Prayers For Lexicon Steve

[Zara]

> Kemper:
> On to zgirnius: Did JRRT express a desire to write an encyclopedia
> about his work?  What are the names of the encyclopedias you own?

zgirnius:
The one I recall the title of is "A Tolkien Bestiary". Nice pictures. 
<bg>. They are at my parents'...I really ought to remember to 
repossess them...

And I consider Rowling's intention to publish a reference work to her 
universe irrelevant to both the legal and ethical issues involved. 

Why? Because there is no one way, or even one best way, to write a 
reference work to the HP (or any other) series.

Will Rowling's include references to where she originally published 
the material (see Steve/bboyminn's example entry - with it I could 
quickly find the references to Accio in the books, without having to 
go through each in turn). I doubt it, but I find that 
useful/interesting, it is one way I use the online Lexicon, and one 
way I would use an offline one - to find for myself the actual words 
of Rowling about the various entries.). 

Will hers be organized with separate sections on Wizards, Muggles, 
Potions, Spells, and what have you? Pure alphabetical order without 
regard to the nature of the entry? Separate sections based on other 
possible criteria?

Will hers cover all of the same 'entries' as the Lexicon? Extremely 
unlikely - for the print Lexicon to be about 300 pages, some choices 
must have been made, on what to include and in what depth. Rowling 
will face the same issues, and is unlikely to make identical choices. 
Not to mention that what she actually puts in the entries will for 
similar reasons be different. And of course, her entries may 
include 'facts' not currently known to anyone but her and a small 
circle of assistants, which gives her a decisive advantage at 
whatever time she finally does come out with the book. 

In what style will hers be written? The online Lexicon is quite dry, 
very much in the style of an encyclopedia. It could, I suppose, have 
a witty/quaint/what-have-you introduction created expressly for the 
print version, but I doubt it, and if it does, that would only be an 
additional example of the originality of the work. The two companion 
books by Rowling (which I own) are arranged as an encyclopedia type 
book, and a history book, but have a good deal of personality, of 
their supposed writers, and marginal notes by their supposed users. I 
would think the Rowling Encyclopedia would share this charming trait, 
a reason I might buy it even if she decides not to put in new 
material, or material about her writing process (both of which I 
would definitely pay good money for).

I don't get why the fact that one day, there will likely (but not 
certainly) be a book of this type by Rowling, means there can't be a 
distinct and different book (or books) of this type by someone else 
(others), now. She has every right to make sure that the marketing, 
covers, titles etc. of those books make clear they are in no way 
endorsed by or associated with her, but as far as I am concerned, 
that is where logically, her rights should end.

(To clarify - I am not casting doubt on Rowling's stated plans to 
write an encyclopedia - but her own comments about what would be in 
such a guide, would lead me to consider it a different, and far more 
interesting, animal from the Lexicon entirely).