There are a couple of issues I’d like to discuss in this blog. Not sure how many of you are aware that 90 year old J.D. Salinger is fighting to stop some guy from named J.D. California (real original) from publishing “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye.” Apparently, it follows Holden as he breaks free from his nursing home. A case similar to this, “”The Wind Done Gone,” a parody of “Gone With the Wind” was protected because it was a parody.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/books/06/03/salinger.catcher.lawsuit/index.html
My first question is: as future media specialists, how do you feel about one author ripping off another author’s characters/ideas? Or do you believe California has a right to have his work published? And, if this book is published, would you purchase it for your library collection?
The article from CNN mentions that Catcher in the Rye “currently sells more copies on Amazon.com than Harry Potter, The DaVinci Code, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Of Mice and Men. So I decided to see how Catcher was faring. As of June 4th, Catcher was listed at number 95. But what really caught my eye was a particular customer discussion called: Catcher in the Rye should be banned… So of course I clicked and I want to share with you some of the very original quotes: all customer quotes are in italics and in color. This book definitely gets people heated up. (These are not complete postings…)
Here is the original posting. I think that anybody who has ever read Catcher has a place in their heart for Phoebe Caulfield and how she brings Holden back to the human condition. As a result, I disagree with the following:
Catcher in the Rye should be banned because...
...not because it's obscene or perverse. But it should be rejected flat out by high-school English professors because it's a lousy book. It's literary garbage that debases rather than celebrates the human condition.What if every teenager in America who was forced to read a junk novel like Catcher in the Rye, also had to read a truly uplifting modern work like Angels in Iron by Nick Prata?Which do you think would resonate more with them? How would our country be different today?
Here is one response that I think hit the nail on the head:
So you think it should actually be banned just because you didn't particularly like it and feel that there are more uplifting novels? That sounds like a ridiculous reason to ban it. Maybe you could just give it a bad review and move along. In truth, many teenagers identify with Holden Caulfield, and maybe they need more books with characters with whom they can identify. Sometimes the human condition feels lousy, depending on a person's perspective. Still, that's no reason to ban a book.
Another customer simply stated:
Let's not ban books, please
I like this one too:
Perhaps if you ceased ignoring every book that doesn't sugar coat adolescence or "celebrate the human condition," you'd have a more open mind and would stop promoting censorship through your self centered opinions
This posting makes me proud to be an American. I think it brings up many of the issues we’ve discussed in relation to intellectual freedom.
I want my children to read what you consider "junk" and to develop the critical thinking skills to determine for themselves what can be learned about the universal search for meaning. What I don't want is for anyone to determine, in advance, what is "uplifting" and what a steady diet of pre-determined "uplifting" material is supposed to do for "our country." Life is bigger than your country (whichever one you're referring to) and how presumptuous of you to even suggest banning a book. Exactly which authority figure would supervise the list of banned books?
And here’s part of a posting that other customers labeled as “customers don’t think this post adds to the discussion.” I agree!! Who determines what “very exceptional modern literature” is exactly? Can I apply for this job?
I haven't yet read "Catcher in the Rye" yet (which is why I am reading these comments), but I've read enough books to know that only very exceptional modern literature is good enough for my children to spend their valuable time reading.
I encourage you to check out some of the customer discussions on Amazon. Have you had any personal experiences with Catcher? I taught it for four years and I never had one complaint. Nor, did my teenagers feel that the book was particularly harmful. Actually, they found it to be a challenging and insightful read.
http://www.amazon.com/Catcher-the-Rye-should-banned/forum/Fx15L1MCR7UTKI7/Tx9CWV7Z5ZP492/1/ref=cm_cd_zgbs_tft_tp?%5Fencoding=UTF8&asin=0316769487
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't have any problems with books written as parodies, but I hesitate with someone using characters already created by someone else to write a sequel without the consent of the author (or the author's estate). I think the difference for me is that a sequel can easily be confused as coming from or endorsed by the author. A parody is also usually seen as something separate, not meant to advance the story or characters. All this said it would still be nice if the person writing the parody would get permission from the creator; I know Weird Al does this with the all songs he parodies. Of course, if you ask, you always risk the original creator saying no, but I don’t know if this is one of those situations where it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission!
