Fuck you, Rowling

[Cheeto]

http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articl ... nd_Oz.html (http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-i-2008-04-24-177772.112113_JK_Rowling_Lexicon_and_Oz.html)

Even before this bullshit lawsuit I would have held Card above you, but now he's actually demonstrated what a literary bitch-slapping is, and it is a thing of beauty.

[Mr. Burns]

Great article. Thanks for the find.

[Latzen]

BaZING!

Damn, Gina.

[Burris]

Her books suck.

[Penguin]

No, fuck Card. And Nancy Stouffer, who is completely full of shit too.

You wanna know why he can go fuck himself? Aside from being a pretentious shithead who doesn't see how formulaic his own work is, anyway.

Because Rowling was -and is- very supportive of the HP fan community, including things that have always been on somewhat shaky ground like fan fiction. While other authors have earned ire for saying no, she encouraged it.

You wanna know what's gonna happen if Steven Vander Ark wins that lawsuit? You can bet your ass a lot of authors are going to be shifting their attitudes about how their respective fan communities treat their work. There won't be sites like the HP Lexicon in the future because publishing companies will stomp the shit out of them before they get fully established.

Good job you douchenozzle; I'll never buy one of your books now that you've revealed yourself for the shortsighted cunt you are.

[Burris]

and you don't consider Rowling formulaic?

[Penguin]

and you don't consider Rowling formulaic?
I do, actually. The thing is, there's nothing inherently wrong with formulaic writing. It's all in the execution, as they say. But if we're going to boil things down the way Card did in his screed, the idea that he can claim originality is absurd.

[Ginger Lord]

JK Rowling is an evil woman, she likes passing stuff off as her own even when its not and then cries to the courts about it.

[Welshy]

JK Rowling is an evil woman, she likes passing stuff off as her own even when its not and then cries to the courts about it.

I'm fine with her using other ideas - Harry Potter was a good read and I enjoyed the series. The fact she's being so hypocritical is what bothers me most. Especially as she is so wealthy now - what is she expecting to gain??

[Penguin]

I don't know what the fuck you guys are talking about.

I want some proof of theft. Not "OH WELL IT'S SORTA LIKE STAR WARS N CINDERELLA N STUFF" I mean passages that've been blatantly ripped off, like can be found with that retarded Eragon series. Otherwise, well, it's kinda hard to argue with someone's farts.

You see, it WOULD be hypocrisy if Rowling's books were just copy and pasting someone else's stuff into her own book, which is basically what this Van der Ark guy is doing. If you're as dim as Card and can't see the difference between similar rough ideas/cliches, and plagiarism, well then I can't help you.

[straybullet]

Most everything these days borrows from something else. Even the Bible borrows a ton from other mythologies, oral traditions, etc. And almost every book within the English canon refers to the Bible in some way shape or form. So Card's whole attempt to try to tear Rowling down that way is incredibly pointless.

But I wholeheartedly agree with his point about it not being fair for Rowling to litigate against a reference book, or any sort of commentary about her work. To quote and paraphrase her works in order to index references is the whole purpose of a reference book; and the fact that she used it herself shows that one is necessary, and his book serves a useful function for her fans to keep the facts and plots straight. Besides, it doesn't seem that he outright steals any work of hers for his own. As a guide the book automatically gives credit and deference (creative and otherwise) to the author of the series.

There is absolutely no reason I see for her to have taken this to court. She and her publishing company should have had enough clout to say, "Hey, this is our work. If you want to use it, be sure to accredit us properly and give us a fair share of the profit." To take it to court and decry that he's stolen 17 years of her work is bullshit.

No legitimate author would take offense to the fact that there is enough interest and fervor for his work to have entirely other books devoted to referencing that work. If Rowling wins this, expect to see other secondary sources - fan sites, reference books, scholarly criticism - get pulled, or quashed before publishing, fearing more frivolous litigation.

