Do you think they offer interesting interpretations or are shamelessly derivative and insulting to the original novel?
Why are there two sequels to Rebecca written by different authors? Rebecca is supposed to be a mysterious character, whose glamour and cruelty pervade the novel. From what I can see of the reviews of these 'sequels', they turn her into some sort of feminist.
But on the other scale, Wide Sargasso Sea is widely thought to be a classic.
What are your views on the matter?
Well, my personal opinion is rather negative, I'll admit. At best, it smacks of fanfiction, and at worst it feels rather disrespectful to the original author. Also, it often feels like an attempt to capitalize on someone elses success; indeed, this is sometimes openly so, as in the recent Peter Pan in Scarlet which was created to raise funds for Great Ormond Street - a fitting motive to be sure, but I still question the methodology. For less charitable reasons there was Eoin Colfer's recent 'addition' to Douglas Adams' comic masterpiece; given that the original final book most definitely 'ended' (I shan't spoil anything), it requires Colfer to essentially retcon Adams' original.
It doesn't just extend to rewriting books - as a major student of Tolkien, I'm looking forward to the film version of The Hobbit, but I'm deeply suspicious of the next film they're going to make, which is intended to bridge the gap between Hobbit and LOTR, but which will be entirely written by the production department. At that point, it's no longer about making an artistic adaptation of someone elses work (I've no problem with that - a reinterpretation through a different art medium is fine), but rather capitalizing on the brand.
Essentially, therefore, I'm only really happy with other people expanding a corpus if it is done with the express permission of the original author. Though it's not classic literature, take the example of Robert Jordan's fantasy epic The Wheel of Time. The twefth book came out recently, with three more yet to come; this is all despite Jordan himself dying shortly after the eleventh book came out. However, he was aware of his impending demise, and thus produced reams of notes explaining how he wanted the stories to go, and charged his wife, publisher, and a writer friend to continue the series; I have no problem with that!
These are just my personal opinions, of course; possibly I'm a bit too hardline, but I know from my own writings that if anyone tried to alter them, I'd feel rather like I'd had a child kidnapped!
If people have different interpretations of certain novels, they should just publish an article or something, not rewrite the book. I might interpret Iago's motive for revenge as repressed sexual desires for Othello, but I wouldn't write a steamy novel depicting it.
It's the worst case of imposing interpretations on classics.
Not too sure on that one - Verdi's Otello is a masterpiece in its own right, and I've no objection because opera is a different medium to Shakespeare's own theatrics. Verdi removes any sense of (homo)sexual repression on the part of Iago - instead, Jago (as he is called) proclaims his belief in "a cruel god" whom he feels he must serve in order to give him some meaning in life. It's a fascinating vision, even if it doesn't quite live up to Shakespeare's characterisation. It creates a motive for the man that just isn't there in the play (of course, he doesn't really have ANY motive).
Didn't Shakespeare borrow/re-write other stories for his plays? Didn't Chaucer write his own versions of some of Boccaccio's tales? Wasn't Virgil's Aeneid a continuation and different viewpoint of the events Post-Trojan war? How many times does Electra, Agamemnon, Orestes and the stories surrounding those characters appear in the works of Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides told with only slight differences? Isn't large sections of Paradise Lost just Milton retelling Genesis 1, 2, and 3?Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
It would seem the history of literature practically invites people to take others' stories and rework them.
So I basically have no problem with it in theory. Then again, I can think of examples where it does bother me a little: horror movies! As a fan of horror movies, I hate it when they just remake a film with update special effects and diluted dialogue. Or they just import it from Japan and add American actors.
I suppose it comes done to certain questions: How much are you deviating from the original? What changes are you making to your version that allows you to justify those changes? In other words, the main issue is if what you're bringing to the new version justifies the work itself.
But in the cases of Electra and the like, isn't that just a myth? It's not actually one author's vision. And besides, we're talking about classic works here.
If the work is intended to stand on its own and breaks all ties with the original, then fair enough, but when the author is claiming it is just like the original, that bugs me.
