zelda_queen: (Default)
[personal profile] zelda_queen
Projection Room Voices: How on Earth did you get a hold of this?

ZeldaQueen: I has connections. Just put it up

Projection Room Voices: If you say so. Starting Media in 3...2...1...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Starting Information

ZeldaQueen: Hooo boy! Have I got a doozy for you, dear viewers!

For any of you who keep up with the various Harry Potter lawsuits, you'll already be familiar with the book (and I use that term loosely) The Legend of Rah and the Muggles. For those of you who aren't, well just pull up a chair and find out.

This piece of work was first published in 1984 by one Nancy Stouffer, who also wrote and illustrated the thing. If any of you can't remember hearing about it then, small wonder. This thing is bad. REALLY bad. Even if you keep in mind that it's a children's book and a fantasy, there's a lot of stuff in it that's just boring and makes no sense. So of course it went out of print.

Now normally, that would have been the last anyone heard of the thing. Except for one little problem - the term "muggle". Rowling of course used it in her Harry Potter series, as a term for non-magical folk. Stouffer, as it turned out, also put it in her work. She launched what was possibly one of the dumbest lawsuits around (and I'm counting the woman who sued McDonalds for not warning her that the coffee she bought was hot), not only because her claim was rather baseless (her muggles are tiny, humanoid creatures that are quite magical, not even remotely like Rowling's), but it turned out that she "
perpetrated a fraud on the Court through her submission of fraudulent documents as well as through her untruthful testimony". So not only did she engage in a baseless lawsuit, but she committed fraud in the process and was fined $50,000. Epic fail.

Oh, and another part of the lawsuit was that she also published a children's workbook titled 
Larry Potter and His Best Friend Lilly, which are in no way connected to The Legend of Rah. This is the title of said workbook



ZeldaQueen: Draw your own conclusions.

So, let's kick off by examining the cover and information on the flaps of the book! (Incidentally, I apologize for the rather dry title for this section. I would have called it "Introduction", but the book itself has an Introduction, so yeah...)

Well, we start off with the cover, which apparently Stouffer herself drew. To her credit, by the way, the cover art and the various twelve pages of illustrations given are pretty nice. Not really worth getting one's panties in such a twist though



ZeldaQueen: Note how she put "The Original Muggles" at the top and trademarked both the word "muggles" and "Rah". That's going to be a running theme here, how protective she is of the terms. I'd chalk it up to paranoia over copyright theft, if one didn't get the feeling that she was simply following the "No Such Thing As Bad Publicity" school of thought.

You also might note how the author put down her name as "N.K. Stouffer" instead of "Nancy Stouffer". Yes, the woman is utterly shameless.

So, onward to the information in the cover flaps! We start off with the price of course, and if any of you are wondering, this piece of work cost $19.95 in the United States and $29.95 in Canada. Keep this in mind when you see the actual quality of the story proper (Thankfully, I myself didn't pay for this book. My brother found out that one of his teachers owned it and borrowed it for me).

Next is the story summary. We start off being told how this was originally published in 1984 and distributed to the mass market in 1987. That, by the way, is because Stouffer self-published the thing. Also, please take note that 1987 was also when Ande Publishing Company (which published portions of this book in booklet form and which was founded by Stouffer and several of her friends) went bankrupt in September of 1987. Huh. The flap here also tells us that this is the first tale in a "
trilogy and subsequent series about the real Muggles", however so far as I know, any planned sequels were aborted owing to the...less than warm reception of this first book. Keep this in mind when we see the various set up events which later go absolutely nowhere.

Right off the bat, Stouffer starts knocking us over the head with how she's the one who invented the concept of muggles, thank you very much. She starts off with telling us how she came up with the muggles and the world they lived in, a place called Aura, which is kept in darkness by a "
purple haze" I'm sure Jimmy Hendrix would be proud. Anyway, she goes on to give a huge infodump in the book summary, mind you, which I'm going to skip because otherwise I won't have anything to spork in the actual story.

We then get information on the author, in which we are yet again reminded that Stouffer is the creator of
"The Real  Muggles(TM)" (trademark is her's, not mine). She also says that she wrote the Larry and Lilly Potter books and is an "accomplished" artist, poet, screenwriter, songwriter, and toy designer. Specifically, she says that she has written more than six series of children's books, two books of children's poetry, a screenplay (along with the music and lyrics in said screenplay), and designed and developed toys and dolls. I personally can't find any info on any of this stuff online and she doesn't give names for her work, so yeah...

Finally, inside of the first page, we get a list of the various terms that've been trademarked. These are "muggle", "muggles", "muggle-bye", "The Legend of RAH and the MUGGLES" (her capitalization, not mine), "muggledome", "muggleplication" (sensing a pattern here?), "shadow monsters", "nevil", "nevils", "nardles", "greeblies", "Nadie and Neddie Spooners of the Deep", "Winkle", "Elders", "Rah", and "Zyn". I'm personally really hoping that those last ones were meant to trademark the actual things in her book and not those specific words, because I find it hard to believe that someone could be so stupid as to think that they were the first person to come up with "winkle" or "elders". Doubly so for "Rah" which is, you know, the name of the freaking Egyptian sun god!

And with that, we begin the actual story!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Onward to: Introductions

Back to: Table of Contents


(no subject)

Date: 2010-05-20 03:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] aikaterini.livejournal.com
Oh, yes, I remember this lawsuit. I had never even heard of Ms. Stouffer's books before she sued J.K. Rowling.

And "Larry Potter and His Best Friend Lilly?" Wow. Just...wow.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-05-20 03:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zelda-queen.livejournal.com
I know, right? Larry and Lilly are terrifying!

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-01 07:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] szaleniec1000.livejournal.com
Lilly looks like she's got the mumps and Larry looks like an alien. Have you seen the cover of the reprinted edition of Larry and Lilly? It's literally a Harry Potter cover with the picture replaced with the Larry and Lilly pic from your post and the H changed to an L in Photoshop. I am honestly not making this up.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-01 07:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zelda-queen.livejournal.com
I haven't seen that, but I'm not surprised. Stouffer already began putting her name down as "N.K. Stouffer" during her reprintings and claimed that it was to make her name gender neutral to increase sales. Either she's trying to copy Rowling herself, or trying to make it look like Rowling "stole" more stuff.

Do you know where I can see a picture of that cover? Now I'm all curious. XD

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-01 08:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zelda-queen.livejournal.com
Thanks.

Dear lord, Stouffer is shameless. -_-

(no subject)

Date: 2010-08-01 09:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] szaleniec1000.livejournal.com
You can just about make out the trademark symbols on there too.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-11-20 06:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yemi-hikari.livejournal.com
From what I've heard, her case was completly groundless in the first place.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-11-21 12:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zelda-queen.livejournal.com
Trust me, it was.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-12-24 06:54 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Why on earth would she need to copyright "Nadie and Neddie Spooners of the Deep"? I can pretty much guarantee that nobody else's brain would vomit up that specific assortment of fantasy words.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-12-24 01:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zelda-queen.livejournal.com
It ties in to that stupid "Muggle" lawsuit. Stouffer insisted that she copywrote the term and thus Rowling was committing copyright infringement via Harry Potter. Of course she did no such thing, so Stouffer promptly started calling copyright on everything in her story, in the hopes that there's the vague chance that *someone* would use it in the future in some bizarre way and she can pitch a fit over it.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-12-30 01:06 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Oh, so that's what it was about. I can't wait to see what happens when she tries to sue Rick Riordan for "stealing" the character of Rah in his Egyptian mythology novels.

(no subject)

Date: 2010-12-30 03:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zelda-queen.livejournal.com
I'm sure even she knows that "Rah" would be public domain. The only reason she probably thought she could get away with "Muggles" was because it was rather obscure.

Wow.

Date: 2011-04-09 05:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sttq.livejournal.com
Sueing J.K. Rowling over something like that? Man, you talk about issues! This woman was in really bad shape!

To me, the whole thing smacks of someone who is so painfully conscious of their own mediocrity, that they'll try anything to convince themselves and the world at large of the contrary. Sad, really. Well, looks like this sporking will be a treat.

(On a side note, Larry and Lilly? Look like the kind of... things... that would've made me afraid to go to sleep as a child. Not a good sign, for a kids' book.)

Re: Wow.

Date: 2011-04-10 02:23 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zelda-queen.livejournal.com
I really don't know what to make of Stouffer. It's easy to chalk it up to her being deluded, but then she knowingly committed fraud to try to win her case. Someone described her as a UFO nut who really believes their case is true, so they Photoshop pictures to back their stories up.

Yeah...those two are creeeeeeepy.

(no subject)

Date: 2013-10-26 07:12 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I know this is late, but I need to point out something about the Coffee Lawsuit Comparison.

McDonald's had been warned for some time that their coffee was hotter than safety standards allowed. When that woman spilled it on herself, her burns were so bad that she ended up spending over $200,000 in medical bills. Also, she sued only for the cost of her medical bills. It was the jury who decided she deserved more and that a point needed to be made. That case really doesn't deserve to be the go-to example whenever someone brings up frivalous lawsuits.

So much fail in the intro alone......

Date: 2015-10-13 02:05 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Like some of the other commenters on here, I was vaguely aware that some hack author foolishly tried and failed to sue Rowling back in the early 00s, but I didn’t know all the details until now X(

As atrocious as the writing is, the content of this story also just plain confuses me. The introduction/prologue, in my opinion, is totally unnecessary because it adds little to the story in terms of world building; and it’s not like the average six year old (This WAS supposed to be a kid’s story, amirite??) is going to be riveted by these descriptions of international politics anyway!

I do find it rather pathetic, though, that Stouffer reissued the books under the NK Stouffer name and even used the Harry Potter font. C’mon, Stouffer, you’re not even trying, seriously…..

On another note, Stouffer’s muggles are totally going to be haunting my nightmares for the next week or so.

Re: So much fail in the intro alone......

Date: 2015-10-13 11:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] zelda-queen.livejournal.com
Yeah, this was meant to be a kid's story. Which means that after this... charming prologue, we get things like "Lemonade Lake" and a needless chapter about the antics of someone hard of hearing. Great, huh?

Yeah, Stouffer really played it up for all she could. I sporked an "interview" she did (she conveniently didn't say WHO the interview was with) on her website, and she spent most of that talking about how her own books teach Good, Wholesome values, and heavily implying that the Harry Potter books caused their fans to be Immoral Degenerates.

Profile

zelda_queen: (Default)
zelda_queen

October 2018

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617 181920
2122 2324252627
28293031   

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags