Shame on Me

When I was in a 19th Century British Novel class, I was told "Shame on you" for not being a feminist. I had never studied any feminist theory. I never had an interest. I felt that the instructor's shaming me was unfair. Just because I am a woman, does that mean I HAVE to study feminist theory? Since taking that class, I have studied a little bit more. Recently I read some Adrienne Rich, and still am not particularly interested in gender studies. Do I think there is a bias toward men? Of course. The bias is still toward the white, educated, hetero-normative, Christian male, for just about everything.

I have used queer theory for several papers, and am not a homosexual. I have used monster theory, and I don't think I am a monster. I am currently studying auteur theory as a marketing tool, and am certainly not an auteur (or even a filmmaker).

Bias in literature will always exist. And, there will always be new theories to tell me how to read or view something. But, in the end, I don't really care (is there a theory for that???).

Fan Performance, Is It Authoring?

In looking at Coppa's piece, I see a real disruption in the idea of fan fiction being authored.  I realize the distinction between writing and performing; however, if a fan performs, say within a message board, and that performance becomes a textual story, than how can that not be authored.  And, each performer/contributer should be counted as authoring the text.

An old friend of mine was a huge "L Word" fan.  She joined the website, well actually she joined two fan sites, one sanctioned by Showtime, the other not.  She participated in the message board.  She mostly posted and followed a string (room) called Betteville (named after the character played by Jennifer Beal).  She had a character name, she went to the gym, the coffee shop, the bar and met with many other citizens of Betteville in creating a story, a text, placed within the world of "L World" but with unique characters.  I found all of this fascinating and enjoyed reading the posts to see what they could create next.  My friend and her online friends created stories, narratives, with unique characters in a setting separate from "L Word" settings.  This was a created world, existing because of a copyrighted television show.  Is their collective story not authored?  I think it is.

Of course taste distinctions seem to take precedence in much of these discussions.  If several art students made a collage for display at the ODU Gallery, I am sure that would be called art.  Say it was of Shakespearean characters, even better.  I don't see the distinction.  I think both groups are equally authored.  One may appeal to people, while the other does not, but both are authored.  I think we all have our taste distinctions, I love opera and loathe ballet.  Both are thought of as high art (which is an antiquated bullshit term) by those who make those distinctions, but while opera moves me and is beautiful, ballet is full of snobby, uberskinny attention whores that seem to have no expressions.  That is a taste distinction within me.  However, I believe that both opera and ballet are authored by the musicians, producers, choreographers and even the participants.  No distinction.  Except that you would have to pay me to go to any ballet (except maybe nude and lewd) but I would gladly pay to see even the crappiest of operas.

90210 Slash

I'm not sure which is sadder, that I was (still am?) a HUGE fan of Beverly Hills 90210, or that there are enough like me to have many fan websites.  Also, sorry, but I suck at writing fiction.  This is about the best I can hope for.

Disclaimer:  I do not own Beverly Hills 90210 or any of its characters.

 

I have to write some slash fiction for an authorship class I am in, so this is the story of a camping trip.  Just Dylan and Brandon are in the mountains camping in a tent.

 

“I can’t believe what a beautiful night it is.  It is so peaceful, just the two of us,” Brandon said.

 

“I think it was a good idea not to bring the girls on this trip.  They have to pack so much.  It is easier with just us,” said Dylan.  “Hey, there’s something I’ve been wanting to talk to you about.”

 

“What’s that?”

 

“Well, we both dated Kelly and are both single now.”

 

“Yeah?”

 

“I guess I just wonder why we are attracted to the same women.”

 

“Well, I was never attracted to my sister!!”

 

“No, not her, but Kelly and Valerie and some others over the years.”

 

“Maybe, Dylan, we just have the same taste in women.”

 

“Brandon, I was thinking, maybe we have the same wants and desires in other aspects of our lives as well.”

 

“I wouldn’t mind your access to cash,” Brandon laughed.

 

“Nah, man.  Not that.  It’s just, well, you know guys aren’t supposed to share feelings, but I love you.”

 

“I love you back, man.  You are like the brother I wanted, but never had.”

