Posthumous Sequels

[j d worthington]

It depends on what you mean by re imagine.

If someone created a good story in a dead writers world, its alright if he recreated the world to make it his own.

But i dont think you should touch his characters. They are his,hers children. Create your own characters in a famous world thats alright.

But also if the world is more famous and important than the characters, then to me it feels wrong. For example i dislike the idea of Foundation novels done by others and stories set in REH famous worlds with Conan and co. Its like living in someone else house without them knowing it.


Someone using The Hyborian Age with own characters and story for example would be wrong. REH created not only a world but a very long history for it too.


Does this make sense?

Thankfully i dont think too much about these things, i act like people never wrote thier own Conan and Foundation stories and the like

The thing is, this is a valid literary form that has been with us at least since Virgil -- actually, earlier than that, with all the other poets who picked up threads and/or characters from earlier works and added to them. The so-called "Homerica", all tied to the poems we still know as The Illiad and The Odyssey, which came somewhere around the middle of the cycle, as I recall. Such has been done throughout literary history, and many of these have become classics of world literature. Think of Beowulf (the original, or the form we have of it) and John Gardner's Grendel, which retells the legend from the monster's point of view. Gardner was hardly a hack; he was, in fact, a wonderful novelist, and Grendel is a wonderul book in its own right. There's also the Orlando Furioso of Ariosto, which took characters from pre-existing works and retold tales (and invented new material) in his own voice and manner.

In more modern terms, we have people all over the place playing in HPL's sandbox and, while the majority of these are at best mediocre, there are also some gems that show up now and again, by such writers as T. E. D. Klein, Ramsey Campbell, Thomas Ligotti, W. H. Pugmire, etc. They, also, sometimes use characters invented by Lovecraft; in fact, Fritz Leiber did so with some tales written as homage to his deceased friend and, while they're not Lovecraft (nor would HPL have wanted them to be) they are often quite good stories nonetheless.

I think the problem here is one of expectations. If you're expecting another writer to write in the original writer's voice, you will inevitably be disappointed. If you're interested in seeing what another writer did with the original's themes, ideas, characters, world, etc., they can often be quite good, though different. The problem I would have, myself, is when they ignore what the creator of these things had in mind, and push their own version as "the" authentic version. Respect and affection for the original writer's work is very important, and you should know them backward and forward before attempting such a thing. Also, you should be adding something to it, not just rehashing or reinterpreting in the more limited sense. Otherwise, it simply becomes fan-fiction written by professionals. You need to have something to say, but you also have to walk the tightrope of not straying too far from the creator's own vision. As I said before, sort of like playing Russian roulette....

However, when it's done well, it can enrich the enjoyment of the original material, too, by giving a new way of looking at it, bringing out facets you might not have noticed before (and might well never have noticed, for that matter). So, while I'd advise strong caution in taking on such a task, I don't think it's something that should be verboten; just something to think seriously about before tackling.

As for Gregory Maguire... well, his works are, I'd say, affectionate satires of, but with points of their own to make as well. There's a serious underlying thread in them, I think (though I could be mistaken here), but essentially he's parodying classic works; again, a perfectly valid literary genre which has produced some wonderful work over the years.

 

[Werthead]

I think that there are certain books that are so untouchable that any alleged 'sequel' can be considered nothing more than a thought experiment or merely one of many possible continuations of the story. Adam Roberts' Swiftly and Stephen Baxter's The Time Ships are both excellent books, but no-one's really going around considering them 'canon' sequels to Gulliver's Travels and The Time Machine. Similarly, Anderson and Herbert's hack efforts are not considered Dune 'canon' by anyone I know, even those who enjoyed the prequels.

Given that Robert Jordan first rose to attention writing unauthorised Conan novels, I think it would frankly be hypocritical for people getting upset if someone else finished Wheel of Time based on Jordan's clear notes and directions.

And then there's Tolkien's The Children of Hurin...