Lokasenna, Iago has a motive- it's just unclear. I think the 'motiveless malignity' interpretation undermines the character and is bound to lead to self-indulgent performances from actors. Iago is frightening because we cannot work out his motivations (although there does seem to be a puritanical element to him).
Ok, I have something against it, but only due to readers' opinions about them.
Verdi's Othello has been named as an interpretation of Shakespeare's. Not exactly a sequel or prequel or anything, but it smells of the same. Let's remark that the times of Chaucer, the Classics and up to Shakespeare were not the same as now. There was no respect for the author as an artist. Lokasenna will also know that. It was fine to re-write ('re-tell') or 'translate' (also read: 're-write' in most cases) as long as it suited your purpose, i.e. the message you wanted to give. In saints' lives often even miracles were copied from the one to the other. But as long as the saint became more saintly, that was alright. The concept of 'truth' was different then. What the original author of a work thought was of no consequence. At any rate, the author was mostly unknown.
But, when we are now talking of sequels and prequels, I am with Lokasenna, in that they are mostly fan fiction. Boring, badly written, and over-stretched. That said though, some are interesting. I would have liked to buy Pride and Prejudice and the Zombies (or whatever its title is) just for the fun, but I found it too expensive. It seemed at leastwell-written. Better than the other one (Mrs Darcy or something). Sad...
Coming to things as Wide Sargasso Sea is another matter. It is no longer fan-fiction. It is well-written and interprets the original story of Brontė and tells of the (possible) events before the story we all know. It is fine. I haven't read it, but I understand that it has won prizes and has a lot of respect on the scene. Fine, so it is a good book. The problems begin when Jane Eyre-readers start to read it as a prequel and start to base their judgment of the original on the interpretation of Jean Rhys. If she had written a scientific article like the influencial Guilbert and Gubar, would people also have started to read that as a prequel because it put forward a possible former life of Rochester or men like him? Probably not. Did Rhys ever have contact with Brontė to see whether she was right? Definitely no. So, then, do not read it as a prequel, but as a book in its own right, based on that original book, but of no consequence to it. If anything, the original should be of consequence to Jean Rhys's, not the other way round.
I hate it when people go, 'Have you read Wide Sargasso Sea? It shines a light on Rochester.' It does not. It shines a light on what Rhys thought of that character, no more. Unless, she did some Ouia and talked to Brontė's spirit which is very unlikely.
My point, Kelby, is that people like writing and rewriting and continuing and responding to their favorite works. It's a completely normal thing to do.
I realize we're talking about books, but this issue pervades all art forms. Music covers are the norm, especially in rock. How many freaking Virgin and Child are there in the visual arts?
I mean what do people make of Bob Dylan's All Along the Watchtower versus Jimi Hendrix's All Along the Watchtower?
"Great writers steal, mediocre writers borrow"-T.S. Eliot.
Ben Yathzee croshaw once described dante's inferno as the first self-insert fanfic.
But really, I don't have a high opinion of Prequel or sequels to classical works. Though the classical works I'm talking about are the public domain classic novels , mostly because its doesn't fell authentic if its not done by the original author.
i'm fine with legends and myths though.
Kiki is absolutely right - these arguments really only function in a society that has a concept of intellectual ownership, which basically means anything post-Renaissance. Shakespeare, like Chaucer before him, adapted and put his own spin on much older tales. As a student of Teutonic mythology, I couldn't function without later writers setting down their own versions and thoughts, if only because the pre-Christian society simply didn't write anything down. Snorri Sturluson may have written very little that was original, but we're still eternally thankful to him for writing it down anyway!
I think that Eliot quote is spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.lucifer
I'm a bit iffy about them in general. When I'm interested in reading one I'll research it properly first. I expect the original to be respected.
