Here's a jaunty philosophical quandry for you fine folks:
Say I rewrote Twilight. Vampires, relationships, story was the same. The specific words themselves, structure, dialog etc. are different, but everything else, even the names, are identical. Clearly copying, yes? Clearly illegal.
Now say that this book I wrote was a masterpiece. With use of ironic narrative and brilliant satyrical language, I turned a fluffy teen romance into a cutting examination of attitudes towards love and sexuality in our culture. While the story is essentially the same, the book is essentially different because its aims are distinct. Read Meyer's Twilight and you may have a fun little romantic heartthrob. Read my Twilight 2.0 and you re-examine your life and existence. Twilight 2.0 is the voice of a generation. Twilight 2.0 turns a mirror on society and opens the eyes of millions. Twilight 2.0 is instantly heralded as a masterpiece.
It does this precisely because of its intertextual relationship with the original. Hypothetical me is a genius, I know
Now, this book is not new. This book is entirely illegal and I would get the pants sued right off of me and everyone I had a casual acquaintanceship with. In our modern legal situation, this book could never be published.
And what a loss that would be, since Twilight 2.0 would be so brilliant it would bring about world peace.
So should the Twilight 2.0 in my hypothetical be published?
This is the way that stories and art have been used and interacted with for the vast majority of human history. This is pretty much what Shakespeare did most of the time. In our modern world, Shakespeare would never be published, nor would Milton. He would be relegated to fanfiction websites and called a hack.
Modern copywright is a matter of financial legislation, not artistic integrity. Just because a work is not original in every respect does not mean it has no merit - and in some cases, it has more merit because it is designed to plug into a larger literary tradition. Restricting this restricts what literature can be created, and we may be missing out on thousands of works of genius.
Now, I'm a writer and I'd like to be paid as much as the next person. I believe artists should be supported and rewarded. But the question of how we do this while allowing artistic freedom and growth is an eternal question.
Say I rewrote Twilight. Vampires, relationships, story was the same. The specific words themselves, structure, dialog etc. are different, but everything else, even the names, are identical. Clearly copying, yes? Clearly illegal.
Now say that this book I wrote was a masterpiece. With use of ironic narrative and brilliant satyrical language, I turned a fluffy teen romance into a cutting examination of attitudes towards love and sexuality in our culture. While the story is essentially the same, the book is essentially different because its aims are distinct. Read Meyer's Twilight and you may have a fun little romantic heartthrob. Read my Twilight 2.0 and you re-examine your life and existence. Twilight 2.0 is the voice of a generation. Twilight 2.0 turns a mirror on society and opens the eyes of millions. Twilight 2.0 is instantly heralded as a masterpiece.
It does this precisely because of its intertextual relationship with the original. Hypothetical me is a genius, I know
Now, this book is not new. This book is entirely illegal and I would get the pants sued right off of me and everyone I had a casual acquaintanceship with. In our modern legal situation, this book could never be published.
And what a loss that would be, since Twilight 2.0 would be so brilliant it would bring about world peace.
So should the Twilight 2.0 in my hypothetical be published?
This is the way that stories and art have been used and interacted with for the vast majority of human history. This is pretty much what Shakespeare did most of the time. In our modern world, Shakespeare would never be published, nor would Milton. He would be relegated to fanfiction websites and called a hack.
Modern copywright is a matter of financial legislation, not artistic integrity. Just because a work is not original in every respect does not mean it has no merit - and in some cases, it has more merit because it is designed to plug into a larger literary tradition. Restricting this restricts what literature can be created, and we may be missing out on thousands of works of genius.
Now, I'm a writer and I'd like to be paid as much as the next person. I believe artists should be supported and rewarded. But the question of how we do this while allowing artistic freedom and growth is an eternal question.
