heathfield]

Pip R. Lagenta said:

<snip>

Post by Pip R. Lagenta
I am reminded of when some creationists accosted Richard Dawkins in
his own home. The creationists got a *huge* propaganda victory out of
just the silence that resulted when Dawkins realized that he had been
had.
<http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm>

This is very saddening, if true (about which I am sceptical). It seems some
people don't understand that truth is way more important than religion.
After all, God didn't say "You shall know lies, and lies shall set you
free." Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Les]

Pip R. Lagenta wrote:

(stuff deleted)

Post by Pip R. Lagenta
I am reminded of when some creationists accosted Richard Dawkins in
his own home. The creationists got a *huge* propaganda victory out of
just the silence that resulted when Dawkins realized that he had been
had.

It was slimier than that. By making sure the presenter and Richard
were being filmed seperately, they edited Richards's moment of silence,
followed by an answer to a question *after* the presenter asking him a
completly different question, making it look as though he was trying to
change the subject. Michael Moore would have been proud.

Post by Pip R. Lagenta
<http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm>

(rest of post deleted)

[Ed]

Post by Terry Pratchett

Post by Sirius Kase

Post by noesy_parker
-------------

He was posed a question, "Did Rowling copy you?", that he honestly does
nt know the anwer to, only Rowling knows for sure. So he said his
thing about cake ingredients, where he describes the says Rowlling's
book are related to his books in a similar way to his books being
related to Tolkein. They build on ideas of the previous author. Then
the reporter asks almost the same question again, which Pratchett
refuses to answer. The helpful reporter tells us he "squeaks", which
apparently means "Yes" in the context of the article. My question, is
that what Pratchett meant to communicate? i wonder if he has reacted to
this interview?

with annoyance. And that was one of the more subtle leading questions
I've had in the past month or so. One was particularly open in
attempting to start a row (with the implication that they'd hold my
towel, of course.) They would love a fight
Ye gods, we've all been though this before. In a genre, it all comes
out of the same big pot, yadda, yadda, And that's true. As a writer
you can dip it and pull out 'Magic school' or 'dragon riders' or
whatever, and you understand that someone else might do exactly the
same thing and that's okay provided everyone understands that they
should put their own skin on the idea. I have never accused JKR of
plagiarism, although I get the impression that some of her fans think I
do so all the time
Why clam up in that interview? Because I'd said my piece. It's the
only way to be sure. A wrong phrasing, the wrong tone of voice and
there's trouble. Silence, of course, can be misinterpreted, but at
least it's silence.
Did you get the name Hogswatch from Hogwarts?
No, I made it up in The Colour of Magic, out of Hogmanay and Watch
night.
When was that?
1983.
Ah, so you're saying she stole it from you?
Silence or changing the subject are the only safe ways out, and not that
safe, at that.
--
Terry Pratchett

Not to mention that "Hogwart" shows up in "The Labrynth" as one of the
names the Goblin King manages to mangle out of "Hoggle." Doesn't mean a
thing in the real world unless you're trying to start a fight.

I have a short story from a collection Isaac Asimov compiled. The story
is from the 50s and is called "The Wall Around The World." It deals
with a young man whose father has disappeared (no mention of what
happened to his mother) and who is forced to live with an overbearing
uncle and a bullying nephew (again, the aunt is there, but a
non-entity) while attending a school for wizards! Being that it
appeared in a science fiction magazine, technology is given as the
savior of the story when the boy develops a glider to lift his
underpowered broom over the mysterious wall that runs around their
entire village (the "world" of the title).

I doubt very much that Rowling "stole" anything from this story any
more than she "stole" anything from you. (Or you from her for that
matter!) The tapestry just has things that run along similar threads.

[e***@yahoo.se]

Silly journalists - don't they know that Terry Pratchett and Jo
Rowling *both* stole the idea of a wizarding school from Ursula K
LeGuin? :-P

[Richard Eney]

Post by e***@yahoo.se
Silly journalists - don't they know that Terry Pratchett and Jo
Rowling *both* stole the idea of a wizarding school from Ursula K
LeGuin? :-P

Wizard school in fiction goes back to the 14th century.
Do a Google search for "wizard schools".

=Tamar

[FrancoGroenewald]

Funny thing is these journalist never ask JKR anything about Pratchett
or the Discworld.

[Les]

Post by FrancoGroenewald
Funny thing is these journalist never ask JKR anything about Pratchett
or the Discworld.

That would ruin the entire theme: Established and well-read author
(Pratchett) gets overshadowed by a newcomer(JKR), and starts a feud out
of jealousy. Since JKR is making more millions than Pratchett at the
moment, it would be "obvious" Pratchett would be more jealous of her
than vice versa.

As Pratchett has already said, repeatedly denying this can be used
against him, particularly if his answers start conveying the irritation
of being asked such questions repeatedly.

This isn't the first time select members of the media have tried to
create a rivalry between celebrities. Some actors like Jack Benny
managed to make it work for them. Pratchett doesn't have Benny's
options, IMHO, so about the best he can do is try to make light of such
questions (like joking about how his lawyer would have him refuse to
answer the question), and keep silent. Hopefully, JKR is aware of how
anything Pratchett says or doesn't say is going to be used against them
in the court of gossip, and can laugh off such attempts.

[Alan Williams]

Post by Les

Post by FrancoGroenewald
Funny thing is these journalist never ask JKR anything about Pratchett
or the Discworld.

That would ruin the entire theme: Established and well-read author
(Pratchett) gets overshadowed by a newcomer(JKR), and starts a feud out
of jealousy. Since JKR is making more millions than Pratchett at the
moment, it would be "obvious" Pratchett would be more jealous of her
than vice versa.
As Pratchett has already said, repeatedly denying this can be used
against him, particularly if his answers start conveying the irritation
of being asked such questions repeatedly.
This isn't the first time select members of the media have tried to
create a rivalry between celebrities. Some actors like Jack Benny
managed to make it work for them. Pratchett doesn't have Benny's
options, IMHO, so about the best he can do is try to make light of such
questions (like joking about how his lawyer would have him refuse to
answer the question), and keep silent. Hopefully, JKR is aware of how
anything Pratchett says or doesn't say is going to be used against them
in the court of gossip, and can laugh off such attempts.

I've also read an attempt to create a feud between JKR and Philip
Pullman where his answer to a question about the "greater depth" in his
books (Northern Lights etc.) was slanted to read as an attack on JKR.

Alan

[e***@yahoo.se]

Post by Richard Eney

Post by e***@yahoo.se
Silly journalists - don't they know that Terry Pratchett and Jo
Rowling *both* stole the idea of a wizarding school from Ursula K
LeGuin? :-P

Wizard school in fiction goes back to the 14th century.
Do a Google search for "wizard schools".
=Tamar

Don't try to convince me, try to convince journalists interviewing
Terry Pratchett. :-)

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by e***@yahoo.se
Silly journalists - don't they know that Terry Pratchett and Jo
Rowling *both* stole the idea of a wizarding school from Ursula K
LeGuin? :-P

Those who know where Terry really got the idea for UU will also know why,
one day, it may well become KC.

