The Wall/Homage - based on - how far is too far?

[erastes]

Hitting the wall with Junction X a little, partly because of plotting problems, but I think I see my way clear now, I think I was trying to make it a bigger book than it wants to be.  However was having a very silly conversation with rwday and we almost decided to go for the popular vote and have the MC so angst full that he discovers he has shifting abilities and turns into a crocodile but can't shift back.  His wife has to keep him in the swimming pool and the only way that the boy next door and he can express their lurve is to have swims on moonlight nights where MC can teach boy how to be a crocodile too./joke

And I've having thoughts about original fiction and how "influenced" is influence, or when does "homage" become too much?  I'm rare-locking the post, to people I trust, because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, and this relates directly to a book.

Thing is, this particular book is "based on a well-loved classic" namely Jane Eyre, and although the author makes this clear from the start in the preface, I'm still not really comfortable with it, and I am finding it hard to explain why, it just gives me an uncomfortable feeling between my shoulderblades.  What the reader has done has literally taken JE, changed the sex of JE, changed the names of all the characters but everything else is almost exactly the same. Even the famous "Reader, I married him," which - considering this IS, after all, Victorian England, is rather daft to start with.

It's a well-written book, the writer knows how to write, she's got a good voice and she's got talent, but ... I still feel uncomfortable with the concept.  I know that, in the movie industry, remaking a plot is quite a common phenomenom, "Clueless" for example is based on Emma, but by bringing it up to date the way it does and having a new script a new way of approaching it, works fine. There are many others - "West Side Story" being one of the most famous, of course. Hell, William took his plots from many sources - and any historical fiction author (who writes about real people and real events) is rehashing but still - I still don't feel happy, not to this level.

When in fanfic I did it, I admit. I've written "Malfoy" a Potter based interpretation of "Macbeth" which of course copied the plot of Macbeth point for point, even chucking in various quotes to show how intelligent Severus and Lucius were, and I've written "Green Lights" which was a based-loosely-on "The Great Gatsby" but that was fanfic.  But does that make a difference?

I am planning to write an interpretation of one of Will's plays from the perspective of one of the more minor characters one day, does that count? It won't be in blank verse, that's for bloody sure, though, and I won't be quoting any of it, I shouldn't think.

What do you writers think?

Comments

[mylodon.livejournal.com]

My feelings are this is all about degree; people re-work stories in all sorts of ways and that's entirely valid. West Side Story is not Romeo and Juliet word for word or scene for scene; it reinterprets and stretches the original. Not making it better, I hasten to add, just different and both versions good. *looks for WSS CD to play and discovers daughters have stolen it*

And writing a version of The Bard from a minor charcter's viewpoint sounds a great thing to be doing (please make it the sea captain from 12th Night?)- I feel that's almost an extension of analysing the play. In re the fanfic, I'm partial to doing the same thing myself (Horatio Hornblower as Scrooge); it's fun and clever and as long as it doesn't get above itself it's fine.

BUT - and I have no idea what book you're referring to - if someone has taken a classic work (or any work) and has really just changed the names without bothering to explore in a meaningful way what it would mean to the story to be re-interpreted so, then that's sloppy and lazy writing and I can't believe it has much worth. (Sounds outspoken - probably. There are few things that get me really worked up, but not working something through properly is one of them.)

*gets down off high horse*

[erastes.livejournal.com]

That's kind of what I'm feeling too, but I'm conflicted because I WANT people to be writing gay historical, but i want new stories, new interpretations of what men went through and the tales they have to tell in times past - there's so much scope - and this doesn't do anything new, which is what the genre needs. I'm probably more critical because I wait eagerly for every new release and pounce on it like a kitten.

[mylodon.livejournal.com]

And thinking more on this - presumably Jane/John 'married' Mr Rochester/Rockford - which would just be plain silly applied to Victorian times. (That gets my goat as well - complete inaccuracies. Like when they talk about adding amphibian DNA to the stuff they get out of the insect in amber in Jurassic Park. That's my cue to scream at the screen.)

I really do sound vry grumpy tonight and I'm actually in an excellent mood. I apologise for spamming your LJ with moans.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Yes, it was more of a handfasting than a proper marriage, obviously, but still - it did rub me up the wrong way. Better to have a "Reader, we took what happiness we could get."

And there is no spam, all welcome here!

[leebenoit.livejournal.com]

"Reader, we took what happiness we could get."

(Laughs delightedly.) I don't know what book you're referring to, either, but I agree with Mylodon that there is homage and then there is reinterpretation (a veritable publishing fetish these days, with everybody from Henry James to the Wicked Witch to Ahab's Wife turning up in serious fiction) and these are fine, even interesting. Telling a story from a minor character's point of view makes no bones about the source of the plot or themes, so there's no problem there as far as I'm concerned. Could even be a nifty premise of an anthology (scribbles note to self).

All writers are influenced, and we all take inspiration from *something*, be it real life or music or fiction or the laws of physics or a really byootiful sunset.

