idiotic letter in todays paper

[rainy_lilac at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 16009


Of course the obvious question is why aren't the writers named by the 
letter writer sueing JKR?

The answer is that like Neil Gaimen they very likely don't believe 
that the similarities are such a big deal. JKR is not the first writer 
to write about young wizards or to send them to school. Her style 
and the shape of her stories is verrrryyyy different from Jane 
Yolen's.

I happen to know Jane Yolen. I studied with her at Smith. She is a 
very cool lady who has herself borrowed heavily from fairy tales and 
mythology and took much inspiration from other fine writers. John 
Crowley's book "Little Big" in particular had a huge effect on her, 
and a number of her stories show his inspiration, and yes, even rip 
off details (which Crowley himself ripped off from Tolkien). 
The works are completely different. Crowley and Yolen are neighbors 
and play poker regularly. It's not a problem because Jane has her 
vision and it is all hers, and nobody but nobody is another John 
Crowley.

A true writer with a great story to tell about another witch or wizard 
is not going to feel threatened by JKR-- more likely he or she will 
feel inspired, charged up, and encouraged and be happy for her 
success. They are also goingnto realize that our fascination with 
witches and wizards and coming of age are literally as old as the 
hills.

*Shrug* That's my take.  I don't think this letter really supports 
Stouffer. It is however naive and shows little understanding of 
creativity. I also wonder if she has actually read jane Yolen. The 
work cited really is nothing like Harry Potter. I suspect she is 
repeating stories she has heard elsewhere.

--Suzanne




--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Dai Evans" <dwe199 at s...> wrote:
> Joywitch wrote:
> > Todays Washington Post has a letter from a reader in Arlington, 
VA, 
> > in response to the Post article last week about Nancy Stouffer.  
> > the URL is:
> > 
> > http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46988-2001Apr5.html
> 
> This letter is sooo lame. I wondered for a moment or two if it was 
> supposed to be sarcastic; it's that pathetic.
> 
> Talk about tenuous parallels...
> 
> Didn't this woman read the letter over before mailing it, and 
> realise? It defies belief. I can imagine that she had a point all 
> worked out in her head and decided to put it into words, but, good 
> lord. It's just dreadfully weak.
> 
> Dai