what about those who...

[evening_read]

im talking about those writers (more or less famous) who write sequels to other writers' works (again more or less famous). is it moral? is it even great no matter how popular those sequels are? i just found out something i didnt know: l. frank baum wrote 13 sequels to his 'wonderful wizard of oz' but after his death several writers wrote another 26 sequels... :/ i would put in my library baum's all 14 oz books, but i wouldnt put any of the other ones even if they would be 1000 times better than the original ones
edit: why some writers cant create themselves and have to steal the other's idead?

[LitNetIsGreat]

No, I don't like this either, it seems wrong and somewhat immoral. Of course it is impossible to write a totally original idea, everying is in someway borrowed from something else, but to use the same characters and to write a sequal, like was done for Jane Eyre and Rebecca, (the first ones that come to mind) is wrong.

[Mopey Droney]

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/02/0081387

[Pecksie]

... Not to mention those writers (usually bad) who try to capitalize on the enduring success of classics, writing (usually appalling) 'sequels' to Pride and Prejudice, Emma, etc. These 'sequels' usually teem with anachronisms and distort characters beyond recognition... imagine Lizzie Bennet openly talking to her friends about sex with Mr. Darcy... arrrgghhhh... you get the picture :(

[Bitterfly]

No, I don't like this either, it seems wrong and somewhat immoral. Of course it is impossible to write a totally original idea, everying is in someway borrowed from something else, but to use the same characters and to write a sequal, like was done for Jane Eyre and Rebecca, (the first ones that come to mind) is wrong.

Ah, but wasn't Wide Sargasso Sea a brilliant book? It's one of the only novels in Caribbean literature that really swept my breath away. Maybe people look down on sequels because they're often duds, but now and again there can be exceptional exceptions.

[weltanschauung]

"tudo vale a pena, quando a alma não é pequena"

[Bitterfly]

Everything is worth it, when one's soul isn't small?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Ah, but wasn't Wide Sargasso Sea a brilliant book? It's one of the only novels in Caribbean literature that really swept my breath away. Maybe people look down on sequels because they're often duds, but now and again there can be exceptional exceptions.

I know that this book is supposedly highly regarded and if the book is really that good, then yes I suppose it would count as an exception. Of course in the past people 'borrowed' whole plot and storylines, simply re-writing different aspects into it, this was the norm and perfectly acceptable. Today though it doesn't feel the same somehow, it immediately seems as if a person is simply trying to sell off of the back of a famous and loved work, this in my opinion is wholly wrong.

[kelby_lake]

That article was interesting.

I think books can be used to expand. It should not be 'What probably happened after', but it should explore the book and pick out new elements from it. The worst thing about plagiarising is that a person could tell exactly what you were trying to say but could not.

[book_jones]

Well I did think Wide Sargasso Sea was good. Mr. Rochester's name is never mentioned in the actual text, so you could read it without knowing it was related to Jane Eyre. Other that that though it does kind of bug me.