I don't think she's over-reacting at all.
I don't see her story as open ended. It's pretty clear cut, Jack is dead.
I don't knock any slash authors or fans....but I've read so many different directions the story went under, and the characters are legally owned by Annie.
She has the right to say what she feels about her creation.
I can't believe that people would send her their versions of her characters......that's really odd to me. And when you add to it that most people came to know the characters from the movie, not her story, I'm sure she's annoyed by that as well.
it is interesting to me that she says it is MEN that are sending her stuff...it is my perception that the fan fic community has as many women as men if not more. Is Proulx assuming it is only men sending her stuff or is it in fact only men?
I don't think she's over-reacting at all.
I don't see her story as open ended. It's pretty clear cut, Jack is dead.
I don't knock any slash authors or fans....but I've read so many different directions the story went under, and the characters are legally owned by Annie.
She has the right to say what she feels about her creation.
I can't believe that people would send her their versions of her characters......that's really odd to me. And when you add to it that most people came to know the characters from the movie, not her story, I'm sure she's annoyed by that as well.
I think it’s important to leave spaces in a story for readers to fill in from their own experience, but unfortunately the audience that Brokeback reached most strongly have powerful fantasy lives. And one of the reasons we keep the gates locked here is that a lot of men have decided that the story should have had a happy ending. They can’t bear the way it ends—they just can’t stand it. So they rewrite the story, including all kinds of boyfriends and new lovers and so forth after Jack is killed. And it just drives me wild.
I don't think she's over-reacting at all.
I don't see her story as open ended. It's pretty clear cut, Jack is dead.
I don't knock any slash authors or fans....but I've read so many different directions the story went under, and the characters are legally owned by Annie.
She has the right to say what she feels about her creation.
I can't believe that people would send her their versions of her characters......that's really odd to me. And when you add to it that most people came to know the characters from the movie, not her story, I'm sure she's annoyed by that as well.
This interview is a rehash of her earlier "pornish rewrites" rant.
Anyone who's read Annie knows she's not big on happy endings. However, having written the story, with all its ambiguity, and the nerve she struck in so many people, she'll just have to get used to the fact that, although she "owns" the characters, Jack and Ennis now belong to the world.
It's bigger than her. Of course people get that it's about homophobia. It just doesn't end there. It's a springboard for all kinds of things.
If she didn't want it interpreted in different "fantasy" ways, she shouldn't have left those "open spaces" then...
Respectfully, I really don't think she did, Eric. I have the short story handy next to the bed, of course... ::)"So now he [Ennis] knew it had been the tire iron."
In the short story, I find Ennis a reliable narrator. I would guess that in Annie's opinion, this one sentence should settle it.
Edit:
And in the sentence about 'open spaces' - the space is "between what he [again Ennis] knew and what he tried to believe". The use of the word 'tried' makes me think that Ennis sees Jack's fate as murder, although he tries hard not to. This doesn't come through quite the same way in the film.
Respectfully, I really don't think she did, Eric. I have the short story handy next to the bed, of course... ::)"So now he [Ennis] knew it had been the tire iron."
In the short story, I find Ennis a reliable narrator. I would guess that in Annie's opinion, this one sentence should settle it.
Edit:
And in the sentence about 'open spaces' - the space is "between what he [again Ennis] knew and what he tried to believe". The use of the word 'tried' makes me think that Ennis sees Jack's fate as murder, although he tries hard not to. This doesn't come through quite the same way in the film.
no matter HOW anyone feels about the characters in a story, if a writer says she is not interested in seeing fan fic, that should be respected. No one has a write to harass someone to the point they feel they have to live behind a fence.\
she isn't trying to keep anyone from writing it..she just doesnt want to be bothered.
She says she "owns those characters".....I think she lost that right of ownership when she gave it to Ang Lee, McMurtry,Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal who put the face and emotions to the characters.
I completely agree with Amanda...
Sure.....she wrote the words of BBM, but she did not write the words of all the stories of the people affected by it.
I wonder if she has ever looked past her own ego or her own publicity, to really take a look at what that story has done for people.
so nice to see the gratitude and love...
how dare this woman not be a perfect saint!! How dare she not get on her knees and appreciate the largesse bestowed upon her! The ungrateful wretch!
I for one appreciate her sharing her gift with us, and if she wishes to be left alone about it, then that is enough for me. She owes me nothing.
I on the other hand owe her gratitude for giving me Jack and Ennis.
This is about more than just fanfic. It seems to be about Proulx disavowing BBM as a movie and even as a story too. I think that trying to all of a sudden rigidly define what BBM is about almost ruins the poetry of the open-endedness of BBM.
Everyone understands that she holds the copyright. But, I'll ask again, if she didn't want her story to be manipulated why did she allow it to be turned into a movie.. writen by other people, with new characters invented, details invented, things happening that never happened in the story? She let it happen to The Shipping News too. And, I'll also just re-iterate that Larry McMurtry's voice as a writer is there loud and clear in the screenplay... so again, she wasn't always so upset with the idea of other writers co-opting and re-working her story.
