posted
Relax. I was essentially trying to point out that if you were going to go through the trouble of the huge post, don't have that many mistakes that early on, since I'm sure you actually wanted people to read it, right?
Posts: 368 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. But your history of posting has a few of these "bad spelling" comments in it. I was just defending my work, though admitting to the mistakes in it. And I hope my fixes worked.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 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."
He has in fact commented on a lexicon before. I'll have to search the archive for the article, but it was a lexicon of Science Fiction, and he was decidedly in favor of it. He commented on the fact that he was sited as a source for the word, "ansible," after Le Guinn herself, iirc. Just for the record.
Edit: The OP may have read a great deal of strong discouragement from OSC regarding "derivative" works in general, rather than "scholarly" works in particular. OSC is on record in countless instances talking about his feelings on fan fiction and the like, and I think he has even commented negatively regarding some HP fan fiction and the debacle Rowling was involved in with a fan of hers several years back. He took her side on that rather strongly, but it was nothing like this situation.
Regardless of the particulars of the article, I agree somewhat with Synesthesia that OSC's vitriolic language here seems a little out of proportion with the subject. It's hard to judge, but I can imagine him chalking this lawsuit up to motivations other than greed and villainy, were it the doing of another author. But there is this bit about Dumbledore and her supposed motivations for claiming that he may be gay. Why would OSC mention this in the same breath as the lawsuit, if his feelings about the issue were not indeed clouded by the Dumbledore issue? He even connects the two to the same motivation, namely greed, and frankly the greed angle is unconvincing on both counts. OSC doesn't think Rowling is downright stupid, (I don't think), and yet he would have to think so if he thinks that this lawsuit is greed motivated- because he thinks it's monumentally stupid. So I have a hard time believing that this assigned motivation is the right one.
I might not jump to conclusions about her motivations with such very broad strokes if I were an author who regularly derided those who gave him the same treatment- myself included. And the broad strokes he paints her with are SO much more negative than they need to be. Why?
posted
*shameful whisper* Honesty demands that I admit to also having once owned a Forensic League pin. I believe I may once have also been a newbie.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huzah then! I applaud you for comming out on this issue Tom. You know, they say the first step to recovery is admitting the problem.
You are well on your way to recognizing that, it's okay to be a speechie.
Well, sort of, I wouldn't go starting any "speechies rule!" clubs or anything.
~Ish
P.S. On an almost un-related note, not ONLY do I have the pin, but I got a Lettermans jacket for the 4 years in highschool I went to state (and the one year to Nationals). I think that qualifies on a whole other level of shame. Not just because I have it, but because I still wear it (it's warm).
Posts: 44 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't help but think that after reading that vitriolic, angry cranky article of OSC, i'm more sympathetic to JKR than ever. I see where she's coming from. It's sort of if someone took the Dir en grey song Embryo, took Kaoru's whole entire sitary guitar part in it and put it in a rap song and didn't give him credit, he'd have every right to sue. It's different sampling songs and giving credit or coincidentally using about 4 notes from a song or something instead of lifting a whole chunk.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Giving to Charity does not make you a saint folks.
When you make billions, it is the only way not to be taxed out the bum.
Just because you give some of your money to charity, or the proceeds of this and that lawsuit/event to the homeless, does not automatically make all your actions godly and mean you can not be a huge jerk.
It's called good business tactics. If you want to LOOK good, you make the gestures to those less fortunate. It puts you in good standing, that does not mean your actions reflect your good nature. It just means you know how to conduct proper business.
Therefore, the charity aspect of your argument has absolutely no merit. It doesn't make her right to file the lawsuit, that is a strawman fallacy. (there I go again!)
And name calling is not NEARLY as deplorable as some of the other things that could be done to JKR for slapping the literary community that PUT HER WHERE SHE IS, in the face. The could disown her and never publish another thing about her again, thus black listing a great author because she doesn't respect those who respect her.
I say calling her a witch is a greater compromise, in favor of her future as an author.
By the way, the reason for the name calling is this: She is a witch because it is a PLAY on her novels, she is also a witch because when you step on the little guy or do something wicked or mean to someone who is nowhere near your status level, it is seen as incredibly coarse and cruel, much like the early pilgrim's and dark age european's outlook on witches, who sought prey that was weaker and much less intelligent then themselves.
Hope that makes sense.
Though complaining about name-calling is like complaining about OSC's writing style. He is a blunt author who doesn't pull punches. If you don't like the way he writes his reviews, don't read them. It's all there in every single review, black and white. Exactly how he feels. Audience agreeing not withstanding.
posted
Dude. She's not really stepping on the little guy. it's not that cut and dried. I can see why she would be frustrated with someone taking a free website and trying to sell it as a lexicon of her work. She's not suing the fan directly, but the book company whose idea it was to sell the thing.
And do you have any idea what it's like for Romanian orphans? They live in horrible conditions. It's been going on for decades, but they shut down adoption from Romania to anyone but relatives and Romanian citizens back in 2001 I think? Not only do these orphans, especially the disabled, live in horrible conditions but many live out on the street. Many babies are abandoned in hospitals there. It depresses me that it's still going on.
I don't like that style of writing articles. I know it's an opion column, but it really doesn't equal discourse, conversation, but someone sledgehammering you with their opinions and stating that if you don't agree you are XYZ. It's deeply irratating because it's just not right or useful to namecall a person like that unless you know the whole picture! I hate this black and white concept so much because the world REALLy doesn't work like that. There are shades of grey and colour to the world that folks who write that way just don't understand.
Plus, exactly how is she slapping the community that put her there if she is trying to stop a book from being published that could have a lot of errors in it. Why isn't there someone who sees the shades in between black and white, who has subtlety and understands that things are never as simple as they seem?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: It's sort of if someone took the Dir en grey song Embryo, took Kaoru's whole entire sitary guitar part in it and put it in a rap song and didn't give him credit, he'd have every right to sue.
I think a more accurate analogy would be if someone took the guitar part and transcribed it and wrote up a harmonic analysis of it. IMO, using someone else's song in your song is more akin to using someone else's fiction in your fiction.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think a more accurate analogy would be if someone took the guitar part and transcribed it and wrote up a harmonic analysis of it.
In the specific case of this lexicon, it's as if someone took the guitar part, played long snippets of it back in random order, and interjected observations like "Here are the three loudest parts of this song, played back to back" in between them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: It's different sampling songs and giving credit or coincidentally using about 4 notes from a song or something instead of lifting a whole chunk.
I'll just interject that the act of sampling is not directly analogous to "lifting." There is articulation of concrete material involved. Sometimes.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been to the website in question. It's a reference work, and in total contains a significant chunk of her text. I don't know how legal that may or may not be.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
what defines a significant chunk? Would a Shakespeare reference work contain less? Aren't the harry potter books something like 3 or 4 thousand pages in total?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Indeed, it is not THAT he is gay that pisses OSC off,
That's just your judgement, and it's a different judgement than mine.
If someone had asked her about Dumbledore's religion, and she had replied "In my mind, Albus Dumbledore was a Mormon" I'm judging that OSC's attitude about the revelation would have been vastly different.
quote:And selling out AFTER the fact, without giving us basis for your claims, can be even worse.
Yes, once we assume that JKR is an evil sell-out, every action of hers can be easily portrayed as evil selling-out. But it's the initial assumption that needs to be justified, and which neither your nor OSC justify.
Many of her fans had noticed the Dumbledore teenage fascination with Grindelwald as something with extreme subtext behind it. (If Grindelwald had been female, the idea that Dumbledore's fascination with her had a romantic/sexual texture would have been the possibilility that would leapt out to *everyone* before anything else.)
JKR simply confirmed that we weren't seeing things that weren't there.
Of course OSC chooses to blame his selective blindness on JKR rather than on himself.
quote:
quote: Rowling has now shown herself to lack a brain, a heart and courage. Clearly, she needs to visit Oz.
It's true.
I am stunned at how EASILY and how RUDELY, both OSC and you pass such harsh judgments on someone you've probably never meant, whose motives you're only guessing at (with your superior intellect and all) -- you two are basically committing every sin of elitism that OSC condemned on Barack, except in your case it's even worse, as you're not commenting on statistics of populations but rather on one specific person's character.
quote: Somebody splash her with some cold water and wake her up from this nightmare.
And while you're at it, take a good look in your mirror and tone down the arrogance of your presumption.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott R, I reread my first two paragraphs. I don't see much hypocrisy.
You didn't see me calling OSC an evil warlock, or saying that he lacks heart, courage, and a brain, or that he needs to be doused in cold water? You didn't see me doing an amateur psychologist's job of trying to figure out the worst-possible interpretation of all her actions and describing them as fact?
The harshest judgement I've made of him, is that I don't believe him to be as impartial about homosexuality as he and his supporters in this thread believe, and that he's selectively blind towards evidence in the text.
*If* I was hypocritical, I'd have tried to find the worst possible psychological reasons for all of the above -- as OSC has attempted to do with JKR.
E.g. I could have said that some hidden homosexual latency is what made him blind to the homosexual subtext of Dumbledore's letter to Grindelwald, and it's this combined with jealousy that makes him attack JKR so fervently now.
Such a claim would be utterly stupid and unsubstantiated. But no less stupid and no less unsubstantiated than the cheap psychological profile OSC crafts for JKR.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is a person being hypocritical by calling Card on his... well, impolite words? Who'd even get this annoyed with him if he didn't do things like namecall JKR or imply that gay people are children dressing as adults and other things that really get under people's skin? I just can't defend stuff like that. Or implying, unless I misunderstood it that inner city people are on welfare and do drugs. That's the sort of stuff that gets to me. It's not polite, it doesn't add to any discussions and it doesn't make me feel like I've learned anything about another perspective.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them already in encyclopedic format? Don't those portions in the Lexicon at least constitute infringement? I don't own that particular book, so I can't say if those portions of text are lifted wholesale or if they're "transformative", whatever that means. In that case, one can't say that JKR is motivated by greed in the Lexicon diverting sales from Fantastic Beasts, since the proceeds were donated to Comic Relief.
I'm probably wrong since I'm new. But this is the manuscript.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, I think it's reasonable to assume OSC's reaction would have been different in that scenario. After all, OSC has said he's reacting to the Dumbledore thing because he thinks it smells of PC. I can't think of a similar way to construe the hypothetical claim that Dumbledore is Mormon, so I imagine the reaction would be quite different.
Of course, it's a lame point. If A led to X, B (being different from A) would have led to something else, which we'll call Z. So what?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Ah. So hypocrisy is a matter of degree, is it?
Well, of course, isn't all sin a matter of degree?
I judge OSC on his judgement, sure -- but IMO I judge him significantly more leniently than OSC has judged JKR. That's my point. That he's being too harsh, that he's attributing to JKR the worst motivations and the worst psychology possible.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's called good business tactics. If you want to LOOK good, you make the gestures to those less fortunate. It puts you in good standing, that does not mean your actions reflect your good nature. It just means you know how to conduct proper business.
Therefore, the charity aspect of your argument has absolutely no merit. It doesn't make her right to file the lawsuit, that is a strawman fallacy. (there I go again!)
I'm not sure how you could characterize this as a strawman fallacy. In a strawman, you attribute an argument to an opponent that may superficially resemble what they've said, but is easier to refute.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Aris, however, called OSC down for making a judgment about JKR which he couldn't know; Aris also made judgments about OSC that cannot be known.
That's an extremely incomplete description of what Aris said.
This is actually a good example of a strawman, by the way.
---
edit:
Also, Scott, don't you feel a little like the pot calling the milk jug black, calling someone else a hypocrite? Do you actually hold any principle that doesn't have "except when I do it" as a caveat? I mean, you're trying to push the same "you can't know things like this about people" you've been caught directly violating.
quote:Also, Scott, don't you feel a little like the pot calling the milk jug black, calling someone else a hypocrite? Do you actually hold any principle that doesn't have "except when I do it" as a caveat? I mean, you're trying to push the same "you can't know things like this about people" you've been caught directly violating.
Aw. You'll never get in the club with an attitude like that!
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris said nothing as simplistic as what you are saying, and in fact identified many qualities and degrees that are present in what OSC wrote that are not present in what Aris wrote. There are other differences that are implied but not stated that seem readily available to me. He is not, as far as I can tell, taking OSC to task for violations that he himself is making.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, manji, for the manuscript link. I had not ever read the Lexicon, but now I have read a few pages, it seems to be actual lifted material, that is, direct quotations from the sources. Essentially, this person is doing a copy-and-paste with the books, only putting the quotes under "entries."
