DawnPapuga.com — Reality 101

I can’t decide why this bothers me so much, so please forgive the rambling that follows.

I’ve been working on an article documenting the plagiarism use of one of Shakespeare’s most famous speeches in pop culture–particularly in modern media–for some time now, and while finding it in film doesn’t surprise me, finding it a video game commercial does.  Recently a Sony PS3 commercial hacked and slashed the St. Crispin’s Day speech and used it to promote some of their fighting based video games. Actually, it irks me quite a bit.  This may be the academic snob in me, but I just don’t understand the thought process behind using the St. Crispin’s day speech from Henry V to promote video games, even if they are “war games.”  How many viewers know where that speech even originates?  Does that even matter?  I’m torn.

Watch the video above and then, if you’re curious, go watch Aragorn’s speech at the Black gate in Lord of the Rings, Benitez in the rain in Renaissance Man, William Wallace’s speech from Braveheart, Dilios’ final speech at the end of 300, or Mr. Fabian’s performance of the speech in Tombstone.  I could spend the rest of the night listing allusions to the St. Crispin’s Day speech (notably from multiple episodes of Buffy) and adaptations of it, but I’m pretty sure you can recognize the elements of this speech when you hear it.  Take any motion picture with a major battle scene and I’m willing to bet this speech will appear in one form or another.  In fact, it’s hard to find a modern motion picture featuring a battle scene that doesn’t feature it in one form or another. 

It’s a rousing speech, to be sure.  One might argue that it’s the single greatest “locker room” speech ever written.  But the use of that speech in a commercial for video games rubs me the wrong way.  The fact that Sony used it speaks to the notion of Shakespeare’s place as a cultural icon (I have a list of books and articles about this phenomenon that you can read if interested), and while I could bore you to tears with why this is important, and why using his image and half understood lines from plays to try and bridge a chasm between generations, classes, and intellectual hierarchies (perceived or actual) is problematic, I’ll save that for the article.  When it’s finished, you can read it if you so choose and comment away.  I just don’t know which side of the line I fall on.  I can see the logic of using Shakespeare (and this speech in particular) to garner interest and connect to people.  In one respect, it’s marketing genius.  Companies have used Shakespeare in this way for ages.  On the other hand, I find it trite and almost insulting.  To be fair, I have the same response when I’m watching a film and I see a thinly veiled version of that speech rendered, as I did with the second and third Lord of the Rings films.  I have nothing against using effective material, but I do have a problem with using that material without giving the origins proper credit.  I have actually had people who watched Braveheart first, and then Henry V, say to me, “Shakespeare totally stole that from Mel Gibson’s movie.”  Aside from the temporal impossibility of that statement, the problem is clear.  If you don’t know where something comes from, how can you truly appreciate it?  And who says you have to know where it comes from to be able to appreciate it anyway? 

My trouble is in figuring out why it bothers me so.  When I see something like this, I have to fight the urge to tell everyone I see, “You know that is an adaptation of X” or “You know that’s from Shakespeare, right?” Most often, the response is, “uhm, okay.  So?”  And every fiber of my being becomes frayed.  Maybe it’s my need to see past the surface in everything and wanting others to do the same.  Maybe it’s rooted in my habitual criticism of art.  It bothers me greatly when an artist creates something based on someone else’s work and takes credit as though they were divinely inspired and developed those ideas on their own.  It feels false.  It feels like they’re trying to pull one over on the public, and when people applaud those creations without understanding the influences and origins, it bothers me even more.

It just upsets me to know that somewhere there are people who will hear that PS3 commercial and forever think that Sony created those words.  They may never know that it was one of Shakespeare’s greatest speeches, and they may never care.  I think it goes beyond my mere passion for literature, too.  There’s something… else.  So why does it bother me so much?  Excellent question.  If you figure that out, let me know.

Write Well,

Dawn

**Before I address a specific comment left on yesterday’s post, I need to correct something.  Mr. Vander Ark is not, himself, being sued by Warner Brothers and Ms. Rowling.  His agreement with RDR exempted him from any retaliatory action by outside individuals.  He merely testified as a witness along with individuals in the publishing industry and scholars.

~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~

Dear Ms. Rice,

First, please forgive me for reserving a fraction of doubt as to your identity(And if, indeed, I am mistaken–my apologies for bringing your name into this).  Though the tools of website owners are able to investigate those choosing to leave comments on their sites, and though every bit of sleuthing I have done indicates that it was, indeed, you who posted a comment yesterday, I still have a bit of difficulty believing that you would find your way to my relatively obscure personal site and choose to leave a comment based on my criticism of another author—particularly when I posted an article about your comments to Time about possibly writing one more Vampire Chronicles novel, which garnered no response from you whatever.  Through “vanity searches,” I could understand you finding and commenting on that, but this post?  Incidentally, it saddened me greatly to read that you have decided to shelve that project.  But I respect your personal choices, your views, your faith, and your decisions based on your own work.  It doesn’t mean I can’t feel badly about it, though.