[Cheeto]

I'm waiting for her to go after those fan fiction sites. That'll go over well with her fanbase. Sadly, she could, right now, retire and never write a thing ever again, or even write things that SUCKED for the rest of her life (something I kind of see happening). The reason it's sad is because she could be a literary giant in multiple fields, but I fear she'll get complacent and lazy and just live off of Potter.

[Burris]

Ala Stephen King.. As far as the suckiness goes.

She's a one trick pony.

[Penguin]

I'm waiting for her to go after those fan fiction sites. That'll go over well with her fanbase.

I don't see that happening, given that again, she's been supportive of that sort of thing. It's when people try to make money off of it without her permission that things get ugly.

This guy did, IIRC, ask for permission to publish the book and was denied. So he goes and does it anyway. Not that smart.

[straybullet]

This guy did, IIRC, ask for permission to publish the book and was denied. So he goes and does it anyway. Not that smart.
Ah, well that changes everything.

[Cheeto]

I'm waiting for her to go after those fan fiction sites. That'll go over well with her fanbase.

I don't see that happening, given that again, she's been supportive of that sort of thing. It's when people try to make money off of it without her permission that things get ugly.

This guy did, IIRC, ask for permission to publish the book and was denied. So he goes and does it anyway. Not that smart.
She's actually come out against a number of fansites, and stated openly she'd like to find a way to kill off the sex story or adult level fanfiction sites.

Where did you hear that he asked for permission? All I've heard is that she used his website a fair bit, then he published this and she had a fit saying he 'devestated 17 years of work' which sounds like an overreaction to me. Innappropiate, maybe. Questionable legality, I'd say. Devestating to your life's work, grow the fuck up.

[PoolShark]

Is she upset because she herself wanted to create the HP Lexicon?
I'm not going to get caught up in the claim Card makes about Rowlings creativity. Chances are people borrow from other places, wether it be conciously or subconciously and lets face it, we all have the same brains its hard to come up with something that no one has ever thought of before.

What I will speak to is Rowlings Character...

This is how I see it,
-Rowling creates Harry Potter Series makes a bazillion dollars.
-People enjoy series. So much so they work hard to chronicle and keep track of her books. Said fans post information on web sites. Work hard to post information keeping people informed on the series, and most likely pay their own webhosting fees. This helps raise awarness for the novels and create buzz. It's essentially free marketing. Fans decide they have worked so hard and have gotten so well recieved doing something they enjoy they decide to sell it.
-Rowling decides that only she can profit from anything relating to Harry Potter, even if it's not plagarism or copy right enfringment. Instead of being happy for her fame and creating wealth for others around her, she feels the need to take all the credit and keep everything to herself.

Also, the entire Dumbledore is "gay" thing was so stupid. She should just start writting a bunch of 'after thought' bull shit. Snape fucked children and Harry likes scat porn. (Oh shit don't take my house Rowling. I'm sorry for having an opinion, and refering to something that has become part of the lexicon of popculture. You can't stop this just like Chuck Norris can't stop the jokes.)

[Penguin]

-Rowling creates Harry Potter Series makes a bazillion dollars.

Stealing is okay as long as it's from rich people, right?

-People enjoy series. So much so they work hard to chronicle and keep track of her books. Said fans post information on web sites. Work hard to post information keeping people informed on the series, and most likely pay their own webhosting fees. This helps raise awarness for the novels and create buzz. It's essentially free marketing. Fans decide they have worked so hard and have gotten so well recieved doing something they enjoy they decide to sell it.

Yes, because the Harry Potter series was hanging in self-published limbo before fansites got set up.


-Rowling decides that only she can profit from anything relating to Harry Potter, even if it's not plagarism or copy right enfringment. Instead of being happy for her fame and creating wealth for others around her, she feels the need to take all the credit and keep everything to herself.

It's pretty much textbook copyright infringement here.

