British writer J. K. Rowling, author of the famous children’s books series that has permeated practically every aspect of British and American culture today (to name just two), testified on Monday in New York against the pending publication of The Harry Potter Lexicon encyclopedia, calling it “wholesale theft.”
Too bad the adventures of Harry Potter and his friends never entailed a spell to battle plagiarism. J. K. Rowling is still fighting what might be a losing battle against Steven Vander Ark, editor of the fan website The Harry Potter Lexicon, an online plethora of Harry Potter trivia and information that includes everything from spells to magical beasts to atlases of the wizarding world.
“You lose the threads, you worry if you’ll ever be able to pick them up again.”
Ark wants to publish a 400-page book by the same name, but Rowling believes “that [the] book constitutes the wholesale theft of 17 years of [her] hard work.” The forty-two-year-old author argued that the manuscript of the book is “sloppy, lazy,” and riddled with errors and, according to The New York Times, contains straightforward copy-and-paste plagiarism.
Rowling complained that the entries consisted of words like “Death” or “Voldemort” arranged alphabetically, followed by what she considered bare-bones definitions.
For instance, she said, the Ogre entry simply said, “Ron and Hermione think they see an ogre at Three Broomsticks.” A superior entry, Ms. Rowling testified, would have pointed out that “An ogre in European folklore was a flesh-eating giant.”
The entry under Remus Lupin, she said, missed the opportunity to comment on the etymology of the name as a “double allusion” to the character’s being a werewolf, since in Roman mythology Remus was raised by wolves, and Lupin derived from lupine.
She also objected to what she called the book’s “facetious asides,” like a comment about whether Hagrid could fit into a booth at McDonald’s.
… The lead defense lawyer, David Hammer, was not impressed with her literary critique of the work.
“Have you ever read a dictionary, Miss Rowling?” Mr. Hammer demanded. Alphabetical order, he continued, “is what the Encyclopedia Britannica uses, isn’t that true?”
Moreover, while J. K. claims that Ark wants nothing more than to make a quick buck on a shabby excuse for a book, The Lexicon has by no means been a hastily put together scam. Steven Vander Ark, a trained librarian with a Harry Potter love/obsession, has reportedly been working on the encyclopedia for seven-plus years. He’s read the entire series over fifty times, which is no ordinary feat, even for nerdy teenagers who still continue to immerse themselves a little too much in the fantasy world (don’t get me wrong, I love HP, too, but some fans are ridiculous). Ark will be taking the witness stand later in the course of the trial.
Okay, if I wrote a whopping seven-novel series that was half as popular as Rowling’s I would take it as an honor if someone adored my books enough to commit seven (nerdy) years to finding away to be a part of its memory. And I believe that’s all Ark wants to do—distinguish himself from all the other so-called #1 Harry Potter fans and leave his mark on the world of wizardry and witchcraft.
So you have to ask yourself, what’s so different about this Harry Potter “knock-off” that’s getting J. K.’s $100 panties in a twist? Well, maybe this has something to do with it:
She said the book, which would cost $24.95, would compete unfairly with an encyclopedia she had been planning to create since 1998, the profits of which — possibly millions of dollars — she had planned to donate to a British charity.
Huh. Yeah, she has a point. That does kind of ruin it—in a way. But let’s think about this, J. K.: If there were two HP encyclopedias on the market at the same time, whose do you think people would buy for the official, inside scoop? For such an intelligent woman, this isn’t beyond your reasoning power. Your version would most likely sell more copies, so even if Ark’s book sucked some of the money out of your charity plan, you’d still be raking in the dough … for charities. It’s not that big of a deal.
Ms. Rowling described Mr. Vander Ark’s book as a personal betrayal. Much of her testimony focused on her contention that the guide was not very good, although she conceded under cross-examination that it was unusually comprehensive.
… Mr. Rapoport’s lawyer said, that the same Web site that Ms. Rowling was now denigrating was one that she had admitted using herself a time or two to check facts.
Ms. Rowling conceded that she had given a “fan-site award” to Mr. Vander Ark’s Web site in 2004, but she said she had given the award only “as a kind of A for effort.”
When she gave the award, she wrote on her own Web site: “I have been known to sneak into an Internet cafe while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter (which is embarrassing).”
I adore Rowling for what she’s done for the literary world and because she’s renewed the dying love of reading in today’s youth, but I don’t agree with her here. I just think her pride’s a little bit hurt, and it’s understandable that she feels like someone’s robbing her of the glory of her success, especially since Harry Potter is a project that has sadly (but justly) ceased. Plus, having admitted something like that (which, heh, I personally find more embarrassing, Rowling) suggests the possibility to her that having someone else—who’s practically as knowledgeable on her books as her—publish an encyclopedia on the subject she’s supposed to be the ultimate expert on belittles her amazing creative accomplishment, which she’s put her own blood, sweat, and tears (probably not so figuratively, either, considering paper cuts, writer’s block frustrations, and a certain someone’s earth-shaking death in Book 5) into. But that’s her own problem, and I really believe Ark never meant it as a “personal betrayal.”
Don’t worry, though, J. K. You’re still those nerdy kids’ (and aren’t all of us, your readers, that at heart?) hero. We’re not abandoning or forgetting about you, for the impact you’ve made with Harry Potter isn’t going away any time soon.
(Other source used here.)
April 16th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
You know. I kind of have to agree with J.K. here only because of the fact that for years, since the 5th book, I had heard rumors over her doing an encyclopedia of her works herself. For someone else to do it, I don’t know, it just seems wrong to me. Kind of like that whole Lucas vs. the maker of the Storm Trooper costumes things. His website, I have no problem with. But making a book to profit from … In truth, making money off of someone else’s work is kind of a, sorry to say it like this, chicken shit in my opinion. And she has done works for charity in the past involving the Potter series, so it is not like this is something she would just use as an excuse.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Good point. That’s definitely one issue about it; you’re right, I don’t think it’s an excuse, either. And whether or not you consider what Ark’s doing just making money off of other people’s work is a matter of how you look at it (both sides have good points, I think), and more importantly how the author feels about it.
Still, I don’t think she’s going to win this one. I mean, how many other Harry Potter related books are out there that haven’t been written by Rowling? And how many book series are out there now that are flat out rip offs of her books (now that, I think, is just a lack of creativity)?
So whether or not you agree with this guy writing his book, you have to take into consideration everything else that’s already out there and freedom of speech and expression. As long as credit is given where credit is due, people can write what they want. And it sounded to me like Ark just wanted to set in stone, so to speak, everything he’s catalogued for seven years. True, maybe it is just plain “alphabetized” plagiarism, but I’d like to think that the people who are debating whether or not to buy it are smart enough to decide for themselves. Unlike how J. K. puts it in the article (and I’m not saying she’s just pouting and that she’s wrong, either), people aren’t going to get “ripped off.” They’re not mindless. And I’m sure people who would end up buying Ark’s book would have already read her series, anyway; maybe they just want something to reference to, like J. K. did on more than one occasion.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
I know two books, “Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them” and “Quidditch Through the Ages” were both written by J.K. using a pseudonym. But I see your point. I know that in China there is a whole series of Potter books that involve more adventures of Harry. And in several other countries, there are similar situations. The whole thing is just so complicated.
Hell, even I still argue the fact that Harry Potter is nothing more than a Book Of Magic Tim Hunter mixed in with Diane Duane’s Young Wizard series knock off. Hmm.
Complicated indeed.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Yup, there’s the quandary. And if they forbid Ark from publishing his books, but all the other ones are out there, then it brings up the issue of why those can be allowed but Ark’s can’t …
My friend is completely against HP because she tells me all Rowling does is rip off of Norse mythology. I didn’t ask her to delve into her explanation for me, but I respect her opinion (she’s entitled to it).
And there’s the issue that all writers are influenced by other writers and their works, but where’s the limit set of just plain theft?
April 16th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Well, considering how closely related English and Norse mythologies are, seeing as the connection shared due to the heavy Saxon influence of the area. So it is more of a shared mythology. The Saxons modern day descendants are ethnic Germans, Dutch and English. … But that is another post.
Deciding what is theft and what is influence is kind of a sticky point. There are a lot of examples today that can be described as either or. But one point I do stand on is that if you are going to make something of someone else’s works, especially if that creator is still alive, should you not get their permission to do so. And respect their wishes if they do not give it. It is not like Ark is creating a new world based on some loose influences by Rowling. It is a direct use of a literary world she created.
There are tons and tons of Encyclopedias that categorize other fictions, like the ones for Star Wars, Marvel, and Nintendo properties. But those works had the permission of the creators of those works to do so, and in Ark’s case, it is clear that he does not have Rowling’s permission.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
There is clearly links between HP and mythology, I don’t think she’s trying to hide that.
The Wizard of Earthsea and Troll (in Troll there is a character named Harry Potter) are other titles that have claimed she copied from.
When I think about it, I can “copy ideas” and link every book ever created, and they all link back to The Never Ending Story.