I actually think there is a very good argument for Rowling's case, after looking at it. I can't think of any "scholarly" text that I have read that does not include any original material but is merely a compilation of quotes (except Bartlett's, of course). I own a couple of unofficial Potter books, but they actually have material written by the author, not just recycled published material. OSC says it's okay for people to "quote liberally" for literary analysis, but I don't think this is what he meant.
I'm more on Rowling's side here, although I think OSC had some interesting points in his article. But what really disturbed me about his rant was inflammatory phrases like:
"I can get on the stand and cry too, Ms. Rowling" "Seventeen years? What a crock." "Rowling has nowhere to go and nothing to do now" "She's shot her wad and she's flailing about" "Talent does not excuse Rowling's ingratitude, her vanity, her greed, her bullying of the little guy, and her pathetic claims of emotional distress." "Her greedy evil-witch behavior now disgusts us." "It's like her stupid, self-serving claim that Dumbledore was gay" "What a pretentious, puffed-up coward."
Mr. Card, I like hearing your side of the story and seeing some different arguments, but I don't want to have to sift through garbage like those quotes in order to do so.
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't even see how saying stuff like that is NECESSARY. It doesn't add anything to the argument at all. It's really mean and not very empathetic. I'm more disgusted by statements like that than JKR suing a publishing company.
And how does he know she "has nowhere to go and nothing to do now?" Is he her? I don't think so.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
CRash, I've become very tired of sifting through OSC's bile. What points did he make that you found interesting or particularly worthy of consideration?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
I mean, when you chop up my posting, and start refuting my statements BEFORE YOU READ THE ANALYSIS, sure, I would say you might have a point that I'm being rude and inconsiderate.
By the way, no one has yet asked me if I believe the LAWSUIT itself is incorrect. My only argumentation deals with people whining that OSC's vocabluary and wording is too harsh.
IT'S NOT. (and please don't just quote me on that, read what I have to say as to why FIRST and then maybe discuss that. Don't be rude and try and make it sound like I didn't explain myself.) She (JKR) is a member of what we call a celebrity status group, and celebrities are constantly second guessed. Much like the media is the watch dog of our government, they have a moonlight job of being the watch dog of our celebrities. Now, assuming we can analyze their actions, there needs to be a equal and balanced re-action from both sides. Outrage from supporters of JKR's lawsuit constitute the positive side, while articles like OSC's explain the negative side.
NOW READ THIS PART CAREFULLY:
If you are going to call someone out on an error in judgement, would you say it like this: "well, I mean, it's not all that good what your doing... not that you aren't perfect and wonderful and I love you... but... re-considering all this lawsuit business, might be good, I don't know... cause... it's a little mean to Vander Ark, who helped you before. Not that your mean, cause your really nice and... ect."
OR
"Listen, you are screwing someone over who did your work for you in the past, who you gave an AWARD to. He's doing nothing more than he's done in the past, and just making the lexicon available for purchase does not hurt YOUR pockets. You can make one too if you want. It shows GREED that you can't respect someone who you used to respect just because it involves a dollar you think you might lose. It shows VANITY that you think you are the big fish and the end all be all of your literature now that the story book is closed, when you used to praise and thank your fans who had pushed the envelope of discussion before you finally ended the series. It shows you to be an EVIL WITCH when you allow yourself to create lawsuits against people and cause a ruccous over something you have never cause a ruccous over in the past.
Those are three explanations of the three "dirty words" OSC used against JKR in his article.
CRash - All of your "Quotations" were taken out of context. People need to learn to finish READING before the throw there arms up in disgust.
Aris - You seem to think it's so easy to pass judgement on MYSELF, while you ridecule me for passing judgement on others. What makes you think it was so easy? Analysis of a situation, the lexicon, articles and issues that JKR has created in the past and situations she put herself in now can be time consuming. However, if you have been an avid fan of HP for quite sometime, alot of this is common knowledge.
