26 responses so far ↓

• 1 revgeorge // Apr 21, 2008 at 5:40 pm

  Leaky has been good in posting lots of links to various news articles & opinion pieces about the trial.

  So, if you’re not tired of it all yet & prefer to wallow in the literary version of the OJ trial, check out all the links they give. Here’s one, pro-SVA, to start you off.

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/19/harrypotter.harrypotter

• 2 reyhan // Apr 21, 2008 at 11:49 pm

  revgeorge,

  I read these opinion pieces, God knows why, since all that happens is I get worked up.

  This particular columnist’s take is that JKR doesn’t have a leg to stand on because: SVSA’s lexicon will only have an initial run of 10,000 copies, vs 3 million for JKR’s encyclopaedia, so why is she whining; JKR gave away the right to complain when she endorsed the online version of the lexicon and also used it to check her own facts; and JKR is in a poor position to complain about the debasement of her work because she has agreed to theme parks using HP. And a few digs at JKR, in order to ridicule her and her books, including a totally irrelevant quote about how the judge found JKR’s neologisms “gibberish”, a story about Groucho Marx, and a comparison of JKR to a man who sued a strip club over being caught in the eye by a lap dancer’s shoe.

  Witty and clever, or catty and shallow. Take your pick.

• 3 revgeorge // Apr 22, 2008 at 12:20 am

  reyhan,

  Yeah, it was a bit over the top. Any valid points the author of that editorial had to make were pretty washed out by the ridiculousness of some of their statements & examples.

  So, my giving of that link wasn’t an endorsement but just a taste of what’s been going on out there. There are plenty of pro-Jo editorials, too.

  But as for me, I’m not sure I support either one of them any more, at least in this trial. The judge is the only one making any sense.

• 4 Rebekah // Apr 23, 2008 at 4:31 pm

  Thanks for posting the link, in case you can’t tell by now i’m vastly interested in this whole issue. I think what the reporter failed to identify, and I’m shocked, is that an HP theme park is not in the same medium as a hardbound book with words….her words…and Steves name on the front. If someone wanted to make a coaster of my art that’s one thing, but making a painting on canvas is something entirely different. I think this is why JKR may be more sensitive to the whole thing. It’s a tangible book..it’s her artistic medium being manhandled…would SVA and RDR been more successful at their endeavors had they waited a year…or maybe five after the release of the last book in the series? Perhaps.

• 5 Rebekah // Apr 23, 2008 at 4:38 pm

  *Edit*

  If someone wanted to make a play about one of my paintings Better example to compare/contrast the theme park to a literary novel

• 6 revgeorge // Apr 23, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  Rebekah, I think the reason the person writing that particular article was a little overboard was that it was an editorial, so the writer didn’t necessarily have to be too ‘reasonable.’

  I still think the main point in this case is not whether SVA has the right to make a lexicon type work. He does have that right & even the JKR & WB lawyers have agreed on that. It’s about how much of her work he can use in his work without violating fair use laws. JKR & WB are arguing that he is using too much of Jo’s material, to the point that he’s essentially plagiarizing it.

• 7 reyhan // Apr 23, 2008 at 9:42 pm

  revgeorge,

  I’m not sure that SVA - or anyone - has the right to publish a lexicon of JKR’s terms without JKR’s consent. That is because a lexicon, by definition, when it’s not a dictionary or the vocabulary of a language, is a repertorie or inventory . No critical analysis or added value needed in order to make an inventory. If the law was that clear that making an inventory was “fair use”, then there would be no court case.

  The making of this particular inventory, on the other hand, is contentious. Perhaps because the items in it are not public domain, unlike the vocabulary of a language which has so many contributors that it would be impossible to assign ownership to any particular person, even if they were not long dead. The items in this particular inventory are the brainchildren of one particular person, very much alive, who can prove that even if she didn’t create the words, e.g. muggles, house elves, crucio, voldemort or felix felicis, they have a unique meaning in the context of her text, which unique meaning was supplied by her. And that doesn’t even take into consideration the “neologisms” such as Dementors or pensieve or Hogwarts.

