![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
lunas_ceiling put it, this has been the "Week of Wu."
Just for the record, let's remind ourselves of who he is.
He does NOT work with the Stanford Fair Use Project attorneys who are representing RDR books in the Lexicon lawsuit.
Tim Wu is a Columbia Law Professor and writer. Last week he led part of a panel discussion in New York called "OnCopyright 2008." That is his field of interest, and yes, he has strong opinions. Everyone should already know that because he wrote an Article for Slate in January entitled "J.K. Rowling's Dark Mark: Why she should lose her copyright lawsuit against the Harry Potter Lexicon." That's a very simple, straight-forward title. So it shouldn't be a secret that he has an opinion about this case.
However, when he wrote the short vignette in the New Yorker entitled Fan Feud , it caused quite a stir, as my readers know (see the past few entries for details). He also wrote a follow-up on his blog What's New With Wu in which he restated his view.
Some in Fandom feel his article was a cheap shot at people who are already upset. For instance, Sue, one of the regulars on Leaky Cauldron's Pottercast who was actually quoted in Wu's now famous vignette has now blogged about her feelings: The Elephant in the Room.
Sue writes:
Case in point: The recent flap over the Tim Wu story in the New Yorker strongly reminded me of the tactics a lawyer might sometime pull in court-not one taught in law school as Mr. Wu would probably tell you, but one that happens when perhaps you feel backed in a corner and want to strike out in any way you can and win and win and win: you know, when they say something and the opposing attorneys cry 'foul!" and the Judge completely agrees and instructs the jury to disregard-then the attorney will say 'sorry your honor,' and then turn away with a bit of a smile, triumphant... for the goal has already been achieved-planting that seed of doubt in the mind of the jury, and yes, frankly it will remain, even though technically its not to be admitted officially, it's out there-message sent and received loud and clear. Doesn't make it right does it?, but there it is.
Speaking for myself, I kinda think this is was exactly the intent of the piece, and you can make all the apologies about the misquoting and distorted intent you want, but the damage has been done. From what I understand, corrections are apparently to be printed (read 'buried') later in the coming days..Pffft- yea this will take place when no one will see them-lets be honest, how many people read those tiny print corrections that show up weeks later? seriously? He got his point out, wound made, more anger more discussion more 'blood' drawn-so who exactly won is what I am wondering? who benefited out of that piece? I am not without some compassion for my friend, and again I still consider Steve to be my friend and um NO I do not think that by saying 'he has been vilified' or he is vilified, is me being inaccurate, being a bad friend, nor a bad person, for as his friend and former colleague its been horrifying to see this happen as it would be to watch the same happen to anyone you know, I mean come ON and it has been happening every single day, as it has been happening to Jo but to a lesser extent I think-
-but anyway, to me I found that article to be so inaccurate and unfair and beneath all involved frankly-unfair to Melissa and unfair to Steve. I have not talked to him regarding this matter, but I was appalled how badly it made people look and Steve, even though he surely is hurting (and yes I believe that M and Jo are hurting too yep, as are the lovely people of the Lexicon esp Bel who I adore and Lisa who I think very highly of, these are two good and decent people why should they be shunned so?)-it looked as if he was just lashing out and it killed me that we've gotten to this point. Why is malice and anger winning the day? why? WHY???
An alternate view to that is a comment written on Kristin Devoe's Blog "The Daily Prophet" in reference to the New Yorker story. Karen Brown author of the book Prejudice in Harry Potter's World wrote her own opinion of the Leaky Lounge, deleted posts, sympathy for Steve Vander Ark, and the so-called impartiality of fandom. I think she speaks for many of us who are still Harry Potter fans, and who are not personally involved, but still have a right to our alternative opinions.
Karen writes:
I’ve always loved the Leaky site and I admire Jo Rowling; and I’m glad to count myself as one of the fanbase. Still, I have to say that we are a little bit mis-guided in thinking that we are being fair in all of this. I’ve written posts on Leaky calling for some sympathy for Mr. Vander Ark–NOT because I condone what he has done, but rather because I think if he says he feels persecuted and vilified, he has more than enough reason to feel that way…because he is. I mean, let’s call a spade a spade. Some of us seem to want to say in the same breath A). “he has no right to feel that way because we are not persecuting him,” and B).”he deserves it anyway because he has done something horrible and unforgivable.” This is a contradiction in argumentation, and I’ve been trying to bring this to most of my fellow HP fans’ attention. We are waving Jo’s banner and at the same trying to come across and “completely” fair and impartial. We are saying things like “We are with you all the way Melissa/Jo/WB” and at the same time insisting that this is not a fan war. Who are we fooling? And who are we to decide that another human being deserves “no mercy” and “no sympathy.” We are not God. And neither is Jo Rowling for that matter.
Meanwhile, my posts on Leaky are being edited when I comment on these things, even though my statements are far less aggressive than some of what I sometimes see on there. Basically, if it doesn’t 100% concurr with the popular view, then it is not allowed. This disturbs me.
I say let the judge decide and let Jo sort out her issues with Mr. Vander Ark…The fact that he has lost the favour and respect of his idol is hard enough. He doesn’t need legions of HP fans turning on him too. This, in my opinion, is cruel and uncalled for.
Comment by Karen A. Brown, author of Prejudice in Harry Potter — May 8, 2008 @ 9:16 am
Tonight an interesting encounter on Leaky in which Melissa accused the poster kbnthomas of being Karen Brown, and demanded a retraction of the comment posted above. About the deletions - many people who support Steve Vander Ark have been deleted on Leaky. I don't see how we can "prove" that now, since the posts are, by definiton, gone. If Melissa wants to open up her logs for a day and let us see the names of the people deleted in the past three months, that might convince me, so I would urge her to "prove" that we haven't been deleted.
http://www.leakylounge.com/WB-JKR-vs-RDR-S
Posted by kbnthomas:
Here's what I just don't get. Why all the emphasis on "fair". This is a fan forum. There is no presumption of neutrality here. There's no reason to fly the flag of fairness.
I come to Leaky and I see illustrations from Mary Grand Pre and images from the movies and pictures of JK Rowling, and I assume all these are used with permission from Bloomsbury/WB et al or they would have been removed. TLC visits the movie sets, they have been flown to England to interview the author. It's not exactly a leap of logic to think "hey TLC has a relationship with WB and with the author that probably influences how they feel about this case."
And let me stress - there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is a fan site. It's no surprise to see a fan site have a positive relationship with the creator of whatever it is they are fans of. And again - nothing wrong with that.
TLC "reports" sure, but it's not the New York Times. It's not the AP. I've never read an AP wire story that referred to JK Rowling as "Jo" for example. TLC covers things that any other news outlet would probably not care about; like the birthday of the guy who played Oliver Wood in two movies, or what new role the guy who plays Percy is taking on.
And again - there is nothing wrong with that! No shame whatsoever in being a fan site.
Rather than stress how "fair" and neutral the forum has been (and fair is such a nebulously defined term, IMO) why not just say: This is a fan site with a long-established relationship with Rowling and we support her.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Melissa
For a good reason, kbnthomas: Because what often goes with that is the unearned assumption that the connection of those two statements is dependent: In other words, "we have a relationship with Jo and WB therefore we support them," and people tend to take that as, we are afraid of doing anything that would upset them.
Completely untrue. If it were true, trust me, Leaky would have been cast out of WB's net several times by now. And if it were true of Jo, that she asked for, intimated, required, hinted, that her like of this site was dependent upon us agreeing with her in all things, frankly, we wouldn't like her as much as we do. It's been her exact opposite position - her respect to the many hours put into keeping the site updated with facts instead of rumors - that the staff has responded so wonderfully to.
