Making Light :: Rowling vs. Stouffer :: comments

Rowling vs. Stouffer

You'll have heard the original news story: How, back in March 2000, American author Nancy Stouffer brought suit against J....

Rowling vs. Stouffer -- comment #1 from Stefan Jones

Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:46:08 -0500

Nice analysis.

I think it's possible that Stouffer is both a poor deluded soul AND a fraud. Kind of like a UFO true believer who fakes photographs to bolster his case.

In any case, she's ruined. If I were a really mean bastard I'd say good riddance, because I'm really looking forward to the next Potter book and news that Stouffer's case is responsible for the delay really riles me up.

]]>

Posted September 27, 2002 12:46 PM by Stefan Jones

Rowling vs. Stouffer -- comment #2 from Simon Shoedecker

Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:00:31 -0500

Perhaps I'll comment more later, after I've read more in your wonderfully detailed links, but I'd just like to add that no history of previous uses of the word "muggles" is complete without noting its use in a much more prominent children's fantasy than anything by Stouffer: Muggles is the name of the heroine of Carol Kendall's The Gammage Cup, published in 1959. (Before Rowling was even born - I don't know how old Stouffer is.) Kendall's use of the word is as totally unconnected with Rowling's as Stouffer's is, but by Stouffer's argument, Kendall would have a good case to sue both of them. Fortunately (I believe she's still alive), Kendall must be far too sensible to have any such idea.

]]>

Posted September 27, 2002 1:00 PM by Simon Shoedecker

Rowling vs. Stouffer -- comment #3 from Alan Bostick

Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:47:03 -0500

"Muggle" is old slang for marijuana cigarette, also.

]]>

Posted September 27, 2002 1:47 PM by Alan Bostick

Rowling vs. Stouffer -- comment #4 from John M. Ford

Fri, 27 Sep 2002 14:03:33 -0500

Oh, fine, Alan. There goes the plot of "Hazy Pothead and the Philosopher's Lid," in which Hazy and the eccentric wizard Aldous leave school in search of, uhm, you know, like, thing.

Of course, the publication's been held up for years because of claims it infringes a Cab Calloway lyric.

]]>

Posted September 27, 2002 2:03 PM by John M. Ford

Rowling vs. Stouffer -- comment #5 from Christopher Hatton

Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:04:22 -0500

Well, then we know what wizards do with muggles: "Smoke 'em!"

]]>

Posted September 27, 2002 5:04 PM by Christopher Hatton

Rowling vs. Stouffer -- comment #6 from Robert Jones

Fri, 27 Sep 2002 17:25:37 -0500

Great story, one question: You refer to Rowling as the "English-speaking world's most successful writer". I'm curious what standard that's based on. I'm admittedly a little out-of-touch, but the last I'd heard was that Stephen King was the most successful English author ever, based on sales totals and profit. Has Rowling outstripped him?

]]>

Posted September 27, 2002 5:25 PM by Robert Jones

Rowling vs. Stouffer -- comment #7 from Kip

Fri, 27 Sep 2002 23:36:17 -0500

Well, then we know what wizards do with muggles: "Smoke 'em!"

Don't muggle in the affairs of wizards.

]]>

Posted September 27, 2002 11:36 PM by Kip

Rowling vs. Stouffer -- comment #8 from John Farrell

Fri, 04 Oct 2002 22:31:11 -0500

Teresa,

Here's the latest from Pub Weekly newsletter FYI.

Shouldn't Someone Who Writes About Wizards Be Able to Disappear?

In a story that is fast surpassing "When Will Harry V Be Ready?" articles in the overkill department, the dogged and dubiously named
N.K. Stouffer has issued a press release proclaiming that the "Muggle Struggle Is * Not * Over" and that she will hold a press conference
Sunday to bring home the point. The release states that Stouffer has filed a motion in response to the recent ruling but doesn't say what
this motion is. An unusually high number of people with the name Stouffer are expected to attend the gathering, including "Vance David
Stouffer, son and original Muggle."

Good grief!

]]>

Posted October 4, 2002 10:31 PM by John Farrell

Rowling vs. Stouffer -- comment #9 from Mitchell Gang

Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:08:07 -0500

For anyone who is actually interested in reading the N.K. Stouffer book, I regularly see in it dollar stores. I actually bought a copy this morning at Dollar Tree. It is extremely cheesy looking, like all vanity press titles, but the real bonus is the middle section of color artwork that is just slightly above grade-school level. I have yet to actually read the book, so I cannot comment on its actual literary quality, but I do find it interesting that I have never found a copy of this book on an actual bookshelf, only in the remaindered section of Barnes & Noble and in Dollar Tree.

]]>

Posted July 28, 2003 11:08 AM by Mitchell Gang

Rowling vs. Stouffer -- comment #10 from Kendra Matte

Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:28:01 -0500

One thing I found interesting about the court documents, is that when comparing J.K. Rowling's character Neville to Nancy Stouffer's Nevils, they mention that Neville is a half-and-half, half wizard and half muggle. That is an error, Seamus Finnegan is half-and-half. Both of Neville's parents were wizards and the Longbottoms were considered a pure-blood wizard family. Kind of silly considering they were mentioning the muggle connections between the Nevils and Neville, when Neville really doesn't have ANY muggle connections. Other than the fact that his family was worried that he was a muggle (squib) because he didn't show any magic prowess until he was eight.

]]>

Posted August 13, 2003 1:28 PM by Kendra Matte

Rowling vs. Stouffer -- comment #11 from Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:47:09 -0500

The Stouffer's case was defective in many ways. It wasn't primarily fought on content because the case had collapsed before they ever got to that level. Submitting forged documents as evidence will do that.

]]>

Posted August 13, 2003 2:47 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden