[Threshold]

This was an impressive and comprehensive dismantling of J.K. Rowling by Orson Scott Card:

Rowling, Lexicon, and Oz

I don't even know which parts to quote and comment on. It is just a thorough, dead on, and much deserved destruction.

OK, maybe I can quote a favorite part:

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.

[Disillusionist]

AS to the website suit, I'll await the outcome of the court's decisions, but O. S. Card imbedded a link in that page that wouldn't work for me, so I googled the plaintiff and found this:
Legal disputes over Harry Potter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"During the course of the trial, it was proven "by clear and convincing evidence, that Stouffer has perpetrated a fraud on the Court through her submission of fraudulent documents as well as through her untruthful testimony,"[14] including changing pages years after the fact to retroactively insert the word "muggle".[14][16]
Her case was dismissed with prejudice and she was fined $50,000 for her "pattern of intentional bad faith conduct" in relation to her employment of fraudulent submissions, along with being ordered to pay a portion of the plaintiffs' legal fees.[17] Stouffer appealed the decision in 2004, but the appeals court upheld the ruling, stating that "no reasonable juror could find a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the two parties' works".[16"

Now, as to suing some small-change compiler for making a reference/commentary work, I truly don't see the beef, but in at least one case, we see where Rowling was clearly targeted for a cynical and fraudulent claim. Perhaps she's returning the favor, left-handedly, because I can't possibly see how such a bestselling giant's lawsuit can do anything but help this guy's sales. Or she might truly be a grasping groping greedy grinch, and upset that he beat her to the punch in selling a companion work to hers. I wish the guy luck, and a not guilty verdict.

O. S. Card, author of Ender's Game, should really know better than to further his case against Rowling by drawing parallels in -plotlines-, especially those in such broad strokes, and calling them plagiaristic. A plotline cannot be copyrighted, perhaps more's the pity, but the "Special-from-birth hero comes into his own and saves the day" plotline isn't precisely new, nor even 20th century.
On the other hand, heh, he sure does draw a lot of interesting parallels...
Still, if we disallow JK Rowlings 'fantasy-milieu plot of sci-fi's 'Ender's Game' ', then we have to dismiss "West Side Story" because it modernizes and musicalizes "Romeo and Juliet", etc, etc, etc. "Rent" doesn't top any charts because of its derivative nature, and we have to decide which came first, "X-Men" or "Harry Potter", sinc they share many similarities in plots and developments. (X-men came first, if you care.) And so long to Will Smith saving the world in "Independence Day", a story about how humans defeat alien invaders because a virus causes the alien's force fields to fail, and the humans kick their butt instead of being disintegrated by death rays so the aliens can have our planet. Another Orson (Welles) narrated that one over -radio- half a century earlier, to much more...profound response.
Slippery slope.

[Bakha]

Originally Posted by Disillusionist O. S. Card, author of Ender's Game, should really know better than to further his case against Rowling by drawing parallels in -plotlines-, especially those in such broad strokes, and calling them plagiaristic. A plotline cannot be copyrighted, perhaps more's the pity, but the "Special-from-birth hero comes into his own and saves the day" plotline isn't precisely new, nor even 20th century. On the other hand, heh, he sure does draw a lot of interesting parallels... Still, if we disallow JK Rowlings 'fantasy-milieu plot of sci-fi's 'Ender's Game' ', then we have to dismiss "West Side Story" because it modernizes and musicalizes "Romeo and Juliet", etc, etc, etc. "Rent" doesn't top any charts because of its derivative nature, and we have to decide which came first, "X-Men" or "Harry Potter", sinc they share many similarities in plots and developments. (X-men came first, if you care.) And so long to Will Smith saving the world in "Independence Day", a story about how humans defeat alien invaders because a virus causes the alien's force fields to fail, and the humans kick their butt instead of being disintegrated by death rays so the aliens can have our planet. Another Orson (Welles) narrated that one over -radio- half a century earlier, to much more...profound response. Slippery slope.

I'm pretty sure you're making the exact same point Card made, though Card tried to make it more obliquely and satirically. In other words, I don't think Card was suggesting that Rowling stole from him. I think he's suggesting that she's moronic for suing people for derivative work.

[Disillusionist]

You're right of course.
It was just a rather muddied message, in light of the fact that one of the claims that Rowlings was a plagiarist was made by a bankrupt and fraudulent claimant, who was fined $50,000 and called, in legalese, a lying con woman.

[the_logos]

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.

I'm not really a Harry Potter fan (though I applaud Ms. Rowling's tremendous success) but I've heard this criticism before and don't give it much credit. It comes across as slightly homophobic to me.

Why do you need to explicitly say that a character is gay any more than you have to explicitly say a character is straight? Lack of information isn't the same as saying the character is straight, and assuming that someone who isn't explicitly declared as gay must be straight is silly and serves only to try (incorrectly) to paint gay people as aberrant or deviant from some false, imagined 'normal' state of humanity.

Just my opinion, obviously, but Orson Scott Card comes across largely as jealous and bitter to me in his criticisms of her (likely because he's sold a tiny fraction of the # of books she has).

