why isnt there a book about the librarians adventure's?
Omisqeeze
love to read a book about him so if mr pratchett ever reads this PLEASE.
and yes I have read the last hero.
David Chapman
> the librarian shows up in a lot of books but never as a lead
> character. i'd love to read a book about him so if mr pratchett ever
> reads this PLEASE. and yes I have read the last hero.
The Librarian doesn't really work as a principal character
because he can't effectively communicate with most people.
He's a significant character in several books, though.
A few handy hints:
1) I note that you can find the SHIFT key when you try.
Very good. Now try using it appropriately, instead of
USING IT TO SHOUT.
2) Please post in-line (not all at the top) and with relevant
quotes to give what you say context. This makes your
posts readable and understandable.
3) The FAQs that should be coming round soon will be
very helpful to you, especially the section on [T]agging. I
recommend that you lurk for a few days until you catch the
drift.
4) Do *not*, *ever*, under any circumstances speculate
or provide ideas for books here. If you do, Pterry will
leave. We like having Pterry here - it's cheaper than
shelling out for a Random Footnote Generator, for a start
- so don't do it.
HTH, HAND.
--
I'm afraid we've got a slight ... apocalypse.
Terry Pratchett
<omis...@aol.com> writes
>the librarian shows up in a lot of books but never as a lead character. i'd
>love to read a book about him so if mr pratchett ever reads this PLEASE.
>and yes I have read the last hero.
The posh answer is: because he has no internal monologue. Well, this is
not entirely true, but it goes ookookook. He works *because* you have
to deduce what he's thinking from his actions and the reactions of those
who know him.
Believe me, I've played around with the idea, and sooner or later you
need other characters around him and, since they're human, they tend to
take over. Besides, if you could read the Librarian's thoughts (in
translation) they probably wouldn't be very interesting.
--
Terry Pratchett
Sherilyn
> In article <20021226064023...@mb-fb.aol.com>, Omisqeeze
> <omis...@aol.com> writes
> >the librarian shows up in a lot of books but never as a lead character. i'd
> >love to read a book about him so if mr pratchett ever reads this PLEASE.
> >and yes I have read the last hero.
>
> The posh answer is: because he has no internal monologue.
I was going to say that, but less posh.
Some characters work better if you have to guess what they're
thinking.
But I don't really think this is necessarily true of the
librarian--it's just that most of the time he plays that role, a role
that is played by auxiliary characters in many books. It would be
perfectly possible to place the librarian into, say, a Tarzan setting,
and have him the most articulate and intelligent character of the
traditional Tarzan family. It would be hard work, though, and not
necessarily very funny.
--
Sherilyn
Lister
You could, perhaps, write translations of his speech in footnotes,
although I suppose this would become tedious.
Oh, before I forget, Merry Christmas Terry :P
Terry Pratchett
<sher...@suespammers.org> writes
> It would be
>perfectly possible to place the librarian into, say, a Tarzan setting,
>and have him the most articulate and intelligent character of the
>traditional Tarzan family. It would be hard work, though, and not
>necessarily very funny.
Oddly enough, it was something like that I had in mind (ie, putting him
in a jungle, which he's perfectly fitted for but has never seen.) But
you still need characters who can vocalise. They might be *dumber* than
the Librarian, but you do need them.
--
Terry Pratchett
Lesley Weston
You could give his internal monologue in the third person: "The Librarian
was thinking he would have to do something about it very soon." Or you could
use an interpreter, like the raven interpreting for the Death of Rats. But
both these devices would be rather clumsy for a central character, perhaps.
Anyway, they're your books, and if you think it won't work, I daresay you're
right.
Lesley Weston.
Terry Pratchett
<les...@vancouverbc.net> writes
>in article eWlWHZAE...@unseen.demon.co.uk, Terry Pratchett at
>Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk wrote on 26/12/2002 4:51 PM:
>
>You could give his internal monologue in the third person: "The Librarian
>was thinking he would have to do something about it very soon."
That can become a bit heavy if you do it continuously...
>Or you could
>use an interpreter, like the raven interpreting for the Death of Rats
Ah, you mean the kind of character who would have the voice of Eddie
Murphy in the movie! But that's my point -- you have to bring in a fresh
character . It would work but, as you say, I've already done something
like it.
--
Terry Pratchett
Briarpatch
Big "what if" here.
Take the Librarian and, as you say, put him in a jungle
setting where he could be "in his element" for the first
time and able to behave differently. Then make him resume
his human form for some reason. It gives him his internal
dialog back (temporarily, at least). And the jungle
setting, which was an asset to him, becomes an obstacle
again.
Blitz
> Then make him resume
> his human form for some reason. It gives him his internal
> dialog back (temporarily, at least). And the jungle
> setting, which was an asset to him, becomes an obstacle
> again.
Let us not forget about the magic field of the disc.
The Librarian may well meet another orangutan (possibly a female, to spice
things up) which actually talks.
Talk about a twisted 'stranger in a strange land' tale... :)
Steve James
dangerous and extensive than any set of trees.
Steve (Steeljam) *BF DAcFD (UU) *
Resident Opsimath in Redivivus Studies
Eric Jarvis
I was thinking along a similar lines...but couldn't see how it could be
done without simply becoming a story that would be better for another
character
[speculation on a serious basis follows...bye Pterry]
s
p
e
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
a
c
e
the way I'd tackle it would be to start the story with a flashback or ten
involving the librarian in his pre-ape days...that would give something as
a contrast to the librarian as orang utan and allow a certain amount of
the character to operate on the readder by its absence when he's an
ape...that was the only way I could think of to give it anywhere near
sufficient depth to be satisfying
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Alec Cawley
<About a book about the Librarian>
I don't see the necessity to have a book *about* the Librarian. As PTerry
has said, it would be a difficult if not impossible book to write. But that
doesn't mean that ha might not play a significant part in any future books.
He is available for any future AM books, either Watch or Wizards. He might
come to play an unexpectedly significant part, as CMOT did in The Truth. Or
he might just be a convenient vehicle for a few quick gags as he has been
in the past. Either way, I would far rather have a well-crafted book which
tells a good story well than one which has been twisted around an
unsuitable lead character. The Librarian is only one of many characters I
would like to see again. I am sure PTery will tell us about some of them,
and wait imatiently...
--
@lec Šawley
From address is valid
Terry Pratchett
<briar...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>Take the Librarian and, as you say, put him in a jungle
>setting where he could be "in his element" for the first
>time and able to behave differently. Then make him resume
>his human form for some reason. It gives him his internal
>dialog back (temporarily, at least). And the jungle
>setting, which was an asset to him, becomes an obstacle
>again.
