Real Writers Wanking It Up

[oselle]

Some of you may have heard that nonagenarian recluse J.D. Salinger briefly emerged from his self-imposed exile to sue a Swedish guy for copyright infringement after said Swedish guy wrote a book called 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye that's about a 76-year-old man named "Mr. C" (not to be confused with any character on Happy Days) who busts out of his retirement home and then has some adventures of the navel-gazing variety much like a certain young man, also bearing the last initial of "C," who once busted out of his prep school and engaged in some similarly self-absorbed hijinks.

Yesterday a judge in New York ruled in favor of Salinger and said the book could not be published in the United States because it was little more than a retelling of Catcher in the Rye and not, as the publisher and author claimed, a "critical parody" of that book.

My favorite quote to come out of this story is from the Swedish author, Fredrik Colting:

“I am pretty blown away by the judge’s decision,” Mr. Colting said in an e-mail message after the ruling. “Call me an ignorant Swede, but the last thing I thought possible in the U.S. was that you banned books.”

Seriously? This guy is playing the persecution card? His book was "banned" because it was fanfic. He wrote FANFICTION (about one of the world's most famous stories no less) and he tried to PUBLISH IT and SELL IT and he stood up and made his case for it in front of a FEDERAL JUDGE. I don't know whether to ridicule the guy for his presumptuous ignorance or admire him for his brazen chutzpah.

In other fascinating real-world news about writers, James Frey, who was publicly pilloried by the terrifying Oprah Winfrey for duping her with his gritty "memoir," A Million Little Pieces, is apparently undaunted and back in business and co-writing a series of young adult sci-fi novels, one of which has already been optioned for the movies by none other than Michael "Blow Shit Up" Bay (who, I have to add, also cracked my shit up this week by claiming that his awful, loud movies really are great vehicles for actors, essentially taking credit for launching the careers of folks like Ben Affleck and Will Smith. Oh Michael...stop talking and go blow some shit up!).

Then there was this giant bucket of crazy in which author Alice Hoffman went ballistic on Twitter after a critic wrote a less-than-glowing review of her latest novel (DO read the Twitter-caps, please).

What all this got me thinking is that for all the abuse and finger-pointing and name-calling that fandom likes to heap on its members, nothing wanks as hard or is as unapologetically, shamelessly crazy as the real world. If Colting, Frey and Hoffman had pulled their shit in fandom, they would have been burned at the stake. But because they were operating in the real world, what happened? Colting actually got his book published overseas and then tried to claim, after the fact, that he was writing a parody, not Catcher in the Rye fanfic. Frey has a movie deal. And Hoffman's Tweets of Outrage will probably help her sell more books -- I mean, hell, I'd never heard of this book before Gawker picked up the story.

I'm so tired of the endless (and frequently self-righteous) bleats about how crazy fandom is. Fandom is an intensely passionate environment heavily populated by writers -- of varying degrees of ability, but writers nonetheless -- who, merely by virtue of being writers are a little bit touchy and narcissistic and removed from reality. And yet somehow it all holds together and most of the time we respect our boundaries and maintain our perspective and and manage to get along without making a literal federal case out of anything. As far as I'm concerned, there's a lot more crazy going on out there than there is in here.

Comments

[emeraldus.livejournal.com]

Exactly right, in your comment about anyone pulling this kinda stuff in the fanfic world and how they'd be burned at the stake. Honestly, after all the published crap that's called novels I've read, there are some really gifted fanfic writers who'd do a helluva better job.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

What I was thinking about Colting was that he didn't just write fanfic, he wrote what sounds like pretty bad fanfic, at least if the judge's description is accurate. I mean, any fanfic writer worth her salt has to do a little more work than just tacking a few years onto the characters and essentially rewriting the original story.

and the classic wank

[klingoncat.livejournal.com]

referenced here after JK sued a fan who wrote a reference for HP... O.S. Card makes some great points in his post... go read, be amused more.

http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2008-04-20.shtml

[the0neru.livejournal.com]

taking credit for launching the careers of folks like Ben Affleck - Wouldn't that be more taking the *blame*? ;)

[janissa11.livejournal.com]

Good grief.

Although didn't someone recently-ish publish a fanfic take on another famous novel? I can't remember which one, but there was quite a bit of discussion as to how it was really just plain, simple fanfic, through and through. Crap, I wish I could remember which one.

Fandom IS crazy at times. But certainly no more crazy than a shit-ton of folks in the wider world. Absolutely.

Re: and the classic wank

[oselle.livejournal.com]

Wow, Orson Scott Card doesn't pull any punches, does he?

