Harry Potter Book 7 title

[Sindatur]

Click the link for the CNN story, which contains instructions for how to verify the title on your own on her website

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/12/21/books.pottertitle.ap/index.html

 

[Recoil]

Or, you could have saved us all a couple clicks and just posted the damn title in this thread...

 

[Sindatur]

Or, you could have saved us all a couple clicks and just posted the damn title in this thread...

Yes, I could have, but, then I would've deprived everyone of the 2 seconds of excercise they got clicking the link

The last time she released the title at this time of the year, the book was released the following summer, so, Book 7 released on 07-07-07 is becoming a real possibility. I can't imagine she would pass up the opportunity if she can make that date, but will Schoolastic/Warners want to see Book 7 and Movie 5 released so close together? Would they see that as flooding the market with product?

 

[hypatia]

"She" may not. I suspect her publishers decide on that kind of thing.

I'd be rather surprised myself if they came out really close together. But what do I know about selling books?

 

[B5_Obsessed]

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS

OOOoooooohhhh!

 

[GaribaldisHair]

Well, I refuse to use any website that insists that I turn off my popup blocker before I can look at the content.

Thanks Joanne.

 

[Quagmire]

The may want to use the book to get people hyped for the movie. Summer has not been the best release date for Potter movies and they may be looking for a little shot in the arm to carry through the last two movies.

 

[hypatia]

The movie "Order of the Phoenix" will be out before book 7 is published.

I mean, has JKR even finished it yet?

 

[Sindatur]

The movie "Order of the Phoenix" will be out before book 7 is published.

I mean, has JKR even finished it yet?

There has been no official word of it being finished yet, but, judging by the kinds of things she's saying, the release of the title, and even how great the date of 07-07-07 would be, it's a very good possibility that she is finished with the first draft. Another rumor from some Book stores is the popssibility that Harry's and JKR's birthday (07-31-07) may be the release date. Although, since it's usually 4-6 months from notification of release date until it actually is released, confirmation would have to be coming soon.

 

[hypatia]

With the movie coming out in mid-July?

I think the publishers would want to movie excitement to die down a bit before releasing it.

End of 2007 or sometime in 2008 is my guess. No way will it be out this July.

 

[Sindatur]

With the movie coming out in mid-July?

I think the publishers would want to movie excitement to die down a bit before releasing it.

End of 2007 or sometime in 2008 is my guess. No way will it be out this July.

That would indeed be the convential Marketing strategy, only give the market one product at a time, but, I personally wouldn't curb my spending and choose one or the other, I would spend on both, and a great many people also feel that way. I had always believed the Marketing departments would never allow less than 4 months in between latest movie, and latest book, but, I have heard many, many people who have said having them released that close together would encourage their spending, not curtail it, so I have become a believer in the possibility of a July release for the 7th book.

 

[darth_librarian]

Ahh, the Potter cash machine marches on.

I do like the books and films, but am getting sick of the mainstream media (and some readers) seeing it as the be all and end all of fantasy literature.

A reviewer on Radio 4 in the UK was commenting on the excellent TV adaption of Terry Pratchett's Hogfather. They stated that it borrowed bits from Harry Potter, with a 'University of Wizards'! Now this idea was old before Pratchett used it, at least 5-10 years before the first Potter novel was written. And Rowling probably stolen from that old children's classic, 'The Worst Witch'. This was, of course, lazy BBC journalism, but it indicates my point.
Inciedently, Rowling also cribbed lots of her stuff from Susan Cooper's superb 'Dark is Rising' sequence', written 20+ years ago!

Still, if Potter gets people into fantasy, it cannot be bad. And fantasy is a very self -referencing genre. I love authors like China Meville, who add new ideas to the genre, or George R R Martin, who creates belviable worlds and characters.

The amusing thing is that Rowling herself tries not to see her work as fantasy, leading to this rebuke from 'El Tel'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4732385.stm

In fact she's writing the kind of stuff he started off lampooning all those years ago.

The new Potter film will probably be good though...

 

[Chilli]

And Rowling probably stolen from that old children's classic, 'The Worst Witch'. This was, of course, lazy BBC journalism, but it indicates my point.

I really hate it when people call stuff like this "steal". *every* author has his inspirations here or there, It's simply impossible to write a story of which most parts haven't been done before in one way or another. It's the unique chemistry a good story manages to create that makes it a good story - such as Harry Potter did. The opportunity to write truely original stories passed with the antique already.

And such as B5 did - I mean, it was basically a combination of bits and pieces stolen from

* The Arthurian legend
* Lord of the Rings
* Casablanca
* The Prisoner
* Blake's 7
* Star Trek

.. I'd still *never* call B5 unoriginal. Same goes for Rowling's books - the magic in them is not the inclusing of a magic school or the usage of the word "hog", as much as Terry Prachett would like to believe so, judging by a row of interviews I've read with him. ("I'm not saying that she stole from me .. but I'm also not saying that she didn't steal from me" .. .. for someone that describes himself as "a man with a great sense of humour", he certainly does come off as a bitter old fart)

Of course the media - especially the British media - can be quite annoying there, talking about her books as if she invented fantasy as a concept .. but hey, when is the media - especially the British media - not full of shit? .. blaming the Harry Potter books, Rowling, or even the Harry Potter hype for this just doesn't make sense.

 

[hypatia]

It's jealousy, obviously.

I think she's written some wonderful stories. I think some o.k. movies have come from them.

But she sure must have known how to market it all, well.

 

[darth_librarian]

I probably should not have used the word 'steal' there, but the similarities are painfully obvious. Look for the books I mentioned and see... I was certianly not knocking Rowling for being alone in recycling ideas, as I said, the fantasy genre is largely self referential. But as much as I enjoy her work, I struggle to find any real original stuff there, which I did in B5 for instance.

