wobbling...

[erastes]

Feeling a Little better today.  I ate some decidedly dodgy sausages the day before yesterday and my body did not like that at ALL. Yesterday was spent in bed.  or ... mostly in bed if you get my drift.  Trouble is, I feel DELICATE today and I need to go and get some shopping.  Bah.  Bath first though.

Just noticed yesterday that someone has written a gay romance called..... BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S....yes, really.  I'm gobsmacked over this.  A few weeks ago I did a post on Jessewave's Blog about authors accidentally having the same title - it's easy to do if you don't check carefully - I have a book "Chiaroscuro" which is the same title as another m/m book - and I'm sure there are other books called that - but I'd never call a book the same name as something as famous as BAT.  The GALL!

I think Herendeen's book Pride/Prejudice is skating as close to the line as can possibly be, but it does (if one's heard of slash) explain what the book is about (as Gehayi pointed out to me yesterday, if you didn't know what the / meant it will just baffle people) - but good lord - let's not start a trend for naming our books after other HUGELY famous books.

I won't be writing today, that's for sure. Or editing. Sorry Chris Smith.

And I hope this gives some authors pause.  Yes - agents and publishers DO GOOGLE YOU.  I've been saying it for years. 

 -  -  -

Comments

[jl_merrow]

Sympathy on the feeling delicate front. No sausages involved in my case, but my insides are definitely less-than happy today.

Mmm, I saw the BAT book and while I didn't feel the sense of outrage you did, it definitely made me look at the book whereas I might otherwise have passed it by. So yes, a bit cheeky, I think.

What I find much less acceptable is where you read a plot synopsis of an m/m book and think "Hang on, isn't that just a gay version of ________?"

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, I agree there - I seem to see a lot of those too, I wonder why authors don't think people will notice - perhaps they think that just because it's in a different genre it doesn't matter or something. Baffling.

Sorry you are feeling rough too!

[chris-smith-atr.livejournal.com]

Oh god yes. Hidden gay versions. My thought: to call self a writer the chracters, the plot, and the voice have to be yours. I can't say original -- as we all draw from somewhere -- but they should be yours.

Sorry to here u are in the sick club. I have an apple?

[joannesopercook.livejournal.com]

to call self a writer the chracters, the plot, and the voice have to be yours

Goodness! Someone should have told that Shakespeare guy! (http://www.shakespeare-w.com/english/shakespeare/source.html) ;-)

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I don't mind people doing a "retelling" of stories - that's a perfectly acceptable way of telling stories - look at Percy Jackson - that's a great movie and a really nice way of retelling the Perseus saga, but it's not taking someone else's work.

I have problems with published fanfic--so much so that I am having to pass on reviewing Pride/Prejudice and giving it to another reviewer to read.

However that wasn't the point of my post - my post was simply about titles. I wouldn't call my book "David Copperfield" or "Of Human Bondage" or "Lolita" beacuse frankly I think it's a bit cheeky. I know there's no copyright on titles, because anyone can accidentally copy a title but no-one accidentally called their book "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and as Gehayi has discovered it's a deliberate line of Amber Allure. It doesn't make me want to rush and buy them, I have to say.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I agree with that too - I hate all this riffing off classic books just because the copyright is up - and you know you are going to have an automatic audience. Perhaps I'll do Hamlet with My Little Pony.

[joannesopercook.livejournal.com]

I was responding to the comment just above yours - the comment that the characters, plot &tc. "have to be yours." I'm not sure it's possible to write something entirely original: one is always influenced by external sources, whether one is aware that the influence exists or not.

I agree with your post for the most part - it does seem silly to me to copy a title, something which is probably only going to lead to confusion. I'm not sure I would call a re-imagining of the classics 'fanfic' as such, because where do you draw the line? Chaucer's Canterbury Tales drew heavily on Boccaccio's Decameron; Shakespeare copied most of his plots.

For me, I think it's whatever the market will bear. As much as we might like to think otherwise, publishing is driven by money. If it makes money - if people will buy it - then someone, somewhere, will write it.