This is an interesting one. The Children of Hurin and The Silmarillion were both posthumously edited by someone else, but in both books Tolkien himself wrote and plotted them. The Silmarillion has more 'editorial intervention' than TCoH, but Tolkien himself gave Christopher carte blanche to publish the book and get it out there should he die before completing it, so that seems fair enough. Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle-earth series were merely collections of Tolkien's writings published with some editorial comment but no invention, which I was fine with.

Whenever this subject comes up Tolkien's name is always thrown into the ring, and it's not quite the same thing.

 

[j d worthington]

This is an interesting one. The Children of Hurin and The Silmarillion were both posthumously edited by someone else, but in both books Tolkien himself wrote and plotted them. The Silmarillion has more 'editorial intervention' than TCoH, but Tolkien himself gave Christopher carte blanche to publish the book and get it out there should he die before completing it, so that seems fair enough. Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle-earth series were merely collections of Tolkien's writings published with some editorial comment but no invention, which I was fine with.

Whenever this subject comes up Tolkien's name is always thrown into the ring, and it's not quite the same thing.

Exactly. The only quibble is that there were some very slight transitional passages that CRRT did (as I understand it) for The Silmarillion, but they were (intentionally) very small, and necessary in order to make it a continuous narrative rather than a series of fragmentary writings as with The History of Middle Earth. This was certainly a case of a book that, had it not been published, a lot of us would have been a lot poorer because of it. The others were given no more "tampering" than would be the case with any work by a well-known author which was published posthumously.

 

[iansales]

Adam Roberts' Swiftly and Stephen Baxter's The Time Ships are both excellent books, but no-one's really going around considering them 'canon' sequels to Gulliver's Travels and The Time Machine. Similarly, Anderson and Herbert's hack efforts are not considered Dune 'canon' by anyone I know, even those who enjoyed the prequels.

The Time Ships was authorised by the Wells Estate, so it's as canon as it could be 50 years after Wells' death.

And the two Dune sequels are based on Frank Herbert's notes, which arguably makes them no different in that respect to the final book of the Wheel of Time.

 

[Werthead]

The Time Ships was authorised by the Wells Estate, so it's as canon as it could be 50 years after Wells' death.

And the two Dune sequels are based on Frank Herbert's notes, which arguably makes them no different in that respect to the final book of the Wheel of Time.

Until we see those notes, I take that claim with a grain of salt the size of Kevin J. Anderson's ego.

As for Wells, his great-grandson or whoever saying it's okay doesn't really do it for me. Unless the author himself okays it, I don't see any such work as being anything other than a 'what if?' scenario, albeit in Baxter's case a very well-written 'what if?'

Interesting to see how the Songs of the Dying Earth project turns out, with several major fantasy authors writing new Dying Earth stories subject to Jack Vance's approval.

 

[Quokka]

A while back in the book search thread the Robot City and Robots and Aliens books came up which look interesting. The Robot City stories were apparently written in response to a challange by Isaac Asimov and has writers expanding upon Asimov's universe while the later Robots and Aliens has authors exploring how robots might interpret the 3 laws of robotics when dealing with alien species?

They sound interesting but I haven't read any of them yet as I figure I should probably read Asimov's works first .

 

[Connavar]

The thing is, this is a valid literary form that has been with us at least since Virgil -- actually, earlier than that, with all the other poets who picked up threads and/or characters from earlier works and added to them. The so-called "Homerica", all tied to the poems we still know as The Illiad and The Odyssey, which came somewhere around the middle of the cycle, as I recall. Such has been done throughout literary history, and many of these have become classics of world literature. Think of Beowulf (the original, or the form we have of it) and John Gardner's Grendel, which retells the legend from the monster's point of view. Gardner was hardly a hack; he was, in fact, a wonderful novelist, and Grendel is a wonderul book in its own right. There's also the Orlando Furioso of Ariosto, which took characters from pre-existing works and retold tales (and invented new material) in his own voice and manner.

