I find Mr. Card’s critical article childish because he has no real basis for making the suppositions that he does about Rowling’s character and motivations. He supposes that she craves more spotlight and relevance, and she wants to be fetted and celebrated ad nauseum and is afraid that with the final Harry Potter book published, she will loose all that. This is all supposition, which I think is really a waste of time.

If it was wrong of Rowling to sue over the Lexicon, then it was wrong based on the merits of the case and copyright law (and Card’s opinions about copyright law). It is not wrong because she has a screw loose or craves attention. When an argument devolves into an attempt in to plumb a complete stranger’s psyche and find character flaws, it’s time to find a better argument.

We’re not angels; we’re only very flawed human beings. But somehow writers and artists tend to put their best selves into their work, and it is these works which survive their authors, and which we love.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky and C.S. Lewis, for example, were hardly perfect people. Their lives are quite well documented, as is JKR’s, on account of her celebrity status. But we know what they strived for, because we have their works as a record.

None of us lives inside Ms.Rowling’s head. None of us knows the motives of her heart. May we offer her the graciousness we have received from Christ, admitting that our own motives might be misconstrued. She has given us a great gift and we respond with cruel psychoanalysis that would tear our own hearts to pieces?

If we were to judge all art by its creators, we’d have very little art left in this world that satisfied our varied expectations. It is the art that stands the test of time. I’m very thankful for what she has given us, a lasting, wonderful work.

Kitties are great works of art. Do we accept the purrs and not the claws?…

On a positive note, John, I think you have your answer. It seems that even if the author is being compared to the Father of Lies, that won’t affect how people see her works. Which should cheer JKR up as well, I guess.

Again, it is not (so much) how it is said, but whether or not it is true. Mr. Card is a well-educated man deserving all the respect, and more, he gets for his writing. He is a well-respected social critic as well, particularly within Mormonism. I’ve read his columns for years, and they are eight times out of ten spot on the money. What he is saying is passionate, maybe a little disappointed and bitter, sure. I’m disappointed with Rowling too. The fact that he had guts enough to say it is a kudos to me. Many people of his caliber refuse to talk about most things for fear of backlash. He doesn’t care.

However, with regards to your last point, you say that it is not irrelevant whether something is mean-spirited and that anything else misses the heart of Rowling’s works. I would ask you then what you could possibly make of Lockhart, Skeeter, and Fudge, all of whom are vitriolic satirical commentaries on celebrity, media, and government. Lockhart is an absolute buffoon, and it is not mean-spirited to say so. It would be mean-spirited to call him something nasty that is either mean for meanness sake or something *invalid*. And when Rowling starts acting like Lockhart, which she has, it is no crime to point out the similarity. And contrary to rayhan, the fact that he says so and says it strongly in no way invalidates what he said. HIs comments would be invalid if there were no reason for them; if he had described her as a poopy head or jerk face. Or even if he called her pathetic for no particular reason. The difference is that he *gave* reasons, and dismissing them because of the tone is just as bad as what he is being accused of.

I am completely against nastiness, but I am all for rhetorical flourish and (valid) satire. Some unrepentant sinners need to be treated with less than perfect tenderness.

What was it that Mr. Card said? 1) Rowling is listing about searching for meaning. Her world was defined by Harry, and now he’s done. It’s happened before (George Lucas, ahem), and it will happen again, and it is patently obvious this is what is happening to her, poor woman. Card is most likely 85-95% correct here.

2) Rowling wants literary respectability. This too is most likely correct. She’s well educated. She’s knowledgeable. She’s a talented writer. How would *you* like it if most of the critics sniffed down their noses at your “pop culture crap” to summarize Ayatt? In this she is very much like Milton, knowing she is good and thirsting for recognition. I know that I would be livid if I had written the book series that left all other books on the NYT Bestseller list far behind in the dust, and then the NYT saw fit to create a new category just so that my books would not have to compete with what the NYT considered “real literature.” It would, as Card helpfully pointed out, make me “insane.”

3) She *is* being manipulated. Yup. Also most likely true. I’m glad Janet fleshed that one out, but Card suspected that as well: “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.”

How does Card describe her after noting these three issues? Ungrateful. She’s suing something that helped make her some of her money. Ingratitude indeed, and right on for saying it.

Vanity. She’s starting to think she’s all that, turning on the hands that have shown nothing but adoration for her work. Vanity indeed. Or should we say, Lockhart indeed?

Greed. She claims that this normal literary activity is stealing money from her, when this is patently not the case. Greed, indeed (though this may be more a depiction of her lawyers, who thought this would be a great excuse for them to make 1,000 bucks an hour).

Bullying. She’s beating up on her fans now for no valid reason. Bullying indeed.

He then describes her as an evil-witch, which should immediately bring to our minds Narnia’s White Witch. Now reread that story and notice how many similarities there are – greed, bullying, vanity (especially in Magician’s Nephew), ingratitude.

So yes. I am disappointed in Rowling. But I still love her books, and Janet is also absolutely right in saying that the works now stand alone, apart from the author.

The interesting thing is that regardless of where we fall on the JKR / SVA court case, and indeed regardless of how we view JKR’s actions, most of us here don’t believe our attitudes about those things will affect how we feel about the books. We don’t believe that there will be a “bleed through” from the character of the author to how we understand the books.

There was a marvellous movie made quite a few years ago, based on a book of the same name: The Singer not the Song. It was supposedly about religion, whether a preist’s power and conviction came from his personal faith, or from the message that he brought. Originally, I was quite the believer in the Singer. But now I’m moved to say that for an artist anyways, it’s the Song.

