Rowling guilty of demeaning authorship by allowing contextual variations of Potter to be published
Debate Rounds (3)
Among many variations..
In succumbing to unjust corporate dictates and money-hungry mass culture, they have forgotten that authorship is both an art and divine calling, which renders anyone who tinkers with and changes your book to be guilty of disrespect and treason to personal dignity. JK Rowling has not asserted her own rights in order that Potter can be her proper legacy, and that assertion is proof of ethics in itself, on her part. These writers jeopardized not only the reverence for authorship but the future of budding writers as well . The proof of this is general decline both of authorship caliber and readership. It is not surprising that many qualified writers are now wary of this deregulation and of putting JK Rowlings works in their lists of commendable publications.
As a beginning, a clear, glaring analogy.
I am not talking about proofreading, I mean context please do not misconstrue. A novel or poem is tantamount to a canvas painting or a Delibes musical piece. As counterpart of all the art branches, an author inevitably demands absolute preservation of every syllable, exclamation point and every aspect of her work; addendum is treason . We must make reference to Art as a superior endeavor that and the sensitivity of its details.
This is not about the bestselling aspect, and do not miss my point. The most enduring, profoundest authors did not necessarily resort to lots and lots.
If Monalisa was once tampered with and released with added tints or hat, wouldn't the painter have been ready to strangle?
If Elvis added something to the lyrics of My Way, wouldn't the writer have been scandalized by such abnormality?
A very simple analogy for this brainwashed, bubblegum generation. JK Rowling's case stands for many years, she could only plea for insanity. If Wikipedia who says she is sick is anything to be relied upon, her mental state made her vulnerable to conspirators who know nothing about writing, only about making money. Whoa! Reminds me of the days when movie studios were taken over by companies who know nothing about it; they just got accustomed to putting their weight here and there, as domineering arrogant bores. I am telling you: these companies who now handle BOOKS know nothing. Just because they have oodles of cash, does not mean they will take over something they MUST not meddle in.
Because the moneyed people push for a brand of commercialism that takes over the writer's prerogatives.
They cheapen art, they killed Harry, that's why now, only the "Cuckoo is Calling". R.I.P. My condolences.
Writing is an art, and books are not like mass-produced condom to do what they want with.
That's all. Goodnight. I mean well.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to make an argument (Bured of proof).
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.