Journal of Curious Letters/Harry Potter

So I just finished reading an Early Reviewers book called The Journal of Curious Letters that's book one in a new fantasy series called The Thirteenth Reality. As is often the case with new books in the Young Adult fantasy genre, there comes an unavoidable comparison to Harry Potter. I thought I would jump the gun and go ahead with a comparison review here (for simplicity's sake I'll stick with book one of HP, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone).

It probably doesn't really need to be explained due to it's prevalence in pop culture but in the first Harry Potter book (henceforth HP) reader's are introduced to a young orphan boy living in pretty miserable circumstances with awful relatives but his life is changed when he receives a letter informing him that he is in fact a wizard. He is summoned away to an unknown world at a magic school where he makes new friends and embarks on a dangerous adventure.

There are a few pieces of this tale that are seen directly in James Dashner's Journal of Curious Letters, (henceforth JCL) but for the most part the tale is unique. The reader is introduced to a young boy, Atticus Higginbottom (he goes by "Tick"). He's above average smart and gets along well with his family. One day Tick receives a letter inviting him to engage in a series of riddles, with the information that it will be a dangerous journey but that solving the riddles could save many lives. He soon finds other friends that are on the same quest and eventually learns that there is a series of multiple realities at stake. (I'm trying not to give too much away, but the name of the series is The 13th Reality so that's not much of a spoiler).

First the similarities, both Tick and Harry are victims of bullying. Secondly, there is a letter that brings them both to their adventures. Third, both have two close friends, one male and one female. Fourth, the idea of responsible choices becomes a central moral and theme to both stories.

But before one writes off JCL as just another HP-ripoff, it's important to look at the differences between these books. In HP, there is little to no central family unit. Conversely, parents and siblings play an important and helpful role in JCL. I found this refreshing to a genre that usually relies on dysfunctional families as a plot point. Next there are the puzzles and clues that drive the action in JCL. Instead of the traditional fantasy action seen in Rowling's HP, James Dashner relies on brain-teasers and some basic quantum physics to keep the pace up. Another key difference was the way that the moral of "choices as power" was handled. In HP, Harry has his destiny as a wizard before him but chooses his friends and quests; where as in JCL, Tick is placed in the situation to choose whether or not to be involved with a "magical" world at all.

Overall, I think both books have their merits. I'm very interested to see where The 13th Reality Series leads. Although the similarities will always draw the comparison between them, I think their differences make it clear that HP is obviously fantasy and JCL is probably more aptly described as science-fiction. Bottom line though, readers of all ages can easily enjoy both!

They also both have mysterious markings on their bodies...Tick has his birthmark on his neck, and Harry has his scar on his forehead.

Great discussion thread, because this is something I feel very passionate about. Calling something a Harry Potter knockoff has become a very trendy thing to say, and it's justified. When you have a phenom like HP, it is inevitable. And that's okay.

I hope it's okay to take a minute to defend my book. This is just my opinion, and I respect those who disagree. That's what's great about reading - your opinion CANNOT be wrong! :-)

I completely admit similarities. NONE of them were intended. The birthmark has absolutely nothing to do with anything magical. I wanted Tick to have a self esteem thing that he overcomes, and in the original version he burned the scarf at the end of the book. My publisher wanted me to wait until Book 2.

Yes, it starts with a letter. But the substance of that letter has nothing to do with a magical school or anything even close. It has nothing to do with Tick being special. It's an invitation to hundreds of kids to take part in a recruiting test of riddles.

My book has no wizards, no witches, no "magic" in the cliche sense of the word, no boarding school, no evil Lords, etc. It's about quantum physics and alternate realities. And I certainly don't admit to being the first to do that, either. Not by a longshot. But I am trying to put my own twist on it.

I purposefully made Tick a part of a loving family to make it different from HP. I had his dad involved to make if different. The whole time I wrote the book, I tried to keep in mind, "don't be like HP, don't be like HP". I think some things are just a natural part of a kid's book, and so I'm very guilty of those.

Yes, Tick has 2 main friends, a boy and a girl. That's as old as printed paper. But I made Sofia a tough tomboy to make her different from Hermione, and I made Paul very smart to make him different from Ron. Yes, they are both smart alecks. I had forgotten that JK Rowling invented smartaleckness. :-) Also, my main character is a male because I am a male. Write what you know, and Tick is basically me. How embarrassing!