  So what we have here is one person typing up an inventory of the terms created or given a unique meaning by another person, with the intent of making money from it.

• 8 revgeorge // Apr 23, 2008 at 10:09 pm

  Reyhan,

  I’m just going by the coverage, & not editorials, of the case. It was mentioned that JKR & WB don’t necessarily dispute SVA’s ability to make a lexicon. They just think his descriptions of the words & persons in the lexicon lift too much from JKR’s own work. And they’re probably right. But if he could do it without lifting so much content straight from Jo, he could legally do it, from what I’ve understood from the case so far.

• 9 revgeorge // May 1, 2008 at 5:10 pm

  Orson Scott Card weighs in on the Lexicon suit & he doesn’t take kindly to Ms. Rowling’s suit. Interesting stuff by another author of well known works.

  http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2008-04-20.shtml

• 10 reyhan // May 1, 2008 at 5:27 pm

  John Granger posted OSC’s comments at his website as well.

  “Doesn’t take kindly” doesn’t begin to descibe the sheer venom and vituperation of OSC’s comments. They are so intensely personal that I’m wondering if there is a more personal reason for the animosity. Is OSC connected with SVA or RDR in some fashion? Did JKR say something negative about his work?

  Does anyone know if there is a backstory to this?

• 11 reyhan // May 1, 2008 at 5:34 pm

  Never mind. I just read the whole article and I think I see where he’s coming from.

  OSC claims that Harry Potter was inspired by Ender’s Game. He says he’s also contributed to something like the Lexicon.

  That would explain the venom: it is personal.

• 12 revgeorge // May 1, 2008 at 5:42 pm

  I don’t know if there’s any back story or not. Other than, while Card is a well known author & has had quite a lot of success in sci fi, still he’s not as well known nor as popular or as wealthy as somebody who came out nowhere & hit it big with her very first work. I don’t know if that’s it or not. But it is interesting to see how another author views this lawsuit & the possible effects it may have on the industry.

  Frankly, I’ve never read anything at all by Card. Just hasn’t fit my interest. My wife says he’s a very good author & his Ender’s Game is considered a classic. But she hasn’t read anything by him lately since he seems to be just writing variations of Ender’s Game.

• 13 revgeorge // May 1, 2008 at 5:44 pm

  reyhan wrote: “OSC claims that Harry Potter was inspired by Ender’s Game. He says he’s also contributed to something like the Lexicon.”

  Isn’t that the same thing that LeGuin essentially said?

• 14 reyhan // May 1, 2008 at 8:23 pm

  So of course I had to find out for myself how much JKR had lifted from Ender’s Game.

  I started with how OSC summarized the most obvious similarities between Ender and Harry:

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

  I don’t have the book, so I turned to Wikipedia for a summary.

  So here’s the poop: Ender’s Game is a science-fiction story. It’s set in the future where the Earth is being threatened by a race of insectoid aliens. Ender, a 6 year old, is recruited to go to an academy where he’s taught - and proves to be a whiz at - military tactics for battles fought in outer space. He has run ins with bullies, sets up his own military strategy classes, and at age 10 is promoted to a higher school where he takes part in virtual space battles. After one such prolonged space battle which he wins by using unorthodox tactics, he finds out -

  Well, I won’t ruin it for you.

  Of course without reading the actual book, I can only generalize. But the only real similarities I find are that both Harry and Ender go to a special school and they’re both the point men (boys) in a war against a deadly enemy.

  Deadly enemies who threaten the human race are a dime a dozen in science and fantasy fiction. Neither JKR nor OSC invented them. A kid who goes to a special school - well, maybe JKR did borrow that one from OSC. Or maybe she borrowed it from Jill Murphy and her Miss Cackle’s Academy for Witches. Or maybe she borrowed it from Thomas Hughes’ Tom Brown’s School Days. The idea of a child going to boarding school is almost as prototypically English as the bully he (or she) encounters - and bests - there.

  I don’t think OSC’s argument holds water. Neither does the part where he claims SVA created something original.

  But even if his arguments were sound, there would be no justification for the anger and spite and contempt that permeates his article.