ReplyDeleteI heard about this on NPR, and it certainly sounds like California is trying to ride Salinger's coattails.
ReplyDeleteI certainly think Salinger is in the right on this, as this seems to be exactly the sort of thing that copyright law should protect, unlike, for example, Disney's refusal to give up its stranglehold on creations that should have long ago passed into the Public Domain (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act). Just imagine how relatively few people would be exposed to the works of Shakespeare, Mozart, Plato, etc, if they were under eternal copyright protection!
But I don't believe California's is a parody. It's Caulfield as a senior citizen many years after Catcher. He's stealing somebody elses character, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI have not read Catcher in the Rye sadly, but if the story is just picking up where the original left off than I do not think that it should be considered parody. Now if California was written with the idea that Catcher had a different meaning then I would not see a problem. If Catcher in the Rye is still under copyright then I do not think California should be published without permission and a royalty fee. Now that last post! How can someone say that only "very exceptional modern literature" is good enough for their children. By who's definition is this exceptional literature considered exceptional? How boring to never be aloud to read something mindless and fun because your parent thinks you mind should not be wasted on filth. How do you think kids expand their imagination and become well rounded?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the article, the book has already been published in Europe and the UK. I went to Amazon UK to find reviews/more information on the book. Here is the link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Years-Later-John-David-California/dp/9185869546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1244998383&sr=8-1
There are only two reviews, but both are really positive, giving the book 5 stars. The good reviews makes me want to read the book, since one reviewer states, "Entertaining, absorbing and ultimately satisfying, this is a remarkable story with one hell of a twist." Knowing that the book could actually be "good" makes me want to see it published. I think without artists and writers borrowing from each other, we could miss out on great works. Much of our early English literary works were remakes of even earlier works.
I think once the character is out there, it is not only the intellectual property of the writer. There are so many other examples of "fan-fiction," in other areas. Buffy the Vampire Slayer and buffyverse comics for example, and Elphelba in Wicked from the Wizard of Oz. I don't think his lawsuit will be successful, but I understand why he would be upset that California stole his character. Personally, I would think that it was flattering that another author loved my character so much he created a book around that. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all.
ReplyDeleteI think once your work enters the realm of "literary classic," you open yourself up to interpretation and response. We see it in music, poetry, well, all the arts. The good stuff gets noticed and played upon - in a way as a kind of Jazz call and response.
ReplyDeleteI will be watching to see what the courts, say, however, about where the line is drawn between intellectual freedom and intellectual property rights. We are witnessing the relationship between these two principles evolve and this case gives us a solid example.
I also doubt, prematurely, to be sure, that the book is any challenge to the literary status of the original. Catcher will stand as a classic and this new work will serve only to advance the status of the original, in my opinion.
Cassie, the differences between the examples you cited are:
ReplyDeleteA. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and the other Oz books by Baum are in the public domain, so Maguire is able to get away with it.
B. Fan-fiction is generally not a commercial enterprise, and is usually left alone by copyright holders, though they legally have every right to do so.
It response to your comment, "I think once the character is out there, it is not only the intellectual property of the writer," under US copyright law, copyright is valid for the life of the author plus 70 years (or up to 120 years total for a work of corporate authorship). Salinger is still alive, and even if he were to die today, it wouldn't be until 2079 that California's book could go unchallenged. Some past copyright-infringement cases have succeeded on far less: see 1939's Superman vs Wonderman case; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Man_(Fox_Publications) , for example.