I've read sequels to Pride and Prejudice, but before I read them I made sure what they were about, what the author did with the characters and what style is employed. I have read Pemberley Shades, Mrs. Darcy's Dilemma and A Match for Mary Bennet..I enjoyed all of them. I've heard critism about all, but I since I knew what to expect I wasn't dissapointed. That being said, there are some P&P sequels that I will avoid like the plague because I know they do not respect the original. There's one sequel where Elizabeth married Mr. Darcy only for money and to help her family and what her life's like in a practically loveless marriage to a haughty ***...a total rape of the original author's intentions for the story. So I won't be reading it.
Alternative versions I'll only consider if it's the original story, but from a different character's point of view, for example, or something similar.
I don't mind it if people mess around with it completely in different media like cinema or theater, as long as they make it clear that they've deviated a lot from the original. As long as people know beforehand it's okay, instead of expecting a faithful representation of a story they love. However, when production companies attempt to 'fill in' stories like Lokasenna said they'd better make sure they know what they're doing...that can be VERY dodgy.
As for myths and legends:
Agreed!Quote:
Kiki is absolutely right - these arguments really only function in a society that has a concept of intellectual ownership, which basically means anything post-Renaissance. Shakespeare, like Chaucer before him, adapted and put his own spin on much older tales. As a student of Teutonic mythology, I couldn't function without later writers setting down their own versions and thoughts, if only because the pre-Christian society simply didn't write anything down. Snorri Sturluson may have written very little that was original, but we're still eternally thankful to him for writing it down anyway!
When I read books about aesthetics from ancient Greek or Roman times, the middle ages, and the Renaissance they rarely mention originality. Like so many other subjects, that only becomes important in the copyright era.
"Great writers steal, mediocre writers borrow"-T.S. Eliot.
Sounds like Eliot himself was involved in a bit of pilfering:
"I don't borrow, I steal. If there's something to be stolen, I steal it."
-Picasso
Continuing on the question... what of the Aeneid? Tennyson's Ulysses, Michel Tournier's Friday (which re-imagines Robinson Crusoe), Goethe's Faust (after Marlowe and earlier German versions of the tale), what of Kleist's dramatic re-imagining of the involvement of the Amazons and Greeks in the Trojan War in his play, Penthesilea?
i like when authors do it...i am reminded of when musicians do cover versions, which are sometimes as good, or even better than the originals. (sarah brightman's dust in the wind comes to mind, or billy idol's mony, mony)
i liked jane eyre but have to confess, i didnt like wide sargasso sea at all.
tom brown's schooldays is one of my favorite books and a relatively recent author took one of the characters, flashman, and wrote a number of "sequels" around him.
i heartily recommend the phantom in manhatten, a contemporary (and almost endearing) sequel to the phantom of the opera.
Some of the greatest fanfiction ever written.Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
The difference, I think, is that Dylan got the credit and the royalties for Hendrix's version. I don't think the Bronte estate received any proportion of the revenue on Wide Sargasso Sea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
And why should it? The book isn't a cover version (same chords,same words, same structure); it's a development of an aspect of the original. So I don't think the analogy with covering songs really applies.
A recent example, by the way, would be Jon Clinch's Finn.
It does apply when my main point is: "that people like writing and rewriting and continuing and responding to their favorite works. It's a completely normal thing to do."Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
It's not really meant to be an analogy so much as a demonstration that this goes on throughout all the arts. The fact that Hendrix might have to pay copyright is irrelevant to my point about the general impulse many artists feel to rewrite, continue, and respond to their favorite works. My point is that artists feel the need to do this, not what artists have to do if they want to do this.
By the way, Hendrix's version might have a lot of the same structure, chords, etc., but the two versions sound extremely different. Dylan's sounds folksy with his harmonica, while Hendrix's improvisations give it a funk-rock quality. Hendrix's version very much sounds like Hendrix doing his version of the song, and I think you do him discredit in basically implying its mostly just a one-for-one translation of Dylan's song.
Bronte's work by the time Jean Rhys was writing had fallen into the public domain, I would think. If it hadn't fallen into the public domain, she probably would've had to pay.
Ditto your Finn example. The reason they don't have to pay has nothing to do with the fact that these books are exploring some aspect of the work (hence still being derivative) and everything to do with the original works in question being in the public domain.