Pratchett has sold 40+ million books worldwide, he hardly has a reason to be jealous of anyone, and I find a single one of his books far more interesting than anything Rowling can write. And he is hardly the first writer to accuse Rowling of plagerism.

As for the marketing, I think that's down to her publishers, her being in the right time at the right time, and the fact that our lazy insipid press like an easy story and cannot be bothered to research (although this was Radio 4...)

 

[Chilli]

I think I read a bit of The Worst Witch years ago ... It didn't capture me, though I have only very few memories. But even if there are similarities, Harry Potter will hardly be a copy of it - Harry Potter captured me instantly, and that was before the big hype started and the books were everpresent (my aunt sent us copies of the first two books after book 3 had been released in the US)

Pratchett has sold 40+ million books worldwide, he hardly has a reason to be jealous of anyone, and I find a single one of his books far more interesting than anything Rowling can write.

Which is a tenth of the amount of books Rowling has sold. Rowling's books are second in international popularity only to the bible bible .. while his works are still, also if they're HUGE, a "side genre" matter - yeah, they're famous, but they aren't the popular culture event of the last 30 years, as Rowling's books are. In every single interview I've seen with him, whenever Harry Potter comes up, he does seem QUITE pissed about the fact that she managed, in a few years, what he did not manage in his lifetime. Which I, coming from someone who has been as sucessful as he has been, find quite pathetic really.

How inspired his work is is really a matter of taste. He's the kind of writer where each line of his makes me want to smack him in his face, so I am a bit biased there .. I'm sure he's quite inspired, and that his works have a lot in them for a lot of people. But he has to deal with the fact that his works, no matter what one can, as a critic, say about them, have not managed to capture the entire planet the way Rowling has.

As for him not being the first person to accuse Rowling of plagiarism: What do you expect? You can, in the present day and age, not be successful in anything without having shit thrown at you from all corners. I quite noticed it with my brother, who is a professional cyclist - as soon as he started winning races in major categories, rumours started turning up that he was doping. As soon as he won the national time trial championships, even Austrian state TV reported that he was probably doped. I personally find this attitude of instant hatred towards people that have been successful quite disgusting.

It doesn't mean a thing how many people have accused her of plagiarism, especially if they can't decide WHAT she plagiarised from - Lord of the Rings? The Wizard of Earthsea? The Hogfather? The Worst Witch? The Legend of Rah and the Muggles?

If you can't figure out what something is plagiarised from, it isn't.

 

[KoshFan]

In Pratchett's defense, I've never heard him complain or get jealous. (That isn't to say he hasn't done so. Just that I haven't heard him do so.) As far as I can tell, he's more exasperated by people saying that he plagerised from Rowling, when he was there first.

Taken from the Annotated Pratchett Files, refering to a drawing of Ponder Stibbons that looks like Harry Potter as a twenty-five-year-old:

Or so people keep saying, which is a bit unfortunate, because ever since the success of the Harry Potter books, Terry is hearing increasingly more often from people who ask if (or sometimes even demand he acknowledge that) he 'got' Unseen University from Hogwarts, etcetera, etcetera.

In this case, the first drawing of Ponder Stibbons (looking exactly as he does here) appeared in the 1996 Discworld Portfolio, whereas the first Harry Potter novel was not published until 1997...

Terry says:

"Ponder Stibbons was indeed first drawn in 1996. I, of course, used a time machine to 'get the idea' of Unseen University from Hogwarts; I don't know what Paul used in this case. Obviously he must have used something."

 

[Chilli]

As far as I can tell, he's more exasperated by people saying that he plagerised from Rowling, when he was there first.

Oh, he has every right to be pissed about that. And darth librarian is right about the fact that it's stupid how the media acts like Rowling invented the genre. However, as she has never claimed anything like that, I have no tolerance for people holding this against her.

There was a fairly extensive interview with Prachett in SFX magazine 1 1/2 years or so ago in which he seemed quite annoyed about Harry Potter's success though - I'll see if I can find it for the exact quotes tomorrow. Basically complaining about how everyone treats the Harry Potter series as something special, eventhough it obviously is not, and how he has been doing the same stuff on a way more sophisticated level for decades. Harry Potter is just a hype.

Which I found more than a bit pathetic. What would Tolkien say to him if he was around today? As much as I dislike Prachett, I am quite willing to believe that his works are quite inspired. I refuse to believe though that he re-invents the wheel in every single book he writes. And I really can't quite figure out where the snotty attitude towards Rowling came from - has she been chaining people to walls, forcing them to read her books? More people wanting to read her books than hers is quite a sad reason for his attitudes there.

Plus, I don't see where the "just" came in there. If you can cause a hype with *books*, int he 21st century, they *are* something special.

 

[Sindatur]

From what I've seen of complaints about Rowling's and HP's success, it seems the main complaint is she writes so simply. She doesn't use big artistic colorful words, and she uses "He said", She said" a great deal which is considered juvenile by the high and mighty critics. She writes to be understood by all ages.

 

[Chilli]

Which is, to a large degree, a great part of the reason why she managed to hit the nerve of society as she did.

Much like the Beatles did - eventhough there've definitely been more talented bands around.

Or Star Wars did - in spite of basically being a cute little fairy tale, in space.

Personally, I don't quite get complaints about simplistic writing style if the story still reads well - there is nothing more frustrating for me than a story that works so hard to be "cute" in its style that it has mutaded beyond readability. I believe Asimov, on this topic, once said something to the effect of .. "I don't care if my writing style is good or not. I just want to tell stories." - I can live with that, if it comes from someone that, like both Asimov and Rowling, has a *good* natural simple style.