The Wizard with a Thousand Faces

It is an oft-repeated aphorism that “there is nothing new under the sun”, and one has to wonder how true that is. In today’s world we are flooded with new books, films, music, and TV shows every day. With so many stories and images constantly being poured into the public consciousness, concepts like originality and creativity become increasingly difficult to pin down. Legal and ethical concerns regarding ownership and plagiarism complicate matters further. Perhaps the best way to approach these issues is by looking at one of the most successful pieces of culture to emerge in the past twenty years – J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series. Here we have a franchise that can be called derivative in almost every way possible, yet somehow managed to also be original and intriguing enough to capture the public imagination and create an international phenomenon. By looking at the various controversies and criticisms surrounding these books, I feel it can be demonstrated that clear boundaries can be established between what is acceptably derivative and what constitutes unethical theft.

As with almost anything as successful as the Potter series, a great deal of litigation has grown up around it since the release of the first novel in 1997. In 1999, for example, American Nancy Kathleen Stouffer brought charges of copyright infringement up against Rowling regarding her little-known works Larry Potter and His Best Friend Lilly and The Legend of Rah and the Muggles, “muggles” being a word used by wizards in the Potter books to refer to non-magical people. The case was dismissed on the basis that the similarities were superficial and that Rowling most likely did not know about Stouffer’s books. Interestingly, The Books of Magic, a comic book series created by Neil Gaiman that shows much closer similarities to Potter led to no legal action. The series features a young English boy with dark hair and glasses named Timothy Hunter. Hunter, who grew up with no knowledge of the magical world, learns that he is destined to become a great wizard. Like Potter, he is introduced to magic by several mentors and is even given a pet owl. On the release of the first Potter book, fans of The Books of Magic were quick to point out the similarities. But Gaiman dismissed the accusation that Rowling had stolen from him, asserting in an interview that “all of the things that they actually have in common are such incredibly obvious, surface things that, had she actually been stealing, they were the things that would be first to be changed” and goes on to say that “we were both just stealing from T.H. White” (qtd. in Richards). Gaiman’s point is a pivotal one in that it demonstrates how there is little left in today’s culture that isn’t derivative. While both authors may have been inspired by T.H. White, White was himself inspired by centuries old Arthurian legends. Similarly, many of the elements of the Potter series can be similarly traced back to the folklores and mythologies of several cultures. The important thing is that the way Rowling presented these elements resonated with readers in a way that the works of many other authors have failed to. For this reason she is entitled to every penny this series has made her.

This reasoning raises a new question. If Rowling is entitled to benefit from a work that is inspired by so many others, does she have any right in turn to sue those who infringes on the Potter franchise? The success of the series has indeed inspired many imitators. Rick Riordan’s successful Percy Jackson and the Lighting Thief series, released well after the first Potter, presents the similar story of an ordinary young boy who discovers that he is part of a supernatural legacy, in this case Greek gods in place of wizards. Despite the similarities, Rowling would have no case against Riordan because he has merely created one more variation on an age-old theme in the same way she has.

On the other hand, had an author like Riordan just chosen publish the continued adventures of Harry Potter and his friends, or incorporate large chunks of texts from a Potter book without Rowling’s permission, the case against him would be clear-cut. Rowling has created specific characters and settings and has a right to protect them from theft. One could point to the potential gray area of so-called “fan fiction”, through which thousands of people create their own stories using the copyrighted characters and post them online. A blind eye is usually turned to such things by creators, mostly because they are almost never published for profit and rarely gain much attention. Spokesmen for Rowling have even quoted her as being “very flattered by the fact there is such great interest in her Harry Potter series and that people take the time to write their own stories” (qtd. in Waters). On the other hand, when the creators of an unofficial online Harry Potter encyclopedia recently intended to publish a print version, Rowling justifiably blocked it and kept them from benefiting financially from her creation.

Many would point to an ideal world in which everything an artist creates can be freely shared amongst other artists without consequence. In some ways this ideal is lived up to, mostly due to the generosity and goodwill of creators. We see this in Gaiman’s dismissal of the plagiarism claims and Rowling’s encouragement of fan fiction. But the truth is that we live in a society where artists create much of their work with the hope of some financial gain. This in turn allows them the freedom to concentrate on creating more such work. Therefore, when someone co-opts the work of another without permission with the intention of financial benefit, they have crossed an ethical line and wronged their fellow artist.

Works Cited
Richards, Linda. “January Interview: Neil Gaiman.” January Magazine. N. p., Aug. 2001. Web. 19 Mar. 2010.
Waters, Darren. “Rowling Backs Potter Fan Fiction.” BBC News. BBC, 27 May 2004. Web. 19 Mar. 2010.