Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Discussions About Orson Scott Card » A Little Word on Card's Commentary (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: A Little Word on Card's Commentary
Nunki
New Member
Member # 11594

 - posted      Profile for Nunki   Email Nunki         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since the original article does not seem to be allowing anyone's comments through, at least not the negative ones, I would like to post my response to Card's commentary here.

His article, in all its un-glory, can be read here: http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-i-2008-04-24-177772.112113_JK_Rowling_Lexicon_and_Oz.html

If you read the article, you'll understand why it is I feel compelled to call him out. His commentary is unnecessarily bitter (Rowling is a "greedy witch") and frankly misleading, and I don't feel that he should get away with it simply because he's a famous author. Far from it, his fame demands that he be held to a higher standard than the average man, for his words are given much weight by many.

quote:
"Rowling will be forced to pay Steven Vander Ark's legal fees, since her suit was utterly without merit from the start."
Why would Rowling be forced to pay the legal fees of a witness? I was unaware that witnesses had to pay to take the stand; I was under the impression that our legal system wanted to encourage, not penalize, those who testify. Wait, you're not misinformed (or misinforming), are you? Oops!

And where do you find the nerve to call Rowling greedy when you yourself noted in a book review that she donates to charity? Oops again!

quote:
"Moreover, she is desperate for literary respectability [...] Litterateurs sneer at her work as a kind of subliterature, not really worth discussing."
A compromising comment from a man who, up till a few months after Book 7's publication (when Dumbledore's sexuality was revealed), was an avid fan of the series. Given that you were a great fan, you fail by your own stated standards to qualify as a litterateur. Strike three!

quote:
"Even though she made more money than the queen or Oprah Winfrey in some years, she had to see her books pushed off the bestseller lists and consigned to a special 'children's book' list."
Her books remain on bestseller lists, as you well know; these bestseller lists are simply ones for children's books. Calling these bestseller lists "special 'children's book' lists" and claiming that her books were pushed off the bestseller lists is next door to an outright lie.

quote:
"Mine is not the only work that one can charge Rowling "borrowed" from. Check out this piece from a fan site, pointing out links between Harry Potter and other previous works:"
This is a red herring. The case was never about borrowing (of which you're as guilty as anyone); the case was, and is, about lifting someone else's work wholesale without properly crediting the source. You may disagree with the lawsuit (I'm not a fan of it myself); that does not, however, give you a right to distort the facts.

quote:
"And don't forget the lawsuit by Nancy K. Stouffer, the author of a book entitled The Legend of Rah and the Muggles, whose hero was named "'Larry Potter.'"
This portrayal of that court case is simply dishonest. Ms. Stouffer was found to have fabricated evidence in an attempt to create false similarities. If you honestly aren't aware of that, then you're intellectually lazy; it would've been terribly easy to run a fact check before committing yourself to those words.

And will you please shut up about homosexuality? I swear you're obsessed with it. You have to bring it up even here where it interrupts the flow of your article and where it's completely irrelevant to the discussion. Here's a tip: let go of the paranoia. Homosexuals are not going to swoop suddenly down on you and cart you off to somewhere over the rainbow. Really. I promise.

My concluding thought is this: I've lost what little respect for you I had in the first place. You have shown yourself to be a petty, dishonest, blustering old crank. I will be sure to warn my friends and family against buying your books, and I will certainly keep your behavior in mind the next time a Mormon comes knocking at my door; I do not hold with any ideology that allows a person to comport himself with the lack of class and character you have shown.

[ April 27, 2008, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Nunki ]

Posts: 2 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, that was an annoying article. Before he was totally singing her praises and complaining about her being on the Children's best seller list. Now he wants to blast her?
Dumbledore's sexuality isn't really part of the Harry Potter story at all. And at least she didn't marry him off to a woman or something the way OSC sometimes tends to do with gay characters. Or he'll spend pages talking about the wrongness of gayness in a sort of code that makes it seem like he's compassionate towards them.
Plus there's a difference between having a free website and then selling it for 25 dollars. I can see why this would frustrate her, them trying to profit off of her hard work. I don't think suing is a good idea, but I'd rather have an Encyclopedia from her who knows the characters inside out.
of course she'd know if Dumbledore is gay if she's been working on the story for 17 years and has had these characters and their details in here head for ages. I don't think she was just mentioning it to be PC as I was at the event.
Plus Ender's game really isn't like HP. HP is probably more like The Books of Magic by Neil Gaiman than Ender's Game. Ender didn't even HAVE any close friends and was totally isolated and alone for the most part. He had to wipe out an entire species, not just one mega evil guy.
Anyway, dragons, faeries, mermaids and things like that are practically in the sky and water. Tons of stories have them. It doesn't mean a person is ripping off someone unless they are ripping off FOLK TALES and EVERY STORY THAT COMES FROM FOLK TALES.

Dang, he makes me so mad... Seriously.

Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shawshank
Member
Member # 8453

 - posted      Profile for Shawshank   Email Shawshank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why sign up just to say- I don't like you and want nothing to do with you? That makes no sense and is disrespectful. I'm sure the OP probably will never check back again, never respond. What a waste of time- to write such a rant.
Posts: 980 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee   Email Dagonee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why would Rowling be forced to pay the legal fees of a witness? I was unaware that witnesses had to pay to take the stand; I was under the impression that our legal system wanted to encourage, not penalize, those who testify. Wait, you're not misinformed (or misinforming), are you? Oops!
There are numerous situations which can lead to a plaintiff or her attorney being responsible for fees of a defendant or a witness. I won't give a full-blown analysis here, and I don't think it's a likely outcome, but OSC did mention one of the most important factors: the relative merit of the suit. Moreover, your "I was under the impression..." sentence doesn't even make sense. A witness receiving fees from Rowling would not be discouraged in any way.

quote:
quote:
"Moreover, she is desperate for literary respectability [...] Litterateurs sneer at her work as a kind of subliterature, not really worth discussing."
A compromising comment from a man who, up till a few months after Book 7's publication (when Dumbledore's sexuality was revealed), was an avid fan of the series. Given that you were a great fan, you fail by your own stated standards to qualify as a litterateur. Strike three!
What does this even mean? There's nothing in the article that says he doesn't like her work any more.

And he would be proud to be acknowledged as a non-litterateur.

quote:
Her books remain on bestseller lists, as you well know; these bestseller lists are simply ones for children's books. Calling these bestseller lists "special 'children's book' lists" and claiming that her books were pushed off the bestseller lists is next door to an outright lie.
Oh, really? You're calling an "outright lie" OSC's account of what actually happened: Here's one account of what happened. How is this not Potter being pushed off the bestseller's list? Moreover, this is an area where he is SYMPATHETIC to Rowling - he thinks it was unjust.

You should get a little better-informed before posting self-righteous rants.

quote:
This is a red herring. The case was never about borrowing (of which you're as guilty as anyone); the case was, and is, about lifting someone else's work wholesale without properly crediting the source. You may disagree with the lawsuit (I'm not a fan of it myself); that does not, however, give you a right to distort the facts.
He hasn't distorted anything. In fact, he's given a decent account of the lexicon, and expressly acknowledges the differences between borrowing from one work of fiction and a lexicon.

It's a distortion to say that OSC said the one was just like the other.

quote:
My concluding thought is this: I've lost what little respect for you I had in the first place.
And you felt the need to come to his web site to tell him this?

For the record, I have no respect at all for you. You comprehend the written word poorly and make inane comments about things you seem to have little knowledge of.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee   Email Dagonee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It doesn't mean a person is ripping off someone
The thesis of Card's article is that she ISN'T ripping anyone off.

quote:
Plus there's a difference between having a free website and then selling it for 25 dollars. I can see why this would frustrate her, them trying to profit off of her hard work. I don't think suing is a good idea, but I'd rather have an Encyclopedia from her who knows the characters inside out.
I agree. This is why one of the four factors of fair use (effect on the market for the original work or derivative works) will weigh heavily against her in the suit.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm actually curious about what's caused the rather obvious about-face in Card's opinion of Rowling. He's a pretty stalwart defender of intellectual property, himself (even to the point of sometimes being ridiculous about it), so I'm disinclined to think this whole Lexicon thing is the primary cause.
Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee   Email Dagonee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A stalwart defender of intellectual property can very easily see Rowling's suit as a significant attack on intellectual property.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"A stalwart defender of intellectual property can very easily see Rowling's suit as a significant attack on intellectual property."

Yes, but OSC has shown every inclination to want to protect the author's rights first, not protect the one who creates derivative work from the author's original work. He's someone who uses laws and lawyers to make sure the the money doesn't stop coming in, not a legal theorist himself. As such, this is kind of an about-face. [Razz]

Posts: 3257 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee   Email Dagonee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, but OSC has shown every inclination to want to protect the author's rights first, not protect the one who creates derivative work from the author's original work.
Can you back that up? His comments on the accusation that Obama plagiarized a speech don't seem to support your take on things.

To my knowledge, he hasn't commented on a lexicon before. It's pretty strange to say that because he's favored some kinds of limitations on derivative works his reason for disfavoring this one is an "about-face."

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Specifically, my use of "about-face" here regards his attitude towards Rowling, not necessarily his attitude towards lexicons. [Smile]
Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd present his attitude toward Ender fan-fic as evidence. Bear in mind, though, Dag, I'm not making legal arguments here. I'd like to see all the evidence in front of me. That's why I'm talking about this. I am pretty sure OSC's hatred of open homosexuality and the fact that, in this society, it generally replaces marriage/kids, is the cause of this about-face. However, I'm not totally sure, so I'm hoping someone will throw some strong contradictory evidence out there for me to consider, if such exists. [Smile]
Posts: 3257 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee   Email Dagonee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd present his attitude toward Ender fan-fic as evidence.
Again, evidence of hostility towards one type of derivative work is not evidence of hostility towards another. This has nothing to do with legal arguments. It has to do with not assuming that OSC isn't capable of viewing different things differently.

quote:
Specifically, my use of "about-face" here regards his attitude towards Rowling, not necessarily his attitude towards lexicons
I wasn't talking about your use of "about-face."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Nunki
New Member
Member # 11594

 - posted      Profile for Nunki   Email Nunki         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There are numerous situations which can lead to a plaintiff or her attorney being responsible for fees of a defendant or a witness. I won't give a full-blown analysis here, and I don't think it's a likely outcome
You didn't read carefully. Card referred to "Steven Vander Ark's legal fees." A witness does not pay legal fees to testify in court. Card's comment indicates, therefore, that he isn't as informed about the case as he would like us to believe.

quote:
Moreover, your "I was under the impression..." sentence doesn't even make sense. A witness receiving fees from Rowling would not be discouraged in any way.
My sentence makes perfect sense. If witnesses were required to pay legal fees, as Card indicated Vander Ark had done, it would discourage them from testifying in court. Of course, Card knows that witnesses don't pay legal fees to testify; Card said what he said, because he was operating under the false premise that Vander Ark was the defendant. In other words, he didn't have a proper understanding of the situation he was throwing a hissy fit over.

quote:
What does this even mean? There's nothing in the article that says he doesn't like her work any more.
I beg to differ. His article is, as much as anything else, an attack on Rowling's skill as a writer. Read:

"I feel like the plot of my novel Ender's Game was stolen by J.K. Rowling." "She was reading – and borrowing from – the work of other writers." "After all her literary borrowing, she shot her wad and she's flailing about trying to come up with something to do that means anything." "She is desperate for literary respectability." "She had to see her books pushed off the bestseller lists and consigned to a special "children's book" list." "Litterateurs sneer at her work as a kind of subliterature, not really worth discussing."

That's your idea of how someone talks about a book series they like? Are you by any chance a sadist?

quote:

And he would be proud to be acknowledged as a non-litterateur.

I'm sure he would, considering how little recognition his books get from literary experts. Making his criticism of Harry Potter even more embarrassing.

quote:
Oh, really? You're calling an "outright lie" OSC's account of what actually happened: Here's one account of what happened. How is this not Potter being pushed off the bestseller's list? Moreover, this is an area where he is SYMPATHETIC to Rowling - he thinks it was unjust.
First of all, I said his account was next door to an outright lie. Second of all, please visit this website (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/index.html) You'll find that there is a children's BESTSELLER LIST at the bottom of the page, which means you're the one who's wrong. Third, it's not relevant whether Card is sympathetic; what is relevant is the fact that, in keeping with the rest of his article, he was twisting the facts in an attempt to smear Rowling's novels.

quote:
He hasn't distorted anything. In fact, he's given a decent account of the lexicon, and expressly acknowledges the differences between borrowing from one work of fiction and a lexicon.

False. After his lengthy accusation that Rowling borrowed her ideas, this is what he says:

quote:
But Lexicon is intended only as a reference book for people who have already paid for their copies of Rowling's books. Even though the book is not scholarly, it certainly falls within the realm of scholarly comment.
That has nothing on earth to do with acknowledging the difference between borrowing and writing a lexicon. It leaves us still with the impression that the case is about something that it isn't. Why would Card have peppered the article with "she steals her ideas!," if it weren't related somehow to the lexicon case? It's clear that he is trying to relate, possibly equate, what Vander Ark did to simple borrowing. Otherwise Card would have no reason to mention it.

quote:
And you felt the need to come to his web site to tell him this?
Inasmuch as a desire is a need, yes.

quote:
For the record, I have no respect at all for you. You comprehend the written word poorly and make inane comments about things you seem to have little knowledge of.
This appears to be a case of what psychiatrists call projection. You have a problem; you see your problem in anyone but yourself.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nunki, I think you're laboring under a small misconception. Back when the NYT created the children's bestsellers list specifically to get the Harry Potter books off the adult bestsellers list, Card wrote an article defending Rowling's work and sharply criticizing the "litterateurs" who felt the need to relegate her books to a separate "ghetto." In other words, he believes she -- along with most other authors working in the genre, himself included -- has been unfairly denied "literary" status, and perhaps is making poor choices in what he feels is a misguided attempt to "earn" that status.

