I am at least theoretically opposed to a new writer taking a character like Sherlock Holmes and writing a new adventure for him.
Even if the writer is able to produce a very good story, I think he's stolen the essential ingredient--Sherlock. No fair! Now if a writer like Laurie King picks a minor character and writes a series about her, that's okay--provided Holmes does not play too big a part.
Iconic fictional creations (and their authors) should be left alone. Create someone new just as memorable.
I know I am somewhat rigid about this. What do you think?
27 comments:
I think it's al fair game. I remember reading the 7% Solution-where Sherlock meets Freud!_ - years ago and I really enjoyed it. It was, I think, cleverly done.
I agree, Patti. The book that comes to mind is Michael Cunningham's "The Hours." Cunningham not only usurped the main character, but the plot as well in Virginia Woolf's "Mrs. Dalloway," and then went on to exploit the circumstances of Woolf's death. Yes, I know he'd call it an homage, but it felt to me like grave-robbing.
My first inclination was to agree with this. Then I thought of Dave Zeltserman's take off of Nero Wolf. Archie is an interactive, computerized tie tack who is every bit as efficient as the original Archie. I love those stories and find them funy.
The Zeltserman stories seem more a tribute to Rex Stout than an attempt to steal from him.
There's a difference between using a fictional character like Holmes and a real person like Virginia Woolf, IMHO. It doesn't bother me when it's done well. One relatively early effort I liked was Rick Boyer's The Giant Rat of Sumatra (1976).
One the other hand I think the use of real people as detectives (Poe, Twain, Abraham Lincoln, whoever) is getting a little out of hand. I mean, I enjoyed Day of the Jackal but since we knew De Gaulle didn't get assassinated was there really a point?
The one that creeped me out the most was probably Beryl Bainbridge's re-imagining,Young Adolf.
Jeff M.
Patti - I have to admit, I agree with you. I don't mind authors mentioning iconic characters; it happens all the time and it can work. I do, though, mind new stories about "legends" if they're not written by the original author. It's just not the same. I know, I'm a fuddy-duddy purist, but that's how I feel.
I'm with you all the way, Patti. That's why Agatha Christie did away with Poirot and Miss Marple: she didn't want other writers hijacking her creations. Writers should create their own worlds and characters and not copy somebody else's.
I almost feel like there should be a patent on a character after a while. AC lived long enough to know to kill them off. Although I am surprised no one has thought of a way to bring them back--such as Poirot's Undiscovered Case or Miss Marple's Diary.
I see what you mean about a tribute, Joe....
Having said all this, I did it myself in a story to yet appear. And I borrowed Superman once. So I guess I break my own rules. Or make them for others. We'll see if it worked next year.
It's interesting that we don't feel this way about characters created for TV shows - lots of writers contribute to Don Draper and the gang on MAD MEN.
And sometimes TV shows change entire writing teams (and showrunners) and no one notices.
John, I think that's why British TV shows tend to work better so often - a lot of them just have one writer (or writing team). That's also why they usually do only six at a time, but that's a separate issue.
Jeff M.
Interesting question and maybe even the TV characters we cleave to the most were those who predated the age of huge writing staffs. Iconic figures. Did Archie Bunker arise from a team of writers or one or two. I don't know.
I saw you objected to the idea of a Sherril Holmes in the post I did over at Novel Spaces. It would seem even further removed than a minor character from the actual series, though. I only rarely read pastiches, alhtough the minor character thing wouldn't bother me. I'd find an ancestor or descendent to be of more interest to me, although I still might not pick it up.
I am still thinking this through but I guess a character that's play on the name or a minor character from the book doesn't bother me. But I do dislike the idea of taking a major iconic literary figure, loved by many, and writing new stories for him.her. Of course, some were written by more than one writer to begin with.
Not that what I like should at all influence anyone else. Just my thoughts on a freezing cold day in Detroit.
Yes, the Seven Percent Solution was fun. I admit it.
Having written 6 or 8 Holmes stories, I guess I should defend myself. But I don't feel like it. Anyway, I'm kind of hypocritical on the subject. Like Paul, I read The 7% Solution when it first appeared and got a kick out of it. About the same time I discovered and enjoyed Loren Estleman's Holmes pastiches. However, I have never read (and probably will never read) any of the Rex Stout or James Bond pastiches. I'm just not interested.
In terms of writing, a good idea is hard to discard because they can be rare. And a good story can actually resurrect a forgotten character. But turning Jane Austen into a vampire slayer or hunter really irks me. And bringing Abe Lincoln into it even more
For every ROSENCRANTZ AND GUILDERSTERN ARE DEAD or WIDE SARGASSO SEA (works that, to my mind, successfully used existing fictional characters), there are dozens of "Jane Austen solves a mystery" or "Jane Eyre fights the zombies" stories to contend with. As a general rule, I try to avoid anything that reimagines a fictional character--which just seems lazy to me. I almost tore my hair out when Margaret Mitchell's estate permitted someone to write not one, but two sequels to GONE WITH THE WIND so that Scarlett and Rhett could have their happy ending. Oh, dear.