What she says in the interview quoted in the first post seems amazingly short-sighted. It's hard for me to believe that she could say some of the things she said in the interview. I always thought of her as more nuanced than that. I hope Lee's right that the interview is somehow taken out of context.
:-\
Well, I have never been an admirer of Annie Proulx.........in fact I would never have ever heard of her if it wasn't for BBM.
I agree that she has written one of the most poignant stories ever written, which in turn was transformed into one of the most fascinating and mind renching films ever produced.
She underestimates the feelings and intelligence of the people who are still mesmerised by her story. She underestimates people have changed their lives because of it.
Sure.....she wrote the words of BBM, but she did not write the words of all the stories of the people affected by it.
I wonder if she has ever looked past her own ego or her own publicity, to really take a look at what that story has done for people.
Whether she likes it or not, Jack and Ennis have become real people to some of us. Its a bit like Santa Clause, it makes us feel good to believe in them.
Whether she likes it or not, she is always going to be questioned and asked about BBM.
Whether she likes it or not, she is always going to be known more for BBM than any other book she writes.
I have no doubt she must get sick of fan fiction being sent to her, but she must have a rubbish bin,she should use it.
Expressing her views about it publicly will do nothing for her career or her popularity.
Her interview is initially about the shit that is sent to her, but it also seems to be condemning all of us who have taken the characters into our hearts.
She says she "owns those characters".....I think she lost that right of ownership when she gave it to Ang Lee, McMurtry,Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal who put the face and emotions to the characters.
To say that "people think it is about two cowboys", also shows her lack of knowledge of those of us who obsess over the movie, or even write fan fiction about the story.....I am sure we are all fully aware of what the story is about.
Somebody should tell her not to bite the hand that feeds her, and if she is gonna do it, do it privately.
I think that has to do more with the medium than quality. One is a short story, and the other a movie that received a lot of attention from press etc. Movies most often get more attention than the novels they are based on.
The movie, in my opinion was a long way off the original story, with things added and things changed, and really, lets face it, the movie is far far bigger than her written story......we didn't see forums started like this one, about the story in the paper, how many of us would be Brokies because of the story alone?
I wonder what her reaction would have been if she'd had let Gus Van Sant do Brokeback Mountain a la "My Own Private Idaho" style... I bet her head would have spun around when she saw the finished product. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Like Paul said whatever happened to Annie's statement about "finishing the story..."?
It's about how her audience interpreted the story in their own ways. She deliberately left "open space" in the story for it to be interpreted by the reader. And now she's upset with some of the interpretations. Why should they bother her? Yes, the reader got initially what the story was about. They read her work. IMO, she should be grateful for that.
But because a few folks took their interpretations a few steps further than how she would have, she now condems everybody and the whole story and wishes she never wrote it? Oh come on, what a temper tantram fit for a bitchy drama queen!!
I actually feel kind of insulted by her. She first gave us this gift of a movie that touched us all (in many different ways, as she intended it to with her "open spaces") and now she wants to take it all back from us? I used to have respect for her, but now I think I just wanna bitch slap her... OMG lady, let it go...
This interview is a rehash of her earlier "pornish rewrites" rant.
Anyone who's read Annie knows she's not big on happy endings. However, having written the story, with all its ambiguity, and the nerve she struck in so many people, she'll just have to get used to the fact that, although she "owns" the characters, Jack and Ennis now belong to the world.
It's bigger than her. Of course people get that it's about homophobia. It just doesn't end there. It's a springboard for all kinds of things.
Just think how we would feel if Heath or Jake had said something similar about BBM.
That interview was more than about copyright, and Im sure if she could take legal action against fan fic writers, she would have done it by now.
The movie, in my opinion was a long way off the original story, with things added and things changed, and really, lets face it, the movie is far far bigger than her written story......we didn't see forums started like this one, about the story in the paper, how many of us would be Brokies because of the story alone? How many of us, only bought the book, because of the movie?
I think Annie Proloux has a higher opinion of herself than a lot of others do.
I wonder what her reaction would have been if she'd had let Gus Van Sant do Brokeback Mountain a la "My Own Private Idaho" style... I bet her head would have spun around when she saw the finished product. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Imagine someone like Keanu Reeves as Ennis. ... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Well, but "finishing the story" is one thing. Telling an author he or she should have written an entirely different story than he or she wrote is quite something else.
As Annie essentially says, she didn't set out to write a story about two gay cowboys in love. She set out to write a story about homophobia.
I think it's interesting that she seems in particular to single out the "moving-on Ennis" genre of fanfiction for her authorial indignation. :-\
Her head did spin around when she saw the finish product of "The Shipping News", she hated the movie and refused to have anything to do with its promotion. And that was her Pulitzer winning book.
I haven't read any messages referring to Annie Proulx as a bitch, Brad.
I used to have respect for her, but now I think I just wanna bitch slap her... OMG lady, let it go...