--matt

P.S. Purely irrelevant but kind of cool: The offices I rented for Sparkplay (the spin-off company from Iron Realms) were occupied for 10 years before us by the production company owned by Chris Columbus, who directed and produced the first two Harry Potter movies....the hooks from what were presumably lots of movie posters are still on the walls)

[incognito9]

Originally Posted by the_logos I'm not really a Harry Potter fan (though I applaud Ms. Rowling's tremendous success) but I've heard this criticism before and don't give it much credit. It comes across as slightly homophobic to me. Why do you need to explicitly say that a character is gay any more than you have to explicitly say a character is straight? Lack of information isn't the same as saying the character is straight, and assuming that someone who isn't explicitly declared as gay must be straight is silly and serves only to try (incorrectly) to paint gay people as aberrant or deviant from some false, imagined 'normal' state of humanity.

You don't have to be explicit. But to describe someone in purely non-sexual ways and then say that you intended for them to be sexual is disingenuous at best.

[Ide]

Originally Posted by incognito9 You don't have to be explicit. But to describe someone in purely non-sexual ways and then say that you intended for them to be sexual is disingenuous at best.

OK, so according to this idea, Rowling describing that house elf whatever character in purely non-sexual ways means that we can assign no sexual orientation whatsoever to that character? That's complete nonsense.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by incognito9 You don't have to be explicit. But to describe someone in purely non-sexual ways and then say that you intended for them to be sexual is disingenuous at best.

She didn't say she intended for Dumbledore to be sexual. She said he's gay. If she had said Dumbledore was straight, would you feel that it's disingenuous of her to have done so? In other words, isn't this only an issue because he's gay rather than straight?

--matt

[TheSoftwire]

First, let me say that I am a huge Orson Scott Card fan. I met him once but I have been a fan ever since reading Ender's Game. Other great science-fiction and fantasy writers have taken shots at Rowling in the past (Ursula Guin and Terry Pratchett to name a couple) and I can't help by wonder why. It seems that in America, once someone becomes insanely successful, we go to great lengths to knock him/her down a few notches.

Is it our own egos that do this? I don't know, but I do know if she was some poor, small time author protecting her brand, no one would have an issue with her. There seems to be this consensus that if you make a certain amount of money you should look away when others try to suck off your success. Unless of course you're a really big company with lots of lawyers. Try going out and publishing a Lexicon about Ironman right now, or Batman or Indiana Jones - think you'll end up in court? You bet your #$% you will. Why shouldn't it be the same for Rowling?

[Lasher]

Originally Posted by the_logos Just my opinion, obviously, but Orson Scott Card comes across largely as jealous and bitter to me in his criticisms of her (likely because he's sold a tiny fraction of the # of books she has). --matt

This is probably true in terms of numbers, but Orson Scott-Card is by no means a bitter failed author striking out at someone successful. I haven't researched this, but in terms of books I'm pretty sure he has had more best-sellers than she has.

I've read pretty much all of his books except the short stories and they are generally much deeper than anything related to Harry Potter because they have a different target audience. I've also met him and have a signed copy of Ender's Game

Anyway, agree with him or not, but credibility as a successful author he definitely has.

[TheSoftwire]

You're absolutely right, but (there's always a but) you would be surprised how little authors actually make. Card has had fantastic success, especially with his Mormon based books, but EVERYONE pales in comparison to what Rowling made. She's the Beatles and the Elvis of the publishing business combined. No one has come close the the scads and scads of cash she's made for a book series that many find weak when compared to books like Ender's Game.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Lasher This is probably true in terms of numbers, but Orson Scott-Card is by no means a bitter failed author striking out at someone successful. I haven't researched this, but in terms of books I'm pretty sure he has had more best-sellers than she has.

A single one of the Harry Potter books (take your pick) has sold far more than every book Card has ever published, I'd be willing to bet. (The Harry Potter series has sold upwards of 375 million copies.) There's a reason that Rowling is the only billionaire author in history, after all. Card has not, with all due respect to him, gone beyond the very successful niche author. There's literally a world of difference between the number of fans/books sold that Rowling has and Card has.

(None of this has anything to do with whether Card's books are better...I like his books, though haven't read the Harry Potter books as they're unlikely to be my thing.)

Anyway, agree with him or not, but credibility as a successful author he definitely has.

The reason he has no credibility on this issue is largely because he's a total homophobe and is just grinding his anti-gay axe.

For instance, Card has said,

"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society. "


--matt

[Disillusionist]

Actually, Rowlings may have 'outed' Dumbledore in a very tongue-in-cheek manner.





After all, wasn't he the Headmaster...?

[Maelgrim]

Ad Hominem aside, I agree with Card in his analysis of Rowling's work. From a literary standpoint, it's a crazy fluke that Harry Potter is/was that successful. I've read the books, and whilst they may be GOOD children's books, they're still children's books. Rowling seems to have been blessed with a brilliant marketer and fantastic timing.

As for her 'seventeen years of work' claim, I too, have to laugh. There is not one SINGLE original element, theme, or concept present within that entire septology that has not been borrowed from a number of different sources.

I can hear the cynical old adage "There are no original ideas in fantasy" crawling up from the basement as we speak. This is true, and frankly, if there were any basis for criticism/legal action on the grounds of similar mythos principles within genres, a good 90% of the readers of this board would be on the receiving end of a good stiff buggering from Tolkien's estate, or the Wizards of the Coast.

Yes, Rowling wrote some successful books. But she should have the good grace to take her money and privately admit to herself that her entire portfolio is a mish-mash of fantasy and literary cliches wrapped in a deus ex machina. Again, this is just fine for children's literature, but again, in this aspect Rowling is guilty of taking herself and her work far too seriously.

As for the Dumbledore=Gay thing, I, again have to agree with Card (his personal opinions aside). It was a marketing ploy. Dumbledore is the stereotypical kindly grandfather cliche. Issues of sexuality rarely, if ever, in my experience, have anything to do with the development or establishment of this character archetype.

If there was a plot development around a past homosexual relationship with Dumbledore, then Rowling would have a basis for her silly "I iz PC! I can haz gay main character lol" argument.

tl;dr - Rowling needs to stop footbulleting herself by trying to squeeze the last tepid drops out of her cash cow.

[MudMann]

Nothing remotly impressive about that rant. Personally I dont care what J.K Rowling is like in real life, and if she want to stop people making money off her books.. its her right... Gladiator in my top 5 films of all time.. even though Russell Crowe is apparently a total tit.. as I dongt care what he isl ike in real life.. same with Rowling. At the end of the day, I dont see any MUD's being too ashamed to use goblins, ogres, in their games.. or even 'borrow' great works of fiction to pad out scenarios in their game.

Really.. before slamming rowling.. take a good look at yourself, and maybe you should beware of hypocrisy.

The fact is, regardless of source, or lack of originality in theme, J.K.rowling put together a series of books that has inspired reading, and drove children and adults to the bookshelf again. I dont know the 'secret' of Harry Potter as I have been reading books almost every single day of my life since I could read.. and no book has or is likely to have the same effect as the Harry Potters.

Authors who have had a degree of success who take a swing at her are the cretins. I was embaressed for Stephen King when he took a shot at her writing skills when he forgot how to end a book a LONG time ago.

And what the hell does it matter if she did not announce that Dumblodore was gay in the books.. what possible effect could it have had on the story? Why should she is not be allowed to share insights and thoughts on her own characters that she felt were unimportant to the story.

Really.. anyone who enjoys watching people take cheap shots at J.K.Rowling.. or take shots themselves are authors who are losing popularioty, authors who are jealous of her success, or writers who never quite had the skill to make it themselves.

[Milawe]

Originally Posted by MudMann Really.. anyone who enjoys watching people take cheap shots at J.K.Rowling.. or take shots themselves are authors who are losing popularioty, authors who are jealous of her success, or writers who never quite had the skill to make it themselves.

I definitely disagree with this. In my eyes, Card is a much more successful writer than Rowling is/was, and I highly, highly doubt that he has an ounce of jealousy for Rowlings. I have absolutely no jealousy for her myself, and she is far, far, far more successful at making money and publishing books than I am. Selling more books in no way makes her a better writer or a better person.

He has an extremely valid point in his wrathful diatribe of her actions and her melodrama, which, if you follow the literary world at all, has been pretty constant and then ramped up when she finished her final book. Rowlings is the most successful author of this decade, but by no means is she the most successful author of all time, and her works have yet to stand the test of time. She may be the richest author of all time, and perhaps she has the most success of we determine everything by money. (By that argument, though, then none of the "free" muds would be deemed successful, and that is certainly not the case.)

The problem with her current actions is simply that she endorsed this guy. He created a derivative work that she actually used and created an award for. Then she goes and sues him for publishing those works. Then she claims the lawsuit has damaged her. SHE brought the lawsuit. In addition, between her and Warner Brothers, they have sued or pre-emptively sued several other authors, some of which wrote books before the Harry Potter series came out. Card simply points out that Harry Potter has several "plotlines" that could have been directly lifted from Ender's Game, not that "Rowlings had ripped off his plotlines."

Imagine if muds weren't allowed to make Dark Sun muds or Dragonlance muds or Star Wars muds or World of Time muds or Xena muds or Star Trek or Discworld muds, all derivatives from someone else's work. How many muds would immediately tank? Several in the top 10.

Lastly, his statements about Rowling's declaration that Dumbledore was gay after the books initial publication was dead on. If his sexuality wasn't a part of the story, then who the heck cares if Dumbledore was gay or not? It's not a part of the story. Don't make it a part of the aftermath. She wants the credit of having dealt with a "gay" character without ever putting it into the story. That definitely falls into the "lame" category for me.

The quote from Card's views on homosexuality is from this essay: The Hypocrites of Homosexuality - Orson Scott Card

I'm hard-pressed to decide where he actually stands on the issue from a complete reading of this essay and the comments at the end. This is a guy who's obviously torn on the entire issue.