‘Harry Potter’ plagiarises ‘The Worst Witch’

Tell me this isn’t a similar meet-cute to that of Harry & Draco. You can’t.

Rich snobby conceited legacy-student Ethel Hallow extends friendship to clumsy shy headstrong newbie Mildred Hubble, by way of fake-magnanimity and an offer Mildred probably ought to take to keep up appearances on their first day of school. Mildred refuses, because she want to make it at Cackle’s Academy on her own terms, and so their enmity is established. Thereafter, Ethel takes every opportunity to show Mildred up or bully her, while weaselling out of trouble herself.

Ethel Hallow is the original Draco Malfoy!

At a later point in the tv series, Mildred turns poor Ethel into a pig (she was going for frog, and missed).

Didn’t Harry and his pals once turn Draco into a ferret? Hmmm..

What are you talking about?! Tim Curry, Fairuza Balk, and Charlotte Rae from 1986 or something

R3 thanks for the reminder; I had quite forgotten that there was indeed a very good 80s movie adaptation of the books.

The clips posted above were taken from the 1998 tv series, for which the plot is virtually the same as the first film, only extended somewhat.

There has also been a recent and successful tv reboot, which ran 2017-2020.

I always kind of thought the whole "horcux" bit - destroying them destroys Voldemort was very reminiscent of Dracula and the search to destroy his various resting places to eventually destroy him. The book puts more emphasis on this method for destroying him than the old "stake through the heart" bit

There was once some webpage or forum which listed all the similarities and they were extensive, and of course HP stans got very upset.

The truth is that there's absolute scads (scads, I tell you!) of plagiarism in science fiction and fantasy series', and if you get a big publisher behind you, you'll get away with it.

A former professor, Mary Margaret Kimmel, wrote a picture book in 1975 and had it illustrated by the indomitable and award winning Trina Schart Hyman called Magic in the Mist. It tells the story of a bespeckeled, dark tousled haired young wizard in training who wears a stripped knit scarf. Coincidence, I think not.

JK stole from a lot of different places, but she added her own spin on them and they became that cultural behemoth's that they are. Nothing is original, it's how you spin that unoriginality.

She turned me into a newt!

I love the HP books. Read them to my nephews, which brings back tons of good memories.

But I don't think anyone thinks they were the apex of originality. Hell, I don't think ANY vampire/witch/werewolf/zombie series, movie or book can claim originality at this point.

It's funny how everyone has a hate boner for everything JK related now, considering she was a big reason a lot of kids started reading again. I feel like a certain group have it out for her and until she is burned at the stake, they won't stop.

Load of Bolloix OP.

Get on your broomstick and head to the moon.

Every story about a kid going off to school features the kid making friends, making enemies, being bullied, eventually befriending one of the bullies, getting into scrapes, being unfairly accused of doing something s/he hadn't done, compares the kid's family to the other kids' families, has a fearsome teacher, has a kindly teacher, has a loyal pet, suffers a personal loss, ends up heroically saving the day.

It's not plagiarism, it's just drawing from the same well.

If I had a nickel for every author who said “Rowling ripped me off”....

...you'd have about 10 trillion nickels, R14!

The entire thing is a rip off from Star Wars, Tolkien and The Wizard of Oz. It’s a cold hallow book series that screams corporate business venture set up to sell shitty toys to children. I couldn’t believe it took off after reading the first book. The films were even worse. I’m thrilled that Rowling is getting destroyed and her fans have left her. I won’t have to hear about Harry Potter again from her demented former fan base.

R16, maybe you should go back to bed and try it again tomorrow.

I thought she stole stuff from that 80s Dungeons & Dragons tv cartoon.

There are hundreds of books about kids going to magic schools.

There are lots and lots of books with similar themes that were published way before Harry Potter, and this series just happened to be the one that became a big hit especially in the late '90s and early 2000s. By the time this series came out, I had already read the works of Diane Duane, Diana Wynne Jones, Susan Cooper, Ursula LeGuin, Jane Yolen, etc. so to me it was puzzling why the Harry Potter books were such a megahit even among adults who normally don't like to read. Nothing against the Harry Potter books, I just didn't understand what made them so special when there were other authors who in my opinion were producing better-written books and got much less acclaim than they deserved.

R20 I worked for a prominent children’s librarian and herself a author of books for children. When she picked up the ARC at library conference she knew something was very different about the book. Within the first month of it being released she even had her children’s book group read it.

Ooh, interesting, R6. Got a link?