[angrboda]

Of course they google you. Why wouldn't they? I certainly would if I was them. People employing routinely google the applicants around these parts, why would agents and publishers be any different? They want to see that they're employing a normal person and not someone with a facebook account full of drunkard-photos and such.

Why is it that 'privacy control' is such a difficult concept for people to understand? All it takes is being careful about where one is waving one's real name around and the choice of username. You can google my real name and you'll find nothing about HP or fandom or anything. You won't even find the username (Angrboda) that I use on places friends and family are allowed to know about. Or you can google 'moreteadk' and you won't find my real name. Or you can google Angrboda and you'll mainly find a load of stuff on the mythological figure and a handful of people what aren't me. And it's not even difficult.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Exactly - that's what I've been saying for years, but so many authory friends simply don't seem to take this into consideration and post the most appalling things in the open.

I'm not bothered about anyone finding out about my fanfic background though - I'm not ashamed of it, and many more respectable authors than me have come up through fanfic.

[angrboda]

I don't want people to be able to google me. I don't particularly want RL friends and family to share in my fandom activities, because not everything I do and every hobby I have is any of their business. I can just imagine my dad going 'what are you doing when using the internet???!' Or the people at work. Some of them are rather gossipy and will make sure that non-internet using colleagues will also be informed. Ack! Discretion is not always a real word where I work.

[chris-smith-atr.livejournal.com]

Do not worry poppet. Am delicate too. Agree with all of the above as you knew I would. Caveat : will post things that ppl may not agree with, but will make very sure they are logical and objective and that I am prepared to defend them in a logical manner. Can't stand the emotive and subjective in debate.

I'll stop now and go back to sleep.

Xxxx

[shiawmeimei.livejournal.com]

Yikes on the bad sausages! Feel better!

I saw that post and nodded my way through it. I try very hard to keep my public persona light and non-controversial. So many times, I've deleted comments before posting because it's just not worth the possible repercussions. My writing is a business. I have to remember that and keep it professional. I wouldn't rant about my evil day job at the office. I don't rant online. Unless it's about my crazy critters. LOL

[beckyblack]

I noticed that Breakfast at Tiffany's book the other day and I kept looking at the title to see if I'd missed something clever, wondering am I only reading it as "Breakfast at Tiffany's" and it actually says something else? Some kind of play on words, like the Pride/Prejudice example you cite, or in the same vein, the movie Bride and Prejudice. But no, it is just Breakfast at Tiffany's. I'm a little baffled. Like you say, it's common enough for more generic sounding titles to end up on a ton of different books. But a distinctive one like that is kind of an odd choice to use just "straight" (if you'll pardon the expression.)

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

It appears to be one of a set that Amber Allure is calling "Blockbusters"--gay books "inspired" by titles of famous movies.

The series consists of:

a) The Bad and the Beautiful (Gay / Nostalgic Contemporary (1950’s-era))
b) Breakfast at Tiffany's ( Gay / Contemporary / Interracial / Multicultural)
c) Independence Day (Gay / Contemporary / Series )
d) Thunderball (*taking a deep breath*: Gay / Dark Fantasy / Werewolf / Shapeshifter / Science Fiction / Futuristic / Paranormal / Psychic Phenomena / Action / Adventure / BDSM (Light) / Romantic Comedy / Series)
e) Twilight (Gay / Dark Fantasy / Shapeshifter / Action / Adventure / Exhibitionism / Public Places)

[erastes.livejournal.com]

omg

there are no words.

[pepperlandgirl4.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the other books in the AQ Pax, but the guidelines were pretty clear. Using famous (or at least recognizable titles) for the stories. While I would never choose "Breakfast at Tiffany's" or "Twilight" (I admit the Twilight one made me chuckle) I don't think either of those books are necessarily retellings of the actual books (or subsequent movies). Certainly our The Bad and the Beautiful is not about a producer and a director and all of the drama and difficulty of making a film.

