From Twilight to Twilite?
As I noted on Read Street last week, the reclusive J.D. Salinger recently emerged from his self-imposed exile to try to stop publication of an unauthorized “sequel” to The Catcher in the Rye. In challenging 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye, Salinger argues that he has the exclusive rights to any sequel and to the character of Holden Caulfield.
These days, it’s a wonder there aren’t more battles like this over Bella Swan, Robert Langdon, Kay Scarpetta or other well-known characters.
After all, our entertainment culture loves nothing more than a hit that can be extended with sequels, spinoffs and one-offs — not to mention tell-all books and ice shows. So what if few (any?) sequels live up to the original? There’s money to be made, and some clever marketing can keep risk-averse consumers interested for at least two sequels.
With the ability to share information at light-speed, distribute books online (and even publish inexpensively in print) how long will it take for someone to write Twilight-lite, a book about Ella and vampire Ned? Or Leonardo’s Code, with Roberto Langdonelli?
Comments
I have not thought about The Catcher in the Rye since I read it at sixteen, which is, uh, close to fifty years. But I would think it would have been more obvious to show Holden Caulfield say ten years after that first book and tell how someone who is mildly retarded, as he was, would fit into society -- or rather how he would see it.
Posted by: Mark Owings | June 7, 2009 8:24 PM
I had to read that book in 10th grade oh it was HELL!!! I dont need a sequel or anything else
Posted by: ajay | June 7, 2009 9:14 PM
Holden Caulfied "mildly retarded"? I guess you didn't get around to reading the Cliff notes -- because clearly this book was over your head.
Posted by: SMJ | June 7, 2009 11:26 PM
Rest assured that there are plenty of these sequels, they just haven't seen the light of day yet (ever heard of FanFiction?). At this rate, though, give it twenty, thirty years for fan-written sequels, like with the "Catcher in the Rye" sequel (cue twitch). Or 100+ years, like all the "Pride and Prejudice" fanfic sequels.
Besides, marketers DO make plenty of money off of these. People just write remarkably similar books (how many wannabe Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings books can you think of? I can think of a lot) and sell them like that. And the sad thing is that people buy them. Again and again. Cue sigh.
Posted by: Biblibio | June 8, 2009 7:42 AM
I recently came across your piece in the Baltimoresun.com, "From Twilight to Twilite?", and wanted to comment on one point you made. Specifically, you rhetorically asked, "how long will it take for someone to write Twilight-lite, a book about Ella and vampire Ned." The short answer is: "last month." Just over a month ago, I published a parody of Twilight - "Twilite: A Parody". News of this reached some popular Twilight forums, and needless to say, many people had some strong opinions about it. Nonetheless, in terms of the issues you raised in your article, I do not think that "Twilite" will be subject to any law suites from Stephenie Meyer: "Twilite" is clearly a parody of the Twilight Saga, and is not intended to expand on the original books. Books that are indisputably parodies - for instance, "Ditches of Edison County", "Bored of the Rings" and the "Barry Trotter" series - are not regarded as infringing on copyright laws or considered acts of plagiarism. Of course, there are instances of novels being in the "gray" area of this law, and it will be interesting to watch the "Catcher in the Rye" drama unfold.
I'd also like to point out, one thing that most of these writers do share in common, though, is an overall respect for the writers of the original work. Because one must spend a great deal of time reading the original books for details about the storyline and its characters, it would be very difficult to write a parody if you did not have a fair level of appreciation for the original novels.
Posted by: Stephen Jenner | June 8, 2009 1:03 PM