 

“Brandon, its more than that brotherly love.  I mean, I’m not gay, or really sexually attracted to you, but there is something…a kind of draw to you.  I don’t really get it, except I think that’s why I was with Brenda.  Since she’s your twin it was like being with a part of you, too.”

 

“Ah, this is getting a little uncomfortable.  Are you sure you don’t want to have sex with me, because maybe we should head home.”

 

“It’s not sex, Bran, its this other level of something…I just don’t get it.”

 

“As long as you don’t get it in my pants, bro.”

**I signed up for the fanfic sight, but there is a waiting period before I can post.  I read some of the other slash fiction, all of it was pretty lame like mine.  I don't fee so strange about this (as I did last week with Wikipedia) because anyone who thinks I am an expert on this needs some counseling.  This is kind of fun.  I doubt the actors who played the characters or the writers/creators of the show would like this, but hey, that is what this class is all about.  Pushing those boundaries of the definitions of authorship.  I suppose I am now an author for 90210 stories.  Hmmm.  Sad!

Expert or Fraud-The Wikipedia Writer

I felt quite uncomfortable posting on Wikipedia.  I don’t think of myself as an expert, or even an amateur, on authorship.  I’m not sure I would feel comfortable posting anything on Wikipedia.  I lack the creative power to contribute to a working definition of author.  When looking over the history and realizing the last few posts were by classmates, I realized that I am guilty of wanting experts in the field to give me the information.  I think my classmates’ posts were good, better than mine, however, I feel a sense of distrust for Wikipedia in general.  It is difficult to let go of that past sense of academia, where experts are the only experts.  I will come around to this change as well. 

 

I do feel comfortable with fan sites and fan fiction.  An idea of collaboration in fiction is intriguing.  The collective intelligence of imagined worlds and characters adds to the fun and community feeling of being a fan.  Adding to any kind of enyclopedia, such as Wikipedia, feels fraudulent.  I realize the ideas from old style research and knowledge will continue to change and be influenced by non-scholarly experts and I accept those changes.  I don’t feel comfortable participating. 

Superman

Interesting piece regarding corporate authorship and copyright.

Superman Article

James Bond meets The Lone Ranger

This week's readings are of particular interest to me as I am working on a thesis dealing with the re-formulation of the James Bond films, starting with "Casino Royale."  I even have the Bennett and Woollacott book at home from the library.  In thinking about trans-media storytelling, it is easy to look to the history of James Bond as an example.  The novels tell stories of the cold war, the post-cold war Bond films use the stories, but using contemporary global issues of terror.  The adaption by the Bond films to contemporary global politics shows effective use of collaborative authorship, the new directors and writers use the original character or characters and inject contemporary issues for a new Bond story.  

The question of whether this is different from past trans-mediated stories, no.  In researching The Lone Ranger and the mediation of stories between radio, television and comics, it is true that the stories overlap between the medias.  The creator of The Lone Ranger used considerable control in making sure that the Lone Ranger character kept true to the original conception.  The values of the Lone Ranger, the voice of the Lone Ranger and the stories that surround him were kept in line with each other.  In the case of the Lone Ranger, continuity was extremely important and unchanging.  The stories were still mediated, but not changing.

The difference between the Lone Ranger and James Bond is that of adaptation to contemporary times and issues.  The Lone Ranger did not change from the late 1930's to the mid-1950's.  George Trendle would not allow any deviation from his vision.  James Bond has changed many times, in character, in villains and in global issues of terrorism.  Bond had to stay contemporary to stick around.  Bond is currently in his 5th decade on film.  That could not have happened if Bond had followed Trendle's model.  

The questions of authorship exist in both cases.  While Trendle was the creator and in charge, he had a lot of help.  The television show "The Lone Ranger" had multiple writers with assistance from the radio writer and Trendle himself.  The collaborative nature of authorship existed, though most gave credit to Trendle alone.  The Bond series has had many, many film writers and directors to give unique story and vision to each film.  There is no question of collaborative authorship with Bond.  While change is inevitable, when dealing with television or film, some form of collaborative authorship will occur.

Author-less

The question of what should be considered without an author is complicated. In class we have discussed the possibility that everything or nothing could be considered authored. We have all agreed that there is much gray area in that continuum. So back to the question, what should be authored. We read in Mcleod's article that hip-hop samples other musicians music constantly. They sometimes settle out of court, but there is no precedent to judge future DJ's works. But, if the hip-hop song was later used and/or taken out of context, the DJ could sue for infringement. While I am not answering the question, I find more and more tensions in the attempt to answer the questions. Even more difficulties arise when discussing verbal communications. Sermons are rarely written down in an accessible way. The recent controversy with one of Obama's supporters whose sermon happened to be videotaped. Do the news channels who keep showing the clip over and over again give authorsip to the minister, the videographer or CNN?

Legal Tensions in Authorship

While working on the readings this week, so many examples popped into my head.

The McLeod readings reminded me of issues that pop star singers had in the early 1990's.  Prince changed his name to a symbol in order to protest ownership by Sony of Prince's music.  Around the same time, George Michael was ordered by his label to make more albums and music videos in their format.  He protested this legal authority by producing music videos using words, supermodels and destroying all "historical" evidence of George Michael's past on MTV.  He refused to be in his videos.  This tension in ownership begs the interesting question, who was right?  The label legally owned George Michael's music and his artistic creations for the duration of the contract.  George Michael's creativity should have some ownership without the oppression of the label.  So in regard to McLeod's question of ownership of culture, does George Michael or the record label own the cultural art?  George Michael's Freedom

Reading Gaines brought up a couple more examples.  In the section of photography, I thought about Annie Leibovitz's famous photo of a naked John Lennon spooning his fully clothed wife, Yoko Ono.  The photo was taken for "Rolling Stone" magazine.  Who owns the photo?  Lennon and Yoko's image, or soul, resides within the photo.  Leibovitz's originality in posing and snapping the photo lives in the photo, makes the photo.  "Rolling Stone" requested a specific-type photo for its cover.  The tensions blur the ownership of that photo. 

John Lennon/Yoko Ono Photo by Annie Leibovitz 

Later in Gaines with the Nancy Sinatra piece, I recalled an 80's cover band at a conference.  I heard what I thought was the theme from "Ghostbusters" by Ray Parker, Jr. only to realize the song was Huey Lewis's song "I Want a New Drug."  I remembered the lawsuit in the 80's.  Lewis won and continues to make money every time the "Ghostbusters" theme song is played.  Looking at Handel's music as stealing further muddies this issue.  Does a particular sound belong to anyone?  It is hard to tell who owns sound.

I Want a New Drug by Huey Lewis and the News

Ghostbusters by Ray Parker Jr.

Also in watching the big football game (I would have said SuperBowl but it is trademarked) in early February, I noticed the disclaimer that stated something like "no rebroadcast or re-telling of the game is allowed without specific permission."  Does that mean I can't talk about Eli Manning's terrific throws to my friends after the game?  Legally, probably not.  Culture increases the fuzziness in these laws.  

Manning Pass to Win Game

So, more and more tensions arise in the study of authorship.  What are the answers in each of these cases?  What is right and what is wrong?  Those answers are open for discussion, and more discussion, where in the end, there likely won't be any definitive answers...again!

Authorship--Corporate Operations

In looking at authorship through corporate operations, we can see that there is yet another layer of tension in determining what defines authorship.  Is the writer or the corporation the owner?  When an instructor uses Blackboard at ODU, he or she no longer owns the text published on blackboard.  ODU (as corporation) owns the test or paper that has been published, not the instructor who put it there, who did the actual writing.  In looking at our past readings, we have been navigating who authors by looking at the writer as individual or as a part of a larger whole, we have looked at film producers and editors of novels, we have looked at advertising, now we look at "corporate authorship."  

The corporate author has more control over what is produced.  The corporate author brands anything written, filmed or in any other way articulated.  Disney, the corporation, has branded anything with the name Disney, including the television commercials persuading parents to take their kids to Walt Disney World.  There is control over what is attached to the name Disney.  When Disney films when the Academy Award, who gets the award?  Actually, it is the producer, although credit is given to Walt Disney Pictures Production.  There is a sense of ownership of the film by Disney, which in turn gives Disney authorship.

Corporate authorship seems to be driven by the owner/author rather than the audience.  In looking at "Lone Ranger" the power and the control are by the owner, George Trendell, as the author of the character, the brand and all the stories.  The different audiences, whether through advertising or through direct sales/readership, do not seem to have much control over corporate authors.  

Is Advertising Authored?

As much as any poem or magazine article is authored. In the late 1980's and early 1990's Nike had an ad campaign with lines of text responding to the idea that "you run like a girl" or "you throw like a girl" for their emerging Nike women's line. In competing for the speech and debate team at North Dakota State University, I used those lines of text, the ads, for one of my speeches. I got disqualified at my first tournament for stating "Nike Ads" and not naming the author. I called the Nike corporation and spoke with a woman who told me who the poet was. She was a published poet who wrote those texts. I called her an author at the next tournament. The bigger, more encompassing definition of author was also established as Nike hired her to write the specific text responding "I run like a girl, well, what do you think I am?" There were institutional and monetary restraints on the poet. The lines had to fit on a two-page magazine spread with graphics. The typeset was chosen and the words were placed on the page how the editor wanted them to look. The whole process made that Nike ad and authored piece. They were good empowering ads, I wish I still had them!

Is Tontobalboa an "Author"?

Independent Film - Mockumentary - Stuntman - The Movie by Tontobalboa

In Deciding whether or not this film should be published, or produced and shown in movie festivals with short films, I had to look into the current social conventions about short films and the idea of what types of films should be developed and produced.  This film uses the documentary format to fictitiously portray a stunt double working on a film, as well as the man for whom he is doubling.  The film is shot fairly professionally; there is good continuity and there is a definite narrative to the story.  The film's color is off.  There is a yellowish tint to the film. While the acting is amateurish, there are some good comedic scenes portraying the emotions of the characters.  This film is a parody, which is obvious, but uses conventions of film to make its case to be included in the world of "film."  This fellow, Tontobalboa, works within the existing filmmaking framework to portray his vision of a comedic look at the stupidity of using a stunt double for such a weak stunt.

In the Pierre Bourdieau reading, we see the conventions of publishing which must be met.  He breaks it down into two categories at the beginning of the piece.  There is that idea of high art, which this film does not meet.  He also asserts the idea of "art for art's sake.''  Here is the gray area in which we can decide whether Tontobalboa's film should be published.  It is obvious that he has already found an outlet for his art in You Tube.  And, perhaps, that is where this short film should stay.  If I am the editor, the decision maker, than I control the standards for deciding what should be "authored" and what should not be.  This film should not be.  It does not pass my standards for publishing, which is that it will appeal to a large audience, is good quality and makes a timely and contemporary argument.  It is fun to watch, but that is the extent of its appeal.

Humanism versus Materialism

If there were a scale from 1-10, 1 being totally humanist (creative genius, author as Author) and 10 being materialistic (no creativity, author as vessel, subject as important), I would fall in about the 4 range.  While I don't believe one singular author exists, I also believe that there is creativity and author subjectivity within the works.  No author exists in a bubble unto himself.  But, no work exists totally without author(s).  In the previous two weeks readings we discussed this spectrum.  Freud used creative writing as an outlet for personal fantasy.  I think there is some truth in that assertion.  Whether the work is the result of total fantasy and creativity or the combination of creativity and history, there is some part of the daydream which the author uses for inspiration.  Take for example, J.R.R. Tolkien.  It is well known that the Lord of the Rings series uses World War II as its historical base.  However, the reason the stories have been so popular for such a long time is the use of the fantastical, creative re-telling of that epic war.  It would seem that Tolkien was haunted by problems with WWII and found his dreamy fantasy as a way to work through some of that tensions.  That ties into the Wollen piece dealing with the auteur as working through issues throughout his body of work.  Whether conscious or not, there are ties in certain author's works which invite the audience to work through issues along with the author/auteur.  In the case of Peter Jackson, there seems to be some fascination with puppets/fantasy.  His early work dealt mainly with puppets and his last film, King Kong, dealt with one mother of a puppet.  Where the puppet fetish came from is for Jackson (and maybe his therapist to find out).  As for my 4 on the spectrum, both of the above examples are of collaborative efforts.  Tolkien collaborated with history to write the retelling of the war and Jackson collaborated with thousands of people working on his films.  While the creativity seems to branch from a source (seems to) there are always factors which aid in the creation of the work.

