Rage!

[rivkat]

Ok, apparently I'm in a mood to post bits of my reading. Here is the stupidest thing I've read in a law review in a while:

The Harry Potter series of books, for example, are works of pure fancy. These books certainly deal with issues of human nature-- addressing subjects like the struggle between good and evil, self-awareness, and coming of age--but they are set in a parallel universe. They make no explicit attempt to address important social or political topics, and as such they should be free from subsequent use [for purposes of fair use analysis].

Such is the case with many works of fantasy, as well as most works of genre fiction. Genre fiction (horror, mystery, romance) is typically about the plot of the story or about the main character's experience within the setting developed in the story. These works deal with human nature but generally lack social commentary. Romance novels, for example, deal with love, lust, romance, and human relationships. These works, however, are largely divorced from the issues and problems of the real world.

Hi, author? Most contemporary literary theory and several entire genres would like to talk to you out back.  Romance in particular is curious about your experience of the real world.  Well, "curious" is one way to put it.

Comments

[alexseanchai]

This person spells too well to be illiterate, so this person must just be a moron.

[copracat]

That's surely not rage-inducing, but merely rofl-inducing. What an idiot!

[xenacryst]

That's a special way of seeing the world of genre fiction. And by "special" I mean "deeply flawed and ignorant." Not to mention plain wrong.

[cofax7]

Rage indeed!

Thus speaks a lawyer who hasn't actually read much of any of those genres, and has certainly never read any literary criticism of any of those genres.

[kass]

Oh, FFS. Honestly.

[erda]

That's hilarious. No wait, that pisses me off.

*sigh* I'm having these mixed reactions more and more lately. Why do people feel qualified to comment on things they know nothing about?

[watersword]

Daaaaaamn, that's some quality not getting it.

[lotesse]

Um. What?

None of that above passage makes even the slightest bit of sense.

[idlerat]

aside from the obvious (ie that all these things & texts are full of real, social etc), how does that put anything off limits for fair use? Isn't literary criticism fair use? What's the article?

[rivkat]

He isn't that interested in literary criticism (which, I take it, he thinks generally focuses on "real" genres); his point is that you shouldn't easily be able to use Harry Potter to make a fictional transformative work. Because there's nothing in HP inviting a creative response!

[idlerat]

Well, it certainly didn't invite a creative response from him. I say he shouldn't be allowed to cite Harry Potter in his law review article!

[brownbetty]

Wutt. Aren't these things supposed to be peer reviewed?

[rivkat]

Most law reviews aren't peer reviewed. But sometimes it wouldn't hurt.

[pun]

That is a level of stupidity that I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around. I mean, this person has made it through a fairly significant level of education, clearly, and yet he (I'm sorry, I can only assume it's a he, correct me, if I'm wrong) has not the slightest inkling of the concept of a metaphor? Really? I think he's being intentionally thick.