One of the greatest exponents of the uses and abuses of the media and the gullibility it thrives on was the late, great Malcolm Muggeridge. Here, in an essay on the “death-wish of liberalism’ he puts in a nutshell the mindset of the liberal “success-at-any-cost-to-others’ that is the basis of the Harry Potter plagiarisms.

Nobody dares question the mythic Rowling or her assertions any more than they once questioned the tyrannical oligarchy of the USSR. Plus ça change plus c’est la même chose. But it is a salutary exercise to reflect on Rowling’s ‘idea-on-a-train’ nonsense not to mention her immaculate public image and indeed those of her elusive mentors and accomplices in light of the following:

I recall in their yellow jackets a famous collection in England called the Left Book Club. You would be amazed at the gullibility that’s expressed. We foreign journalists in Moscow used to amuse ourselves, as a matter of fact, by competing with one another as to who could wish upon one of these intelligentsia visitors to the USSR the most outrageous fantasy. We would tell them, for instance, that the shortage of milk in Moscow was entirely due to the fact that all milk was given nursing mothers – things like that. If they put it in the articles they subsequently wrote, then you’d score a point. One story I floated myself, for which I received considerable acclaim, was that the huge queues outside food shops came about because the Soviet workers were so ardent in building Socialism that they just wouldn’t rest, and the only way the government could get them to rest for even two or three hours was organizing a queue for them to stand in. I laugh at it all now, but at the time you can imagine what a shock it was to someone like myself, who had been brought up to regard liberal intellectuals as the samurai, the absolute elite, of the human race, to find that they could be taken in by deceptions which a half-witted boy would see through in an instant. I never got over that; it always remained in my mind as something that could never be erased. I could never henceforth regard the intelligentsia as other than credulous fools who nonetheless became the media’s prophetic voices, their heirs and successors remaining so still. That’s when I began to think seriously about the great liberal death wish.

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

Bewitchment in the Service of Power and Deceit.

We have not forgotten the humiliation dished out to us by Rowling’s lawyers in 2008. It damaged us and was meant to do so. As a small charity constantly in need of help just to survive we find the attempt by Schillings to discredit us beneath contempt. What we said we know to be true and the Derry News, although it is free to apologize all it wants, is certainly not speaking for us with this ‘apology’ and most certainly not on our behalf.

First of all The Bogside Artists have not and will not apologize to Rowling for what they have said. The Derry News had to, and did, much to their eternal shame. To understand the following “apology” to appease J.K. Rowling’s lawyers you have to accept that the Derry News believed they were facing ruin if they did not comply. Shocking! The text of the actual apology is here reproduced in full (in italics) as it was printed in Dec/2008 and possibly dictated to them by Schillings.  

Text in red is our commentary on the text of the ‘apology’ to “put the record straight”.

“Last Monday’s front and third page article, ‘Harry Potter and the Bogside Artists’ suggested that author JK Rowling’s lawyers had complained to the Bogside Artists about a book called ‘Travels with Li Po’. We accept that this is not true.

Well, wasn’t exactly Rowling’s lawyers per se. It was Neil Blair lawyer to Rowling’s literary agency known as Christopher Little’s (‘discoverer’ of Rowling) who was clearly acting on Rowling’s behalf.

We have been asked to point out by Ms Rowling’s lawyers that William Kelly of the Bogside Artists had alleged in a letter that this book had been plagiarised by Ms Rowling in her Harry Potter novels.

These we hold to be indubitably true…. on both counts! The letter referred too was a private letter to a third party not mentioned by Schillings and which was obviously delivered to them, directly or indirectly, by her.

Ms Rowling’s literary agency wrote to Mr. Kelly refuting his claims and warning him that alleging that Ms Rowling had copied his work was defamatory and potentially actionable, and that he should desist from making such allegations. 

What they mean by “Ms Rowling’s literary agency” (how clever!)  is Neil Blair a lawyer and partner of the agency who was referred to in the Lexicon trial by Rowling herself as “MY LAWYER”. He wrote to us. We have Mr. Blair’s letter in front of us marked Private and Confidential with a suggestion that a copy be given to our lawyer as if that would somehow legitimize the nonsense it contained. Mr. Kelly has not desisted and will not be gagged by Mr. Blair or a legion of the same. Is Blair like his partner Little also avoiding scrutiny? Why didn’t Schillings name him as the one who contacted us?

Ms Rowling’s lawyers say that no complaint has been made about his book and Ms Rowling has never read Mr. Kelly’s work, let alone plagiarised it.

 A complete lie of course as William knows full well she read his ‘work’ and so does she. And he has made this statement in no uncertain terms on a blog for all to see. www.travelswithlipo.com and it has been there for many months!

In addition we accept that no-one on behalf of Ms Rowling has claimed that the term ‘philosopher’s stone’ is owned by Warner Bros.

 Really? Anybody reading Blair’s letter would come to the same conclusion. A lawyer indeed whom we showed it to came to same conclusion as we viz; Warner Bros had copyright of the phrase “the philosopher’s stone”. We have written on several occasions to Warner Bros asking if they considered themselves to have copyright on the phrase “the philosopher’s stone” and have received no reply.

We apologize for publishing false allegations and for not contacting Ms Rowling beforehand so that we might inform us of the true position.

Why should the Derry News have contacted Rowling? Why should Rowling’s word take automatic precedence over William Kelly’s or anybody else’s for that matter? What is the “true position”? That’s easy… the ‘true’ position is what Schillings and/or Rowling together with Blair and Little tell you, the gullible and deluded public, what the ‘true’ position is. A position that we have here confidently proved to be chicanery, sophistry or whatever other word you prefer to allude to willful deception.

We are happy to set the record straight.”

No. Schillings can set whatever record they want. We, The Bogside Artists, are happy to have set the record straight.

To summarize:

If we may digress for a moment into the philosophical consideration of words and their usages the above article is a classic example of “bewitching” or befuddlement and the diabolical use of language to achieve a spurious goal viz; to protect the interests of an author who feels it is not incumbent on her to prove any claim she has made or intends to make about ‘her’ alleged work. Their attitude can be summed up;

What was actually meant by the statements we made in the Derry News article is clearly secondary to whatever self-serving ‘meaning’ Schillings decided to attribute to the words we used. In   other words, the position they take and a clearly deceptive one at that, is quite simply;

“Our interpretation of what you might have said is more acceptable, more true and right than what you really meant. Indeed, we know full well what you meant but we find it quite irrelevant to our purposes; so we take leave by ignoring your own words, to decide what could be construed from what you meant as that better serves our purpose to discredit you. We fully expect you, the editor of The Derry News to agree with what we have decided The Bogside Artists meant by their statements and to bend to our will to discredit them at home and abroad in deference to our client Ms Rowling’s reputation.”