[Lesley Weston]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by e***@yahoo.se
Silly journalists - don't they know that Terry Pratchett and Jo
Rowling *both* stole the idea of a wizarding school from Ursula K
LeGuin? :-P

Those who know where Terry really got the idea for UU will also know why,
one day, it may well become KC.

Kansas City? Kentucky Creature? Katherine Christ?

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Lesley Weston

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by e***@yahoo.se
Silly journalists - don't they know that Terry Pratchett and Jo
Rowling *both* stole the idea of a wizarding school from Ursula K
LeGuin? :-P

Those who know where Terry really got the idea for UU will also know why,
one day, it may well become KC.

Kansas City? Kentucky Creature? Katherine Christ?

No to all of those. Care to try again? :-) (Here's a hint: IC -> RS)

[Daibhid Ceanaideach]

The time: 18 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Lesley Weston

Post by Richard Heathfield
Those who know where Terry really got the idea for UU
will also know why, one day, it may well become KC.

Kansas City? Kentucky Creature? Katherine Christ?

IC -> RS)

Well, I know Unseen University is a play on Invisible College,
and I know the Invisible College was the percursor to the
Royal Society, but I'm afraid I still can't work out KC 8-(...

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
The time: 18 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Lesley Weston

Post by Richard Heathfield
Those who know where Terry really got the idea for UU
will also know why, one day, it may well become KC.

Kansas City? Kentucky Creature? Katherine Christ?

IC -> RS)

Well, I know Unseen University is a play on Invisible College,
and I know the Invisible College was the percursor to the
Royal Society, but I'm afraid I still can't work out KC 8-(...

"Kings' Club" was what I had in mind. Too obscure? Well, that's me all over.

[Lesley Weston]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
The time: 18 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Lesley Weston

Post by Richard Heathfield
Those who know where Terry really got the idea for UU
will also know why, one day, it may well become KC.

Kansas City? Kentucky Creature? Katherine Christ?

IC -> RS)

Well, I know Unseen University is a play on Invisible College,
and I know the Invisible College was the percursor to the
Royal Society, but I'm afraid I still can't work out KC 8-(...

"Kings' Club" was what I had in mind. Too obscure? Well, that's me all over.

Ignore my previous post, in that case. So you meant the Royal Society?
That's valid as an analogue of the faculty members of UU, along with those
of any other university (scientists do tend to be rather... odd. There's the
story of an Oxford don who was so eccentric that even the other dons
noticed), but Ankh-Morpork is slightly fervent about not having a king; I
can't see Carrot in the persona of Charles II.

[Alec Cawley]

Post by Lesley Weston
but Ankh-Morpork is slightly fervent about not having a king; I
can't see Carrot in the persona of Charles II.

What are you talking about? It was made clear in G!G! that the Mob in
Ankh Morpork is practically drooling for a King. And in FoC it was made
clear that the aristocracy would love a suitably controllable King. The
point is reinforced in J. The only person we *know* who does not want a
King is Vimes, who loathes the concept. Almost certainly Vetinari does
not want a Kin to replace him or to be his puppet - he is doing fine
without. And I suspect that Carrot would rather not be king, because
then he cannot go round talking to people; but he would become one like
a shot if it were right for A-M. And the the fourth person who doesn't
want a king, the one with the casting vote, is Terry Pratchett.

[Lesley Weston]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Lesley Weston

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by e***@yahoo.se
Silly journalists - don't they know that Terry Pratchett and Jo
Rowling *both* stole the idea of a wizarding school from Ursula K
LeGuin? :-P

Those who know where Terry really got the idea for UU will also know why,
one day, it may well become KC.

Kansas City? Kentucky Creature? Katherine Christ?

No to all of those. Care to try again? :-) (Here's a hint: IC -> RS)

I give in - you'll have to tell us.

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Lesley Weston

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Lesley Weston

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by e***@yahoo.se
Silly journalists - don't they know that Terry Pratchett and Jo
Rowling *both* stole the idea of a wizarding school from Ursula K
LeGuin? :-P

Those who know where Terry really got the idea for UU will also know
why, one day, it may well become KC.

Kansas City? Kentucky Creature? Katherine Christ?

No to all of those. Care to try again? :-) (Here's a hint: IC -> RS)

I give in - you'll have to tell us.

Well, I did, but I'll repeat it here. UU is drawn from the Invisible
College, which became the Royal Society. So I thought UU might one day
become "Kings' Club". Yeah, okay, my coat's over there...

[richard e white]

Post by e***@yahoo.se
Silly journalists - don't they know that Terry Pratchett and Jo
Rowling *both* stole the idea of a wizarding school from Ursula K
LeGuin? :-P

You need to go farther back then that for the first wizard story at a
school.


--
Richard The Blind Typer.
Lets hear it for talking computers.
Lets go for talking i-pods!

[Tiny Bulcher]

Post by Ed
Not to mention that "Hogwart" shows up in "The Labrynth" as one of the
names the Goblin King manages to mangle out of "Hoggle." Doesn't mean a
thing in the real world unless you're trying to start a fight.

There's a 'hoggwarts skool' in nigel molesworth, too. (One of the
skools that beat st.custards at foopball, iirc).

--
tiny

[Ed]

Post by Tiny Bulcher

Post by Ed
Not to mention that "Hogwart" shows up in "The Labrynth" as one of the
names the Goblin King manages to mangle out of "Hoggle." Doesn't mean a
thing in the real world unless you're trying to start a fight.

There's a 'hoggwarts skool' in nigel molesworth, too. (One of the
skools that beat st.custards at foopball, iirc).
--
tiny

I don't know what "nigel molesworth" is.

And while I'm responding, in my post, I obviously ment "overbearing
uncle and bullying <cousin>" not nephew!

[mrslant]

Post by Ed

Post by Tiny Bulcher

Post by Ed
Not to mention that "Hogwart" shows up in "The Labrynth" as one of the
names the Goblin King manages to mangle out of "Hoggle." Doesn't mean a
thing in the real world unless you're trying to start a fight.

There's a 'hoggwarts skool' in nigel molesworth, too. (One of the
skools that beat st.custards at foopball, iirc).
--
tiny

I don't know what "nigel molesworth" is.

The Nigel Molesworth books ("Down With Skool!", "How To Be Topp",
"Whizz For Atomms" and "Back In The Jug Agane") by Geoffrey Willans and
Ronald Searle - fictitious 1950s schoolboy diaries with cartoon
illustrations. Highly recommended, if somewhat dated. Now available in
an omnibus edition entitled "Molesworth".

It seems to have slipped Terry's mind above that he made up "Hogswatch"
some time before TCOM - it's mentioned in "The Dark Side of the Sun"
too. ;-)

Colin

[Deevo]

"mrslant" <***@unfortu.net> wrote in message news:***@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
<snip>

Post by mrslant
The Nigel Molesworth books ("Down With Skool!", "How To Be Topp",
"Whizz For Atomms" and "Back In The Jug Agane") by Geoffrey Willans and
Ronald Searle - fictitious 1950s schoolboy diaries with cartoon
illustrations. Highly recommended, if somewhat dated. Now available in
an omnibus edition entitled "Molesworth".