In more modern terms, we have people all over the place playing in HPL's sandbox and, while the majority of these are at best mediocre, there are also some gems that show up now and again, by such writers as T. E. D. Klein, Ramsey Campbell, Thomas Ligotti, W. H. Pugmire, etc. They, also, sometimes use characters invented by Lovecraft; in fact, Fritz Leiber did so with some tales written as homage to his deceased friend and, while they're not Lovecraft (nor would HPL have wanted them to be) they are often quite good stories nonetheless.

I think the problem here is one of expectations. If you're expecting another writer to write in the original writer's voice, you will inevitably be disappointed. If you're interested in seeing what another writer did with the original's themes, ideas, characters, world, etc., they can often be quite good, though different. The problem I would have, myself, is when they ignore what the creator of these things had in mind, and push their own version as "the" authentic version. Respect and affection for the original writer's work is very important, and you should know them backward and forward before attempting such a thing. Also, you should be adding something to it, not just rehashing or reinterpreting in the more limited sense. Otherwise, it simply becomes fan-fiction written by professionals. You need to have something to say, but you also have to walk the tightrope of not straying too far from the creator's own vision. As I said before, sort of like playing Russian roulette....

However, when it's done well, it can enrich the enjoyment of the original material, too, by giving a new way of looking at it, bringing out facets you might not have noticed before (and might well never have noticed, for that matter). So, while I'd advise strong caution in taking on such a task, I don't think it's something that should be verboten; just something to think seriously about before tackling.

As for Gregory Maguire... well, his works are, I'd say, affectionate satires of, but with points of their own to make as well. There's a serious underlying thread in them, I think (though I could be mistaken here), but essentially he's parodying classic works; again, a perfectly valid literary genre which has produced some wonderful work over the years.

The Illiad ,The Odyssey ,Beowulf you cant really compare those with the works and authors i was talking about. Totaly different thing.

Those three doesnt belong to a writer but they are classic stories you learn about in school that is for everyone. They arent the most famous of work of ONE writer.



Also for me its not expectation problem, it doesnt matter how good you are dont "steal" someone famous work. For me its only alright if you were close the writer and he wanted to finish his work when he is dead.

I dont want to see the writers voice written by someone else, its clear to me thats impossible.

For example i saw Robert Jordan "famous" Conan work in the library. People talking about like he created it and is famous for it. That disgusted me and even more when i couldnt find REH Conan in the library but RJ "modern" Conan was all over the place. I saw some kids reading it, thinking that was the real Conan.

L. Sprague de Camp i think more highly of, he and the others at the time they were editing REH works and wrote their own Conan atleast they made sure REH fame survived to our time.

You say when its done well, thats even worse IMO. Getting praise for someone else work that you just remade.



Only time im okay with these things are when they create something in a world you know. I dont want to the dead writers characters and world copied and pasted. Create something new,something your own or stay away. I dont want the dead authors vision getting corrupted by something thinking he has to do the same.

Most of these kind of sequals are done by money hungry publishers and fame hungry writers. Which is why i stay away from them.

Im too loyal to my fav classic writers that i dont want see thier name and works getting ruined. Who needs sequals like these? An author might die but his books stay alive much longer than him.

 

[Quokka]

I was going to mention Jordan's Conan stories before, if there is an upside to even bad sequels it's that some of the people who read them will go on to investigate the original stories. I read Jordan's Conan stories and really didn't think a great deal of them but I did come away wanting to go back and read Robert E Howard's works, I haven't yet but they're certainly on the 'to read' pile.

 

[HardScienceFan]

everybody should leave van Vogt alone
nobody wrote like A.E.van Vogt,and my guess is nobody will ever come near him.

that 's sacrilege,that is.

you guessed it: dead writers are just that.


their heritage is their own.

 

[Connavar]

I was going to mention Jordan's Conan stories before, if there is an upside to even bad sequels it's that some of the people who read them will go on to investigate the original stories. I read Jordan's Conan stories and really didn't think a great deal of them but I did come away wanting to go back and read Robert E Howard's works, I haven't yet but they're certainly on the 'to read' pile.

Thats only good things with these things. Hopefully people will read the original writers and stories when they read these so called sequals.

 

[bruno-1012]

I think that it can cause problems.

There are the doc Smith books that continue the series and some I don't mind but they have a certain feel that something is different as I read them.

I don't mean the Lensman stuff that feels like 'we have all the rules for how this universe works, lets throw them out and go in a different direction'. These I can't go back to easily.

In terms of the Jane Austin sequels. I have read 1.5 of the Berdoll Pride and Prejudice sequence and they have been turned into bonkfests. Of course, that is what the modern reader of this type of book expects isn't it?

She has also played a bit loose with the continuity described in the original epilogue which jars...BIG TIME!

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

The Illiad ,The Odyssey ,Beowulf you cant really compare those with the works and authors i was talking about.
Those three doesnt belong to a writer but they are classic stories you learn about in school that is for everyone.

I agree that with the classic story cycles it's impossible to identify the story with a single author. But where the author is known, at what point does something pass into the cultural heritage to the point that it belongs to everyone? (And what does learning about it in school have to do with it, anyway? We studied John Steinbeck and a good many other twentieth century writers when I was in school.)

Take Shakespeare's plays, as a prime example. I think one could make a good argument that the stories and the characters belong to everyone by now. (But if we admit that argument, at what point do these things become public property, and who decides?) Then, too, Shakespeare borrowed with a very free hand from older dramatists -- and Robert Greene, in his famous rant about the Upstart Crow, seemed to think that Shakespeare was borrowing from his contemporaries as well. Is it all right to adapt those borrowed stories, but his original characters should be untouchable? For that matter, at this remove, how do we know for sure which are original and which owe their existence to somebody else's imagination?

Except for JD, people seem to be sheering away from the question about writers who rewrite somebody else's work. But surely this "corrupts" the work to a far greater extent than a sequel, which leaves the original story absolutely intact (unless the back story is changed, to make it fit with the new author's own ideas). In Wicked, Gregory Maguire obviously includes some biting satire -- but it doesn't seem to be Baum's story he is satirizing. The moment you sit down to write satire, are you suddenly allowed to plunder where you will? Unlike the fairy tales he rewrites, where one could argue that the stories in their earliest forms were far from sweet and innocent, here he has taken a beloved children's story by a known author, and introduced some very dark and ugly things, which are clearly NOT in the spirit of the original author. His stories, in fact, have so little to do with L. Frank Baum's Oz, you could change all of the names of people and places and the books would still work. Except ... that it's unlikely that Wicked (which is, I believe, the book that really made Maguire's name) would have received the same kind of attention without the association with Oz. It seems like there is a marketing ploy in here somewhere, but it's dangerous to interpret other people's motivations. And even though I don't like anything of his that I have read, and am particularly dismayed by what he has done to Baum's world and characters, I'd be the last person to accuse him of lack of imagination or of needing to steal other people's ideas because he has none of his own.

With Allende's Zorro, on the other hand, the author already had an international reputation. She's a bit of an icon herself. So there seems to have been no commercial considerations at all; she simply wanted to reinterpret the story. And there is no doubt that Isabel Allende is a far superior writer, with more imaginative range, than Johnston McCulley. And while I don't like what she has done with the story, others might think she has improved it.

I see no such justification for The Looking Glass Wars. In reinterpreting Wonderland, it seems that Beddor has introduced nothing really new, just dragged in a lot of elements from elsewhere without really trying to bind them together into any coherent whole. The prose is awkward and undistinguished. The characters are not even cardboard; they are much too thin for that. And he has not been satisfied merely to tamper with the Reverend Dodgson's story, but he has done the same with Dodgson's life.

