"I explain to my children that sex before marriage will eat you up inside, because God has written in your heart the right thing to do. If you go against His plan, it just hurts you. It is painful and ugly. I have always taught my children to feel badly when they do anything against the Word."

Man, I'm suddenly grateful that the only sex ed I got from my mom was a stammering defense of celibacy before marriage.

And if you can't, then leave.

If he's in a stable job with room for advancement without a degree, I can see why he wouldn't want to go to the expense and work of getting one. (If his plan is instead, "get this job -- ???-- profit!" then I can see why you might be worried.)

Man who are not threatened by their girlfriend or wives' successes are painfully rare. Please look deep inside yourself before you decide to break up with him; you may not find someone so compatible with you again.

But when are we going to see the one with Bill Clinton explaining that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, and the recent John McCain supporter who called Barack Obama "Tiger Woods"?

I agree with you that sexism is a factor. So is racism. So is ageism, and hatred of the Clinton legacy. Add me into the chorus of people who'd like to see you do more than just discuss sexism and how it's affected Hillary Clinton.

Support groups, counselors and social workers are great...sometimes. But sometimes we have what we need inside ourselves. I'm so glad the author had the courage to strike her own path.

I hope she doesn't read this letter, but Alison, if you do: Thank you. Thank you for doing your best to raise happy, compassionate kids under trying circumstances.

and a quick look at their website shows why they have slipped off my radar: every book featured has a white woman on the cover (except for the one with the white baby).

That struck me too, especially since at the small publishing house I worked for we worked very hard to be inclusive on our covers (and we too were 'niche' publishers). We used a lot of art and flowers, heh, or group pictures with lots of 'colors.' Seal Press seems to have taken the exact opposite tack, of seeing 'white' as the default. Gee, I wonder why they have very few submissions from women of color?

I'm going to read more on the debate and will probably have more opinions then, but I will point out that BlackAmazon's blog is not private by its very nature-- to take offense at Seal Press responding back to a 'fuck you' is a little disingenous. The nature of the response is certainly debatable, but I'm disturbed that people seem to be offended by their responding back in the first place.

There's a wonderful pie chart up at Justia which asserts how much of the work is original scholarship and how much is word-for-word quotation from the books. I suggest anyone who asserts Steve Van DerArk's 'right of scholarship' check it before they continue to speak of the book's value as scholarly reference. Now, yes, those are the plaintiff's assertions, but as none of the rest of us have actually seen the book, I think they're valuable.

Also noteable is that RDR Books' publisher, Roger Rapoport, testified under oath that none of the 'co-authors' of the Lexicon were to be paid by RDR Books. A lot of people contributed to the Lexicon and to my knowledge they have not been compensated in any way.

Last but not least, one of RDR's assertions has been that allowing the Lexicon online meant that JK Rowling essentially waived her right to stop any version of a print Lexicon. You can just imagine what would happen to online fandom if this line of reasoning was deemed acceptable-- tons of fan sites would get C & D orders overnight, by people simply trying to protect their rights. That's one of the reasons the fan community is so up in arms about this case.

It's astonishing how persistent we humans can be in focusing on things we can't control in others, particularly when faced with the big things no one can control.

Nicely put. I like Cary's answer too.

Only one of my grandparents even made it to eighty, and the odds are against my parents getting there. Worry about the real problems you have, LW.

I usually enjoy your letters, and promise not to threaten to smack you around, but I think you'd learn a lot and possibly change your mind if you read up a bit more on this case.

Since she's already endorsed the work in its web-based form, why would the compilers believe she'd object to the printed version? I think she's going to have a hard time working around that in court.

There are a few reasons:

1. The online Lexicon contains more 'commentary and criticism' than the book does, from all stated accounts.

2. The online Lexicon was not a clearly profit-based venture, such as a published book was.

3. J.K. Rowling had no intent to make a comprehensive online Harry Potter encyclopedia, so she didn't care if anyone else did. She does intend to make a book, which a published Lexicon would compete with. (Complain about greed all you like, assembled masses, but I believe her when she says she intends those profits to go to charity-- she's had three books sold for charity so far, after all.)

4. The published Lexicon was not called 'unofficial' or 'unauthorized' on its title, cover, or any other marketing material the Harry Potter-obsessed denizens of the Internet have found. This adds into the 'unauthorized competition' point of #3.