Harry Potter storylines are gibberish, judge tells Rowling

[dapence]

I found this story (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article3768307.ece) interesting.

I also find this whole lawsuit to be very poor form on Rowling's part.

[Barliman Butterbur]

I found this story (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article3768307.ece) interesting.

I also find this whole lawsuit to be very poor form on Rowling's part.

Sounds like a very partial judge — not good for Rowling.

If Vander Ark's lexicon can indeed be proven to be a literal lifting of her language re-arranged in alphabetical order, then her suit is justified as a prima facie case of plagiarism and copyright infringement at the very least. On the other hand, a cautionary tale might be made out of the Tolkien Estate's and Christopher Tolkien's often fruitless attempts to stop the philistines from disturbing Holy Writ...

Barley

[Eledhwen]

I would like to see the Lexicon. If the writer is using banks of text from the books as definitions, then Rowling has a point. But if it's just something like The Encyclopedia of Arda, then the lawsuit does seem excessive. Also, it sounds like the judge doesn't 'get' fantasy literature, so may not be able to make an informed judgement.

Again, are we sure it's Rowling doing the suing? See my post here (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?p=483717#post483717).

EDIT: Yes, it's Rowling suing. Rowling plans to produce her own reference book, donating the funds to charity. This Times article, linked from the other, gives far more detail : ARTICLE ( But her lawyers call the lexicon a “rip-off” that lifts 2,034 of its 2,437 entries straight from her work. “These things have no existence except in my words, so he has taken my creation,” she said.). Quote from the article: “I believe this book constitutes wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work,” she said. “It adds little if anything by way of commentary; the quality of that commentary is derisory; and it debases what I worked so hard to create.

“What particularly galls me is the lack of quotation marks. If Mr Vander Ark had put quotation marks around everything he had lifted, most of the lexicon would be in quotation marks.” .... her lawyers call the lexicon a “rip-off” that lifts 2,034 of its 2,437 entries straight from her work. “These things have no existence except in my words, so he has taken my creation,” she said.

And this from here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3760534.ece): "RDR, the publishers of the lexicon, have described it as a “David and Goliath battle”, which would be an accurate metaphor if, instead of smacking Goliath on the kisser with a slingshot, David had rather gone through Goliath's collected fiction, whacked some choice paragraphs into an order of his choosing, put his own name on the cover, and then tried to make a quick buck off someone else's work.

When you think that J.K.Rowling has sat silently through the publication of endless Barry Trotter and the Loss of the Will to Live books, the fact that she's waited this long to see someone in court makes her appear positively saintly."