JK Rowling is obviously potty about Potter, and fair play to her.
I've never read a Harry Potter book, or seen a Harry Potter film, and never plan to either. So my immediate reaction to the news that Rowling is suing superfan SV Ark for publishing a Harry Potter Lexicon in print was - so what?
OK - Rowling wants to publish her own HP Lexicon. So what? Surely fans will still prefer a lexicon from the original author than some geek. Maybe, Rowling really is worried that her lexicon might turn out to be less authoritative than Ark's. Once, she even confessed to occasionally using his online encyclopedia as a reference.
And with £500 million plus in her bank, how could she possibly be worried about Ark's book hurting her sales. Does it come down to principle then? Certainly, Rowling has conjured this card out of the hat too.
Both author's have been in tears over this, so the dispute must be about more than money.
Why shouldn't a fan, get obsessive about some other person's work, and then be allowed to publish a useful reference guide about it? Beats me. I would be flattered.
A smidgen of jealousy might have coloured my view regarding one of the world's most successful living authors, but I feel somewhat validated by the judge's legal perspective. U.S. District Judge Robert Patterson Jr. called the so-called 'world' Rowling had created 'gibberish'. And he probably had to read some of her stuff.
Why is everyone in the real-world potty about Potter apart from me and U.S. District Judge Robert Patterson Jr.?
I've never read a Harry Potter book, or seen a Harry Potter film, and never plan to either. So my immediate reaction to the news that Rowling is suing superfan SV Ark for publishing a Harry Potter Lexicon in print was - so what?
OK - Rowling wants to publish her own HP Lexicon. So what? Surely fans will still prefer a lexicon from the original author than some geek. Maybe, Rowling really is worried that her lexicon might turn out to be less authoritative than Ark's. Once, she even confessed to occasionally using his online encyclopedia as a reference.
And with £500 million plus in her bank, how could she possibly be worried about Ark's book hurting her sales. Does it come down to principle then? Certainly, Rowling has conjured this card out of the hat too.
Both author's have been in tears over this, so the dispute must be about more than money.
Why shouldn't a fan, get obsessive about some other person's work, and then be allowed to publish a useful reference guide about it? Beats me. I would be flattered.
A smidgen of jealousy might have coloured my view regarding one of the world's most successful living authors, but I feel somewhat validated by the judge's legal perspective. U.S. District Judge Robert Patterson Jr. called the so-called 'world' Rowling had created 'gibberish'. And he probably had to read some of her stuff.
Why is everyone in the real-world potty about Potter apart from me and U.S. District Judge Robert Patterson Jr.?
---
Picture: 'Rappi Notter' the Ukrainian translation of Harry Potter. Sounds better, don't you think - kind of sordid.
Surprisingly enough I don't quite agree. Using somebody's well-known name for making a fortune for self seems to be out of ethics.
ReplyDelete(Writing this, yet not planing to read any of JKR's books.)