Ouch. You're so close...
--
Terry Pratchett
rachel
but he wouldn't be him anymore, half the reason he was always such an
intelligent and interesting character is that he's not a human.
Turn him into a human and there's always that chance he'll become a
dull hormone driven moron (ie. a human)
seeyas Rach
Anne Lawant
"Briarpatch" <briar...@earthlink.net> schreef in bericht
news:3E0D65AB...@earthlink.net...
The major reason the librarian I like the librarian so much, is Because he
has such minor parts. His character develops gradually. Personally I think
that's a good thing.
Frank Flæsland
Of a Banananana?
--
***************** . * * . * .* .
Marry Christmas . * . .*
to all my friends * . . /\ ( . . *
Frank H. Flæsland . . / .\ . * .
.*. / * \ . .
. /* o \ .
fhf AT pogostick DOT net * '''||''' .
URL: http://pogostick.net/~fhf/ ******************
Steve James
> In a graphic novel the Librarian's speech/thought balloons would have
> pictures in...
>
Idiograms?
Asterix ??
Suzi
Briarpatch <briar...@earthlink.net> wibbled...
[Snip big possible plot speculation]
Please don't. Possible future plot speculation is something we *don't*
do in this group (for very good reasons).
Suzi
Lesley Weston
rachel_...@hotmail.com wrote on 28/12/2002 11:10 AM:
<snip stuff about the Librarian as protagonist>
>
> but he wouldn't be him anymore, half the reason he was always such an
> intelligent and interesting character is that he's not a human.
>
> Turn him into a human and there's always that chance he'll become a
> dull hormone driven moron (ie. a human)
>
Orang-utans don't have hormones? Anyway, the Librarian started out human and
a lot of his behaviour shows it, which is part of the reason why he's so
funny.
Lesley Weston.
Briarpatch
Have you actually read this thread before now? The whole
thing's been nothing *but* speculation, including TP's
own contributions. I gather that you really mean that it's
okay to speculate as long as you don't get close to what
TP is actually already thinking.
Yes, I know exactly what you're talking about. And, if
read what I said again, you'll see that it's far too vague
for me ever to consider claiming at some future date, "He
got that idea from me." And, as he himself has said, he
had these ideas long before this thread started.
Redux:
AFP: "Why isn't there a book about <X>?"
TP: "Because that would require <Y>"
AFP: "Well, you could try <Z>"
TP: "I've already thought about that. It wouldn't work
because <A>"
AFP: "Then why not try <B>"
TP: "Hm. Thought of that, too, but it's not quite
right."
ME: "What about <C>?"
TP: "You're getting warmer."
AFP: "Shut up! Shut up! You'll chase him away again!"
If you think people shouldn't "speculate," you're about
twenty posts too late into the thread to say so, my friend.
The subject line would have been your first clue.
LoneCat
>
> Suzi wrote:
> >
> > In article <3E0D65AB...@earthlink.net> in alt.fan.pratchett,
> > Briarpatch <briar...@earthlink.net> wibbled...
> >
> > [Snip big possible plot speculation]
> >
> > Please don't. Possible future plot speculation is something we *don't*
> > do in this group (for very good reasons).
> >
> > Suzi
>
> Have you actually read this thread before now? The whole
> thing's been nothing *but* speculation, including TP's
> own contributions. I gather that you really mean that it's
> okay to speculate as long as you don't get close to what
> TP is actually already thinking.
How about 'Suzi wasn't reading afp for a few days and has only just seen
the thread'? How about 'This thread wasn't tagged so a lot of the
people who would have told you not to speculate haven't seen it'?
She means that it's not okay to speculate, regardless of how close you
are to what Pterry's thinking. Getting 20 posts in before someone tells
you to stop doesn't make it okay.
--
Susan/LoneCat, AFPgoddess of indecision
http://www.lonecat.org/
Music: http://www.numfrunct.co.uk/
The cat who walks by herself
Star Catcher
"Suzi" <su...@lspace.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1878e1b77...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk...
I told someone once about an idea I had for a story. Because I was excited
and just had to tell someone, as you do when you're not as wise. The day
afterwards, she came to me equally excited, telling me about a great idea
she'd had for a story. Yes, it was the idea I had given her the day before.
No hard feelings, though. And I don't think either of us actually wrote it,
in the end.
Star Catcher
EvilBill[AGQx]
> Actually, a Librarian book where the dialogue and internal monologue
> were _entirely_ in "ook"s would be quite handy. One could read it
> over and over again and have a different plot every time.
>
Like "The Story of Ook" in Last Continent? <g>
--
--
* Confucious he say, man who buy Windows get what he deserve!
E-mail: devlinwright @ tiscali .co .uk (remove spaces to e-mail)
AIM: EvilBill1782
MSN: dev...@agqx-imperium.fsnet.co.uk
DIABLO II
Matriarch Kheperkare - Lvl 89 Javazon - Open
Slayer HorribleHobbler - Lvl 35 Barbarian - Open
Matriarch EB-Amarice - Lvl 85 Bowazon - USWest
EB-Tanya - Lvl 23 Assassin - USEast
Suzi
Briarpatch <briar...@earthlink.net> wibbled...
> Suzi wrote:
> >
> > In article <3E0D65AB...@earthlink.net> in alt.fan.pratchett,
> > Briarpatch <briar...@earthlink.net> wibbled...
> >
> > [Snip big possible plot speculation]
> >
> > Please don't. Possible future plot speculation is something we *don't*
> > do in this group (for very good reasons).
>
> Have you actually read this thread before now? The whole
> thing's been nothing *but* speculation,
Just because I arrived late at the thread doesn't make the speculation
any less a bad thing.
[Snip]
> If you think people shouldn't "speculate," you're about
> twenty posts too late into the thread to say so, my friend.
Please don't try to patronise me. I'm not "your friend" (very few people
have earned that particular right), and I'm not the only inhabitant
of this place who considers speculation on possible future plots to be a
very bad thing indeed (tm). It just so happens that this is a period of
time when most people are tied up with something called Real Life
otherwise I'm sure someone else would've jumped in before I felt I
needed to.
Suzi
Gid Holyoake
decided to share with us..
> If you think people shouldn't "speculate," you're about
> twenty posts too late into the thread to say so
RTFFAQ!!