Around the release of Book 7, he released another article again praising the Harry Potter series and speculating -- and going so far as to offer advice -- about what Rowling was going to do next. IIRC (and I may not), he warned her against going back to the well too often or too soon; he felt that it was in her best interest to do something non-Potter as soon as possible. Her production of an official lexicon might be regarded in that spirit as a grave mistake.

That said, I think his "JK Rowling stole my plot" complaint is more than a bit tone-deaf. I don't for a minute believe that he seriously thinks she lifted anything at all from the Ender books, since after all there are (as he mentions in the same article) far more obvious sources for the tropes in the Potter novels. I'd honestly be surprised if she had read any of Card's books prior to writing her own. It's possible he sincerely feels this way -- he's accused Shyalaman of lifting "The Sixth Sense" out of Lost Boys, too, even though I think that's clearly another case of parallel evolution -- but I don't think there's a serious case to be made for it.

I'm actually wondering whether he's disappointed in her because she didn't kill Harry.

Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Welcome Nunki... Don't be flustered by the people who snarl about you for coming here to criticize Card... You're not the first, you won't be the last. Just try to be civil (difficult at times, I realize, especially when others are not.)
Posts: 3825 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I've been a bit frustrated with him for some time... But this about face when it comes to the children's lit list is just another thing that gets under my skin.
Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
His article is, as much as anything else, an attack on Rowling's skill as a writer. Read:

"I feel like the plot of my novel Ender's Game was stolen by J.K. Rowling."

I'm not sure how you go about missing the sarcasm in OSC's article, Nunki. OSC is not, as far as I can tell, actually proposing that Rowling stole the plot of Harry Potter from Ender's Game.

He is pointing out that it's ridiculous for the suit to charge that Rowling's words were stolen from her, when her plot is so obviously borrowed from a grand tradition of fantasy plot lines.

He is highlighting the absurdity of the suit, not seriously proposing she actually stole anything from him.

quote:

"She was reading – and borrowing from – the work of other writers." "She is desperate for literary respectability." "She had to see her books pushed off the bestseller lists and consigned to a special "children's book" list." "Litterateurs sneer at her work as a kind of subliterature, not really worth discussing."

None of these actually speak to Rowling's skill as a writer.

quote:
this about face when it comes to the children's lit list is just another thing that gets under my skin.
What about-face do you think he's made, Syn? I don't see it.
Posts: 14505 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee   Email Dagonee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You didn't read carefully. Card referred to "Steven Vander Ark's legal fees." A witness does not pay legal fees to testify in court. Card's comment indicates, therefore, that he isn't as informed about the case as he would like us to believe.
First, many witnesses engage counsel before testifying. It's very common.

Second, many costs fall under the term "legal fees" other than fees paid to attorneys.

Third, and most importantly, it is common to refer to the parties in interest even when the suit technically names a different party. In this case, Vander Ark is the one who faces the biggest harm if Rowling's lawsuit succeeds.

Two seconds of research would have uncovered this.

quote:
My sentence makes perfect sense. If witnesses were required to pay legal fees, as Card indicated Vander Ark had done, it would discourage them from testifying in court. Of course, Card knows that witnesses don't pay legal fees to testify; Card said what he said, because he was operating under the false premise that Vander Ark was the defendant. In other words, he didn't have a proper understanding of the situation he was throwing a hissy fit over.
Ah, I see. So the original sentence makes sense through the lens of your misunderstanding about costs associated with testifying.

quote:
That's your idea of how someone talks about a book series they like? Are you by any chance a sadist?
Have you read the thousands of words Card has written praising Rowling and the Potter series? If not, then you need to do a bit more research. If so, then you need to demonstrate that this particular criticsim outweighs all those positive things he's said about it.

quote:
Second of all, please visit this website (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/index.html) You'll find that there is a children's BESTSELLER LIST at the bottom of the page, which means you're the one who's wrong.
That would only mean I'm wrong if I had DENIED that there was a Children's Bestseller list. I didn't. The existence of a Children's Bestseller list is the heart of the matter - they made up that list to remove three Potter books from the Bestseller List. It was a move aimed expressly at Rowling, and Card criticized them for it, repeatedly.

quote:
Third, it's not relevant whether Card is sympathetic; what is relevant is the fact that, in keeping with the rest of his article, he was twisting the facts in an attempt to smear Rowling's novels.
First, you fail to show how this is twisting a fact. Second, it's not a smear of her novels. At all. He views the mere existence of the Children's Bestseller list - created EXPRESSLY to deny her a place on the Bestseller list - as an unjustified attack on her novels.

quote:
quote:
But Lexicon is intended only as a reference book for people who have already paid for their copies of Rowling's books. Even though the book is not scholarly, it certainly falls within the realm of scholarly comment.
That has nothing on earth to do with acknowledging the difference between borrowing and writing a lexicon
It has everything to do with the difference. He calls it a "scholarly comment." Does he call the borrowing he discusses "scholarly comment"? No. Why? Because they're DIFFERENT!

quote:
It leaves us still with the impression that the case is about something that it isn't. Why would Card have peppered the article with "she steals her ideas!," if it weren't related somehow to the lexicon case? It's clear that he is trying to relate, possibly equate, what Vander Ark did to simple borrowing. Otherwise Card would have no reason to mention it.
Of course he sees them as related. That wasn't your original accusation.

quote:
This appears to be a case of what psychiatrists call projection. You have a problem; you see your problem in anyone but yourself.
Right. You've twice now totally misunderstood something as simple as the Children Bestseller's list issue.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:

[QUOTE]this about face when it comes to the children's lit list is just another thing that gets under my skin.

What about-face do you think he's made, Syn? I don't see it.
He seems to have gone from complaining about JKR being pushed to the Children's Best Seller list by intellectual elites to implying that she was pushed on the list for not being good literature.
At least that's how I read it. [Dont Know]
He writes like that all the time in this sort of articles, at least a high percentage of the time.
He always sounds so...
Vitriolic.
And really cranky.

Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He seems to have gone from complaining about JKR being pushed to the Children's Best Seller list by intellectual elites to implying that she was pushed on the list for not being good literature.
At least that's how I read it.

What phrases does he use that make you think this, Syn?

I think he's criticizing the author; not the work.

Posts: 14505 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know about OSC, but the point at which I decided JKR had reached Lucas-style levels of grandiosity (nigh unto Michael Jackson) was when it was announced her next book -Bard and beadle thingamajig, was to be released in only six volumes hand scribed by monks and sold for a brazillion pounds each. (I'm embroidering the description, but only slightly, I think.)