Which brings us to historical novels that include real people in their casts of characters. Is this better or worse than reworking or continuing somebody else's story? Here, the author is altering, perhaps corrupting, the details of a person's very life: putting words into their mouths that they never said, thoughts into their heads that they never spoke. What about alternate history stories -- is the fact that you are writing about an actual person as they "might have been" under other circumstances any mitigation? And if it is, couldn't the same excuse be applied to unauthorized sequels -- that they take place in an alternate universe from the original? If you were the person being written about, would you rather have someone make free with something you had written, or misrepresent not only the details of your life, but who you think you are? And if you think there is nothing wrong with writing alternate histories about real people, how can you condemn those who write alternate histories about imaginary ones?

Adam Roberts' Swiftly and Stephen Baxter's The Time Ships are both excellent books, but no-one's really going around considering them 'canon' sequels to Gulliver's Travels and The Time Machine.

You could call T. H. White's Mistress Masham's Repose a sequel to Gulliver's Travels, since it explains what happened to the Lilliputians that Gulliver brought back to England with him. Yet beyond that, White owes very little to the original book. He takes the idea of the Lilliputians in England and writes his own original story.

So while I am not a big fan of sequels to dead authors' works, and I do get disgusted when I see someone utterly twisting and besmirching somebody else's characters (and suspect they are doing it in the cynical expectation that the notoriety they achieve will fill their pockets) -- still, I don't think that the subject is as simple and unequivocal as some of the people posting here seem to think.

 

[Connavar]

I dunno why i wrote the school thing actually I was too much in a high gear to notice that.


My view might be cynical cause i see it as wrong to fill your pockets on someone else fame. IMO the subject isnt complex.


Historical novels is totaly different. Writing about Ceasar life in a fictionlized story is not wrong. Its not Historical Bio, you cant corrupt anything of a real person in a fiction story.

 

[j d worthington]

The Illiad ,The Odyssey ,Beowulf you cant really compare those with the works and authors i was talking about. Totaly different thing.

Those three doesnt belong to a writer but they are classic stories you learn about in school that is for everyone. They arent the most famous of work of ONE writer.

Except, Connavar, that The Illiad and The Odyssey, at least, have been thought to be the work of a single person by the name of Homer at different times (just as there have been times when "Homer" has been thought to be a name given to a series of anonymous authors of the tales). And, once again, throughout history, numerous writers of varying stature have dipped into these, retold them, re-imagined them, done modern versions of tales which obviously hearken back to them. The same is true of Virgil, Aeschylus, Aristophanes, Apuleius.... And what of those works which utilize Dante's Commedia? Some very good work has been done based upon his epic poem. Paradise Lost? Pilgrim's Progress? And your mention of de Camp brings up the stories he and Fletcher Pratt wrote set in the worlds (and using the characters) of Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene, Ariosto's Orlando Furioso, etc., and neither of those writers could be called talentless, nor are the stories lacking... they are some of the best, wittiest, and sharpest humorous fantasy written.

Also for me its not expectation problem, it doesnt matter how good you are dont "steal" someone famous work. For me its only alright if you were close the writer and he wanted to finish his work when he is dead.

There's no "stealing" going on here. Credit is given to the original writer, with due notice that this is not his or her work, but the work of someone else either inspired by the original or (in some cases) asked by the estate, etc., to add to the work.

Only time im okay with these things are when they create something in a world you know. I dont want to the dead writers characters and world copied and pasted. Create something new,something your own or stay away. I dont want the dead authors vision getting corrupted by something thinking he has to do the same.

Most of these kind of sequals are done by money hungry publishers and fame hungry writers. Which is why i stay away from them.

Several different things going on here, I'd say. For one thing, a lot of modern sequels are "cashing in on" the popularity of a famous original. These, I agree, should be treated very warily. But there are also an awful lot of "sequels", etc., written by writers out of a desire to repay a debt to a writer who inspired them; these are, in a sense, a sort of literary token of affection and often the only way a living writer can pay homage to a dead one -- perhaps someone they would love to have met or corresponded with, but either died before they were born, or their paths never crossed during the older writer's life. While a fair number of these are more affecting as hommage than as story, I would be the last to say any writer doing so shouldn't be allowed to pay his/her respects this way... even if I dont' like the work they've done. And, as I noted, there are always the exceptions which are truly good works on their own, however rare.