Gid
Sherilyn
> In article <3E0F3213...@earthlink.net> in alt.fan.pratchett,
> Briarpatch <briar...@earthlink.net> wibbled...
>
> > Suzi wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3E0D65AB...@earthlink.net> in alt.fan.pratchett,
> > > Briarpatch <briar...@earthlink.net> wibbled...
> > >
> > > [Snip big possible plot speculation]
> > >
> > > Please don't. Possible future plot speculation is something we *don't*
> > > do in this group (for very good reasons).
> >
> > Have you actually read this thread before now? The whole
> > thing's been nothing *but* speculation,
>
> Just because I arrived late at the thread doesn't make the speculation
> any less a bad thing.
>
[more weird ranting--on both sides--snipped]
Speculation? On Usenet? Perish the thought!
I don't know about you, but if I subscribe to a Usenet newsgroup about
an author, I expect to see quite a lot of speculation about that
author's work, including what he will write about next. This isn't a
bad thing, it's a sign that people find his work interesting. What
would be a bad thing is if we were to take the speculation seriously
enough to describe it as a bad thing.
--
Sherilyn
Eric Jarvis
no
what is a bad thing is speculation that might relate to ideas Terry is
actually working on in a context where he might read them...if it's broad
brush or very silly that's fine...but this particular thread IMO went a
little too close to potential story ideas...when that happens it MUST be
clearly labelled or spoilered so that he can avoid reading it
it's in the FAQs, it comes up as a subject of meta discussion frequently
Sherilyn
> Sherilyn wrote:
[...]
> >
> > Speculation? On Usenet? Perish the thought!
> >
> > I don't know about you, but if I subscribe to a Usenet newsgroup about
> > an author, I expect to see quite a lot of speculation about that
> > author's work, including what he will write about next. This isn't a
> > bad thing, it's a sign that people find his work interesting. What
> > would be a bad thing is if we were to take the speculation seriously
> > enough to describe it as a bad thing.
> >
>
> no
>
> what is a bad thing is speculation that might relate to ideas Terry is
> actually working on in a context where he might read them...if it's broad
> brush or very silly that's fine...but this particular thread IMO went a
> little too close to potential story ideas...when that happens it MUST be
> clearly labelled or spoilered so that he can avoid reading it
>
> it's in the FAQs, it comes up as a subject of meta discussion
> frequently
I am aware that it has been discussed in the past, and that being the
case you will not be surprised to find that I have arrived at my own
opinion on the subject, as have others who have read the discussions
That is, after all what discussions are usually for.
I find the whole subject frankly ludicrous. Nobody has to read a
Usenet posting. Whilst I think that labelling is fine, and
"spoiler-space" may be just about justifiable, describing speculation
as "bad" is simply incorrect. If X or Y happens to publish a
Discworld idea independently of Terry Pratchett, that is not a matter
for surprise or dismay; speculation is what fans and other readers
do. Fans even go to enormous lengths to produce imitative fiction
using characters from their favorite stories. It isn't usually my cup
of tea, frankly, though I do think M John Harrison's English Assassin
stories are sometimes better written than Michael Moorcock's own.
Imitation and speculation (from gossipping through analysis to writing
one's own plots for an existing set of characters) are just part of
life, and they're fun to do and fun to read.
--
Sherilyn
Cybercat
wrote:
>I am aware that it has been discussed in the past, and that being the
>case you will not be surprised to find that I have arrived at my own
>opinion on the subject, as have others who have read the discussions
Yes, but Terry also has an opinion, and I for one find that one a
little more important. If too much speculation happens, he leaves. I
don't want that, and I'm sure the same goes for a large % of the other
readers of this group too.
> Fans even go to enormous lengths to produce imitative fiction
>using characters from their favorite stories.
But do they do that in a group where the person who they're imitating
has asked them not to?
Michel
--
Watashi wa neko desu nyo.
Sherilyn
> On 30 Dec 2002 05:54:48 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
> wrote:
>
> >I am aware that it has been discussed in the past, and that being the
> >case you will not be surprised to find that I have arrived at my own
> >opinion on the subject, as have others who have read the discussions
>
> Yes, but Terry also has an opinion, and I for one find that one a
> little more important. If too much speculation happens, he leaves. I
> don't want that, and I'm sure the same goes for a large % of the other
> readers of this group too.
Obviously not enough of them do so to satisfy you!
>
> > Fans even go to enormous lengths to produce imitative fiction
> >using characters from their favorite stories.
>
> But do they do that in a group where the person who they're imitating
> has asked them not to?
I have not suggested that this is the case here. All I have seen is
the flotation of one or two story ideas to which the author has
then responded.
This is what was objected to:
Take the Librarian and, as you say, put him in a jungle
setting where he could be "in his element" for the first
time and able to behave differently. Then make him resume
his human form for some reason. It gives him his internal
dialog back (temporarily, at least). And the jungle
setting, which was an asset to him, becomes an obstacle
again.
There are apparently a few oversensitive souls who would stamp out all
such innocuous speculation. If so, that would be a very bad thing.
--
Sherilyn
Sanity
"EvilBill[AGQx]" <evilbi...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "Darin Johnson" <da...@usa.net> wrote in message
> > Actually, a Librarian book where the dialogue and internal monologue
> > were _entirely_ in "ook"s would be quite handy. One could read it
> > over and over again and have a different plot every time.
> >
>
> Like "The Story of Ook" in Last Continent? <g>
No, more like "The Missing Ook".
TTFN,
Michel AKA Sanity
--
"Sanity shall make ye -ing fret" Doing Affordable things to AFP:
www.affordable-prawns.co.uk www.affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk
AFP Chess Tournament: http://www.affordable-hedgehogs.co.uk/chess/
Alec Cawley
> I find the whole subject frankly ludicrous. Nobody has to read a
> Usenet posting. Whilst I think that labelling is fine, and
> "spoiler-space" may be just about justifiable, describing speculation
> as "bad" is simply incorrect. If X or Y happens to publish a
> Discworld idea independently of Terry Pratchett, that is not a matter
> for surprise or dismay; speculation is what fans and other readers
> do. Fans even go to enormous lengths to produce imitative fiction
> using characters from their favorite stories. It isn't usually my cup
> of tea, frankly, though I do think M John Harrison's English Assassin
> stories are sometimes better written than Michael Moorcock's own.
> Imitation and speculation (from gossipping through analysis to writing
> one's own plots for an existing set of characters) are just part of
> life, and they're fun to do and fun to read.
