|
Post by Potter Watch on Apr 20, 2008 21:58:26 GMT -5
The argument here is if Van Dar Ark lifted whole passages from her work which he indeed did; this is not merely just a reference book for Potter but a combination of everything you can find in the Harry Potter novels and a Latin dictionary. It provides little educated rhetoric and leaves too much to the imagination of Rowling. You would have more then a valid point to money if her planned book in the future would be money going in her pocket, the prophets would be directed to a charity. She (outside an author) has donated to countless causes and foundations, she has worked hard for her money and coming from a welfare lifestyle to fame she deserves every penny she spends. She hadn’t come from some prissy little rich girl family, she starved and worked to obtain seven great novels that while do take similar themes from past “spot-on literature” she leaves the reader caring for the characters … much more then I can say for recent books.
Court documents were released and this book version of the “Lexicon” uses ninety-one percent of her books without sufficient quoting. This book is not a mere hand guide to her books but a recycled version.
As an artist you will defend your work – no matter how controversial or sane it might be, it is your child. She has given the fiction world a great set of books, not merely for children but also for adults. Her writing style grabs the reader and you end up finding your paper twin – somewhere along the plot you cry, you feel happiness, she has done a lot for young readers and old. She has gotten children excited about reading, children and parents closer – often the parent is reading the book to their child as they fall asleep.
Too often I find personal insults of Rowling’s character as a human – a greedy bitter woman just looking for more money. That biased opinion could not be further from the truth – a real shame more Potter fans do not defend her. From quotes it was obvious Judge Patterson hadn’t a firm grasp upon the legalities of copyright and fair use ... perhaps he just wanted his five minutes of fame as being the judge of Potter. The case would not be even a case without J. K. Rowling, Van Dar Ark rides merely on the coattails of her fame, appearing at conferences because he believes he knows more about Potter then your average Fan. Everything he understands is based merely on reading Potter and a few mythical books which any twelve year old could accomplish.
Recent judgmental pieces upon the character of Rowling have been popping up - it would be a great understatement to call them falsifying but I can think of no better word. Award-winning writer Orson Scott Card claims that J.K. Rowling’s “hypocrisy is so thick” that he “can hardly breathe”. yet it remains him who comes out looking quite like the hypocrite. Bashing and roughing up her character with biased views upon her books. He made a comment about the homosexual character - Dumbledore - citing the idiocy that she did not propose his orientation straight out, no pun attended. A writer he may be - a reader he is not, what he manages to so gracefully establish is that the books are half littered with stolen materiel and guessing games. Any half-witted reader can obviously seek and establish Dumbledore is not the most forward character. She uses the trick of reading between the lines brilliantly to her advantage. I am not here to acknowledge his books which I have no read but his claims have simply no merit to them.
It is with the firm opinion of an artist and a fan that Joanne Rowling is within the full right of an author to defend her work, and we can only hope the legal system
|
|