I remember reading a little bit about Lexicon when it was going on but most of it was too thick for me to get through. Whenever I'd see it mentioned on Fandom Wank it always seemed to me that the crew over there was defending Rowling and calling Vander Ark the wanker for his supposed fannish self-entitlement and for some of his more emotional statements during the suit...which I think he lost, didn't he? They ruled in favor of Rowling?

In the Salinger case I agree with the judge -- Colting wrote an unauthorized sequel to a famous novel and tried to pass it off as something wholly original. In the Lexicon case though, I have to agree with Card -- I never understood why Rowling brought that suit in the first place. It was just a reference book, not an unauthorized sequel or anything like that. I have stacks of similar reference books on Tolkien's works and I've never heard of anyone getting sued over them. But then I've never been too impressed by Rowling as a person or as a writer -- she herself seems like a real panties-in-a-bunch wanker whose commercial success has convinced her that she belongs in the pantheon of great authors. In reality her books are so, so derivative of other, better, and often less-acclaimed work. There are also some really odd themes about race and gender and class running through her writing that got pretty hard to stomach by the last book and she clearly has delusions about the message and long-term importance of her work. I don't know why she has to play it this way when the books have made an ungodly amount of money and have certainly received their fair share of critical praise. That really ought to be enough but then as I said...writers are a tricky lot.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

Ben Affleck is actually an excellent and very likable comedic actor who works best on a smaller scale -- it was guys like Bay who tried to cram him and his chiseled jaw into the action-movie hero mold that didn't suit him at all.

Bay's comments were in response to something Megan Fox said about how Bay doesn't really make movies for actors...which is 100% true and something Bay is clearly very touchy about (although Fox should know enough to be more gracious in her opinions of directors who give her a job). But Fox isn't the first actor to say disparaging things about Michael Bay -- hell, Josh Hartnett hated working on Pearl Harbor so much that it practically drove him out of the business. The actors who have gone on to do well after being in Bay's pictures have pretty much done so in spite of Bay's efforts, not because of them.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

You might be thinking of The Wind Done Gone, a re-telling of Gone With The Wind from a slave's perspective. The estate of Margaret Mitchell did sue the author but in that case I'm pretty sure the judge ruled that the work really was permissable under the definition of "critical parody." I think the author just had to re-issue her novel with some sort of credit or disclaimer at the front. That was also fanfic, definitely -- I mean what could be more fanficcish than a re-imagining of a well-known story? But in this case she created a whole new character and a completely different perspective from which to tell that story so it was far more of an original work than Fredrik Colting's was.

Re: and the classic wank

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

F_W is heavily populated by people very committed to defending JKR so I wasn't surprised that was the position they took. Because I didn't see the big deal. I'm fine that she won but it didn't seem like he had done something so terrible. Especially if the whole thing was that she wanted to write that book.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Man, it's so true. Those professional writers know how to wank like nobody's business and always have. It's like when I was reading the second part of Don Quixote and it was practically all about him wanting everyone to know that that fanfic sequel wasn't real, dammit!

Re: and the classic wank

[oselle.livejournal.com]

F_W is heavily populated by people very committed to defending JKR so I wasn't surprised that was the position they took.

I'm not at all surprised because the whole "fandom is so fucking crazy!" theory is F_W's bread and butter, so they'll take any opportunity to kick fans in the teeth for any behavior that they decide is "batshit insane" or "self-entitled" or God knows what, even when that behavior is rational or can be justified.

It sounded to me like Vander Ark had a good case. What's especially disturbing about the Lexicon suit was that Rowling had apparently had a good relationship with Vander Ark and considered his online archive so thorough that she herself used it as a resource. It's clear that Vander Ark put years of work and thought into his archive and Rowling did not become opposed to it until he tried to make some money off it and then all of a sudden her entire body of work was "decimated." That comes down to one thing -- greed. She's a multi-billionaire how many times over and yet she didn't want this guy making one thin dime off of something he had worked hard on and that had no doubt helped to promote her books -- free of charge -- for years. Not only is she richer than God but she had the backing of two major publishing houses and the entire Time-Warner media empire -- talk about David and Goliath. Vander Ark never stood a chance.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

Heh, I think I remember you writing a whole post about that.

[the0neru.livejournal.com]

Admittedly I stopped watching anything starring Ben Affleck after his first few films, so I'm not the best judge of his talent.

I'd heard Bay was... well, not an actors' director. I've assumed that actors went into films of his sort of tongue-in-cheek, as it were, knowing they were mostly background for explosions.

[ghyste.livejournal.com]

I followed the SVA case quite closely because I was writing an essay on the creeping extension of Copyright at the time, and I thought that the Judgement was good – it was very specific to the case in question (SVA had used far too much word for word reproduction of JKR’s subsidiary quidditch and fabulous beasts books) and he made it clear that it was not meant to apply to all reference books. Indeed, SVA has gone on to revise the book and publish it, though I’m not sure how well it can be selling after all the bad press.

