|
|
Post by ronmiller on Jan 11, 2021 14:07:41 GMT
You guys actually re-publish others' works?
That's an eye-opener.
Definitely not my style, but I can imagine the arguments for it.Yes, I agree. Based on my original statement the challenge now, or option if you wish, is new works such as plays, films, music and songs to be based upon his original work. Orwell’s executors have not been noticeably strict in comparison with some other literary estates, but there has been the odd kerfuffle. In 2015 the estate asked one company to stop selling beer mugs that bore extensive quotations from Orwell’s works, leading inevitably to accusations of Big Brother-esque censorship. From now on, however, you could market a range of tea towels containing the entire text of Animal Farm and nobody would be able to stop you. It was Sonia Orwell who put the kibosh on one of the most fascinating prospective adaptations of her husband’s work in the Seventies – David Bowie’s abortive televised musical of Nineteen Eighty-Four. “Mrs Orwell refused to let us have the rights, point blank,” Bowie later recalled. “For a person who married a socialist with communist leanings, she was the biggest upper-class snob I’ve ever met in my life. ‘Good heavens, put it to music?’ It really was like that.” Some of the songs from this abandoned project – such as Big Brother and We Are the Dead – found their way on to Bowie’s apocalyptic Diamond Dogs album, and there’s the marvellous possibility that somebody might now construct a new adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-Four incorporating these tracks. Traditional publishers republish old works all the time, with little value added. Sometimes they add a Foreward so they can copyright it. They can copyright only the forward or any other added material, but not the text of the book itself. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2021 20:11:06 GMT
Traditional publishers republish old works all the time, with little value added. Sometimes they add a Foreward so they can copyright it. They can copyright only the forward or any other added material, but not the text of the book itself. I'm glad to hear that. Imagine copyrighting Shakespeare. |
|
sirram
Senior Printer
No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money
Posts: 272
|
Post by sirram on Jan 11, 2021 22:10:11 GMT
... “Mrs Orwell refused to let us have the rights, point blank,” Bowie later recalled. “For a person who married a socialist with communist leanings, she was the biggest upper-class snob I’ve ever met in my life." Anyone who has read Orwell's works would in no way describe him as a "socialist with communist leanings". In one of his essays (I forget which) Orwell wrote that there is nothing wrong with socialism except for the socialists. I can't put my hand on the exact quote but it was something like that. To me, Orwell seemed more of a Conservative with a small "c". He hated the authoritarian state (see 1984 and Animal Farm). He also hated the conditions in which many poor people were forced to live (see The Road to Wigan Pier). Orwell a Communist? Bowie surely never read any of Orwell's works. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2021 4:28:01 GMT
... “Mrs Orwell refused to let us have the rights, point blank,” Bowie later recalled. “For a person who married a socialist with communist leanings, she was the biggest upper-class snob I’ve ever met in my life." Anyone who has read Orwell's works would in no way describe him as a "socialist with communist leanings". In one of his essays (I forget which) Orwell wrote that there is nothing wrong with socialism except for the socialists. I can't put my hand on the exact quote but it was something like that. To me, Orwell seemed more of a Conservative with a small "c". He hated the authoritarian state (see 1984 and Animal Farm). He also hated the conditions in which many poor people were forced to live (see The Road to Wigan Pier). Orwell a Communist? Bowie surely never read any of Orwell's works. According to this article Orwell was definitely in favour of socialism and was against Soviet authoritarianism. medium.com/@dleybz/orwell-was-a-socialist-e444d34f3fbe “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.” — George Orwell "He took pains to distinguish his own leftism from Soviet authoritarianism, viewing socialism as compatible with—perhaps even essential to—freedom." medium.com/@dleybz/orwell-was-a-socialist-e444d34f3fbeThis quote tells a bit more about the enigma of George Orwell He was a middle-class intellectual who despised the middle class and was contemptuous of intellectuals, a Socialist whose abuse of Socialists—"all that dreary tribe of high-minded women and sandal-wearers and bearded fruit-juice drinkers who come flocking toward the smell of 'progress' like bluebottles to a dead cat"—was as vicious as any Tory's. www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/01/27/honest-decent-wrong |
|
sirram
Senior Printer
No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money
Posts: 272
|
Post by sirram on Jan 12, 2021 11:30:03 GMT
I agree with the above larika - but I wonder which of the political parties he would vote for today.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusNinja on Jan 15, 2021 6:36:46 GMT
You guys actually re-publish others' works?
