Little.
Livejournal Feed
Orson Scott Card hits the nail on the head as usual with his take on the J.K. Rowling suit of Steven Vander Ark.
[EDIT: In the interest of accuracy, J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros. have only filed suit against RDR Books, small press publisher of The Harry Potter Lexicon.]
It’s true that we writers borrow words from each other, but we’re supposed to admit it and not pretend we’re original when we’re not. I took the word ansible from Ursula K. LeGuin, and have always said so. Rowling, however, denies everything.
This reminds me of something that has bugged me for a long time about Rowling. There are certain books (The Chronicles of Narnia for instance) that in the early days of her fame she would express affection for, but which she would later sneer at when her books became too often compared to them. She is often quoted as saying there are seven books in the Harry Potter series because there are seven books in The Chronicles of Narnia, and in 1998 Helena de Bertanado of the Electronic Telegraph writes:
She loved C. S. Lewis and E. Nesbit, but was not such a fan of Roald Dahl. As for the Enid Blyton books, Rowling says she read them all, but was never tempted to go back to them, whereas she would read and re-read Lewis. “Even now, if I was in a room with one of the Narnia books I would pick it up like a shot and re-read it.”
But in 2005, Time reports:
She hasn’t even read all of C.S. Lewis’ Narnia novels, which her books get compared to a lot. There’s something about Lewis’ sentimentality about children that gets on her nerves. “There comes a point where Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes interested in lipstick. She’s become irreligious basically because she found sex,” Rowling says. “I have a big problem with that.”
(Totally beside my point at present is that this is a very weak interpretation of the text: It’s not that Susan “found sex”; it’s that she became a materialist. Jill Pole is the only character who mentions lipstick, nylons etc. It’s clear from what other characters say that she stopped believing in Narnia.)
So Rowling is either a liar or has memory loss. It seems to me that once the comparisons made her uncomfortable, she changed her story. It’s telling, I think, that any time it’s implied that she may have been influenced by some book or another, she conveniently has never read it. She’s never finished The Lord of the Rings, apparently, or read Diana Wynne Jones, or very many other authors who get brought up in her interviews. Seems a bit odd that someone who makes a living writing has read so little.
I’m not accusing J.K. Rowling of plagiarism here. What I think is happening is that in her drive to appear “original”, she’s misleading the public. Even more hypocritical, she then turns around and sues Steve Vander Ark, to whom she once gave an award for a webpage that is essentially the same work she’s suing him over, for merely creating a reference companion to her novels, a normal literary practice.
I still love Harry Potter and will continue to enjoy re-reading the books, but I’ve certainly lost a lot of respect for Rowling since this fiasco began, though I’ve always been willing to go to bat for her in the past. It’s sad, and I wonder how many others of her fans feel the same.
Honestly, I feel the exact same way. I didn’t know about her changing views on the books, however. That really bugs me now that you brought it up. I think OSC mentioned a lot of valid points in his article, as did you.
I no longer hold her up as high as I used to.
The saying goes “Good artists copy, great artists steal.” Creative endeavors are, for the most part, built on the foundations laid by those who came before. Regardless of the lawsuit (which, personally, I am curious to find out who instigated this: her publisher or Rowling herself), she should at least acknowledge those books she personally enjoys, even if she can’t bring herself to draw attention to her inspiration. It kind of gives an air of aloof-ness that is quite unpleasant and impersonal. Like somehow she is so much better than everyone else. But then again, perhaps I’m just getting used the candor of John C. Wright on his LiveJournal.
Agreed — I used to adore her, but her post-HP-conclusion antics are getting on my nerves. I didn’t know about her “memory loss” in regards to other works; that annoys me too. (And agreed on her interpretation of Susan. What crap.)
Johan: But then again, perhaps I’m just getting used the candor of John C. Wright on his LiveJournal.
I enjoy his candor too. I think it’s important to strike a balance. Nothing could be more horrifying than Anne Rice’s reaction to fan reviews of her one of her books (one of her vampire books I think), in public and at Amazon, no less. She really paid for that mistake. I hope JCWs ability to speak his mind never comes back to bite him in the rear . . . though if it did, I bet he could handle the fallout as well as anyone. He might even relish it. (@_@)
“I’m not accusing J.K. Rowling of plagiarism here. What I think is happening is that in her drive to appear “original”, she’s misleading the public. Even more hypocritical, she then turns around and sues Steve Vander Ark, to whom she once gave an award for a webpage that is essentially the same work she’s suing him over, for merely creating a reference companion to her novels, a normal literary practice.”
I respect your opinions, but this bit gives me the impression that you don’t really know much about the case. Steve Vander Ark is not getting sued. His publisher RDR Books is being sued. RDR Books is being sued because the, while it is normal to make reference books, the Lexicon is essentially made up of phrases lifted directly from the text of Harry Potter or slightly paraphrased which is not fair use. You kind of missed the whole point of the case.
@Tui
I have not been to the Lexicon myself, so let’s use your description, but personally I disagree with your interpretation that is not fair use. How else are you going to make a reference document if you cannot use the source material? “Page 234, second paragraph (Scholastic hardcover version), page 250, third paragraph (Scholastic paperback version, second printing), third through 10th word,…” etc., and so on for each and every printing that differs throughout the entire globe.
