by Thomas Vranken (introduction by Vicki Huang)

Did JK Rowling’s “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” plagiarise the obscure children’s book “The Adventures of Willy the Wizard: Livid Land” by Adrian Jacobs?

His estate seems to thinks so, having launched copyright infringement suits against Rowling and her publishers in the US and the UK.

On January 7, 2011, the US case was dismissed. In the dismissal (Allen v. Scholastic, 10-5335, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)), Judge Scheindlin held that the works were “distinctly different in both substance and style”.

Meanwhile, the £500 million case in the UK is set to go for trial. (Click here for coverage by IPKAT). In dismissing an application for summary judgment, Justice Kitchens held that the claim “may succeed but that it is improbable it will do so”. Paul Allen (trustee of Adrian Jacobs, deceased) v Bloomsbury Publishing and JK Rowling [2010] EWHC 2560 (Ch) (Chancery Division, England and Wales).

Are there similarities between the two works? The Fortnightly Review scoured the world for a copy of “Livid Land” so Thomas Vranken could take a closer look.

Livid Land (The Adventures of Willy the Wizard: No.1) is a strangely erratic book. On one level the plot is simple enough: Willy enters a wizard contest, the instructions to which he reads on an electronic screen while he sits in a bath. But, nothing seems quite able to hold its author’s attention as he flits from one thing to the next with every new sentence. One minute we’re with Willy’s ‘magic earring’ (which once saved the life of ‘Fatty Fairy’ when it ‘eliminated [her] greedy taste-bud’); the next, that ocker Australian ‘Angry Sam’ (half man, half kangaroo) is thrust before us. Indeed, given the diversity and sheer number of Jacob’s literary inventions, it would almost be more surprising if Rowling hadn’t stumbled upon at least one of them.

Qualitative assessments of literature are often hard to substantiate. However, this is not the case with Livid Land – particularly when it comes to the question of intended readership.

While no Shakespeare, the author of the Harry Potter series always seems very aware of her audience. Though she has attracted the odd more-mature fan, her books are clearly aimed at young readers. Just who Adrian Jacobs is writing for is less clear.

A sixteen page picture-book, one might at first assume that Livid Land is aimed at an even younger audience than Rowling’s. However, several elements within the book seem to confound this expectation. For one thing – in stark contrast to the Harry Potter series – none of the characters in Livid Land are actually children. Indeed, we are told that Willy’s main motive for completing the contest is to ‘receive life membership of Stellar Land. Every wizard’s dream of retirement’. As if to further highlight this oddity, Jacob’s characters seem to be constantly consuming intoxicating substances – whether beer, Champaign (‘champbrew’), liqueur, the ‘finest Havana’ cigars, or ‘intoxicating sorbets’.

Similarly, while much of the language in the book is relatively simple, there are also moments when the terminology is bizarrely complex – one wonders how many children young enough to be reading a picture-book also include the phrase ‘alluvial mining’ in their vocabularies.

Finally, and perhaps most disarmingly in this respect, there are the moments of quasi-sleaziness. We are repeatedly told that the helpless prisoners Willy must rescue are female (‘the women were loaded in’). Moreover, in rescuing them Willy seems to have few qualms in making use of the talents of ‘Apprentice Delight, his pretty new female recruit’ who ‘works her charms’ on the guard – an ‘Italian sailor … who invariably flirted with any female who encouraged him’. Hardly the most child-friendly of material.

That Livid Land is a rather odd book is not hard to see. Ultimately, for all of its chaos, it seems rather soulless too.

Thomas Vranken is a literature student at The University of Melbourne.

(return to the top of this edition)

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 17th, 2011 at 1:53 pm and is filed under Copyright, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.