Judge Indefinitely Bans “Coming Through The Rye”

If there is one thing I learned during almost ten years developing feature film scripts, is that there is no such thing as a completely original idea.

Every script I read (well into the thousands) could be seen as being derivative of a pre-existing work.  In fact, if one eliminated every script from Hollywood that was derivative of a pre-existing work there wouldn’t be any screenplays left.

The same can be said for the world of novels.

Unfortunately, one Judge Betts disagrees and has indefinitely banned the wholly original novel “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye” which imagines what  Holden Caufield would be like at the age of 76.  While clearly building from the foundations of “A Catcher in the Rye” there is nothing in the new work that is a direct quote or paraphrase from the original.

Judge Betts has rejected the defenses’ argument that the new novel…

…did not violate copyright laws because it amounted to a critical parody that had the effect of transforming the original work.

This is one of the major elements of the “fair use” defense and one that did not strike me as even a bit far-fetched.  Instead, Judge Betts claimed:

“Both narratives are told from the first-person point of view of a sarcastic, often uncouth protagonist who relies heavily on slang, euphemisms and colloquialisms, makes constant digression and asides, refers to readers in the second person, constantly assures the reader that he is being honest and that he is giving them the truth.”    LINK

If that’s enough to ban a this book, I’m sure there is an endless stream of young adult fiction that should certainly be given the same treatment.

Seeing judges ban books is never a good thing.  Seeing a judge ban a book for such flimsy reasons as this is downright frightening.  If her ruling stands, expect to see a long line of similar suits in the near future.

3 Comments

• 

  By Jason K., July 6, 2009 @ 12:04 pm

  Umm…of course Holden age 76 has a similar manner of speaking as Holden age 16; they are supposed to be the same person. What a completely stupid ruling.

• 

  By admin, July 7, 2009 @ 4:18 am

  I couldn’t agree more.

• 

  By Daniel, July 19, 2009 @ 6:14 am

  Wasn’t there a book about Beowulf recently written from Grendel’s point of view? This would be my argument to illustrate that public domain is important for the organic development of culture.

  while the original book is still under legal copyright, I guess the judge had better outlaw the fan fiction that abounds on UseNet too …

Other Links to this Post

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment