J.D. Salinger the author of the classic US novel “The Catcher in the Rye” has sued “J.D. California” – the writer and publisher of a book titled “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye” claiming to be a sequel.
According to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.”The sequel is not a parody and it does not comment upon or criticize the original. It is a rip-off pure and simple.”
I am not sure that I agree with an author being able to prevent others publishing derivative works such as sequels. I do however believe that sequels in general (with the notable exception of the Rocky films – which are punch-drunk remakes) are diluting to the original. Unwisely in my opinion, Joseph Heller did a sequel to Catch 22, that is well, boring. Would anyone like to know whether Portnoy still suffered from his complaint in middle age?
Wrongly, in my opinion, the Israel Court awarded an injunction preventing a third party from publishing a middle aged sequel to the HaSamba 5 – a popular children’s series, that was, itself, little more than a take off of Enid Blyton’s Famous Five.
I am less happy about the author using the confusingly similar pen name J.D. California. Apparently, the author’s initials are indeed J. D. and he has changed his name to California legally. Salinger, meanwhile, is aged 90, and though he has refrained ferom publishing, he apparently is a very prolific author.
Readers of this blog who enjoy my writing style but have not read the better written and more influential novel can get an overview here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Catcher_in_the_Rye
Rights to control sequels and films are a complicated copyright issue, that are often solved by contract, and then the contract stifles creativity and everyone loses out. For example,
there was a 2005 sequel to “The Graduate” titled “Rumour Has It”; starring Jennifer Aniston, Kevin Costner and Shirley MacLaine. The official website is here: http://www.rumorhasitmovie.com/.
I found the film hilarious. To appreciate the film, it required having seen “the Graduate”, and despite featuring 6 all new songs from Nellie McKay, there was, nevertheless, a feeling that there was something missing with the soundtrack.
The author of The Graduate, Charles Webb himself, wrote a sequel “Home School” in 2005. Set in the 1970s, Benjamin and Elaine are fighting the authorities in Westchester County for the right to teach their children at home. In desperation Braddock reaches out to the one person they’ve moved across county to avoid – the boys’ grandmother, Mrs. Robinson.
When he sold the film rights for The Graduate, Webb signed away the rights to its characters, so any sequel could be turned into a film without his consent. Consequently, he intended to bequeath the novel to his sons to publish after his death. “It would be devastating to publish the book and then be a bystander and watch a mediocre movie made of this story,” Webb, 65, told The Observer. “I guess I was naive to think it was an obvious thing we would all agree on.” See http://www.cinemablend.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-17634.html
So there are a number of interesting copyright questions:
- Should moral rights to characters, etc. be transferable from the author?
- To what extent should an author be able to prevent derivative work?
- To what extent should an author be able to control derivative work?
- To what extent should an author be able to benefit from derivative work?
“nanos gigantum humeris insidentes” – Bernard of Chartres
I personally don’t think J.D. California has any right to write that sequel. Like Salinger says (from what I’ve heard) it is not a parody but a rip-off. Cather in the Rye is my favourite book, and only Salinger should be able to create a sequel if he chose to do so. Anyone else is just trying to cash in on one of the most amazing books ever written.
Comment by ana — June 17, 2009 @ 7:12 pm |
U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts has issued a temporary injunction, so you are in good company.
The author of the sequel claims that it is legitimate criticism, but the judge is on record as saying that she had “difficulty” seeing that criticism.
Judge Batts has 10 days to make a final ruling on whether to block the publication of “60 Years Later”, but she can extend that deadline if she xonsiders it necessary.
Comment by Michael Factor — June 18, 2009 @ 7:50 pm |