erastes: (Default)

And it seems to be Correct for everyone else to have an opinion apart from the person who made the review—and that's a little unreasonable. 

I rarely bother to comment on disgruntled authors who are unhappy that I didn't find their book particularly appealing, primarily because in the four years of Speak Its Name's existence I've only had two authors that I can remember who exploded in public, and one other who emailed me privately. I'm happy to say that 99.99 of the authors I encounter in Gay Historical Land are quiet and professional—and if they meltdown over something as silly as a subjective opinion then they do it in private.

One of the points that people seem to make when I point out that the historical aspect of a book isn't entirely historical is that they make the excuse that it's fantasy. And as such, it doesn't matter whether or not facts are true.  So—that's a point—is fiction automatically fantasy?

In a way, yes.

Because Read more... )



Comments are open, but you know my rules. Disagree and dispute all you like but the minute it gets wanky and personal, out you go.

erastes: (Default)

Further on from my post the other day regarding a book that had just been submitted for review on Speak Its Name

I've read the novel in question now, and I had to spend 24 hours vacillating and deciding whether a review should be done of the book at all.  I listened to a lot of advice, and all of it was of the same mind. The consensus was that it needed to be posted about, but not reviewed.

So the commentary is here, and I'm only sorry that it had to be this way. I personally consider that the author concerned has the talent to be able to write on her own behalf, and god alone KNOWS the gay historical fiction world needs more submissions, more books, more authors - but this, I'm afraid, is a step backwards.

An homage is just that. It's fanfic.  "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"   The important term here is IMITATION. NOT replication. An homage is generally accepted to be someone who imitates an author's style perhaps, or who takes an existing story (that's out of copyright, such as Les Miserables or a book or series you have permission to write more of, such as James Bond). The author will then dip into it-writes a prequel, sequel, or even the same story from another POV.  

There's plenty of precedent for homage original fiction.  Wide Sargasso Sea (even though it doesn't name the characters) is widely known as Eyre fanfic/homage/prequel, Mordred Bastard Son is the Arthur Legend told from Mordred's perspective, and there are many others too, famously the Star Wars franchise.   But what the author does is to take the original story and finds another way to tell that story.  I'm planning to do a Shakespeare tale at some point told from the POV of a minor character observing the huge events that sweep around him. But it must be, in the end, something original.

But what you DON'T do is take the entire text of a novel, and copy it to this degree, including chunks of the original text. The commentary says much more, and far better than I could, but as it's my community, I felt that a comment was necessary here.

No-one should have published this, and no-one should be making money for this.  The author could have the benefit of the doubt, perhaps she doesn't quite get the fact that despite the copyright being expired, you can't copy text from another author.  But the publisher? No. There's no excuse there. I hope the publisher will act accordingly.

And I hope to god that the author takes this on board and her next project is her own work and not a story of Fencliff and Charlie, or Monsieur Bovary or god knows what.

ETA: [livejournal.com profile] slice_of_nick reminds me that copying chunks of text is permissible for satire/spork and critique purposes, but this is not the point of the book concerned.

erastes: (Default)
I don't know much about post Roman "England" (as it wasn't yet called England) at all, but this book certainly did enough to convince me that the author knew what they were doing.Read more... )

Profile

erastes: (Default)
erastes

December 2012

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
91011 12131415
16 171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 17th, 2017 11:47 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios