MyLeaky Login

Join the largest Harry Potter Social Network on the Web! | FAQ

In the News

JKR/WB vs. RDR Books Trial: Guardian Editorial

Companion Books
Posted by: Kristin
April 20, 2008, 02:04 PM

Marina Hyde of the Guardian has an opinion piece in which she speaks unfavorably of J.K. Rowling and WB’s decision to pursue litigation, in part arguing that the potential publication of the Lexicon will have little impact on the series in the face of other, sanctioned projects:

“As for Ms Rowling’s argument that her work is being “debased”, that position may be very compromised by this time next year, because she has given her blessing to the construction of a Harry Potter theme park in bookish Orlando, Florida.”

She goes on to say:

“This, says the official blurb, “will provide fans with another way to experience the world beyond the books and films”. And so it will: as some injection-moulded theme park, punctuated by those endless Disney-esque stands selling supersized fast food, and attempts to chisel cash out of you – or “experiential shops”, as they have it. So when JK Rowling takes her first spin on the Cruciatus-a-Coaster, or whatever the big thrill ride will be called, here’s hoping she looks back on Mr Vander Ark, and realises his modest fan project was not quite as ghastly as she made out.”

Previous Article | Next Article Browse all Recent Companion Books News

66 Comments

Kevin

Well… We know that (from the Pottercast with Jo) that the theme park will have qquite alot of teh ‘Jo touch’ which means: Everything that the movies had to leave out will be fleshed back in…

Posted by Kevin on April 20, 2008, 02:08 PM report to moderator
lionpaws

Yes, but the theme park is not copyrighting her is it? If it’s not going to have an impact then why publish it at all, just let JK publish the REAL encyclopedia.

Posted by lionpaws on April 20, 2008, 02:08 PM report to moderator
Kevin

sweet… first!

Posted by Kevin on April 20, 2008, 02:08 PM report to moderator
matea

OMG-you can’t compare this case with theme park!LOL and yes-we’ll be “provided with another way to experience the world beyond the books and films” when Jo publishes hers encyclopedia. I’m so looking forward to it!

Posted by matea on April 20, 2008, 02:44 PM report to moderator
jenny

“So when JK Rowling takes her first spin on the Cruciatus-a-Coaster, or whatever the big thrill ride will be called, here’s hoping she looks back on Mr Vander Ark, and realises his modest fan project was not quite as ghastly as she made out.” omg that almost made me cry, so true

Posted by jenny on April 20, 2008, 02:47 PM report to moderator
Freya

OMG I HATE THAT WOMEN! WHY IS EVERYONE BEING SO HORRIBLE ABOUT JO! THEY ARE JUST JEALOUS!

Posted by Freya on April 20, 2008, 02:52 PM report to moderator
Patrick

I like that. It’s an interesting view, and I agree with her.

Posted by Patrick on April 20, 2008, 02:57 PM report to moderator
AndrewF

Thi section hurts:

“This, says the official blurb, “will provide fans with another way to experience the world beyond the books and films”. And so it will: as some injection-moulded theme park, punctuated by those endless Disney-esque stands selling supersized fast food, and attempts to chisel cash out of you – or “experiential shops”, as they have it. So when JK Rowling takes her first spin on the Cruciatus-a-Coaster, or whatever the big thrill ride will be called, here’s hoping she looks back on Mr Vander Ark, and realises his modest fan project was not quite as ghastly as she made out.”

...because it’s so accurate. We all want to support JKR, but that was a well-written and logical attack on her.

The above posters are correct in thinking that none of the article’s points in the article pertain to legality. However, we can hardly claim that Jo has has restricted her testimony to legal issues: the tears about her children, the quality of the book, and so on are all irrelevant. If she’s going invoke emotive and ethical arguments, she has to be open to an attack on those basis.

That said, I’m very concerned that Jo maintains control of her creation. I just don’t think that she can claim a moral monopoly on protecting the series. Not when she’s just sold it to theme-park-land.

Posted by AndrewF on April 20, 2008, 03:07 PM report to moderator
davidenglish

Check Joan Smith in the UK Independent this morning: Joan Smith: J K Rowling and the quest for fair pay. www.independent.co.uk

Sorry, I’d post a link, but I’m not sure what the correct coding is for that in this box.

Posted by davidenglish on April 20, 2008, 03:17 PM report to moderator
Matthew

wtf is Marina Hyde’s problem? How dare that editor judge Joe like that!

Posted by Matthew on April 20, 2008, 03:20 PM report to moderator
Crina

I agree. I thought from day one that the theme park was a bad idea and a potentially destructive move. It really felt to me like she was giving too much of her creation away at that point. When she came on Pottercast and discussed it, I was surprised at how confident she seemed that it would work out OK. Oh well … maybe I am being too pessimistic on this one. Maybe it really won’t be one of those terrible commercial places … hopefully.

Posted by Crina on April 20, 2008, 03:23 PM report to moderator
fly AWAY

OUCH!!!! So logically thought out it HURTS!!

Posted by fly AWAY on April 20, 2008, 03:28 PM report to moderator
secunda

I hate theme-parks myself if they are like Disneyland. Yet we have to wait what this theme-park will look like before we use it as an argument against Jo.

I fear the themepark just shows that she has already lost control over her work to WB and money-making.

Or it is a clever move to revolutionize themepark-land. But I guess it will be another disapointment (as will be the Scottish book)

Posted by secunda on April 20, 2008, 03:30 PM report to moderator
secunda

OUCH!!!! So logically thought out it HURTS!!

Posted by fly AWAY on April 20, 2008 @ 11:28 AM

Not really logical! The themepark will add something new to the series and may be something Jo likes. You see, the trial is about her free reign over her work. I have not heard or read that she talks about something else. What moral arguments else has she brought in?

Posted by secunda on April 20, 2008, 03:33 PM report to moderator
Sugarplum

The theme park has NOTHING to do with the lexicon! JK gave her permission to do the themepark and is being paid in all fairness for it, what sva is trying to do is earn money from something he didnt work to create !

So many years writing is so much more worth compared to the ’’2 weeks’’ they would assemble the lexicon and sell.

Besides i think sva likes the attention hes getting, which to me if pretty freaky. Or else he would have butted out long time ago if he had any respect for Ms Rowling.

Posted by Sugarplum on April 20, 2008, 03:34 PM report to moderator
You must be logged in to MyLeaky to comment. Please click here to log in.
Why is Leaky YELLOW? Because Hufflepuff WON the House Cup! LeakyCon Live Album! The best wizard rock from LeakyCon on a two-disc set! Introducing MyLeaky! Your Harry Potter Social Network
PotterCast Interviews Jo Rowling! Click here to Listen! The Books Everything...Half-Blood Prince...and the rest of the HP Films

Scribbulus Essay Project

Issue 26 - Nov. 2009

Scribbulus is THE place for Leaky Cauldron readers to submit their essays and opinion pieces!
See more over at Scribbulus!

Guess That Book

When the whole class was seated, Lockhart cleared his throat loudly and silence fell. He reached forward, picked up Neville Longbottom's copy of [i]Travels with Trolls,[/i] and held it up to show his own, winking portrait on the front.[br]"Me," he said, p

Learn to knit your own 'Weasley Sweater'. Learn to brew your own 'Butterbeer'. Find out how at Leaky Crafts! Cast spells and chat with your friends at the Chamber of Chat!

Introducing MyLeaky! Your Harry Potter Social Network Hosted by Idologic Inc.