April 24, 2008
Can you believe that J.K. Rowling is suing a small publisher because she claims their 10,000-copy edition of The Harry Potter Lexicon, a book about Rowling's hugely successful novel series, is just a "rearrangement" of her own material.
Rowling "feels like her words were stolen," said lawyer Dan Shallman.
Well, heck, I feel like the plot of my novel Ender's Game was stolen by J.K. Rowling.
A young kid growing up in an oppressive family situation suddenly learns that he is one of a special class of children with special abilities, who are to be educated in a remote training facility where student life is dominated by an intense game played by teams flying in midair, at which this kid turns out to be exceptionally talented and a natural leader. He trains other kids in unauthorized extra sessions, which enrages his enemies, who attack him with the intention of killing him; but he is protected by his loyal, brilliant friends and gains strength from the love of some of his family members. He is given special guidance by an older man of legendary accomplishments who previously kept the enemy at bay. He goes on to become the crucial figure in a struggle against an unseen enemy who threatens the whole world.
This paragraph lists only the most prominent similarities between Ender's Game and the Harry Potter series. My book was published in England many years before Rowling began writing about Harry Potter. Rowling was known to be reading widely in speculative fiction during the era after the publication of my book.
I can get on the stand and cry, too, Ms. Rowling, and talk about feeling "personally violated."
The difference between us is that I actually make enough money from Ender's Game to be content, without having to try to punish other people whose creativity might have been inspired by something I wrote.
Mine is not the only work that one can charge Rowling "borrowed" from. Check out this piece from a fan site, pointing out links between Harry Potter and other previous works: http://www.geocities.com/versetrue/rowling.htm. And don't forget the lawsuit by Nancy K. Stouffer, the author of a book entitled The Legend of Rah and the Muggles, whose hero was named "Larry Potter."
At that time, Rowling's lawyers called Stouffer's claim "frivolous."
It's true that we writers borrow words from each other ? but we're supposed to admit it and not pretend we're original when we're not. I took the word ansible from Ursula K. LeGuin, and have always said so. Rowling, however, denies everything.
If Steven Vander Ark, the author of Lexicon, had written fiction that he claimed was original, when it was actually a rearrangement of ideas taken from the Harry Potter books, then she'd have a case.
But Lexicon is intended only as a reference book for people who have already paid for their copies of Rowling's books. Even though the book is not scholarly, it certainly falls within the realm of scholarly comment.
Rowling's hypocrisy is so thick I can hardly breathe: Prior to the publication of each novel, there were books about them that were no more intrusive than Lexicon. I contributed to one of them, and there was no complaint about it from Rowling or her publishers because they knew perfectly well that these fan/scholar ancillary publications were great publicity and actually boosted sales.
But now the Harry Potter series is over, and Rowling claims that her "creative work" is being "decimated."
Of course, she doesn't claim that it's the Lexicon that is harming her "creative work" (who's she borrowing from this time?); it's the lawsuit itself! And since she chose to bring the suit, whose fault is it? If she had left Vander Ark alone to publish his little book and make his little bit of money, she wouldn't be distracted from her next novel.
But no, Rowling claims Vander Ark's book "constitutes wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work."
Seventeen years? What a crock. Apparently she includes in that total the timeframe in which she was reading ? and borrowing from ? the work of other writers.
On the stand, though, Rowling's chief complaint seems to be that she would do a better job of annotating and encyclopedizing her own series.
So what?
Nothing prevents her from doing exactly that ? annotating and explaining her own novels. Do you think that if there were a Harry Potter Annotated by the Author, Vander Ark's book would interfere with her sales in any way?
This frivolous lawsuit puts at serious risk the entire tradition of commentary on fiction. Any student writing a paper about the Harry Potter books, any scholarly treatise about it, will certainly do everything she's complaining about.
Once you publish fiction, Ms. Rowling, anybody is free to write about it, to comment on it, and to quote liberally from it, as long as the source is cited.
Here's the irony: Vander Ark had the material for this book on his website for years, and Rowling is quoted as saying that when she needed to look up some 'fact" from her earlier books, she would sometimes "sneak into an Internet cafe while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter."
In other words, she already had made personal use of Vander Ark's work and found it valuable. Even if it has shortcomings, she found it useful.
That means that Vander Ark created something original and useful ? he added value to the product. If Rowling wants to claim that it interferes with her creativity now, she should have made that complaint back when she was using it ? and giving Vander Ark an award for his website back in 2004.