Don't decide I came to this "Sudden" conclusion about JKR when you wont even READ my full explanation. I was showing a possible conclusionary map that OSC may have drawn, displaying in clear cut terms what his words meant.
I will give you that it is just MY analysis. But it is a LOT better than fifteen people mis-quoting him or taking his words out of context.
If YOU are going to decided I am inconsiderate, maybe you should make your case a little better by showing what words I actually said that prove inconsideration, and show them IN CONTEXT, with all the analysis I put into them, then ask me if thats what I meant instead of point the finger.
Listen, I know it's easy to just scream "oh yeah? Well, you are just being a meanie too!" rather than refute the argumentation, believe me, I've done it before. But thats not good debate, and I like good debate. So don't try to prove to me why I AM WRONG, because thats impossible. Try and prove to me why you are right or you make more sense. That is where real debate happens.
Understand all sides, think about where OSC is coming from in his article. We all know he isn't just some crazy ill-informed nutter. So he must have a REASON for saying what he said. Find it. refute it. Don't just call him a crock, because thats the cheap way to argue...
And NO-ONE on hatrack should be cheap, we are all waaaay waaay to smart to be cheap.
quote:Originally posted by Ish: NOW READ THIS PART CAREFULLY:
If you are going to call someone out on an error in judgement, would you say it like this: "well, I mean, it's not all that good what your doing... not that you aren't perfect and wonderful and I love you... but... re-considering all this lawsuit business, might be good, I don't know... cause... it's a little mean to Vander Ark, who helped you before. Not that your mean, cause your really nice and... ect."
OR
"Listen, you are screwing someone over who did your work for you in the past, who you gave an AWARD to. He's doing nothing more than he's done in the past, and just making the lexicon available for purchase does not hurt YOUR pockets. You can make one too if you want. It shows GREED that you can't respect someone who you used to respect just because it involves a dollar you think you might lose. It shows VANITY that you think you are the big fish and the end all be all of your literature now that the story book is closed, when you used to praise and thank your fans who had pushed the envelope of discussion before you finally ended the series. It shows you to be an EVIL WITCH when you allow yourself to create lawsuits against people and cause a ruccous over something you have never cause a ruccous over in the past.
Why are these the only two choices?
Posts: 339 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. I hate simplifying issues. When you come out howling about how greedy a person is and how vane and evil they are, you're not really looking at it from her point of view. Just because she's no longer a single mother on the dole doesn;'t mean she doesn't deserve respect and honour. It's not honourable to go on and on about how much of an evil witch she is when she objects to having a FREE WEBSITE turned into a BOOK for people to pay for that she doesn't think is accurate or that she believes to be a direct lifting from her work. There's a difference between the lexicon as a website and the lexicon as a book. It's not completely accurate, for example, alohamora doesn't necessarily mean good-bye in Hawaiian plus something else. The writer knows a lot more about the series having worked on it for nearly two decades. Disagreeing with someone is all well and good, but you don't have to call them names and disrespect them. It doesn't give a complete enough position. She knows at this point she's richer than the queen. She's got at least two more HP movies she'll get some loot for. But it still doesn't mean she's just suing for her own gain. Like I said, every issue, every situation is MORE COMPLEX than folks think. But OSC articles are frustrating because I don't think he understands that concept. To me most of the articles read, "This is right and if think it's wrong you don't know ANYTHING." And then there's more vitriol. All that does is create more frustration and bitterness and who needs more of that? Why not first do research on each issue from different sides and try to understand someone else without name calling and dissing.
And now I've got to make sure I didn't Diss OSC too much lest someone jump on me for being hypocritical. It's really diffucult to be polite when you just want to yell CHILL ALREADY! DAMN!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't like some of the phrasing in the article, but perhaps the part that I found most upsetting was this quote:
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."
The judgement in that case clearly pointed out that Stouffer falsified her evidence and was fined an additional $500,000 for bad behavior. The judgement included the following:
quote:The motion for sanctions is based upon Stouffer’s alleged perpetration of a fraud upon the Court, namely her production of at least seven pieces of falsified evidence: (i) the altered Playthings advertisement that was attached to her counterclaims (SAAC, Exh. 12); (ii) the altered copies of The Legend of Rah and the Muggles (Choe Decl. Exh. 17-20); (iii) the altered copy of the “RAH” screenplay (SAAC, Exh. 18); (iv) drawings of “Muggles” merchandise that were altered to include the word “Muggles TM” (Choe Decl, Exh. 63); (v) altered copies of Larry Potter and His Best Friend Lilly (Choe Decl., Exh. 24-27); (vi) the forged invoices that purport to record sales by BCI to Great Northern Distributors (SAAC, Exh. 16); and (vii) an altered draft agreement between BCI and Warner Publisher Services. (SAAC, Exh. 17; Choe Decl., Exh 37)
It was very upsetting to see a court case which ended in a summary judgement against the plaintiff for falsifying evidence used to support the theory that much of the plot in the Harry Potter series was borrowed from other works.
Beyond that, the name calling left me much more in upset about the tone of the commentary, than the article. I've used the Lexicon in the past, VanderArk does lift whole passages in the articles. He does usually site the work, although not necessarily to the point of the page which the information came from, (the book is almost always listed). I'm not a lawyer of any kind, so I don't know the legalities, but I know that when I was a college student, lifting a passage from a source without proper citation would have likely gotten me expelled, and proper citation generally includes page numbers in addition to the name of the book.
Do I really think that publishing a few copies of an unofficial encyclopedia is going to reduce the number of the official version that Rowling intends to publish in the future? Probably not. She's stated multiple times that she doesn't intend to even start work on the encyclopedia for some time, it will likely be several years before it reaches bookstores, and most of her fans will be willing to pay for the official version. I'll wait for the outcome of the lawsuit to see what happens.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish: I mean, when you chop up my posting, and start refuting my statements BEFORE YOU READ THE ANALYSIS,
Ish -- if you can't write a concise summary of your argument (e.g. in two paragraphs) don't complain about people chopping up your quotation.
quote:She (JKR) is a member of what we call a celebrity status group, and celebrities are constantly second guessed. Much like the media is the watch dog of our government, they have a moonlight job of being the watch dog of our celebrities. Now, assuming we can analyze their actions, there needs to be a equal and balanced re-action from both sides. Outrage from supporters of JKR's lawsuit constitute the positive side, while articles like OSC's explain the negative side.
Interesting though your social theories may be, I'm not convinced at all by any "celebrity" division line where (if I gather what you mean) it's somehow okay to bash "celebrities" because "they explain the negative side".
I've heard that particular argument used by trolls in every single internet community I've been involved in. Even in the Interactive Fiction community, which probably only numbers some dozens active members, one can find the resident troll that pursues and harasses and bashes the local "celebrities" -- meaning the people who've happened to have contributed slightly more than others. In webcomic forums you likewise get the people that only appear to bash the webcomic, never to praise it.
So basically this is an argument where bashing unjustly on someone or something more popular than yourself is somehow inherently labelled as a service for the community.
I don't buy that. At its core it's not an anti-celebrity message, it's an anti-community message, since "celebrity" is nothing more than shorthand for "those the community admires". At some point, as I've personally witnessed, it becomes hostility towards anyone who achieves anything well-liked.
And I don't believe this is OSC's attitude either, since he's never shown hostility towards JKR before (that's why I find claims that he's now motivated out of jealousy ridiculous) -- therefore if you're excusing OSC's words via this reasoning, I think you're doing him a disservice.
quote:I was showing a possible conclusionary map that OSC may have drawn, displaying in clear cut terms what his words meant.
I think that pretty much everyone with a working understanding of the English language knew (or should know) what OSC's words meant -- I found your explanation thereof pedantic and condescending at spots, but that's of course a matter of taste and opinion. Perhaps some people needed it.
But in clear cut terms, when OSC makes a harsh judgment about JKR's character and you comment "It's true", I tend to believe that you agree with it. Because that's what the English language says it means.
quote:If YOU are going to decided I am inconsiderate, maybe you should make your case a little better by showing what words I actually said that prove inconsideration, and show them IN CONTEXT, with all the analysis I put into them, then ask me if thats what I meant instead of point the finger.
No. I'm not gonna do that. I found your so-called "analysis" meandering and largely meaningless, one of the best examples of what Orwell argued against in his "Politics and the English Language".