[PoolShark]

I guess your right. You can protect what ever you've made. I don't think it's alright to steal from anyone rich or poor. I assume it's always hard to determine what is too much to take from someone. I guess in other avenues of the world, such as media when a news station wishes to show clips of a baseball game they must get the clip with consent from the MLB. So I can see where you're comming from.

I just think this speaks to her character more than anything. She isn't going to LOSE money because someone decides to get the 'cliff notes'. I mean that's all this guy is selling right? A recap and character break down of the series? You can correct me if I'm wrong, please.

It's one thing to decide you're going to create Star Wars Episode 7 and try to publish and sell it. It's another to make a book describing the events of Star Wars. What if it was something like this?
EBM854BTGL0

[Cheeto]

-Rowling creates Harry Potter Series makes a bazillion dollars.

Stealing is okay as long as it's from rich people, right? Except her claim is that this book devestated her life's work. It did not. It is adding to the floods of information out there. Devestation of her life's work would be if he was trying to publish another 7 books about after Harry's story that made the first 7 irrelevant. This is merely making a few quick bucks. Hardly stealing. Not kosher, but not the horrible evil she makes it out to be.



-People enjoy series. So much so they work hard to chronicle and keep track of her books. Said fans post information on web sites. Work hard to post information keeping people informed on the series, and most likely pay their own webhosting fees. This helps raise awarness for the novels and create buzz. It's essentially free marketing. Fans decide they have worked so hard and have gotten so well recieved doing something they enjoy they decide to sell it.

Yes, because the Harry Potter series was hanging in self-published limbo before fansites got set up.[/quote:19hkvcha] Free marketing is free marketing. I'd never even HEARD of the series until I ran across a few of the fansites, that was about 3 books in.


[quote:19hkvcha]-Rowling decides that only she can profit from anything relating to Harry Potter, even if it's not plagarism or copy right enfringment. Instead of being happy for her fame and creating wealth for others around her, she feels the need to take all the credit and keep everything to herself.

It's pretty much textbook copyright infringement here.[/quote:19hkvcha] Actually no, I could publish a book that criticizes, reviews, examines, satires, lambasts, and a whole other host of 10 dollar verbs, the entire Harry Potter series and it would be legal. So depending on how this was written it could be considered perfectly legal. And I still haven't been able to find anything about where he asked for permission and was told no.

[Penguin]

Except her claim is that this book devestated her life's work. It did not.

That's all well and good, but it's just side drama. What matters is the actual act (copyright infringement, being denied permission and going right ahead anyway), which is what the court will deal with.


Free marketing is free marketing. I'd never even HEARD of the series until I ran across a few of the fansites, that was about 3 books in.

Nothing is ever free. Fansites are one thing, fanbooks are quite another.


Actually no, I could publish a book that criticizes, reviews, examines, satires, lambasts, and a whole other host of 10 dollar verbs, the entire Harry Potter series and it would be legal. So depending on how this was written it could be considered perfectly legal. And I still haven't been able to find anything about where he asked for permission and was told no.
You could not, however, basically publish an encyclopedia that is essentially one long abridged version of the stories.

[Cheeto]

That's all well and good, but it's just side drama. What matters is the actual act (copyright infringement, being denied permission and going right ahead anyway), which is what the court will deal with.

Nothing is ever free. Fansites are one thing, fanbooks are quite another.

You could not, however, basically publish an encyclopedia that is essentially one long abridged version of the stories.
The crux of this argument is going to be whether or not Rowling's acceptance of the website could translate into acceptance of a book, if a fan encylopedia is legal (I've seen so many unofficial Star Wars encylopedias it's a genre unto itself), and whether she or her publisher actually said 'no.' Because I haven't seen anything about them telling him "don't publish this" beforehand, but to be fair I can't find anything that says he even asked. So it boils down to 'are fanpedias legal?'

[Mr. Burns]

How do the Cliff's Notes guys get away with it?