All you detractors are overlooking the bit where he said Talent does not excuse all this. He does believe her to be talented.

If Card has an unhealthy obsession with homosexuals, it sounds as if you have an equally unhealthy obsession with Mormons, Nunki.

Posts: 11003 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Again, evidence of hostility towards one type of derivative work is not evidence of hostility towards another. This has nothing to do with legal arguments. It has to do with not assuming that OSC isn't capable of viewing different things differently."

Actually, I seem to recall him mentioning somewhere that the very reason he went after Ender fan-fic so vigorously was precisely because he had been told by his lawyers that he had to prosecute it as soon as he found out about it, or risk his silence being taken as assent, in some legal sense, thus making future legal action re: fan-fic, etc., not fruitful. IOW, he has nothing against fan-fic, except for the fact that it could cost him money in the future, and he only knows this because he has asked lawyers. IIRC, he said all this at one of the Greensboro signings I attended, don't ask which one, I don't recall.

My point being, OSC does not have a particularly scholarly understanding of copyright law, unlike yourself, Dag. His behavior toward fan-fic, etc. is probably entirely driven by what lawyers have told him, plus a desire to avoid losing potential money in the future.

Posts: 3257 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
He seems to have gone from complaining about JKR being pushed to the Children's Best Seller list by intellectual elites to implying that she was pushed on the list for not being good literature.
At least that's how I read it.

What phrases does he use that make you think this, Syn?

I think he's criticizing the author; not the work.

Stuff like this.
quote:
Rowling has nowhere to go and nothing to do now that the Harry Potter series is over. After all her literary borrowing, she shot her wad and she's flailing about trying to come up with something to do that means anything.

And other stuff.
I don't know... When every he writes stuff like this what he says really isn't very nice....
At all.
It's actually kind of extremely totally mean.

Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee   Email Dagonee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My point being, OSC does not have a particularly scholarly understanding of copyright law, unlike yourself, Dag. His behavior toward fan-fic, etc. is probably entirely driven by what lawyers have told him, plus a desire to avoid losing potential money in the future.
My point is that comparing an author's views on fan fiction and lexicons and concluding that a different view on each indicates a kind of "about face" fails to account for the differences between the two types of derivative works.

It's along the same lines of saying people who want to make abortion illegal yet keep the death penalty are being inconsistent.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Out of curiosity, what is your position on the death penalty, Dag? I'm more against than not, mostly due to "The Gospel of Life", I think it was called, issued by the former Pope. I hadn't really thought about it being wrong before that, I'd been raised in a very conservative family, but the Pope's position made sense to me.
Posts: 11003 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's along the same lines of saying people who want to make abortion illegal yet keep the death penalty are being inconsistent.
Perhaps not all people who support the death penalty and oppose abortion are being inconsistent, those who want to make abortion illegal to recognize the sanctity of all human life but still support the death penalty certainly are inconsistent.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I thought the first half of Card's article was quite good but I have some real objections with what he does toward the end when he moves away from discussing the actual intellectual property issues and starts speculating on Rowling's motivations and character.

He doesn't know Rowling personally. Labeling her a desperate, vain, greedy witch solely because of this incident is unjust, uncharitable and unchristian. Making those kind of statement publicly might even be illegal (slander).

Let's hope Rowling isn't quite the litigious witch Card thinks she is or he could be hit with the next suit.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which would prove that she IS a vain and greedy witch, Rabbit.

Syn:

quote:
Rowling has nowhere to go and nothing to do now that the Harry Potter series is over. After all her literary borrowing, she shot her wad and she's flailing about trying to come up with something to do that means anything.
Again-- that's criticizing the author, not the work.
Posts: 14505 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Which would prove that she IS a vain and greedy witch, Rabbit.
Why?
Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee   Email Dagonee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Perhaps not all people who support the death penalty and oppose abortion are being inconsistent, those who want to make abortion illegal to recognize the sanctity of all human life but still support the death penalty certainly are inconsistent.
Not unless you define "recognize the sanctity of all human life" to mean "think it's always wrong to kill." Since they don't define it that way, they're not being inconsistent. To consistently apply your reasoning, you would need to call those who want to make abortion illegal to recognize the sanctity of all human life but support the right to kill in self defense as inconsistent.

I doubt that you do that, although I don't know for sure.

Moreover, recognizing the high value of human life cuts both ways in the death penalty debate, at least as regards to the death penalty for those who kill.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee   Email Dagonee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
ut of curiosity, what is your position on the death penalty, Dag?
I think that society, through it's proper governmental authority, has the moral authority to take a human life as punishment in certain circumstances, but that those circumstances are not present in the U.S.

I also think that the Constitution does not bar the death penalty and that many of the restrictions placed on the death penalty by the Supreme Court are based on reasons that are appropriate for legislatures to consider but not for courts judging the constitutionality of a particular punishment.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for answering, though I'm now curious why the circumstances are not present in the U.S. Does that mean they could not be? I don't mean to needle you.

Also, Nunki, I just noticed that you titled this a "little" word on Card's commentary. Oops!

Posts: 11003 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Which would prove that she IS a vain and greedy witch, Rabbit.
Why?
Vain-- because she thinks so much of her image she's willing to litigate against commentary that is not libelous (as far as I know).

Greedy-- Hmm...well, I actually can't back this one up.

Witch-- You've read her books, right?

[Big Grin]

I admit, that was a dumb thing for me to assert.

Posts: 14505 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looks like time to stir the Scott pot.
Posts: 11003 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think writing that a person is greedy or witchy or similar adjectives qualifies as libel. These are very subjective labels and I think our right to choose when to use them is pretty well protected. I think he'd have to stray into more material assertions to be approaching libel...For instance, he'd get into trouble, maybe, if he asserted that she beats up little kids, and was unable to provide any evidence for that claim. However, he could call her a cruel child hater and I think he'd be on safe ground.
Posts: 4007 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just read the OSC article. He never contradicts his admiration (expressed in the past) for Rowling's fiction. He clearly thinks Rowling is now displaying some failings in character. I agree with him about the lawsuit. I don't see the justification for calling Rowling a coward about the Dumbledore thing.
Posts: 4007 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scooter
Member
Member # 6915

 - posted      Profile for Scooter   Email Scooter         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey Nunki, what religion are you?

I just want to know how to generalize my opinion of you to a bunch of people I don't know that must be as judgmental and xenophobic as you are.

This will save me so much time not having to get to know anything about individuals who share your religion (or lack of religion, if that is the case)--I will know right away that they read way too much into things that are critical about something they obviously cherish. That they won't be able to tell the difference between describing how some view an author and the opinion of the one describing those views--especially since that person has written plenty of flattering things about that author before.

What kind of religion could make you so shortsighted and reactionary!?!

