dear JK...

cocob3an-xx

Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2008
Messages
24
Location
theatre - singing, dancing, drama are my favourite
dear JK,
  • why write a new book and not let anyone but very few read it? :eek: everyone wants to read it as you're such a established writer. shame...
  • what's it like going anywhere and knowing people know you're name?
  • what's it like going to a bookshop and seeing your books everywhere? must be a great honour to have your name known all over the world.
  • whos books do you read? (a bit of an FAQ im guessing...)
thanks, Coco x
 
Hi, cocob3an-xx, and welcome to the Chronicles.

This is not an official J. K. Rowling forum in any way, simply part of a larger site of readers and fans. So far as I know, J. K. Rowling has never visited this site -- certainly she has never posted here -- nor does anyone have any expectation that she will. (Although, naturally, many of our members would be thrilled if she did.)

If your questions are rhetorical, I'm sure you will find other fans here willing to speculate on her reasons, also some willing to share what they have learned about her from other sources. But for answers straight from Rowling herself, I'm afraid you'll have to look elsewhere.
 
I'd be surprised if she hasn't answered #4 at some point in an interview... if not something to the effect of #2 and #3.
 
As for the first question, I too was quite disappointed by the limited release of Tales of Beedle the Bard. I think that perhaps she was considering releasing it to the public with the encyclopedia that she's said she's going to do of the wizarding world and the goings-on in the series. Or it might be published later on for the public with proceeds going to charity like the Comic Relief books. Hopefully it does come out in some form for the rest of us though.
 
According to a BBC piece on the current copyright proceedings in America, the case is making her rethink her own plans to compile an encyclopaedia...
 
There have been a lot of guides of that sort to other authors' works. I don't think she is going to win this one in court, but she may influence her fans not to read the book in question. Especially considering the weepy tone of her remarks.

I do think she has a perfect right to be indignant about this -- I've often wondered how people get away with these unauthorized guides -- but somehow she's never seemed to me like the kind of person who could be so easily "decimated."

Anyway, at a creativity level of ninety percent, she's probably remained reasonably prolific.
 
The case in question did seem to refer to the author having copied her work for use in his manuscript. I'm neither an author nor a reader of his original site, on which the book is based, but if the encyclopaedia is verbatim chunks of the book, with no re-writing or paraphrasing then it does seem to be a valid challenge.

On the other hand, as you say, if he's worded everything himself, simply being based on her canon material, then it's a different kettle of fish.
 
Doesn't sound as if Mr Vander Ark has altered that much....about 16%....

Comparing almost identical passages of Mr Vander Ark’s Lexicon with her own work, she denounced his “constant pilfering” and “utter laziness”. “I believe this book constitutes wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work,” she said. “It adds little if anything by way of commentary; the quality of that commentary is derisory; and it debases what I worked so hard to create.
“What particularly galls me is the lack of quotation marks. If Mr Vander Ark had put quotation marks around everything he had lifted, most of the lexicon would be in quotation marks.”

...her lawyers call the lexicon a “rip-off” that lifts 2,034 of its 2,437 entries straight from her work
Times Online
 
But her lawyers call the lexicon a “rip-off” that lifts 2,034 of its 2,437 entries straight from her work. “These things have no existence except in my words, so he has taken my creation,” she said.

That second sentence is rather interesting, as it sounds more like he is copying her ideas than using her exact words. Although elsewhere it says he uses direct quotations without acknowledging them as such (which is reprehensible if true) the number of times he does that may not correspond to the number of entries referenced above.

“It adds little if anything by way of commentary; the quality of that commentary is derisory..."

That's certainly adding insult to injury, and I would imagine is more galling than anything else he has done.
 
Lexicon

I, too, have always been a little surprised by the legal status of "unauthorized guides" of famous works. It certainly is not a new occurance, nor is it exclusive to Rowling's work.

That said, I have read that the court didn't take particularly long to side with the Lexicon. That, however, was not surprising. While I applaud her effort, she had to have known that she would lose. I realize the following is based purely on interviews, which can be misrepresenting at times, but she does come across as if she feels as if not only the industry should bend to her wishes but legal systems should be reconsidered for her sake due to her incredible success. For her to claim that floodgates of sorts shall be swung open suggests, to me, that she is not taking into account that such guides are currently existing for other works on a regular basis without creating the doomsday scenerio that she forewarns.

The law, whether we should agree with it or not, is the law, and this is the not the first time (nor will it be the last time), authors will challenge it....most likely with little success.

That said, there must be a legitimate reason as to why these unauthorized publications are protected by law. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can elaborate?
 
Last edited:
I think the reasoning is that these guides, authorized or not, count as literary criticism or analysis.

But what constitutes Fair Use is always decided on a case by case basis, once it comes to a suit in court. The law remains murky.


Let's see if the link works now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080417/...ter_lawsuit_35

No. I'll try something else.

