For some reason, I thought of the author Robert Jordan today. For those who don't know, Robert Jordan authored a series called "Wheel of Time;" it is a lengthy series that many fantasy lovers read and enjoyed. Jordan's ailing health caused many fans to fear that he would die before finishing the series and that is exactly what happened. However, before his death, he dictated most of the plot points for the final book to others and apparently, someone else will take up the mantle to finish the series. Christopher Tolkien's work on his father's universe is probably the most famous example of this situation, but others exist including Spielberg's takeover of "A.I." after Kubrick died.
My question is: how we do we feel about that concept in general? Would you want someone other than the original author to finish the series? Are these "co-written" books works less legitimate?
Would it be better to just publish the notes or unfinished story?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
no, it sucks but I'm a little bothered by this. the problem is that the story has I guess a soul. this soul is often crafted by the author (a skilled author) the Idea that someone would come in and want to tell their story ruins the story by creating a hybrid, like the end of AI however, if the new writer pushes him or herself to finish the vision of the previous writer and doesn't let ego get in the way of this then I think it's cool.
although I haven't given this much thought so I could be talking out of my ass.
Be prepared for a long rant:
This is an interesting question that I've wondered about before too. Here are some of my thoughts and background beliefs that influence those thoughts:
I do not believe in any strong concept of personal identity. We change very much over our lifetimes and are different people all the time (No man can step into the same river twice). Under this view, even Robert Jordan himself finishing the series a decade or so after he started it wouldn't be the same person. From this view, I have no problem allowing someone else -- specifically someone enough like Jordan (shared the same views, has a similar prose stlye, et cetera) to finish the series. Do not take this view too far and think that I mean that ANYONE else could finish the series and get the same (or similar enough to) result that Jordan could, but anyone with enough properties in common with Jordan should be able to do so.
On a related issue,
I do not understand intellectual copyrights over fictional characters, places, or most other things. I believe a specific story can be created and owned by an author, but no character or setting is created in a vaccum. Our country and values are very individualistic. If we were more community based in our views we might just see stories like this more like old fairy tales or other folk stories. Does it matter who wrote them? We have a bunch of different versions of each story. Each addes something new or different to the tale. If some new Harry Potter book came out, and aesetically and storywise it was wonderful, shouldn't this be a praise worthy creation? Sure, the person could have made up their own world that was "inspired by" the Harry Potter universe, but maybe there were elements that were absolutely needed that were just too integral to the Potter universe. Why shouldn't someone be allowed to do this? We do allow this for old stories all the time that do not possess copyrights -- King Arthur stories, modern retellings of fairy tales, sherlock holmes stories, et cetera.
The argument against this could go along the lines of: An individual created such and such character and such and such world. The naming and specific characteristics were created by them, and they therefore have sole rights to all things involving those created entities.
I'm hoping I'm not strawmanning my opposition, but I think that would be reasoning someone would hold (correct me if I'm wrong or offer a more sophisticated view). To criticze this I want to look at what is Harry Potter (the stories and character):
A boy on a quest much like any other hero from Hero With A 1000 Faces + British Boarding School Adventure (For the first 3 books anyway) + Some minor tweaking on Magic = Harry Potter.
Is this too reductive? If you believe so, can you explain how? Stephen King in his book On Writing actually instructs would be writers to try to construct premises for stories out of such reductive elements. If this is how "creation" happens for at least the elements that we tag copyrights to, then isn't creation just mixing and finessing what has come before in hopes of creating something "new" out of what already exists?
If this is the case, then there is a thin line between one type of plagerism and creation. At what point ought we, if at all, regard something as "original" from the things previously created that inspired it?
I'm with Jack conceptually, but in practice it never turns out so well. Children may not really understand their parents well enough to continue their work; they may just not be good writers.
Also in "On Writing," Stephen King mentions that the majority of writers are just plain bad, and a bad writer can't really become a good writer; decent writers can become good with effort and work, but you have to have a certain kind of life to really strike literary gold. Although I really want to disagree with him (it sounds elitist, doesn't it?), when boiled down it makes a lot of sense -- some people are just bad writers. Sometimes people you know very well.
All I'm really trying to say is that Frank Herbert's kids fucking ruined Dune, is all.
1. The issue of can/should someone else continue a first writer's universe: Certainly, anyone -can-, but few points about what makes it a worthy endeavor to pursue past the original author's intent: Does it suck? I think this is my prime qualification for what I'll call Continued Works. If they started making new Firefly episodes today, and I got that Firefly feel from them... amazing characterizations, metaphors, and so on... I would pronounce them Worthy, and it would be fine. My first tingle of thought along this line was that any sort of "right of succession" the new author might have to develop the Continued Works would "help" or lend an air of credibility to the proceedings; He's the authors son, the partner, the one that transcribed notes or had completed his Masters thesis on exploring the original author's themes and so forth.
Then I discarded this, and decided "Does it suck?" is my only bar. If it sucks, the succession is unworthy. Anyone can write on whatever, or to whatever created universe. But there's a reason why I like any particular story; an author continuing the work of another must be at least as good at strumming the same chords within me as the original, in the same style, or s/he must be better.
2. On the question of copyright and exclusive ownership of intellectual property... Hmmmmm.
As a reader, my life might be a little richer if we could open-source a good setting or group of characters. I've seen too many premises, stories, characters I thoroughly enjoyed die at the whim of some executive I'll never meet or know, and perhaps in ways my life is a bit less rich because of it. It would definitely be sweet to see more of what I enjoy, provided it didn't suck ( see above ).
But the whole "It's mine I should get paid for it" thing does not ring hallow for me. I know if I paint an original picture, and someone takes something clearly my creation and copies it, tweaks it a little but it is still recognizable as mine and sells it... that feels wrong, to me. If they copy it and it flourishes because of the quality of their skill, I should be impressed and heartened that they've taken my original work and helped spread it... but they should not profit from standing on my shoulders, I think. Every author in the world has the option right now, today, to release their works into the public domain, say, instead of giving a publishing company the rights. Tomorrow Stephen King could ( conceivably ) create a setting, some characters, relationships, etc and turn that loose to everyone; "All these worlds are yours...", as Clarke might say. But this is hardly ever done. I can't help but to think it's largely because hardly anyone would -want- to do it. And as giddy as I could feel about the idea of Everyone being able to do Continued Works, I think if I knew the original author didn't want me doing that ( or maybe just didn't want me making a profit from doing it ) that might trump my desire to see it done.
I find it more palatable for an actor to replace another actor in an ongoing series than for an author to replace a another author. It still bothers me, but I can accept it.
When thinking about a missing creator, I focus more on whether a grandiose vision existed that was left incomplete by death. If so, out of love, I would like to see the work completed, but will recognize that even with amazing notes or a draft, the final piece will not be as it was meant to be.
I've already laid out most of what I think, but would like to furthur add:
I agree with Pete's tool for seeing if a work is justified: Does it suck?
It's simple, but really, if someone writes a wonderful story set in someone else's universe -- example: Wicked, which takes place in Oz --- then who cares if someone else established that world and those characters initially?
This seems like something we ought to examine on a case by case basis.
Also, as Zach brought up Dune, why ought the children or family members of writers get special permission to carry on work? Is this solely a legal thing? Ideally, I guess the writer ought to name a literary heir or heirs to their work before they die or simply state that everyone is allowed to write in their universe and let their work speak for itself. Unless a writer's child is also a gifted storyteller I don't like the idea of them inheriting their parent's work the way anyone else would inherit an old watch or hat.
I never would have guessed I was such a communist when it came to intellectual property rights.
This is off topic, but Tanqueray's last comment made me think about this in regards to different actors playing the same part, have you seen the previews for the new movie about Bob Dylan -- 'I'm Not There'? They have several different actors: Heth Ledger, Christian Bale, Richard Gere, Kate Blanchette, some little black kid, all playing different versions of Dylan. The movie looks like a great conceptual piece/biography.
While I haven't studied copyright law, I believe an author possesses a monopoly on the rights to his or her original work for x number of years beyond his or her death. I would imagine that the author could assign/bequeath the rights to whomever he or she wants; it just so happens that authors either bequeath everything to their children (or heirs), including the copyright, or specifically designate the children as the holder of the copyright.
Post a Comment