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

On the Immorality of Plagiarism

First of all, there is a simple point to be cleared up before any reasonable discussion on the topic can take place. The culprit, when he/she is not citing ‘precedents’ for their crime, try to exonerate themselves by pleading that they didn’t steal, merely ‘borrowed’. “I didn’t steal m’lud, I only borrowed,” is the sort of statement that gets you laughed out of court and into jail which is why no thief with an IQ of more than three would offer it in his defence. Incredibly though, you will find respected journalists offering it up in defence of the plagiarist. The more highly regarded the thief the more they rally to their defence, pleading that ‘borrowing’ is not theft.

In literature people do borrow, often unconsciously, and cannot help themselves. But if the writer catches himself on in time he is usually quite happy to acknowledge his source or he will surrender his project instantly if the borrowing has any significance and he has enough integrity not to want to put his name to something that wasn’t his in the first place . In any case, he is likely to be honest with himself, and with you.

The plagiarist however is a different animal. He steals consciously. And because he steals consciously he will never acknowledge his source. That is the difference and it is an important one.

The plagiarist will do anything rather than acknowledge his source because he knows, once he does so, he is instantly unmasked as a thief, a liar and a fraud. He spends his days therefore ducking and diving, hiding away, in order to avoid scrutiny. When he speaks in public he recites from pre-prepared answers. If he must be asked questions he demands to know what they are beforehand and the same applies to any footage shot of him for general distribution. He never confesses his crime either. He has ALWAYS to be found out and the more people he has to help him remain under cover the more difficult that is.

In days of yore many English dungeons could boast what they proudly called an “oubliette”. It comes from the French word “oublier” meaning “to forget”. Robin Hood was supposedly held in one before he was freed by his comrades. This contraption - sprung fully formed no doubt from the inventor’s brain – was basically a hole in the ground. The pit was shaped like a bottle with just room enough for the wretched victim to stand up in. You were lowered into the hole via the neck and the lid fixed on. Your captors then pissed off and forgot that you ever existed. There you remained, in cold endless night, until you went mad with grief and terror and eventually died of starvation. People who didn’t like you would say you “deserved” it.

A ‘successful’ plagiarist does something like this to his fellow man. The differences are that the victim gets to eat and walk around, and to lead what passes for a normal life; indeed you cannot ever tell he is in a pit at all,  if you do not hear his moans, because the oubliette he has been flung into and in which he dwells is his own soul, the soul that he once believed was his and now belongs to his tormentors. Now you know. And when next you hear the word ‘plagiarism’ you may move away fromt the conception of it as a game on a par with scrabble and think of it as it really is – a crime against all of us, because it is essentially a very serious crime against human rights and human freedom.

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.