We're omnivores, sure, but cannibals?

Taking a well-known work of fiction and re-packaging it with, erhm, packages, seems tantamount to the "fanfics with serial number filed off" that earn so much contempt in the m/m e-pub world. And deservedly so.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I had to change my mind, when it came down to it - I think it was too important a wrong to ignore.

http://speakitsname.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/a-hidden-passion-lucia-logan-far-too-close-for-comfort/

[leebenoit.livejournal.com]

Well done, Erastes! Balanced yet unequivocal. And brave.

[stormheller.livejournal.com]

I don't read historical fiction, but I think the question is a general one. I, too, have rewritten movie scripts (actually worked with the script), for fanfic. Learned a lot about writing that way, just like art students are required to copy old masters. Perhaps it's not that different than my taking a folk tale and turning it into an erotic urban fantasy.

I liked "Wicked" and also intend to write a novel of a minor (or in my case, invented), secondary character.

I guess I have no moral problem with rewriting fiction, as long as the person was upfront about it. I'd be more distressed with a badly done but completely original novel than a blatent re-write that I was enjoying. But then I have no moral high ground at all anymore, doing the Wincest thing now. ;-)

So I think, as long as it's not being passed off as original and it's well done, it's okay. Maybe the line for me is in how much they plageurized--did they just use search and replace? Or follow the plot and use their own words?

JMHO, YMMV, and other relevant acronyms.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

The thing is that this IS "original" in the sense that it is a book published - it's not fanfic, not an interpretation. It's not plagiarism - no search and replace - they just followed the plot almost identically, the hero is even called David Ayres.

[storm-grant.livejournal.com]

(BTW, stormheller=storm_grant, eh?)

Given that, I think the writer is short-changing both the reader and herself. Finding new and original ways to follow a classic plot is a wonderful and fun challenge. Looks like she's taken the lazy way out of what could be a clever novel.

Also? I didn't know my own opinion on this still we started talking about it. I'm a "think out loud" kinda gal. ;-)

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, I knew that, Stormy hun.

And yes - now - if she had done it from "Mr Rochester"'s perspective, or even the housekeeper - or Adele (now that would have been interesting) then it would have been better, but not a first person view by David Ayres.

Me too - I like having discussions on my LJ as it helps me understand stuff too.

[rwday.livejournal.com]

It strikes me as being kind of lazy. I haven't read the book in question, obviously, but I did read and enjoy Wide Sargasso Sea, and I was fine with that because it's NOT Jane's story. Great creativity and work went into that book, far more than just giving Jane a penis and telling the same story.

Of course, I've done the classic thing too with "Aristeia." It and "Green Lights" were than just rehashings of the classics with cocks added. They used the framework of the classic tales to structure completely different stories in a completely different time.

I think your Hamlet thing is fine. You're exploring the story from another angle, not just making gender swapping.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Shhhhh with the Amlet-hay. :)

I feel mean thinking this way, but I have to agree - I'm just glad I'm not having to review it. I hope the writer choses a project of her own next time.

[rwday.livejournal.com]

Oh, sorry - I saw your reference to 'one of Will's plays' and didn't even think that I shouldn't mention the name. Go ahead and delete that comment if you want to keep it confidential.

Maybe this is the author's version of playing in fanfic first, and she'll attempt something original next time. Or perhaps it will be Gone with the Wind with Rhett Butler and his great love Sam O'Hara. Or Wuthering Heights, with Heathcliff and Charles. *sighs*

[erastes.livejournal.com]

No worries, it's a protected filter, and I'm sure that no-one else would be mad enough. I should have said something before.

"Heathcliff, it's me, I'm Charlie, I've come home...."

[ejab62.livejournal.com]

Well, that really is a general question as well, isn't it?
The way I see it - we all get our inspiration from somewhere. It's almost impossible to *not* be influenced by this or that.

Think what matters most is how you work with it. What will you add? Improve? An original angle? (Liked the idea of using the perspective of one of the more minor characters)
As long as it has some kind of original approach (which automatically means you'll change things and therefore won't copy), I see no wrong in doing this.
Telling where your inspiration comes from would be a good thing to do, you know; don't sell it as *your* idea if you work with the characters of others. You may interpret them differently and that will be *yours* but when you haven't 'invented' the characters, you better have something to tell, improve.

Hope this makes any sense?

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I agree with you, completely. But this is plagiarism, pure and simple. An homage does not cut and paste huge tracts of text. Its very clear that the "author" simply downloaded the text and re-worked it.

Erk

[dubaiyan.livejournal.com]

Only read a chapter of that book ahaha. Have read variations of the JE plot EVERYWHERE, but it's never been quite so...faithful D:

Laertes' PoV?

Re: Erk

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Well, now it's been read, digested and voted on by the Speak Its Name team, we had no option but to comment on it on the community. Caused me a bit of stress, but I think it's the right thing.

[themostepotente.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I'm appalled. I'm going to post about this tomorrow in my own journal.