Thanks.

Posts: 80 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think I could defend the sort of sheer vitriol and rudeness that has come from too many articles I've read by OSC.
It's not an opressing free speech thing. It's more of an I'm stressed out enough as it is and should read something a bit more...
Cheerful and less cranky.
It's mostly the constant name calling that gets to me.
It's not polite at all. Especially since I've been reading these articles for some time and the frustration has only built up because again, it's just not polite and doesn't allow for discourse if it's just constant never-ending mostly dissing...
I mean, is it really necessary to call her an evil witch?
What did she do to him to deserve that? Suing people sucks, but I don't think it makes her evil and there's always more to anything you hear about anyway.

Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Puffy Treat
Member
Member # 7210

 - posted      Profile for Puffy Treat           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:


I'm actually wondering whether he's disappointed in her because she didn't kill Harry.

No. In The Great Snape Debate, he stated that killing Harry off would be grounds for no one speaking to Rowling ever again. [Smile]
Posts: 6687 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't see the justification for calling Rowling a coward about the Dumbledore thing.
I think he has grounds for calling this cowardice, though I don't think it really belonged in this article. Card gets a lot of flak for writing about gay characters. Many people of his own religion question his character just for writing about gay people. He gets precisely the kind of flak JKR avoided by not inserting Dumbledore's sexuality into the books.
Posts: 11003 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's the leap to Rowling's motivation for not including this in the book that I think is apparently unjustified.
Posts: 4007 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
steven
Member
Member # 8099

 - posted      Profile for steven   Email steven         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about we suggest (to OSC) making and selling an Ender lexicon, completely without offering any profit from or control over to OSC?

Yeah. I think we'd know what he'd say. Whoever seriously suggested it would be in court so fast their head would frickin' spin, if OSC's lawyers suggested that he should sue.

If you disagree, don't tell us why. Simply send him an email, tell him about this thread, and post his response to my proposal, and ask him if it's OK post his response before you do.

Posts: 3257 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not like she could have put Dumbledore making out with some dude in his office.
Like Nicholas Flammel or something. The book is about Harry fightig Voldermort.

Unless she could have had Rita Skeeter have a chapter called "Dumbledore-Is he Gay? He does after all wear Flamboyant Purple Robes"

Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JustAskIndiana
Member
Member # 9268

 - posted      Profile for JustAskIndiana           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK here's a quote by Scott himself taken from the question and answer section of this site:

quote:
As for using characters created by another author: That's where you're going to find yourself sued by any author who understands where the financial future of his work lies. In order to protect copyright and potential filmmaking rights, you have to AGGRESSIVELY protect your own authorship of characters, precisely because it is the characters that film companies need to license and protect when your work is filmed. Anybody
writing fiction using my characters without my specifically having licensed it to them will be sued, not because I'm mean and selfish, but because this is the INHERITANCE OF MY CHILDREN, and to write fiction using my characters is morally identical to moving into my house without invitation and throwing out my family. -Orson Scott Card

One might immediately take this statement and call Scott a hypocrite, but believe his point in his latest essay was that the encyclopedia does not constitute a use of Rowling's characters but is rather

quote:
a reference book for people who have already paid for their copies of Rowling's books. Even though the book is not scholarly, it certainly falls within the realm of scholarly comment.
Therefore, the aggressive protection of copyright material cannot be sought in this circumstance.

So, my point is that I fully agree with Card's conclusion that Rowling does not have a valid case here, but I disagree with Card's analysis of her character and motives.

Truth is, I don't believe Rowling needs the respect of anybody (especially the Litterateurs), nor does she really believe the encyclopedia is as sloppy as she says.

It's simply that she's jealous that somebody else is going to write the same book she very much wants to write. Scott knows this because he himself has felt the same way at one time:

quote:
And then something else happened. The more we talked, the more jealous I became that Neal might be the one to write such a book, and not me....And so, while still hoping that Neal and I can work together on something, I deftly swiped the project back. -Orson Scott Card, Foreward to Ender's Shadow
Luckily, Scott had the opportunity to just cancel the project, but Rowling doesn't have that power here, and her emotions are greater than any rational thinking right now.

Once again though, Scott shows the way to understand other people is by seeing the same desire in ourselves.

Posts: 56 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well-reasoned, Indy.
Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish
Member
Member # 11579

 - posted      Profile for Ish   Email Ish         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, here it comes, the longest, probably most boring reply to ANYTHING that has ever been published on Hatrack. You may want to just skip it unless you REALLY care about the debate going on here (as brought about by the OP)

_______

Greetings Nunki! Due to the fact that there are so many ASSUMPTIONS (please refer to my first post in the OSC and Bubblegum thread for my belief on those) in your dictation and review of OSC's review of J.K. Rowlings belief about Vander's works, I am going to CLARIFY everything in his article step by step, explain the (at least most likely) thought process and meanings behind his words and then explain where your own understanding went astray and why. Hopefully this will clarify all misconceptions and communication errors that have plagued this thread thus far.

NOTE TO EVERYONE: I do not claim to be a know-it-all, however, it is easier and simpler for one person to give a estimated explanation of everything in one go then to have a million different little contentions about pieces of the work that can be taken out of context and muddled easily.

Let us begin by breaking down the entire authorship of OSC's recent review:

I chose to skip the very first few paragraphs as they area summary of the review that is to come, setting the premise if you will, I quote them here:
quote:
Can you believe that J.K. Rowling is suing a small publisher because she claims their 10,000-copy edition of Harry Potter Lexicon, a book about Rowling's hugely successful novel series, is just a "rearrangement" of her own material.

Rowling "feels like her words were stolen," said lawyer Dan Shallman.

quote:
Well, heck, I feel like the plot of my novel Ender's Game was stolen by J.K. Rowling.

A young kid growing up in an oppressive family situation suddenly learns that he is one of a special class of children with special abilities, who are to be educated in a remote training facility where student life is dominated by an intense game played by teams flying in midair, at which this kid turns out to be exceptionally talented and a natural leader. He trains other kids in unauthorized extra sessions, which enrages his enemies, who attack him with the intention of killing him; but he is protected by his loyal, brilliant friends and gains strength from the love of some of his family members. He is given special guidance by an older man of legendary accomplishments who previously kept the enemy at bay. He goes on to become the crucial figure in a struggle against an unseen enemy who threatens the whole world.

In the world of Argumentation and Discourse, this is called Anecdotal evidence. Using personal experience or situations to explain something to an audience which will recognize the situation or experience and relate to the Debator. In OSC's case, he can with some certainty believe his audience will have read his books, and in order to understand what he means when he says that "everyone borrows from everyone" he uses the inherent, although not purposeful to be sure similarities in his work to JKR's.
The idea here is that obviously no lawsuits have become of OSC's "intellectual property" being stolen from him by JKR or anyone else in the literary world because it is a common enough practice. As the say, immitation is the greatest form of flattery and only assures to those being immitated, reviewed or discussed that they are indeed important and influential.

This is the THEME and THESIS of OSC's Review. Please Review it through ALL interpretations: A Lexicon is not stealing, therefore we can conclude that this lawsuit is ridiculous. This is an example of a growing feeling that JKR may have in fact run out of steam and may be looking for other ways to gain spot light and retain here prowess over the community of writers.

quote:
This paragraph lists only most prominent similarities between Ender's Game and the Harry Potter series. My book was published in England years before Rowling began writing about Harry Potter. Rowling was known to be reading widely in speculative fiction during the era after the publication of my book.

I can get on the stand and cry, too, Ms. Rowling, and talk about feeling "personally violated."

Note that OSC uses the words "I CAN" not I WILL. The inherent difference between JKR and OSC is he respects (for the most part) the right of those who wish to discuss and review his works and other people's works to do so. This is very different from those who would take the characters, story, framework and settings of his books, make something similar and not credit him or pay royalties. Much like how those who write Star Wars novelas are paid but are required to pay a dividend to George Lucas for his intellectual property. Refer to the thesis for clarification.

Also, please remember that similarities can be found in almost EVERY work of fiction to EVERY OTHER work of fiction. This is human brain function at it's best. Learning by association is the easiest way for humans to grow and understand their world. WE connect other things to the items we are trying to assimilate in order to feel more comfortable with them and utilize them fully. This is why we often disregard things we don't like. It is normally due to inability to connect with them due to lack of association and understanding.

quote:
The difference between us is that I actually make enough money from Ender's Game to be content, without having to try to punish other people whose creativity might have been inspired by something I wrote.
Be well aware that OSC knows he probably does not make as much as JKR had, or has (depending on her spending/saving habits. This is simply meant to be a furthering of his attack on her strange nature toward this SINGLE instance of comment and documentation of her intellectual property.

I myself (warning, anecdotal evidence) own several dissertations of her works including "The unofficial guide to Harry Potter Book 1,2,3,4,5" (each a different book) and "Barry Trotter and the Unauthorized Parody". Each of these is a commentary (social or philosophical) on her works that has NOT been given a lawsuit. His argumentation stems from this ideal that there is NO cause except needing to be recognized for her to pick out THIS work has a "violation".

quote:
Mine is not the only work that one can charge Rowling "borrowed" from. Check out this piece from a fan site, pointing out links between Harry Potter and other previous works: http://www.geocities.com/versetrue/rowling.htm. And don't forget the lawsuit by Nancy K. Stouffer, the author of a book entitled The Legend of Rah and the Muggles, whose hero was named "Larry Potter."

At that time, Rowling's lawyers called Stouffer's claim "frivolous."

Please re-read my previous statements about the many other works which not only REVIEW her work but also offer insight and commentary on it that have gone un-law suited (is that a word? Yes, it is now in the urban dictionary.) and other-wise green-lighted by her and her advisors. The greatest known of which is Stouffer's story which was (due to the current social climate towards JKR, more than likely) treated incredibly negatively and then shot down. It seems to be that OSC is creating an analysis of double standard. However, the two situations are different, though not in an incosequential way.

Intellectual property is a hot-bed of debate today and the borders of which are constantly being called into question. However, OSC's review is displaying the obvious attack of what many can see is not a violation of her stoy, but merely an opinion and dissertation on it. It in no way pretends to BE her work, merely the explanation and anthology of it. This is different and should not be considered the same, therefore it should not be considered a grounds for lawsuit.

quote:
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.
This is truth. There is a rule of thought that says that every story can be linked to a story from the BIBLE. Does that mean the estate of King James or the Catholic church should sue all literary authors for their fictions and use of the contexts from the bible? Of course not.

Ideas that are COMPLETELY new come few and far between, though it may seem as though pure innovation arrives at our doorstep almost every day, someone, somewhere has probably already come up with something SIMILAR, if not the same. The paranoia of having a BUCK stolen from you over this possibility of others taking your ideas and profiting has gotten so far out of hand that situations like this crop up to often and actually end up CHOKING creative thought.

If we are all to afraid of legal backlash to write new works, where will new stuff come from? So we have a million "Star Trek", "Star Wars" and "based on the new Blockbuster" books that are safe because they contain no facade of originality, safe under a label or a franchise.

Note: I love many of these novels and while some of them contain interesting spins on story lines and such, there main premise is already created for them, be it the universe or context they were written in or what have you. This does no make them BAD or not CREATIVE. But you cannot confuse creative with original.

quote:
I took the word ansible from Ursula K. LeGuin, and have always said so. Rowling, however, denies everything.

If Steven Vander Ark, the author of Lexicon, had written fiction that he claimed was original, when it was actually a rearrangement of ideas taken from the Harry Potter books, then she'd have a case.

But Lexicon is intended only as a reference book for people who have already paid for their copies of Rowling's books. Even though the book is not scholarly, it certainly falls within the realm of scholarly comment.

THIS is where OSC explains his thought process and everyone would do well to read and re-read these quotation carefully.

Lexicon is NOT an original work of fiction. It is a commentary ON a work of fiction (original or otherwise). You cannot expect to gain much praise from performing a lawsuit against someone who was praising your works, (or in the very least, explaining them) without sounding a bit rude and vain.

quote:
Rowling's hypocrisy is so thick I can hardly breathe: Prior to the publication of each novel, there were books about them that were no more intrusive than Lexicon. I contributed to one of them, and there was no complaint about it from Rowling or her publishers because they knew perfectly well that these fan/scholar ancillary publication were great publicity and actually boosted sales.

But now the Harry Potter series is over, and Rowling claims that her "creative work" is being "decimated."

I explained this portion earlier, but lets review:

Prior to this instance, (noting that the Stouffer situation is in different contexts) Rowling had made NO CLAIMS against works that had been created to discuss the meaning or philosophie's or situations in any of the Harry Potter books. This is the first and an odd first at that.

It is OSC's opinion that she does this at a time AFTER her books have done the best they can do initally. All the hype and new-ness of them has died down. No longer can a "What will happen in book 7" book create hype for her Deathly Hallows, since we already know what will happen, or can find out simply by reading it.

What this means is she would rather have you BUY her books now, rather than read a lexicon or a summary and explination of them. That is form of greed and vanity, meaning she doesn't want to share the glory of her books by letting others fawn and faint over them like she did in the past when it helped HER. Now that it no longer directly benefits her sales, it is a whole different ball game.

quote:
Of course, she doesn't claim that it's the Lexicon that is harming her "creative work" (who's she borrowing from this time?); it's the lawsuit itself! And since she chose to bring the suit, whose fault is it? If she had left Vander Ark alone to publish his little book and make his little bit of money, she wouldn't be distracted from her next novel.

But no, Rowling claims Vander Ark's book "constitutes wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work."

