On May 24th William began to do what he had been putting off for so long. He wrote the second part of Travels with Li Po. “The first part was merely to show the vision and what I had intended for it. Had I played my cards closer to my chest Harry Potter would not exist.”

Here he goes on to explain why he has written it and what it was all about from the beginning.

“After my story had been stolen by Rowling and Little there didn’t seem much point in going on with it. As soon as I duped what had happened incidentally I changed the ending of Part One to include the Virtue Agency the theme of which is the exploitation of what is good by what is evil. I also changed the title of my book from “Owen Muldoon and The Philosopher’s Stone” to “Travels with Li Po” and made a few other changes. Given our circumstances at the time taking Rowling to court was an impossibility for a number of reasons I need not go into.

It was suggested to me by my friends and family to finish my book so that I could elaborate on the vision I had for it, no easy matter I have to say, when all your fundamental ideas have been stolen wholesale, not to mention the philosophy that underpins them. That’s why I kept putting it off having long accepted that my career as a writer ended brutally in the summer of 1990 shortly after I had sent my book to Amnesty. Later I sent it to Little and one or two signed documents later knew beyond doubt I had been royally ‘stitched up’ by both of them.

Still, I wrote Part Two so that people could have access to the real deal, the authentic, genuine wholesome story and not the exploitative derivative. There are a few surprises in it as well for the few intelligent people around who are healthily sceptical of the Rowling-Little money-mining scheme they call “Harry Potter.” I am happy with it. At least it is mine.

My purpose in writing it in the first place was to empower kids with a critical view of life that would protect them from the oligarchic power-mongering and media chicaneries that ironically lie at the heart of the Harry Potter series. Li Po reflects the state of abandonment we all endured in the Bogside in the 1980-90s, a state that afflicted kids in particular and brought them face to face with questions of ultimate concern long before they were able to deal with them. If death is a big thing in both books, this is the reason why. My aim was to write a readable book, not to set up a global franchise. That is where Potter and me part company for good. Children’s literature, being depressingly conservative from a political viewpoint, I had it all to do with a book that was way left of centre from the start. I have not abandoned that position nor will I. Maybe the hour has come at last for Li Po that I considered at the time to be ground-breaking and still do. I also knew in my heart of hearts that some tosser or tossers would plagiarise it. I got that right!

Let me also state for the record that it is my unshakeable conviction that Willy the Wizard met with the same fate as my own work and the Bogside Artists support them in their struggle for justice. The Wizarding world of broomsticks and fantasy is derived totally from Adrian Jacob’s book. It should be obvious to anyone who has a modicum of non-deluded sense left that it is utterly inconceivable that the family of Adrian Jacobs would sink themselves in debt, pay millions to lawyers, mortgage their homes and spend 8 long years trying to drag the felons into court just so that they tell a big lie to the world, and expect it to believe them. If you believe to the contrary then your argument should be that they be removed from the streets forthwith and be subjected to electro-convulsive therapy for their own good. I suggest you were better off to take the more reasonable stand that they deserve the benefit of all out doubts with regards to Rowling and her relationship to Little. And that the argument of greed should be leveled at them not at their victims.

Adrian Jacobs’ family are demonised as “greedy”, “opportunistic” etc by the Rowling camp and her supporters in the media (many of whom are, conveniently, Rowling’s personal friends) but it is clear to us that the greed begins with the plagiarism of what never ever belonged to her or Little and which, I believe, was beyond the intellectual reach of either of them at the time. Let us, on the strength of this common sense, entertain the notion that, as with us, what Adrian Jacobs’ people are saying is the truth and always has been the truth; and Rowling-Little not only have a case to answer but, in the name of democracy, should be forced to answer it.

Deceit, Lies and the ‘idea on a train’ con.

Rowling wrote on her website that she was on a train when the idea for Harry Potter “fell into my head”. She didn’t have paper or pen, so for the four-hour journey all she could do was think. In another version she has napkins on which to scrawl. She says being forced to reflect on her ‘great idea’ saved the series. Now then what exactly does she mean by the “idea” for Harry Potter who strolled “fully formed” into her head? Is it

• The actual character of Harry Potter?

• The orphan boy left to figure things out on his own?

• The boy who is a sorcerer but does not know it?

• The college for sorcerers?

• The Philosopher’s Stone?