That wasn't related to the 80s stage play 'Diarys of Adrian Mole' by any
chance? Just curious.

[Tiny Bulcher]

Post by Richard Eney
<snip>

Post by mrslant
The Nigel Molesworth books ("Down With Skool!", "How To Be Topp",
"Whizz For Atomms" and "Back In The Jug Agane") by Geoffrey Willans and
Ronald Searle - fictitious 1950s schoolboy diaries with cartoon
illustrations. Highly recommended, if somewhat dated. Now available in
an omnibus edition entitled "Molesworth".

That wasn't related to the 80s stage play 'Diarys of Adrian Mole' by any
chance? Just curious.

Not even slightly. Here, have a look at some molesworth:

http://www.stcustards.free-online.co.uk/

--
Tiny

[Deevo]

Post by Tiny Bulcher

Post by Richard Eney
<snip>

Post by mrslant
The Nigel Molesworth books ("Down With Skool!", "How To Be Topp",
"Whizz For Atomms" and "Back In The Jug Agane") by Geoffrey Willans and
Ronald Searle - fictitious 1950s schoolboy diaries with cartoon
illustrations. Highly recommended, if somewhat dated. Now available in
an omnibus edition entitled "Molesworth".

That wasn't related to the 80s stage play 'Diarys of Adrian Mole' by any
chance? Just curious.

http://www.stcustards.free-online.co.uk/

Cheers for that, not really my style though. :)

[Lesley Weston]

Post by Richard Eney
<snip>

Post by mrslant
The Nigel Molesworth books ("Down With Skool!", "How To Be Topp",
"Whizz For Atomms" and "Back In The Jug Agane") by Geoffrey Willans and
Ronald Searle - fictitious 1950s schoolboy diaries with cartoon
illustrations. Highly recommended, if somewhat dated. Now available in
an omnibus edition entitled "Molesworth".

That wasn't related to the 80s stage play 'Diarys of Adrian Mole' by any
chance? Just curious.

In much the same way that Discworld is related to Harry Potter - IOW not at
all, except that both are purported to be the diaries of schoolboys, and
neither being derived from the other. However, I think Molesworth is at prep
school, which makes him somewhat younger than Adrian Mole and perhaps
explains his spelling. And "The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole, Aged 13 and
3/4" by Sue Townsend is an excellent book as well as a play.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

Post by Ed
I have a short story from a collection Isaac Asimov compiled. The story
is from the 50s and is called "The Wall Around The World." It deals
with a young man whose father has disappeared (no mention of what
happened to his mother) and who is forced to live with an overbearing
uncle and a bullying nephew (again, the aunt is there, but a
non-entity) while attending a school for wizards! Being that it
appeared in a science fiction magazine, technology is given as the
savior of the story when the boy develops a glider to lift his
underpowered broom over the mysterious wall that runs around their
entire village (the "world" of the title).

Nota bene: It's by Theodore Cogswell.

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Ed
I have a short story from a collection Isaac Asimov compiled. The story
is from the 50s and is called "The Wall Around The World." It deals
with a young man whose father has disappeared (no mention of what
happened to his mother) and who is forced to live with an overbearing
uncle and a bullying nephew (again, the aunt is there, but a
non-entity) while attending a school for wizards! Being that it
appeared in a science fiction magazine, technology is given as the
savior of the story when the boy develops a glider to lift his
underpowered broom over the mysterious wall that runs around their
entire village (the "world" of the title).

Nota bene: It's by Theodore Cogswell.

Nota molta bene: It's a great story.

I'm fairly sure the collection is entitled "Tomorrow's Children", but I
haven't checked.

[Ed]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Lawrence Watt-Evans

Post by Ed
I have a short story from a collection Isaac Asimov compiled. The story
is from the 50s and is called "The Wall Around The World." It deals
with a young man whose father has disappeared (no mention of what
happened to his mother) and who is forced to live with an overbearing
uncle and a bullying nephew (again, the aunt is there, but a
non-entity) while attending a school for wizards! Being that it
appeared in a science fiction magazine, technology is given as the
savior of the story when the boy develops a glider to lift his
underpowered broom over the mysterious wall that runs around their
entire village (the "world" of the title).

Nota bene: It's by Theodore Cogswell.

Nota molta bene: It's a great story.
I'm fairly sure the collection is entitled "Tomorrow's Children", but I
haven't checked.

That's probably the first anthology. The one I was thinking of was
Asimov's "The Best SF" followed by the year. I think it was volume 13.

[Arthur Hagen]

Post by Terry Pratchett
Did you get the name Hogswatch from Hogwarts?
No, I made it up in The Colour of Magic, out of Hogmanay and Watch
night.
When was that?
1983.
Ah, so you're saying she stole it from you?
Silence or changing the subject are the only safe ways out, and not that
safe, at that.

No, I don't see that as safe at all. Silence is easily interpreted as,
if not agreement, at least acquiescence.
Out of curiosity, what would be less safe about saying "I don't think
that she did" or "we borrow from the same zeitgeist"?

Regards,

[John Duncan Yoyo]

Post by Arthur Hagen

Post by Terry Pratchett
Did you get the name Hogswatch from Hogwarts?
No, I made it up in The Colour of Magic, out of Hogmanay and Watch
night.
When was that?
1983.
Ah, so you're saying she stole it from you?
Silence or changing the subject are the only safe ways out, and not that
safe, at that.

No, I don't see that as safe at all. Silence is easily interpreted as,
if not agreement, at least acquiescence.
Out of curiosity, what would be less safe about saying "I don't think
that she did" or "we borrow from the same zeitgeist"?

They would probably ask where they could find this Mr Zeitgeist and
does he give interviews.

[Terry Pratchett]

Post by Arthur Hagen
No, I don't see that as safe at all. Silence is easily interpreted as,
if not agreement, at least acquiescence.
Out of curiosity, what would be less safe about saying "I don't think
that she did" or "we borrow from the same zeitgeist"?

On occasions where I'm sure of the jouno I have done, and since I do a
great many interviews and they seldom trouble a.f.H.P they seem to work;
I think the 'Harry Potter question' comes in about 75/80% of all
interviews. But in my experience, when the really loaded question comes
there will be more, and every word and expression is fair game Clamming
up with a sigh usually works.
Better that than words out of context and other little tricks.

[Lesley Weston]

Post by Terry Pratchett

Post by Sirius Kase

Post by noesy_parker
-------------

He was posed a question, "Did Rowling copy you?", that he honestly does
nt know the anwer to, only Rowling knows for sure. So he said his
thing about cake ingredients, where he describes the says Rowlling's
book are related to his books in a similar way to his books being
related to Tolkein. They build on ideas of the previous author. Then
the reporter asks almost the same question again, which Pratchett
refuses to answer. The helpful reporter tells us he "squeaks", which
apparently means "Yes" in the context of the article. My question, is
that what Pratchett meant to communicate? i wonder if he has reacted to
this interview?

with annoyance. And that was one of the more subtle leading questions
I've had in the past month or so. One was particularly open in
attempting to start a row (with the implication that they'd hold my
towel, of course.) They would love a fight
Ye gods, we've all been though this before. In a genre, it all comes
out of the same big pot, yadda, yadda, And that's true. As a writer
you can dip it and pull out 'Magic school' or 'dragon riders' or
whatever, and you understand that someone else might do exactly the
same thing and that's okay provided everyone understands that they
should put their own skin on the idea. I have never accused JKR of
plagiarism, although I get the impression that some of her fans think I
do so all the time
Why clam up in that interview? Because I'd said my piece. It's the
only way to be sure. A wrong phrasing, the wrong tone of voice and
there's trouble. Silence, of course, can be misinterpreted, but at
least it's silence.
Did you get the name Hogswatch from Hogwarts?
No, I made it up in The Colour of Magic, out of Hogmanay and Watch
night.
When was that?
1983.
Ah, so you're saying she stole it from you?
Silence or changing the subject are the only safe ways out, and not that
safe, at that.

