Browsing for more news on the Salinger & California lawsuit, I found a couple interesting pieces. Here are excerpts with a few of my thoughts:
“J.D. Salinger is taking another fan to court” That’s how the AP story (“Lawsuit: Copycat book not authorized by Salinger”) begins—I’m not fond of it. Perhaps I’m thinking to deeply, but it makes it seem like Salinger doesn’t like or appreciate his fans… I know he’s a highly private man and very protective of his work. Here’s an angle: perhaps he’s just protecting the original so other interpretations of it doesn’t skew the original impressions made on its readers?
More from the same story:
Aaron Silverman, the director of SCB Distributors, said that California was a resident of Sweden and provided The Associated Press with a phone number. Reached by the AP, a man identifying himself as California said that he lived outside of Gothenburg, Sweden. He called the legal action “a little bit insane” and said that Salinger had control over the names of his characters, but not over his style or perspective.
Here’s a question for you all: do you want a writer to have the exact style of another writer?
In earlier classes, I was taught that, when actively reading, we learn and begin to imitate that writer’s style. In another reading, we’ll imitate that other writer’s style. The key thing, however, is that eventually we form our own style. We find our own voice. Isn’t that the point of reading? To find our voice amongst an ocean of them?
Though pertaining to a different industry, I thought this dialogue, written by C. Queen, on the importance of original style works well with this discussion:
Because I have no respect for anyone who would copy the work of others. I am an actress, and I intend to have a long and illustrious career in the industry I have chosen. When that career ends I intend to leave behind a legacy of fine acting that no one will ever be able to duplicate or copy. Neither I nor Tsuruga are copies of those actors who have gone before us, we would consider it the king of insults to say we played a role exactly like another actor. For instance, both I and Ms. Iizuka played the character of Mio at different times. If anyone had said I played Mio exactly like hers I would have been insulted and ashamed of myself for my failure as an actress. Not because Ms. Iizuka isn’t a great and accomplish actress, which she is, but because saying my performance imitated hers meant that I brought nothing of myself to the role of Mio. It’s not unusual for people go to see the same play performed many times because each performance is unique because of the different actors, sets, duologue and delivery. It’s what an actor brings to a role, what they do to make it their own that is praiseworthy and worthy of notice. I would rather do a terrible portrayal than have to resort to copying the work of someone else who deserves better than to be used in such a way.
…While it’s flattering for someone to say they want to act as well as you, there’s always something hollow and off about an actor portraying a role by copying the performance of another because that person can’t truly understand the person they’re copying because they always, even if they act out the person perfectly, fall short of the mark…
…I agree completely with what they’re saying. As a director I know more than most how each time one shoots a scene there is always something different. The changes might be minuscule, a change in tone or a look in the eye, but they are unique and that’s exactly how it should be. When people go to see the movies we produce, they don’t all react the same way, they don’t align themselves with the same characters or even get the same message behind the story. Every film experience is unique to everyone from the director to the audience he or she intends it for and that’s exactly how it should be.
And the day we can’t bring something new to the industry is the day we should retire…
Also, I don’t think anyone could perfectly replicate the perspective of Salinger or any author. Isn’t it like saying you can imitate my perspective when reading, let’s say, Hear the Children Cry? How is it possible?
Digression: The above quote from C. Queen is from this chapter in a fanfiction story. I have no problem with fanfiction. Like P. from Another Cookie Crumbles said, “FanFiction, I think, is different, only because it’s mostly non-commercial, and I think most of the authors are self-proclaimed amateurs. Don’t get me wrong, there are some fanfics out there, which are incredible, but… some of the others…”
I find fanfiction as a great writing exercise. Years ago, when I was still in middle school, I wrote fanfiction first as a tribute to my favorite stories then as practice for my writing style; fanfic-writing allowed me to focus on bringing a story to life. It helped me find my own storytelling voice.
End Digression.
More excerpts:
When does an iconic image, a shared artistic experience, or a germane public idea shift shape from private and protected to public and open to fair use?
… But the Salinger? The title and play on author’s name both suggest an element of attribution and tribute. And why is this less acceptable than the recent unauthorized tell-all book on Salinger by Joyce Maynard in which she played no direct role in the author’s life but propped up a “relationship” with him in order to support an entire approach to his work? If sleeping with the guy is fair use for a book, why isn’t reading the guy? Isn’t reading the guy a “relationship,” too?
Laws will prevail, but the more interesting questions are the ethical ones. Catcher in the Rye is a touchstone. It is published. It is no longer wholly and only the author’s. Beyond this, general feeling among readers is that books 50 years or older naturally lean into fences of privacy until they pretty much touch down on public domain.
My only gripe would be if there is direct, extensive, wholesale and verbatim lifting of the old text with no additional perspective or art.
… In any case, I question the value of literary protectionism of any kind when it comes to “intellectual property” — for any reason beyond fair compensation to the original author.
Vickie Karp from Huffington Post asks a very interesting question: When does an iconic image, a shared artistic experience, or a germane public idea shift shape from private and protected to public and open to fair use? Should it?
Also, a comment from my last post points out something equally interesting:
What if a deceased author had notes on a possible sequel? Does that permit someone else to write a sequel?
P. from Another Cookie Crumbles wrote a very nice piece on Salinger vs. California. Like her, I don’t think it’s right that California wants to write a sequel without Salinger’s permission. Also, do we really need a sequel? P. writes, “And wasn’t that the beauty of the ending – that all of us could let our imagination run away with us, and figure out how Caulfield was doing. Honestly, in my head, I envisaged two or three different endings for him…”
Discussion is very welcome. =)
I received my first issue of 
