Muggles

jackie e stallcup jstallcup at juno.com
Tue May 13 12:13:06 EDT 2003


Well, to be fair to the woman, there were a number of interesting
similarities between the names in her book and those in Rowlings.  In her
books there is a Neville, a Lily Potter and a Larry Potter who wears
glasses--enough similarities that the lawsuit got some way along.  But
the books were not only unsuccessful, from what I understand they were
only published as the kind of books that you can buy in the supermarket,
and then only in a small part of the U.S.  Of course, it turned out that
Rowling had visited that part of the U.S.  (again, perhaps one of the
reasons that the lawsuit went anywhere), but eventually, the whole thing
was thrown out.  If you are interested in getting more information from
her perspective, here's the website:  www.RealMuggles.com.  Oddly, there
used to be covers there with the names of the characters that were so
close to Rowling's, but they are now gone.  But here's a site that shows
Stouffer holding one of her books,showing the character of Larry: 
http://theinternetforum.co.uk/harrypotter/larrypotter.html

Frankly, the books look dreadful--read some of the excerpts on the real
muggles page.  

Here are a few news stories on it:
 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/GoodMorningAmerica/GMA010320_Potter_S
uit.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/18/1023864429840.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/19/print/main522563.shtml

I don't know who this person is, but she seems to be taking a fairly
commonsensical view of the issue:
http://www.ashleyrichards.com/articles/HarryPotter-V-LarryPotter.shtml
(as opposed to some fans who are rabid about the case--from both
directions--just do a search for Larry Potter and see what comes up!)

Anyway, I had so many students telling me in class that Rowling HAD
plagiarized (for whatever reason, students seem to assume that the person
bringing the lawsuit must be correct) that I finally had to investigate a
bit.   

Jackie S.

On Tue, 13 May 2003 11:29:42 -0400 (EDT) Anna Clare McDuff
<amcduff at math.sunysb.edu> writes:
> On Tue, 13 May 2003, Charles Butler wrote:
> 
> > how it got into the OED only now - because I suppose part of JKR's 
> point was
> > that this meaning had been around for years.
> 
> 	Just one more thing & then I will try to keep my Inner 
> Pedant
> under wraps or at least on topic. As far as I recall the Weird 
> Litigant
> wasn't disputing the meaning of Muggle, she was claiming she had 
> invented
> the word Muggle with a different meaning for some 
> totally-unsuccessful
> children's books she had written & then Rowling had evilly stolen it 
> and
> added her own Potter-centric meaning. So really all they ought to 
> have had
> to do in any sane or rational world is to have sat this litigious 
> woman
> down, opened an OED in front of her nose & then bade her to read. 
> But it
> didn't work out like that...
> 
> 	Anna
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body 
> "unsubscribe".
> Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
> 

--
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/



More information about the Dwj mailing list