But nevertheless, as I already pointed out I don't see how money being exchanged has anything to do with my point about the general impulse of artists to rework to the material of other artists into their own vision or pay homage to artworks they enjoy.
Fair enough. My point, I think, is that developing an aspect of a story or taking a character out of the story into another one is a very different thing to interpreting a song in one's own style. There are differences of intention, of process and of creative involvement. And those differences are reflected in the applicability or otherwise of the royalty issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I doubt anyone would have had to pay, because permission wouldn't have been given to do it. I can't think of any instance where a novel was under copyright and permission was given by the copyright holder for a some character or significant aspect of the novel to be used by another writer. The closest would be the commissioning of writers by the copyright holders to produce a further book in a series (Bond or, I think, Pooh).Quote:
Bronte's work by the time Jean Rhys was writing had fallen into the public domain, I would think. If it hadn't fallen into the public domain, she probably would've had to pay.
So I'm not disagreeing that the impulse is there to imitate, honour, develop or enhance favourite works. And I'm not saying that the royalties are the agent of a flaw in your argument. I'm saying that, for me at least, there's a fundamental creative difference between covering a pop song and writing a novel that references another - and the copyright system is the practical evidence of that difference.
I'd also point out that there is a difference between writing a novel that references another or many others (what are typically called allusions) and one that makes wholesale of some of the characters from another novel and presents itself as a prequel.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
The reason Rhys didn't have to pay anything has absolutely NOTHING to do with different creative purposes, and everything to do with the fact that the work by the time Rhys wrote her book was in the public domain. I could publish my own copy of Jane Eyre word for word, and not have to pay royalties, which is why the entire thing is available here on Lit Network, literature.org, Project Gutenberg, etc. It's also why so many major publishers continue to print classics (they're free because they're in the public domain and they still sell well, which means a good profit margin).
Now it might be that Rhys changes enough that she would've been in the clear anyway (doesn't name Rochester, etc.); nevertheless, that is for a court of law to decide as there is tons of nuance to copyright law, but alas it never will go to a court of law because it's in the clear already due to it being public domain material. The actual discernible reason she didn't have to pay royalties is her book was written after Jane Eyre was already in the public domain. So it's a moot point. There is no way of testing out whether she would or wouldn't have gotten sued and whether the suit would've been successful or not.
So no offense, but you didn't actually prove anything. It doesn't prove that books of the sort you describe and music covers are essentially different from a copyright law perspective if you're using a work that didn't have to pay royalties to begin with for different reasons than the ones you stated as an example.
It is different from doing music covers. Generally you do music covers of songwriters who are still alive- and it's the same words and tune, simply sung a little differently. However with these 'reinterpretations' of classics, the original writers are generally dead so you can screw about with them and the poor dead writer can't do anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
...I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was simply saying - as a published novelist, as a songwriter and as a performing musician- that I felt that the two processes - writing a novel that borrows from an existing novel and covering a song by another artist - are very different processes, creatively and practically.
So I'm not offended - don't worry. Though I am a bit taken aback by your tone.
I've seen some pretty great classic literature adaptations in the comic book medium. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen comes to mind.
They are different. When you write a pop or rock song, you have a chord progression and you have lyrics sung to a melody over that chord progression. Cover songs almost always replicate those core elements of the original creative process to produce a performance that is different. It is the very rare cover that dispenses with chord structure and melody to create an interpretation that only maintains the original lyrics and even then, the cover is still utilising a core creative element belonging to the original.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
With that in mind, Hendrix's All Along The WatchTower is not a great example of a creative cover as it reproduces Dylan's lyrics and chord progression. It sounds different, sure, but that's largely due to the fact that instead of being sung (or intoned) by a middle aged Jewish man accompanied by an acoustic guitar and a harmonica, it's being bashed out by a guitar god with a wah-wah pedal and a good dose of overdrive.