Believe it or not, that has some direct relevance to this exchange.  If you haven’t encountered the article, I’d ask you to go read through it and see that I don’t single out authors, celebrities, friends, or strangers for criticism without doing my research, and without good reason.  I didn’t attack you viciously even though I had doubts and concerns about the work you were going to add to your already established canon.  You didn’t behave in a way in a public venue (or in a closed venue covered globally by the media) that would incite disgust or disappointment.  In fact, I didn’t viciously attack J.K. Rowling, either.

You were right, however, when you said that there was an unkind tone to my post.  To that I offer no apologies, and I’ll tell you why.

First, I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t lump me in with every other person who writes letters publicly.  There are, in fact, a great many more “letters” or posts available for your descriptions of “unkind” and “vicious” that are significantly more crass, profane, and attacking than mine was.  I take great care in saying what it is I mean, and meaning what I say.  I should hope it comes as no surprise to you, or other authors and celebrities, that not every consumer is blinded by the media.  Yes, there have been many articles written describing this trial as well as the behavior of those involved.  The problem is that somehow this kind of reporting has ceased to encourage accountability in those being reported on.  Sadly, the memory of many people today seems to be that of a goldfish, and while an author, professional sports player, or politician can act deplorably, or in a transparently manipulative way on one day, if no one in the media calls them out and addresses these behaviors, then they disappear from memory as if they never happened.  That I hold authors to a higher standard than athletes or politicians may not be correct, but to me it’s realistic.  I have a great respect for authors, though not all are to be held to ideal standards.  Politicians get where they are by pandering to whomever they are in front of and talking out of both sides of their mouths.  I don’t expect much at all from professional athletes, and from my encounters with those I’ve met, I don’t foresee that changing.  These two groups get free passes for no good reason at all—though, certainly not by me. 

But as you pointed out, Authors are human beings with feelings too.  And that, Ms. Rice, is exactly the point.  I said nothing in my post that I would not, given the opportunity to do so, say to Ms. Rowling.  She is welcome to respond to that post on her own account.  I’m not a monster, and I certainly don’t think that the opinion or words of someone you’ve never met should make all that much difference to you, or her, for that matter.  Do I think you read the blog posts on personal websites about you?  No.  I don’t, actually.  You, Ms. Rowling, Mr. Gaiman, and Mr. King, I’m sure receive overwhelming amounts of fan mail daily—why would I think you would scour the Internet for posts about you by people whose only impact on your life is whether or not we purchase your next book?   Is it because authors aren’t used to receiving mail that is critical of them?  Have you all been so entrenched in praise and admiration of the public that you can’t stand when someone who, in the greater scheme of your lives, is no body, is unvarnishedly critical?

I don’t play the sycophant well. 

If “celebrities” want to be treated with courtesy and manners, they should do their audiences the service of not pretending they are blind, or stupid.  “Celebrities,” through their own volition or not, are thrust into public view and that process generates a connection that can be very visceral for fans.  Because of this, many fans are more apt to play the yes-man and rush to the defense of their idol than hold them accountable for their transparent actions.  They want to believe the best of their heroes.  But those heroes are human, too, and fall victim to human vices just as easily as anyone else.  Their (your) lives are under microscopes, and I would be dumbfounded to think that your appearances in public, interviews, and behavior isn’t calculated to some great extent.  I’ve treated J.K. Rowling as I would any one of my friends or family members—holding her to high standards—and were I among her trusted friends, I would most certainly have told her exactly the things that I stated here, as well as  “You know what this looks like, right?”  or “You aren’t seriously going to try and use that argument in court, are you?”  because “You know what they’ll say if you do, right?”  Apparently, no one gave Ms. Rowling that kind of friendly advice.

On a more personal note, I’d like to say that your attempt at sweeping in to chastise me as though I were some addle brained fan who should take your word and personal criticism as gospel, disappointed me more than Ms. Rowling’s behavior.  Your success and accomplishments are certainly laudable, and I have been a fan of yours from the minute I picked up The Mummy, or Ramses the Damned in 1991.  I went back and reread the Vampire Chronicles (and have done so a number of time since).  I’ve waited outside of bookstores to get your newest releases the day they came out.  I could have waited until they were in paperback, but when I value some one’s work, I have no problem paying for a hardback.  It’s worth it to me.  You were one of the authors who inspired my own writing.  That being said, though, it does not give you the right to presume to dictate my behavior and manner of expressing my opinions on my personal, opinionated, website. 

I would be happy to discuss this further with you either here or via email.  If not, I wish you the best of luck with the remaining two books in your current series.  I still look forward to reading them.

Write well,

Dawn

Some folks have asked me why I’m not posting about the J.K. Rowling  and Warner Brother’s lawsuit against  RDR Books and The Harry Potter Lexicon  website creator (and author of the Lexicon in question), Steven Vander Ark.  The problem was that I was trying to decide where I fall in this debate.  Like most things, there are multiple ways of viewing any given situation, and because of this, I’ll be posting two responses:  the one here in this post, and one on Lyrique Tragedy Reviews about the impact the lawsuit potentially has on publishing, academics, and the proverbial line in the sand between free fan based web content (arguably unique and subject to their own copyrights) and a commercially published monolith.  The problem is, that line seems to be erased and moved more often than not.  Here’s an open letter (seeing as this is “letter” month for NaBloPoMo) to Ms. Rowling.

~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~

The Scenario: For those of you who don’t know what’s going on, let me give you a brief run down:  J.K. Rowling published one of the highest grossing series (7 books) in recent memory about a boy wizard, a school, and magic between 1997 and 2007.  As with all obsessively popular works of art (film, books, music, etc), fan sites and fan fiction pops up over the internet.  This, of course, happened with HP.  One site, The Harry Potter Lexicon, became a hugely popular resource for fans–and apparently J.K. Rowling as well.  Not only did she give an award to the site, she admitted in interviews and under oath, that she would use the site  as a reference while writing.  (Because, she claimed, it was embarrassing to have to go in to a bookstore and buy your own book to check facts)  In October J.K. Rowling and Warner Brothers sued RDR for copyright infringement when the owner of the Lexicon announced that he was compiling the site into a book.  Last week both Ms. Rowling and Mr. Vander Ark appeared in court to testify in the case.  Rowling argued that not only was it her material, but the Lexicon book was “sloppy and lazy”.  Also, she had planned on writing her own encyclopedia and donating the proceeds to charity, which the publication of the Lexicon would damage.  She came close to tears on the stand when asked about her struggles getting to where she is, presumably to reinforce just how important her work is to her. 

~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~ ~*~

Dear Ms. Rowling,

There is so much wrong here that I don’t even know where to begin.  First of all, your HP books have sold over 400 million copies worldwide in 64 languages, and the films pulled in $4.5 billion (that’s with a “B” folks) in the worldwide box offices.  The books are priced at $34.99 in hardback (new) and you can find them for $9.99 in paperback (new).  You do the math.  Your struggle with tears on the stand is no longer relevant and, quite frankly, is insulting.  I get that your work is a part of you, and is important to you–there are few things more violating than being plagiarized–but to somehow drag the experience of your struggle before that first book was published in to the present and think it should sway a judge or the people following your trial is a slap in the face to anyone who has a brain.  Once that first book was published and you raked in your millions, you lost all rights to my sympathies in that regard.  It was a cheap move, executed to sway the trial from a ethos and logos driven argument to a pathos driven one.  Even my Comp 101 students could see that (and have).  Go blow your nose in a hundred dollar bill, honey.

Second, it’s bad.  I’d be annoyed too—especially if I spent 17 years creating a world only to have it hacked apart for publication.  Guess what, though… you can’t stop publication simply because you think it’s bad.  There are plenty of bad books that have been published, and unfortunately, personal standards have nothing to do with it.  If I had my way, I would never have seen The Road or Lord of the Flies published.  If it’s plagiarism, that’s another thing (don’t worry, I’ll get to that here in a minute).  Your literary standards have no bearing on this case.

Third, you want to publish your own encyclopedia, and that, itself, is a valid reason to stop this one from going into print.  (Uh huh. Oh, but you had no problem with the few that are already out there.  Uh huh.)  You want to donate the proceeds to charity (How very nice of you).  You believe the publication of the Lexicon will deter readers from purchasing your encyclopedia. Wait, what?!?   You can’t, in one breath, claim that the Lexicon is sloppy and lazy–implying that it’s not good–and then in another breath claim that it will sell enough copies (the publisher predicted a sale of about 10,000, by the way—A far cry from 400 Million) to significantly diminish your own sales.  You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth here, and again… it’s insulting.  You can’t have it both ways, Ms. Rowling.  Either it’s good enough to endanger your own profit on an encyclopedia, or it’s not–based on the fact that you wrote the books, your acclaim, and your ability to market pretty much anything, I highly doubt this under any circumstances.  Well, maybe now that you decided to throw your weight into shutting it down it might increase those sales for RDR.  What a silly move.  There’s nothing more valuable than bad press.  If you really wanted to do some good for that charity of yours, you would have donated the proceeds you gained from the last movie released, or your last book. 

Fourth, it’s “wholesale theft” and plagiarism.  Uhm, no.  Fair use gives folks the right to create compendiums, encyclopedias, dictionaries, and reader’s guides.  Your contemporaries have had plenty–Anne Rice, Neil Gaiman, Stephen King, Terry Pratchett–and prolific writers historically have had plenty–Shakespeare, Tolkien, C. S. Lewis, to name a few.  Not all of the reader’s guides, compendiums, encyclopedias, and dictionaries have had the support of the author, and they don’t have to.  The only case where plagiarism is relevant in this academic tradition of organizing fictional worlds, is if every single entry was directly lifted from the original work with absolutely no unique analysis, explanation, or commentary.  You admitted under oath that you didn’t like the style or the “incomplete analysis” of entries.  In stating that, you just shot yourself in the foot by admitting there was analysis present. 

I hope Mr. Vander Ark merely changes the name to “The Unofficial, J.K. Rowling thinks this is a threat to her profit, Lexicon” but we both know that would inspire another law suit.  So Perhaps “The Unofficial Lexicon” would suffice.  I also hope that the judge sees through the games you, your lawyer, and Warner Brothers are trying to play, and instead chooses to protect academic and fair use freedoms.

Dispiritedly,

~D. M. Papuga