Gothamist: Harry Potter Lexicon Author "An Outcast Now"

justmeandmickey

Mon, 12 May 2008 23:36:02 -0500

>There is a marked difference between writing a scholarly analysis or summary of a book and repeating it word for word. If you've ever seen the HP Lexicon, it goes through the entire series page by page and line by line. It isn't analysis, it's infringement. @Roe, Huh. So you're saying a 400-page Lexicon can somehow distill an entire thousands-of-pages series "page by page and line by line," and not be summarizing? If you're not lying, then it would seem to me that this Lexicon would be nothing if not an expert summarization. I'd also toss this into the pot: If this book does intend to be a "lexicon" as the name suggests, I'd expect it to primarily use the language found in the Potter books, since it refers to a world found nowhere else. Anything less would not be a lexicon, as it's properly defined.

armo99

Sun, 11 May 2008 18:01:07 -0500

This whole article is total fiction in my opinion. The quotes first of are totally incorrect and the worst line i read was this:"Rowling] is God and Melissa is her prophet."pure lunacy. I mean SVA brought it on himself for writing his lexicon without following proper MLA format and he is correct in assuming that he will be an outcast because he brought on himself. I 100% agree with samitysam and disagree completely with stackmaster... HARRY POTTER AND JKR FOR EVER...STV NEVER!(lol)

stackmaster

Sun, 11 May 2008 17:05:36 -0500

samitysam, Let me guess...you're a Leaky Lemming, aren't you? Why don't you get a life, you sad little sycophant? Anelli's book is exactly like RDR's, in that it's a pathetic cash grab over something she had very little to do with. As much as you would like to see her sure to be a festering pile of crap book do well, she is little more than a fan with bandwith & a self-aggrandizing one at that. And you're incorrect. Rowling's actual anwer skirted around the issue solely in an effort to avoid perjury. Letters received from Rowling's lawyers claim that she had seen the book in question & that means either they lied or she did.

samitysam

Sun, 11 May 2008 10:52:53 -0500

And actually, stackmaster, as also said in the transcripts, Rowling's agents act for her. It's entirely possible and doesn't require anyone to lie, for her not to have seen (Fiona Boyle's?) a companion book. No one lied about it, at least in any way you can prove.

samitysam

Sun, 11 May 2008 03:39:47 -0500

If you followed more than the New Yorker (and didn't take it as gospel) you'd know a few things: 1. That thing you quoted from anelli, the, "He's vilified now" thing? She didn't say it. Wu got his quote wrong and they're issuing a retraction. 2. Vander Ark is not a victim. Lawyers proved he lied on the stand; statements from earlier years prove that even he thinks this Lexicon is illegal, but it was only after JKR's agents turned him down for a JOB that he went forward with a book he knew she would not approve. 3. It does require her approval, as 91 percent of the text IS HER OWN WORDS. Verbatim. And I don't mean, the names of creatures and charcters: It's things lke using the same descriptions and creative imagery that Rowling used without ANY citation or even QUOTE MARKS. The very few citations that occur cite to CHAPTERS, whole chapters, instead of pages. In other words, if you take any piece of the Lexicon manuscript and tried to hand it in as a high school - hell, grammar school - paper, you would fail the paper, and perhaps get kicked out of the school for academic dishonesty. It's that bad. 4. Anelli's book is absolutely NOTHING like Steve Vander Ark's. Anelli's book is her own work, about the fandom. 5. wow, how dare JK Rowling actually choose to share affection with someone who has respected her in general, as well as her copyright. Wow, the Gothamist should bully up on Vander Ark for that one. Yep. 6. Steve Vander Ark's wife has made public comments (available at the leaky cauldron site) that indicate he is obsessed with fan attention, so much so he has destroyed every other element of his life for it, and may really, seriously need medical help. Don't foster this moron's pathetic scheme. According to the trial transcripts, when he was asked to put one of the entries in his books in his OWN words, he could, immediately, right there on the stand. The book entry, however, was in JK Rowling's. That shows he did not do any work, of which he was capable. It is plagiarism. Taking his side is advocating plagiarism and the Gothamist should be 100 percent against that. Because the lawyers for RDR have done a great job obfuscating that fact to the public doesn't make t any less true.

sonyactivision

Sat, 10 May 2008 21:52:06 -0500

Grand theft auto nerds. Harry potter nerds are too scared to put anything in their rectums.

jterry121

Sat, 10 May 2008 21:44:43 -0500

I dont know who is more gay- Harry potter Nerds, or Grand Theft Auto Nerds.

ribaldry

Sat, 10 May 2008 12:30:32 -0500

gay

Tim N.

Sat, 10 May 2008 12:15:44 -0500

Thank you, Karen!!! Beat me to it. Shatner, some will recall, went on to say: "You! You ever kissed a girl?! Didn't think so!" Stackmaster makes a grea point, too.

stackmaster

Sat, 10 May 2008 11:09:32 -0500

roe, You don't really seem to know the whole story, so here is a bit more. A friend of mine, and writer of one of those tie-in books, actually received a letter from Rowling's attorney's threatening her following its publication. Her book was no different than other similar books available at the time. More interestingly, when shown a copy of that book in court during this trial & asked if she'd ever seen it, Rowling claimed not to have. So either she is a liar or her lawyers are.

stackmaster

Sat, 10 May 2008 11:05:01 -0500

When I see " 28-year-old Gryffindor from Brooklyn" used to describe a woman who considers herself a journalist, I read it as " 28-year-old LOSER from HER PARENTS' BASEMENT in Brooklyn." I'd love to see Rowling & her sycophantic army of fans (and fans of fans as it seems here) lose & lose in a major way.

tblake

Fri, 09 May 2008 23:21:15 -0500

Huh? Is this a joke?