Seventeen years? What a crock. Apparently she includes in that total the timeframe in which she was reading -- and borrowing from -- the work of other writers.

This is OSC calling JKR out on reprimanding people for STEALING (when they aren't stealing) and for pointing out that if ANYONE was stealing, it is her, and every other author and she should just rightly shut her trap.

quote:
On the stand, though, Rowling's chief complaint seems to be that she would do a better job of annotating and encyclopedizing her own series.

So what?

I'm getting a bit cynical now, as you can tell, having to spell out everything that is clear as day to me in this article.

The quotation here is an explination that, as a witness, JKR fails to prove herself abused in anyway. Just because she could do a better job is not grounds for violation, therefore it is not evidence to her intelectual property being stolen and therfore is not helping her case.

quote:
Nothing prevents her from doing exactly that -- annotating and explaining her own novels. Do you think that if there were a Harry Potter Annotated by the Author, Vander Ark's book would interfere with her sales in any way?

This frivolous lawsuit puts at serious risk the entire tradition of commentary on fiction. Any student writing a paper about the Harry Potter books, any scholarly treatise about it, will certainly do everything she's complaining about.

Once you publish fiction, Ms. Rowling, anybody is free to write about it, to comment on it, and to quote liberally from it, as long as the source is cited.

The first two paragraphs are re-iterations of the idea that JKR is actually hurting HER image by letting others push her (hopefully she didn't do this on impulse and on her own) to sue a person under false pretenses.

The final paragraph is important to YOU miss Nunki. Once you become published, people can say almost WHATEVER they want about your work, and provide views on it as they see fit. This is protected under the fair use act as Scholarly Commentary and educational or review. Since a Lexicon falls into these categories, it falls under the protection of the Fair Use act and cannot then, be forgone by a lawsuit.

quote:
Here's the irony: Vander Ark had the material for this book on his website for years, and Rowling is quoted as saying that when she needed to look up some 'fact" from her earlier books, she would sometimes "sneak into an Internet café while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter."

In other words, she already had made personal use of Vander Ark's work and found it valuable. Even if it has shortcomings, she found it useful.

That means that Vander Ark created something original and useful -- he added value to the product. If Rowling wants to claim that it interferes with her creativity now, she should have made that complaint back when she was using it -- and giving Vander Ark an award for his website back in 2004.

Now, of course, she regrets "bitterly" having given the award.

This is the funny part, and I'll break it down simply.

SHE KNEW HE WAS USING HER WORKS AND COMMENTING ON THEM FOR A LONG TIME.

This is nothing new from Vander Ark. He has been commentating on the works of fiction (predominately JKR's) for quite sometime on his website and in newspapers and magazines for awhile. He even won an AWARD for it from JKR HERSELF. Yet now she is suing him for doing exactly what he has been doing since she started publishing.

quote:
You know what I think is going on?

Rowling has nowhere to go and nothing to do now that the Harry Potter series is over. After all her literary borrowing, she shot her wad and she's flailing about trying to come up with something to do that means anything.

Moreover, she is desperate for literary respectability. Even though she made more money than the Queen or Oprah Winfrey in some years, she had to see her books pushed off the bestseller lists and consigned to a special "children's book" list. Litterateurs sneer at her work as a kind of subliterature, not really worth discussing.

It makes her insane. The money wasn't enough. She wants to be treated with respect.

At the same time, she's also surrounded by people whose primary function is to suck up to her. No doubt some of them were saying to her, "It's wrong for these other people to be exploiting what you created to make money for themselves."

She let herself be talked into being outraged over a perfectly normal publishing activity, one that she had actually made use of herself during its web incarnation.

Now she is suing somebody who has devoted years to promoting her work and making no money from his efforts -- which actually helped her make some of her bazillions of dollars.

This whole dissertation explains what OSC believes her motivations are for per-suing this lawsuit. She has slowed down as an author but still wants RESPECT. If she is to command respect, she seems to think protecting her "rights" is the easiest way to go about it rather than trying to write a novel that wont get forced onto a "children's" best seller list.

quote:
Talent does not excuse Rowling's ingratitude, her vanity, her greed, her bullying of the little guy, and her pathetic claims of emotional distress.

More on this quote later. But really, he knows she is a good author and has said it many times? Why in gods green earth would she wish to screw that up by letting her temper and ill-thought through plans of glory make her out to be bully and a wicked witch when she used to be everyone's Favorite story of the little guy (girl) finally making it big and striking it rich. She seems to have forgotten her roots.

quote:
I fully expect that the outcome of this lawsuit will be:

1. Publication of Lexicon will go on without any problem or prejudice, because it clearly falls within the copyright law's provision for scholarly work, commentary, and review.

2. Rowling will be forced to pay Steven Vander Ark's legal fees, since her suit was utterly without merit from the start.

3. People who hear about this suit will have a sour taste in their mouth about Rowling from now on. Her Cinderella story once charmed us. Her greedy evil-witch behavior now disgusts us. And her next book will be perceived as the work of that evil witch.

This is what he expects to happen in the lawsuit. I should let you know that;

Though Vander Ark will only be a witness to the lawsuit, as the creator of the book he is one of the few who will have to provide LEGAL representation for his literature to back it as the defendant. Though he himself may not DIRECTLY be the defendant in question, all the precedings will affect him and besides his publisher, he is he only one who has the right to provide representation in this case. Therefore, expenses for such will most likely go to him or affect his own paycheck.

This is how legal representation in lawsuits of intelectual property work. Therefore refunding the cost of legal representation would be provided to him on the grounds that it is his work being sued, and he had to pay to fight for it.

quote:
It's like her stupid, self-serving claim that Dumbledore was gay. She wants credit for being very up-to-date and politically correct -- but she didn't have the guts to put that supposed "fact" into the actual novels, knowing that it might hurt sales.

What a pretentious, puffed-up coward. When I have a gay character in my fiction, I say so right in the book. I don't wait until after it has had all its initial sales to mention it.

Many have shown either praise or disgust in the sudden "coming out of dumbledore". However, when deciding whether or not it matters, there are key points to disclosure.

Does it matter to the story?
Probably not. It doesn't change who Dumbledore is, or what he did. Therefore, saying it is like saying "By the way, Harry was really good at rhyming." it's really not information we NEEDED or changes anything. It is however different from that analogy in the fact that it created HYPE for the series.

Hype is something that allows attention to be drawn to something that was either already popular or had lost popularity. The former is the case here where her books had started to die down and the need to revitalize the public buzz for them was apparent.

HOWEVER. Let us remember how we discovered Dumbledore was gay. SOMEONE asked her if Dumbledore had ever been in love. Her response could have been yes or no. It could have involved a story, but instead (whether she knew this all along or chose to just spring it on us) She chose to give us more details on a rather mysterious character. It is how WE as a society chose to take the notion of Dumbledore being gay that makes the situation questionable, and how, (as an intelligent woman) JKR knew we would take it.