This whole attempt on the part of the media at manufacturing a feud where
none exists is bizarre. I suppose it makes good press or something, but it
obviously has no connection in reality with you or JKR. When discussing this
here (afp) before, you said something about "the consensus", which I took to
mean the underlying body of myths and legends and the established fiction
based on them, all using the same concepts that are generally accepted as
being part of the genre. This makes sense, but apparently not to the media.

Perhaps this new round of annoyances is caused by the success of the
dramatisation of Hogfather, so it's actually a Good Thing, but it would be
even better if they could get it right.

[michaelangelica]

Post by Terry Pratchett

Post by Sirius Kase
He was posed a question, "Did Rowling copy you?",

Ye gods, we've all been though this before. In a genre, it all comes
out of the same big pot, yadda, yadda, And that's true. As a writer
you can dip it and pull out 'Magic school' or 'dragon riders' or
whatever, and you understand that someone else might do exactly the
same thing and that's okay provided everyone understands that they
should put their own skin on the idea. I have never accused JKR of
plagiarism, although I get the impression that some of her fans think I
do so all the timeI am new to this group but- How is Rowling anything like Pratchett??

Where is Rowling's wit, humour, humanity, intelligence, obscure
footnotes and references to EVERYTHING, comments on life living the
universite and how silly* it is. Dozens of wonderful "real"**
characters like Death, Carrot, The patrician, Leonardo, Conan the B,
Vines, Granny Weatherwax,and Ogg, the world of wizardry, and dozens of
assorted beings. The world Prattchett creates is so much more "real"***
and fleshed out then Hogwarts. Sure they are good reads. I read them
once but never again. I am up to my tenth+ read of most of Prattchett's
books and still getting joy from them (I think I may have a bad memory
too) Rowling is not even in the same ballpark as TP!
I am amazed that anyone would make a comparison of the two.

Well I guess they both write books;
and are filthy rich
but there it ends.****

* silly in the old meaning of the word
**in a sort of "un-real"*** sense
*** You know what I mean
**** O, they are both human too ; probably

[mcv]

Post by Terry Pratchett

Post by Terry Pratchett
Ye gods, we've all been though this before. In a genre, it all comes
out of the same big pot, yadda, yadda, And that's true. As a writer
you can dip it and pull out 'Magic school' or 'dragon riders' or
whatever, and you understand that someone else might do exactly the
same thing and that's okay provided everyone understands that they
should put their own skin on the idea. I have never accused JKR of
plagiarism, although I get the impression that some of her fans think I
do so all the time

I am new to this group but- How is Rowling anything like Pratchett??

They both write fantast, they both have a highly magical educational
institute filled with weird characters.

Post by Terry Pratchett
Where is Rowling's wit, humour, humanity, intelligence, obscure
footnotes and references to EVERYTHING, comments on life living the
universite and how silly* it is. Dozens of wonderful "real"**
characters like Death, Carrot, The patrician, Leonardo, Conan the B,
Vines, Granny Weatherwax,and Ogg, the world of wizardry, and dozens of
assorted beings. The world Prattchett creates is so much more "real"***
and fleshed out then Hogwarts. Sure they are good reads. I read them
once but never again. I am up to my tenth+ read of most of Prattchett's
books and still getting joy from them (I think I may have a bad memory
too) Rowling is not even in the same ballpark as TP!

All of that is part of the 'skin' that Terry put on his fantasy ideas.
Rowling put a very different skin on it, even if they were inspired by
similar sources. They're not the same writers, but they work in the
same genre, so you're bound to see similar themes.

And they're both wildly successful and appeal to a big audience, so
it's somewhat understandable that people who are not familiar with
the entire body of fantasy literature than went before them, think
that they might be stealing ideas from each other.

But Rowling shares just as many themes with Gaiman's Books of Magic,
for example. But again she put her own twist on it.


mcv.

[michaelangelica]

Post by mcv

Post by Terry Pratchett
I am new to this group but- How is Rowling anything like Pratchett??

They both write fantast, they both have a highly magical educational
institute filled with weird characters.

Post by Terry Pratchett
Where is Rowling's wit, humour, humanity, intelligence, obscure
footnotes and references to EVERYTHING, comments on life living the

All of that is part of the 'skin' that Terry put on his fantasy ideas.
Rowling put a very different skin on it, even if they were inspired by
similar sources. They're not the same writers, but they work in the
same genre, so you're bound to see similar themes.

Rubbish
Rowlings is a hack.
Pratchett is a genius
Same genre NO!!!-
Not even similar!
(OK they both mention magic*)**
SKIN!!! Pratchett creates a workable universe not a SKIN!

* The magic World (a la Rincewind) is not even close to Hogwarts
** So does Albertus Magnus mention magic

[Esmeraldus]

Post by michaelangelica

Post by mcv

Post by Terry Pratchett
I am new to this group but- How is Rowling anything like
Pratchett??

They both write fantast, they both have a highly magical
educational institute filled with weird characters.

Post by Terry Pratchett
Where is Rowling's wit, humour, humanity, intelligence, obscure
footnotes and references to EVERYTHING, comments on life living the

All of that is part of the 'skin' that Terry put on his fantasy
ideas. Rowling put a very different skin on it, even if they were
inspired by similar sources. They're not the same writers, but
they work in the same genre, so you're bound to see similar themes.

Rubbish
Rowlings is a hack.
Pratchett is a genius
Same genre NO!!!-
Not even similar!

Gosh, wow. Are you always this intolerant?

Why's this degree of vehemence necessary, especially if you admire Pratchett
so much? He doesn't seem to think it's necessary to slag off other writers.

[Diane L]

Post by michaelangelica

Post by mcv

Post by Terry Pratchett
I am new to this group but- How is Rowling anything like Pratchett??

They both write fantast, they both have a highly magical educational
institute filled with weird characters.

Post by Terry Pratchett
Where is Rowling's wit, humour, humanity, intelligence, obscure
footnotes and references to EVERYTHING, comments on life living the

All of that is part of the 'skin' that Terry put on his fantasy
ideas. Rowling put a very different skin on it, even if they were
inspired by similar sources. They're not the same writers, but they
work in the same genre, so you're bound to see similar themes.

Rubbish

No, an opinion that's different from yours. You really need to learn
the difference

Post by michaelangelica
Rowlings is a hack.
Pratchett is a genius

I agree with the second opinion but not the first. Remember,
Pratchett has been writing a lot longer than Rowling and has
had more time to develop his craft. I prefer Pratchett, but
that, again, is an *opinion*. Rowling's certainly not a hack
by any definition of the word that I understand.

