artemis fowl

I first found about artemis fowl cause of an add for books and the graphic novel in the pages of wizard it looked interesting so i gave it a shot i read the first on enjoyed it, read the second and enjoyed it. I'm waiting to get the third one but i'm sure i'll enjoy it too.

what is the name of the first book?

artemis fowl.

Artemis Fowl still remains to be a part of my childhood and is one of the few books I had when I was younger that has not been turned into a crappy film.

From the internet: "An Artemis Fowl movie has been confirmed by Eoin Colfer"

And I'm not sure what this is, but was this one of the rash of Harry Potter rip offs that came out after Potter got real big? Like that Percy jackson or whatever, and the Spiderwick books?

Thundermatts wrote:From the internet: "An Artemis Fowl movie has been confirmed by Eoin Colfer"

And I'm not sure what this is, but was this one of the rash of Harry Potter rip offs that came out after Potter got real big? Like that Percy jackson or whatever, and the Spiderwick books?

i read the first percy jackson book and it was a very good book

I'm not doubting any of them could be good, I for one wouldn't mind reading the one that's supposedly about atheism. I'm just saying, when harry potter got big a rash of fantasy books for children featuring child male leads in a magical world sprouted up.

Thundermatts wrote:I'm not doubting any of them could be good, I for one wouldn't mind reading the one that's supposedly about atheism. I'm just saying, when harry potter got big a rash of fantasy books for children featuring child male leads in a magical world sprouted up.

actually artemis is not in a magical world. he does travel to the underground world of the fairies but he himself has no powers. He's just really smart.

So, yes, it's one of the Harry Potter rip offs.


Pass.

Didn't Artemis Fowl come out before Harry Potter books?

Potter- 1997


Fowl-2001 (A little after the Potter books got huge. Hmmm)

Thundermatts wrote:Potter- 1997


Fowl-2001 (A little after the Potter books got huge. Hmmm)

yes but the two are totally different.

kidspider2099 wrote:

Thundermatts wrote:Potter- 1997


Fowl-2001 (A little after the Potter books got huge. Hmmm)

yes but the two are totally different.

you will have people saying it is a harry potter rip off if it a book with a kid that is popular

A kid who is pulled into a magical world that he had no idea exsisted? Super different. That's okay, Green Arrow is a rip off of Batman, he still rules.

How is Green Arrow a rip-off of Batman? He's obviously an homage to Robin Hood, who predates Batman by several centuries.

His costume is an homage to Robin Hood. THere is nothing in his story that is. He's admittiedly a rip off of Batman. The guys who created him have said as much. he had an arrow cave and an arrow car and an arrow plane for christs sake.

He's a wealthy man who is trying to help the little guy and he does it with a bow and arrow; that screams Robin Hood to me.

Edit: I just found out that at one point there was an Arrow-signal used to summon him. I'll concede the Batman point.

He's a rich guy looking out for the little man now. He didn't care who he was helping when he started, that political, help the less fortunate crap started in the 70's. When he started he was a Rich guy whose parents were killed when he was a child who used his great resources to become a costumed vigilante.

Thundermatts wrote:So, yes, it's one of the Harry Potter rip offs.


Pass.

My niece likes this series. And how is it a rip-off? Just because it was published post-Harry Potter doesn't make it a copy. Eoinn Colfer could've had the idea and book written well before publishers gave him a chance. The success of Harry Potter could have influenced their choice to finally publish his works.

Also, if I remember correctly, Neil Gaiman's Books of Magic came out in 1990 about a boy name Timothy Hunter (Harry Potter), who went to a school for magic and had a magical, pet owl. (Among other uncanny similarities.)

But then I found out that Gaiman, as well as Rowling, were inspired by a series of books that were very popular in Britain when they were children called The Worst Witch.

I like Tolkien's Middle Earth a lot more than Narnia, which came out a couple years after Tolkien's introduction, but Lewis still created a world that trancends generations.

The point is alot of books were published after Potter got popular about a boy who is introduced to some sort of magical world. The same thing is happening with vampires in a post Twilight world. Theres alot of things coming out that have to do with whiny pretty boy vampires and the girl who loves them. Doesn't mean any are automatically bad, it just means publishers and companies are trying to cash in on the craze. The same thing that happened with Potter. A book may not have been written specifically as a knock off Harry Potter, but you better believe if it involved a hidden magic world and some young hero, it was published ot take advantage of the craze.

^ Well, of course. I'm just saying that it doesn't mean that it is bad. Plus, Stackhouse was before and is considered superior to Twilight Saga. People should trash it and/or not give it a chance for not getting popular first?

I don't cae what's popular first. I'm talking about whats published first. If something is written and doesn't get published until something comes along and blows up, it makes you wonder what was wrong with it in the first place. Not that that's the case with Artemis Fowl.

^ I see that reasoning. You just have to consider the amount of unpublished stories out there because of publishers not sure if they want to take a chance on a concept, whether it is well written or not. It's only when another publisher strikes interest with a certain type of story that another publisher's starts looking for similar ideas.