Gaiman is just so damn nice he could stab in the face and you would forgive him. And then read the book and or comic he wrote about the experience.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: But I don't know why so many folks are making a big deal out of her saying a character that she created and knows more about than anyone else including what kind of drawers he wore is gay. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
Oh I completely agree with him saying it's lazy and unfair to the readership to opt out of dealing with this facet of the character in print. I just think he's way out of line for being such a major pill about another author's literary decisions. But then, OSC has been the victim/recipient of similarly predatory analysis, so one wonders why he isn't more accustomed and or sensitive to other authors who find themselves in similar situations. If OSC can dictate the meanings of his books and scoffs at revisionist analysis of his work (by revisionist, I mean seeking alternate motivations and meanings), then it's curious he would condemn another for taking a similar liberty, even if she does so a tad more liberally than he does.
But since OSC in fact has and routinely does make ex officio proclamations about the fates of characters, and actually takes the liberty of rewriting his books to suit his present needs, scolding JKR about asserting herself in her own literary kingdom is just plain hypocrisy. He's still right, but he can't be right about this without also being wrong about a number of things he's done that cross the same line.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think he's right. Dumbledore being gay didn't have anything to do with the story that was about Harry kicking Voldermort's butt. That's why it didn't come up. No one knows if McGonagal has a husband or if Flinch is with the librarian because it's not really part of the story. Now Snape on the other hand, that was a cool part of the story. So again, why is it a big deal for her to answer the question of a fan at an event where fans ask questions? I don't think it was self-serving one bit. She also mentioned that it didn't work out with Hagrid and Madame Maxine because a fan asked about that. The fan was rather disappointed by that answer. Besides, at least she's not rewriting the story in such a way to ruin the original story. ><. How much like Star Wars.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's purely an academic question whether you believe she should be saying such things or not, as an author. Practically speaking, it's her prerogative, and again practically speaking, OSC is not one in a great position to lodge moral or philosophical protests against that kind of behavior.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, it seems to me that it does have something to do with the story.
[SPOILER ALERT]
To wit, was his youthful relationship with Voldemort romantic (and/or sexual) or not? If it was, that makes his turning away all the more powerful. Friendship just doesn't have the same impact.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Actually, it seems to me that it does have something to do with the story.
[SPOILER ALERT]
To wit, was his youthful relationship with Voldemort romantic (and/or sexual) or not? If it was, that makes his turning away all the more powerful. Friendship just doesn't have the same impact.
Voldermort? Do you mean Grindelwald?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would disagree about the importance of the fact that Dumbledore was gay. In the last story, part of Dumbledore's story was that he was tempted by power. Adding in that he was really in love with the character that tempted him weakens that aspect of the story. Also, one of the recurrent themes is the power of love for good. Now we have Dumbledore in love and it nearly destroying him (though I guess gay love just isn't good- good thing Dumbledore as far as we know stayed single- who knows what else would have happened). So, adding this detail weakens motivations and themes. And honestly, I don't see why liberal gay lovers would want Dumbledore to be gay when the only example given was how it almost drove him to be one of the great evils of the century. It is totally Rowlings right to do it though. It's her story, she wants to make it weaker, that is her right as the author.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The friendship wasn't with Voldemort, it was with that other guy who's name I think begins with G. Rowling said that Dumbledore DID have an unreciprocated attraction to... G-guy, which might be kind of significant, but I'm not sure how to have realistically dealt with that in-story, other than for Dumbledore to say "By the way, I had an unreciprocated attraction to G-guy."
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rowling can believe that Dumbledore is gay all she likes, but since it was not in the books in either an explicit or implicit way, it is up to each reader to determine if it is part of their own mental image of the story. It is not part of mine. So basically, in my mind Dumbledore is not gay.
It's not that I have a problem with him being gay or not being gay. It's just that it wasn't dealt with that way. In fact, it bothered me that it wasn't dealt with at all.
