Spectres and Dementors

[orionsixwings]

I can't shake the feeling that Rowling has really recycled most of her ideas. Then again, it's not exactly plagiarism so I guess it's okay.

Anyway, I'm nearly done with my second reading of the series HIS DARK MATERIALS and I saw a similarity between the foul elements in Cittagazze called Spectres and Rowling's Dementors.

They are both described to be entities that feed on the human soul and leave their victim's like zombies. Pullman describes them as mist-like, while Rowling, in HBP, describes their "reproduction" as fog-like.

While a Patronus Charm, that actually conjures a guardian to drive these elements away, works for Dementors, Will had Balthamos and Baruch, Angels -- often described as Guardians - to keep the spectres away.

Oh well...

[Balfa]

It was some time since I read "His Dark Materials", but isn't Will's knife that something that keeps spectres away?

[Winters_Sorrow]

Originally Posted by orionsixwings

I can't shake the feeling that Rowling has really recycled most of her ideas. Then again, it's not exactly plagiarism so I guess it's okay.

Originality has never been a JK selling point. I'm not really sure what was.

Mildred the Worst Witch was there with the whole "wizard school" long before Harry Potter (and there's probably an even earlier reference)

The "dark lord/wizard" - take your pick from Tolkien, D&D and any number of numerous earlier works.

Actually, while I'm writing this, I can't help comparing Harry Potter to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz...

Wicked witch of the west = Voldemort
Glinda the good witch of the north = Dumbledore

The Tin Man = Snape (~"if he only had a heart"~)
The Cowardly Lion = Ron
The Scarecrow = Hagrid

Not sure what that makes Hermione (possibly Toto or an annoying munchkin?? )

Slightly more seriously, I guess JK's success was transcribing all these stereotypes & magical environments to a recognisable school setting.
It's Grange Hill (or possibly Byker Grove, considering my location! ) with wands, in many ways.......

[orionsixwings]

Originally Posted by Balfa

It was some time since I read "His Dark Materials", but isn't Will's knife that something that keeps spectres away?

Yeah, it was but at the end of the Subtle Knife, the angel's Baruch and Balthamos served as his guardians as well.

[dwndrgn]

Originally Posted by orionsixwings

I can't shake the feeling that Rowling has really recycled most of her ideas. Then again, it's not exactly plagiarism so I guess it's okay.

Anyway, I'm nearly done with my second reading of the series HIS DARK MATERIALS and I saw a similarity between the foul elements in Cittagazze called Spectres and Rowling's Dementors.

They are both described to be entities that feed on the human soul and leave their victim's like zombies. Pullman describes them as mist-like, while Rowling, in HBP, describes their "reproduction" as fog-like.

While a Patronus Charm, that actually conjures a guardian to drive these elements away, works for Dementors, Will had Balthamos and Baruch, Angels -- often described as Guardians - to keep the spectres away.

Oh well...

Honestly and truly - if you take any book, story, poem, song, etc. you can find the influences and references in them. Take out the references and influences from James Joyce and you have something that is almost readable, but not even close to being James Joyce. What makes a book (or song or poem) is not necessarily it's disparate pieces, but the whole once it has been put together. Think of Chili. A favorite American dish of meat, beans and spices. There are thousands upon thousands of recipes for chili. Some good, some nominal, some absolutely heavenly. What matters is how the cook put the three ingredients together. Did they use ground beef or turkey? Did they make it hot and spicy or mild? Did they use different kinds of beans?

I don't understand why there is such a hubbub about what bits and pieces are borrowed from prior works? If you wanted to write something, I guarantee that everything you've read will influence it and while you might think it is completely original, anyone who reads it will see influences from here, there and everywhere. Some authors do it on purpose in homage to a story that is an old friend, some do it unconsciously and may not realize it until after publication, some do it because it just works nicely, some do it because it is a commonality - people like dragons, so I'll put in a dragon like ad execs put dogs and kids on tv, because people like them.

Obviously, a word-for-word plagiarism should be deriled. Or, a work that is so close to its predecessor as to be almost indistinguishable. However, except for one or two really cheesy books I read as a kid, I've never seen one.

I apologise for my rant here but I get tired of hearing over and over that so and so is just a cheap copy of so and so...etc. and so forth. If you read everything with this type of attitude, you won't enjoy anything. I could find similarities in any two books, same genre or not if I look hard enough. Just think about all the hype over Narnia recently. There were just as many arguments for Narnia being a Christian treatise as for it being an athiest's manifesto. You can read what you will from anything. Go in with an open mind and you might actually enjoy it for a change.

[orionsixwings]

Exactly, what part of my post did you get the idea that I did not enjoy what I read, dwndrgn?

This is just plain observation how JK Rowling seems to have borrowed lots of ideas from previous works, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy Harry Potter. I am part of that fandom, and have written many successful fanfics for it.

Comparing written pieces to Chili is really not the analogy I'd use, but let us use it for purposes of the debate which you have opened. The reason why there are so many versions of Chili (while non can claim ownership as being THE ORIGINAL) is because everyone's palate is different and therefore many, "season" their Chili's, "To taste". But then again, it's still Chili, there's no patent for recipe's so no one can can lay claim that someone copied someone else.

Literature, especially original works of fiction, might get into an entirely different avenue as far as scrutiny is concerned, because stories are copyrighted original works of the Author. So readers are prone to notice similarities - no matter how small they are.

That's why there is a law against plagiarism but no law against recipe modification.

I don't read anything I don't enjoy. When a book is not to my liking I give it away or burn it.

[dwndrgn]

Originally Posted by orionsixwings

Exactly, what part of my post did you get the idea that I did not enjoy what I read, dwndrgn?

This is just plain observation how JK Rowling seems to have borrowed lots of ideas from previous works, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy Harry Potter. I am part of that fandom, and have written many successful fanfics for it.

Comparing written pieces to Chili is really not the analogy I'd use, but let us use it for purposes of the debate which you have opened. The reason why there are so many versions of Chili (while non can claim ownership as being THE ORIGINAL) is because everyone's palate is different and therefore many, "season" their Chili's, "To taste". But then again, it's still Chili, there's no patent for recipe's so no one can can lay claim that someone copied someone else.

Literature, especially original works of fiction, might get into an entirely different avenue as far as scrutiny is concerned, because stories are copyrighted original works of the Author. So readers are prone to notice similarities - no matter how small they are.

That's why there is a law against plagiarism but no law against recipe modification.

I don't read anything I don't enjoy. When a book is not to my liking I give it away or burn it.

I apologize if it seemed I was attacking you, orionsixwings, that wasn't my intention.

This portion of your post:

I can't shake the feeling that Rowling has really recycled most of her ideas. Then again, it's not exactly plagiarism so I guess it's okay.

while not telling us that you disliked JK Rowlings books, does seem to hint at a dissatisfaction with them. I suppose this is what set me off. Again, I truly wasn't attacking you, just expressing my personal feelings.

[orionsixwings]

That's okay, honest mistake. JK isn't exactly one of my favorite authors but Harry Potter is an enjoyable enough book to read. I was also just posting observation.

No harm done!

[Green Knight]

I think the point to be made is: do the Spectres and Dementors serve their own unique purposes within the confines of their stories?

Rowling has said many times that her Dementors are a personification of depression, which she has suffered herself (hence the joke that chocolate can ward against them!). Thus they have a deep-rooted emotional 'truth' in the story, and so can be said to be an original creation, however much they may look like Black Riders, Spectres or whatever.

Spectres are more subtle - they seem literally to leech your consciousness, turning you into a zombie. They are therefore quite a different creation, an embodiment of a different (if related) phenomenon.

While we're on the subject, we could add Tolkien's Black Riders to the list. They are, as it happens, a bit like Dementors... only they do not embody depression as such, but despair.

Interesting that all these 'negative forces' have been dressed up by their respective authors in flowing hoods and cowls, isn't it? I wonder why that is. Why do the demons of our nightmares look like monks??

[orionsixwings]

LOL! I never thought of it that way, but yeah, come to think of it, that does get me thinking. Why are we so scared of anything with hoods? Perhaps it's because we all share the fear of the unknown. Something hooded is hidden from view and therefore unknown, they may hold dangers we are not prepare for.

Monks? I actually love the Gregorian Brothers and have quite a collection of their cd's. I don't think I'm really that scared of monks --- hooded though they are.

[hermi-nomi]

Interesting that all these 'negative forces' have been dressed up by their respective authors in flowing hoods and cowls, isn't it? I wonder why that is. Why do the demons of our nightmares look like monks??

Did Rowling actually describe the Dementors like this though? I thought the Dementors were only given a more solid look in the third film?

[Green Knight]

I seem to remember that Dementors do have a basic physical description already in the third book (when they first appear). Hoods, cowls, cloaks etc. *shudder*

Maybe the hood concept is a bit like Room 101 - the thing you can't see is the thing that scares you most, which is different for everyone. (Just thought of another example: The Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come. Not forgetting Death of course...)

I remember being totally spooked by the Black Riders when my mum first read me The Lord of the Rings (yep... the whole thing). And it wasn't what they did so much as what they didn't do, that was so frightening. They are just... there.

Dementors are for some reason less scary because their powers are more explicit - because they are, strangely, more obviously powerful. Spectres though are as scary as Nazgul. I still get shivers at Pullman's description of them coming down 'like thistledown' from the air...

[Lacedaemonian]

These things cause so much fear because they are faceless and basically offer their victims no opportunity to negotiate.

Dark Materials asked so many questions. Harry Potter asked none. I enjoyed reading both series however.

[Green Knight]

Dark Materials asked so many questions. Harry Potter asked none. I enjoyed reading both series however.

Oh, I don't know. I think there are some fascinating questions in HP too. I love the scene in the first book (equally good in the film) where Dumbledore talks about the Mirror of Erised. 'The happiest man in the world could look into the Mirror and see only himself, exactly as he is.' And then he refuses to divulge exactly what it is HE sees when he looks in the Mirror (making instead a joke about socks). I think that's beautifully understated poignancy, and quite provocative too.

[hermi-nomi]

I've not read His Dark Materials so, could you, you know ~ what sort of questions does His Dark Materials ask? The biggest question in Harry Potter is probably whether Prof. Snape is on the Order's side, the Death Eater's side, or his own side (given the progression of the Potter stories it would be arbitary I think, to ask whether Snape is good/evil. The stories have also raised loads of other questions about the series itself, and regarding more general issues such as the nature of death, the power of love (cheesy!) the nature of evil and morality...