Reflection and Analysis

Harry Potter: Why Tanya Grooter isn't Parody

Chances are, you've not heard of Tanya Grooter.

In 2003, Netherland barred a translated version of the first book in the series, Tanya Grotter and the Magical Double Bass from being sold within the country, thus putting an end to any attempts of selling the series outside of Russia, the exception being 1,000 copies in the Dutch language of limited printing sold in Belgium. I bring it after ten years because of one of my recent google searches, where I found Dmitri Yemets arguing his work constitutes parody, which doesn't surprise me. What did surprise me are the number of people supporting his claim, so did his argument have any validity?

The answer is, having looked at an English translation, no.

Specifically, though, Yemets argues that his work is both "entirely independent" and a parody. The very fact he makes this argument is problematic, as parody is a type of derivative work, but also something which can't exist without the original source material. According to J. Ponser in "parody or derivative work", "a parody, which is a form of criticism (good-natured or otherwise), is not intended as a substitute for the work parodied. But it must quote enough of that work to make the parody recognizable as such, and that amount of quotation is deemed fair use."

The first problem with the Tanya Grooter series is that the work does not look at the Harry Potter series critically at all. It offers no form of commentary either. No, Yemets claim as "a cultural reply" doesn't count. How does adding mythology from a specific country add commentary on a given work, when the given work in question already draws upon cultural references and mythologies from around the entire world? It doesn't.

The second problem comes from the fact, while Yemets claims the work is parody, and yet purposefully avoids drawing upon the original as much as possible, despite the fact the work does share so many similarities. If he had done this, the work might have been seen as more of a commentary on the original work. Instead, Yemets attempts to purple prose the work by providing overly descriptive scenary, or gross descriptions to make the work seem different, when it really isn't

The third problem is, Yemets borrowed to much from Rowling linguistically. The second paragraph of the first chapter for example is a rewording of the second paragraph of the first chapter from Rowling's book, and the scenes flow with Rowling's narrative, which in itself is rather disturbing, as these were things I only found on the first look through. When the writer wasn't borrowing from Rowling linguistically, the work was utter nonsense, with random words thrown in.

And no... the work didn't come across as utter nonsense because of a problem with translation.

Nor does these pieces of utter nonsense count as the comedic effect intended by parody.

Yes, there are Russian critics who claim there is nothing new with what Yemets has done, but Russia's not known for protecting the copyright for writers. Selling a thousand copies also means nothing, as the printing was small scale, enough to go under the radar. Yes, Yemets claims, "I think the fact that J.K. Rowling's lawyers went to court implies a fact of weakness", yet why would they go to court if they did not have a case? Why shouldn't Rowling defend her right not to have a work which infringes upon her copyright fighting for sales.

In reality, when Yemet's says Grooter is the Russian response, he means Grooter exists to compete for market share with Rowling, under cutting the price of the Harry Potter books in his native country, but also with covers which are similar to the covers for Harry Potter. Will people mistake the work for Harry Potter? Not exactly. They may not think the work is Harry Potter, but they will think that it is an affordable option in comparison, in the same way knock off designer bags are an affordable option for people.

Grooter draws upon elements, like riffing off the canon names, taking from the original plot flow, making it so the work can't be original fiction, but it doesn't draw enough upon the Harry Potter series to pass as parody.