Dearest, beloved, Fandom Wank.

I know you were looking forward to great excitement today. Some of you said words to me that indicated you anticipated fiery 'judgement' upon those who remained fresh and dewey white, those you call n00bs.

Anyway, you got today instead.

Stop anticipating things, we'll just break your hearts.

Sincerely,

Sepia P. Magpie, Esq.



PS: Use this post to reflect on how you could be better people. Or just fuck around in the comments.

Okay, on Friday, a document appeared on Justia that said... well, we weren't entirely sure what it said, or what it was really in response to. The upside of it was that there was going to be an injunction hearing on March 13, but... something about going ahead and squeezing in a trial rather than waiting on a summary judgment that sent both sides into a flurry of trying to figure out how to fly witnesses to New York on six days' notice (JKR is apparently attending another trial--involving paparazzi?--in England on that date already). Fortunately, RDR has an update:

New York Federal District Court Judge Robert Patterson has scheduled a trial for March 24, 25 and 26 in the matter of Warner Bros. Entertainment and J.K. Rowling v. RDR Books. The judge consolidated a previously scheduled preliminary injunction hearing with the trial.

Also:( Read more... )


ETA 8, because I'm just going to keep on trucking on this one entry until something important actually happens:

Via rustybitch: Info/Law, the one blog that gets it, has posted a new analysis. Key passages:

For transformation, let’s dispose quickly of a red herring: RDR/VA’s work - and it’s extensive - in cataloging and assembling information about the Potter world gets zero weight in fair use analysis. Feist makes this clear: "sweat of the brow" copyright is dead - you get no protection for your work because of the effort involved in pulling it together. Rather, the key is the new expression you add - or, here, the new transformative expression. And I don’t think there’s enough of it.

[...]

Is this a good outcome? I think so. Remember that the 4 factors are non-exclusive. I’d argue Judge Patterson should consider an additional factor here: behavior by the copyright owner. Rowling has been supportive - very much so - of the Lexicon as long as it remained on-line and relatively non-commercial. To the degree that free speech concerns arise in this case (as the memo in opposition of the injunction argues, at p. 6), Rowling’s conduct mitigates those worries.... She’s allowing this information to be presented to her fans and the public in general, while trying to minimize financial harm to her works. Copyright is often presented as a balance between incentives to produce and access to that production; here, Rowling’s approach seems to find that balance.... In Potter terms, though, I think this is a triumph for Dumbledore’s Army, and not for the Death Eaters.

From auralan: "RDR Books has set up Media contacts for the Harry Potter Lexicon Case. They're not bothering to make any pretense that this isn't all about getting as much press coverage as possible."

From hooloovoo_too: More conflict-of-interest weirdness.

From insanitys_place: "I was able to dig up the two Lanthorn articles if anyone is interested in them. This one was before the GVSU forum. And here's the follow up article."

From alexielnet: The Lexicongate drinking game.

So, Terry Pratchett was (rather unflatteringly) interviewed in the Times. [ETA April 20, 2007: The previous link is now dead. For all those interested in your wank history, here's a working one, supplied here by a helpful anonymouse: Sod the Booker, this is popular: Giles Hattersley meets Terry Pratchett.]

Here is a loose and free paraphrase of a portion of the interview:

Interviewer: "So, when did J. K. Rowling stop beating your wife start ripping off your work?"

Terry Pratchett: "You're crazy if you think I'm actually going to answer that."

Interviewer: "I'll take that as a yes." (<--Actual real quote)

Potter fans: "OMG Pratchett dissed JKR! He's so jealous!"

Me: *Headdesk*

The Leaky Cauldron report on the article, with links to other Pratchett interviews/letters, is here. [ETA May 14, 2009: Although the original post remains, the old comments page, with all its glorious wank, appears to be gone. If anyone knows a workaround URL to get to old Leaky comments, let me know.]

Oh, yeah. The wank report from the last time this happened is here.

( ETA: A response from Pratchett about the interview )

ETA2: Because it's impossible to discuss Pratchett without someone wanting to try his books, we now have a thread of Pratchett recs. In fact, have two.

Discworld wank, from wank_report.

overlord_mordax posts in the Discworld community that the witch books make her "more angry than words".

( The witch books ... are anti-story. )

gumbuoy disagrees.
( the point is ... )

Mordax says that she likes stories that follow standard narrative conventions but have new window dressing, and the two argue for a bit.

conuly jumps in to say that that's naive.

scienceprincess uncovers the real point of the way Pterry takes apart fairy tales and stories, but, sadly, logic is too much for Mordax and she does not reply.

More logic that flies over Mordax's head. See also the other two pages of comments.


ETA: Mordax makes a new post about why she gets the point without actually getting the point in truth.

Honestly? This is barely a wank. A wanklet. If not for the outraged cries of the devoted Harry Potter fans, this would have been just a series of amusing articles in the media.

The Time Magazine interviews JK Rowling and manages to make a number of inaccurate statements about the fantasy genre and fantasy writers.

BBC comments on Terry Pratchett's rather sarcastic letter to the Sunday Times that pokes fun at inaccurate reporting and, rather cheekily, at JKR Herself.

Little wank so far, until we get to the comments on Leaky Cauldron. Apparently Pratchett is just jealous of JKR's fame and fortune!

Thank you, Neil Gaiman, for putting things in perspective again.

Edit: And the same sad song over at MuggleNet. Also, thanks to also_not_a_pipe, a link to the wank from the other side.

Revenge of the edit: From the blog of diane_duane comes Pterry's response. [Insert some rather OT Rihannsu-flavoured squee, because, well, Diane Duane.]