Melvin Butterworth wrote:It motivates the mode of expressing that sentiment.
The sentiment of church/state separation is hateful?
Melvin Butterworth wrote:"What have you wrought, professor!" And that really is horseshit.
Yeah, I just said it was horseshit: "that would be pretty stupid of me". The horseshit is deeming yourself capable of sweepingly judging the value of a creator's labor based on what you consider the outdated metaphysical claims of creation. I made the comparison to a professor to show how ridiculous such a sweeping valuation is, and I'm happy that you recognized that.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:That wasn't the focus of the example, speaking of aggressively ignoring what's been written (i.e., Sherlock has been successfully written and portrayed variously).
Your example stepped on its own foot because you must have been under the impression that Sherlock Holmes was in the public domain for longer than it actually was, but both points correspond. Doyle, as creator of the character, was allowed proprietary rights to profit off of his creation, and the fact that so many people chose to adapt his character, rather than create their own, is evidence of this property's value. These later Sherlock Holmes stories are not original creations in the way that, say, Batman would be (giving an obvious Sherlock Holmes derivation). And Batman remains a valuable property evidenced in the number of people who continue to adapt that character, although Bill Finger was thanklessly not compensated (and the comic book industry is filled with similar IP exploitation of artists, ala Jack Kirby, etc).
Melvin Butterworth wrote:I get the sense that you've been thirsting after compensation in your field and haven't quite found satisfaction.
Because you're probably ignorant and unsympathetic to the easily accessible history of exploited creative people throughout history.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:Your point was that authors deserve compensation because of their singularity (no one else could do it!). When I point out to you that in this example others have "done it," you contend that that's not the point! The point is that makers deserve compensation--but you've just surrendered the warrant for that claim. So artists deserve compensation... ...because?
My point stands on Doyle's example because Doyle made a character that no one else made. Maybe someone could have, but they didn't. Doyle did. And although you prefer to view this inspiration as something arbitrary, rather than creative skill, you have little appreciation that he deserved compensation for this creation. When other creators make characters as compelling as Sherlock Holmes, they also deserve compensation. Those who merely traffick in Sherlock products and IP deserve much less compensation than the original creator, and that's why, for decades, those adaptors of Doyle's character paid his fee.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:You have been running a gambit to conflate the two by arguing that the performance of an artwork (a token) is sometimes the thing itself (the type). But you've got your terms backwards.
I think you're the one who's got my argument backwards. In terms of literature, the "performance" is the writing. You can copy the writing but this would be plagiarism. You could argue that there's only so many words and no one owns words, but that would be to deliberately miss the point.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:(think of Johnny Cash's cover of "Hurt")
Why can't I just think of Sid Vicious? Then this would be, like Warhol's soup can, an innovation of contextualization. Warhol, too, has had an innumerable number of copycats and imitators, but very few who could match his conceptual breakthrough. And, anyway, Paul Anka bought "My Way" instead of actually composing it, so no harm no foul.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:You're arguing that sometimes the singularity of the original expression is so great that it is inimitable, not in the sense that we cannot produce tokens (the mere things!), but in the mode production ("There will never be another Nabikov!").
Neither "My Way" nor "Hurt" would qualify as inimitably great. Maybe something like "Day in the Life" (recording as performance), but there's still a number of innovative covers of that song. The original remains inimitable as a singular work.
Saying that there will never be another Nabokov doesn't mean that future writers will not be able to match his thematic and syntactical excellence. It simply means that Nabokov is a specific synthesis of influences and experiences that are unique to his life's circumstances. Most (honest) artists feel that they consistently fall short of their aspirational heroes, and also believe that "there will never be another *blank*". There will be other names.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:Shakespeare
Yet another dead guy who's not quite relevant to contemporary copyright law. It's almost as if the ambiguity around the sources of his work could be precisely due to an absence of copyright protection. A funny fact is that a couple of his plays (Pericles
most notoriously) have only been preserved from counterfeit "quartos" illicitly transcribed by audience members. Modern copyright should be devoted to avoiding such credential ambiguity.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:arbitrary precision
The worst oxymoron in the post.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:Something that is as good as Nabikov without being Nabikov is pretty easy.
Says the anonymous published author with effortless spelling skills.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:There are many writers in the pantheon who are "as good as." Thus, your challenge must be more specific. That is, to be as good as Nabikov, but not be exactly like Nabikov (a mere copy), but to "feel" like Nabikov--to create something we believe could have been written by Nabikov.
The bar set for "as good as" has no such proximity to imitation. Those authors who are "as good as" Nabokov, or Joyce or Dostoyevsky, are not measured in their stylistic approximation to any other great writer, but rather in that very thing I referred to as a "singular voice", a writer who is signaturely identifiable, distinct and vibrant and qualitatively consistent. Same with Kubrick. His greatness doesn't depend on "feeling" like any other director but in his ability to convey his very distinctly personal feeling.
Yes, I'm very disappointed that "experts" turn out to frequently be fools. Doesn't make any of that music sound inspired. I wouldn't listen to it for pleasure. Does anybody? But, keeping with your resentments of all the Bonos in the world, I understand that you would prefer to have these "arbitrarily precise" creative processes outsourced to computers sooner than later. Ray Kurzweil will save you someday.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:And how many audiences fail tests as simple as the Pepsi challenge?
Sure, let's compare a work of art to a diabetic corporate syrup. That probably makes sense to a utilitarian.
Melvin Butterworth wrote:That is, the test is not "originality" or "singularity" or "inimitability" or any other Romantic asymptote, but rather the relative rarity of it in terms of the ability of others to produce similar things.
The originality, singularity
comprise those rare qualities. Truly original works are rare because it is extremely difficult to produce one.