Post by michaelangelica
Same genre NO!!!-

Er, fantasy?

Post by michaelangelica
Not even similar!
(OK they both mention magic*)**

... and wizards, and witches and trolls and dwarfs and elves
and pixies and ...

Post by michaelangelica
SKIN!!! Pratchett creates a workable universe not a SKIN!
* The magic World (a la Rincewind) is not even close to Hogwarts

Who said it was?

Post by michaelangelica
** So does Albertus Magnus mention magic

There seems to be a remarkable degree of over-reaction in your
post.

Diane L.

[mcv]

Post by michaelangelica

Post by Terry Pratchett
I am new to this group but- How is Rowling anything like Pratchett??

They both write fantasy, they both have a highly magical educational
institute filled with weird characters.

Post by Terry Pratchett
Where is Rowling's wit, humour, humanity, intelligence, obscure
footnotes and references to EVERYTHING, comments on life living the

All of that is part of the 'skin' that Terry put on his fantasy ideas.
Rowling put a very different skin on it, even if they were inspired by
similar sources. They're not the same writers, but they work in the
same genre, so you're bound to see similar themes.

Rubbish
Rowlings is a hack.
Pratchett is a genius

That doesn't contradict anything I wrote. I'm just pointing out the
painfully obvious: that they're writing in the same genre, so you're
bound to find some similarities. I'm not making a value judgement.

But if you must know, I consider Pratchett the best writer in the
world (and not just the best fantasy writer) because most good writers
write only a few excellent books and a lot more mediocre books, while
Pratchett has written about 30 excellent books. In quick succession,
and all of them more easily readable than any other writer I know.

I have not read any books by Rowling, although I've seen the first
movie.

But all of that is personal taste, and does not mean that one of them
is copying the other or anything like that. They're just both fantasy
writers, and both very successful in their own way.

Post by michaelangelica
Same genre NO!!!-
Not even similar!
(OK they both mention magic*)**

*Mention* magic? The discworld is completely magical. Everything is
magic. And from what I understand, magic gets a bit more than just
a mention in the Harry Potter books too. The most obvious similarity
is that Harry Potter revolves around a magical wizard's school where
weird stuff happens, while the discworld also has a highly magical
university for wizards, where all sorts of weird stuff happens. This
is, by now, anyway, a staple of fantasy.

The fact that Harry Potter plays in today's earth instead of the
distant past or a completely fictional world doesn't make it
not-fantasy. It's just a different kind of fantasy, the kind that
changes our world instead of transporting us to a completely
different one.

Post by michaelangelica
SKIN!!! Pratchett creates a workable universe not a SKIN!

I'm just using Terry's own words here.

Post by michaelangelica
* The magic World (a la Rincewind) is not even close to Hogwarts

It doesn't have to be. Middle Earth isn't close to Disworld or
Hogwarts either. Neither is Narnia. But it's all fantasy.


mcv.

[Deevo]

michaelangelica <***@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

Post by michaelangelica
Rowlings is a hack.
Pratchett is a genius

While I disagree with that assesment of the former I can't comment one way
or the other on the latter as I haven't read any of his works though your
wording suggests a regrettable bigotry in your assesment.

Personally I wouldn't have chosen to read either at first as I had never
given 'fantasy' works much time. I was given a free rental voucher for the
movie version of Philosopher's Stone some years back and my surprise at the
depth of the story prompted me to read the books. While I still don't
consider myself a fan of the fantasy genre I've enjoyed Jo Rowling's works
to date ironically because of their realism, not in the setting or the story
but of the characters and the way they relate and deal with the traumas and
trials of their lives.

I may at some time in the future take the time to read some of the works of
Pratchett but my usual preferance is for naval stories like Doug Reeman's
works or what would be deemed 'hard core' scifi such as Isaac Asimov's or
Arthur C Clarke's works. Prior to reading Rowling, which I have come to
enjoy immensley, my personal favourite storyteller was Anne Mccaffrey,
specifically her Pern books.

[peachy ashie passion]

Post by Richard Eney
<snip>

Post by michaelangelica
Rowlings is a hack.
Pratchett is a genius

While I disagree with that assesment of the former I can't comment one way
or the other on the latter as I haven't read any of his works though your
wording suggests a regrettable bigotry in your assesment.
Personally I wouldn't have chosen to read either at first as I had never
given 'fantasy' works much time. I was given a free rental voucher for the
movie version of Philosopher's Stone some years back and my surprise at the
depth of the story prompted me to read the books. While I still don't
consider myself a fan of the fantasy genre I've enjoyed Jo Rowling's works
to date ironically because of their realism, not in the setting or the story
but of the characters and the way they relate and deal with the traumas and
trials of their lives.
I may at some time in the future take the time to read some of the works of
Pratchett but my usual preferance is for naval stories like Doug Reeman's
works or what would be deemed 'hard core' scifi such as Isaac Asimov's or
Arthur C Clarke's works. Prior to reading Rowling, which I have come to
enjoy immensley, my personal favourite storyteller was Anne Mccaffrey,
specifically her Pern books.

*blink blink*

I'm sorry.. Flying dragons isn't fantasy in your eyes?

[Daibhid Ceanaideach]

The time: 22 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by Deevo
Personally I wouldn't have chosen to read either at first
as I had never given 'fantasy' works much time.

<snip>

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by Deevo
Prior to reading Rowling, which
I have come to enjoy immensley, my personal favourite
storyteller was Anne Mccaffrey, specifically her Pern
books.

*blink blink*
I'm sorry.. Flying dragons isn't fantasy in your eyes?

Genetically-engineered, alien flying dragons, to be fair...

[Sirius Kase]

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
The time: 22 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by Deevo
Personally I wouldn't have chosen to read either at first
as I had never given 'fantasy' works much time.

<snip>

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by Deevo
Prior to reading Rowling, which
I have come to enjoy immensley, my personal favourite
storyteller was Anne Mccaffrey, specifically her Pern
books.

*blink blink*
I'm sorry.. Flying dragons isn't fantasy in your eyes?

Genetically-engineered, alien flying dragons, to be fair...

That makes it sci fi, not fantasy, or possibly just a hoax, like the
dragon in Dr. No.

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://sesoc.eusa.ed.ac.uk/
"The only thing worse than being talked about
is having nothing to declare except my handbag."
-Oscar Wilde, according to Humphrey Lyttleton

[Daibhid Ceanaideach]

The time: 22 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by Sirius Kase

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
The time: 22 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by peachy ashie passion
I'm sorry.. Flying dragons isn't fantasy in your eyes?

Genetically-engineered, alien flying dragons, to be
fair...

That makes it sci fi, not fantasy, or possibly just a hoax,
like the dragon in Dr. No.

Yes. That was my point; that it was reasonable not to consider
these dragons fantasy.

[Alec Cawley]

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
The time: 22 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by Sirius Kase

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
The time: 22 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by peachy ashie passion
I'm sorry.. Flying dragons isn't fantasy in your eyes?