Janet, I think that’s what you’re saying too: JKR noteriety is temporary, her work will last. On that we agree.

Two points. Your analysis of JKR’s motives is based on speculation and supposition. You don’t know – no one except those close to her know, and even they don’t completely know – how she feels about the prospect of writing again. Also, no one can predict with accuracy how successful her future books will be. To speculate that she’s afraid of writing again, and that she wants to do an encyclopedia because she feels that is something she can do, and as well that she does not wish to lose the limelight – that is only speculation, and I think you need to recognize and note that.

My second point is this: I do not find her recent behaviour off-putting, and I don’t think that she’s putting herself in an unflattering right. Therefore I feel a strong need to point out that when you use the word “we”, that does not include me. I might be in the minority on this subject, but odds are, I’m not the only one.

And I guess I also have a third point: there is nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting to make money out of the products of your own work. Or buying the film rights to someone else’s books so you can both make lots and lots of money out of it. There is, however, something wrong with making money out of someone else’s work without their consent.

You – and others – may disagree that she has the sole right to make money from her own work. But I wish that you would not pathologize her and attempt to explain her actions in terms of fears and insecurities.

Your thoughts, too, on how little this will affect Reader Response ultimately strikes me as sober and on the mark. I spoke last night at a beautiful church in Bryn Mahr, Pennsylvania, and the very serious fans there were unaware there had even been a lawsuit. Until she leaves the rails a la Tom Cruise, this is probably a non-issue with respect to long term impact on reader response and critical interpretation, as other All-Pros here have said in different ways.

I appreciate your posting this “view from Hollywood” here.

Most authors don’t become celebrities of any kind. And most don’t court that kind of attention and publicity; it’s not in their nature as authors. (As opposed to actors. After all, remember Lawrence Olivier’s statement as to the three reasons anyone becomes an actor: “1. Look at me. 2. Look at me. 3. Look at me.”)

But celebrity is a heady drug, and JKR has had more than a taste of it, and has no experience in how to temper it, how to use it, how to avoid it. And no experience with the fact that, when the celebrity is event-based (the opening of a movie, the release of a book, etc.), it goes away.

Now her moment in the sun has faded. And maybe she thought it would always be that way. Maybe it was tastier than she expected. Maybe she wonders if it will ever come back.

And maybe she wonders if she will ever write anything again that will bring it back.

She will never — *never* — write anything as feted as Harry Potter again. She probably knows that, deep down, whether she can admit it to herself or not (or admit that she cares about it or not).

So here she is, fading into the back pages and then off the back pages. And that shouldn’t matter. She knows that. But being on the front pages is fun. It is, indeed, a drug.

How to get back on the front pages? Well, she has to write something else. But she hasn’t faced a truly blank page in 17 years. That has to be an incredibly daunting, even bone-chilling, prospect.

But to write an encyclopedia — *that* she could do. Her fans would love it. It wouldn’t matter if its box office wasn’t HP-sized, because after all, who would expect those numbers for a reference book.

And along comes Warner Bros., with *plenty* of experience in dealing with celebrities nervous about losing their place on the top of the heap, *plenty* of knowledge about how to flatter and tweak and manipulate. And they, too, are nervous: Will the cash cow that is the Harry Potter franchise come to an end with the publication of the last book?

(Remember: We can talk about JKR’s “Ownership” of HP all we want. But legally, all she owns is the wording of the 7 books. She has sold the name Harry Potter, the content, the characters, the right to exploit them in ANY way OTHER than literary — all of it, she has sold to Warner Bros. THEY own Harry Potter. JKR does not.)

Are we surprised that WB, seeking to protect one of its most valuable franchises (more valuable than Superman, more valuable than Batman), manages to convince JKR that she is being exploited?

Which leads us (finally!) back to the question of whether this will affect readers’ enjoyment of the books. And I think this comes back to the “Tom Cruise” issue that Linda so appropriately brought up.

JKR has been in the news in an unflattering light. And people who see those reports, who read about the trial will, I think, run the risk of having their perceptions of her work affected.

But she’s only been in the news. And really, how many people pay attention to the news. If a question about the trial appeared on “Jeopardy” a year from now, how many people would get it right?

Mr. Cruise, on the other hand, has been all over YouTube, he has made a fool of himself on Oprah, he has has tabloids rabidly seeking his daughter’s photograph, he has been parodied “South Park” — as well as having all these incidents repeated on the news and tabloid shows ad infinitum. And he had/has a personality much more widely known, much more cherished, much more valuable as a commodity than JKR, a mere author, ever had or ever will. Tom’s Q-Score may have dropped from 30 to 19 with all his shenanigans, but JKR’s has never been higher than 15, and it never will be.

The bottom line? *We* may find her behavior regarding the trial (or recent interviews, or “Dumbledore is gay,” or whatever) off-putting, but the vast majority of her readers are simply not aware of it. Yes, it was on the news for a few days, but then it disappeared. It fell below most readers’ radar, just as JKR herself will inevitably fall below most people’s radar.

But her books will not. I believe her books will endure. Most readers will not be affected by the trial news because they will forget about it or they will never have paid attention to it in the first place.

Her books will, indeed, endure. And *that* is far more important than any celebrity.

I just hope JKR comes to realize that very soon.

–Janet, writing from Hollywood, the home of celebrity itself