"JD California" revealed: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0610091salinger1.html
ReplyDeleteGreat responses everybody. I'm glad somebody brought up fan fiction because I was thinking about it guiltily. I'm a big Twilight fan and a discussion group drew my attention to the large amount of Twilight fan fiction out there. I was into it initally but I haven't read it in awhile. It's just not the same for me - I want everything to be written by Meyer. But it also bothers me that in a way, the web is largely responsible for the advent of fan fiction. Meyer created this story and these characters, as Salinger did his, and they should rightly be protected. However, this protection does not extend to the Internet - hence the heavy fan fiction. I don't know how I feel about this. If I was Meyer, I'd be ticked, even though she's pretty gracious to her fan fiction writers.
ReplyDeleteIt has been a long time since I read The Catcher in the Rye, but I remember finishing the book and thinking "why on earth would people ban this?" I didn't think the book was that fantastic, but I also didn't think it was that offensive. From my memory, there were a couple of f-bombs. Today, we have all heard worse....
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think that parodies and fan fiction are a true testament to our country's value of the unique idea. Yes, I think it is a little lame that people cannot think of their own unique characters. But--more importantly-- the protection of such works tells everyone that if you create something original, that original work will be protected to the fullest extent. But if your original work inspires others to create their own unique work, you cannot stop them because they also deserve protection for their unique ideas. Copyrighting work is very messy and complicated--- but there is a method its madness. It allows people to become inspired and flourish and profit from their ideas. And the laws also prevent people from creating a monopoly on characters and stifling other creative works. The government wants to promote, not prevent, writing.
Here are some great ideas that people "copied:"
1. The latest Christian Bale Batman--- (really how many batmans have there been?)
2. Wicked the book and musical.
3. Basically everything on SNL
4. Everything ever done by Weird Al.
I am sure there are many more....
Well, I could go on and on and on about Catcher, but first you have to realize this was published in the late 50's I think. So of course, Holden's smoking, drinking, sexing character is not the norm for that time period. He's been repeatedly kicked out of school, he's disrespectful, and a manic liar. He's also begin the book at the tail end of a manic breakdown.
ReplyDeletePeople object to Holden's anti-society attitude. These might not seem like big issues now, but 50 years, ago, they were quite controversial.
Yes, onto other things. I'm glad there are copyright laws but they don't extend to the Internet, hence the overwhelming amount of fan fiction.
I am all for parodies. I you put your work in a public forum, in America, it can be subject to parody. That is just the price for living in a free country.
ReplyDeleteHey Donna - lets not forget the genius works of Weird Al!
I have read The Catcher in the Rye and frankly have never understood the big fuss. Maybe I am oversimplifying but I felt like Holden was a little creepy, wouldn’t go on a date with him but…that’s it.
People get so worked up. If you don’t like the book then don’t read it.
This is not a parody of Catcher though. This is taking the Holden character and writing about him as a senior citizen. I think we have to make the distinction between parody and just plain stealing somebody elses character while they're still copyrighted.
ReplyDeleteTo me, this does seem like infringement of copyright. With the similar name and continuing the story where it left off, he's just trying to make some money on someone else's work. If it was a parody or fan-fic on someone's personal website, that would be different. This is stealing. If the book is well written, that doesn't make it okay.
ReplyDeleteAs for that Amazon comment about "exceptional modern literature"... does that mean anything not written in the modern era is not worth reading?
The characters written about in the original book came from the mind of the author. You can not duplicate the character in later works because you would just be guessing what the character would do and feel. It just feels wrong reworking these classics. Just because I would not buy it or read it does not mean I would not purchase it for the library.
ReplyDeleteMichelle, I'm sorry, but copyright law *does* extend to the internet. Why do you think the RIAA has been cracking down on file-sharing over the last few years?
ReplyDeleteThe reason why fan fiction writers seldom receive "cease and desist" letters is because the copyright holders *choose* not to pursue them (though they have every right to do so), *not* because copyrighted properties that appear on the internet magically become "protection-free."
Well thanks for clarifiying that for me. I'm aware of the file sharing but assume it didn't really extend to fan fiction because there is so much of it.
ReplyDeleteHere's an article with the latest about the case:
http://news-briefs.ew.com/2009/06/salingers-catcher-in-the-rye-restraining-order-issued-in-copyright-case.html