J.K. Gives a Harry Eyeball
What is it about becoming superrich that makes people so greedy—and mean? Last week Harry Potter creator (and gazillionaire) J. K. Rowling was in court trying to stop a former middle-school librarian named Steven Vander Ark from publishing a book called "The Harry Potter Lexicon." He sees it as both a guide and a tribute to the wonderful world of Potter. She thinks it's a rip-off, and a shoddy one at that. "I think there are funny things in there," Rowling told the judge, "and I wrote them." It was all enough to make a grown man cry, and Vander Ark did, on the stand. "It's been difficult," he said, "because there has been a lot of criticism, obviously, and that was never the intention." For shame, J.K. You give all the rest of us Muggles a bad name.
© 2008
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Jim Law @ 04/23/2008 6:43:25 PM
Comment: and jco808, how much do you think J.K. Rowling makes off the sale of a single book? It's not that much. If she completely took off the chunk of the price that went to herself, it might make each book about ten cents cheaper. The vast majority goes to publishing costs and to paying cover artists, graphic designers, editors, and the like.
Posted By: Jim Law @ 04/23/2008 6:42:42 PM
Comment: and jco808, how much do you think J.K. Rowling makes off the sale of a single book? It's not that much. If she completely took off the chunk of the price that went to herself, it might make each book about ten cents cheaper. The vast majority goes to publishing costs and to paying cover artists, graphic designers, editors, and the like.
Posted By: Jim Law @ 04/23/2008 6:37:41 PM
Comment: This is not fair journalism. How about telling the other side of the story? J.K. Rowling has plans to write her own Harry Potter encyclopedia, the proceeds from which would go to charity. Steven Vander Ark's book not only violates Rowling's copyright, its publication would hurt the sales of Rowling's forthcoming book. Not to mention, a decision in favor of Mr. Vander Ark would set a precedent for the violation of copyrights in the future. This article is horribly biased and poorly researched.