• 15 Travis Prinzi // May 1, 2008 at 10:22 pm

  OSC is great. I’m a big fan of Ender’s Game, and I recommend it to anyone who will listen.

  But I can’t buy the idea that Rowling borrowed heavily (or at all) from Ender’s Game. If I don’t buy that she borrowed from LeGuin (and I don’t), then I certainly don’t buy that she borrowed from OSC.

  How many times does Rowling have to say, “I’m not a big fan of fantasy fiction and I haven’t read much in that genre” before the derivation charges stop?

• 16 Travis Prinzi // May 1, 2008 at 10:31 pm

  I’ve just read the entire article. I’ve been all over the map on this law suit, but OSC’s vitriole is appalling and makes me want to side with Rowling (I’ll get over this reaction, of course, and go back to just being confused).

  A few responses:

  1. There’s a massive difference between what OSC contributed to one of the extra-canonical books (an excellent essay on Snape) and SVA’s lexicon. You can’t equate the two.

  2. If OSC was this angry at JKR for allegedly stealing his work, why did he spend so much time analyzing the series and publishing essays on it?

  3. OSC has demonstrated no class whatsoever with this article. It’s angry, bitter, and far more “self-serving” than anything Rowling has done or written. It’s really sad when a published author lowers himself to the standard of a blog troll.

  4. The similarities between HP and Ender’s Game are highly superficial. OSC should know better. That same “summary” of the stuff Rowling “borrowed” could be applied to any number of other works, previous to Ender’s Game.

• 17 Travis Prinzi // May 1, 2008 at 10:33 pm

  One more point:

  The judge and every legal expert I’ve listened to so far has said that this case is unexplored territory. The fair use law is vague on this point. So for OSC to say “her suit was utterly without merit from the start” is, I’m sorry, utterly ignorant.

• 18 revgeorge // May 1, 2008 at 11:27 pm

  Good points, Travis. Which is why I think it’s kind of silly for anyone to really take sides on this issue. Both SVA & JKR have good points in their case; both have bad points. The whole issue is somewhat fuzzy legally. I think the judge was right on in trying to get the parties to settle this out of court. But apparently nothing substantial was done in that regard. So, we trudge on in the case.

• 19 revgeorge // May 2, 2008 at 12:08 am

  In case you’re not tired of reading blog posts on the trial et al, here’s one from Ken Jennings, the guy who won like 74 straight times on Jeopardy.

  http://ken-jennings.com/blog/?p=812

• 20 reyhan // May 2, 2008 at 12:11 am

  revgeorge,

  I’m still stunned from you agreeing with me over at John Granger’s site. The world is off its axis, matter and anti-matter are edging too close. I must do my part to maintain the cosmic order and disagree with you.

  The case may be unexplored territory, and the judge may encourage an out-of-court settlement, but I do take a very definite side in this case. And it’s not SVA’s.

  And OSC’s comments provide me with yet another argument to support my side of the case. I’ve noticed twice now that the supporters of SVA engage in a kind of sleight-of-hand. They talk about the usefullness of his Lexicon, saying that it is “useful” and then slip in the word “original”, without giving any evidence of its originality. This leads me to believe that they are aware that the case depends on whether SVA added any of his own thoughts to JKRs material, and try to make it appear so by adding that one adjective: original.

  Well, the last I looked, saying something was so didn’t make it so.

• 21 revgeorge // May 2, 2008 at 12:19 am

  Oh, I found the blog on Jennings by following a link on The Leaky Cauldron. They also had Card’s link up there, too.

  I seem to get the impression from reading Leaky’s editorial comments on both articles that they’ve pretty much become apologists for Rowling & WB. I didn’t see any pro-Jo articles to see if they’d given editorial comments to correct any inaccuracies in those articles. But I doubt it.

  While they’re free to take any stance they want, I think they’ve jumped the gun & fallen into the trap of a false dichotomy, i.e. anything Rowling does or says is good & right & anything SVA says or does is somehow suspect.

