I’ve covered this territory before, but with the
announcement that still another contemporary writer wants to take over still
another legendary writer’s characters there are some questions. Mine is: Why?
Raymond Chandler |
The first thing that comes to my mind is that known
characters like Holmes, Spade or Marlowe, in this latest case, gets the writer
some level of instant recognition. This
provides a sales advantage in a cluttered marketplace. The writer doesn’t have to fight the
anonymity of starting from scratch with an original character — or as original
as one can get. The theory is if you liked Raymond
Chandler’s Marlowe, you’ll like the clone rumored to be on its way from John Banville aka Benjamin Black. Though, in
this case, the writer is well known, there is marketing power in combining all
the known names together. That would be
literary writer (Banville), his genre nom de plume (Black), and one of the most
famous fictional detectives ever (Marlowe).
In the corporate world, the process is called “value added.”
Then again, I’m not inside Banville’s head, so I can’t
know. And I suspect that Banville is
more capable of getting inside Chandler’s head than I am of getting into
Banville’s. So I shall leave well enough
alone.
John Banville |
The second thing that comes to mind is that some writers may
want to make a game of it or they are excited by the challenge. Lord knows,
writing James Bond books became a kind of playful hobby for half dozen writers,
with such literary lions as John Gardner
and Kingsley Amis,
participating. Then again, possibly even
our lions fall on hard times and need the money. The truth is that many genre writers are paid
far more than the so-called literary ones. But popular writers joined the Bond game as
well. Best selling thriller writer Jeffrey
Deaver took a shot at it. And
another highly respected writer, William
Boyd, is expected to have his own post Ian
Fleming Bond out next year.
The third possibility that comes to mind when we ask “why”
is homage. A writer can be so enamored
with his or her predecessor that continuing the series is a way of honoring the
one who went before. As I understand it,
Max Allan Collins, for example,
worked with Mickey Spillane before
the legend passed away and Mike Hammer’s life in crime fiction was extended
with the original writer’s blessing.
Cool. That isn’t likely the case
with Chandler and Banville.
Or finally and fourth, the writer doesn’t have a great deal
of imagination and has to feed upon someone else’s carcass to create something
of his or her own. That sounds
harsh. Oops. Art is created in many different ways and who
am I to judge? Certainly I wouldn’t have created private eye characters if
there hadn’t been a whole slew of them before me.
Though, whatever it is, using some other writer’s characters
without permission* goes against my perhaps misdirected sense of honor and
order. Which Bond is this? The Deaver
Bond or the Amis Bond? Of course that may be the purpose of the game. How about
a writing competition among the top performers?
They could be Olympic-type events.
Now, competing in the Hammett are…. So and so won the Gold in the Macdonald. And why wait until their gone? Who won the Banville this year?
Perhaps I’d be more likely to appreciate adaptations — that
is if there is a significant difference in say, time, place or interpretation. If Banville brought Marlowe into 21st
Century L.A., that might be something. Or
maybe bring Sherlock Holmes into the present.
Oh, the BBC did it and a mighty fine job as well. And now we have it on an American network TV,
coming soon to a TV set near you.
*In the case of a dead writer, the estate may grant or withhold permission. If the writer's work is in the public domain (quite likely Sherlock Holmes for example, though there is some debate), one may pillage Doyle's characters.
*In the case of a dead writer, the estate may grant or withhold permission. If the writer's work is in the public domain (quite likely Sherlock Holmes for example, though there is some debate), one may pillage Doyle's characters.
No comments:
Post a Comment