Still didn't work.
 
Neither of those work for me either, Teresa - I wonder if someone has cast a Confundus Charm on the case?:p

The third one doe...but it doesn't sound like the report McMurphy found.
 
I've been over at Yahoo news typing in every combination I can think of, and there are articles about the case, but none of them with an URL similar to the link you tried to post McMurphy. So, yes, it does seem to have disappeared.
 
It would be interesting to know why they pulled it....an addy that was on their front page a mere twenty minutes prior to my original post.

Maybe it wasn't pulled at all, and the link posting has made this more complicated than need be. The following is what I am trying to post:

Yahoo News said:
By DAVID B. CARUSO, Associated Press Writer

Thu Apr 17, 12:45 AM ET



NEW YORK - A three-day trial over an unauthorized Harry Potter encyclopedia ended Wednesday with a flash of anger from J.K. Rowling.

The British author returned to the witness stand and told a judge that if he allows the fan-written lexicon to be published, it will clear the way for countless rip-offs of her books, as well as those by other authors.

"I believe the floodgates will open," Rowling said, her voice rising. "Are we the owners of our own work?"

Rowling was testifying for the second time in the trial, which began Monday at a federal court in Manhattan. A federal judge will decide whether to grant Rowling's request to block publication of "The Harry Potter Lexicon," a guide to the characters, places and spells in her novels. It was written by Steven Vander Ark, a 50-year-old former middle school librarian who compiled the material from a Web site by the same name that he had been operating for years.

RDR Books, the small publisher that persuaded Vander Ark to put the Web site into print, has argued that it is little different than any other novel reference guide and should be allowed to go to press without interference.

On Wednesday, Rowling said she was "vehemently anti-censorship" and generally supportive of the right of other authors to write books about her novels. But she said Vander Ark had "plundered" her prose and merely reprinted it in an A-to-Z format.

U.S. District Judge Robert Patterson Jr. asked Rowling whether she thought anyone would read the lexicon and its list of facts about the wizarding world for "entertainment value."

"Honestly, no," Rowling said. The good parts, she said, have simply been lifted from her own work.
"I think there are funny things in there, and I wrote them," she said.

A decision in the case is not expected soon. It will be weeks before lawyers finish filing legal documents, and possibly longer before a verdict is rendered. Patterson is deciding the case, rather than a jury.

He also heard Wednesday from dueling experts weighing in on the guide's potential worth to obsessive fans and serious academics.

Jeri Johnson, a dean of English at the University of Oxford's Exeter College, praised Rowling's seven novels as a rich topic for academic research and heaped scorn upon Vander Ark for the unscholarly way he tackled the subject.

RDR Books countered with a literature professor from the University of California, Berkeley, who testified that reference guides like Vander Ark's can help readers navigate jargon-packed fantasy novels such as J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings."

Earlier, Vander Ark had described the book as a modest but extensive guide for fans like himself, and not an attempt at serious scholarship. U.S. copyright law allows teachers, academics, journalists and critics to use excerpts of an author's work, but on a limited basis.

The discussion Wednesday seemed to both delight and dismay the judge, who began the day by urging the two sides to settle out of court.

Patterson likened the trial to the story Charles Dickens told in "Bleak House," a novel about the pain caused by endlessly drawn-out lawsuits in the 19th century British judiciary system.

Patterson predicted a similar fate for the Potter case. He said it involved unresolved areas of American law and was almost certain to end in years of appeals.


"I think this case, with imagination, could be settled," Patterson said.

As the day wore on, however, he seemed fascinated by the subject material, interrupting the lawyers at one point to question the experts himself.

In an exchange with Johnson, Patterson said his firsthand experience with the Harry Potter novels was limited: During a visit by his grandchildren, he read them the first half of the first book in the series.

Even in that quick read, he said, he found Rowling's "magical world" hard to follow, filled with strange names and words that would be gibberish in any other context.

"I found it extremely complex," he said, suggesting there is genuine worth in a book like Vander Ark's, even if does nothing more than index the somewhat ridiculous-sounding names of Rowling's characters.

Johnson acknowledged that there might be worth in such a reference guide — if done properly.
She suggested such a resource would be a fine tool to help a serious reader keep track of the hundreds of minor characters who appear in James Joyce's novels.

The lawyers on both sides of the Lexicon case appeared to be resolved to continue the litigation, although they revealed they have settled some sections of the suit that were not central to the copyright infringement claim.

The first two days of the trial featured emotional testimony, first by Rowling, then by Vander Ark, each of whom said the case had caused them great personal distress.

Rowling implores NYC judge to block publication of guide - Yahoo! News

I do think I read it wrong...the opening line threw me off, and I stumbled from that point on. The trial is over, but the legal paper work and the final decision are not, right?

[PS: Thanks for all your effort in finding the right link, Teresa!]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Back
Top