Plagiarism and art

Nov 15, 2004 10:03

A really interesting article by an author who found his words and ideas incorporated into a Broadway play, and began to see that they weren't necessarily "his" words at all.

pop culture, su: copyright

Leave a comment

Comments 6

saffronhouse November 15 2004, 08:17:43 UTC
Wow. This is *fascinating*. Thank you for posting the link.

Reply


hesychasm November 15 2004, 11:16:42 UTC
I think I'm mixed up about the difference between derivative and transformative fiction and how that applies to fanfic. Seems like the New Yorker author would look down on fanfic as un-creative because we call it derivative (don't we?).

She writes, "Isn’t that the way creativity is supposed to work? Old words in the service of a new idea aren’t the problem. What inhibits creativity is new words in the service of an old idea."

Are fanfic stories new ideas, or simply new words in service of old ideas? I feel like I could read it either way, but I'd been thinking we were more transformative than that.

Reply

veredus November 15 2004, 13:07:14 UTC
I believe that we are. We take a universe that is already created and the characters that populate it and we extend their lives beyond what the creators have allowed them to be expressed.

Not to play with the wording, but rather than "new words in the service of an old idea", I think fanfiction is "old idea in the service of new words", if that makes any sense.

Reply

rivkat November 15 2004, 13:48:40 UTC
As Sarah T said in your journal, the author is definitely not using the terms in their legal senses. I agree with you that he probably would look down on fanfic -- but then he also seems to believe that just because he transcribed a television interview, reproducing the interview takes "his" words, so I wouldn't consider him the final word on this.

I firmly believe that there are no new stories, so I'd say that creativity exists in new words as well as old -- it all depends on the quality of the storytelling, not on how closely we can tie one particular text to its predecessors.

Reply


veredus November 15 2004, 13:15:37 UTC
God, that article made me think until my *head* hurt.

And while I can see where the author is coming from, I still feel for Lewis. Ethically I believed that she was wronged, if not legally. And though the author argued that Gottmundsdittor is not Lewis, the affair in the play *does* cast doubt onto Lewi's own life, people will definitely wonder if she had an affair with her collaborator. And to say that Gott is *not* Lewis as if that excuses it, is like telling the jury not to remember damaging testimony after they have already heard it. Human nature just doesn't work that way. Reputation *is* perception, and people's perception of Lewis have been changed by Frozen, even if it was unintentional.

I just hope Lewis gets at least an apology and all the prints of Frozen acknowleges her involuntary contribution to the story.

Reply

rivkat November 15 2004, 13:52:25 UTC
I found it fascinating that what Lewis felt wronged about was more what was made up than what wasn't -- she wasn't complaining about her life being taken, in the end, but that it hadn't been taken enough. I agree that the playwright probably should have credited her inspiration and made clear that various events were made up. But I also found it fascinating that the playwright -- not coincidentally a woman -- seemed so devastated by Lewis's reaction. It seems likely to me that many more male artists than female artists would tell someone whose life they'd mined for inspiration to suck it up, because that's how art is made.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up