Now, of course, she regrets "bitterly" having given the award.
You know what I think is going on?
Rowling has nowhere to go and nothing to do now that the Harry Potter series is over. After all her literary borrowing, she shot her wad and she's flailing about trying to come up with something to do that means anything.
Moreover, she is desperate for literary respectability. Even though she made more money than the queen or Oprah Winfrey in some years, she had to see her books pushed off the bestseller lists and consigned to a special "children's book" list. Litterateurs sneer at her work as a kind of subliterature, not really worth discussing.
It makes her insane. The money wasn't enough. She wants to be treated with respect.
At the same time, she's also surrounded by people whose primary function is to suck up to her. No doubt some of them were saying to her, "It's wrong for these other people to be exploiting what you created to make money for themselves."
She let herself be talked into being outraged over a perfectly normal publishing activity, one that she had actually made use of herself during its web incarnation.
Now she is suing somebody who has devoted years to promoting her work and making no money from his efforts ? which actually helped her make some of her bazillions of dollars.
Talent does not excuse Rowling's ingratitude, her vanity, her greed, her bullying of the little guy, and her pathetic claims of emotional distress.
I fully expect that the outcome of this lawsuit will be:
1. Publication of Lexicon will go on without any problem or prejudice, because it clearly falls within the copyright law's provision for scholarly work, commentary and review.
2. Rowling will be forced to pay Steven Vander Ark's legal fees, since her suit was utterly without merit from the start.
3. People who hear about this suit will have a sour taste in their mouth about Rowling from now on. Her Cinderella story once charmed us. Her greedy evil-witch behavior now disgusts us. And her next book will be perceived as the work of that evil witch.
It's like her stupid, self-serving claim that Dumbledore was gay. She wants credit for being very up-to-date and politically correct ? but she didn't have the guts to put that supposed "fact" into the actual novels, knowing that it might hurt sales.
What a pretentious, puffed-up coward. When I have a gay character in my fiction, I say so right in the book. I don’t wait until after it has had all its initial sales to mention it.
Rowling has now shown herself to lack a brain, a heart and courage. Clearly, she needs to visit Oz.
Lots of emails from people asking me to comment on the JK Rowling/ Steve Vander Ark copyright case. My main reaction is, having read as much as I can about it, given the copyright grey zone it seems to exist in, is a "Well, if it was me, I'd probably be flattered", but that obviously isn't how J.K. Rowling feels. I can't imagine myself trying to stop any of the unauthorised books that have come out about me or about things I've created over the years, and where possible I've tried to help, and even when I haven't liked them I've shrugged and let it go.
Given the messy area that "fair use" exists in in copyright law I can understand the judge not wanting to rule, and assume that whatever he says the case will head off to the court of appeal.
My heart is on the side of the people doing the unauthorised books, probably because the first two books I did were unauthorised, and one of them, Ghastly Beyond Belief, would have been incredibly vulnerable had anyone wanted to sue Kim Newman and me on the grounds that what we did, in a book of quotations that people might not have wanted to find themselves in, went beyond Fair Use. (Which, I was told by my UK publishers, has now, as a concept, vanished from UK copyright law, although a moment's Google seemed to disprove this.)
Most commentary on the internet seems to break down into people picking sides based on personalities and opinions. As with most grey areas of law, it isn't cut and dried, and even when an appeals court-sized decision is handed down, it probably won't become cut and dried, because "Fair Use" is one of those things, like pornography, we are meant to know when we see them.
Having said that I'm fascinated by the "new rumour" that seems to have sprung up on this -- I noticed it on the Guardian comments page today, when someone began their comment with:
There is a story that Neil Gaimen was paid not to express criticism of Rowling for some of the similarities to his work.
I thought, "if there is, I haven't heard it". As far as I know the only person who ever claimed that was the mad muggles woman, Nancy Stouffer, at,
WDC: I read somewhere that some of the details in Rowling's books could be seen as borrowing from The Sandman comic books--I believe owls carrying messages for wizards was one example. Asked about this, Sandman creator and author Neil Gaiman's response was basically so what? Storytellers pick up bits and pieces from here, there and everywhere all the time as they create original works. Why is this bothering you so much more than anyone else whose "bits and pieces" may have been borrowed (and note I say MAY)? Because you have so many examples? I've seen them on your site and think most of them are coincidental and lacking in substance, no more justifying this brouhaha than the owl messengers would be for Gaiman to throw up his arms and scream plagarism.
