Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS
Yes, I've seen them, but what everyone seems to be saying is something like "It's wrong because I don't think she should have done it. And I don't think she should have done it because it's wrong", which is glaringly circular. Everyone seems to be treating the novel as a sequence of words not as a literary work of art - which is like treating Duchamp's Fountain like a urinal. What no-one seems to be addressing is that it is possible, theoretically at least, to create something of artistic, in this case, literary value by creating a new context for already written words, thereby giving those words new meaning.
|
The proper thing to do in that case is to clear it with the original authors, and include notes within the book noting that such permission was given.
Quote:
|
All literary works are created in a particular socio-cultural-aesthetic context and, as such, rely on other works for their meaning. In this sense all literary work is a rearranging of familiar elements. A totally new work would be incomprehensible to most of us, cf. Joyce's Ulysses.
|
It's not so a much a rearranging of familiar elements as it is a entire lifting of text. Kinda like how Hootie & the Blowfish got in trouble for lifting significant portions of a Bob Dylan song.