I was always very curious about the teachers' personal lives. They all seemed single and childless, which struck me as odd. In fact, there seemed to be an awful lot of only children among the main cast of students and a lot of childless adults among the main cast of adults/teachers. In a few cases it made sense -- Lupin was a wer-wolf and he did eventually have a kid. Serius was in prison. Peter was hiding as a rat. But what about McGOnical? Flitwick?
I could forgive Rowling for not explaining them all. I mean, these teachers' backgrounds were never given in any detail so perhaps, that was irrelevant.
But why not Dumbledore? Rowling spent a lot of time on his character and back story in the books. He was important. His lust for power, his ambition, his reason for deciding to become a teacher, etc. But among other things, Dumbledore was an advocate for love. He talked about it constantly, so where was the love in his life? He was aloof from the students, even from Harry who he was supposed to have been closest to. Almost no one knew him. His brother disliked him, even hated him. Who did Dumbledore love?
The answer eludes me to this day. Rowling says he was gay but my response to that is: So? That still doesn't explain why he didn't love, the way he told others to love. If he was gay, she needed to deal with that. Was he ashamed of it? Afraid of the disrespect he would receive? Would parents have demanding his resignation?
But it wasn't there. It wasn't dealt with and so the answer remains: Why didn't Dumbledore love?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most kids don't know much about their teachers and principals. Some of them probably think they sleep at the school.
But, he probably loved- Harry His sister his brother, even though he hated him his mom and dad his friends Grindelwald until he killed his sister. Dude probably didn't trust himself with falling in love anymore than he trusted himself with power. Hence why he decided to devote himself to fighting evil, teaching kids, ect.
So... there could be the possibility JKR didn't get that far into the story too. She'll probably answer those sort of questions in the Encyclopedia Potteratica.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It probably says alot about me that I read Synesthesias phrase as, "Encyclopedia Potterotica."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You shudder, but I do a happy dance. But I've been having one of those weeks where I read such good fanfiction that I was thinking about all the published sequels to "Pride and Prejudice" or "Gone With the Wind" and start to wonder if I'll live to see published "Harry Potter" fanfiction on bookstore shelves.
Anyway, I know there was a good part of the fandom that suspected Dumbledore was gay before Rowling made the public statement. I was shocked when I heard since I thought it was a possibility she'd never touch with a ten-foot pole, but I accepted it almost immediately after. With all the subtext and clues in the final book, it was revelation that felt very true to his character. I have no doubt that romance, like many aspects of Dumbledore's life, is a complicated and mysterious issue.
And after the sickeningly sweet epilogue which seemed way too easy in light of the depth and complexity of the books, I am happy to grab onto any answers that may not appear in the books but ring true to the story and its characters. Dumbledore's romantic and sexual history is included on that list. Makes tons more sense than the canonical Harry and Ginny romance and what I can only imagine is a disturbing adult relationship (their kids are only named after people important in HIS life?!)
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shanna: And after the sickeningly sweet epilogue which seemed way too easy in light of the depth and complexity of the books, I am happy to grab onto any answers that may not appear in the books but ring true to the story and its characters. Dumbledore's romantic and sexual history is included on that list.
I hated the epilogue. Worst part of any of the books. Did kind of a "happily ever after" hand waving without any depth or real closure. So I, too, was interested in answers. But I found that as she listed random facts about who marries who and the jobs that the students get later in life that I preferred my own take on it. It all seemed to neat and clean. The aftermath of such a disruptive event is never that way. I mean, all these kids missed their last year of school. Did that matter? Besides, I really thought Harry would become a teacher. I know he'd been dreaming of becoming an auror but that was too simple, especially after he'd gone and taken a wand whose power he wanted to break. Besides, it seemed to me that after he grew up he might find he wanted things to become a little quieter. It's not like he ever went looking for trouble.
So after all that, I changed my mind about the epilogue. It was fine and allowed me to imagine for myself what became of each of the characters. Don't get me wrong, I would have preferred some closure, but an epilogue that would have done that would have been much, much longer. I think I didn't want to see a glimpse 20 years later. I would have preferred just a short year, to see the direction things were heading. But there's almost a new story there.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: What's up with OSC and Rowling anyway? He just suddenly really doesn't like her? His tone towards her is pretty simpering now. I don't remember this being the case before.
Orson Scott Card on Rowling, prior to rowling responding to a reader's question by clarifying that dumbledore was gay.
quote: These past few months, I have read the books aloud to my seven-year-old daughter, except for the portion of the fourth book we listened to on tape during a recent car trip to Florida. Zina was enthralled, of course; but so was I, and so was my wife, who only entered the series with the fourth book.
These aren't children's books, really. They are morally subtle, deftly humorous, with a depth that rewards repeated reading and a satirical edge that only adults can fully appreciate. J.K. Rowling is not just talented, she's also smart and wise and just the tiniest bit viperous as she takes on the world around her and shows it for what it really is. These are, in fact, serious books by a first-rate literary mind.
quote:J.K. Rowling wrote a morally complex, illuminating, intelligent, wise, loving, and Good story; by being faithful to her vision, to her tale, these filmmakers were able to create something finer than mere talent alone can create.
quote:Rowling is too good -- she has learned too much -- it would be a waste if she let some longing to be acceptable to the boneheads at the New York Times and the various university English departments keep her from writing more novels that use all that she has learned from writing this massive work.
But whatever she does, there is this:
3. She has already written one of the enduring works of English literature. If that's all she writes in her life, except for little bits of this and that, it will be enough.
And every few years, I will pull out the first book -- perhaps in the edition that finally admits Americans are not idiots and restores "Philosopher's Stone" to the title -- and start it all over again. The way I do with Lord of the Rings, Foundation, Pride and Prejudice, and precious few other books.
Then after the announcement that dumbledore was gay:
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.
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.
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.
Rowling has now shown herself to lack a brain, a heart and courage. Clearly, she needs to visit Oz.
quote:Their treatment of their one gay character is as appallingly hypocritical as J.K. Rowling's announcement that Dumbledore is gay. Instead of making us know and understand the character as a gay man, we are slapped with it at the end, as if being gay were just an afterthought.
Because I oppose the legalization of "gay marriage," I am often attacked as a homophobe. But as a writer, I would never show such disrespect toward a homosexual character as to treat him or her the way Mamma Mia! (and Rowling) treated theirs. Having a gay character, for them, is merely an attempt to show how politically correct they are. In my fiction, having a gay character requires a commitment to treat him or her as fairly and deeply as I treat my straight characters.
Don't these writers actually know any gay people? I mean know them, as friends, as family members, as colleagues? I can't believe they do. Because if they did, they could never treat their gay characters with such contempt.
quote:Rowling's hypocrisy is so thick I can hardly breathe
After that point he has constantly attributed negative motivations and hubris to pretty much all of rowling's actions, chided her constantly, and gone on errant tirades about her behavior.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But sneering at what the middle class and lower class do is what liberal intellectuals thrive on. Then they vote for Democrats and pretend they love the "common man." They just despise everything the common man buys and eats and wears and reads and listens to on the radio.
(And don't deny it -- I've been to your little soirees where you sip your wine and cheese and smoke your weed and mock the hideous monstrous people who shop at WalMart and eat at McDonald's. If you push me, I'll name names.)
bonus points to the first person to come up with a quote from osc chiding this very sort of behavior.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
EDIT: On second thoughts, it's not necessarily revealing of anything specific, but it's pretty dramatic. The work goes from standing for itself if she never writes anything else, to being almost worthless.
posted
I'm personally of the opinion that whatever OSC's privately held beliefs, or more appropriately his feelings about the books themselves, he spoke glowingly and extensively about them when it suited his political and ideological purposes to do so. He likewise denigrated them when he felt that would further his public message. Before, when he was fighting the good fight against the heathen English Departments and their dastardly wine and cheese parties, JKR was a goddess, noble and true. Now that he perceives her willingness to mingle with or be influenced by that community (and more importantly expressed some feeble wish to be gay-friendly) -which is her prerogative, along with all her publicity, whether he likes it or not- she is a wretched and exhausted hag of literary borrowing; a pimped out old authoress with nothing left to offer the world but her sad pandering to the evil Literary Elite and their mind snatching skulduggery.
OSC is not so inconsistent if you maintain a constant focus on his goals, rather than on his stated opinions of the moment. I can honestly never tell, as I suspect is true of many of his readers, whether an article about a particular person or book or movie, no matter the content or style or genre of the work, or the politics of the person, whether OSC is going about to compose an epic love song of undying devotion to a wisely radical or subtly beautiful and powerful person/book/movie, or if he's going to write a screed of ugly vitriol, in which he accuses the person/book/movie of being part of the disgusting machinations of the Elite Conspiracy to such the public's brains out of our ears for caviar.
Hyperbole aside, I find it nearly impossible to predict what his reactions to various things will be, but I always know -mark: always- that if there is a point to be had, it will be one at the cost of the shadowy and evil Other, at once ever-present, but never firmly associated with actual people or even actual institutions, to which said book/movie/person has either unwisely pandered, or has wisely and justly flouted. It doesn't seem to matter which.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow... That's not very nice at all. Seriously. It's not as if she tackled him. Or scratched up his car. Or ate his dog! He's so harsh against her. I can see not agreeing with her about the suing and all, but he's just being too mean so it puts me on her side. As she seems like a nice person, and it's not like he personally knows her. Plus I was so moved by that show she was in and how she was crying because she was back in her old apartment and the person there had HP books. She seems nice.
Also, for the most part I don't think I'm fond of the so-called common man because it's their fault there's so many stupid shows on television and stupid movies. Also boring music. And I hate Walmart for their bad business practices and overwhelming stores (though they did have batman boxers which I didn't get to buy.) Plus they censor CDs! That's so annoying. And McDonald's food is not that good, though the nuggets are not so bad, I'd rather have sushi. So I shall run off, drink some tea with my pinky up and moscato wine when I get money for some and LOOK DOWN ON THE COMMON MAN and their BAD TASTE when it comes to all kinds of stuff! hahaha!
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: oh cool and I just read this
quote:But sneering at what the middle class and lower class do is what liberal intellectuals thrive on. Then they vote for Democrats and pretend they love the "common man." They just despise everything the common man buys and eats and wears and reads and listens to on the radio.
(And don't deny it -- I've been to your little soirees where you sip your wine and cheese and smoke your weed and mock the hideous monstrous people who shop at WalMart and eat at McDonald's. If you push me, I'll name names.)
bonus points to the first person to come up with a quote from osc chiding this very sort of behavior.
posted
Samprimary: I actually find Card's opinions on Rowling to be fluid and consistent. He likes her books but he has problems with her. His initial reviews, the ones you said were before her announcement that Dumbledore was gay, were of her stories. The things he said later had to do with her politics, her ridiculous lawsuit (and I agree 110% with him on that one; that really got to me), and her handling of backstory revelations that were not in the books.
I agree with him that if Dumbledore was gay, if this was important enough that she knew it in her notes and was able to say so to people after the fact, then she was a coward not to mention it when it would have been relevant. As much as I disagree with Card on almost everything homosexual, it is at least true that he has openly gay characters in his books and handles them in a manner that is consistent with his views. This view is not consistent with my own but it is eye-opening.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a matter of opinion, of course. I think he has gay characters in his books to prop them up as dummies for his ideas about society, and how terrible homosexuality is, and I don't find that to be especially honest or fair of him. Well, at least turning around and claiming he's doing it for the good of his work may be dishonest, but for all I know that's what he really believes.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a fantastic idea, lets all demonstrate how much we dislike JK Rowling being railed upon by castigating Orson Scott Card.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it was cowardly, again, the story wasn't Dumbledore and His Affinity for Men it's Harry Potter trying to get Voldermort. It doesn't have anything to do with the story at all, and she was answering a fan's question. So it's not self-serving or politically correct or any of that stuff he says.