In the case of the literary prequel or what have you, we are surely dealing with a different process: one of inspiration and influence. If I write a sequel to Bellow's ...Augie March (watch this space), I've got to supply the core creative elements of which a novel is comprised. Now of course, the character itself is one of those elements, but all I have is his name and his background. I can't replicate Bellow's inventive prose to re-imagine Augie. And without his prose, the means by which Bellow's novel was originally created, the bulk of the work is very much on me. I'm looking at a blank sheet of paper. Hendrix was looking at a chord chart and a lyrics sheet. There is a big difference.
Sure, as someone who has done his share of covers I get what you're saying. I would agree there is a difference between how one covers a song with the chords already there for you versus the amount of new material and creativity needed for writing a sequel/prequel/whatever. However, I don't think what inspires a writer to do a sequel to a novel they love and a musician to cover the material of another artists is essentially a different impulse--different processes after the fact when producing the work--but not what ultimately motivates them to do it, which stems back to some sort of love and interest in the work and a desire to do your own version.Quote:
Originally Posted by sixsmith
Also, you're underselling Hendrix's cover of All Along the Watchtower, which is a fantastic example of a creative cover. In fact, covers don't get more creative than that. The cover consistently wins in polls for best cover, is one of the few covers that has earned its place in rock's historical canon in its own right, is pretty much more famous than Dylan's version, and I believe Dylan has even gone on record as saying Hendrix's version is superior to his own version. Hendrix doesn't just take Dylan's version and take out the harmonica and adds a little overdub and wah-wah pedaling. He adds riffs throughout, makes it all heavier, plays around with the rhythm, adds one of the most memorable solos ever; he makes so many changes that even, though, yes you can still tell its the same song it feels almost like a completely different song simultaneously. The whole effect is different. Dylan's song feels sparse and folksy complimenting the sparse style of the lyrics, while Hendrix's version is heavy and strange and atmospheric, almost operatic in some ways, emphasizing and highlighting the strangeness of the lyrics.
Still identifiably the same song though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I heard Hendrix's first, but when I heard Dylan's (and XTC's) I knew within sixteen bars it was the same song. (Let's face it - it's a hackneyed chord sequence, but as soon as you hear "There must be some way out of here..." you know what you're dealing with.)
As inventive covers go, and although I don't like the song much, I'd give the prize to Joe Cocker's With a Little Help from My Friends, which rethinks a quaint and effective song for a man who can't sing and arranges it for the perspective of a man who can't do anything but.
What about literature?
I'll admit, I was rather shocked when I was browsing my local book store and saw a novel named Cosette a sequeal to Hugo's Les Miserables! I mean... If you want to write a story about a young French woman in that particular era, who is, according to the cover, trapped in a bad marriage and wanting to "find herself" blah blah blah, WHY does it have to be a character already created by someone else??
Judging by what the cover said, the characters of Cosette and Marius had no relation to the way they were portrayed by Hugo.
I think I made up my mind then, that I was not happy about this sort of literature. Then again, it might in fact be a great book. I just... don't really care to find out, because I find the concept rather silly.
Indeed. It's often just cashing in on another writer's work.
Isn't it? If you're too lazy to make up your own characters, why even write?
And yet, someone mentioned the whole problem of "ownership" of a work. Does Barthes' "Death of the Author" or the intentional fallacy have a relevance here? I mean, when analyzing a work, a prefer not to draw upon too much biographical details, if it can be avoided.
But where to draw the line, really... Because Les Miserables IS Hugo's work! ... Isn't it?
I'll ponder some more on that, I think...
I have made my views clear about this on another forum, but I'll say that I agree with Kelby and Ane...
Indeed, great writers steal, but they do not steal whole characters and then make their own story about them. They steal images, words, scraps of sentences, style and the like, but they do not make stories with characters. I suppose that's more like borrowing actually... You use it for whatever mostly mediocre purpose you like, but ultimately that character will always stay the character of the original writer. No-one will ever credit a writer with making a character better then it was in its original version. Same as a film character is very rarely called better than its literary counterpart. Ultimately the writer who has used such a character has to give it back, which makes it rather borrowing than stealing.