Saturday, August 06, 2005
Well, well, well... After JKR, DB is alleged to have lifted his masterpiece... What a surprise...!!!
Originality is a thing of the past, my dear fellow dream weavers and avid readers alike - a thing of the DISTANT PAST... So it would seem anyway... look all around thee! Hollywood has long given up on trying to be original - they adapt and adapt and adapt again... and when that fails, they parody while pretending to be adapting yet again! They dream of a major hit that way - and are not detracted by the failures piling up ("Car 54, Where Are You?" - "The Saint" - "The Avengers" all come to mind... and there are plenty more examples to cite; but why bother, eh?).
After all there ARE plenty more TV shows to adapt out there - even if the movie versions are cheap parodies that have not an ounce of respect for the source material (distorting it, in an-all-bent-out-of-shape kind of way...!) - they go with it, truly believing that is all that it deserves, and hoping that it will catch on with the public - sort of like a disease would. "The Dukes of Hazzard", presently in theatres (but not for long) is a glaring example of that nasty attitude - original cast member Tom Wopat called fans to boycott it. And, indeed, they should - whoever it is that thought that Jessica Simpson was an appropriate replacement for Catherine Bach should be shot and run over twenty times by General Lee! I would rather have seen Lisa or Marge Simpson instead of Jessica myself...!!!
All this to say... (yes - the preceding was merely the intro to the point I am making here today - read on!) there truly is no originality around anymore - in whatever field it is that you are analyzing thoroughly! Sure, new technologies give an aura of originality - new territory being explored, on the surface... but, deep down, the same thing that has been done to death is being done yet again... and usually that includes the same mistakes being repeated too! But that is another story indeed...!
Hollywood will continue to exploit name-brand recognition - whether it is through blatant TV lore scavenging, milking for all it is worth the fond memories yuppies and babyboomers have of those auld TV shows they used to adore... And, when that doesn't work, there are properties to explore in other mediums as well, of course... Comic-books, children's books, pulp magazines and... literature of course! Adapting a novel to the big screen is the crowning achievement for any author - ask J.K Rowling what an impact it has on book sales! And pretty soon, Mr. Brown will experience that too - no, not the Reservoir Dogs Mr. Brown...! A Reservoir Dog's Memoirs might sell though - but not as much as Harry Potter and Da Vinci Code ...! (Again, NO - they are not teaming up on some very odd crossover book...!!!). However... Miss Rowling and Mr. Brown might do well to team up - their creative processes of conjuring up books appear to be... ironically quite similar indeed! What were the odds of that now... hmm? (Synchronicity again... Countess? Becky? Paulie? Anyone...?!?). For, now, the truth comes out (even though a judge debunked it all - we know better, people!) and yes - just as JKR "inspired" herself of another's writing, so has unquestionably Dan Brown done in order to concoct his alleged "masterpiece" - and why not, hmm? As I keep repeating - THERE IS NO ORIGINALITY LEFT ON THIS PLANET ANYMORE! Our world is a realm of unoriginality and mimickery - for all that had to be written and created already has been written and created! These two huge (monster?) successes are no better than Mary Shelley's Frankenstein - who was, after all, by her own admission too, nothing more than the MODERN PROMETHEUS! At least she gave the nod to what had in effect inspired her - and she was effectively ripping off as well! Likewise, I look towards the old-timers - the ancient scribes - for MY inspiration as well...! The Greek scribe named LUCIAN is a favorite - I wonder why now... (*LOL*). Now THAT has got to be synchronicity, people - indubitably! But I digress...
Miss Rowling and Mr Brown, for all their ways with words, have made a basic sinful mistake - that of looking towards their contemporary peers for "inspiration" - and that is a definite no-no according to copyright law and all... Still, they got away with it, so... all is well and ends well in LiteratiWonderland...! :)
Link
After all there ARE plenty more TV shows to adapt out there - even if the movie versions are cheap parodies that have not an ounce of respect for the source material (distorting it, in an-all-bent-out-of-shape kind of way...!) - they go with it, truly believing that is all that it deserves, and hoping that it will catch on with the public - sort of like a disease would. "The Dukes of Hazzard", presently in theatres (but not for long) is a glaring example of that nasty attitude - original cast member Tom Wopat called fans to boycott it. And, indeed, they should - whoever it is that thought that Jessica Simpson was an appropriate replacement for Catherine Bach should be shot and run over twenty times by General Lee! I would rather have seen Lisa or Marge Simpson instead of Jessica myself...!!!