It doesn't take that big a brain to know the literary community would be in an uproar about the outing of Dumbledore, not because we are homophobes, but because it's so controversial, especially in what could be called a childrens book. Regardless of it's authenticity to the story, many in the world of childrens fiction say that a "yes or no would have sufficed".

Indeed, it is not THAT he is gay that pisses OSC off, but that it FELT like she told us that to put herself back in the lime-light. It is that kind of pop-culture soaked attitude towards literature that scares contemporary writers into believing they may never become classics, because so much of what we write now is criticized and scrutinized by so many people. We cannot write anything good without making it less than what we imagined by allowing the world to chose our words for us.

Writing for your audience is fine, but writing to PLEASE an audience is just selling out. And selling out AFTER the fact, without giving us basis for your claims, can be even worse.

quote:
Rowling has now shown herself to lack a brain, a heart and courage. Clearly, she needs to visit Oz.

It's true. Rowling needs to stop letting the world chose her story for her, and she needs to begin turning to the next chapter in her life, and she needs to stop protecting HP like it's a baby, let it live it's own life and let herself live hers. She needs to learn where her passion is and re-claim it. Somebody splash her with some cold water and wake her up from this nightmare.

_________

Honestly, that took me a LOT longer than I thought, so, until I get up the gumption to hash out your own (Nunki's) points, I will leave you with one last argumentation:

quote:
Her books remain on bestseller lists, as you well know; these bestseller lists are simply ones for children's books. Calling these bestseller lists "special 'children's book' lists" and claiming that her books were pushed off the bestseller lists is next door to an outright lie.
Alright, others have already called you out on the fact that he Best Seller list that she is currently on was a SEGREGATION of books that had NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. It in fact was done specifically for her books and was an OUTRAGE.

You need to remember that whilst you are in the world of OSC (Hatrack Forums and the like) You are privy to people who understand literature at it's best and worst. We know the hardships that have befallen people whom OSC has talked about constantly.

By the By; you seem to think OSC hates JKR's works of fiction now that he ridecules her as a legal action seeking author. Though nowhere in the article does it state that he "hates the Harry Potter books now because [JKR] is such a jerk." That would make no sense, and clearly it isn't said, therefore it isn't true.

That said, the Childrens Bestseller list is a bestseller list, but it doesn't even BEGIN to cataloge the immense proportions of how much of a best seller JKR's books are. He (OSC) NEVER says he thinks this was a good thing, he merely states it as truth and why people did it.

Often Nunki, people give FACTS in their argumentation that they may not entirely agree with to show the thought process of those who are wrong. Now that JKR has been shoved aside by the Literature community (at least into the dark world of childrens novels) she seems to need a way to break free. This train of thought may have driven her actions and then caused her to do the thing OSC is saying is incorrect.

Do not use the butterfly effect fallacy; where because this was said, it is a direct argumentation of this belief. You need to follow the rabit down the rabit hole to understand WHY he's late. Don't assume it's just because he says he is.

Thanks for reading, if you got this far, Congrats! You gained 324 exp!

~Ish

[ April 29, 2008, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: Ish ]

Posts: 44 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JustAskIndiana:

Once again though, Scott shows the way to understand other people is by seeing the same desire in ourselves. [/QB]

I don't totally agree with you, but what you are saying makes sense and you're unrude about it.

By the way, I was there when she outed Dumbledore. She did not do it for attention. Some fan just asked about it. Plus, there were a thousand happy people at that event. I doubt the whole HP craze thing was dying down.
I don't really agree with your point of view on the situation, Ish.
I don't think OSC has the right to call JKR greedy, an evil-witch, ect when he's not totally understanding her motives.
It's one thing to have an online lexicon that is free for everyone to use.
Selling it if you are directly quoting without siting JKR's book is a bit different though. According to other sources, JKR and WB seemed to have tried to work something out, or to at least view the manuscripe prior to it being published. Just read some of the more sensible comments about the issue. I don't think she's doing it out of greed, she is actually donating the proceeds if she wins this case to charity.
How can he call her heartless? She donates a ton of money to Romanian orphans, and they can use all the money they can get since adoption closed for foreigners back in what, 2001?
The fact is that no situation is black and white the way some folks like to make it out to be. Everything is more complicated than it seems.

Also I like what NG has to say on the subject a bit better http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/04/few-final-copyright-thoughts-before-we.html
The fact is, I think she probably would not have had a problem with the lexicon being published if it had been changed in such a way that it doesn't copy her work. That part makes sense to me. There's tons of books about HP out there that are actually scholarly in the sense that they site her work.
Clearly the publishing company, not so much the fan, are trying to milk the HP cow, one can't blame them. It's still leaking out gold after all.
Attacking either authors doesn't do a bit of good, but i'd still rather just have an encyclopedia from her because, well, she wrote the whole thing and knows the characters better than anyone else.

Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
EmpSquared
Member
Member # 10890

 - posted      Profile for EmpSquared           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be honest, after reading about 5 spelling and grammar mistakes I stopped reading that post after the second paragraph.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish
Member
Member # 11579

 - posted      Profile for Ish   Email Ish         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Firstly,

quote:
By the way, I was there when she outed Dumbledore. She did not do it for attention. Some fan just asked about it. Plus, there were a thousand happy people at that event. I doubt the whole HP craze thing was dying down.

You create an ad-populous (or populumn, I can't quite remember) fallacy that just because there were lots of happy people at an event created for fans of Harry Potter, that that means Harry Potter craze has NOT died down.

A good explination of how this is not accurate would be to say that, several years after star wars first came out, we can still have conventions on the subject, but there is nowhere near as big of hype towards Star Wars as was when it first came out and was in theaters (with all the original toys and everything!).

There can still be fans, and they can still be rabid, but that doesn't mean its in the media, on the top of the blockbuster/bestseller list or a daily piece of conversation for most Americans.

Secondly,

quote:
I don't really agree with your point of view on the situation, Ish.

I like how you automatically think that it's MY opinion. I thought I stated quite clearly it was a simplication and a clarification of OSC's opinion and column.

Other than that, your opinions and beliefs show merit. Good job for doing research!

Empsquared -

I apologize. I didn't realize a persons thoughts were dependent on there ability to spell. My mistake, I have made the neccessary adjustments to my post and hope you will actually give it a READ instead of just disregard it for trivial things like spelling.

I mean, if you didn't want to read it, you didn't have to. And if you didn't have a rebuttal worth contributing to the discussion, you didn't have to reply.

But thanks for calling me out on the fact that I, as a human, make errors. I appreciate the humanizing tone you have given me.

Posts: 44 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I haven't read the entire transcript yet, my attention span is bad these days, but still, I think the issue is way more complex than OSC is saying. The ones who aren't cussing him out crankily had a lot more insight about the whole case.
Posts: 9883 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2