From Associated Press:

NEW YORK (AP) — J.K. Rowling’s magical, Midas touch has landed her on the cover of Entertainment Weekly as the magazine’s entertainer of the year.

The magazine said the “Harry Potter” author, who has sold nearly 400 million copies of her boy-wizard series that’s been adapted into a megasuccessful movie franchise, deserved props for getting “people to tote around her big, old-fashioned printed-on-paper books as if they were the hottest new entertainment devices on the planet.”

Rowling was in a class by herself on the magazine’s list of the year’s top entertainers, which was separated by editors into five other categories that evoke school cliques: prodigies, class clowns, most popular, most buzzed-about and valedictorians.

"The suit, filed Wednesday by the author and Warner Bros. in federal court in Manhattan, claims that RDR Books will
infringe on Rowling’s intellectual property rights if it goes ahead with its plan to publish the 400-page
“Harry Potter Lexicon” on Nov. 28."

for more, click below.

But in the lawsuit — filed on Halloween — Rowling claimed that the print version of the Lexicon would improperly interfere with her plans to write her own definitive Harry Potter encyclopedia, one that would include new material not in the novels.

“I cannot, therefore, approve of ‘companion books’ or ‘encyclopedias’ that seek to preempt my definitive Potter reference book for their authors’ own personal gain,” Rowling said in a news release issued by Warner Bros. The film giant owns all the intellectual property related to the Potters books and movies.

RDR Books Publisher Roger Rapoport said the suit dismayed him but vowed that he wouldn’t allow it to block plans to release the Lexicon next month. He described the book as a “critical reference work” and dismissed any notion that it could compete with any official encyclopedia written by Rowling.

Rapoport said Vander Ark was a middle school librarian who started the Web site in his spare time in 2000, then watched its popularity grow to the point where Rowling herself gave it a Fan Site Award in 2004.

“He cannot understand why she wouldn’t be supportive now,” Rapoport said. Warner Bros. has involved Vander Ark in its Potter marketing campaigns in the past. An interview with Vander Ark is even slated to be included in the special features section of the next Harry Potter DVD, “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.”

An e-mail seeking comment that was sent to Vander Ark at an address on the Web site was not immediately returned.

The lawsuit doesn’t seek action against the Web version of the Lexicon, but criticizes it for numerous sections that it said “regurgitate Ms. Rowling’s original creative expression with minimal additional commentary."

The seventh and final installment in Harry’s adventures, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” was published in July. The seven books have sold nearly 400 million copies and have been translated into 64 languages.

Don't get me wrong ... I'm not expecting DD to be a "fabulous" gay man ... but were we supposed to intuit that he was gay from his "midnight blue robes?" Perhaps they should have been rainbow colored. I mean, where were we supposed to get it from? He and the Grindlewald character were close friends -- was that the clue that he was gay? Because if the criteria for being gay is that he had a male friend, then that would make me gay, too. She's said all along that there were clues laid out for all of her major secrets, but then I'm going have to give Rowling a prize for making subtle an entirely new genre.

Ms. Rowling, there were no clues. I'm sorry. Clues that DD was gay weren't there. Rowling is a writer not afraid to explore dark themes, but I guess open homosexuality was too dark even for her.

I think it's wonderful that Rowling chose to make one of her characters gay. There are too few gay characters in literature in my opinion, but I think two of my friends both put it best when they said, "He's gay? And that's germane to the story how exactly?" If DD's being gay was his raison detre, or even the reason he took up with Grindlewald in the first place and the reason that things spiraled out of control, I would have liked that to have been made clear while I was reading the books. I would have liked something, anything that would have approximated a relationship that went beyond two men who were friends. It would have added such a deeper understanding of the nature of love and choices, which is what JKR had DD yammer on about for more than 40,000 pages. It also would have dovetailed nicely with other relationships and outcomes in the books.

It is understandable given the time Rowling places DD and Grindelwald's friendship that she would have closeted Dumbledore. He lived during a time when homosexuality wouldn't have been accepted. In fact, it was criminal. She makes allusions to the fact that it was during the '30s-'40s and thusly during the Nazi era. Homosexuals were rounded up and put to death along with every other "undesirable" under Hitler's plan. But that doesn't mean she couldn't have made his gayness apparent to us ... the readers. Maybe he could have been closeted to the rest of the wizarding world Rowling created, but not to us, the audience. We needed to know, but clearly she didn't want us to know until now.

I understand the sensitive nature of introducing sexuality of any kind in a children's book. It's a hot issue, it's divisive and controversial. Perhaps Rowling didn't think the DD's sexuality defined him, but then why bring it up at all?

So, I say it again, if you wanted him to be gay ... make him gay. Stand by it. Make him, if not proud, at least OUT on his own terms! Put it out there during, not after. It's easy to say he's gay NOW and respond to critics. You're books have already flown off the shelves and you live in a Scottish Fortress, so the critics and gay bashers who come at you with trebuchets of hate will never be able to hurt you. It's takes balls to say he's gay before the next book comes out.

If you wanted him to be gay, then this was a really chicken way to do it.

One of the reporters at the JK Rowling Book Tour at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood was a little girl. She was sitting in the front row with reporters from the Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, MTV, NBC, FOX and of course us at the Daily News.
The moderator of the news conference made sure she got a chance to ask a question, and she asked a good one, one that actually made Rowling think a little before she answered.
The little girl asked Rowling which book was the most difficult to write.
"It would be a contest between three," Rowling said. "Four were pretty easy to write and I enjoyed writing them. Three felt like hard work."
The three were "Chamber of Secrets," "Goblet of Fire" and "Order of the Phoenix."
"For different reasons, they were all tough," Rowling said.
Of the three, "Chamber" was particularly tough.
" 'Chamber of Secrets' was the only time I ever had what I consider genuine writer's block," Rowling said. "I've never had it before or since."

JK Rowling made it clear she took no pleasure in killing any of her characters -- and she killed a lot of them in "The Deathly Hallows."
Melissa Jimenez, a senior from San Fernando High School, and one of the 1,600 Los Angeles Unified School District students who were able to participate in the Book Tour at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood, asked Rowling about the characters she killed in "The Deathly Hallows."
Jimenez was one of 12 students who were able to ask Rowling a question about Harry Potter during the Book Tour. Rowling was asked, among other things, about Patronuses, the Sorting Hat and the Houses of Hogwarts.
Jimenez, like me, found the death of Dobby a little unsettling. Rowling responded similarly to Jimenez's question, saying that Dobby was representative of innoncence and that his death would have an intensified impact on other characters.
But Jimenez was equally upset with the death of Fred Weasley.
"George and Fred were twins," Jimenez said. "I was upset he died. He completed the family."
Jimenez said if she could have asked Rowling another question, it would have been about inspiration. She wanted to know what exactly inspired Rowling to write Harry Potter.
Fernando Juarez from Berendo Middle School asked Rowling about Patronuses. He wanted to know what Patronus Rowling would have. She said she would like an otter, but hers would most likely be a dog.
Juarez said if he had a Patronus, his would be a wolf.
Chanel Smith from University High School asked Rowling about Snape. One of the most complicated characters Rowling created, Snape went from being a sinister, mean, unforgiving tormentor of Harry Potter to the tragic hero who sacrifices himself to save Harry, his friends and allies.
"She knew what she was doing," Smith said. "It was mind-blowing. It affected me a lot. There's a lot of love inside everybody."
Smith said she was convinced Snape was a bad guy until the end of "The Deathly Hallows." It surprised her when he acted so selflessly in the Battle of Hogwarts. She was even more stunned when it was Snape who exposed Dumbledore's plan for Harry: "about pulling Harry along to kill him at the right moment."
Well, Harry doesn't die. But that's not exactly how Dumbledore planned it. And even though Harry essentially saves himself, it was Snape who allowed for Harry to face Lord Voldemort for the last time.
Smith had one more question for Rowling, too, but didn't get a chance to ask it.
She wanted to know what House Rowling would be sorted into. Rowling has said she would be a Hufflepuff, but Smith and I agreed she would be a better fit in Ravenclaw.
And Smith -- she wanted to be in a Gryffindor, of course. Not because she considers herself a brave person, but because she is a bit of a jokester, like Fred and George.

For those among us who wondered about the Snape/Dumbldore relationship (OK, maybe it's just me), JKR did have this to say (backpeddling slightly from earlier interviews): DD was indeed meant to be seen as a Machiavellian character. He was the master puppeteer and apparently for a good literarary reason. If I understood Rowling correctly, at the point Snape dies, and we (and Harry) are lead through Snape's memories to the point where you see in flashbacks the tangled and totally unhealthy relationship the dynamic duo had, your sympathies are supposed to be with Snape, not Dumbledore. JKR said that she loved the frailty of DD's human failings because it could train the focus, on Snape's strengths and ... dare I say it ... his heroism?

JKR seemed really happy to be talking to the kids. She is clearly in her element now, even in front of the press, who you just know she hates. This day was for the kids who were clearly awestruck by the whole event -- from the reporters, TV cameras, and the flashes of more than a dozen photographers to the weight of meeting probably the most important literary figure of the last 100 years. If I were 10 again, I'd probably have the same deer-in-the-headlights looks that many these children had, and in fact I did.

I can see exactly why this event was so special. Even if the debate rages about the Potter series being a gateway book to get children interested reading (some statistics would show that it hasn't), Rowling is still a pop-culture icon and this really was a big deal for fans and for literature and for encouraging a positive alternative form of entertainment at the very least.

No magic could help J.R. Rowling get out of a rather embarrassing moment when her dress scooched down just a little too low exposing a bit more than schoolchildren should see at that tender age. Of course, photographers feverishly snapped. Only one out of the throng came to her aid by politely pointing out that ... well ... a few pages from her own personal book were showing, and I have to say, JK handled it with a grace and aplomb that I certainly could NEVER have mustered under the same circumstances. Me? I would have run off crying Hot Lips Hoolihan-style. But JK Rowling ... cool. calm. collected. Great, you saw my bra, let's move on.

And move on she did. More on my take from the press conference a little later.

The book tour with JK Rowling went about as expected. It was a room full of reporters, each of whom got to ask one question.
Of all the questions I had for her, I chose the one about Dobby.
Before the news conference began, Sharon and I were talking about what to ask her. Sharon wanted to know about the debate over house unity and why she didn't burn the sorting hat at some point during "The Deathly Hallows."
I mulled over my thoughts about her portrayal of journalists in her books and how did the Potters gain such wealth.
But I decided on the Dobby question.
I asked her why did Dobby have to die before Harry gained his focus and began attending to the task Dumbledore assigned him.
She said that Dobby was a vulnerable character and was just another example of how innocent characters were being affected by the evil plans of Lord Voldemort.
She compared Dobby to Cedric Diggory, both being innocent victims of violence. Apparently Dobby was the last innocent victim Harry wanted to see die.
I can buy that to a point. I still think there were other characters whose deaths could have illustrated that point much better. But I didn't get a chance to follow up with another question about any other characters she thought would have filled that purpose.
Rowling was asked to discuss other points of her books. She talked about Snape and Dumbledore. She talked about how "The Chamber of Secrets" was the most difficult of the books to write. She talked about how she is far from retired and will always write.
And she talked about how she is progressing on her next projects, which is not very well.
More later after I transcibe the tape of the news conference...