I could go on and on. I knew Mothball would be compared to Hagrid. Sorry, but kids love giants with a sweet innocence about them. Trust me, Mrs. Rowling did not invent that. In fact, I patterned Mothball after Saltheart Foamfollower from the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant since he's one of my favorite characters of all time. And yes, I made her a woman to be different.

There are flying machines at the end. Yes, Hagrid had a flying motorcycle. And HP had broomsticks. But sorry, the windbikes have been my fantasy toy since I was a kid, and so they made it into the story. At least I tried to give them a *little* bit of scientific basis. Grin.

Anyway, sorry to be long winded. What a great problem to have, right? A book that's getting scrutinized and compared, for good or bad, to the biggest phenomenom in literature, ever. It's fun to hear peoples' opinions.

Ya know, I know I'm not the most brilliant writer ever. But I write to entertain kids, and I sure hope they like the book. And I always hope to improve, which is why I love hearing the feedback on this site. Plus, it's so fun to interact with readers!

Thanks for hearing me out, and have a great day!!!

#2 - noted.
#3 - I hope I didn't cause any offense with the comparison. I was trying to say something to the effect of "yes they have some things in common, but they are quite different". Apologies if that did not come across.

It irks me that any YA fantasy novel is instantly compared to HP and that's really the reason why I wanted to "jump the gun" and throw the comparison review out there. Many wonderful youth novels were written before HP - surprise, surpirse much of Rowling's work is NOT original - and many more youth fantasy books will be written after it and deserved to be judged on their own merits.

The plus side of comparisons though is the "if you like X, you'll like y" rule of recommendations*. I think Journal of Curious Letters is quite different from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. It's similar enough to say that Harry Potter fans will probably enjoy it, but it's also different enough to say that people who found HP too much of a fantasy could enjoy JCL more because of the science fiction twists.

*Side note: X,Y recommendations and the Early Reviewers Program go hand in hand - the prevalence of young adult sci fi and fantasy in my library by authors such as Jenny Nimmo, Patrick Carman, Phillip Pullman, C. S. Lewis, Neil Gaiman, Diana Wynne Jones, Frank Beddor, Jonathan Stroud and yes, J.K. Rowling is likely how I was chosen to review this book.

No, no, no, trust me, I wasn't in the least bit offended. Not at all. I was more responding, as it seems you are, to a couple of the reviews that hinted that I had merely copied HP or other books. I think you and I are on the same page.

Plus, like I said, I don't mind the comparison, not at all. The only thing that irks me is when people obtusely say "it's another HP rip off" without putting real thought to it. I mean, using that logic, HP ripped off about 1000 books. Quite well, however!

(And no, I have no idea if I just used the word "obtusely" correctly. I'm not even sure I know what it means.)

Anyway, I just loved the idea of your topic and thought I'd jump the gun and defend a few things I supposed people would bring up. In hindsight, I should have kept my mouth shut and not swayed the argument. I'd really love to hear peoples' opinions.

Thanks, elbarekone!

J.K. Rowling wrote a great story based around a number of ideas, but she did NOT invent those ideas. She took all sorts of classic archetypes and crafted something amazing, but those archetypes existed long before she made up Harry Potter. That an author like Darshner has taken some of those same archetypes to create his own story in no way means he's trying to recreate Harry Potter. It just means he's trying to re-image the classics.

A relatively normal and ordinary person is chosen by a mysterious mentor to undertake a quest, growing in courage, strength and character along the way, discovering the wonder of the world outside his humdrum existence, before confronting a great malice that threatens not only himself but the world around him.

Harry Potter? Yep. Tick Higginbottom? Sure. But what about Bilbo Baggins? And Frodo after him? You could argue that Tolkien's adaptation of the classic archetype of the hero and his journey has itself become an archetype, the basis--for better or worse--of almost all modern fantasy. Yet I wouldn't compare Rowling to Tolkien and find her wanting because she used the same archetypes, but not as well as he did. (Tolkien is a master writer; time will tell if Rowling is a master writer, too.)

* Tick and H.P. are both boys--not much choice there, one or the other. Well, I suppose that an especially progressive storyteller could create a hero "in between" a boy and a girl, but it'll never sell as a kids' story. Though Ursula le Guin did specifically create strong characters who were "in between" in The Left Hand of Darkness.

* Tick and H.P. both have strong friends, a boy and a girl. Again, there's only two choices there. The archetype of the hero and his companion is ancient--all the way back to Gilgamesh and Enkidu. Or Achilles and Patroclus, Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, Frodo (again) and Sam. A hero needs friends. (I have to admit, though, that I found Sofia as charming as Veruca Salt--sorry!)

* Darshner's point that kids love giants is exactly on point. Another reviewer compared Mothball and Rutger to C3PO and R2D2--one clever and a maybe a little uptight, the other mischevious and useful. They even have the same body types! That's another classic archetype, the comic relief. C3PO and R2D2 are a direct conversion of another version of this archetype, from Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress.

I also have to note how pleased I was to hear someone talk about Thomas Covenant again--I haven't heard that name for several years. Steven Donaldson gathers together all the archetypes and turns them on their head. He creates what you could fairly describe as a prototypical fantasy world--replete with moral, beautiful, helpful and wonderful characters--and then, when his "hero" journeys to that magical land, the first thing he does there is commit a horrible crime (not knowing the age restrictions here, I'll pass over the details, but suffice it to say it is NOT something a good guy would do). All the standard archetypes brought to bear.

* The archetype of the wise mentor is a classic, too: You can go back to Nestor in Greek myth, but the modern fantasy archetype is, of course, Gandalf. Dumbledore is directly modeled after this archetype, and so is Master George (and Obi-Wan, and on and on).

* Though flying machines have their own basis in myth--flying carpets in Arabian Nights, Mercury's winged sandals, Icarus' tragic wings--I think this is totally about kids' fantasies. When I was little, it was the magic bed from Bedknobs and Broomsticks. There's the bicycles in E.T., hoverboards from Back to the Future, that long furry thing from Neverending Story. If you think about it, a flying bike is even more apt than a broomstick, since lots of kids tried to fly on their bikes--doing a wheelie, speeding up a ramp, pedaling over a steep embankment (don't ask)--but I don't think that many, especially boys, ever thought a broomstick a very logical instrument of flight. At the very least you'd think it would be rather, er, uncomfortable for a young man.

* I thought it was pretty obvious what the deal was with Tick's scarf and the ugly birthmark: covering the birthmark with the scar represents his being uncomfortable being in his own skin, and that when he gets rid of the scarf it will represent his newfound self-confidence and his pride in being different. I did expect that he would ditch the scarf at the end of this book--I think it would have been an appropriate ending, but we'll trust the publishers.... ;)

(This is so long...I'm sorry!)

As long as a writer isn't plagarizing--it's pretty clear that Darshner isn't plagarizing Rowling--then I think these comparisons need to be made in the light of the great fantasy archetypes, and whether or not a writer is using them well. There are SO many examples of fantasy writers creating absolute dreck with great archetypes; it's too bad that many of them are quite popular (I have three particular offenders in mind...but nevermind). I wrote a review of Curious Letters, and I admit I did have some problems with it, but I think it's too bad that lots of writers have to defend themselves against charges of Harry Potter-izing, instead of discussing what they actually wrote.

Well said, astuo, well said.

Interesting what you said in your review. I agree that I went a little overboard in the "I can't tell you" stuff. I was trying to show that Tick couldn't receive help to solve the mystery, but in hindsight I don't see why they couldn't have told him about the Realities and such. It had nothing to do with him solving the riddles. And boy, that information dump at MG's headquarters was difficult to write. Lesson learned.

In fact, another book I have (THE MAZE RUNNER) that is *about* to sell does a much better job of this after a serious rewrite I did on request from a publisher.

Anyway, back to The 13th Reality. I think you'll really like Book 2!

I am looking forward to book 2. Master George may have played things a little close to the vest, but I liked him from the get-go. He had a maximum of personality with a minimum of description--aside from being just fun to read (I think he stole the scenes he was in), I really got the sense that his was a guy who could inspire real loyalty in his companions.

Speaking of archetypes, MG is a nice variation on the standard "wise mentor." He really strikes me more like "Mother" from The Avengers,, or "M" in James Bond. I think that's really cool.

Thanks for taking what I had to say seriously--nice to interact with authors who care what their readers think!

I think it's great to have a chance to hear what the author has to say -- welcome, Jamesdashner!

*Spoiler alert*

Personally, I didn't find much in common with Harry Potter in this book. It's NOT really a buddy story for most of the book, the children are not left without adult help, it's really science fiction rather than fantasy,and the moral questions were more about personal choice and commitment than good versus evil.

I DID notice a healthy resemblance in the second half to pieces of the Wizard of Oz! I'm certainly not saying it was deliberate, but for me, the children's quest to retrieve the barrier wand from Mistress Jane had the feel of "Bring me the broom of the Wicked Witch of the West!" and the flying Fangen reminded me of the Winged Monkeys. Then there is Tick's ability to reach within himself and bring them all "home" when Master George can't.

Honestly, I think books often resonate within us based on references we already have, and for all the potential HP "ripoffs", there are probably many that aren't ripoffs at all, but simply remind us of things we've already read.

*Yay discussion!! I love it when people have intelligent input and threads don't just fizzle away! (I suppose it's worth a plug too to say that if this is anyone's first visit to the "Books Compared" group it's often a very interesting mishmash of smart discussions.)*

Great thoughts by all and I especially like your note, aviddiva about the Oz comparison. And nice comments about Master George, astuo - I loved how there was extreme intelligence but also that degree of whimsy and eccentricity to his character. I work with a lot of wacky PhD's it was quite hilarious to read a slightly-loony leader from a different dimension that reminded me of people I know.

**MORE SPOILERS**

Another really unique thing about JCL was Mistress Jane. I can't think of any other character that I would compare her too. From her first description I thought she was going to be the comic relief of the story but when I found out she's bad news her laughability turned into a sort of unsettling discomfort. Interesting that her signature was the color yellow when that's typically considered a happy hue. I think those type of contrasts added to the image of her as the intimidating, unstable villainess. She creeped me out.

And another tangent.... I would have liked to hear more about the spy, Annika. I guess it was better (esepecially for kids) not to give her a big part but I'm a sucker for the behind-enemy-lines storyline and I kept thinking "I wanna hear her story" - oddly enough I think that was a point in the story where I most related to the heroes (her death made me feel sad even though I didn't know much about her).

Man, you guys really know what you're talking about. I'm impressed, very impressed.

Sorry I haven't warned about spoilers. Just assume that I will always have spoilers, I guess.

How cool on the Oz thing! That's the first time I've heard that or thought that, but you're right. Maybe there was something subconcious going on because I loved that movie and the books as a kid.

As for Mistress Jane, I'm so glad you liked her. I worried very much that I'd made her too one dimensional of a villain. You learn much, much more about her in Book 2, and it goes in a direction you would not expect. Her part in Book 2 is probably my favorite plot line I've ever come up with.

On Annika: I was going to develop her, but she got cut. The book was already 400 pages, and the publisher really didn't want it longer than that. I really think it could've been a lot better if I added 100 pages to the story, all of it in the 13th Reality.

I had another thought on everyone refusing to tell Tick about stuff until the end. MG didn't really want their secrets out if the various recruits didn't make it all the way. I forgot about that line of thinking. Either way, it could have been crafted a little better.

I think I need to get used to the style of reviews on this site. Seems like people will say "I really liked it" but then spend 4 paragraphs talking about things they didn't like. Oh, the pain!!!!! :-)

Keep it up, I'm tough. I think.

I've always thought kids were fascinated by giants because they live in a world controlled by giants -- grown-ups. Sometimes friendly, sometimes not so much. Usually, at least from a kid's perspective, a bit of both.

It's really fun to have an author contributing his perspectives on a comparison that includes one of his books!

elbakerone - another great discussion thread that you've sparked. =)

If I wasn't so tired I'd have things to add...perhaps tomorrow when I'm avoiding work again. Its been great reading what everyone has written so far.

Like many here I'm tired of almost every new YA fantasy book being compared back to HP. When did HP become the definitive book that no other can surpass? Yes it achieved some weirdly freaky worldwide fame and renown. But as many have said before me, its not like anything in that book is particularly new. Just old ideas turned around, presented a little differently so as to be fresh again.

The whole idea of the mark on the stories 'hero' being something new to HP is crazy. Its a tried and true theme that highlights in a visual way what most kids learn early on. If you are different in any way in those pre-teen years then life can be hell. Kids are cruel, there is no denying that. To quote Heidi Plum 'you are either in, or you're out.' In the real world kids stand apart from the crowd in various ways usually its subtle but everyone just seems to know and as a result they get bullied. In books like HP and JCL to add a distinctive mark to the main character just places that knowledge right at the forefront. Its a tried and true cliche of writing that saves a lot of time so that the author can focus on the story and not have to use up many valuable pages in describing all the little (or not so little ways) that someone stands out.