In the episode of WEIRDSISTERS COLLEGE (based on books from the 80s, I believe) that I just watched, Mildred got too stressed and freaked out by a magical power surge, and consequently somehow managed to summon and control snakes. She even set one on Ethel. She wasn’t talking to them in Parseltongue, but apart from that it was the same as the scene at the zoo in the first HP.

The setting of this series is gorgeous, btw. In all the backgrounds you see the bright clean serenity and idyllic stateliness of Cambridge University, beautifully shot. The plots are realistic and clever, too. Pity the acting leaves a lot to be desired, and that the fashion is truly eye-bleeding (what were College kids thinking in 2001?)...

TWW/WSC are so much more fun, natural and interesting to delve into than HP, which takes itself way too seriously, forgets it own characterisations, and forces plotlines too hard.

As for all that rubbish about HP being the only way for kids to read; well, if all a kid ever reads is HP and whatever they have to read for school, then nothing ever again, what difference has it really made?

R21, what’s ARC?

They're ALL a spin-off of TOM BROWN'S SCHOOLDAYS (first published 1857).

R23 ARC= Advanced Reader’s Copy, it’s paperback format of a new book, usually the the second to last corrected proof before going to the printer. They technically shouldn’t be sold and should be destroyed. This one is listed at about $2,000.00 value.

R23 It's something that people who test positive get & have to have their initials on their kitchen cups Rose.

These examples are brought up all the time. No one used to care or they would simply explain it away. Now that she dares to speak up for women, the same claims suddenly hold weight. It is so transparent.

So many ideas can seem like plagiarism when taken out of context or when similarities are listed as bullet points. That is why the entire story needs to be taken into account.

A school for witches isnt the most unique idea. Children go to school, therefore many children’s books revolve around school. Fantasy books are no different.

I remember the hype and couldn’t imagine that it wasn’t overblown, but then I read the first book and just fell in love with the characters and the universe. They really are the definition of a page turner.

R27 "Now that she dares to speak up for conservatives:"

Fixed that for you free of charge.

Personally, I believe that stories about magic should primarily focus on women. I mean, who were the main group of people burned at the stake for witchcraft? Who invented Witchery and kept it alive so long, even through Millennia of persecution and Abrahamic censorship?

That’s why I object a little to Harry Potter being so much more celebrated than The Worst Witch. I mean, I understand where that comes from, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. The patriarchy strikes again...

[quote] Nothing is original, it's how you spin that unoriginality.

That’s absolutely not a defense here. Rawlings basically ripped off better, more imaginative fantasy authors, blatantly stealing their ideas to create a Frankenstein’s monster. Then she dumbed it all down to make it easier to digest for lower IQ 21st century readers.

Harry Potter is trash. Serve people cold diarrhea on sagging paper plates and they’ll line up around the corner for seconds.

^^^ Rowling

R8 has said what I was about to.

R31, the books are page turners. I know people who don’t give a whit about fantasy or kids novels (one a grown man who only reads news) who loved the books. You can’t deny people loved them, and have read them over and over. Of course, if it’s not your cup of tea, fine, but they’re not crap, she weaves great stories.

[quote] she weaves great stories.

Beg pudding, but I had been reliably informed that ghost writers penned half of those books?

R35, it’s time for your medicine.

I would turn R36 into a toad, but as he’s one in spirit already that would be rather redundant and a waste of a good spell.

Neil Gaiman has something to say abut this.

R38 he is such a blowhard. DGMW, I really liked SANDMAN comics and the novel of AMERICAN GODS, but could he pipe down about things that don’t concern him like one time?

I'm surprised we've gotten this far and not even mentioned the blatant Roald Dahl ripoffs.

R7, I love love love Trina Schart Hyman’s work, she’s a fantastic illustrator.

The brilliance of much of the Potter books comes from its manipulation of the themes, symbols, tropes and legends associated with every corner of the occult, magical, psychic, monster and witchy traditions (and more). Of course in doing so the author (Miss "I just want to be understood as being biased with love and will only mention surreptitious gay content after I've made my billion") Whoozits will have incorporated components that will remind one of other uses. They're universal or close to it.

R41 Yes, she had her own very eerily romantic style of illustrations that always grabbed your attention and then the intense level of detail held your eye for such a long time. She was a lesbian, as is summed up pretty clearly in this self portrait. This always reminds me of Alison Bechdel when she’s done images of herself at drawing table.

No tribbing in the dorms after hours, gels!