The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Rowling guilty of demeaning authorship by allowing contextual variations of Potter to be published

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 529 times Debate No: 48759
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Among many variations..

book 4
Harry was passionate about Quidditch. He had played as Seeker on the Gryffindor house Quidditch team ever since his first year at Hogwarts and owned a Firebolt, one of the best racing brooms in the world.
Harry had been on the Gryffindor House Quidditch team ever since his first year at Hogwarts and owned one of the best racing brooms in the world, a Firebolt. Flying came more naturally to Harry than anything else in the magical world, and he played in the position of Seeker on the Gryffindor House team.

Harry knew that Apparating was very difficult; it meant disappearing from one place and re-appearing almost instantly in another
Harry knew that Apparating meant disappearing from one place and reappearing almost instantly in another, but had never known any Hogwarts student to do it, and understood that it was very difficult.

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.


First of all, let me think my opponent for allowing me to be in this debate. It is a very interesting topic. If I may ask a question of the crew position it would be this. What is divine calling as you state in your opening argument? Do you believe writing to be natural talent? One that is given by God alone? If you believe that, then why are there English degrees in writing? People may go to school in order to hone this art. Writing is subjective. How can anything be a God given talent if it is subjective? Further, I question the use of the term "contextual variations". What do you mean by that? In the comparison of the passages shown in your opening arguments, all I see something akin to translators notes, something equivalent to "here's what I'm talking about in case you missed the first three books". American people didn't know what Quidditch was, nor did they know the significance of the brooms used for the sport. How are they supposed to know?
Debate Round No. 1


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.


I assure you I did not misconstrue your statement. I understand the book is a form of media meant to convey a narrative. However the examples you've shown do not in any way show how these contextual variations have betrayed the narrative of the novel series. I understand your analogy as well.
Debate Round No. 2


This would never happen to Tolkien or Dahl. I bet my life they knew how to uphold the dignity of their profession.

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.


Every one of your arguments has failed to answer every question I posed. How is she guilty of trying to make a living? Everyone of your arguments has been tantamount to Metallica selling out which they never did. There is such a thing as supply and demand. If the reader does not receive enough context to understand what is going on in the narrative world, they will get confused and stop reading. There are different markets for different genres. Also there are different publishers whose wheelhouse is in those genres. The bottom line is, if she does not sell enough books, she will be dropped by her publisher. If she gets dropped by her publisher, she has to run around finding another publisher which takes away time from her writing, her art. Self-publishing is unviable as it stands right now. You also failed to show the burden of proof that she is "guilty of demeaning authorship".
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by philochristos 2 years ago
Why does "noob snipe" have such a negative connotation on this site? I think noob sniping is a good thing. It allows the noobs to get their feet in the door. It also gives them a better chance of increasing their ELO. And in some cases, it's a more effective way of weeding out people who, in the long run, aren't going to contribute much to the site anyway.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Not going to noob snipe by accepting the challenge... However are you really complaining over there being different covers, and different language editions?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to make an argument (Bured of proof).