Nancy Stouffer: The fact is that initially Gaiman did throw up his arms and yell plagiarism. It wasn't until he had a movie deal that his comments began to change. Initially he was terribly annoyed.
(This is the Nancy Stouffer whose case, when it went to court, was thrown out and who was ordered to pay two million in attorney's fees and fined $50,000 for "submission of fraudulent documents and untruthful testimony". She lied a lot.)
Actually, what I said, on the Dreaming website, long before this place existed, back in 1998, when this nonsense first started, was,
Thursday, March 19, 1998
Neil on Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling
Posted by puck at 3:00 AM PST | Comments (3)
There's a rumour going around that Neil is upset about the Harry Potter books being too similar to The Books of Magic. Neil asked me to post this to clear things up:
"I was surprised to discover from yesterday's [Daily] MIRROR that I'm meant to have accused J.K. Rowling of ripping off BOOKS OF MAGIC for HARRY POTTER.
Simply isn't true -- and now it's on the public record it'll follow me around forever.
Back in November I was tracked down by a Scotsman journalist who had noticed the similarities between my Tim Hunter character and Harry Potter, and wanted a story. And I think I rather disappointed him by explaining that, no, I certainly *didn't* believe that Rowling had ripped off Books of Magic, that I doubted she'd read it and that it wouldn't matter if she had: I wasn't the first writer to create a young magician with potential, nor was Rowling the first to send one to school. It's not the ideas, it's what you do with them that matters.
Genre fiction, as Terry Pratchett has pointed out, is a stew. You take stuff out of the pot, you put stuff back. The stew bubbles on.
(As I said to the Scotsman journalist, the only thing that was a mild bother was that in the BOOKS OF MAGIC movie Warners is planning, Tim Hunter can no longer be a bespectacled, 12 year old English kid. But given the movie world I'll just be pleased if he's not played by a middle-aged large-muscled Austrian.)
Not sure how this has transmuted into "Gaiman has accused Rowling of ripping him off." But I suppose it's a better story than the truth.
Did Warner Brothers Pay off Neil Gaiman, Worst Witch and Melissa Joan Hart?
Warner owns the rights to Harry Potter. They later bought rights to Neil Gaiman's work, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, and distribution rights to the "Worst Witch." They were the three main threats to the trademark.
After Neil Gaiman started squealing plagiarism, "Warner Brothers have optioned Sandman for a movie..." according to Neil Gaiman's website. When it looked like ABC was about to dump "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" Warner went and paid the most it ever did for a comedy. How often does a show a network is dumping switches networks, let alone pay a record amount for it? Was Gaiman and the Harts who own the Sabrina show paid off?
Which, given that I don't own Sandman or Books of Magic/Tim Hunter - they were both work for hire and are owned by DC Comics, a Time-Warner company, have been since they were created in the 80s -- have never "squealed plagiarism" except in Nancy Stouffer's sad mad mind and given that both Sandman and Books of Magic were first optioned for films by Warners some years before the first Harry Potter book was published, is not just astoundingly badly written lunatic conspiracy theory nonsense, but easily disproven creepy nonsense.
but this has got truth behind it _________________ and so, The Fellowship of the Phoenix set off on their journey into the heart of Voldemordor
to destroy the One Horcrux ...
'YOU SHALL NOT PASS' - Dumbledore the White
'my precious' - Kreacher
yeah...I'm a loyal fan of JKR, but this article has got some of that brutal truth in it.
its one of those things you dont want to say, but needs to be said
i think _________________ and so, The Fellowship of the Phoenix set off on their journey into the heart of Voldemordor
to destroy the One Horcrux ...
'YOU SHALL NOT PASS' - Dumbledore the White
'my precious' - Kreacher
The search function didn't bring anything up, so I'm assuming no has posted this yet.
Quote:
J.K. Rowling, Lexicon and Oz
by Orson Scott Card
April 24, 2008
Can you believe that J.K. Rowling is suing a small publisher because she claims their 10,000-copy edition of The Harry Potter Lexicon, a book about Rowling's hugely successful novel series, is just a "rearrangement" of her own material.
Rowling "feels like her words were stolen," said lawyer Dan Shallman.
Well, heck, I feel like the plot of my novel Ender's Game was stolen by J.K. Rowling.
A young kid growing up in an oppressive family situation suddenly learns that he is one of a special class of children with special abilities, who are to be educated in a remote training facility where student life is dominated by an intense game played by teams flying in midair, at which this kid turns out to be exceptionally talented and a natural leader. He trains other kids in unauthorized extra sessions, which enrages his enemies, who attack him with the intention of killing him; but he is protected by his loyal, brilliant friends and gains strength from the love of some of his family members. He is given special guidance by an older man of legendary accomplishments who previously kept the enemy at bay. He goes on to become the crucial figure in a struggle against an unseen enemy who threatens the whole world.
This paragraph lists only the most prominent similarities between Ender's Game and the Harry Potter series. My book was published in England many years before Rowling began writing about Harry Potter. Rowling was known to be reading widely in speculative fiction during the era after the publication of my book.
I can get on the stand and cry, too, Ms. Rowling, and talk about feeling "personally violated."
The difference between us is that I actually make enough money from Ender's Game to be content, without having to try to punish other people whose creativity might have been inspired by something I wrote.
Mine is not the only work that one can charge Rowling "borrowed" from. Check out this piece from a fan site, pointing out links between Harry Potter and other previous works: http://www.geocities.com/versetrue/rowling.htm. And don't forget the lawsuit by Nancy K. Stouffer, the author of a book entitled The Legend of Rah and the Muggles, whose hero was named "Larry Potter."
At that time, Rowling's lawyers called Stouffer's claim "frivolous."
It's true that we writers borrow words from each other ? but we're supposed to admit it and not pretend we're original when we're not. I took the word ansible from Ursula K. LeGuin, and have always said so. Rowling, however, denies everything.
If Steven Vander Ark, the author of Lexicon, had written fiction that he claimed was original, when it was actually a rearrangement of ideas taken from the Harry Potter books, then she'd have a case.
But Lexicon is intended only as a reference book for people who have already paid for their copies of Rowling's books. Even though the book is not scholarly, it certainly falls within the realm of scholarly comment.
Rowling's hypocrisy is so thick I can hardly breathe: Prior to the publication of each novel, there were books about them that were no more intrusive than Lexicon. I contributed to one of them, and there was no complaint about it from Rowling or her publishers because they knew perfectly well that these fan/scholar ancillary publications were great publicity and actually boosted sales.
But now the Harry Potter series is over, and Rowling claims that her "creative work" is being "decimated."
Of course, she doesn't claim that it's the Lexicon that is harming her "creative work" (who's she borrowing from this time?); it's the lawsuit itself! And since she chose to bring the suit, whose fault is it? If she had left Vander Ark alone to publish his little book and make his little bit of money, she wouldn't be distracted from her next novel.
But no, Rowling claims Vander Ark's book "constitutes wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work."
Seventeen years? What a crock. Apparently she includes in that total the timeframe in which she was reading ? and borrowing from ? the work of other writers.
On the stand, though, Rowling's chief complaint seems to be that she would do a better job of annotating and encyclopedizing her own series.
So what?
Nothing prevents her from doing exactly that ? annotating and explaining her own novels. Do you think that if there were a Harry Potter Annotated by the Author, Vander Ark's book would interfere with her sales in any way?
This frivolous lawsuit puts at serious risk the entire tradition of commentary on fiction. Any student writing a paper about the Harry Potter books, any scholarly treatise about it, will certainly do everything she's complaining about.
Once you publish fiction, Ms. Rowling, anybody is free to write about it, to comment on it, and to quote liberally from it, as long as the source is cited.
Here's the irony: Vander Ark had the material for this book on his website for years, and Rowling is quoted as saying that when she needed to look up some 'fact" from her earlier books, she would sometimes "sneak into an Internet cafe while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter."
In other words, she already had made personal use of Vander Ark's work and found it valuable. Even if it has shortcomings, she found it useful.
That means that Vander Ark created something original and useful ? he added value to the product. If Rowling wants to claim that it interferes with her creativity now, she should have made that complaint back when she was using it ? and giving Vander Ark an award for his website back in 2004.
Now, of course, she regrets "bitterly" having given the award.
You know what I think is going on?
Rowling has nowhere to go and nothing to do now that the Harry Potter series is over. After all her literary borrowing, she shot her wad and she's flailing about trying to come up with something to do that means anything.
Moreover, she is desperate for literary respectability. Even though she made more money than the queen or Oprah Winfrey in some years, she had to see her books pushed off the bestseller lists and consigned to a special "children's book" list. Litterateurs sneer at her work as a kind of subliterature, not really worth discussing.
It makes her insane. The money wasn't enough. She wants to be treated with respect.
At the same time, she's also surrounded by people whose primary function is to suck up to her. No doubt some of them were saying to her, "It's wrong for these other people to be exploiting what you created to make money for themselves."
She let herself be talked into being outraged over a perfectly normal publishing activity, one that she had actually made use of herself during its web incarnation.
Now she is suing somebody who has devoted years to promoting her work and making no money from his efforts ? which actually helped her make some of her bazillions of dollars.
Talent does not excuse Rowling's ingratitude, her vanity, her greed, her bullying of the little guy, and her pathetic claims of emotional distress.
I fully expect that the outcome of this lawsuit will be:
1. Publication of Lexicon will go on without any problem or prejudice, because it clearly falls within the copyright law's provision for scholarly work, commentary and review.
2. Rowling will be forced to pay Steven Vander Ark's legal fees, since her suit was utterly without merit from the start.
3. People who hear about this suit will have a sour taste in their mouth about Rowling from now on. Her Cinderella story once charmed us. Her greedy evil-witch behavior now disgusts us. And her next book will be perceived as the work of that evil witch.
It's like her stupid, self-serving claim that Dumbledore was gay. She wants credit for being very up-to-date and politically correct ? but she didn't have the guts to put that supposed "fact" into the actual novels, knowing that it might hurt sales.
What a pretentious, puffed-up coward. When I have a gay character in my fiction, I say so right in the book. I don’t wait until after it has had all its initial sales to mention it.
Rowling has now shown herself to lack a brain, a heart and courage. Clearly, she needs to visit Oz.
obv you can look at alot of fantacy novels and see there are comparisons, but if RDR books is allowed to publish this that will open the flood gate and everyone will be able to do this!!!! u shouldnt be on here abusing one of the best book series and books in the world. _________________ To the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure
obv you can look at alot of fantacy novels and see there are comparisons, but if RDR books is allowed to publish this that will open the flood gate and everyone will be able to do this!!!! u shouldnt be on here abusing one of the best book series and books in the world.
have you read the trial transcript, yet? There was a an interesting point made about Harry Potter for Dummies.... and how that book is a lot like an encyclopedi of knowledge. The floodgates are already open... I personally think it's become a matter of how wide open WB is willing to allow the gates to open.
I completely agree with the Judge in this case... this trial seems very lawyer driven and neither Steve nor JKR has their hearts in this case at all. Ideally I would love for them to shake hands and just drop the case. _________________ ^made by Fiendfyre
i already own three different copies of harry potter guides
so really whats the difference with this one _________________ and so, The Fellowship of the Phoenix set off on their journey into the heart of Voldemordor
to destroy the One Horcrux ...
'YOU SHALL NOT PASS' - Dumbledore the White
'my precious' - Kreacher
I agree that Orson Card brings up interesting points, and I intend to read his book in order to make my best judgement as to whether this guy actually has a case or not in this situation. I don't think, however, that he exactly did all of his homework before this metaphorical punch in Jo's stomach.
There are some inconsistencies in his version of this case, and he failed to even mention Jo's side of it. Rather he only gave his interpretation of the situation. While I will take this into consideration, I wouldn't make any concrete opinions based on such one-sided anecdote into the vase of JK Rowling V. RDR books.
One thing about this case that makes me sympathetic to Jo's plight is the fact that the lexicon is publishing a reference book that contains wrong information. RDR's side is saying that this book is not a speculative one, but when told that it has some piece of information or another wrong, they run to the fact that these things are merely speculation. They are not clear as to what the point of this book is, and I feel like I would have been duped if I had wasted my money on it without knowing that it actually wasn't as well-reasearched as I thought it was.
As to what Ginny mentioned about this being lawyer-driven, I think that that is partially true. Jo would have never even know about the lexicon if her lawyers hadn't informed her of it. I do, however, think that Jo wants to protect her readers as much as herself. She is a different breed of author. She has a relationship with her readers, and she enjoys informing them about her magical world and what bits of our world went into it.
