Prequels/sequels/alternative versions of classics written by other authors...

[kelby_lake]

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?

[Lokasenna]

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!

[kelby_lake]

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.

[Lokasenna]

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).

[Drkshadow03]

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.

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?

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.

[kelby_lake]

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).

[kiki1982]

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 Brontë 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 Brontë 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 Brontë's spirit which is very unlikely.

[Drkshadow03]

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?

[Mr.lucifer]

"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.

[Lokasenna]

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!

[kelby_lake]

"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.

I think that Eliot quote is spot on.

[TurquoiseSunset]

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:

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!

Agreed!

[mortalterror]

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.

[stlukesguild]

"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?

[bounty]

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.