I’d decided that SVA was an arsehole long beforehand but JKR behaved every bit as badly in court, pulling the “I was so hurt” card when the last thing that Copyright Law is concerned with is the feelings of the author. Nevertheless, I wasn’t surprised F_W came out on her side – they’re weirdly sycophantic about her.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

SVA had used far too much word for word reproduction of JKR’s subsidiary quidditch and fabulous beasts books

But why is this a problem? I assume the original website did the same thing -- it's hardly possible to write an encyclopedia of an author's work without reproducing it. It's not like SVA was claiming that he himself invented quidditch or whatever...or was he?

It was hard for me to accept any of F_W's judgment of SVA because it was clear they'd made up their mind about him and even if JKR ran over his dog and burned down his house he'd still somehow be in the wrong according to them. I don't think it's so much that they're sycophantic about her, specifically, but their raison d'etre is to pillory fans, not celebrities, so JKR's behavior in this case was probably more or less irrelevant -- SVA was the wanker, not her.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

I think the smart actors take this approach to Michael Bay and are diplomatic enough to collect their paychecks and keep their mouths shut about it. Megan Bay obviously hasn't figured this out yet, but Bay's bristling, defensive reaction was nevertheless pretty hilarious.

[ghyste.livejournal.com]

But why is this a problem? I assume the original website did the same thing -- it's hardly possible to write an encyclopedia of an author's work without reproducing it. It's not like SVA was claiming that he himself invented quidditch or whatever...or was he?

He didn't claim he owned it, but neither did he include any commentary or criticism and thus failed to establish fair use - he was seeking to make money by simply printing someone else's words and the Judge decided that the benefit to the public from the Lexicon was counterbalanced by the disbenefit arising from the potential effect on the production of new original works.

When push comes to shove, money is the only reason we have Copyright Law at all and it's the thing that makes people invoke it. The website made money for JKR's publishers and Warner Bros by promotng her work, but when there was a risk that fans would choose to buy the Lexicon instead of the existing books or the ones that JKR planned to write then they took action.

I'm not saying it's right (and given the derisory damages I suspect the Judge thought that way too) but it's what the Law says at present.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

the disbenefit arising from the potential effect on the production of new original works.

Which I presume is legalese for saying JKR might throw a tantrum and abandon her writing because some shmuck had published a lexicon without cutting her in on the profits? Pardon me but LOL.

when there was a risk that fans would choose to buy the Lexicon instead of the existing books or the ones that JKR planned to write then they took action

This is where I get lost. Maybe this is a case of adhering strictly to the letter of the law but did anyone realistically think that people would stop reading the Harry Potter books to read a fannish take on those them? By that logic, all fanfiction poses a threat because whether the fanfic writer is making money or not, the audience could still choose fanfic over the original work, thereby infringing upon the original creator's present or future profits. If you ask me, that's a real stretch.

[ghyste.livejournal.com]

This is where I get lost. Maybe this is a case of adhering strictly to the letter of the law but did anyone realistically think that people would stop reading the Harry Potter books to read a fannish take on those them?

No - the Judge was very clear that JKR/Warners' claim that people would stop buying the HP books themselves was nonsense, but he allowed that the Lexicon could affect sales of the quidditch and beasts books.

Also the issue of future creative works was a general as well as a specific one - one of the purposes of Copyright is to ensure the continued production of original works and this might be affected if people were allowed to copy and republish without paying the original copyright owner.

[vamp-ress.livejournal.com]

"The Catcher in the Rye" is *the* book of my youth and I have very fond memories of it. I was very appalled that someone went and wrote a "sequel". Meanwhile, I'm starting to believe that the guy is probably Sasha Baron Cohen researching for his next movie. Come on, if you want to cash in like that, Salinger is the one author you should not fuck with. He isn't exactly friendly with people... That author can't really have expected to be able to truly publish that book.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

Ah, but he did publish it, in England any maybe a few other countries. He was only barred from publishing it in the United States. I agree though, I don't know what he was thinking. Not only is Salinger a hardcase (reclusive, but a hardcase nonetheless) but "Catcher" is one of the most famous novels of the 20th century. Though I guess if you're gonna do something illegal and somewhat unethical, you might as well not piss around and aim high.

[vamp-ress.livejournal.com]

Whoa, I didn't even know that! This is like the "Russet Noon" saga (you know that one? it's a modern classic over at Fandom Wank), just with a "real" book and something wacky as "Twilight".

Though, I'm surprised it didn't make bigger waves - all I read where really short newspaper articles.