Once again, I'd say approach such things with caution... but be open to the fact that an awful lot of those which have been written have been done for much nobler reasons than those you give above. Most of the writers who are capitalizing on their betters don't tend to last any more than the majority of talentless pop groups in music. The cream rises, the dross sinks. Which sort of addresses your final point:

Im too loyal to my fav classic writers that i dont want see thier name and works getting ruined. Who needs sequals like these? An author might die but his books stay alive much longer than him.

That's just it... the original writer's work survives, whatever someone else does to "copy" or "cash in on", etc., where it is concerned. So their names and works don't get ruined. They remain untouched. Their reputations, if deserved, are secure.

As Teresa notes, some of the greatest writers of all time have followed such a practice. Shakespeare certainly did, with an enormous number of his plays. Marlowe, Dekker, Webster... all were writing plays taken from the same originals, often at the same time, and often cribbing from their contemporaries... yet they nonetheless created something very much uniquely their own, and among them are some of the most powerful works of literature, from The Tragicall History of Dr. Faustus to Macbeth. Lovecraft certainly took ideas from other writers and put his own spin on them, usually because he felt they didn't realize the full potential of the idea, but also because his imagination took fire at the concept they had brought forth. Howard did more than his share of such imitation, sometimes changing the names, but his influences are often blatant, especially with Fennimore Cooper, Talbot Mundy, Harold Lamb, etc. And Philip José Farmer has quite often used others characters for some very original work, sometimes as hommage, sometimes to examine the idea of the popular myth. Among those he has revisited are Phineas Fogg, Doc Savage, Tarzan, Alice Liddell, The Shadow, Kilgore Trout... and Baum's Oz and Munchkins, etc. Hell, even Heinlein did this on at least one occasion. Michael Moorcock has also used the creations of others (such as Swinburne's fictional poet, Ernest Wheldrake), not only for the recognition value, but for the associations tied to such, in furtherance of points he wishes to make with his own work. (Incidentally, Teresa, I'd say that's what Maguire was doing using Baum's characters. It's a tricky technique, and where his books are concerned at least, it's very much a debated point whether he succeeds in using this or not. But, as you say, it's not because he lacks talent or is a hack... far from it. But he may be a bit too given to asperity for this to be a good choice on his part where Baum is concerned....)

Once again, I'd argue that there is no hard-and-fast rule that applies to all cases, as talented writers will take their inspiration from wherever it occurs naturally; to hamstring them by saying they "can't" do this or that is to put a halter on a writer's imagination, for one never knows whether what they are triggered to do will be a brilliant work or dross, at least until it's done.

 

[Connavar]

Im not saying the writers that writes these sequals are bad or anything. I have seen many great writers do something like this.



You said this:

For one thing, a lot of modern sequels are "cashing in on" the popularity of a famous original. These, I agree, should be treated very warily.

Thats exactly what i dont like about these sequals.

I dont have anything someone using McBeth,Beowulf etc and doing something new with it. Its the cashing in on the popularity of a famous original that i have a problem with.Another good example is The Stars My Destination. I didnt care at all that Bester was inspired alot by The Count of Monte Cristo and made a similer story in a SF setting. He did a totaly new story of it.

Can you see the difference? I have only a problem with a small portion of this thing. People that keep realesing things only to make money on dead authors famous work.

Thats what easy to dislike for me. The other things you guys are talking about i cant say alot about since i havent come across them much.

 

[gully_foyle]

everybody should leave van Vogt alone
nobody wrote like A.E.van Vogt,and my guess is nobody will ever come near him.

that 's sacrilege,that is.

you guessed it: dead writers are just that.


their heritage is their own.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Ben, you rock!