To clarify: Reporting fairly does not mean you aren't allowed to have an opinion. It means that opinion is not in coverage. But everyone, no matter how fair they have reported, has an opinion, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Also, there is apparently some discussion at FW about statements of those who don't agree with the moderators here being edited. That is a complete fabrication. Statements are edited in this thread pretty much only when they cross into insults; you can see an "edited by" tag at the bottom of each post that is edited to prove that editing had to occur, and furthermore I believe the person making the statement (kbnthomas, are you Karen Brown?) has never been edited at all in this thread, nevermind because she disagreed.
Setting aside the fact that the moderators here don't have some uniformed and unnuanced opinion to ascribe to - if we edited out disagreements this thread wouldn't exist, never mind make it 12 rounds (and heading into lucky #13). To levy that accusation is an insult to the moderators who are tireless and thankless on this very hard thread, and requires proof. I actively await proof (before and after statements, perhaps, which we would check against the logs that take down each moderator action to verify?), or a retraction. Thank you.
Melissa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by kbnthomas
I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about, sorry. My name is not Karen Brown, and I don't know what "FW" refers to. Nor have I ever said or implied that my posts have been edited. However, it certainly sounds negative and I now have the uncomfortable feeling that I've been accused of doing something very bad and how am I possibly to clear my name now when the person in charge of this site has made this accusation publicly? Who are people going to believe? Me with my 55 posts or the site webmistress?
I didn't say a single thing about insulting or feeling superior to anyone and I honestly have no clue what your story has to do with my previous post. Or the moderation of this site.
In all honesty - and in the kindest way possible - I feel that I have fallen into some alternate universe where people are replying to something I never said, calling me by names that are not mine!
To clarify: I simply said that there is no reason, in my mind, for a fan site to insist that the fact that they are a fan site has no bearing on their feelings in this case. I'm sorry again but I simply don't believe that TLC's long and intimate relationship with WB and Rowling has nothing to do with the way this case is presented on the site and discussed in the forums. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with having that bias.
I just think it's ridiculous to keep arguing that the bias isn't present. There is nothing wrong with a fan site having bias. That's sort of the definition of being a fan - that you are biased toward whatever it is you like.
But fine, if you want to keep saying you aren't biased, you aren't biased.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by Melissa
My total error, then, kbnthomas; that was a guess because of your name. Then I really don't know who's been making the accusation, but it remains (and remains that if this person was edited it would be for OT or insults, much more often the latter).
- Location:Lake Wu-Begone
- Mood:
working - Music:Neil Young: "Rockin' in the Free World
Comments
Where to start with the week that was Wu, hmmm. I do think Sue has been in an unenviable position and tried to be balanced on the trial podcast. It is pretty obvious in reading your transcript that there were things she couldn't say. I do think Sue's question "Why is malice and anger winning the day," is a good one. There is some truth, in my opinion, that a fair amount of the malice and anger stems from fear. If I had to write about this experience I would borrow from Hunter S. Thompson. How does "Fear and Loathing in Potterverse," sound for a title?
JKR played on this fear in her testimony that the trial and the pending Lexicon book has blocked her creative output. Mr. Wu picked up on this and made a comment in the WSJ legal blog about the burden placed on the person who stopped JKR from writing. Surely it wasn't bad enough that SVA was the one who messed up the sandbox fun now he bears responsibility as the big bad wolf who blew JKR's creative ability to kingdom come.
Karen Brown was exactly right, let's call a spade a spade here. This man has been villified. It is a bit tough to compare the misquote in Wu's article to what SVA has gone through here. Wu had the essence of the podcast correct. Let's see he was compared to a family member who has done something horrible. In another instance the situation was compared to a friend being arrested. Last I checked he tried to write a book...hello? The bottom line was that he brought this on himself. I believe John Noe took this further and said: "Exactly, so what the hell, where could there be sympathy here from any true Harry Potter fan? I can't see it." I guess we have been put in our place, haven't we? Maybe I will demand a retraction.
I keep being reminded over at Leaky that SVA is not named in the suit, therefore not a player I guess. It sure seems to me that he has been royally trashed for someone who is hardly involved here. Isn't it contradictory in the extreme that someone brought this all on himself and hardly significant at the same time? How could someone have no power to settle the suit and have had the ability to stop it at any time? I am totally confused by that.
Just about exactly right! :) And we all need a 300-pound Samoan Attorney to watch out for us, don't we?
I believe I am a "true fan" of Harry Potter, even if I disagree with John in the Pottercast.
Sue mentions the other people on the Lexicon staff, as if they had a different aim than Steve in working on the Lexicon over the years. Don't they get hurt when people say it's a piece of crap or a sloppy mess? Aren't they still listed as authors or editors too? Aren't they "true fans"? I think they are - so why isn't Steve a true fan?
Again - that is just singling Steve out and making him somehow different than every other fan, and it's not fair.
Other fans have written books - even encyclopedias - and they are not ridiculed this way.
When Sue asks why is malice winning, well maybe it starts with statements like that "true fan" remark, as people seek to tell other fans what to do or how to think.
Yes, why is an excellent question. Why would Tim Wu want to lash out with malice at Melissa Anelli personally? She means very little to him - he's interested in the fandom conflict and she's one of the main players so let us consider for a moment that this is less about MA and her cronies and more about the Potterwar going on here!
I'm impressed she managed to turn an article that is pretty unflattering to the whole of fandom (using people's Hogwarts houses to describe them takes away the 'sensible adult' image and SVA didn't get such a great write up either) into something that personally attacks her. This level of self-obsession is a bit paranoiacal :s I'd be worried if it was me.
"Fandom tends to eat their own."
Sometimes I think for purposes of discussing the books that it is important which House you sympathize with or like the best. It has to do with personality, and I don't mean in a bad way. I tend to make friends who consider themselves Slytherins and Ravenclaws and they are some of the nicest people I've met on the Internet.
Sorry but most people who see themselves as "brave Gryffindors" often see the books totally differently than I do. I hate James and Sirius, both as child bullies and adult screw-ups, and I think Lupin's life as it is written is a mess. Some people won't admit to this day that Peter was really a Gryffindor, and he used his bravery in bad ways to get his friends killed and to live with Voldemort.
I still can't believe that JKR wrote that Snape was the bravest man Harry ever knew, then she turned around in her interviews and trashed him, then called the Marauders the "heroes of their generation." Not in my books they aren't!
I might be misreading this - and that quote stands there as a random example - but I am a little confused about the complaint. Wu's fact checkers might have confused Sue's and Melissa's voices in some places, but the fact remains that they were both part of the show, and comfortable enough with all things said NOT to interrupt and say something like 'hold on, let's stay fair here', right? That show is out there and free for anyone to download and listen to. Nobody made these quoted comments up.
Also - that thing about the unfair influence of the 'jury' - who IS that jury? Who would Wu so slyly try to lull in, then? He's written an opinion piece and that's it. I sincerely doubt that Judge Patterson will be swayed in any direction by anything going about on the internet right now, or in the press. And the judge is the only one that counts in regard to the outcome of the SUIT. As for the reception in fandom - JKR's supporters are numerous and loud, do they really need to worry that there may be some readers left who stubbornly and, oh, truly irresponsibly, insist on seeing the matter differently?
I mean, I have nothing against Melissa. I don't KNOW her, I was never a part of the Leaky community and only know it by reading links going there. In my very unlearnt opinion (and this is neither irony, nor sarcasm - my entire opinion consists of facts and other people's opinions which I learnt about while following the coverage on the suit, and nothing else), she, some others among her friends, and Steve and his Lexicon crew, seem to have a personal matter to settle. Then, why don't they? I know, I might be hopelessly old-fashioned, but there's that old device of telephones, or *gasp* letters. Why use the world-wide-web for the matter? Why use a medium that gives access to ANYBODY when handling a 'family affair'?
Because that's what it is, when you use a podcast. I remember prior to the release of DH, there was that Borders show, where they discussed the matter of Snape. They had three defenders and three participants for the 'accuse' (sorry, don't know a better word), and had a lively, engaging debate on the matter. That kind of well-balanced discussion ON THE SUIT in itself wasn't what happened though in that podcast, for example. And all the personal stuff doesn't have anything to do a) with the suit itself, and b) no place (in MY opinion) in public, IF one wants to remain on the 'fair' side.
-- Annie
Also, Mugglenet's own plans for an encyclopedia were suppressed by a C&D letter from JKR/WB's attorneys, so they may be less enthused about supporting JKR/WB on this issue, but don't feel that SVA is clearly right, either. However, I wonder, if RDR/SVA wins, will they proceed with plans for their own encyclopedia after all?
LM
You can't expect to treat someone the way Melissa/TLC has treated SVA without making other people think you're a schmuck.
I think you are making a point here,
the main isssue in the fan feud has ben the controversie JKR/SVA
discussion about Melissa is taking shape of a sort of satelite fan feud, and it is murking the waters even more.
The whole affair could be over within a week when judge Patterson trows his hamer ---not that I believe it --- and then we all have egg on our face for still banging heads about one of the headbangers in the third row.
I don't think Melissa is worth being a discussian at all,
but that can hardly come as a surpice.
And isn't that exactly what Melissa did, saying that Wu was cozy with SVA during the trial, when in reality he wasn't?
Or how about implying that a "Google ad was making too much money" when Leaky and other sites have many more advertisements.
It's implying wrongdoing when there isn't any. If Sue wants to believe that there was no "triumph" in planting those stories about the Lexicon, she is welcome to believe that.
Wasn't it calculating of Melissa to put herself in the Courtroom to "cover the story" of the trial? Wasn't it calculating to hold Cendali up as a great attorney in the Leaky Lounge, and write continuously about how her "pie chart of doom" was going to save the day?
Leaky has been very effective in getting Fandom stirred up against SVA. Wasn't it a "calculated" decision to keep criticizing him? On the Pottercast, they sound as if they are on a mission to cut him down as much as possible, and Tim Wu just exposed that to a new audience.
1st) Sorry if any comment I have made on Leaky was taken as offensive.
2nd) Would it be too much too ask if we as fans commited to watch our tongues? I don't mean to stop having an opinion, just stop poking eachother.
Fer_keeper
How is "laughing and pointing" not malicious to the person who is the subject of them?
Melissa is now jumping to her own conclusions left, right and center. People are asking why the Mugglenetters haven't jumped into this ~ why should they? The Lexicon, SVA, TLC, Melissa and Sue are doing a great job of imploding on their own. Emerson Spartz must be sitting back laughing his head off.
Now, having said that, I must insist that I am certainly not lying about being edited and I have no intention of retracting my statements. Below is a copy of the personal message I received from one of the moderators after I posted a comment one day before setting off for work. It must have been early morning in the US because I live in the UK...So I don't think many people had a chance to see my post. Anyway, I've copied and pasted it below. What was taken out was the first part, where I said I disagreed with Monty. And yes, I do think the God jokes, the joking in general and the "pointing and laughing" tone that was employed for quite a while after Steve's anti-Melissa outburst, were quite inappropriate. I think his remarks and the frame of mind he was obviously in did not warrant any response at all. They should have been ignored and he should have been pitied rather than further ridiculed. And since I could not say it on Leaky without being edited, I said it eleswhere, and this is what has led to the mess. I deeply apologize for having added to the contention. This was not my intention at all.
I have always maintained that we the fans should show some restraint and stay out of this mess and let the judge and the involved parties (JKR & SVA) sort it out. There are simply too many of us and only one Steve Vander Ark. Obviously, I should have taken my own advice. Anyway, the edits and the kind message I received from the moderator are posted below.
May 8 2008, 08:19 AM
Part of Leaky's #1 Tag-team Duo
Posts: 1,824
Joined: 4:10am February 24, 2007
Location: Paying my last respects to Severus Snape
Hello Kabbymoh!! bye.gif
I hope that you are having a great day here at the Leaky Lounge. I have enjoyed reading some of your posts throughout the lounge and in the pottercast forum in particular. If you haven't already noticed, I have removed a part from your latest post here. I am very sorry that this post offended you. I know how hard it can be with the strong religious beliefs that are out there, but also we need to keep in mind our #1 rule here and that is to be nice. I realize that you did not agree with a user and what they said offended you, but the staff had decided to leave this quote in due to it not actually discussing religion. Part of Rule #1 is that we don't call other members out for what they say. While I realize that this was probably not your intention it did come off as harsh. Also the last line about being a cult fanatic could also be taken the wrong way.
I've enclosed the part that was taken out if you would like to edit it and put it back into your post.
QUOTE
QUOTE(Lord Montymort @ May 7 2008, 11:57 PM) *
Just to continue this moment of off-topicness. Todays Simpson's episode was the one in London. And Lisa spy's Jo coming out of a book store, and Lisa asks what will happen at the end of Harry Potter, and Jo say's "He grows up and marries you. Is that what you want to hear?" And Lisa all faint goes "YEEEEEEEEEEES!!!" Today of all days thats on, and Jo wins the photo appeal. Could it be a sign, from the God Rowling?!?! lol.gif
I'm sorry saying this, Monty; I know you were joking but I think the God thing was inappropriate. And not even because it's an obvious jibe at Vander Ark's remarks [at least, I suppose it was], but rather because this is another kind of remark that could be misconstrued by casual observers: We want to give the impression to everyone that we are rational and fair people, not a band of cult-like fanatics who happen to be on JK's side [Let's face it...We have all chosen a side.].
If you have any questions about this or anything else please do not hesitate to contact myself or another moderator and we would be more than happy to help you out.
Happy Posting! type.gif
Iheartprofessorsnape
Leaky Lounge Moderator
We can use ideas discovered in HP to understand the world around us. There are serious themes in the series that can springboard us into fascinating discussions. Or we can simply sqee. It's all good, or it could be. But…
I've watched some of the cleverest, most insightful and sophisticated people in fandom mocked and harassed by peabrains at a major fan site. They left and then they were followed by the same peabrains to a new site, where the harassment continued. Funny, some of those same morons are some of the loudest shriekers in defense of "Poor, poor Jo." Kindness and respect are not nearly as prevalent in fandom as some people delude themselves into believing.
These attempts to disparage lawyers and scholars in this case only makes people look foolish. I never listened to those Podcasts and know nothing about Melissa except what I've seen quoted since the trial began. I have to say I'm not impressed. If JKR is the goddess of fandom, it seems Melissa is the Grand Inquisitor who defends the only "correct" view of all things Potter. I'm not impressed with her legal acumen or her lack of respect for those who hold different opinions from her? My response? Bah!
It's silly, all of it. It's also intolerant, mean-spirited and makes the real world we live in a teensy bit worse than it has to be, by feeding the petty, mean-spirited intolerance and ignorance that seem to have always lurked in the dark corners of fandom.
I have my own opinions of the personalities involved, but that's pretty irrelevant. What matters to me is that I've used the Lexicon as a very valuable tool for years. It's an admirable piece of work. I believe it should be published in book form. I will buy it when it is released.
As for the rest of this rubbish? All the wanking and cranking up of this drama tells me that a lot of people must not have any real challenges in their lives, and nothing better to do than whinge over things that are not their business.
I must say though, that even if I were a billionaire, the idea of having fawning accolytes around me would make me puke. The idea of BEING a fawning accolyte… Even worse. Ew.
As always, a joy to visit, RS-root. Have a delightful weekend.