MJG

Fri, 09 May 2008 22:30:26 -0500

Nerds like this guy made Rowling richer than a Malfoy. She could have spread some walking around money to this guy by ignoring him or incorporating his stuff into her own Potter reference book. I think I read she's making one somewhere.

AHT

Fri, 09 May 2008 20:57:14 -0500

Oh, stop whining, Steve. Anelli's writing about her experiences interacting with a huge and enthuastic fanbase. You had the same opportunities to interact, at the same conventions and gatherings, and you could have drawn on that too, instead of copy-pasting Rowling's books into alphabetical order. Made your bed, time to lie down. Hope it doesn't have any bedbugs.

JD

Fri, 09 May 2008 20:30:59 -0500

@roe There are line-by-line reader's guides to most major novels of the 20th century, such as Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow, Beloved, etc, all of whose estates are (for better or for worse) alive and well. The fact that Harry Potter isn't high literature is irrelevant; like parody, commentary is well-protected speech, and it ought to be. It's not up to the grace of the author to give us this right; freedom of speech might have been construed narrowly to deny us these rights, but a) that hasn't been the case in the US, and b) thank goodness for that. Funny how it's only the worst authors, who have run out of ideas for new stuff, that pursue these sorts of lawsuits.

emilydickinson

Fri, 09 May 2008 20:29:57 -0500

@Roe: "analysis or summary of a book and repeating it word for word. If you've ever seen the HP Lexicon, it goes through the entire series page by page and line by line. It isn't analysis, it's infringement." You mean like and end noted version of Ulysses or a Norton Critical Edition? How is a line by line analysis of a work of writing not scholarly valid? 'Jo' is tolerant? Neil Gaiman gives entire novels away for free and thinks it enhances the value of the work by having is spread to as many people as possible. I think ip and copyright laws are getting out of control.

jaja007

Fri, 09 May 2008 20:05:28 -0500

Something tells me if the police examine his parent's basement, they'll find a dead asian woman's body that's been covered in two year old semen.

Karen

Fri, 09 May 2008 19:53:32 -0500

As William Shatner said to the 30 year old Trekkie living in his parents' basement... GET A LIFE!

sonyactivision

Fri, 09 May 2008 19:53:13 -0500

There's a reality TV concept here: "The Ultimate Douchebag" This mildly creepy, wildly freaky sum-of-all-our-fears-about-Harry Pottermania, has singlehandedly split the human genome. He is a "Hogwart", and he's on JK Rowling's ass. I hope she's sitting comfortably.

roe

Fri, 09 May 2008 19:42:35 -0500

emilydickinson, If Rowling were to try to block every reference book about her work, I would agree with you. Up until now, however, she has been extremely tolerant, and in many cases actively supportive, of everything ranging from fan fiction to books of critical analysis of her work. If you look on Amazon, you'll find many Harry Potter-related books that have been published unscathed. There is a marked difference between writing a scholarly analysis or summary of a book and repeating it word for word. If you've ever seen the HP Lexicon, it goes through the entire series page by page and line by line. It isn't analysis, it's infringement. There's nothing greedy about wanting to protect one's work. Not to mention that she has already stated that when she writes her own HP reference book, she will be waiving all her royalties for charity--as she's done with two other books in the past.

emilydickinson

Fri, 09 May 2008 19:31:55 -0500

JK Rowling is a Muggle. Support the freedom to think. It's not a copyright issue at all, really. It's actually about academic freedom. Should every Shakespeare, Blake and Byron scholar be sued by their non-existent estates? Shouldn't Barry Miles get sued for writing a book about Burroughs? He's got an estate that's alive and well. If you write a book about contemporary art and discuss Lori Earley should she bring you to court? If someone wants to author a legitimate reference book, should greed be the thing that stops them? I really enjoyed reading all the Harry Potter novels, and believe it's a subject worth discussing in a reference book. This comes down to the greed of JK ("Oh, I'm Sorry, Jo"). If someone published a Harry Potter reference book, would her kids starve? I doubt it, they live on a Scottish game preserve. You can't claim to be a writer and then pin people to the wall for discussing your work, whether it's in print or in the bar. Should we ban Harry Potter role playing between consenting adults?

Splicer

Fri, 09 May 2008 19:25:12 -0500

A bunch of pathetic fools. At least Rowling achieved something - worldwide acclaim and huge sales for a piece of hack writing.

waitwhat

Fri, 09 May 2008 18:49:32 -0500

I'm so confused: 1. Why is he so vilified by the community? 2. How old are these people? 3. There's no way any of these people are not single, right? 4. I've never heard of these gangs that they're claiming to be affiliated with. These Ravenclaws, are they cliqued up with the Bloods?

TheKlaus

Fri, 09 May 2008 18:25:06 -0500

I honestly feel really bad for this guy. What he did is definitely a copyright issue, but still. He's just a fan trying to make good. Shouldn't have gotten this messy.

interlard

Fri, 09 May 2008 18:12:45 -0500

You wouldn't think there was a war on with pointless nerdy sh*t like this going down.