Being Eaten by the Pea Soup
Posts: 41
Joined: 5:10pm March 27, 2005
Location: London
|
QUOTE(NickTLC @ May 28 2008, 11:36 PM)  It would be unfair to all of our members to allow one of our members to be able to break the rules with impunity.
Now that I understand that having an alternative point of view = "break the rules", this makes a lot more sense.
QUOTE(NickTLC @ May 28 2008, 11:36 PM) As those charged with moderating this discussion, we must take care of rule breakage. However, this does not mean that we edit the meaning of a post; we only change those parts of the post that break rules, and only with the intent of making them compliant, not of changing their meaning, and moderators always explain the reasons for editing to the member.
As I have already tried to explain to you, this is an extremely sensitive topic in which my words, quite understandably, receive more scrutiny than most. Anything that changes the context of what I'm saying is extremely dangerous. If you can show me where I have broken any rules then please do; this is not what I'm trying to do. It seems as though you're assuming that I'm coming in here armed for battle, but I don't think my posts bear that out.
QUOTE(NickTLC @ May 28 2008, 11:36 PM) Since this thread is for discussion of all aspects of the trial, it's not really the right place to use to disseminate information.
This is quite a worrying statement, so I'd ask that you please clarify it. How can anyone discuss the trial when information is not permitted?
Are you saying that I do not have the right to address factual errors about my own life? Even though those factual errors have led to considerable hate-mongering, abuse in real life and, yes, even death threats?
I understand that this site is pro-JKR. It's a fansite. This is why I have gone out of my way to assure people that I am not attacking anyone for holding an opinion that differs from mine. But if you (as a website) are so sure of JKR's rightness, why do you have a problem with civil discussion of the other side? Do you think this is doing her any favours?
QUOTE(NickTLC @ May 28 2008, 11:36 PM) Every member is invited to disagree with their fellow members--such is the nature of civil debate. People will disagree with one another and attempt to disprove one another's viewpoints, and this is expected and natural.
Again, I have gone out of my way to assure everyone that I have no problem with people making up their own minds; it's just hard to do when only one side of the story is presented. You seem intent on insisting that I am trying to stifle debate, when in fact I am doing anything but. Given the level of personal abuse that has been allowed to persist on this forum, I think I have been more than reasonable.
As I said, I am very uncomfortable continuing in this environment, but I will answer a couple of questions that were directed at me. If the mods think this is breaking the rules then hey, I tried.
QUOTE(cheftom @ May 28 2008, 11:45 PM) Elanor,
You've spent a great deal of time and effort recently explaining Steve's actions regarding this case. Whether it's been illuminating or not is up for debate, but I wonder- will Steve speak for himself at some point? After the judgment has been handed down, will Steve come forward to tell his side, in his own words? He has alluded to the fact that he could not tell the whole story at this time, but will he ever?
To a certain extent, these are his words, or at least approved by him. He's right here and I read everything out before I post it, to make absolutely sure I am not being inadvertently misleading about anything. (This is why I keep slipping into using 'we' btw - there's nothing sinister or creepy about it)
As for coming forward in his own name, that will depend on the circumstances and the atmosphere. He would very much like to, at some point, but it's quite soul-destroying in the current environment, where he can barely comment on the weather without being leapt on. If he feels safe doing so and is legally able to then yes, eventually he'll speak for himself. For now, for various legal reasons as well as to protect himself, this is a better way for him to be heard.
QUOTE(rotfang07 @ May 29 2008, 02:20 AM) Thank you Elanor Isolda for your full reply in post 372 (at least for the moment, there seems to be some quantum mechanical shifts going on; I’d blame the Uncertainty Principle if I could get my head round it).
Indeed. Since I know exactly when I posted, where the posts are is a complete mystery 
QUOTE(rotfang07 @ May 29 2008, 02:20 AM) I admire your honesty but I am not sure I can follow your logic. As I understand it you believed that publishing the Lexicon in August 2007 was not something you would have “supported” but once Steve was in the contract you supported him in his new “circumstances.”
Okay, I wasn't sure I was being clear about this so I'll have another go. You're basically right. I don't believe that the book is infringing - or rather, should be, since no one can say that definitively at the moment. That doesn't mean I would have supported going ahead with it if I'd known JKR would dislike it, not for any legal reasons but because, as a fan, I wouldn't have wanted to upset her.
The way it actually happened though, was that Steve was already under contract by this time. He did look into getting out of it last November, but there didn't seem to be any way out. But even if he could have got out of the contract legally, would that have been okay morally? RDR had invested a lot of money in this book by then, money had been spent anglicising and editing it, one of the foreign publishers had already printed them. Would it have been right to try to get out of a contract for a book that we both thought was legal, just because someone we admire didn't want it to go ahead, and leave all those people out of pocket?
This is why we reached out to JKR's representatives, thinking there must be another way around it. Editing, or even killing it if those people could be reimbursed (which is where the monetary discussion JKR mentioned on the stand came in, and I should note that the money discussed was significantly less than the legal action has cost her, and that none of it would have gone to us).
When there was no solution there, the alternative was for them to prove, through the legal system, that stopping the book was the right thing to do. Regardless of how anyone feels about the rights and wrongs of the case, I hope we can all agree that that is anyone's right in a democracy.
QUOTE(rotfang07 @ May 29 2008, 02:20 AM) So, my conclusion is this, correct me if I’m wrong, that once the contract was signed you actually saw no real reason to pull the book because you believed it was morally and legally sound to go ahead and publish. If you could accommodate Jo Rowling’s objections whilst keeping the book intact you were prepared to make some compromises, but if not, then you felt justified in proceeding with publication. Does that sound about right?
I think that's a fair summary, yes.
QUOTE(rotfang07 @ May 29 2008, 02:20 AM) I echo dresdenfiles.fan *squeeee*
I echo that! I may not consider myself part of the fandom any more, but I sure as hell want to read this!
[ETA: Edited for typos]
This post has been edited by Elanor Isolda: May 29 2008, 02:28 AM
|
May 14 2008, 01:25 PM
