Current mood:	okay
Entry tags:	ramble

J. K. Rowling vs. Orson Scott Card
There's been news recently of J. K. Rowling and a lawsuit she has pursued against the publisher of the Harry Potter Lexicon, a fan-focused work which basically categorizes all of the various characters, locations, objects, etc. in the series; the material previously appeared on the website http://www.hp-lexicon.org/, which J. K. Rowling herself claimed to have used to check "facts" she had previously used in her books. She has won a temporary injunction against the book's publication. The suit alleges that the stress of pursuing this lawsuit has negatively impacted her creativity, and that it seems unlikely now that she would produce any similar work -- such a book was apparently on her docket of "books to write," despite there not being even a hint of such in the publishing After three days, both sides reached a limited settlement regarding endorsements -- neither Rowling's name nor her previous endorsement of the website will be used on the book if it is eventually published. The judge is not expected to rule for several weeks.

Orson Scott Card, who wrote the wildly-successful sci-fi novel Ender's Game (1994) has written an essay critical of J. K. Rowling and her legal maneuvers. He makes a couple of interesting points, the only important one being that all authors "borrow" elements from those who wrote before. Most authors are completely upfront about it, too; Card borrowed the concept and name of the ansible, a faster-than-light communications device, from the writings of Ursula K. LeGuin. But there's a point at which such "borrowing" becomes an illegal attempt to profit from the work of another.

Where do you draw the line? The "author" of the Harry Potter Lexicon basically admitted that his website was a collation of elements from J. K. Rowlings' work, and he made no attempt to profit from it; some may consider this similar in nature to fan fiction sites, which have enjoyed some immunity, probably because they represent no loss of income and only a tiny fraction of the reading public. On the other hand, the book form of the website would have been extensively rewritten, so it may have constituted original, critical work on what is arguably one of the most popular works of popular fiction in modern times. If it never gets published, we'll never know.

One of the more enjoyable parts of Card's rant is an interesting synopsis of Ender's Game, which could also be a synopsis of Harry Potter:

"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."

Personally, I think this lawsuit is both premature (How can we know what would have been infringed before the fact? Are we living in the world of Minority Report?) and, to some extent, the desperate ploy that Card describes in his conclusion (It is worth noting that, unlike any other author website I've ever been to, J. K.'s has no 'Things I'm Working On' section -- there's no hint on there that she's working on anything at all, actually, except the lawsuit). Card may be an angry man ranting about an author he doesn't respect, but some of his points are valid.

For those interested in more in-depth discussion of the relative merits of the case can check out fandom wank's commentary.