Genetically-engineered, alien flying dragons, to be
fair...

That makes it sci fi, not fantasy, or possibly just a hoax,
like the dragon in Dr. No.

Yes. That was my point; that it was reasonable not to consider
these dragons fantasy.

Though the retconning of the genetic engineering only appeared about
eight books into the series - along with some horrible pseudo-techno.

[Daibhid Ceanaideach]

The time: 23 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by Alec Cawley

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
The time: 22 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by Sirius Kase

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
The time: 22 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: peachy ashie passion

Post by peachy ashie passion
I'm sorry.. Flying dragons isn't fantasy in your
eyes?

Genetically-engineered, alien flying dragons, to be
fair...

That makes it sci fi, not fantasy, or possibly just a
hoax, like the dragon in Dr. No.

Yes. That was my point; that it was reasonable not to
consider these dragons fantasy.

Though the retconning of the genetic engineering only
appeared about eight books into the series - along with
some horrible pseudo-techno.

It doesn't become relevent to the plot until The White Dragon
but, as "the ingenuity of their forgotten Terran forebears",
it's mentioned in the introduction to Dragonflight. There's
certainly never any indication there's any kind of magic on
Pern.

[Alec Cawley]

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
The time: 23 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by Alec Cawley

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
The time: 22 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by Sirius Kase

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
The time: 22 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: peachy ashie passion

Post by peachy ashie passion
I'm sorry.. Flying dragons isn't fantasy in your
eyes?

Genetically-engineered, alien flying dragons, to be
fair...

That makes it sci fi, not fantasy, or possibly just a
hoax, like the dragon in Dr. No.

Yes. That was my point; that it was reasonable not to
consider these dragons fantasy.

Though the retconning of the genetic engineering only
appeared about eight books into the series - along with
some horrible pseudo-techno.

It doesn't become relevent to the plot until The White Dragon
but, as "the ingenuity of their forgotten Terran forebears",
it's mentioned in the introduction to Dragonflight. There's
certainly never any indication there's any kind of magic on
Pern.

That depends upon whether you regard unexplained teleportation with
optional time travel as science or magic.

[Daibhid Ceanaideach]

The time: 23 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by Alec Cawley

There's certainly never any indication
there's any kind of magic on Pern.

That depends upon whether you regard unexplained
teleportation with optional time travel as science or
magic.

To answer your question, I'm a Doctor Who fan 8-)...

[Eric Jarvis]

Post by Alec Cawley
That depends upon whether you regard unexplained teleportation with
optional time travel as science or magic.

Or a train timetable?

Science, magic, or PR.

[peachy ashie passion]

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach
The time: 22 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by Deevo
Personally I wouldn't have chosen to read either at first
as I had never given 'fantasy' works much time.

<snip>

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by Deevo
Prior to reading Rowling, which
I have come to enjoy immensley, my personal favourite
storyteller was Anne Mccaffrey, specifically her Pern
books.

*blink blink*
I'm sorry.. Flying dragons isn't fantasy in your eyes?

Genetically-engineered, alien flying dragons, to be fair...

Well, they are, yes. And there are spaceships too.

But not until about book 10 as I recall.

Okay, I pulled the number out of my hat. But the dragons flew and the
civilization lived at roughly stone age technology for a LONG time
before any of that science part was introduced.

[raymond larsson]

[Anne Mccaffrey Pern]

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach

Post by peachy ashie passion
I'm sorry.. Flying dragons isn't fantasy in your eyes?

Genetically-engineered, alien flying dragons, to be fair...

Well, they are, yes. And there are spaceships too.
But not until about book 10 as I recall.
Okay, I pulled the number out of my hat. But the dragons flew and the
civilization lived at roughly stone age technology for a LONG time
before any of that science part was introduced.

Actually apparently in the first short story, I never read them as
anything other than Campbellian science fiction until quite late in the
series.

[Carol Hague]

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by Daibhid Ceanaideach

Post by peachy ashie passion
*blink blink*
I'm sorry.. Flying dragons isn't fantasy in your eyes?

Genetically-engineered, alien flying dragons, to be fair...

Well, they are, yes. And there are spaceships too.
But not until about book 10 as I recall.

The spaceships are discovered in _The White Dragon_ which is the third
of the main series and probably abour 5th if you count in the Harper
Hall sub-series as well.

Post by peachy ashie passion
Okay, I pulled the number out of my hat. But the dragons flew and the
civilization lived at roughly stone age technology for a LONG time
before any of that science part was introduced.

But it was also clear almost from the beginning that the society had
slid backwards into that state and had been much more advanced at one
stage - there are quite a few occasions in the first couple of books
where characters bemoan the fact that they've lost so much of the
knowledge they need to defend their people from the Thread.

[Daibhid Ceanaideach]

The time: 23 Dec 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The

Post by Carol Hague

Post by peachy ashie passion
Okay, I pulled the number out of my hat. But the
dragons flew and the
civilization lived at roughly stone age technology for a
LONG time before any of that science part was introduced.

But it was also clear almost from the beginning that the
society had slid backwards into that state and had been
much more advanced at one stage - there are quite a few
occasions in the first couple of books where characters
bemoan the fact that they've lost so much of the knowledge
they need to defend their people from the Thread.

My favourite was "agenothree", the Pernese term for nitric
acid. Yes, using slurred technical terms as "new dark age"
terminology is a tired old trope, but it was the first time
*I'd* seen it...

And stone age? I always saw Pern as more quasi-medieval.

[richard e white]

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by Richard Eney
<snip>

Post by michaelangelica
Rowlings is a hack.
Pratchett is a genius

While I disagree with that assesment of the former I can't comment one way
or the other on the latter as I haven't read any of his works though your
wording suggests a regrettable bigotry in your assesment.
Personally I wouldn't have chosen to read either at first as I had never
given 'fantasy' works much time. I was given a free rental voucher for the
movie version of Philosopher's Stone some years back and my surprise at the
depth of the story prompted me to read the books. While I still don't
consider myself a fan of the fantasy genre I've enjoyed Jo Rowling's works
to date ironically because of their realism, not in the setting or the story
but of the characters and the way they relate and deal with the traumas and
trials of their lives.
I may at some time in the future take the time to read some of the works of
Pratchett but my usual preferance is for naval stories like Doug Reeman's
works or what would be deemed 'hard core' scifi such as Isaac Asimov's or
Arthur C Clarke's works. Prior to reading Rowling, which I have come to
enjoy immensley, my personal favourite storyteller was Anne Mccaffrey,
specifically her Pern books.

*blink blink*
I'm sorry.. Flying dragons isn't fantasy in your eyes?

There soft sci fiction.
It's just gets mistaken for The dragons in that one were aliean life forms. The
clues are there if you look. Though I do admit it blurs the line until the space
ships are shown.

--
Richard The Blind Typer.
Lets hear it for talking computers.
Lets go for talking i-pods!

[Deevo]

<snip>

Post by peachy ashie passion

Post by Deevo
I may at some time in the future take the time to read some of the works
of Pratchett but my usual preferance is for naval stories like Doug
Reeman's works or what would be deemed 'hard core' scifi such as Isaac
Asimov's or Arthur C Clarke's works. Prior to reading Rowling, which I
have come to enjoy immensley, my personal favourite storyteller was Anne
Mccaffrey, specifically her Pern books.