The term they use in TV and film is rebooting.
Much of my reaction is based on how connected the author is to the character or how much of the original character is changed. For example, a different version of Batman every few years does not bother me but the changes in Star Trek's recent reboot annoyed me no end.
As a history buff I dislike historical fiction especially with real people because the fiction gets twisted with the fact in my head.
I guess I am getting old but it is a shame the new writers can not create new characters to love but find it easier to cruise on the commercial success of others' creations. Let them create their own pop culture references without destroying mine. Oh, yeah and get off my lawn.
I have trouble with historical fiction too. The less I know about a period, the more it annoys me because I am not sure if I am learning something or not.
I tend to agree with you. Except that I LOVE LOVE LOVE what Laurie King has done with Holmes and Russell. (You're not so much against that, I take it.) And I did read another very good Holmes pastiche a while back: THE GIANT RAT OF SUMATRA by Rick Boyer. (I see Jeff has read that as well.)
I do like the use of 'real' people as characters if done well. Again, Laurie King does this VERY well.
And the late Stuart Kaminsky did this hilariously well in his Toby Peters' mystery series which featured
1940's movie stars and celebrities and even in one case, Albert Einstein. WONDERFUL books!
I quiblle a bit with Jeff on this point: I loved DAY OF THE JACKAL. Also loved THE EAGLE HAS LANDED which has a proposed kidnapping of Winston Churchill as the main plot.
For me, there are 2 forces at work here. One of them has come to be known as intellectual property. Someone has created equity in a character; another writer shouldn't be appropriating it for their own gain.
On the other hand, cultural artifacts have this way of becoming common property - like myth and folklore. The impulse to embroider on what's already been done is older than copyright.
I'll take both...
Yvette - I may have been unclear. I did like DAY OF THE JACKAL too. It just didn't succeed as a "will he or won't he" because you know De Gaulle will survive. THE EAGLE HAS LANDED, same thing. I also liked it a lot.
There are also "alternate history" books, some of which are very good indeed, including Brendan DuBois' RESURRECTION DAY, in which John F. Kennedy supposedly started a nuclear war over the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. The book takes place 10 years later. It was published in 1999.
Another interesting one was published more contemporaneously with the events covered. This was the 1961 FIDEL CASTRO ASSASSINATED by "Lee Duncan" which was recently republished as KILLING CASTRO under its author's real name, Lawrence Block.
This one posits a small group of men landed on Cuba to kill Castro for $100,000. The stories of the five men and their plans are interspersed with fascinating chapters about Castro's life.
Both are worth reading.
Jeff M.
Each writer brings so much of himself or herself to the task that the borrowed character is inevitably different in the hands of the copying author. Once a friend asked to use one of my series characters, and I was startled by the result. My character was perfectly recognizable, but as caricature. On occasion I've been assigned to work with another's character, and end up with something deeply different and more reflective of my life. One of the perverse qualities of fan fiction is that the borrowed hero or heroine barely resembles the author's own creation. So I think all such fiction should be labeled with a consumer beware: Modeled on Sherlock Holmes.
I understand that many of these books, movies, and TV stories are entertaining and well written. But my question is always, can't you tell the same story with your own creations? Does the story depend on you using the memory or the popularity of someone else's work or life? Or does using a famous name such as Sherlock Holmes or Jane Austen make your work easier to sell?
For me, it's yes and no. Yes to Sherlock Holmes. I've read many dozens of pastiches and enjoyed almost all. In most cases, a Holmes pastiche is an homage, a game between writer and reader, a labor of love. There can never be too many. With most other characters, I say no. I hope never, for example, to see a pastiche of Spenser.
P.S. I didn't know Bill Crider had written Holmes stories. Now I'll have to find those suckers.
Me either. Ellery Queen?
Well, I am not against writing parody and stealing with arms and legs in them, but I have never tried to read any of all these new stories about old characters. It´s not that I mind writers who do, the idea just doesn´t appeal to me.
1. I like a good Homes pastiche, and detest a lousy one, so quality maters a lot in this.
2. The famous person as detective has never worked for me, not the Elliot Roosevelt books, not the Bond, or Wolfe.
3. Evan - you can find two of Crider's Holmes tales in the two holiday collections Holmes for the Holidays and More Holmes for the Holidays (which I just happen to have).
now if I could only learn to avoid those typos... sorry.
Post a Comment