Also he annoys me with his gay characters because he does not respect them as gay people and uses them as a political lecture tool. He's doing what he accuses JKR of doing when she's not really doing that at all because it's not like she announced it to a news source or something. Sheesh.
I was on the fence about the lawsuit, but him railing at her and calling her a witch put me on her side 100%. Because that just wasn't very nice at all. I could see if she grabbed him and mooshed his face into a cowpie. Then I'd be on his side going, that wasn't very nice. But she didn't DO anything to him personally so there was no reason for him to insult her. Dude could have been like, I don't agree with this law suit without being impolite about it.
Though I do hope I'm not being rude to him by disagreeing with him in a rude way. As I hate being rude and I'd be hypocritical, but dude's been building up annoyance in me for a while.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What a fantastic idea, lets all demonstrate how much we dislike JK Rowling being railed upon by castigating Orson Scott Card.
I don't mean to be rude, but he's been annoying me for years like this. I'm quite slow to anger, but I've got to keep it real and point out that being rude like that is irritating.
But I wonder if there's a way to do that without being rude. It's not like I want to hurt someone's feelings. Also I love JK Rowling. She's an inspiration. Making money doing what she wanted to do. Writing stories that have made me happy and entertained. She's awesome.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What a fantastic idea, lets all demonstrate how much we dislike JK Rowling being railed upon by castigating Orson Scott Card.
You're right. We should never speak of these things. We should always remain silent, as is our duty.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... it will be one at the cost of the shadowy and evil Other, at once ever-present, but never firmly associated with actual people or even actual institutions ...
But almost always associated with religious concepts and terminology Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's my point, funny or not. It's basically OSC slapping the faces of liberals and shouting: "BE GONE EVIL SPIRITS! BE GUAOUN!"
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't really have a problem with JKR not including Dumbledore's sexual orientation in the book. You could write lots of stories where the sexuality of an elderly man doesn't matter in the narrative. In fact, you could write lots of stories where the sexuality of everyone doesn't matter terribly much.
I can see why she might leave it out. If it only comes up at the very climax of the book, it could be highly distracting from what we actually want to think about while we're reading the last book n the series. If the plot hinged on a sexual love rather than platonic love, it could be a little challenging to children who haven't really got the hang of the difference between Mummy and Daddy's love and the way the parents love their children. I can see that these two reasons might make it easier to leave the exact type of love out completely.
We know that Dumbledore feels love, platonic or not, very fiercely. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, to go back to an earlier point in the discussion, why if people dislike some book or music or story that millions of people have loved for decades, do people so often assume the lack is in the story and not in themselves?
I mean, I do it too. For a long time I was sure nobody truly liked Mozart, they were all just pretending because they thought it was cool to like Mozart, but I mean of course nobody could actually LIKE him because he totally sucks, you know?
But surely the fact that so many people love Tolkien so much means something. I've read the LotR books probably 15 times. I think they're amazing. They're among my favorite stories ever. And I've read a lot of books, and I have good taste.
So if someone hates Tolkien, I think the fault is in them and not in Tolkien, who was absolutely awesome. You obviously just do not get it, you know? I felt I had to say that to the Tolkien h8rz.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC was much more complimentary of this movie than any other published critic I've seen, and in this review he is only guilty of suggesting that Tolkien is a better writer than Rowling. And he didn't even bring up the knitting magazine. I think it's a good thing OSC is able to revise his opinion of people as time goes on, for good and for bad.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is necessarily a fault in someone to not look Tolkein or Mozart or anything else. It is just a matter of personal preference. Kind of like how my daughter only likes clothes that feature sweets on them, while her friend likes princess clothes and another friends sports themed.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mozart doesn't suck. He wrote the Great Mass in C Minor, which is spectacular. I adore me some Mozart.
But, perhaps it's a matter of chemistry and liking what you like. Not everyone likes the same thing, lest life be boring and dull. Not everyone can understand the beauty and appeal of heavy metal or classical. I don't understand why you'd want to listen to nothing for 4 minutes and 33 seconds. THAT'S NOT MUSIC, but some folks think that's brilliant. There are people who do not like chocolate. it's scandalous, but what can you do?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I think it's a good thing OSC is able to revise his opinion of people as time goes on, for good and for bad.
Changing opinions: good
Reducing oneself over time to uncalled-for, venomous and tired vitriol: bad
quote:His initial reviews, the ones you said were before her announcement that Dumbledore was gay, were of her stories. The things he said later had to do with her politics, her ridiculous lawsuit (and I agree 110% with him on that one; that really got to me)
No, OSC gushed praise about her person as well. Called her wise, once exclaimed giddily that she should get the nobel peace prize or something. Oops, that all got reversed. Now she's an evil witch.
But let's talk about the lawsuit.
OSC was wrong about the lawsuit.
Let's talk about that.
Here's OSC:
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.
Yes, calling her an evil witch.
Super classy, I'm sure.
Okay, so he fully expected that this frivolous stupid suit would be thrown out.
Unfortunately, to reference the facts of the case presented even here on this forum:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Cara: There is zero justification for the theft of someone else's work.
By not providing appropriate citation, by not providing quotations to show work, and by not adding anything of analytic value, he was indeed claiming her work as his own.
From the RDR website:
Does the Lexicon appear to have Ms. Rowling's blessing? No, the Lexicon makes it perfectly clear that this unique reference resource is in no way endorsed by Ms. Rowling or Warner Bros. In fact, this is clearly spelled out to the reader. It is an original book with a vast array of independently written scholarly reference materials.
From the letter that RDR set to Mr. Meyers on October 11, 2007---pre-litigation:
...like all material on the 1,000-plus-page Harry Potter Lexicon, is the original work of Mr. Vander Ark and his elite team of academic scholars, literary critics, and reference librarians.
Now, here's OSC's OWN WORDS on the subject.
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.
And Vander Ark was just copying whole parts of her book wholesale and claiming it explicitly as an original work. OSC's own words show what he's missing about this situation, and why he was wrong.
Thus, the result of the court case.
quote:On the 8th of September 2008, Rowling won her copyright case against RDR Books.[11]
Lexicon publisher RDR Books said:
"We are encouraged by the fact the court recognised that as a general matter authors do not have the right to stop the publication of reference guides and companion books about literary works."
Judge Patterson said that reference materials were generally useful to the public but that in this case, Vander Ark went too far. Of the book's 2437 entries, 2034 simply lift information, and even text, straight from the series.
"While the Lexicon, in its current state, is not a fair use of the Harry Potter works, reference works that share the Lexicon's purpose of aiding readers of literature generally should be encouraged rather than stifled," he said.
He said he ruled in Ms Rowling's favour because the "Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide".
and, in a premonition of this event's reception by some,
quote:Novelist Joanna Trollope commented in The Times that, "This is not a matter of that age-old - and impossible - difficulty of the plagiarism of ideas. It is something much easier to define, and a danger to all writers. It is - let's not mince our words - the theft of someone's writing, someone's own words stolen in exactly the form in which their brain produced them. And it's a theft to which all writers are vulnerable. Jo Rowling didn't have to do this. I should think that her time in New York was horrible, exacerbated by a lack of support caused, no doubt, by deeply unattractive sourness over her wealth. Well, I applaud her, and I bet I'm not alone. I am thrilled for her, and very grateful to her, for taking the stand she did - and winning."[33]
aaanyway.
/edit oh and apparently it's his birthday today well, i guess I have a strange way of celebrating that, woo hoo.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
But she did not. I could see why she sued that fellow. If it's most of her work without him contributing a lot to it, I could see why she was annoyed.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I don't think it is necessarily a fault in someone to not look Tolkein or Mozart or anything else. It is just a matter of personal preference. Kind of like how my daughter only likes clothes that feature sweets on them, while her friend likes princess clothes and another friends sports themed.
No, those other kids are part of the Intellectual Elite. Hide your cheese and wine.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: What a fantastic idea, lets all demonstrate how much we dislike JK Rowling being railed upon by castigating Orson Scott Card.
I don't mean to be rude, but he's been annoying me for years like this. I'm quite slow to anger, but I've got to keep it real and point out that being rude like that is irritating.
But I wonder if there's a way to do that without being rude. It's not like I want to hurt someone's feelings. Also I love JK Rowling. She's an inspiration. Making money doing what she wanted to do. Writing stories that have made me happy and entertained. She's awesome.
I get that, I too feel he was a bit overly harsh in some of his comments, but I don't disagree entirely with some of his points. I didn't really like that JK Rowling did that whole post-book reveal thing. But no matter how mad I get at something, I try to talk about what I object to rather than expressing mere objection.
----
Orincoro: I know you that you know I was not suggesting that course of action.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
" I didn't really like that JK Rowling did that whole post-book reveal thing."
See, I don't get this at all. In response to a question, she said "I always thought of Dumbledore as gay." It seems to me that if you are writing a central character to a book who is prominent in the world you envision, you have some sort of backstory to him. That probably means he has a past history of loves, and lovers. ESPECIALLY if one of the points that character hammers on in the story is how powerful love is. Without having that backstory, either as notes or conceptualized in your head, will the character be as real as if you do? Probably not. If someone asks you about the backstory that you have, there are two responses: Be truthful, or say "I don't want to answer that question."
What purpose is served by "I don't want to answer that question?"
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I didn't really like that JK Rowling did that whole post-book reveal thing.
Right, but an event such as the post-book reveal thing, or even a controversial event such as a lawsuit or outing a character as gay, won't devolve you to calling her a greedy evil brainless cowardly vain witch etc etc etc. Tone (in this case, the 'simpering' tone noted) and the vituperative conceit and contempt pouring out of that tone, is worth criticizing, and it's what I note.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: " I didn't really like that JK Rowling did that whole post-book reveal thing."
See, I don't get this at all. In response to a question, she said "I always thought of Dumbledore as gay." It seems to me that if you are writing a central character to a book who is prominent in the world you envision, you have some sort of backstory to him. That probably means he has a past history of loves, and lovers. ESPECIALLY if one of the points that character hammers on in the story is how powerful love is. Without having that backstory, either as notes or conceptualized in your head, will the character be as real as if you do? Probably not. If someone asks you about the backstory that you have, there are two responses: Be truthful, or say "I don't want to answer that question."
What purpose is served by "I don't want to answer that question?"
posted
Syn top quotes from the bottom. Kids these days, with their bottom quoting and their tight jeans and their reefers.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, the point I was trying to make was that even though I loathe Mozart and always will, I should have assumed I just didn't get him, rather than assuming that Mozart sucks, since so many people seem genuinely to like him a whole lot. The same is true for Tolkien, and also for Dickens, who is another one whose books really annoy me.
That's why I was objecting to people dissing Tolkien in this thread, I mean. Because they should realize that Tolkien was an absolute genius and if they don't like him, it's not because he's bad but just that they personally don't get him.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, he was brilliant, but it;s hard for me to get into stuff after the Hobbit because it is heavy English writing.