When you write sentences like the following: "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." ... then there's nothing either to agree or to disagree with. It's merely irrelevant nonsense -- its only meaning being the pretense of meaning but actual lack thereof.
quote:Understand all sides, think about where OSC is coming from in his article. We all know he isn't just some crazy ill-informed nutter. So he must have a REASON for saying what he said. Find it.
No, I'm not interested in guessing at his reason, if he's not interested in communicating it explicitly to me. The very point of my argument is that I find it presumptuous and arrogant and rude to try and figure out the hidden motivations of people I've never met. I'm not a psychologist. I won't try to psychoanalyze people from a distance.
It's much simpler (and IMO politer) to judge whether people are right or wrong on their positions in particular issues, rather than try to psychoanalize their *motivations* for those positions. I don't care about your motivations. Perhaps your motivation is that your superego is having sex with Freud's mother. That's fine with me.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Aris said nothing as simplistic as what you are saying, and in fact identified many qualities and degrees that are present in what OSC wrote that are not present in what Aris wrote. There are other differences that are implied but not stated that seem readily available to me. He is not, as far as I can tell, taking OSC to task for violations that he himself is making.
I'm sorry, I still don't understand how you feel my post qualifies as a strawman.
Do you believe that Aris criticized OSC for judging JKR on character traits which he cannot know about without extensive personal experience?
Do you believe that Aris criticized OSC for things which he, Aris, cannot know without extensive (or even some) personal experience?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Much like the media is the watch dog of our government, they have a moonlight job of being the watch dog of our celebrities. Now, assuming we can analyze their actions, there needs to be a equal and balanced re-action from both sides.
Ish, as a former member of "the media," I should point out that you're voicing a common misconception. It is often thought that the media should display "fairness" by giving equal time and weight to "both sides" of a story -- but this is wrong. This is a lazy man's substitute for both fairness and accuracy; it's a way of admitting that the reporter hasn't done enough homework to find the facts, and is instead just reporting unsubstantiated opinions.
In other words, that Rowling is a celebrity beloved by many does not mean that the media -- here embodied apparently by OSC -- needs to be extra harsh and/or insulting to her to provide a "balanced" picture. His tone is not somehow justified by her popularity.
quote:I will give you that it is just MY analysis. But it is a LOT better than fifteen people mis-quoting him or taking his words out of context.
Do you think that is what you've seen in this thread? People misquoting Card or taking his words out of context?
quote:We all know he isn't just some crazy ill-informed nutter. So he must have a REASON for saying what he said.
This contains several illogical steps. Consider: 1) We don't actually know that OSC is not crazy, although it's fair to assume he is not. 2) We don't actually know he's not ill-informed about J.K. Rowling's legal position or the specifics of British copyright law. Again, though, we might as well charitably grant this one. 3) Even if he were crazy and ill-informed, he might still have a reason for saying what he said. However, even if he is not crazy or ill-informed, it does not necessarily follow that he has a reason for what he said -- or that his reason(s) are necessarily any good.
quote: So don't try to prove to me why I AM WRONG, because thats impossible.
This, Ish, is why I don't think you're actually any good at debate. You fail to understand that it is possible for someone -- for you, even -- to a) be wrong; and b) be proven wrong to his or her own satisfaction.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you believe that Aris criticized OSC for judging JKR on character traits which he cannot know about without extensive personal experience?
Do you believe that Aris criticized OSC for things which he, Aris, cannot know without extensive (or even some) personal experience?
"You are a woman, and therefore dishonest, impure, and unclean! I must kill you now!" "Get back, you evil man! How can you claim to know the state of my soul?" "You don't know me well enough to call me evil, you hypocritical sow!"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I LOVE how upset people can get at a total stranger just over an essay! What really gets me is, if they didn't hold him in any sort of esteem, they wouldn't care WHAT he said. You can think he's wrong, or you can think he's right. (Personally, on this Rowling thing, I think he's right. She's only one SHORT step below Lucas at the moment, and this law suit may just push her over the top - btw, I like Potter and Star Wars). However, you don't get THIS fired up over someone you consider to be an inconsequencial idiot saying something. Thus, you have to admit you think his intellect has prowess by the very fact that it so deeply offends you that he holds these views.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