The concept of fair use is for allowing excerpts to build derivative works that do not dilute the original while at the same time preventing wholesale lifting of text and claiming it as something new. It is a fine balance between the interests of the copyright holder and greater society. Unfortunately that balance has been horribly distorted in recent years. While I don’t claim that this book is an authoritative text on the matter, Free Culture is a fairly balanced take on the current state of copyright and public domain. I would highly recommend you give it a read (it’s available as a free download).
You kind of missed the whole point of the case.
Tui: I’ve been a rather obsessive frequenter of the Lexicon in the past, in order to research for fanfic. I know exactly what it is. Whether it is the publisher or the author being sued is beside the point; someone is being sued over this work which is protected under fair use.
Any book that is an index to a work of literature will pretty much be, as you say, “made up of phrases lifted directly from the text”; that’s how it’s done, whether for Austen or Shakespeare or Rowling. It’s not an essay or a work of literary criticism; it is a reference work. Unless they are to publish new versions of Harry Potter annoted with “verse numbers” like the Bible, thereby eliminating the need to quote, a reference has to be written that way in order for readers to understand what’s being talked about.
I don’t really see how which precise party is being sued has any bearing on the fact that this work, which is the cause of the lawsuit, does not infringe on Jo’s original works, nor does it infringe on her ability to make money from them in the future, nor does it plagiarize. I don’t care if she’s suing Vander Ark or RDR or FDR, she’s being a hypocrite and making herself look bad.
Thank goodness for fair use — almost every website I own would probably be C&D fodder if fair use weren’t the case. (And heaven help anyone making references or otherwise fairly using work, should JKR’s case not get laughed out of court, or worse, be decided in her favor.)
I don’t really see how which precise party is being sued has any bearing on the fact that this work, which is the cause of the lawsuit, does not infringe on Jo’s original works, nor does it infringe on her ability to make money from them in the future, nor does it plagiarize. I don’t care if she’s suing Vander Ark or RDR or FDR, she’s being a hypocrite and making herself look bad.
EXACTLY. The party being sued is not the issue. JKR suing over a derivative work, when just about everything written is derived here and there from other things (as OSC demonstrated in the article we’re discussing) — THAT is the issue that I, and Lenneth, and others, and Orson Scott Card AND Neil Gaiman, take issue with. I don’t think anyone’s missed the point here. (PS: FDR?? You are full of win today, missy.)
I don’t think Rowling just ups and sues everybody who wants to publish something on Harry Potter. I’ve published an academic study called “Prejudice in Harry Potter” and my publishers were terrified that they might be sued by the Warner Brothers Machine, so they insisted on printing ‘Not Authorized…’ on the cover to avoid problems, even though what I did was a perfectly legitimate practise and a piece of scholarship. I would have preferred to not put that on the cover because I know in my heart that this was five years of my hard work and study and I wasn’t taking a free ride or ripping anybody off.
JK must have had a good reason to be disenchanted with Steve’s work. Having said that, however, this trial leaves a bad taste in my mouth with both parties (I love JK but I also respect Steve and I feel queezy when I see how much the fandom have turned on him like braying sheep…vilifying him every chance they get and I’ve even heard about death threats. This is disgusting. Like everybody else, I used to use the Lexicon too. And I still think it is a massive piece of work that probably helped fuel the media hype surrounding Harry Potter while we fans were waiting for the books to come out…I can say definitely that Steve deserves something for his hard work. But still, whatever he “creates” should not infringe upon JK’s copyriht. He owes her at least that much.)
Finally, I think someone somewhere is misguiding/misleading JK to a certain extent. Artists do tend to take their work too seriously…Sometimes they need people around them who will give them a reality check every now and then and say “Which planet are you on? Will you come back down to earth please.” But unfortunately JK seems to be surrounded by people who either worship her like God or who are just simply afraid to tell her the truth because she is so wealthy and powerful now. For instance, some publicist or PR person should have told her that it was not ok to compare her imaginary characters to her children, who are her flesh and blood and far more important than Harry and his fake universe. She might feel that way now, but I’m sure she wouldn’t if one of her kids went missing like Madeleine McCann. That was just the wrong thing to say if you want to be taken seriously. If any of her kids’ life was in danger, this trial and all things she’s been obsessing about of late would fade into the background like mist on a sunny day. But writers tend to do that sort of thing, you see…They overvalue their work. And her publicity people should have edited that part out of her speeches during the trial…if only to make her seem less biased and less subjective. I do sympathize with her for this.
But writers tend to do that sort of thing, you see…They overvalue their work.
You make a good point, one that more writers (including myself) would do well to remember. Thank you for your thoughts! :)
This is surely an interesting post. I am not going to stand up in Rowling’s defense, but I consider all this to be a proof where is very hard to compare the actual work of art with its author. Although I am not found of postmodernistic literary theory in most cases, this one is the one where is hard to determine a valid ground. Long story short - I do not see a lot of importance in Rowling’s public statements or blunders - her books are something beyond that.
Long story short - I do not see a lot of importance in Rowling’s public statements or blunders - her books are something beyond that.
Certainly. Harry Potter will outlive any faux pas Rowling makes at present, and even if bad publicity resulted in a temporary loss in sales (which I seriously doubt) their popularity would spring back eventually. They’ll remain in the children’s literary canon for a long time, I’m sure, if not forever.