Yup, i've read the harry potter books, and seen the movies, and if you cannot find similarities, well...let's just say you won't do too well on comparative lit courses.
But is the similarity a bad thing? Why not just define J.K.Rowlings work as creating a sub-genre, and enjoy this video for what it is. To give it a perfect viewer-age reference: Let's view the first 3 harry potter books for ages 10-16, Ms. Clarke's," Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell" as 12-80, and this series as somewhere in the middle.
Alright, it comes by its "Mature" rating dishonestly; just some smoking and enough rough language to "allow" the rating, but it's a fun series. Right from the first episode you become aware of a beast and a chosen one, and there's enough interesting coursework (tho' a bit shy for my tastes), to give each episode its own flavor.
Look, just stop expecting another "game of thrones" every time you turn around; that just ain't gonna happen. (at least here, you don't have to worry about how in the seven hells George Martin will write two more books in time).
But is the similarity a bad thing? Why not just define J.K.Rowlings work as creating a sub-genre, and enjoy this video for what it is. To give it a perfect viewer-age reference: Let's view the first 3 harry potter books for ages 10-16, Ms. Clarke's," Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell" as 12-80, and this series as somewhere in the middle.
Alright, it comes by its "Mature" rating dishonestly; just some smoking and enough rough language to "allow" the rating, but it's a fun series. Right from the first episode you become aware of a beast and a chosen one, and there's enough interesting coursework (tho' a bit shy for my tastes), to give each episode its own flavor.
Look, just stop expecting another "game of thrones" every time you turn around; that just ain't gonna happen. (at least here, you don't have to worry about how in the seven hells George Martin will write two more books in time).