This weeks readings find a slightly different way of looking at authorship.  The Kompare piece illustrating the difficulties television encounters with labeling its shows with an author.  The example of Bruckheimer in the Kompare piece exemplifies the tension as to who gets the credit.  The Glass piece looks into the paranoia Mark Twain felt about plagiarism and theft. His attempts to trademark his signature illustrates his genuine fear of losing some of his authorial distinction.  If another person could write and sell under his name by using his signature, Twain's body of work could be rendered impossible to recognize.  That is authorship would come under question.  The Glass book outlines several instances of the author versus the celebrity.  The celebrity seems to exist in tangent, yet outside of the author's work.  The London chapter deals with two different instances, the idea that he was impersonated time after time and that he was accused of plagiarism time after time.  London seems to exemplify the very problem existing with the dichotomy of author and celebrity.  The tensions between what is London and what is "London" muddy the discussion of authorship even further, leaving interesting spaces for discussion. 

Technology, Institutions, Authorship...Oh My!

As if authorship by definition was not complicated enough, we must look further into the role that institutions and technology play in further defining "Author."

Institutions such as Random House, MGM, Google, YouTube, CBS, Playboy Magazine and Clear Channel Radio (as well as tons more), play key roles in storytelling. This means that if I wanted to write a television sitcom about a group of college kids in a dorm, I would first have to have at least been to a dorm to watch the interaction of the students. That would come as part of cultural background or history, which participates in the story. I would write a scene for the show, referring back to other sitcoms (i.e. Friends) that look at peer relationships. I would pitch the idea to someone at CBS, who could easily say, "No not a college dorm, but rather a hospital ER." I would re-write the scene with that information. Pitch it again. I get the go ahead to write the pilot. I am told by the execs from CBS that Tom Selleck must play a key role. There must be some reference to Viagra (sponsor) and the scrubs must not be peach or teal (already used on TV). Before I have even written a pilot episode, I have already collaborated with at least 15 sources. Whew! That doesn't account for the countless e-mails and text messages regarding ideas for the show.

This example shows that nothing is written in isolation. It never was. Cultural sociology and history, culture itself, plays an important role in shaping the inspiration for the story. J.K. Rowling ( a class favorite) claims she was influenced by her private boarding school to imagine Harry Potter. Complications arise in the definition of author (could some credit go to the school?).

Technology pushes the complications even further. By even posting this blog, I have conformed to Google's standards, as well as fulfilling the expectations of Avi. I am open to additional text in the comment sections (please comment!). All of which, through this computer and the Internet, complicate my authorship of this blog.

I have been troubled by the quest for that one singular definition of AUTHOR. I doubt it exists. I find slopping through the murk of complications and tensions to be the excitement surrounding authorship. I guess sometimes it is the travel, not the destination, that is the most fun and adventurous.

Favorite Authors

My favorite author of contemporary novels is John Irving.  I find his storytelling both challenging and interesting.  I also enjoy his willingness to turn his stories into films.  He even wrote the screenplay for Cider House Rules.  His talents endear him to me.

I like authors in film such as Billy Wilder, Tom Tykwer and Alfred Hitchcock.  Their control over the film stamps the film with their autograph.  I have seen several films by each and can always tell who's film it is.  I love turning on Turner Classic Movies and saying, that's a Hitchcock.  There is a continuity in their storytelling which peaks my interest.  

I enjoy music as well and see many songwriter's as authors, poets.  The difficulty in writing a song which will both entertain and tell a story produces some terrific authors.

My very favorite storytellers are children.  I would love for my granddaughter or my nephews to tell me stories every day.  I would like to think of them as future authors.  I hope so.

Kate, as Author

I am the author of this blog. I have another blog that I share with my husband (it is black). Because I am the sole author of this blog, it is pink! I chose the title. I decide what to write on the blog. I can add pictures or not. I choose the content of this blog. Except that there are limited templates, so it is not totally my design. And, I have had to agree with the guidelines set by blogspot. So while I feel like the sole author, I have been filtered by corporate America (Google).

I think part of my authorship is that there are (forced) readers of my blog. I feel secure in authoring this blog because there are readers/viewers. In defining my role as author, it must include someone to read what I write. Having the class as an audience adds to my role as author.