That is true, as far as i goes. However, Terry Pratchett has stated that he
does nopt want to risk even the possibility of having taken ideas from
ohter people. As well as the (remote, IMO) possibility of charges of
plagiarism, I think that he wishes to feel that the Discworld is entirely
his creation, unmixed with others input whether good or bad. He has
tharefore stated that if he comes across speculation which might
approximate to any future development, he will cease to read, and more
importantly to contribute to, the newsgroups in which he finds such
speculation.
You are therefore not dealing with with any Usentet absolute - you are
dealing with the clearly stated preferences of one individual - who happens
to be the author of the books this NG is about. Together with the clearly
stated view of a large number of posters that they prefer a newsgroup with
Terry Pratchett and without speculation to the other way round.
There is no absolute ban on speculation anywhere. Indeed, Terry has not
tried to impose a ban; he has just said that where ther is speculation, he
will not be.
It ia thereforee purely a matter of community dynamics. No-one can stop
anyone posting to Usenet - as you have copiously proved. The majority here
wish there to be no speculation, and make their wishes know as forcefully
as they can. You have no more "right" to complain about their making their
opinions known that they have to ban spaculators from the newsgroup.
I don't think the speculators have realised it yet, but PTerry's
contribution to this thread means that he has decided absolutely that there
can never be a Librarian-based book. The existence of this thread has now
made it impossible for him to change his mind (not that I think that was
likely, for the excellent reasons he has given). Speculation could well
kill exactly the developments that the speculators would like to see.
Speaker-to-Customers
(or at least someone claiming to be Sherilyn wrote:)
> Cybercat writes:
Is this the real Sherilyn, or has Sherilyn got a cyber-stalker posting using
Sherilyn's username? This doesn't seem real to me.
Sherilyn forgetting all about the afp rules against speculation? Sherilyn
not knowing where Beth is from (the [I] LOTR: The Two Towers - SPOILERS
thread)?
This is either a fake, or else Sherilyn has suffered memory loss due to
alcohol intake over Xmas.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Catja Pafort
> I find the whole subject frankly ludicrous. Nobody has to read a
> Usenet posting.
No, but there's folks here, me included, who *like* having Pterry on the
group, as not only does he know a fair bit about Discworld (although he
frequently gets the 'where did the author get this idea from' bit
wrong); he's got the ability to write good, funny articles, and it would
be a shame to drive such a writer - *any* writer - away.
> Whilst I think that labelling is fine, and
> "spoiler-space" may be just about justifiable, describing speculation
> as "bad" is simply incorrect.
The 'no speculation' rule has evolved for a variety of reasons; and
there *is* such a thing as a group consciousness for AFP even if science
can't quite explain how it works - and in the context of this group,
read by Pterry, speculation has proven to be a bad thing. Declaring that
as nonsense is fairly impolite towards all those who know how that rule
came to be.
>If X or Y happens to publish a
> Discworld idea independently of Terry Pratchett, that is not a matter
> for surprise or dismay; speculation is what fans and other readers
> do. Fans even go to enormous lengths to produce imitative fiction
> using characters from their favorite stories.
I'm not saying that Fanfic is intrinsically bad, just that *this is not
the place to post it*. Or talk about it. Or develop it. There are plenty
of forums where it's welcome - but not here. I think you might make an
effort to accept that, whether it's how *you* would run the world or
not.
PerditaX
Matt Blissett
> su...@lspace.org (Suzi) writes:
>
>> In article <3E0F3213...@earthlink.net> in alt.fan.pratchett,
>> Briarpatch <briar...@earthlink.net> wibbled...
>>
>> > Suzi wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In article <3E0D65AB...@earthlink.net> in alt.fan.pratchett,
>> > > Briarpatch <briar...@earthlink.net> wibbled...
>> > >
>> > > [Snip big possible plot speculation]
>> > >
>> > > Please don't. Possible future plot speculation is something we
>> > > *don't* do in this group (for very good reasons).
>> >
>> > Have you actually read this thread before now? The whole thing's
>> > been nothing *but* speculation,
>>
>> Just because I arrived late at the thread doesn't make the speculation
>> any less a bad thing.
>>
>>
> [more weird ranting--on both sides--snipped]
>
> Speculation? On Usenet? Perish the thought!
>
> I don't know about you, but if I subscribe to a Usenet newsgroup about
> an author...
Then you should read the FAQ. The tagging FAq says this:
Finally, speculation about future developments is now considered
acceptable on ABP. BUT please remember to include a subheader
[SPECULATION] inside the post just above the speculative section. This
is not a "tag" as such and does not need to be added to the heading
unless the entire post is [SPECULATION]. Currently speculation is
still considered unacceptable on AFP - please remember this if cross
posting threads there - add the [R] and excise the [SPECULATION].
There is also now a 'speculation mail list' available.
And in the 'Pratchett Newsgroups' FAQ it says:
His last hiatus was caused by the posting of speculative stories about
future discworld events. TP felt that this put him in an awkward legal
position. It meant that he could not use these ideas if he had
independantly developed them because of possible litigation. There is a
*rumour* that a few paragraphs of The Fifth Elephant had to be cut
because someone posted a speculative article about the future of Sir
and Lady Vimes.
So this is a warning - don't post speculative stuff.
> I expect to see quite a lot of speculation about that author's work,
> including what he will write about next. This isn't a bad thing
It is if that author feels that he cannot use ideas because someone else
posted them.
> it's a sign that people find his work interesting.
And don't mind ruining future work.
> What would be a bad thing is if we were to take the speculation
> seriously enough to describe it as a bad thing.
Then I an doing a bad thing, but sometimes someone needs to do a bad thing.
Matt Blissett
<snip everything except:>
> There is also now a 'speculation mail list' available.
...and it is available at
<http://library.lspace.org/mailman/listinfo/afp-speculation>
and the original post on afpa that introduced it is at:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=230901112559afpa%40crucible.athame.co.uk&output=gplain>
--
Matt
Matt Blissett
Terry Pratchett
<use...@ericjarvis.co.uk> writes
>
>what is a bad thing is speculation that might relate to ideas Terry is
>actually working on in a context where he might read them...if it's broad
>brush or very silly that's fine...but this particular thread IMO went a
>little too close to potential story ideas...when that happens it MUST be
>clearly labelled or spoilered so that he can avoid reading it
So far I *have* read this thread, because 'why doesn't TP write a book
about the Librarian' isn't speculation, and nor is a discussion about
how an author might overcome the drawback of having a central character
whose thoughts aren't readily readable. Even 'why not have him turn
back into a man in circumstances where remaining an ape would be better
, ie, back in the jungle' isn't too bad, because, well, as an idea it's
sitting there just waiting to happen. The Librarian is a man turned
into an ape, wouldn't it be fun if he turned into a man again... I've
come close to that with Greebo. It's not a whole lot further down the
line than 'do a book about football'. This, with respect to all here,
is not a story idea as such, it's a conceit. But it'd start to be a
potential problem for me if people came up with all the subsidiary ideas
that put it in context: why it happened, where, what happened next...
Just in case, I'm bowing out of this thread:-)
--
Terry Pratchett
Sherilyn
[...]
>
> I don't think the speculators have realised it yet, but PTerry's
> contribution to this thread means that he has decided absolutely that there
> can never be a Librarian-based book. The existence of this thread has now
> made it impossible for him to change his mind (not that I think that was
> likely, for the excellent reasons he has given). Speculation could well
> kill exactly the developments that the speculators would like to
> see.
This is precisely the kind of nonsense I was referring to when I
described as 'frankly ludicrous' the reasoning behind the statement
that speculation was 'bad'. If Terry Pratchett never writes a
book about the Librarian, it will certainly not be because he posted
to this thread or because others have speculated on the form that such
a book might take.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
This is me.
>
> Sherilyn forgetting all about the afp rules against speculation?
There are no afp rules about speculation.
> Sherilyn not knowing where Beth is from (the [I] LOTR: The Two
> Towers - SPOILERS thread)?
I do not take notes on where posters live.
>
> This is either a fake, or else Sherilyn has suffered memory loss due to
> alcohol intake over Xmas.
This is real.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
> In article <MPG.1879e783d...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Eric Jarvis
> <use...@ericjarvis.co.uk> writes
> >
> >what is a bad thing is speculation that might relate to ideas Terry is
> >actually working on in a context where he might read them...if it's broad
> >brush or very silly that's fine...but this particular thread IMO went a
> >little too close to potential story ideas...when that happens it MUST be
> >clearly labelled or spoilered so that he can avoid reading it
>
> So far I *have* read this thread, because 'why doesn't TP write a book
> about the Librarian' isn't speculation, and nor is a discussion about
> how an author might overcome the drawback of having a central
> character whose thoughts aren't readily readable. Even 'why not have
> him turn back into a man in circumstances where remaining an ape would
> be better , ie, back in the jungle' isn't too bad, because, well, as
> an idea it's sitting there just waiting to happen. The Librarian is a
> man turned into an ape, wouldn't it be fun if he turned into a man
> again... I've come close to that with Greebo. It's not a whole lot
> further down the line than 'do a book about football'. This, with
> respect to all here, is not a story idea as such, it's a conceit.
Ah, this was my impression of your opinion on speculation. Good to
see it confirmed.
> But
> it'd start to be a potential problem for me if people came up with all
> the subsidiary ideas that put it in context: why it happened, where,
> what happened next...
>
> Just in case, I'm bowing out of this thread:-)
np
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
> Sherilyn wrote:
[...]
>
> > Whilst I think that labelling is fine, and
> > "spoiler-space" may be just about justifiable, describing speculation
> > as "bad" is simply incorrect.
>
> The 'no speculation' rule has evolved for a variety of reasons; and
> there *is* such a thing as a group consciousness for AFP even if science
> can't quite explain how it works - and in the context of this group,
> read by Pterry, speculation has proven to be a bad thing. Declaring that
> as nonsense is fairly impolite towards all those who know how that rule
> came to be.
>
I'm very happy with Terry Pratchett's clarification, which shows that
he can accommodate speculation of the kind we have seen here. I would
hate to see a case where we felt unable to post such speculation to
the group. I am sure that a bright chap like Mr Pratchett is able to
decide for himself which bits of afp he wants to read.
--
Sherilyn
Matt Blissett
Oh, he is, but if he writes about X, an idea that he thought of, not
reading Wstfgl's post giving a very similar idea to X, then Wstfgl may
accuse him of stealing the idea.
--
Matt
Sherilyn
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2002 18:45:50 +0000, Sherilyn wrote:
>
[...]
> >>
> > I'm very happy with Terry Pratchett's clarification, which shows that
> > he can accommodate speculation of the kind we have seen here. I would
> > hate to see a case where we felt unable to post such speculation to
> > the group. I am sure that a bright chap like Mr Pratchett is able to
> > decide for himself which bits of afp he wants to read.
>
> Oh, he is, but if he writes about X, an idea that he thought of, not
> reading Wstfgl's post giving a very similar idea to X, then Wstfgl may
> accuse him of stealing the idea.
>
_Stealing_ ideas? This is fiction writing, not science or
scholarship. Plagiarism has a very different status in fiction. Most
authors make references to the works of others and borrow ideas
freely, and some authors even make a point of cramming quite a lot of
literary references into their books. If an author should ever start
to take notice of assorted nutters accusing him of theft, then he
would probably have forgotten that his bread and butter is not the
ideas themselves but the tangible expression of those ideas. It's the
words we pay for.
--
Sherilyn
Steve James
> "Forrest" <gmaus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:81fddf88.02122...@posting.google.com...
> > stee...@cix.co.uk (Steve James) wrote in message
> news:<memo.20021229...@steeljam.compulink.co.uk>...
> > >>In a graphic novel the Librarian's speech/thought balloons would have
> > >>pictures in...
> > > Idiograms?
>
> ITYMHM "idiotgrams"
>
Are you implying the Librarian is an idiot? You might as well call him a M****y.
Steve (Steeljam) *BF DAcFD (UU) *
Resident Opsimath in Redivivus Studies
Flesh-eating dragon
Terry Pratchett wrote:
> So far I *have* read this thread, because 'why doesn't TP write a book
> about the Librarian' isn't speculation, and nor is a discussion about
> how an author might overcome the drawback of having a central character
> whose thoughts aren't readily readable. Even 'why not have him turn
> back into a man in circumstances where remaining an ape would be better
> , ie, back in the jungle' isn't too bad, because, well, as an idea it's
> sitting there just waiting to happen. The Librarian is a man turned
> into an ape, wouldn't it be fun if he turned into a man again... I've
> come close to that with Greebo. It's not a whole lot further down the
> line than 'do a book about football'. This, with respect to all here,
> is not a story idea as such, it's a conceit. But it'd start to be a
> potential problem for me if people came up with all the subsidiary ideas
> that put it in context: why it happened, where, what happened next...
