Comments on: Not so much gibberish as derivative and boring http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2008/04/not-so-much-gibberish-as-derivative-and-boring/ Two lawyers on law, legislation and liberty. And other stuff. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 03:18:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Lad Litter http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2008/04/not-so-much-gibberish-as-derivative-and-boring/#comment-11863 Lad Litter Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:21:39 +0000 http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/?p=561#comment-11863 No, gibberish will do fine. Magic-themed literature is almost always crap. I know that's a hard line to be taking. But it helps me avoid a lot of complete rubbish. No, gibberish will do fine. Magic-themed literature is almost always crap. I know that’s a hard line to be taking. But it helps me avoid a lot of complete rubbish.

]]> By: Dave Bath http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2008/04/not-so-much-gibberish-as-derivative-and-boring/#comment-11864 Dave Bath Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:06:27 +0000 http://legalsoapbox.wordpress.com/?p=561#comment-11864 Given (merely from seeing the movies) your "her work is just a clever patchwork" seems apt, perhaps Ark should have written not a lexicon, but a bibliography that points to evidence of such derivations. More than 15 minutes of fame for Ark if Rowling contested the matter of the bibliography.... "JK Rowling and the Golden Sapsucker" perhaps, punning on Frazer's Golden Bough. Given (merely from seeing the movies) your “her work is just a clever patchwork” seems apt, perhaps Ark should have written not a lexicon, but a bibliography that points to evidence of such derivations. More than 15 minutes of fame for Ark if Rowling contested the matter of the bibliography….

“JK Rowling and the Golden Sapsucker” perhaps, punning on Frazer’s Golden Bough.

]]>