Today's word of the day is Lexicon, a compendium of words and meanings taken from a body of source material.

When Orson Scott Card speaks his mind, he's always entertaining even when (or especially when) he mangles facts and logic to reach conclusions diametrically opposed to my own. But he also has an infamous tendency to overreach and express some ugly and indefensible views. Most recently he got downright personal and ad hominem about the copyright infringement lawsuit between J.K. Rowling and a publisher that is attempting to publish a fan's lexicon of the Harry Potterverse.

Card is outraged that Rowling would have the audacity to block a derivative work when her own series is so "obviously" derivative of works that have come before--including his own.

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.

Of course there are only four, five, seven, or sixty-four types of stories under the sun, depending on how you count them, including any number of epics about a young hero whose powerful mentor provides special training in an arcane skill, and who picks up friends and allies during a quest to confront and defeat a powerful evil menacing the land, world, galaxy, or universe. Ender Wiggin could be said to be a tragic hero in the tradition of Odysseus, since both are unwittingly or unwillingly manipulated into devising a sneak attack that wipes out an entire civilization (Buggers for Ender and Troy for Odysseus). In case you think Card's story descriptions are so eerily similar that they just have to be true, check out J.L. Bell's similar comparison between Harry Potter and the origin story that turned Dick Grayson into Robin, Boy Wonder.

Card's first bit of intellectual dishonesty comes from equivocating the common and unavoidable use of traditional archtypes with the verbatim lifting of text and descriptions--which is what I understand to be the central issue in the Lexicon lawsuit. Card then goes on for quite a bit about what a greedy, thieving, frivolous hypocrite he believes Rowling to be, what a "pretentious puffed-up coward" she is not to make Dumbledore's sexual orientation explicit in the books, and how she's surely "blown her wad" of creativity and is now incapable of writing any other books in the future. He also calls her insane, pathetic, ungrateful, bullying, and implies that she's being manipulated by a small army of suck-ups.

Card is entitled to his opinions just as I'm entitled to mine--which are that J.K. Rowling displays as much creativity and originality as any author can when writing within a long-established genre, that she has every right to protect her intellectual property, and that Orson Scott Card has just made himself look like a jealous twit with delusions of overinflated importance.

But if I can't deny Card his right to hold an unsubstantiated opinion or two, I also can't let him off the hook for his seemingly deliberate twisting of fact. There's no way an author as long-established and successful as Card could be as ignorant of copyright law as he pretends. As I said above, he starts by conflating things that aren't given copyright protection (basic plots and broad character archtypes) with things that are given copyright protection (the actual words Rowling uses and her exclusive right to control derivative works outside of established fair use exceptions). Card applies a misrepresentation of the facts to his misrepresentation of the law to arrive at a reckless and irresponsible prediction:

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.

Talk about sour grapes! The reality of fact and law must be more complex and muddled than Card presents, or else the presiding judge would not be urging the parties to arrive at a settlement "because there are strong issues in this case and it could come out one way or the other. The fair use doctrine is not clear." It's safe to say that Rowling has at least a few arguable claims in her (and Warner Brothers's) 1,100-page complaint, and that her reputation won't be damaged to nearly the extent that Card is hoping and wishing for.

The Lexicon in question would be a subset of materials taken from an online encyclopedia of the people, places, creatures, spells, and objects of the Harry Potter series. The Lexicon would include descriptions quoted or adapted from the Harry Potter books, stills from the Harry Potter movies, contributions from presumably uncompensated online contributors, and some amount of original commentary and organization.

The ratio of these things would be one element determining how strong the case is that the work infringes on rights held by Rowling and Warner Brothers. Another element would be the extent to which the unofficial and unauthorized Lexicon damages the market for an official and authorized version that Rowling is said to be working on.

Pending a final ruling or settlement between the parties, I'll let J.K. Rowling's filing within the lawsuit also serve as an indictment of Orson Scott Card's attempts at character assassination and legal analysis:

"...I am deeply troubled by the portrayal of my efforts to protect and preserve the copyrights I have been granted in the Harry Potter books and feel betrayed by Steven Vander Ark, as a person who calls himself a fan. I am particularly concerned about [publishing company RDR Books's] continued insistance that my acceptance of free, fan-based websites somehow justifies its efforts to publish for profit an unauthorized Harry Potter "lexicon" directly contrary to my stated intention to publish my own definitive Harry Potter encyclopedia. Such a position penalizes copyright owners like me for encouraging and supporting the activities of their respective fan communities....

"RDR's position that fans of the Harry Potter series can simply buy two encyclopedias is both presumptuous and insensitive. RDR's position is presuptuous because it assumes that everyone would want to have two Harry Potter encyclopedias and insensitive in thinking that everyone that would want both could afford to purchase both. Although Harry Potter is now a worldwide success, it had its roots in a time when I was very far from wealthy. While I am extremely fortunate now, having had periods in my life when I worried about having enough money to feed and clothe my daughter, it is obvious to me that many people do not have money to buy every book that appeals to them....

"For seven years, Harry Potter was nothing more than an ever-growing pile of paper and notebooks on which I worked very hard whenever I could make the time. By the time of the publication of the seventh novel, I had been writing about Harry Potter for 17 years. As a result I feel intensely protective, firstly, of the literary world I spent so long creating, and secondly, of the fans who bought my books in such huge numbers. I feel that I have a duty to these readers to ensure, as far as possible, that Harry Potter does not become associated with substandard versions.... I believe that RDR's book constitutes a Harry Potter 'rip-off' of the type I have spent years trying to prevent....

"I am very frustrated that a former fan has tried to co-opt my work for financial gain. The Harry Potter books are full of moral choices and ethical dilemas, and, ironically, Mr. Vander Ark's actions tend to demonstrate that he is woefully unfit to represent himself as either a "fan of" or "expert on" books whose spirit he seems entirely to have missed...."