That's an eye-opener.
Definitely not my style, but I can imagine the arguments for it.Yes, I agree. Based on my original statement the challenge now, or option if you wish, is new works such as plays, films, music and songs to be based upon his original work. Orwell’s executors have not been noticeably strict in comparison with some other literary estates, but there has been the odd kerfuffle. In 2015 the estate asked one company to stop selling beer mugs that bore extensive quotations from Orwell’s works, leading inevitably to accusations of Big Brother-esque censorship. From now on, however, you could market a range of tea towels containing the entire text of Animal Farm and nobody would be able to stop you. It was Sonia Orwell who put the kibosh on one of the most fascinating prospective adaptations of her husband’s work in the Seventies – David Bowie’s abortive televised musical of Nineteen Eighty-Four. “Mrs Orwell refused to let us have the rights, point blank,” Bowie later recalled. “For a person who married a socialist with communist leanings, she was the biggest upper-class snob I’ve ever met in my life. ‘Good heavens, put it to music?’ It really was like that.” Some of the songs from this abandoned project – such as Big Brother and We Are the Dead – found their way on to Bowie’s apocalyptic Diamond Dogs album, and there’s the marvellous possibility that somebody might now construct a new adaptation of Nineteen Eighty-Four incorporating these tracks. I saw on TV that his book 1984 is the top selling book on Amazon right now. It might be a little late to get on the band wagon. I'm sure others are already hitting it. |
|
|
|
Post by JesusNinja on Jan 15, 2021 6:41:59 GMT
You guys actually re-publish others' works? That's an eye-opener. Definitely not my style, but I can imagine the arguments for it. You can go to a certain website Gutenberg Project I think it's called. They have text copies of many books that are no longer copyrighted. I actually got one called. Bushido: The Spirit of Japan. It had no chapters and the cover was hideous. I reformatted the text giving it chapter and a TOC page. Redid the cover. It sells a few copies, not a lot but it adds up. It's a very interesting book though. The author was Japanese and a college professor. He wrote the book in 1900 I think it was. He describes Bushido and its influence one of which was Christianity.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Jan 15, 2021 13:36:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BlueAndGold on Jan 15, 2021 13:44:23 GMT
Gutenberg is a great resource!
I've got a number of great books from there over the years and keep them on my tablet.
But the thought of re-publishing another's work has never even crossed my mind.
I just seems sort of creepy, like plagiarism or theft or something. Legal to do or not.
With that said, there is a book or two I'd like to see someone do a re-publish on, though it has been republished many times over the last century. It is what inspired me to write in the first place.
(I have a beautiful copy with gilt pages in an embossed cover that has been well worn since 1886 or 1889).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2021 14:11:39 GMT
Gutenberg is a great resource! I've got a number of great books from there over the years and keep them on my tablet. But the thought of re-publishing another's work has never even crossed my mind. I just seems sort of creepy, like plagiarism or theft or something. Legal to do or not. With that said, there is a book or two I'd like to see someone do a re-publish on, though it has been republished many times over the last century. It is what inspired me to write in the first place. (I have a beautiful copy with gilt pages in an embossed cover that has been well worn since 1886 or 1889). Tons of editions of the Bible. Tons of editions of Shakespeare. Not creepy. The more the merrier. You bring old books back to the center, make them relevant again. You should do that book with gilt pages. It will be your gift to current and future generations. If people didn't republish old works there would be very few copies of the Bible left. Go for it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2021 14:14:05 GMT
Gutenberg is a great resource! I've got a number of great books from there over the years and keep them on my tablet. But the thought of re-publishing another's work has never even crossed my mind. I just seems sort of creepy, like plagiarism or theft or something. Legal to do or not. With that said, there is a book or two I'd like to see someone do a re-publish on, though it has been republished many times over the last century. It is what inspired me to write in the first place. (I have a beautiful copy with gilt pages in an embossed cover that has been well worn since 1886 or 1889). You can give yourself a zero royalty. It will be just a gift. And, your name will not be on the cover. Not theft. |
|