My two imitation gold coins:
The issue at the heart of the speculation ban is that only Pterry can
decide how much speculatory detail is too much. That is not something
anyone else has the authority to judge, unless it's _really_ clear cut
based on Pterry's own clarifications. It follows that a speculation
ban _must_ be wider than is strictly necessary.
Anyone who trails through the archives, making a list of occasions
when Pterry has said, "Please stop speculating" and occasions when he
has said, "That's not really speculation", will probably find that
defining the boundary between the two could fill a thesis. Apparently
"Librarian becomes human whilst in jungle" is OK without further
elaboration, but the infamous <L0MWUCAv...@unseen.demon.co.uk> is
not. The boundary of acceptability (WRT level of detail etc) therefore
lies somewhere in between, but it's not up to anyone but Pterry to say
where, and it's not objectively measurable anyway.
Sometimes, in a discussion about the Discworld, something akin to
speculation is the best way to make a point. It can be as innocent as,
"Character W can be described as X, for example if placed in a
situation where Y, then he would probably do Z". I think that sort of
thing has a place on afp, but what's vital is to respect Pterry's
request that speculation not appear anywhere that he could come across
it by accident. Anything that skirts the boundaries of speculation
must be protected by spoiler space at least, and sometimes it has
seemed appropriate to me to include a brief paragraph above the
spoiler summarising why the content might, or might not, be considered
speculative.
Or, this is how it seems to me. The last word is Pterry's alone, and
it's terribly hard to write a conclusion to a serious post whilst
simultaneously holding a conversation with a three year old, which is
what I'm doing as we speak as if anyone cares.
Adrian.
Flesh-eating dragon
> Oh, he is, but if he writes about X, an idea that he thought of, not
> reading Wstfgl's post giving a very similar idea to X, then Wstfgl may
> accuse him of stealing the idea.
Small correction: IIRC, Pterry has said that he isn't worried about
what Wstfgl says per se, nor about what Wstfgl's lawyers might say,
but by what could happen if the dirty half of the media got hold of
the story.
Adrian.
Graycat
<ga...@ciderspace.org.uk> wrote:
>Given the wide ranging subject matter, opinions, philosophical standpoints
>and lucidity of prose exhibited here I would suggest that *any* thread
>herein could provide ideas. I may not remember that 3 months ago, whilst on
>the subject of robot probes to Mars, I mentioned that 12V cordless drills
>with a Phillips #5 screwdriver head are ideal for both peeling banananas and
>getting earwax out.
>
>*Every* writer, *everywhere* is inluuenced by others. The Invisible
>Writings are an example.
As far as I understand the problem isn't ideas of that sort. Not the
things that might give Pterry ideas or the random good natured "Hey
wouldn't it be cool if Rincewind got married?" But rather when it all
gets too detailed, like "Hey wouldn't it be cool if Rincewind met
Barbara Bush while hiking through Hung Hung and they stumbled into
each other, aided by Twoflower, and she turned out to have a second
Luggage and then all four went off to ASU and Barbara got a divorces
so she could marry Rincewind and the scorned husband started a war on
A-M and Vimes had to stop it." Because then there could be a whole
plot in there, and that's not inspiration, that's possible plagiarism
charges.
Elin
Graycat
<morgan...@netyp.com.au> wrote:
<hedgetrimmer>
>Sometimes, in a discussion about the Discworld, something akin to
>speculation is the best way to make a point. It can be as innocent as,
>"Character W can be described as X, for example if placed in a
>situation where Y, then he would probably do Z".
This can be done using past stories though. Y and Z can take place in
a situation found in an earlier book, or you can make it very far
fetched - Say it happened at WAL-MART - or very general - he got
scared by some big nasty - and that would then not pose a pproblem, as
far as I understand.
Elin
Sherilyn
>
> The issue at the heart of the speculation ban is that only Pterry can
> decide how much speculatory detail is too much. That is not something
> anyone else has the authority to judge, unless it's _really_ clear cut
> based on Pterry's own clarifications. It follows that a speculation
> ban _must_ be wider than is strictly necessary.
This is clearly incorrect. As humans we make judgements of this kind
every day. As an intelligent human, Terry Pratchett is (you have
admitted) also capable of exercising discrimination. Now I'm sure
that there will always be a chicken-licken tendency (as we have seen
here) willing to leap in and screech about the sky falling down every
time someone makes the most basic speculation about plotting, but I
think I can live with that. If there is a need for a moderated
group which would be guaranteed free of all discussion of Discworld
affairs, than those who have the need could set it up in a jiffy.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
>
> As far as I understand the problem isn't ideas of that sort. Not the
> things that might give Pterry ideas or the random good natured "Hey
> wouldn't it be cool if Rincewind got married?" But rather when it all
> gets too detailed, like "Hey wouldn't it be cool if Rincewind met
> Barbara Bush while hiking through Hung Hung and they stumbled into
> each other, aided by Twoflower, and she turned out to have a second
> Luggage and then all four went off to ASU and Barbara got a divorces
> so she could marry Rincewind and the scorned husband started a war on
> A-M and Vimes had to stop it." Because then there could be a whole
> plot in there,
>
In other words, nothing that has been discussed here recently is even
remotely close to being worrying.
> and that's not inspiration, that's possible plagiarism charges.
As in "Terry Pratchett lifts plot of book from Shakespeare" ? ;)
--
Sherilyn
Richard Bos
Good lord, Sherilyn, when _did_ the Yellow Press and their audience make
sense?
Richard
Graycat
wrote:
Anyone dead since 400 years is fair game
Elin
Andrew Irish
> gra...@passagen.se (Graycat) writes:
>
<snip comparison between concept/plotting>
>>and that's not inspiration, that's possible plagiarism charges.
>
>
> As in "Terry Pratchett lifts plot of book from Shakespeare" ? ;)
Ah, but that's parody... :)
I think I've managed to stay out of this thread so far. I think
speculation among fans should be expected, but I don't think it
unreasonable to ask people to move speculation to a moderated
environment. An author should be able to read a public resource without
fear of a plot, which they (may) have worked hard on, popping up and
causing later legal problems.
To be honest, it makes little difference to me as I'm not an author.
But if I was, and I published a book with a plot similar to one
published elsewhere and was accused of lifting it, I would be upset. It
would be a slur on my creativity. Not to mention that it is also the
style of the writer, not just the plot, that makes something worth reading.
Now, I know that practically no-one here would do that, but there is
always a chance, or someone unrelated may come across it later and make
the accusation. So, in general, I guess it's safer if speculation
doesn't happen in public.
--
Andrew
Who is lucky enough to have seen the master in action
Andrew Gray
>>As in "Terry Pratchett lifts plot of book from Shakespeare" ? ;)
>
> Anyone dead since 400 years is fair game
Shakespeare's not been dead four hundred years... 23rd or 25th
(depending on source) April 1616 (that's 3rd or 5th May in the modern
calendar.)
A little while to go, then... <g>
--
-Andrew Gray
shim...@bigfoot.com
Beth Winter
>
<snip>
> I thought there was still some doubt as to Wobblylance's identity - never
> mind his dates[1]. Is plagiarism retrospective? Could a distant descendent
> of Wobbly claim that the line of plagiarism of his works extends from
> 16whenever to the present day? Would consecutive plagiaristic uses of said
> writers ideas provide a link?
IANAL, but my law course provided that copyright (the basis of
plagiarism suits) is not eternal. I'm not sure what amount Disney has
now had the US extend that time period to, but it's still under 100
years, and IIRC less than that in all of Europe. Sorry to burst your
bubble ^_~
--
Beth Winter
The Discworld Compendium <http://www.extenuation.net/disc/>
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods and the season of mists."
-- Neil Gaiman
Alec Cawley
> Gary Nicholass wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>> I thought there was still some doubt as to Wobblylance's identity - never
>> mind his dates[1]. Is plagiarism retrospective? Could a distant
>> descendent of Wobbly claim that the line of plagiarism of his works
>> extends from
>> 16whenever to the present day? Would consecutive plagiaristic uses of
>> said writers ideas provide a link?
>
> IANAL, but my law course provided that copyright (the basis of
> plagiarism suits) is not eternal. I'm not sure what amount Disney has
> now had the US extend that time period to, but it's still under 100
> years, and IIRC less than that in all of Europe. Sorry to burst your
> bubble ^_~
70 years from death of creator for productions of named individuals, and 70
years from data of creation for corporate productions, I think - except
Peter Pan, for which copyright runs for ever. So old Will's creations are
wll out of copyright. As are all the other cheap £1 classics you see in
remaindered bookstores.
Europe recently harmonised, which for the UK meant stepping up to the longer
German standard. Some works which had dropped out of copyright came back in
for a few years.
--
@lec ©awley
From address is valid
Sherilyn
> On 31 Dec 2002 11:10:58 +0000, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
> wrote:
>
> >gra...@passagen.se (Graycat) writes:
[...]
> >
> >> and that's not inspiration, that's possible plagiarism charges.
> >
> >As in "Terry Pratchett lifts plot of book from Shakespeare" ? ;)
> >
>
> Anyone dead since 400 years is fair game
>
Most fiction we read and watch contains to some extent components that
are derivative of or inspired by some other work, usually quite
recent, much of it quite conscious borrowing. There is nothing wrong
with that. In genre writing in particular there are themes that occur
repeatedly. Ancient walled cities burn to the ground. Female dwarves
(or dwarfs) are indistinguishable from males and have forty or fifty
different names for shale. The clever cop prefers shabby dress and a
cheap cigar. The room is locked but nevertheless a murder takes
place. My point in the caricature headline 'TP lifts plot from
Shakespeare' is that, whether consciously or not, it is all but
impossible for a modern writer to produce a work that does not
resonate with other works.
--
Sherilyn
Steve James
Sherilyn
[...]
> *anything* that even remotely nods at a WLian connection can sue each other
> for plagiarism
There is no legal ground for suing someone for 'plagiarism'. Copyright
infringement, unlicensed use of patent, misuse of a trademaark, and
passing off, yes. Plagiarism, no. Using an idea someone else thought
of is neither a tort nor a crime. The legal grounds for determining
whether a breach of copyright has taken place are textual similarities
(which can go beyond superficial stuff like specific use of words).
Copyright holders often go to great lengths to make copying
traceable--in the recent case where a former subsidiary of a famous
British motoring organisation was successfully sued by the Ordnance
Survey it was revealed that published copies of OS maps contain
deliberate cartographical errors--features that are not actually
present at the location on the map--designed to catch out copiers.
Publishers of sheet music used to introduce small textual variations
from the versions sung by performers, and perhaps even musical
signatures in the arrangements, to enable them to establish a chain of
evidence in a copyright case. This isn't strictly necessary,
though--civil cases are decided on balance of probabilities. Most
works of fiction are sufficiently complex that it is possible to
search the text of two works for points of similarity in plot that
would enable a court to decide whether one work was derivative of an
earlier published work.
I am not a lawyer.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
>
> I think I've managed to stay out of this thread so far. I think
> speculation among fans should be expected, but I don't think it
> unreasonable to ask people to move speculation to a moderated
> environment. An author should be able to read a public resource
> without fear of a plot, which they (may) have worked hard on, popping
> up and causing later legal problems.
I don't think any legal problems can reasonably be expected, but I
find the suggestion that an author should have the expectation that an
_unmoderated_ Usenet group can or should indefinitely provide an
environment specifically tailored for his wishes to be unrealistic.
It would be better to use a moderated group for that purpose, if that
is really the kind of group that the author would want to read and
participate in. afp was set up as a fan group, not a group for the
use of the author. It's not that I'd mind such a limitation (since
the possibility of my bothering to venture anything beyond 'what if
the librarian were to find himself in a Tarzan family of which he was
the most articulate and intelligent member' is extremely low) it's
just that I know Usenet rather too well to believe that it would be
possible to limit an unmoderated group in that way.
[...]
--
Sherilyn
Mike Stevens
> "Andrew Gray" <andre...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnb13g...@compsoc.dur.ac.uk...
>> In article <3e11af61...@news1.telia.com>, Graycat wrote:
>>
>>>> As in "Terry Pratchett lifts plot of book from Shakespeare" ? ;)
> We accept that the plot(s) of certain of PTerry's novels are not
> unakin[2] to the plots of certain Wobblylancian plays. Lots of other
> writers through the intervening X years have based their works on
> these plots. Therefore many of these writers *may* have based their
> plots on the previous writings of other scribes who had based their
> plots on WL, and not on the originals. Therefore all the families of
> all the writers who have ever had published *anything* that even
> remotely nods at a WLian connection can sue each other for plagiarism
> because the work *may* have been inspired by their relative's writing
> rather than that of the Beard.
>
> And, as any fule no; there is, in court, no way to prove a negative.
>
> Having just suggested the greatest class action in history I will sit
> back and take my 10% from anyone pursueing and winning a claim (It
> was *MY* idea ;-)).
It would be even more fun if the descendants of Holinshed, Plutarch,
Tacitus and others got together to sue the descendants of Waggledagger
for his nicking their ancestor's stories.
--
Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man.
Beth Winter
>
> "Beth Winter" <ren...@astercity.net> wrote in message
> news:3E11D437...@astercity.net...
> > Gary Nicholass wrote:
> > >
> > <snip>
> > > I thought there was still some doubt as to Wobblylance's identity -
> never
> > > mind his dates[1]. Is plagiarism retrospective? Could a distant
> descendent
> > > of Wobbly claim that the line of plagiarism of his works extends from
> > > 16whenever to the present day? Would consecutive plagiaristic uses of
> said
> > > writers ideas provide a link?
> >
> > IANAL, but my law course provided that copyright (the basis of
> > plagiarism suits) is not eternal. I'm not sure what amount Disney has
> > now had the US extend that time period to, but it's still under 100
> > years, and IIRC less than that in all of Europe. Sorry to burst your
> > bubble ^_~
>
> found myself amused by the idea of multiple, interconnected Wobblylance
> related lawsuits. Could a writer sue themselves for plagiarism if they
> duplicated plots too closely?
Uh, what would be the point? Sueing in civil lawsuits is done to gain
something - usually either money, stopping of behavior in question, or a
public apology. Assuming a writer does not suffer from MPD, they can
perform those actions without resorting to legal enforcements.
You *can* get convoluted cases in copyright though. The recent
Miracleman suit is a case in point.
Dom
>
>I don't think any legal problems can reasonably be expected, but I
>find the suggestion that an author should have the expectation that an
>_unmoderated_ Usenet group can or should indefinitely provide an
>environment specifically tailored for his wishes to be unrealistic.
So you're volunteering for the job of AFP moderator? ;-)
--
Dom.
Sherilyn
:)
I don't. I suppose people who don't do so could reasonably be called
unmoderators.
--
Sherilyn
raymond larsson
> Could a writer sue themselves for plagiarism if they
> duplicated plots too closely?
That would be silly, just shovelling money to the lawyers. However, John
Fogerty was sued for plagiarizing[1] songs John Fogerty had written while
he was a member of Creedence Clearwater Revival.
He won, incidentally.
[1]aah - infringing the copyright of
--
rgl
Matlock Jones Cook Lydon
Campaign Cleveland 2002^H3^H4
Sherilyn
> In article <3e11e4c9$1...@metisse.ciderspace.local>, Gary Nicholass says...
>
> > Could a writer sue themselves for plagiarism if they
> > duplicated plots too closely?
>
> That would be silly, just shovelling money to the lawyers. However, John
> Fogerty was sued for [infringing the copyright of] songs John
> Fogerty had written while he was a member of Creedence Clearwater
> Revival.
>
> He won, incidentally.
As plaintiff or defendant. <g, d&r>
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
Insofar as they do not make sense, they can be ignored.
--
Sherilyn
Beth Winter
>
> In article <3e11e4c9$1...@metisse.ciderspace.local>, Gary Nicholass says...
>
> > Could a writer sue themselves for plagiarism if they
> > duplicated plots too closely?
>
> That would be silly, just shovelling money to the lawyers. However, John
> Fogerty was sued for plagiarizing[1] songs John Fogerty had written while
> he was a member of Creedence Clearwater Revival.
>
> He won, incidentally.
>
> [1]aah - infringing the copyright of
Wasn't this the case of the CCR songs being copyright of CCR?
sinned
hey i'll take the job
i only post once in a while anyway
and if no one objects
David Chapman
>> dom...@blueyonder.co.uk (Dom ) writes:
>>
>>> In article <87d6ni6...@happy.sherilyn.org.uk>, Sherilyn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't think any legal problems can reasonably be expected, but I
>>>> find the suggestion that an author should have the expectation
>>>> that an _unmoderated_ Usenet group can or should indefinitely
>>>> provide an environment specifically tailored for his wishes to be
>>>> unrealistic. It would be better to use a moderated group for that
>>>> purpose...
>>>
>>> So you're volunteering for the job of AFP moderator? ;-)
> hey i'll take the job
> i only post once in a while anyway
> and if no one objects
Knock yourself out. The catherd's crook is in the corner where
the last fool left it - covered in dust.
--
I'm afraid we've got a slight ... apocalypse.
Eric Jarvis
sadly this isn't true when it comes to the practical application of
politics...a huge amount of legislation is passed entirely in order to
deal with the fantasies of the popular press
I would personally prefer it if we had a reasonable number of politicians
who would deal with such things by telling the truth...unfortunately the
situation for many years has been that if anyone at all well known steps
out of line and questions the world according to the tabloids they will be
completely ripped apart...so very few politicians have the guts to do
it...and the chances are that most of you (who haven't met them) think
they are complete lunatics...worse some of them are...not every
alternative to the world according to Murdoch is true either
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
raymond larsson
> raymond larsson wrote:
> >
> > In article <3e11e4c9$1...@metisse.ciderspace.local>, Gary Nicholass says...
> >
> > > Could a writer sue themselves for plagiarism if they
> > > duplicated plots too closely?
> >
> > That would be silly, just shovelling money to the lawyers. However, John
> > Fogerty was sued for plagiarizing[1] songs John Fogerty had written while
> > he was a member of Creedence Clearwater Revival.
> >
> > He won, incidentally.
> >
> > [1]aah - infringing the copyright of
>
> Wasn't this the case of the CCR songs being copyright of CCR?
The way the industry worked back then was 'you sign over all your rights
(inc but not nsscly ltd to your 1st born)and if your record sells
zillions we MAY give you some crumbs.' So in return for putting out the
records the rights were assigned to the associated publishing company,
not JF or CCR but effectively Mr Zaentz (sp?)(who reportedly can't
dance).
Marco Villalta
> If Terry Pratchett never writes a
> book about the Librarian, it will certainly not be because he posted
> to this thread
Me, I think you got the causalty the wrong way around there.
--
Marco Villalta -- afpStuff in headers
Lots42 bomb white house
><Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Believe me, I've played around with the idea, and sooner or later you
>>need other characters around him and, since they're human, they tend to
>>take over.
Just have him smack them over the head every once in a while... Yes, I'm being
sarcastic.