While reading the books, you were writing down all the details. Wasn't it spoiling a bit your pleasure of reading?
- Oh, I usually read the book through once or twice before starting to take notes. I wouldn't want anything to stand in the way of just enjoying the book.

The lexicon appeared in the Internet in 2000. And when did you think for the first time about publishing it as a book?
- From the beginning, I had people asking for a print version of the lists of facts on the Lexicon. I think the first time I was really pressed hard on the subject was at Nimbus 2003 in Orlando, where I spoke. It was clear that fans wanted the information in the Lexicon and that they wanted it off their computer screens and into their hands for easier reference. I never really thought seriously about doing it, though, since there were several more books to come and a lot more information to be added.


In early months of 2007, some of the lexicon readers asked you to publish it as a book. You told them that in your opinion it was illegal. Later, the lawyers of J.K. Rowling tried to use those e-mails in order to show that you were aware of the copyright infringement. Do you think they behaved unfairly?
- Not at all. The lawyers are just doing their job. A lot of people asked me to publish the Lexicon as a book over the years, and I always told them the same thing because that was what I believed to be true.

Just until August 2007, when Mr. Roger Rapoport from RDR Books contacted you. Unexpectedly, after meeting him, you changed your mind about the legality of publishing the lexicon. How did Mr. Rapoport manage to persuade you?
- Up until that point, I had no actual indication that publishing the Lexicon in book form would be illegal or even frowned on by Rowling, just my own personal suspicions. I had never been told that by anyone from WB or associated with Rowling. When Mr Rapoport informed me a week after our first meeting that an encyclopaedia would be legal, I had no reason to doubt that he was correct and to believe that I had been mistaken. And as it turns out, he was right! The ruling makes it clear that an encyclopaedia like that is perfectly legal, provided it's written correctly.