• A trainee wizard traveling between two worlds that impact on each other?

• A boy of great inadequacies and who is bullied but who triumphs?

• A boy being mentored into magical power by a wise old alchemist?

• A boy whose best friend is a bird that symbolizes his higher intelligence?

• A story addressed intentionally to both children and adults?

• A story of one boy’s quest for spiritual fulfillment?

• A story that encapsulates Jungian psychoanalytic theory and alchemical folklore?

• The perennial struggle between good and evil?

• The triumph of love over death?

Which one of the above ideas do you suppose it was, bearing in mind that the entire success of the Potter is due to ALL of them TOGETHER?

All of them together are to be found in Travels with Li Po, a fact well known to Rowling because that is where she found her ‘great idea’ and all the significant others that go with it. Potter appears as simply an ‘idea’ in the first book to thereby substantiate her ‘inspired from On High’ myth. Book One is to stake her claim to the character as ‘idea’ and serves no other purpose. The label is all that matters, a deed of entitlement, if you will, better known to us as plagiarism. That he is indeed “fully formed” ELSEWHERE and well-known to her a priori and as a fully realized character should be readily discernible to anyone who takes the trouble to read her first book carefully.

Great stories are not just ‘great ideas’ per se any more than one facet makes a diamond. If you called Hamlet merely an ‘idea’ you would be laughed at. Great ideas do not necessarily make great stories, no more than do great fantasies (also pilfered we believe from other sources) Great characters can and do. Which one was it then? If she claims it was Harry Potter the character it should be clear as daylight to you that there is nothing particularly ’great’ about Harry Potter the character when we first meet him in “The Philosopher’s Stone” and nothing at all about him as an ‘idea’ per se that would guarantee his rapid success. The preference of the word “idea” incidentally rather than ‘inspiration’ or ‘vision’ is to correlate with the fact that ‘ideas’ per se are not protected by copyright in the UK. This in turn was intended from the beginning to give ‘intellectual’ substance to the solitary rock on which the Rowling gang stand …. the precedents argument with which the internet has been blogged senseless by Rowling’s private army of supporters many of whom work in reputable newspapers and in the UK media. If the Rowling gang prattle on about ‘ideas’ and ‘precedents’ this is the reason why. The argument of course has no bearing at all on the fact of plagiarism.

Let us ask; if Potter came into her head “fully formed” why does he exist in the first book as an empty vessel? Not “formed” at all indeed…. still less “fully”.

 “Everything comes from Harry,” she states. What Harry? Where was he in Book One? If it wasn’t Harry Potter the character from whom “everything comes” which other idea is she referring to?

Or did she have them all ready and waiting even before she got the miraculous visitation of ”the best  idea I ever had” on a train? “Fully formed” indeed are the exact words used by Will in his letters to her concerning Owen Muldoon, the central character of  his Travels with Li Po where the young orphan is presented “fully formed” along with all of the most significant ideas listed above.

 For further insight into this consult: http://www.travelswithlipo.com

For information about The Bogside Artists see; http://www.bogsideartists.com

Freedom of Expression is More than a Basic Human Right

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

The following are unedited excerpts from wikipedia on the subject of freedom of speech.

“The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. The Amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as “the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression. Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional human rights law.”

Freedom of speech, or the freedom of expression, is recognized in international and regional human rights law. The right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

One of the earliest Western defences of freedom of expression is Areopagitica (1644) by English poet and political writer John Milton. Milton also argued that if the facts are laid bare, truth will defeat falsehood in open competition, but this cannot be left for a single individual to determine. According to Milton, it is up to each individual to uncover their own truth; no one is wise enough to act as a censor for all individuals

It should be clear to all therefore that plagiarism is an evil of relative magnitude that militates not just against a basic human right but against the very heart of democracy itself. The public at large are duped by perpetrators as to the severity of the crime. Perpetrators either succeed in buying their way out by offering the victim a minimal share in their ill-gotten gains or get the law to do their dirty work for them by allowing courts to adjudicate on the basis of draconian laws of proof that are clearly in the criminal’s favour. The crime itself can only be fully comprehended by its many victims. What is needed are new laws whereby reason, plausibility and expert testimonies are given added weight in the assessment process and in which a competent and fool-proof lie-detection technology can be used to find the truth or falsehood of conflicting statements.