  Makes me wonder if they’ve gone through their previous podcasts & edited out any SVA appearances. :O

• 22 revgeorge // May 2, 2008 at 12:29 am

  reyhan,

  I’m not sure why you’re disagreeing with me, except to disagree. I honestly don’t know what the legal standing is of this case. I’m just going by what I’ve read from various sources that seem to indicate there’s some fuzzy legal ground & that a settlement would be better than some dictate from a judge.

  I don’t fully agree with either SVA or Jo & WB. So, I don’t think I should be held accountable for the opinions of SVA supporters or Jo detractors.

  The fact that I’ve posted more pro-SVA or anti-Jo links is because those are the ones I’ve run across. I thought I had provided some links to some pro-Jo articles, but maybe I didn’t. But I did reference them.

  The question in this case should be fairly simple, though. Did SVA commit theft by lifting JKR’s work wholesale or did he follow guidelines for fair usage & did he add some of his own commentary & content?

  Personally, I’m not qualified to say. I certainly don’t envy the judge, who has to make this decision.

• 23 Scott // May 4, 2008 at 6:30 pm

  Rebekah said: “If someone wanted to make a play about one of my paintings ;)”
  Ever seen the Sondheim musical Sunday in the Park with George? Really wonderful show using just that concept.

  As far as Orson Scott Card, I want to throw in my take on that article. With respect to his claim that JKR copied from his story, I think he was saying that with tongue firmly planted in cheek. I read that as him saying JKR’s lawsuit against SVA is as ridiculous as if OSC sued JKR for copying his story. I’m not sure the analogy holds up perfectly, but I don’t think you should call it vitriolic hatred or anything. I don’t think he has any animosity toward JKR other than contempt for such a stupid lawsuit. While he certainly doesn’t have the fortune that Jo got on her first foray into writing, I’m quite sure OSC is living comfortably. At some point, what is the difference between being worth millions or worth billions? Unless you want to just egregiously waste money, most people can’t spend either amount in a lifetime.

• 24 Travis Prinzi // May 4, 2008 at 9:34 pm

  Scott,

  Couple things: Even if the “copying Ender’s Game” thing was tongue-in-cheek, the charge of vitriole still stands. That was a really nasty article. As reyhan noted over at HogPro, I wouldn’t allow those kinds of terms to be used of another person here.

  In other words, the merits or lack thereof in OSC’s beliefs about the case itself are completely drowned by his disrespectful and uncharitable language. I don’t care about his opinion on the case, because he won’t communicate with anything other than utter condescension. And I don’t think it will do to say that he was only trashing the lawsuit. In the process, he trashed her artistic process, mocking her claim that she was writing the series for 17 years; called her “insane;” called her “vain,” “greedy,” and a “bully,” a “greedy evil witch,” “stupid, self-serving,” “a pretentious, puffed-up coward,” and “lacking a brain, heart, and courage.” That’s not just contempt for a lawsuit; that’s harsh, cutting, spiteful, vicious language. Shame on him.

  Although I’m with John Granger on not wanting to get into making judgments on the merits of the case, I think it’s probably best to stop throwing around words like “stupid” and “frivolous.” The judge himself said the case fell into an undefined area of the fair use law.

• 25 Scott // May 4, 2008 at 10:27 pm

  For what it’s worth, I wasn’t calling the lawsuit stupid. I was saying that’s what OSC was calling it.

  One difficulty for this whole case seems to be that it is just being heard by the judge. Unless I have just missed something (a very real possibility) I don’t think I have heard anything about this being tried before a jury. That would make a huge difference I think, because the average person is not likely to care as much about undefined or gray areas in the law. They would judge it based on how well the respective lawyers argued their case. That might not be the best thing legally, but it would certainly make it a more interesting case for me. Of course, a jury trial would almost certainly favor SVA heavily I would think.

• 26 Travis Prinzi // May 4, 2008 at 10:29 pm

  For what it’s worth, I wasn’t calling the lawsuit stupid. I was saying that’s what OSC was calling it.

  Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification! Interesting point about the jury. I’m nowhere near a legal expert, so I’m certainly in no position to weigh in on that one.

Leave a Comment