*blink blink*
I'm sorry.. Flying dragons isn't fantasy in your eyes?

Not when put into the context of the Pern stories, no. Or haven't you read
Dragonsdawn?

[Richard Heathfield]

<snip>

Post by Deevo

Post by peachy ashie passion
I'm sorry.. Flying dragons isn't fantasy in your eyes?

Not when put into the context of the Pern stories, no. Or haven't you
read Dragonsdawn?

That's an unreasonable requirement, especially since Dragonsdawn was not
available to those who were reading Pern stories *before* Dragonsdawn was
written.

Parallel example: did you really think the Discworld was fantasy? Well,
then, obviously you haven't read Pratchett's 796th Discworld novel, where
he retcons the whole series into Sufficiently Advanced Technology, and the
fact that he hasn't written that novel yet is neither here nor there.

So - were the early Pern stories fantasy *until* Dragonsdawn was written?
Did they suddenly change from fantasy to SF when Dragonsdawn was - what?
Conceived? Written? Published? Bought? Read?

Or is it simply that our natural human desire to categorise is not up to the
task of deciding whether a particular book falls into a particular genre?

As a species, we are actually pretty good at making maps, but we err if we
think that the map *is* the territory.

[Richard Bos]

Post by Deevo
Personally I wouldn't have chosen to read either at first as I had never
given 'fantasy' works much time.
Prior to reading Rowling, which I have come to enjoy immensley, my personal
favourite storyteller was Anne Mccaffrey, specifically her Pern books.

Erm... and Pern is _not_ fantasy?

Richard

[Richard Bos]

Post by mcv

Post by michaelangelica
(OK they both mention magic*)**

*Mention* magic? The discworld is completely magical. Everything is
magic. And from what I understand, magic gets a bit more than just
a mention in the Harry Potter books too. The most obvious similarity
is that Harry Potter revolves around a magical wizard's school where
weird stuff happens, while the discworld also has a highly magical
university for wizards, where all sorts of weird stuff happens. This
is, by now, anyway, a staple of fantasy.

By now? Ach, children these days, don't know they were born to a
history...

Schools of magic have been part of fantasy since before there _was_
fantasy. They were in fantasy's mythological ancestors.

(Of course, this only reinforces the point that Pratchett and Rowling
both steal from the same legendary background, as every other fantasy
writer did except _perhaps_ Lovecraft, and not from one another.)

Richard

[Jeff Howell]

Post by michaelangelica

Post by mcv

Post by Terry Pratchett
I am new to this group but- How is Rowling anything like Pratchett??

They both write fantast, they both have a highly magical educational
institute filled with weird characters.

Post by Terry Pratchett
Where is Rowling's wit, humour, humanity, intelligence, obscure
footnotes and references to EVERYTHING, comments on life living the

All of that is part of the 'skin' that Terry put on his fantasy ideas.
Rowling put a very different skin on it, even if they were inspired by
similar sources. They're not the same writers, but they work in the
same genre, so you're bound to see similar themes.

Rubbish

<snip rather massive over-reaction>

It amuses me greatly that so far (of the cross-posted responses) all of
those defending Rowling are AFP regulars. Just drives home just how
fabricated the 'feud' really is. :)

For the record - I prefer Pratchett, but I own all of Rowling's books
and have the unabridged audio versions as well.

[Lesley Weston]

Post by michaelangelica

Post by mcv

Post by Terry Pratchett
I am new to this group but- How is Rowling anything like Pratchett??

They both write fantast, they both have a highly magical educational
institute filled with weird characters.

Post by Terry Pratchett
Where is Rowling's wit, humour, humanity, intelligence, obscure
footnotes and references to EVERYTHING, comments on life living the

All of that is part of the 'skin' that Terry put on his fantasy ideas.
Rowling put a very different skin on it, even if they were inspired by
similar sources. They're not the same writers, but they work in the
same genre, so you're bound to see similar themes.

Rubbish
Rowlings is a hack.
Pratchett is a genius
Same genre NO!!!-
Not even similar!
(OK they both mention magic*)**
SKIN!!! Pratchett creates a workable universe not a SKIN!
* The magic World (a la Rincewind) is not even close to Hogwarts
** So does Albertus Magnus mention magic

Now *this* is what I'd call a fan. Welcome to afp! Please enjoy responsibly
the cats, alligators, chairs and chocolate provided.

[Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen]

Post by michaelangelica
Where is Rowling's wit, humour, humanity, intelligence, obscure
footnotes and references to EVERYTHING, comments on life living the
universite and how silly it is. Dozens of wonderful "real" characters
like Death, Carrot, The patrician, Leonardo, Conan the B, Vines, Granny
Weatherwax, and Ogg, the world of wizardry, and dozens of assorted
beings. The world Prattchett creates is so much more "real" and fleshed
out then Hogwarts. Sure they are good reads. I read them once but never
again. I am up to my tenth+ read of most of Prattchett's books and still
getting joy from them (I think I may have a bad memory too) Rowling is
not even in the same ballpark as TP!

There's one difference you've overlooked...

When Rowling decides on a book title, it's announced on the TV news.


Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen

[Richard Bos]

Post by Blon Fel Fotch Passameer-Day Slitheen

Post by michaelangelica
Where is Rowling's wit, humour, humanity, intelligence, obscure
footnotes and references to EVERYTHING, comments on life living the
universite and how silly it is. Dozens of wonderful "real" characters
like Death, Carrot, The patrician, Leonardo, Conan the B, Vines, Granny
Weatherwax, and Ogg, the world of wizardry, and dozens of assorted
beings. The world Prattchett creates is so much more "real" and fleshed
out then Hogwarts. Sure they are good reads. I read them once but never
again. I am up to my tenth+ read of most of Prattchett's books and still
getting joy from them (I think I may have a bad memory too) Rowling is
not even in the same ballpark as TP!

There's one difference you've overlooked...
When Rowling decides on a book title, it's announced on the TV news.

That says nothing whatsoever about either Pratchett _or_ Rowling, and
everything about the one-dimensional minds behind the mass media.

Richard

[Weird Beard]

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:43:49 GMT, Terry Pratchett

Post by Terry Pratchett
Silence or changing the subject are the only safe ways out, and not that
safe, at that.

I'm a bit of a snot, but I'd keep a file of all my interviews with the
answers to the FAQs highlighted. That way when the hundreth reporter asks
the same leading question, I'd just point to the answer, preferably in a
clipping from pipsqueak's #1 competitor.