To be bullied is also nothing knew. There are few kids who go through the school system who aren't tormented in some way. The only difference is in the degree and duration of that torment. So when you see a kid like Tick getting picked on its easy to identify with him and bond with him because we've all been then. The bullying is another old trick that just speeds up the process of bonding with a character....when you identify it makes it all the easier to cheer for him/her when the big bad shows up.

I've always been able to identify with YA fantasy for those reasons and more. I was horribly bullied when I 10. I was just didn't really fit in with the rest of my class - no major marks on me, but I was just a little too smart....a little too weird....and until 5th grade I never really tried to fit in because I was just me and couldn't change who I was. I also didn't see myself as different. I ended that year with only 1 true friend who stuck by me when the whole class turned against me when it would have been far easier to give in and do the same. 20 years later that girl is still a very close friend of mine. So when I see characters in books like HP and JCL finding those 1 or 2 really close friends I can identify. When I see them bullied I can identify. I look at them as say....hey, that's me...and its a good feeling because as you watch these characters grow and learn to accept themselves the reader knows that they can do it too. While HP and Tick weren't around when I was a kid, there were others like them that helped me get through those times. I lived in books then (and still do) because for a time they were all I had and I wouldn't be the crazily well-round dork that I am now with out them. So one of the core themes of a book like HP and JCL is important - just because you're different doesn't mean there isn't a place for you in the world, you just need to open your eyes and find it.

Ok its early, I'm rambling and have probably gotten horrible off topic...so I'll close for now. Plus I have a teleconference that I should be preparing for. Before I go I'll say this:

JD - your editor was right. To have Tick burn the scarf in book 1 would have been too much and taken some of the realism out of his character. You don't go from being a tortured, self conscious outsider to a confident "i'm comfortable in my own skin no matter what others say" overnight. I loved the scene when Tick and Sofia first meet and they talk for hours before he even realizes that he isn't wearing his scarf and that she doesn't think anything is odd about his birthmark. I also like how he was aware enough to know that his new found confidence with her wouldn't last when he returned home. Because that's the sort of real thoughts that kids think in situations like that. Its a short but important scene because it sets the seeds in Tick's mind that it really is ok to be himself. Its an awareness that can only grow over time. With the closer he becomes to Sofia and Paul and that will eventually spill out over into every part of his life. Such personal growth takes time so in my opinion its better to wait a bit before Tick starts to walk around scarfless.

In a word, this was brilliant. Thanks for taking the time to "ramble". I enjoyed it a lot.

It's wonderful that we have authors who can soothe the hurts of childhood and present children with ideas that can help them grow and become more confident. I had my nose in a book through most of my childhood, and I'm a happier person today because of it.

I think the reviewers who insist on comparing new children's books to Harry Potter (as if Rowliing had closed out the category by writing the definitive children's fantasy series) are waaay off the mark. One of the great things Rowling did was remind children and their parents of what a satisfying experience it is to read a really good book. It makes people want to read more good books. And where would we be if there weren't any more good books out there to read after we'd exhausted the HP series?

Or -- dare I say it -- maybe there are children out there who have and will come to another great children's author first before reading HP, and HP will be just one more wonderful read among a festival of great children's books!

margad - my dearest friend L (the girl I've known for 20 yrs) has charged me with the task of bringing books and the love of reading into her daughters life. She has told me that since I was the one who helped bring books and the love of reading into her life that I'm the perfect one to do so with her daughter.

Said daughter is only 2 now but she loves books already and I (and others) are always giving them to her and reading them to her. And I can't wait until she is older so that I can give her the books that I loved growing up as well as some of the newer good YA books that have been published over the years. HP will be a part of that since it is a great series but as you say there were lots of good books before HP and there will be lots of good books after HP.

Part of me really wants H to grow up so that I can share all these books with her (I have a list...because lists are fun)...but she is so cute at 2 that I just want to bottle up this age and keep her in it forever. Except of course for those times when she insists that TiTi (re: me) is the one who must change her diaper. So perhaps I'll wait for the bottling until AFTER toliet training is done...

I'll keep it short :-)

I'm a HUGE Harry Potter fan. I've read the books and seen the movies dozens of times in the last 6 years. I'm drinking tea out of my Gryffindor mug right this minute. Well, after I finish typing this sentence...

