Arrrrgh! Mockingbird Graphic Novel

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There's nothing inherently wrong with that - the estate is a financial asset to be commercially exploited to its maximum potential; the estate of authors are no different to any other estate in that respect. Whether this particular venture proves to be successful or not, only time will tell.

There is, nonetheless, the manner in which the asset is exploited. Moneygrubbing is perfectly legal but a too blatant exploitation can be off-putting: The Lee estate's very first move, literally within minutes of acquiring control, was to end the lowest priced, mass market paperback, edition of Mockingbird.

https://newrepublic.com/article/1314...ckingbird-dead

The question of who is making decisions regarding Harper Lee is still a somewhat academic one, as this decision was undoubtedly in the works before Lee’s death on February 19, alongside other changes.*On February 10, for instance, Scott Rudin announced he had acquired the rights to produce a Broadway play of To Kill a Mockinbird, suggesting that Lee’s team has continued the flurry of activity that has marked the last few years and looks to continue after her death. The questions surrounding Lee that have emerged over the last few years—namely who is driving changes to her legacy and whose interest those changes serve—also look like they’re here to stay.

What is certain, however, is that Lee’s estate will continue to face publicity problems even as it’s shielded from scrutiny. Without knowledge of why Lee’s estate has radically altered the publication plan of To Kill a Mockingbird, it’s only possible to speculate as to who is pulling the strings—and to what end. This will be true of any decision made by the estate, so long as Lee’s will is sealed. Given the hubbub surrounding Go Set a Watchman, it’s likely that even opening Lee’s will to public scrutiny wouldn’t placate doubters. It’s an unfortunate twist in the legacy of one of America’s most beloved writers. For an author whose reputation in life was rather similar to her character Atticus Finch’s—noble, high-minded, resistant to trouble and chaos—Harper Lee has, in recent years and now, after her death, become one of America’s most controversial writers. It is a striking change in reputation, but one likely to be permanent if the estate continues to operate in secrecy.

It stands in stark contrast to Ms. Lee's approach to managing said property, hence hackles are raised in some quarters.

The graphic novel might be a tasteful, accessible adaptation. (Or not.) But one thing it will not be is as cheap as the cancelled MMPB.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There's nothing inherently wrong with that - the estate is a financial asset to be commercially exploited to its maximum potential; the estate of authors are no different to any other estate in that respect. Whether this particular venture proves to be successful or not, only time will tell.

That is certainly some peoples' philosophy and what they teach in business schools. On the other hand, others feel that life isn't all about maximizing one's financial potential. Fairly obviously, Harper Lee didn't wish to maximize her financial potential. It strikes me as disrespectful to ignore her wishes, especially this quickly after her death. Just because someone has the right to do something, it doesn't follow that it's right to do it.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by meeera

And anyone who thinks combing art with words is inherently "dumbing down" needs a re-education.

I don't think comic versions of novels inherently are dumber except in the sense that any time there's a translation some of the author's intent is likely to be lost. That's true of movies and audiodrama based on novels and I'm sure it's as true of graphic novels.

The problem with comics, though, is that while they might not be inherently dumber they're usually dumber. I grew up reading classic comics and also listening to old time radio shows doing transcriptions of classic novels, many of which I read. Dumber was the common denominator. I liked all this stuff but not because it was intelligent. It was fun. I still listen to those OTR shows a lot and enjoy them. But they sure ain't the novels.

I think comics and graphic novels have a lot of promise. I don't have enough experience with them to know if that promise has ever been fulfilled but I know I haven't seen it done. I've been hopeful about "Maus", which I bought some time ago and will eventually read.

Barry

[John F]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There's nothing inherently wrong with that - the estate is a financial asset to be commercially exploited to its maximum potential; the estate of authors are no different to any other estate in that respect. Whether this particular venture proves to be successful or not, only time will tell.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

That is certainly some peoples' philosophy and what they teach in business schools. On the other hand, others feel that life isn't all about maximizing one's financial potential. Fairly obviously, Harper Lee didn't wish to maximize her financial potential. It strikes me as disrespectful to ignore her wishes, especially this quickly after her death. Just because someone has the right to do something, it doesn't follow that it's right to do it.

Wouldn't it depend on what's in the will (at least in the U.S.)? If she didn't want her works to become graphic novels, couldn't she had put that in her will?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by John F

Wouldn't it depend on what's in the will (at least in the U.S.)? If she didn't want her works to become graphic novels, couldn't she had put that in her will?

I don't know about US law, but that certainly wouldn't be enforceable in the UK. You get to decide who gets your stuff after you die, but you can't tell them what they can and can't do with it.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't know about US law, but that certainly wouldn't be enforceable in the UK. You get to decide who gets your stuff after you die, but you can't tell them what they can and can't do with it.

Pretty much the same here.

[John F]

Doing a quick search, it appears you are right. But I still believe there must be some way? Set up a legal non-profit entity whose purpose is to promote literature, with appropriate bylaws, and make that entity the beneficiary?

In case you can't tell, IANAL.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by John F

Doing a quick search, it appears you are right. But I still believe there must be some way? Set up a legal non-profit entity whose purpose is to promote literature, with appropriate bylaws, and make that entity the beneficiary?

In case you can't tell, IANAL.

That's a terrible idea. Franz Kafka wanted his works destroyed. Sometimes going against the wishes of the deceased is the best way.

And isn't the graphic novel promoting literature, even if Ms. Lee's heir are greedy jerks?

[Fiat_Lux]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You get to decide who gets your stuff after you die, but you can't tell them what they can and can't do with it.

If you have a good solicitor, or a good lawyer, and enough money^1, then there are ways to ensure that your estate does what you say they may, or may not do.


I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

^1: Mid seven figures for the legal fees when writing your will, with a minimum of eight figures budgeted for the court case after your demise.

[John F]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

... Sometimes going against the wishes of the deceased is the best way.

"Sometimes": seems like a coin flip to me. Maybe the beneficiaries would want the works destroyed.

... And isn't the graphic novel promoting literature, ...

Depends on the implementation, IMO.

My question was meant as a general question, not specific to Harper Lee or literature.

[HarryT]

It's interesting, perhaps, to make a comparison with the Tolkien estate, where Tolkien's literary executor, his son Christopher, has spent the last 40+ years continuing to work on his father's manuscripts, and without whom we wouldn't have had any of Tolkien's work other than "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings". Christopher Tolkien is now 92 years old - I wonder if anyone will continue his work when he dies? The obvious choice to do so would be his eldest son, Simon Tolkien, who is himself a respected novelist and barrister.

The Tolkien estate is an excellent example of the benefits that can accrue to the reader by posthumous copyright. We wouldn't have had most of Tolkien's now extant work had it not been for Christopher.

[John F]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's interesting, perhaps, to make a comparison with the Tolkien estate, where Tolkien's literary executor, his son Christopher, has spent the last 40+ years continuing to work on his father's manuscripts, and without whom we wouldn't have had any of Tolkien's work other than "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings". Christopher Tolkien is now 92 years old - I wonder if anyone will continue his work when he dies? The obvious choice to do so would be his eldest son, Simon Tolkien, who is himself a respected novelist and barrister.

The Tolkien estate is an excellent example of the benefits that can accrue to the reader by posthumous copyright. We wouldn't have had most of Tolkien's now extant work had it not been for Christopher.

Could JRR have put his manuscripts in the public domain in his will? Seems like a more efficient way would have been to "give" them to Project Gutenberg or some other non-proft, than waiting 40 years?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by John F

Could JRR have put his manuscripts in the public domain in his will? Seems like a more efficient way would have been to "give" them to Project Gutenberg or some other non-proft, than waiting 40 years?

He could have done, but do you really think that PG would have done as good a job? I don't. It really needed someone with the decades-long knowledge of Tolkien's work which Christopher has, to my mind.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

He could have done, but do you really think that PG would have done as good a job? I don't. It really needed someone with the decades-long knowledge of Tolkien's work which Christopher has, to my mind.

...and knowledge of Tolkien's personality, goals, and tastes. Tolkien didn't write just to spin a tale, he had specific literary goals in mind. There's a clear benefit to an editor/co-author with insight into authorial intent.

Very different situation from an estate hellbent on monetizing the legacy at all costs.

The Tolkiens are a rare case, though.

So is the ERB operation, where Burroughs personally set up the corporation and its guidelines while still an active author. No question there of whose wishes are being followed. And they too have been careful with both licensing and posthumous works.

A better example might be the Conan Doyle estate or the Fleming estate which both aggresively work to exploit the IP but also try to protect the author's name and legacy. So far the Lee estate has only shown the first part.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The Tolkiens are a rare case, though.

Very rare indeed, I agree. They are, I think, the perfect example of what an author's estate should try to do, which is to put the author's unreleased work into as good a shape as possible for publication.