But the fact remains that despite the "Shipping News" fiasco AP did keep in contact with the Brokeback scriptwriters and she met up with various people seeking to make a movie out of BBM - Ang Lee was not the first BBM director wanna-be she talked to (and the previous meeting was a disaster, the way she retells it in "Getting movied"). So she *does* want her characters to reach a wider audience of other mediums - and to see professional interpretations played out, at least.
Money's a point, I would guess. Literary writers, even some good and well-known ones, often aren't rich. Unless they're Stephen King or his ilk, they generally have day jobs, teaching or whatever. As far as I know (and I may be wrong), Proulx doesn't teach. Her work is loved by her fans, but it's not to everybody's taste (including mine, to be honest). So it's possible that despite misgivings, she's willing to let her work get movied for the sake of the film rights and increased sales.
I think Annie Proulx is a very private person who's worried about her losing her privacy.
She says, "And one of the reasons we keep the gates locked here is that a lot of men have decided that the story should have a happy ending. They can't bear the way it ends...." Maybe some people have shown up in her town looking for her. Maybe some have even learned her exact address and shown up on her doorstep or left things for her, and she's found that too close for comfort. Most likely, these people's intentions are good and they just want to compliment her for her story and tell her how much it moved them and how they wish it could have had a happier ending and that they wish they could know that Ennis did find happiness after Jack's death, but to her, these people are still intruding on her privacy and, let's face it, her time. Maybe (because of what happened to the character in Stephen King's Misery) she's worried about her personal safety. Maybe she's crabby and just wants to be left alone.
While she does come off as a little mean and hurtful in this interview and in the "pornish rewrites" one, I think she's shown us that she's not one to sugar-coat her words to spare anyone's feelings, whoever they are, even at the risk of disappointing some of her devoted fans. While we can wish she'd be more respectful to Brokies, that's not how it's going to be. She's obviously moved on and doesn't want to keep revisiting Brokeback Mountain. But she does have the right to make that choice, as disappointing as it is.
She says, "And one of the reasons we keep the gates locked here is that a lot of men have decided that the story should have a happy ending. They can't bear the way it ends...." Maybe some people have shown up in her town looking for her. Maybe some have even learned her exact address and shown up on her doorstep or left things for her, and she's found that too close for comfort. Most likely, these people's intentions are good and they just want to compliment her for her story and tell her how much it moved them and how they wish it could have had a happier ending and that they wish they could know that Ennis did find happiness after Jack's death, but to her, these people are still intruding on her privacy and, let's face it, her time. Maybe (because of what happened to the character in Stephen King's Misery) she's worried about her personal safety. Maybe she's crabby and just wants to be left alone.
While she does come off as a little mean and hurtful in this interview and in the "pornish rewrites" one, I think she's shown us that she's not one to sugar-coat her words to spare anyone's feelings, whoever they are, even at the risk of disappointing some of her devoted fans. While we can wish she'd be more respectful to Brokies, that's not how it's going to be. She's obviously moved on and doesn't want to keep revisiting Brokeback Mountain. But she does have the right to make that choice, as disappointing as it is.
A couple of points. AP may have "moved on" from Brokeback Mountain but recently she revisited it and wrote the libretto for the opera that will debut in Spain in 2013, something I'm looking forward to very much.
In her audio interview with the BBC (I've been trying to find the link to it without luck) AP said how disappointed she was with The Shipping News...with the movie and also with the book, even though it won the pullet surprise. She was influenced by public feedback on her work to add a happy ending which she did grudgingly and she added "if you can define happiness as an absence of pain." A very complex and inscrutable person! With my training and degree in journalism, I respect her need to tell stories about rural life as it is and was. There's a need for entertainment, but there's also a need for what she gives us, like it or not.
Yes, it was apparently male fanfic writers who were sending her things and maybe even dropping rewrites off on her porch. I would certainly be infuriated at the condescension of that — of people who were implying "here's how your book should have ended", etc. One can't blame her for being angry at that.
I rather suspect it's less condescension than simple total cluelessness. Anyone clueless enough to send Annie Proulx a manuscript of how she should have written her own story probably, in his or her own mind, thinks he or she is doing Annie a favor. And possibly he or she, in some twisted (no pun intended--well, maybe), Law-and-Order, stalker sort of way, is expecting approval from Annie in return.
And a quick peruse of most of the fan fics here and on DCF will reveal most of the authors of such loaded up their piece with crude sex scenes and more boyfriends for Ennis, completely misunderstanding the nature of her work and characters.I think you perhaps misunderstand the nature of fan fiction. Fan fiction is not mainly about copying AP or to follow her intentions regarding BBM. Fan fiction is about being inspired by certain characters and wanting to explore them further - and the nature of these explorations take on various forms depending on the writers various interests.
Annie Proulx is not the only author to view fan fic in a less than gracious light.
I seem to remmber hearing that Anne Rice is even more against fan fic, and that a number of "Vampire" fan fic authors have had legal action taken against them.
Bottom line is that Ennis Del Mar, Jack Twist, Brokeback Mountain, and all associated characters are hers legally.
As someone who has tried his hand at fan fic (an incomplete story that has pretty much dried up) I can respect her opinion of someone reworking characters she owns the rights to.
I say that with all due respect to slash authors....I've read a number of stories and enjoyed them.
I think you perhaps misunderstand the nature of fan fiction. Fan fiction is not mainly about copying AP or to follow her intentions regarding BBM. Fan fiction is about being inspired by certain characters and wanting to explore them further - and the nature of these explorations take on various forms depending on the writers various interests.
I hope AP changes her attitude towards fan fiction
not bloody likely. You should have read the letter her lawyer sent me.It would have scared the s**t out of me to get a letter like that
Randall DID use characters and situations found in "Gone With the Wind" but was able to demonstrate to the court that the purpose of the work was essentially parody, which is considered fair use. There is a legal opinion rendered by a copyright lawyer I posted a couple of years back claiming that much of slash fan fiction that explores the sexual relationships of characters from existing stories, movies or shows could be defended as fair use under the "criticism and commentary" clause of Fair Use. Until fan fiction writers get a lot more bold and have a lot more money, there will not be many tests of this approach in the annals of copyright law, and people like me will just rewrite their stories when they get threatened with a lawsuit by Annie Proulx's deep pockets lawyer in New York.
It would have scared the s**t out of me to get a letter like that
It was an intellectual property lawyer at NBC, and the woman's letter told me that Proulx's (and Focus Features') lawyers eyes were all over the Brokeback fan community looking for people to target. I had expected by mid-2007, after 4 authors were contacted, that the trend would continue and we would hear of more. Maybe there were more, and the large number of unfinished stories and complete defections from the fanfic fandom came in part as a result, but no one is talking, really. The other three I know of got so scared they deleted their journals and as far as I know left the fandom completely. I talked to the lawyer, told her that my intent was reworking my stories and explained the plot, and she agreed that if I took the names and details out it would satisfy them and they would drop it. But then again, I'm used to dealing with lawyers and such. And I did get a little informal help from a New York lawyer who confirmed the legitimacy of the original cease and desist and advised me a bit.It seems to me, as though you handled the situation very well. And good to see that you kept on writing your stories
I'm not so sure that most of the slash authors consider their work "parodies".
Her work is loved by her fans, but it's not to everybody's taste (including mine, to be honest).
Probably not. But I agree with that lawyer that there is a credible defense of the erotic stories that they are social commentary and serve as criticism.
Her work is loved by her fans, but it's not to everybody's taste (including mine, to be honest).
Copyright and other laws protecting inventions and intellectual properties exist for good reasons. Non-inventors may feel it's their right to capitalize on someone else's creativity and hard work, but that is a misguided perception. 'Exploring characters further' makes no sense; fanfiction is attempting to alter and reinvent characters it has no right to touch. If anyone wants to 'explore', read another book in which the character(s) is featured; if there are none, that is just unfortunate, and one is left to studying the original work itself.
Plus, the limited perusing of BM fanfiction I have seen is obviously attempts at making male-to-male sexual interests and situations more open and seedy...miles away from anything AP had in mind. For some reason, fanfiction writers appear to be titilated by the freedom to use words and situations previously somewhat taboo outside of closed circles; using situations they often know nothing about. To that I suspect AP would say "get over yourself" and leave my characters alone. And I agree with her.
I'm with Eric here, it is fruitless and disturbing to readers and fans for an author who has published and made a great deal of money off a publication to make a statement like wishing she never wrote it. But there have always been artists who have a love/hate relationship with their fans.
Copyright and other laws protecting inventions and intellectual properties exist for good reasons. Non-inventors may feel it's their right to capitalize on someone else's creativity and hard work,there is no money involved in fan fiction O0
Like I said, the purpose of fan fiction is not neccessarily to explore what AP had in mind.
Plus, the limited perusing of BM fanfiction I have seen is obviously attempts at making male-to-male sexual interests and situations more open and seedy...miles away from anything AP had in mind. For some reason, fanfiction writers appear to be titilated by the freedom to use words and situations previously somewhat taboo outside of closed circles; using situations they often know nothing about. To that I suspect AP would say "get over yourself" and leave my characters alone. And I agree with her.
I mean that unless a writer knows his/her subject, even fiction is not going to work. If you are under the impression that successful sci fi writers are not deeply aware of the science behind their stories, rots a ruck.A lot of fan fiction involves techniques not yet invented, or have characters visit other worlds of which there is hard to have any knowledge of.
Hmmmm. Not sure why AP needs to do that sort of reach out to anyone. She created a work, she sold it, and that is that. It may be nice if she accomdated her readers' wants and needs and desires, but i think holding her to that level of expectation is not fair. And why should she be obliged to extend herself to such heights in order to defray the type of actions and behaviors she should be guaranteed anyway? She's an author, not a volunteer social worker.
If people want to write fan fiction, then that is their perogative. If we wish to read it, we have that same perogative.
Those lawyers at Simon and Schuster might have something to say about that. Proulx is not as vigilant as some on protecting what is her intellectual property, when you get right down to it. Anyone writing fanfiction is assuming a level of risk, it goes with the terrtory. If your going to do 120 on the Interstate in the middle of BF Utah and a state trooper radars you out of nowhere, its pretty Damn dumb to argue with him over the ticket.
Butt-Fuck? ;D
Dont tell me you never heard that exprerssion "B*F* Egypt" or just "BFE" or "B*F* [your little town name here]" to describe a place that is the ass-end of nowhere.
Dont tell me you never heard that exprerssion "B*F* Egypt" or just "BFE" or "B*F* [your little town name here]" to describe a place that is the ass-end of nowhere.Oh yeah!
Oh yeah!
My favorite is still 'Slingshit Asia" :laugh:
That one's new to me. Is it east or west of East Bumfuck? :laugh:
The phrase that really jars for me, is when she says, I guess they just became too real.I would have thought that was one of the highest accolades an author could receive. Is not the whole purpose of writing a fictional work, to build up characters which resonate with the reader and produce a response, any response.
When she openly admits that Jack and Ennis became very real for her, as she as writing, why would she be upset that they became real for so many of us?
"So yeah, they got a life of their own. And unfortunately, they got a life of their own for too many other people too."
So Proulx rather than bemoaning the fact that maybe the characters became too real, should rejoice that they were given life by Heath and Jake, and from that rebirth emerged a film which stopped those affected in their tracks.
a film which stopped those affected in their tracks.Not just for a day, but for a lifetime, giving courage, where previously none had existed, to go out and grab life by the balls !!What a great quote! That happened for me and describes my reaction to a tee!
PROULX: Oh, yeah. In Wyoming they won’t read it. A large section of the population is still outraged. But that’s not where the problem was. I’m used to that response from people here, who generally do not like the way I write. But the problem has come since the film. So many people have completely misunderstood the story. I think it’s important to leave spaces in a story for readers to fill in from their own experience, but unfortunately the audience that Brokeback reached most strongly have powerful fantasy lives. And one of the reasons we keep the gates locked here is that a lot of men have decided that the story should have had a happy ending. They can’t bear the way it ends—they just can’t stand it. So they rewrite the story, including all kinds of boyfriends and new lovers and so forth after Jack is killed. And it just drives me wild. They can’t understand that the story isn’t about Jack and Ennis. It’s about homophobia; it’s about a social situation; it’s about a place and a particular mindset and morality. They just don’t get it. I can’t tell you how many of these things have been sent to me as though they’re expecting me to say, oh great, if only I’d had the sense to write it that way. And they all begin the same way—I’m not gay, but . . . The implication is that because they’re men they understand much better than I how these people would have behaved. And maybe they do. But that’s not the story I wrote. Those are not their characters. The characters belong to me by law.
It did not take that particular interview to make me dislike her.
I have read several interviews and read several posts, and they all describe "whats her name" in a similar light....
"Dont want to talk about BBM, thats history, Ive made my money, now lets get onto something new that I can make some money from and boost my ego".
I was pissed off with her the first time I read her bloody story......120 fucking pages......120....if it wasnt for McMurtry, Ossama, Ang, Heath and Jake it would still be tomorrows fish and chip wrappings.
I was pissed off with her the first time I read her bloody story......120 fucking pages......120....if it wasnt for McMurtry, Ossama, Ang, Heath and Jake it would still be tomorrows fish and chip wrappings.
Not sure what you are talking about? Brokeback Mountain by Annie Proulx is about 10,000 words. At 500 words/pg (in a word processor) with standard margins and spacing, that's about 20 pages. What version of BBM did you read that was 120 pages long?
L
Well, I hope you're enjoying wallowing in your anger. Whether you like her or not, without her there would have been no film--that's a fact no one can escape whether they like Annie Proulx or despise her.
And no, "Brokeback Mountain" was a prize-winning short story long before Ang Lee, etc., came along. So it would not have been tomorrow's fish and chips wrappings.
I have no idea what you're referring to by "120 fucking pages," so let be, let be.
I don't know much about fanfiction, but it seems like the quality of the writing is in inverse proportion to the [bold] need of the author to be praised for his/her work.[/bold] That's the thing that alarms me about the genre, so I stopped reading any and all fanfiction because, once some of the authors knew I had read part of their work, they pestered me for feedback, and only the most positive and gushing feedback would do. I'm a professional writer, so giving honest feedback was impossible. I imagine AP got caught in the same, or similar boat.
And I'm guessing she's wrong about the gender of many of the fan fiction writers she's referring to, just based on what seems like an overwhelming majority that I know of being women.
Proulx is famously standoffish; she chose to live in the most unpopulated state in the Union. So what. William Faulkner, Thomas Pynchon, JD Salinger, and Cormac McCarthy, are famously averse to company.
for me, the dialogue in fan fic is so tricky that I can't get into it much...
most writers seem to think that all you have to do to make your characters sound "rural" is to use a lot of "ain't"s and conjunctions "wanna, coulda"s and drop the g's off everything in sight..(sorry, drop the g's off everthin' in sight)
well there is a bit more to it than that....grating to me. Sounds artificial and patronizing
I wrote a few pieces of fanfic back in the day, for me they were more a way to get some of the feeling out...I am humble enough though to know they are no where NEAR the quality of Proulx's and no way would I presume to send them to her.
... none came close to the woman who can write passages like:
One summer evening, their bed spread among the floor among the chips and splinters, they fell to kissing. Rose, in some kind of transport, began to bite her kisses....
"Oh Archie, I didnt mean to hurt,..."
"You did not...It's I aint never been. Loved...feel like I been shot," pulling her into his arms, rolling half over so that the salty tears and saliva wet her embroidered waist shirt, calling her his little birdeen, and at that moment she would have walked into a furnace for him.
Where I differ from you is when you said that AP has moved on. In a way, maybe she has, but I suspect Jack and Ennis haunt her still. Also, keep in mind that she has recently written the libretto for the opera Brokeback Mountain which will debut in 2013. In it, there is new information, including a scene where Ennis TALKS to the SHIRTS. I can't wait!
What I sense here is the snit that comes from rejection, Annie Proulx rejected me so Im rejecting her back.
Annie's written the libretto? :o
No foolin'? :o
I wonder what AP thinks of Brokeback Mountain Radio? ???
She's like William Shatner in that classic Saturday Night Live sketch at the Star Trek con!
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X692xD2TBU[/youtube]
:laugh: :laugh:
and he said duchebag...hehe
She would probably roll her eyes, and shake her head, and tell us to move on and get a life.
She has, and cannot understand why some of us haven't.
If she's "still pissed", then arguably it's less a case of moving on than taking on some of the characteristics of what one most despises -- in this case, apparently, a churlish celebrity.
As for people here proclaiming that they don't read fanfiction -- if you don't want to read something, don't read it. But it isn't on a par with composing a great symphony, saving children from a burning building or actually making sense of the IRS Tax Code. It's not an accomplishment; get over it.
Oh right, like nobody here ever thought of that.
She would probably roll her eyes, and shake her head, and tell us to move on and get a life.
She has, and cannot understand why some of us haven't.
Tell you what, I don't intend to be offensive or personal, but, depending on what exactly you mean by "moving on" with respect to Brokeback Mountain, I don't understand it either. :-\
I feel that I've incorporated the story and the film into my life and "moved on," but I'm sure not living it night and day like I did three years ago. :-\
If you think by what I posted, that I am insinuating that people should "move on" then you are wrong. I used the term "move on and get a life" as suggesting, that it is SHE who is telling us to do that.
Personally, I dont give a rats **** whether people move on or whether they dont. Its up to them how much of a part of their life is consumed with BBM. I know how much of a part of my life it is, and I am comfortable with that, just as everyone else should be.
Annie Proulx can be a cranky crabass. We knew that already. She wouldn't be her if she wasn't. Remember the trashing and thrashing she gave the Academy Awards experience? But she also said that Heath Ledger's name should be Heath Legend, so she has my support to be whatever the fuck she wants.
She's cantankerous, and it allows her the discipline to sit and write, all by herself. I say let be let be.
No, I understood you meant that was what Annie is telling people. It's none of my business either if anybody is stuck in his or her first emotional reaction to Brokeback Mountain. I took your comment to suggest that Annie doesn't understand how some people haven't been able to "move on," and I honestly don't understand it either. If I were close to somebody who was still as torn up as some of us were when we first saw the movie, I'd be concerned about that person's well-being.
Irrespective of my feelings for Annie Proulx, I dislike it when anyone tells me to "move on." I am not cattle. I also feel the same way when people tell me not to worry about something. I am the person who decides what I will worry about and what I will not worry about!
Since I am a journalist and that's how AP began her career, I might have some insight into her point of view. You see, journalists have deadlines, they turn in their stories, and that is it. Another day, another story. It can be upsetting to some people but to others, it seems natural. Not living with being gay, AP may not see why the story refuses to be put to bed. But, I sometimes think there's something else going on here. I think AP went out on a limb in writing this story. It's not just an anonymous guy at the Mint Bar; I think there was someone close to her that inspired her to write this story. And now she feels the need to protect him since attention to the story blew up way beyond what she expected.
"Cranky" and "cantankerous" in one post!
But what the hell does "let be" imply in this context? That we shouldn't be discussing it or commenting? Let's have some perspective here. And if she's commenting on the reaction of Brokeback fans, that's somewhat outside the realm of "sitting and writing by herself."
She's not only cranky and cantankerous, she's even crochety.
She's a plainspoken, forthright person who feels no call to be all Mary Poppinsy toward these people.That's ironic - I assume you mean Julie-Andrews-as-Mary-Poppins-in-the-filmy towards them. Mary Poppins in the book - I nearly wrote "the real Mary Poppins" was very like the real Annie Proulx.
What I don't understand is why Annie P. gets so annoyed when people take her story so much to heart. Is it not every author's dream to feel they have connected with their reader on such a deeply fundamental level?Actually AP DOES appreciate the critical acclaim for the story and the way it has changed lives. Many people have written to her about their reactions after reading the story and she has answered many letters (she has very tiny handwriting). What she doesn't appreciate is right-wing Christian fundamentalists stalking her and buzzing her house with their planes; people who write with demands, weird requests, or sending manuscripts for her to read and critique; and fanfiction writers who steal her intellectual property.
... I delayed seeing the film, no way could it do justice to Proulx's words. I dithered and prevaricated, a million reasons I would not see the film. I could not bear for actors to come in and invade the space in my head where Jack and Ennis existed, it was sacrosanct. I guarded those two as if they were my own flesh and blood. The story had taken on a momentum all its own and I truly felt that to trust it to anyone to make Jack and Ennis real, would be like trusting a stranger with my children.That was me as well. I didn't see the film until January of 2006, when my daughter dragged me to it.
George Michael once sang, " turn a different corner and we never would have met" I certainly would never met some of the wonderful people here, had I not read, "Ennis Del Mar wakes before five", and carried on until, "and if you can't fix it you've got to stand it"That is sure the truth!
Writing about Ennis and Jack, for some, is a way to work out complicated feelings the story and film brought out.
Once you create characters, you don't always have the control over them you might like. That's life.
This was the case for me. :)
appropriation is not the right word for what fanfiction writers are doing. Stealing is the right word.
I'm somewhere in between you two. I think many fan fic writers have nothing but good intentions, many are talented, and their work is a tribute to Proulx's genius. I'm sure there's an element of respect in most or all of it.
But it's not about their intentions or the quality of the work, it's about a writer's control of his/her intellectual property. Jane Austen, Shakespeare and L. Frank Baum are all dead. The copyrights on their works have expired, and their writing is in the public domain. When fan fic with more recent characters gets published as books -- for example, all of those Star Trek novels -- there's no doubt the originator of the story gives permission and gets paid. It took Margaret Mitchell's foundation years to grant permission for a sequel, and I would guess the publisher paid. Someone who made money off Harry Potter characters found him/herself in court. As with all filmmakers, Larry and Diana don't qualify as fan fic writers because Proulx was paid for the rights to her work.
I'm not sure to what extent it's possible to make money on fan fic, but if anyone does so it would violate the spirit of the copyright law as well as, I'm sure, the letter. Otherwise, if I were Annie Proulx, I think I'd probably shrug it off. It probably leads more people to buy her books, and complaining irascibly alienates fans.
But it's not about their intentions or the quality of the work, it's about a writer's control of his/her intellectual property. Jane Austen, Shakespeare and L. Frank Baum are all dead. The copyrights on their works have expired, and their writing is in the public domain.
When fan fic with more recent characters gets published as books -- for example, all of those Star Trek novels -- there's no doubt the originator of the story gives permission and gets paid. It took Margaret Mitchell's foundation years to grant permission for a sequel, and I would guess the publisher paid.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about this.
I think it would be stealing if someone took the entirety or large chunks of the original short story word for word and claimed it as their own writing. I've never seen that in fanfic. Most of the stories quickly veer pretty far away from the original.
It took Margaret Mitchell's foundation years to grant permission for a sequel, and I would guess the publisher paid.
You are right about Peter Jackson regarding LOTR fanfics, but not so J.K. Rowling. In fact, Rowling was so belligerent about a tribute reference work entitled "The Harry Potter Lexicon" which was published with a claim of fair use, that she sued the publishers. She won the action, in a finding in New York that the Lexicon used too much of Rowling's work in its reference; and she was awarded a grand total of $6,750 in statutory damages. The year she won that action she made $300 million.
Yes, that's the case I was referring to earlier, which I could recall only in vague outline. Thanks for the details, Louise!
Back in the day I actually made it through two thirds of the sequel, the name of which I've blessedly forgotten.
Long before I'd heard of the internet, I created the equivalents of fanfics in my head. For every truly engaging book I read, a large part of my digesting it was continuing the story, building different scenarios within that world, wondering "what if", trying to make sense of characters by fleshing out their possible backstories and futures.... That IMO is what fanfic writers are doing, only they're doing it on the net.
It was called Scarlett, and the author was Alexandra Ripley.
In case anyone wanted to know. ... ::)
Of course, fanfic has been around since long before the Internet. I was told the idea of "slash" fanfic goes back at least as far as stories about Capt. Kirk and Mr. Spock in the Sixties.
they were distributed at comic book and sci fi conventions furtively in samizdat mimeograph copies. Remember mimeo?
Heh. I remember the "ditto" machines the teachers used when I was in elementary school.
Loved the smell of those fresh copies. ;D
Of course, fanfic has been around since long before the Internet. I was told the idea of "slash" fanfic goes back at least as far as stories about Capt. Kirk and Mr. Spock in the Sixties.
It was called Scarlett, and the author was Alexandra Ripley.aaahh... I remember watching the TV adaptation of it and kind of actually liking it. But probably mostly because it had some hot scenes between Timothy Dalton and Joanne Vhalley Kilmer in it 8)
You are right about Peter Jackson regarding LOTR fanfics, but not so J.K. Rowling. In fact, Rowling was so belligerent about a tribute reference work entitled "The Harry Potter Lexicon" which was published with a claim of fair use, that she sued the publishers. She won the action, in a finding in New York that the Lexicon used too much of Rowling's work in its reference; and she was awarded a grand total of $6,750 in statutory damages. The year she won that action she made $300 million. Petty? You bet.When it comes to The Harry Potter Lexicon, I think Rowlins had a point (especially as she was working on something similar herself), and to me the lexicon wasn't fan fiction. To me, fan fiction, by definition is noncommercial.
Woe be unto anyone who writes a Harry Potter fanfic.
Same with Anne Rice's works - she will sue anyone, at any time, under any circumstances, for daring to put about a fanfic about any of her works.
And Annie Proulx would also go into that category of aggressive pursuers of fanfic writers. Her lawyers went after me and at least three authors I know of with cease and desist letters. I dealt with it (I don't have $100,000 to prove adequate transformative fair use, nor did I want to) by withdrawing all fanfic pages from the Web, and subsequently modified all of the stories to remove any and all references to Brokeback or its characters. As far as I know, Anne Rice and Annie Proulx are among the top rank of aggressive pursuers of fanfic writers.
When it comes to The Harry Potter Lexicon, I think Rowlins had a point (especially as she was working on something similar herself), and to me the lexicon wasn't fan fiction. To me, fan fiction, by definition is noncommercial.
I think it's a matter of intent. If the intent is to pay tribute, to want to contribute to the fandom, it's fanfiction. If the intent is to make money, then it's something else.
What would the BBM fandom be without fanfiction?
You are right about Peter Jackson regarding LOTR fanfics, but not so J.K. Rowling. In fact, Rowling was so belligerent about a tribute reference work entitled "The Harry Potter Lexicon" which was published with a claim of fair use, that she sued the publishers. She won the action, in a finding in New York that the Lexicon used too much of Rowling's work in its reference; and she was awarded a grand total of $6,750 in statutory damages. The year she won that action she made $300 million. Petty? You bet.
Woe be unto anyone who writes a Harry Potter fanfic.
Same with Anne Rice's works - she will sue anyone, at any time, under any circumstances, for daring to put about a fanfic about any of her works.
And Annie Proulx would also go into that category of aggressive pursuers of fanfic writers. Her lawyers went after me and at least three authors I know of with cease and desist letters. I dealt with it (I don't have $100,000 to prove adequate transformative fair use, nor did I want to) by withdrawing all fanfic pages from the Web, and subsequently modified all of the stories to remove any and all references to Brokeback or its characters. As far as I know, Anne Rice and Annie Proulx are among the top rank of aggressive pursuers of fanfic writers.
I stand by my previous posts - the internet chas created new and much more accessible reader and consumer opportunities of digesting and enjoying literature of any kind, and the publishers and authors had better get round to finding constructive means of building on that instad of chasing enthusiastic and imaginative readers with scowls and threats and lawyers. Their financial interests in the long run will be more at stake if they continue down that antagonistic path. I am pretty sure Anne Rice has lost out big time, both in revenue, interest and goodwill, for denying her readership the opportunity to write about Louis and Lestat till their hearts' content and till their fingers bled.
I definitely agree with what you write here, however, I don't believe Proulx or her lawyers were "incompetent to deal with fandom"- I think it was a deliberate and considered act to quash fandom, because they found it repugnant, specifically that Annie herself found it repugnant.
Yes, but interestingly that goes to prove that the opposition in such a case is *not* mainly based on the need to protect property/financial interests, which is the legal argument used. If financial issues were all that was at stake IMO she could potentially have made more money from being more "considerate" or deliberately blind to fandom activities. (Though less so than any Fantasy writer, certainly.)
But the woman has emotions and a temperament and I can't fault her for that, though she is ... cranky. To say no more. I loved her rant after the Oscars, I shall have to take it when her ire is directed at my own opinions, too.
Wow, Louise, you're fast! You reply before I even manage to read through my own post! ;D
I think it was a deliberate and considered act to quash fandom, because they found it repugnant, specifically that Annie herself found it repugnant.
Tell you what, in view of some of the "slashier" stuff I've seen, I can't say as I blame her. :-\ But let be, let be. ...
Yeah but as I said above, the right of parody and commentary is a protection afforded under the US First amendment. And yes, parodies can be pretty repugnant. I've had my work "parodied"- as well as my person, except that, as a private individual, impugning my reputation is a violation of my constitutional right to privacy. Not so my stories, though. Free speech, it's a wonderful thing, except when someone uses their free speech to mock yours. Then it's a constitutionally protected PAIN IN THE ASS.