All this to say... (yes - the preceding was merely the intro to the point I am making here today - read on!) there truly is no originality around anymore - in whatever field it is that you are analyzing thoroughly! Sure, new technologies give an aura of originality - new territory being explored, on the surface... but, deep down, the same thing that has been done to death is being done yet again... and usually that includes the same mistakes being repeated too! But that is another story indeed...!
Hollywood will continue to exploit name-brand recognition - whether it is through blatant TV lore scavenging, milking for all it is worth the fond memories yuppies and babyboomers have of those auld TV shows they used to adore... And, when that doesn't work, there are properties to explore in other mediums as well, of course... Comic-books, children's books, pulp magazines and... literature of course! Adapting a novel to the big screen is the crowning achievement for any author - ask J.K Rowling what an impact it has on book sales! And pretty soon, Mr. Brown will experience that too - no, not the Reservoir Dogs Mr. Brown...! A Reservoir Dog's Memoirs might sell though - but not as much as Harry Potter and Da Vinci Code ...! (Again, NO - they are not teaming up on some very odd crossover book...!!!). However... Miss Rowling and Mr. Brown might do well to team up - their creative processes of conjuring up books appear to be... ironically quite similar indeed! What were the odds of that now... hmm? (Synchronicity again... Countess? Becky? Paulie? Anyone...?!?). For, now, the truth comes out (even though a judge debunked it all - we know better, people!) and yes - just as JKR "inspired" herself of another's writing, so has unquestionably Dan Brown done in order to concoct his alleged "masterpiece" - and why not, hmm? As I keep repeating - THERE IS NO ORIGINALITY LEFT ON THIS PLANET ANYMORE! Our world is a realm of unoriginality and mimickery - for all that had to be written and created already has been written and created! These two huge (monster?) successes are no better than Mary Shelley's Frankenstein - who was, after all, by her own admission too, nothing more than the MODERN PROMETHEUS! At least she gave the nod to what had in effect inspired her - and she was effectively ripping off as well! Likewise, I look towards the old-timers - the ancient scribes - for MY inspiration as well...! The Greek scribe named LUCIAN is a favorite - I wonder why now... (*LOL*). Now THAT has got to be synchronicity, people - indubitably! But I digress...
Miss Rowling and Mr Brown, for all their ways with words, have made a basic sinful mistake - that of looking towards their contemporary peers for "inspiration" - and that is a definite no-no according to copyright law and all... Still, they got away with it, so... all is well and ends well in LiteratiWonderland...! :)
Link
Comments:
<< Home
Dan Brown cleared of copyright infringement
Last Updated Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:56:13 EDT
CBC Arts
A judge in New York has ruled that Dan Brown's wildly popular best-seller, The Da Vinci Code, does not infringe on the copyrights of another author.
Brown's book is not "substantially similar" to Lewis Perdue's Daughter of God, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled on Thursday.
Perdue had been seeking $150 US million in damages. He claimed that Brown had lifted elements of his story from Daughter of God.
"Although both novels at issue are mystery thrillers, Daughter of God is more action-packed, with several gunfights and violent deaths," Daniels said in his ruling, which was dated Thursday.
"The Da Vinci Code on the other hand, is an intellectual, complex treasure hunt, focusing more on the codes, number sequences, cryptexes and hidden messages left behind as clues than on any physical adventure."
The two are "simply different" stories, he added.
Featuring a Harvard symbolism expert named Robert Langdon, Brown's novel purports to expose an alleged secret at the heart of Christianity – that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and had children whose descendents live in modern-day France.
In the book, which has been attacked by the leaders of a number of Christian denominations, Langdon races to assemble clues hidden in famous art works and landmarks.
Set in the world of art, Daughter of God tells the story of a husband-and-wife team who unearth a document describing the life of a fourth-century female Christian messiah named Sophia.
Perdue's suit claimed that Brown lifted his basic premise from Daughter of God, as well as other ideas, including the notion of female spirituality being covered up by the Roman Catholic Church.
"Ideas and general literary themes themselves are unprotectible under the copyright law," Daniels said.
Perdue's suit came in response to a suit filed by Brown and his publisher, Random House, last year. They had asked the court to declare that The Da Vinci Code does not infringe on Perdue's work.
Daniels also ruled that The Da Vinci Code does not infringe on another book by Perdue, The Da Vinci Legacy.
Director Ron Howard is currently shooting a big-screen adaptation of The Da Vinci Code, to be released next year.
Dan Brown cleared of copyright infringement
China steps up TV censorship
St. John's folkies out to spark 'accordion revolution'
Bridget Jones back in weekly column
Subway to nowhere part of Kippenberger's legacy
Beer bandit takes to the stage
Poor ratings force Golden Globes to reschedule
U.S. man indicted for using camcorder in movie theatre
'On the Road' soon to be on the screen
CNN suspends Bob Novak after on-air outburst
Quincy Jones to score 50 Cent movie
Homolka film will be screened in Canada, producer vows
Director Jerry Ciccoritti among nominees for guild awards
Elton John slams Live 8
British earl to sell Titian masterpiece
Sylvia Plath's sketch of Ted Hughes up for auction
Last Updated Fri, 05 Aug 2005 18:56:13 EDT
CBC Arts
A judge in New York has ruled that Dan Brown's wildly popular best-seller, The Da Vinci Code, does not infringe on the copyrights of another author.
Brown's book is not "substantially similar" to Lewis Perdue's Daughter of God, U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels ruled on Thursday.
Perdue had been seeking $150 US million in damages. He claimed that Brown had lifted elements of his story from Daughter of God.
"Although both novels at issue are mystery thrillers, Daughter of God is more action-packed, with several gunfights and violent deaths," Daniels said in his ruling, which was dated Thursday.
"The Da Vinci Code on the other hand, is an intellectual, complex treasure hunt, focusing more on the codes, number sequences, cryptexes and hidden messages left behind as clues than on any physical adventure."
The two are "simply different" stories, he added.
Featuring a Harvard symbolism expert named Robert Langdon, Brown's novel purports to expose an alleged secret at the heart of Christianity – that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and had children whose descendents live in modern-day France.
In the book, which has been attacked by the leaders of a number of Christian denominations, Langdon races to assemble clues hidden in famous art works and landmarks.
Set in the world of art, Daughter of God tells the story of a husband-and-wife team who unearth a document describing the life of a fourth-century female Christian messiah named Sophia.
Perdue's suit claimed that Brown lifted his basic premise from Daughter of God, as well as other ideas, including the notion of female spirituality being covered up by the Roman Catholic Church.
"Ideas and general literary themes themselves are unprotectible under the copyright law," Daniels said.
Perdue's suit came in response to a suit filed by Brown and his publisher, Random House, last year. They had asked the court to declare that The Da Vinci Code does not infringe on Perdue's work.
Daniels also ruled that The Da Vinci Code does not infringe on another book by Perdue, The Da Vinci Legacy.
Director Ron Howard is currently shooting a big-screen adaptation of The Da Vinci Code, to be released next year.
Dan Brown cleared of copyright infringement
China steps up TV censorship
St. John's folkies out to spark 'accordion revolution'
Bridget Jones back in weekly column
Subway to nowhere part of Kippenberger's legacy
Beer bandit takes to the stage
Poor ratings force Golden Globes to reschedule
U.S. man indicted for using camcorder in movie theatre
'On the Road' soon to be on the screen
CNN suspends Bob Novak after on-air outburst
Quincy Jones to score 50 Cent movie
Homolka film will be screened in Canada, producer vows
Director Jerry Ciccoritti among nominees for guild awards
Elton John slams Live 8
British earl to sell Titian masterpiece
Sylvia Plath's sketch of Ted Hughes up for auction
How dare them say Jesus got married and had kids! People just want to make him look bad, or just like any other man, instead of the Son of God!
That is slapping God in the face!
Jesus came to earth for a divine purpose! It was NOT to get married and have kids!
I quote this passage from the Bible because Jesus did NOT burn with passion for a woman. Only to do Gods Will!
1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
From the NIV Bible.
Jesus Did Not Lust!! That is a sin, and Jesus did NOT sin! Therefore, Jesus did Not get married and have kids!
God would rather us stay unmarried and serve only him. If we marry our loyalties are divided between God and spouse.
Jesus was 100% loyal to God!
Luciano,
Thank you for posting this article. I hope people that read those books do NOT take what was written in them literaly!
What you wrote is very interesting. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Have a Great Night (\ô/)
((HUGS))
Countess
Post a Comment
That is slapping God in the face!
Jesus came to earth for a divine purpose! It was NOT to get married and have kids!
I quote this passage from the Bible because Jesus did NOT burn with passion for a woman. Only to do Gods Will!
1 Corinthians 7:8-9
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
From the NIV Bible.
Jesus Did Not Lust!! That is a sin, and Jesus did NOT sin! Therefore, Jesus did Not get married and have kids!
God would rather us stay unmarried and serve only him. If we marry our loyalties are divided between God and spouse.
Jesus was 100% loyal to God!
Luciano,
Thank you for posting this article. I hope people that read those books do NOT take what was written in them literaly!
What you wrote is very interesting. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Have a Great Night (\ô/)
((HUGS))
Countess
<< Home