Based on testimony, I don't think that Steve really cared much if he put out a lexicon book from the very beginning. I really think that he only signed on to make some money. I mean, he was about to lose his job, and maybe he found himself in a bit of a desperate situation, despite the cool manne in which he spoke of this point in his life. I don't think that he had any bad intentions as far as that goes. I also can't say that I completely blame him. He did after all put years and year into the lexicon. I think that this book would have been great if he and RDR had executed is properly instead of merely pulling from the website and rushing it into publication. RDR booksd have jumped on this band wagon a lot sooner if they wanted to put out a comprehensive encyclpedia. The truth of the matter is that there is no way that they would have had a book of proper quality published in the time alotted.
The fact also remains that Steve had RDR draft up a contract that left him completely protected from any law suits. Steve knew that there was a high potential for a law suit from the very beginning, no matter how much RDR books tries to hide that fact.
Also, I would like to point out that Steve doesn't have the legal fees. This law suit is between Rowling/WB and RDR books/Rappaport. Outside of his testimony, Steve had nothing to do with this trial and wasn't even in attendance for the trial. It seems rather misleading to point out that Jo should pay back his legal fees. It makes her seem like a shark preying of poor, innocent people who have less defenses that people with money like Jo's. The lawsuit is against RDR book, a company that incidentally knew what is was doing all along. _________________
Please support the Diabetes Walk
Guys, don't quote the giant post, please. ;_; It makes scrolling hard.
In any case, as much of a fan of JKR as I am, this article has some truth to it.
But no matter the case, every fantasy novel borrows plots, names and concepts from other fantasy novels. Intentional or not, most fantasies are not entirely unique to themselves, such as Tailchaser's Song and the Warriors series. Both books entail the plot of cats in an intricate society involving war, territory, conflict, love and the path into adulthood as a warrior. Both main characters are bright orange tabby cats, with a best friend of dark color. At one point in Tailchaser's Song, the best friend goes missing, which is also the main plot for one of the books in Warriors. Who is to say these are mere coincidences or direct evidence of "idea borrowing?"
The unique things about Tailchaser's Song, though, are the incorporation of an entirely new language that is often spoken or referred to in the novel, and upon enter the society as an adolescent, they must choose a name that will be his honor.
Warriors counters this with clans in different parts of a wood, each with a unique culture and leader, and a social heiarchy that sets cats apart from rank using the suffixes of their names.
Kitten = Sunkit, Adolescent = Sunpaw, Warrior = Sunflame, Sunfire, Sunscar, Sunfur(the suffixes here are different.), Leader = Sunstar
This is one example and the first one to pop into my head.
Unfortunately, I do believe there is a bit of paradoxal speaking on the part of JKR, but I also agree that the post above only shows one side of the arguement... even if the evidence against her is very large in the sheer amount of plot devices that were "borrowed" from Ender's Game.
I hope this is all resolved peacefully, and while I do not intend to buy a Lexicon OR Potterpedia, I feel this is being taken further than it should have been, and it would be best to organize a compromise. _________________
I read this article when it came out and Orson Scott Card is an idiot. I don't agree with any of his points and I think he's just a jealous moron. I don't think JKR is perfect but I don't believe she is vane or greedy either.
Orson Scott Card, can screw himself! _________________ Amor Vincit Omnia!
I read this article when it came out and Orson Scott Card is an idiot. I don't agree with any of his points and I think he's just a jealous moron. I don't think JKR is perfect but I don't believe she is vane or greedy either.
I read this article when it came out and Orson Scott Card is an idiot. I don't agree with any of his points and I think he's just a jealous moron. I don't think JKR is perfect but I don't believe she is vane or greedy either.
Orson Scott Card, can screw himself!
Excellent rebuttal.
First Post and
Actually Ive read both series, and Orson Scott Card is right. Most of his points are right. He could be like J.K. Rowling, and sue her for infringement on his first book. Other than the fact Ender isn't famous, actually he is, but only in the school hes going to,the similarities are important.
1. Ender sneaks around through airducts, in his battleschool at night, while Harry sneaks around the school with his invisible cloak.
2. Ender trained people in his own Jeesh, or small army, Harry did the same, just pretended it was dumbledores army.
3. Enders is hated by a bunch of archrivals in school, who routinely used to bully him, like how Draco tries to do to Harry.
4. Ender was thrust into Battleschool, out of the blue, like Harry was sent to Hogwarts.
5. Ender was good at the Game, the most important thing in battleschool, which involved flying through the air, like harry and Quidditch
Orson Scott Card is right, J.K. Rowling is just being petty
Rules
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