NOT ONCE while reading The Journal of Curious Letters did I even THINK about Harry Potter.

Unless you want to compare them simply as books for youths, or as examples of doing the right thing, there is nothing to compare. In other words, you can compare them on the basis of what makes them the same as almost every other kids book in the world.

Irisheyz - what a wonderful responsibility to have! And what a tribute from your friend. I have a feeling that list is going to get checked off with astounding speed - kids grow so fast, they tend to get ahead of a person. I'll never forget the book I learned to read from because my mother read it to me so often I learned the words - Little Bear by Elsa Holmelund Minarik. I still have it - very tattered.

Pdxwoman - perhaps the comparison leapt to mind because the reviewer hadn't read all that many children's books. Or because he found both authors pretty exciting to read.

#20>margad and everyone else, too :-) ----

I guess I shouldn't have kept it (#18) quite so short :-)

Which reviewer? The first post in the thread? I kind of got the idea reading that post that s/he didn't really think the books were all that similar, either, just that there were superficial similarities, and that s/he knew *someone* would mention HP, so s/he might as well get the ball rolling. I was really just throwing in my agreement with other things I saw most people (including the originator of the thread) saying here -- that people will insist on comparing all new kid lit to HP for quite some time, and that it's kind of irritating and silly, given that the theme of lots of kid lit is very similar (doing good in the battle against evil {whether it's the kid down the block, the step mother, Mistress Jane, or Voldemort} and finding yourself along the way).

I agree that writers draw (rightly so) from the vast array of archetypes and myths that are with us at an almost preconscious level (the collective unconscious? not sure I go quite that far...Campbell was a little too Freudian for my tastes). It seems that some folks think these are *original* ideas, when it is the particulars of a story that are original, not the archetypes. Hence, a hero with an older mentor and friends along the way (the archetype) is seen as a "copy" of their favorite work, and JCL gets compared to HP, or Eragon gets compared to Lord of the Rings and Star Wars, when all of these stories vary greatly in the particulars. Ecclesiastes lets us know there is nothing new under the sun, but, thankfully, writers like Rowling, Dashner, Paolini, Tolkien, and even Lucas, wrap the old up in a set of new particulars that, hopefully, entertain us while also sparking consideration of a larger truth or two.

Well said pdx....well said.

Guess I was a little too abbreviated in #19, myself. I didn't mean the first post in the thread, because in that post, I thought Elbakerone made it clear that there were both similarities and differences between Journal and the HP books. The post in fact highlighted Journal's uniqueness. I was thinking more of the reviewer(s) James Dashner was talking about who seemed to imply that his book was just more of the same and perhaps therefore not worth reading. I haven't read those particular reviews, but I've read similar reviews of other books and find them annoying.

You're totally correct, pdx, about the archetypes in our collective unconscious. A reviewer might as well complain that a novel is derivative and unoriginal if the characters in them are recognizably human, if he/she is going to complain about the use of one or another of these fundamental archetypes!

I have not read the Jane Yolen book in question, but I'm kind of curious if others here think the comparison between the HP books and the one Yolen wrote are apt...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard%27s_Hall

Also, Yolen's comment of "I always tell people that if Ms. Rowling would like to cut me a very large check, I would cash it," leaves me scratching my head. Is this an accusation of plagairism, just without invoking the p-word? Perhaps a joke? Something else entirely I'm not seeing? Certainly Yolen is one of the more respected writers of the past 30 years or so, if she says something is so, I'm not going to dismiss it lightly.

Hopefully this post isn't too wildly off-topic for this thread, just that reading the OP put me in mind of this.

23>

I have to admit that the talking and movie picture idea is fairly unique, so it's interesting that it's in both Yolen & Rowling's books, but authors who read a lot are bound to borrow an idea or two, without even realizing it. To make a true evaluation of Jane Yolen's accusations, though, I'll have to read her book!

gmork - my interest has now been peaked. I've never heard of this book by Jane Yolen but now I'm interested in learning more about it

I recently mooched a copy of the Yolen's book Wizard's Hall. I read it this morning. Once I have some time I'll be posting a comparison of it. If anyone else wants to read it let me know and I can send it to you.

There are definite similarities between her book and rowling's but overall I found Yolen's story to be a little annoying and not as compelling.

I'm looking forward to the comparison, Irisheyz!