BUT MOZART IS SO AWESOME! Have you even heard the Requiem? The Great Mass in C Minor? I AM SCANDALIZED! Have you seen Amadeus at least?! *scandalized*
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Syn, the point I was trying to make was that even though I loathe Mozart and always will, I should have assumed I just didn't get him, rather than assuming that Mozart sucks, since so many people seem genuinely to like him a whole lot. The same is true for Tolkien, and also for Dickens, who is another one whose books really annoy me.
That's why I was objecting to people dissing Tolkien in this thread, I mean. Because they should realize that Tolkien was an absolute genius and if they don't like him, it's not because he's bad but just that they personally don't get him.
posted
No, Tatiana, I'm with you part of the way, but only part. The proof of a work's greatness elusive, but one thing we are aware of and can measure is popularity. You (I think mistakenly) attest Tolkein's popularity as a merit that is necessarily a proof of genius (specifically artistic rather than marketing or psychological), and furthermore that it is necessarily proof of greatness.
However, we can see that at least this particular metric does not stand up across the board. For instance, the Model T Ford at the time of its production was the most popular car ever sold, and for a pretty long while. It was a work of marketing and engineering genius, but in comparison with the cars of today, it doesn't stand up. It's not a great car anymore- not next to the new cars, in measurements of what cars are supposed to do.
How does that relate to art you ask? Well, only kind of. But Mozart, as another example, attained huge popularity during his lifetime, and achieved sustained and lasting popularity that has in fact continued to increase virtually continuously for the last two centuries. He is in fact more popular in the present day than at any time in the past. His case is complicated by the fact that the medium of his greatest success, recordings, was not the medium for which he originally wrote, but nevertheless his music, by virtue of being music, arrives to the modern listener in relatively complete form, often very much as it would have been two centuries ago.
Tolkein, on the other hand, is too new to be compared to Mozart. What happens when Tolkein's English becomes too dated to be read easily by casual readers in the original? There's a reason people largely stopped reading Robinson Crusoe, though it was formerly the most popular novel in the English language. Did it get less great? The ability for the work to transcend translation and time are important factors. Tolkein just hasn't had the time to prove he can do that, and considering how much of his work was seen as unfilmable, even as his original does remain popular, makes me wonder how long it will be before Tolkein's work is so anachronistic as to be inaccessible.
There's nothing wrong with that, btw. That would just mean that, like 99.9999999 percent of all works of art, Tolkein's will likely not transcend the centuries into the distant future. Probably, neither will Mozart, but Mozart has a leg up already. And even when works do fade, their effects on new works remain, and set the paths for the next great works to appear. That's why one generation favored Salieri, while the next doted on Beethoven, rediscovered Bach, and finally came around to deifying Mozart years after his death, and lifting him to the pinnacle of artistic creation- he endured, while the others, even though their influence was felt even more greatly, subsided, or took secondary roles.
But no one doubted Mozart's music on the merits where Tolkein's work does lose points. I'm not convinced that Tolkein will ever overcome what OSC might call the "elitism" of whatever you want to envision as the "literary establishment." Fact is, Tolkein doesn't offer a lot to learn in the way of style to a broad range of authors. He offers inspiration to *some* but I don't think to many. Maybe that's wrong, and he does, but I don't think so. I think his work is popular now because of the whole package- his personality, the languages he worked out, the breadth of the work, and the new stories in them,. He's a model-T Ford- everything in working order and ready to be delivered. But I think all of that will fade very quickly, and be out of date before too long, and I don't think a lot will be left of Tolkein in a few generations.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Tolkein, on the other hand, is too new to be compared to Mozart. What happens when Tolkein's English becomes too dated to be read easily by casual readers in the original? There's a reason people largely stopped reading Robinson Crusoe, though it was formerly the most popular novel in the English language. Did it get less great? The ability for the work to transcend translation and time are important factors.
Yeah, it's because Robinson Crusoe is an awful book. The language is frustrating, the story is boring and the narrator's a snob to boot. In my opinion, the reason it was the most popular novel in the English language was because it was the first.
Interestingly enough, I was assigned that book the same summer I read the first two Harry Potters
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
