Thursday 3 March 2011

A Conundrum.

Here’s a thought:

Let’s suppose that I sent the ms of my novel in hard copy form to a literary agent; and let’s suppose that somebody in the office left it lying on a table where it was picked up by a famous author; and let’s suppose that the author took it home, read it and was mightily impressed. Now, let’s further suppose that this author is an unscrupulous sort (one name springs to mind) and he presents the work to the agent as his own. It gets published under his name and becomes a best seller. Would I mind?

I expect I probably would, but the question is, should I mind?

I’ve long preached the maxim that authors (like teachers) are unimportant; what matters is what they write. So should it matter whose name the novel goes out under as long as it’s read? And isn’t it even better that it goes out under his name rather than mine, because then more people will read it?

I have a slight problem, you see, with the concept of intellectual property. ‘It was my idea, so I own it.’ Should we be so obsessed with ownership, and is it really logical to think that we can ‘own’ an idea? Isn’t it as preposterous as the notion that a person can own land? Or is it, perhaps, the one thing we can claim ownership of?

I offer no conclusions. I’m just thinking aloud.

11 comments:

Nuutj said...

I'll be angry. For me, if I write or draw something as hobby and want to share for free, I will feel frustrated by those who makes money out of it. I still feel it's my own.

Jfromtheblock said...

I'd be flattered.

Della said...

I think money confuses the issue here. If someone else profits from your work while you're still struggling, I don't see how you could possibly overlook it. Survival really matters.

Wendy said...

Let me turn it back to you. Let's say you had a child, which isn't owned but is a creation of yours. And let's say that someone really liked how you raised your child and basically tried to steal them away from you? Ummm, for me personally, I would not be a happy camper. I know not the best metaphor, but your stories are your "children" and the need to be honored as such.

Anthropomorphica said...

I agree with Della and Wendy and I think it's as much part of your soul as it is intellectual property. I would certainly mind and the injustice would grate.

JJ said...

Mei-shan: So let's say this 'thief' had a crisis of conscience and gave all the royalties to charity, keeping nothing for himself. And how much does the concept of ownership relate to ego?
Della: That's the problem. Money, along with ownership, does confuse the issue, and that's what I feel I should be able to rise above.
Wendy: OK, let's take the metaphor a stage further. Suppose I have a child who shows great promise in some skill that could greatly benefit humanity, but I don't have the means to help him/her develop that skill. Along comes another person who does have the means, and suggests adoption which will bring a change of name from mine to his. He makes it a condition of adoption that I give up all claim to parentage. What then?
Mel: As above. I agree, but shouldn't I be above it? Yes, I would mind and the injustice would grate, but should it?

And the winner is...

Jen. That made me smile. Lateral thinking.

Jeanne said...

I was once told that there are no original ideas. Only variations of those ideas.
(Not sure what that has to do with anything but it sounds good....)

If it were me, I would be flattered but also extremely upset. Flattered because the famous author thought my writing good enough to use as his own. Upset because of the $$ that said author made from my hard work (I could've used that $$ to help out my kids or start an education fund for my grandchildren). And upset because the publisher chose to publish the manuscript when it was turned in by the famous author instead of when it was turned in by me.

JJ said...

Jeanne: But doesn't it depend on why you write. Suppose you don't write for money or recognition, but because you have something to say that you want to put 'out there.' In that case, wouldn't your intention be better served by having it published under a name that would attract a lot more readers? I would find that a bitter pill to swallow because I'm human with a human ego, but it makes sense.

Jeanne said...

Point taken!

Della said...

I don't know why I'm coming back to this, I really don't mean to be argumentative, Jeff (or?). I just think that if I did finish writing a novel I wanted published and it did get actually get published, I would like to participate in a dialogue or discussion with my readers (assuming I was still alive). I might be fascinated to hear what my readers had to say about it and maybe like to answer their questions if they had any. It might even stir new ideas and spawn a second novel, which could only be written by me, the author. I think possession and identity come into play here and the rightful author will (and should) always be connected with his/her ideas, without it being egotistical (how can someone else answer questions about a book only I have written?). Maybe it's more noble another way, but I think that would be less human.

JJ said...

Glad you came back, Della. I'm flattered. And I did calli it a conundrum. And this goes to the very heart of why I remain fascinated by Wuthering Heights.