[richard e white]

Post by Sirius Kase

Post by noesy_parker
He might have been trying to be funny, but it shows that he may not think
too highly of Rowling.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2508051_2,00.html
------------
Nevertheless, he must be delighted with the vogue for giving him honorary
degrees - partly, one suspects, because he always returns the favour by
making a faculty member of, say, Warwick University an honorary wizard of
Discworld's Unseen University. It all sounds suspiciously Potter to me.
Wizards, werewolves, Hogfather, Hogwarts school . . . did Rowling copy the
lot off you?
"If my lawyer was here he'd say, 'Do not open your mouth'," laughs
Pratchett, before making a visible effort to be conciliatory.
"Look, if Tolkien hadn't written The Lord of the Rings I couldn't have
written the Discworld series. It's how a genre works. Everyone makes their
cake from the same ingredients."
Is Rowling's cake too similar to yours? "I'm not answering that," he
squeaks. I'll take that as a yes. He is not that bothered, though. Not
while the cheques keep rolling in, the fans keep yacking on the internet
and the movies get made. The only blot on his horizon is his health.
-------------

He was posed a question, "Did Rowling copy you?", that he honestly does
nt know the anwer to, only Rowling knows for sure. So he said his
thing about cake ingredients, where he describes the says Rowlling's
book are related to his books in a similar way to his books being
related to Tolkein. They build on ideas of the previous author. Then
the reporter asks almost the same question again, which Pratchett
refuses to answer. The helpful reporter tells us he "squeaks", which
apparently means "Yes" in the context of the article. My question, is
that what Pratchett meant to communicate? i wonder if he has reacted to
this interview?

What he saw was that the reporter was trying to get him to say something that he
could blow up into a flame war between the two writers. That reporter is just
like rita Skeeter. Just looking to make dirt and bad press for people.


--
Richard The Blind Typer.
Lets hear it for talking computers.
Lets go for talking i-pods!

[drusilla]

Post by richard e white
What he saw was that the reporter was trying to get him to say something that he
could blow up into a flame war between the two writers. That reporter is just
like rita Skeeter. Just looking to make dirt and bad press for people.

That's a very good analogy! I think your post summarise the whole thing
very well. I haven' read Pratcher, I can't give an honest opinion but
recently, I refer this episode to a friend who wrote a fantasy story,
published it online and thinks (half serious, half joking) that his work
has been plagiarised. I said that while working in the same genre, many
elements repeat. I once wrote something for myself that was almost
quoted word by word in Angel <grin>.

[Petrea Mitchell]

At Sun, 17 Dec 2006 03:56:09 +0000,

Post by noesy_parker
Nevertheless, he must be delighted with the vogue for giving him honorary
degrees - partly, one suspects, because he always returns the favour by
making a faculty member of, say, Warwick University an honorary wizard of
Discworld?s Unseen University. It all sounds suspiciously Potter to me.
Wizards, werewolves, Hogfather, Hogwarts school . . . did Rowling copy the
lot off you?

This is the reporter's thought, and he fills in "yes" when Pratchett

Post by noesy_parker
He is not that bothered, though.

A lot of fantasy authors tend to get annoyed when the press starts
suggesting that fantasy didn't exist (except maybe for Tolkien) before
the Harry Potter books came along. But they're annoyed at the press, not
at Rowling.

[Alex Clark]

. . . It all sounds suspiciously Potter to me.
Wizards, werewolves, Hogfather, Hogwarts school . . . did Rowling copy the
lot off you?

. . .

Wait a minute -- let's have another look at that Pratchett/Rowling
connection. Could it be that the two are lot closer than a mere hint of
a suspicion of something vaguely resembling plagiarism? And has
"Rowling" given us a clue as to the true nature of the relationship
between them?

Consider this: if you let I and J be equivalent, then one anagram of
"Harry James Potter" is "I am Terry Prashoet". Badly spelled, but still
a smoking gun if I ever saw one.

Don't ask what that gun has been smoking.

--
Alex Clark

A vomited dorm roll (an anagram rejected by Tom Riddle)

"Your money /and/ your life. It's a two-for-one deal, see?"
- _The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents_, by Terry Pratchett

[Deevo]

Post by Alex Clark

. . . It all sounds suspiciously Potter to me.
Wizards, werewolves, Hogfather, Hogwarts school . . . did Rowling copy the
lot off you?

. . .
Wait a minute -- let's have another look at that Pratchett/Rowling
connection. Could it be that the two are lot closer than a mere hint of
a suspicion of something vaguely resembling plagiarism? And has
"Rowling" given us a clue as to the true nature of the relationship
between them?
Consider this: if you let I and J be equivalent, then one anagram of
"Harry James Potter" is "I am Terry Prashoet". Badly spelled, but still
a smoking gun if I ever saw one.

You git, you owe me a bottle of spray and wipe to clean my screen after
reading that. I had a mouthful of drink at the time. :)

Post by Alex Clark
Don't ask what that gun has been smoking.

Oh I won't.

[Sirius Kase]

Post by Deevo

Post by Alex Clark

. . . It all sounds suspiciously Potter to me.
Wizards, werewolves, Hogfather, Hogwarts school . . . did Rowling copy the
lot off you?

. . .
Wait a minute -- let's have another look at that Pratchett/Rowling
connection. Could it be that the two are lot closer than a mere hint of
a suspicion of something vaguely resembling plagiarism? And has
"Rowling" given us a clue as to the true nature of the relationship
between them?
Consider this: if you let I and J be equivalent, then one anagram of
"Harry James Potter" is "I am Terry Prashoet". Badly spelled, but still
a smoking gun if I ever saw one.

You git, you owe me a bottle of spray and wipe to clean my screen after
reading that. I had a mouthful of drink at the time. :)

Yeah, I'm glad i was done with my coffee. I have ruined more
keyboards, a real tragedy until i discoverred that walmart sells
replacements for only $5. But, my kids still kid me mercilessly
whenever it happens.

Post by Deevo

Post by Alex Clark
Don't ask what that gun has been smoking.

Oh I won't.

We used to have a poster here who kept letting his tequila do the
talking, and sometimes it had some strange things to say,

Post by Deevo
--
Deevo
Geraldton Western Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/mckenzie/index.htm

[drusilla]

Post by Sirius Kase

Post by Deevo

Post by Alex Clark

. . . It all sounds suspiciously Potter to me.
Wizards, werewolves, Hogfather, Hogwarts school . . . did Rowling copy the
lot off you?

. . .
Wait a minute -- let's have another look at that Pratchett/Rowling
connection. Could it be that the two are lot closer than a mere hint of
a suspicion of something vaguely resembling plagiarism? And has
"Rowling" given us a clue as to the true nature of the relationship
between them?
Consider this: if you let I and J be equivalent, then one anagram of
"Harry James Potter" is "I am Terry Prashoet". Badly spelled, but still
a smoking gun if I ever saw one.

You git, you owe me a bottle of spray and wipe to clean my screen after
reading that. I had a mouthful of drink at the time. :)

Yeah, I'm glad i was done with my coffee. I have ruined more
keyboards, a real tragedy until i discoverred that walmart sells
replacements for only $5. But, my kids still kid me mercilessly
whenever it happens.

lol, I am considering to get something like this:
http://crunchgear.com/2006/12/20/iskin-keyboard-protector/
because I do eat while I am working at the PC (I sometimes work until
very late, and I can't go on without my chocolate cookies!). And the kid
does the same...

Post by Sirius Kase

Post by Deevo

Post by Alex Clark
Don't ask what that gun has been smoking.

Oh I won't.

We used to have a poster here who kept letting his tequila do the
talking, and sometimes it had some strange things to say,

Ooohh! I miss the inebriated fanfics!