 

[j d worthington]

Im not saying the writers that writes these sequals are bad or anything. I have seen many great writers do something like this.



You said this:

For one thing, a lot of modern sequels are "cashing in on" the popularity of a famous original. These, I agree, should be treated very warily.

Thats exactly what i dont like about these sequals.

I dont have anything someone using McBeth,Beowulf etc and doing something new with it. Its the cashing in on the popularity of a famous original that i have a problem with.Another good example is The Stars My Destination. I didnt care at all that Bester was inspired alot by The Count of Monte Cristo and made a similer story in a SF setting. He did a totaly new story of it.

Can you see the difference? I have only a problem with a small portion of this thing. People that keep realesing things only to make money on dead authors famous work.

Thats what easy to dislike for me. The other things you guys are talking about i cant say alot about since i havent come across them much.

Indeed, Connavar; that clarifies things considerably (or perhaps my brain just hasn't been working all that well lately... a definite possibility!)

Oh, and Ben: you're right. No one could ever write like Van... I'm not sure anyone ever quite thought like Van, for that matter..... (And no, this is not a put-down of the man; I consider his work to be very important to the field.)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Interesting that the money aspect is what disturbs you, Connavar. If someone were writing something using my world and characters after my death and my copyright ran out, it seems more important to me that whoever it was respected the material, tried to write something in the same spirit, and wrote something good, rather than whether or not they were able to "cash in."

I wonder if those who are so unhappy after reading the latter day Dune books would feel the same if the execution hadn't been so horrible? I'm assuming you must have liked the idea of someone continuing the series, or you would never have read the Herbert/KJA collaborations to begin with? Supposing Brian Herbert had found someone who was really good to collaborate with?

Another thing I wonder is if all this indignation I see here extends to fan fiction written during a writer's lifetime? What about slash? Because I remember getting beaten up very badly around here a year or so ago, when I defended a (hypothetical) living author's right to block the publication of fan fiction. Does an author have to be dead before his or her work becomes untouchable?

 

[iansales]

I don't know whether it was "cashing in" or not, but Stephen Goldin wrote a series of ten novels based on notes left by EE 'Doc' Smith after his death - the Family d'Alembert series. The books were published as by "EE 'Doc' Smith with Stephen Goldin" (Goldin's name in much smaller type, of course). The last two books in the series are hard to find and often go for around £20 on eBay. That's because their print runs were small - so clearly the series wasn't making money towards the end.

 

[Connavar]

Interesting that the money aspect is what disturbs you, Connavar. If someone were writing something using my world and characters after my death and my copyright ran out, it seems more important to me that whoever it was respected the material, tried to write something in the same spirit, and wrote something good, rather than whether or not they were able to "cash in."

I wonder if those who are so unhappy after reading the latter day Dune books would feel the same if the execution hadn't been so horrible? I'm assuming you must have liked the idea of someone continuing the series, or you would never have read the Herbert/KJA collaborations to begin with? Supposing Brian Herbert had found someone who was really good to collaborate with?

Another thing I wonder is if all this indignation I see here extends to fan fiction written during a writer's lifetime? What about slash? Because I remember getting beaten up very badly around here a year or so ago, when I defended a (hypothetical) living author's right to block the publication of fan fiction. Does an author have to be dead before his or her work becomes untouchable?

Its not the money itself that bothers.

Its the fact that they are only after fast money when they do sequals that bothers me .

Just like Ian posted the post after yours.


You said you wouldnt mind if someone respected the material and wrote something in the same spirit thats alright.

I have seen peope close to dead authors finish series. Thats good for the fans that want an end to their loved series. I dont have a problem with that.

Stella Gemmell finished David Gemmell last book after his death. Many DG fans that read that book saw thats it was in the same spirit but it wasnt the same as he wrote it of course. I respect her for finishing it and deciding not to write anymore of books in his worlds. Just like i think she knew you couldnt copy the way another writer does his work.