Now, I’m not a fan of the Hairy Porter (sorry, Harry Potter) books, so when I read of Ms Rowling’s attempts to block Vander Ark’s The Harry Potter Lexicon, I veiwed it fairly dispassionately, and solely from the perspective of a writer.
The first thing that occurred to me was that Vander Ark isn’t actually setting a precedent by writing a “guide”. That was done a long time ago. Many “guides” are written of famous works that having nothing to do with the original author — this springs to mind, for example.
So that in itself doesn’t justify blocking the book, in my opinion. In fact, I’d even go so far as to say that I’d encourage such guides so long as they offer good quality analysis and explanation.
But does this book do that? According to Rowling, no. However, after an admittedly brief look at Vander Ark’s website, I’m not convinced that he has just “plundered [her] prose and merely reprinted it in a A-to-Z format”, as JKR claims. This biography of the character Hermione may illustrate what I mean (though I would be interested in hearing from Potter fans whether this particular example is a cut and patse job.)
As someone who is highly protective of his property, be it intellectual or otherwise, I do think Rowling has a point. I just don’t think it’s a very good one in this particular case. I suppose, ultimately, it comes down to how much of the book is Vander Ark’s own work. If Rowling’s claims are correct, then I’m with her 100%. If not…
Any additional thoughts on this?
Gary William Murning Online 
I’m with you on this one: intellectual property is important, but it’s not a blanket restriction on anyone ever mentioning your stuff ever again…
If she’s going to accept her popularity, she’s going to have to accept that works of scholarship will be based upon her books. That is what the Harry Potter Lexicon is; she freely admits that she, herself, uses it as a reference.
She is in the wrong here, and so is the publisher. This is motivated by greed and “we’d make millions if WE did this” but they haven’t. He did. They should acknowledge the achievement of Vander Ark and get over themselves.
Mike — I can’t help wondering if she’ll come after me for using the words “Harry” and “Potter”.
She uses it as a reference, raincoaster? I didn’t know that. Thanks. Bizarre.
From the little I’ve seen of Vander Ark’s site, he seems to have done a fairly remarkable job. Any reference work of this kind is primarily about organising information, not producing it, and he seems accomplished at that.
I think it is terrible that this evil man wants to take the food from the mouth’s of J.K. Rowling’s poor deprived children and doom them to a life of poverty by trying to publish this book.
Yes, I am being sarcastic.
I’m intellectually with Gary on the issue on this one, as it does not seem to me to be ‘stealing’ so much as ‘organizing’ — but it does strike me as very petty on the part of a billionaire like Rowling to try to deny Vander Ark any attention or compensation for the work he’s done by pretending to truly be injured by it in any way.
She is the epitome of a person being in the right place at the right time – the Harry Potter books are shite!
This just, once again, shows her greed, nothing more.
I love it when we all agree 😉
Her injured tone is especially annoying — as is the suggestion that she’s somehow protecting other writers. Oh, keep up the sarcasm, jimsmuse! It’s always welcome here 😉
Now come on, say what you think, Will 🙂 Couldn’t agree more, mate.