Reading the actual blurb for the book in question, it doesn't look like it's a retelling of the original BAT.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Oh no - it's ok dear - I wasnt meaning that they were retellings, I just found it staggering that anyone would call their book BAT - I can sort of see why it was chosen as a theme for the line, old titles, new stories, but wish they'd chosen more titles like TBATB - rather than things like a classic like BAT or such a recent title like Twiglet. I'm enjoying your story (of course) - that's no surprise! :)

[beckyblack]

It sounds potentially a minefield to me. It reminds me of the advice to "never show a good movie in the middle of your bad movie". Like the characters go to watch Casablanca and the risk is the viewer will think, "you know, I'd rather be watching Casablanca than this movie."

Using the same name as a classic book means your book has better be damn good, or it's a gift to reviewers who don't like it. Like "Breakfast at Tiffany's is no Breakfast at Tiffany's" or just "read the original instead."

And it's kind of riding the coattails of someone else's success, or worse, it could hint at a certain arrogance. That the writer is certain their book can stand comparison with those classic or massively popular stories.

[essayel.livejournal.com]

Gah, sausages!!! *hug* get well soon.

Mel Keegan has a book called "Dangerous Moonlight" which made me giggle and whistle the Warsaw concerto.

As for that blog, what if they Google you and find that you have only a few followers on your blog or Twitter, or Facebook or whatever? Would they then decide that you aren't to be taken seriously because you're not already popular enough? Obviously there's so much more to this 'getting published' business than writing a book, editting it to perdition and back and hoping for the best. Thanks for the insights.

[seraphim-grace.livejournal.com]

A gay breakfast at tiffanies, isn't that sort of defeating the point of a novella about a gay man's fascination with a prostitute (albeit a high end one)
it's like the pot calling the kettle black
for years, seriously, i thought tiffany's was a restaurant and then i read it (before i saw the film)
I don't mind titles overlapping so much, but that one does make me wince - probably because it's inviting criticism, BAT is really beautifully written and poignant (something the film doesn't quite convey) the description of her hair alone, in the film she is made somewhat human where she's a goddess in the book, he's saying look at me and compare me to this..... (when it's that famous it's inevitable) and there's no way he can come out best in that comparison

although i hate modern rehashes of books I love anyway - I'm looking at you bridget jones, why not just read P&P or Rebecca (the second book), they're cheaper too, and you know what Rebecca lingered I can't remember anything that happened in the bridget jones books

[charliecochrane.livejournal.com]

I told you to stick to the cheese.

Mega hugs (and yes, great blog post - when we did I Do Two I googled all the potential contributors...)

[alex-beecroft.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry to hear you've been having a dodgy couple of days. I hope it's getting better now, however slowly.

*g* I can't talk on the famous names front, as I knew that False Colours (with the u) was the name of a book by Georgette Heyer when I called mine False Colors without the u. It was such a perfect name for my book that I was loathe to part with it, and I thought "maybe people looking for Heyer's book will find mine and be intrigued enough to buy it."

The googling thing has held me back from the occasional rant in my time. Satisfying though it might be to give the world a piece of your mind, I think it's more important to give it the impression that you know how to be a professional about your chosen career. And that you aren't completely bonkers, of course.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

I'd actually never heard of FC as being Heyer before you wrote your book - but then I have read precisely one Heyer and loathed it. But one can't compare Heyer with BAT. You wouldn't call a book Rebecca. Or Watership Down!!

[alex-beecroft.livejournal.com]

No, it's not something iconic and instantly recognizable. I still think "The Well at the World's End" is the best title ever, so I wouldn't dream of trying to make that my own.

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

I figured publishers and employers googled me. On the other hand, I don't post anything I'm not willing to stand tall about. Yes, I am the sort of high-iron bitch who will say the same thing to people's faces as I say about them on the net.

[crawling-angel.livejournal.com]

Yes, I had a chat with Storm Grant about SC and the fact that it's title is already known. When I started writing this I had absolutely no idea what I was going to churn out but the title and the end in my head. SC was always a working title but it stuck. This week I have been thinking of the total innuendo title/double meaning title of which I already have...but then that's probably taken too, lol.

Hope your saussageness gets better. *pets*