Been caught stealing

I ranted this morning. Kind of made me feel good. Mid-email I decided to post the rant. My friend Anne emailed me this link:

http://www.robinhobb.com/rant.html

And I replied back.

For what it's worth, a defense of fan fiction:


Anne --

She's definitely a little ... strident.

Of course, she's entitled to her opinion. But I think the primary flaw in her argument is that you can all but see that little person on her shoulder going "It's mine! It's mine! It's all mine!" And because it is hers, it is inviolate.

What she doesn't seem to have is perspective: On writing, on what it contributes to the culture, and what the purpose of art is in all forms. This is also the narrow view that's making copyright law more restrictive rather than less: It's the heirs or the creators of the works going "Mine! Mine! Mine! Forever and ever amen!"

Well, no.

I'm all about a writer or artist getting his or her due, financially and credit-wise. I'm not all about a writer or artist taking sole and complete credit for his or her work ad infinitum, and in all permutations forever and ever amen.

Robin Hobb was inspired by someone to write, consciously or subconsciously. She didn't wake up from a 20 year coma with her ideas and characters fully formed. In some sense, we are ALL fan fiction writers, because what we see and absorb filters through us and becomes our creations. Some are more literally chosen, and some are not.

In Hobb's view, using someone else's work without permission -- that's the part that makes me grin, which I'll get to in a minute -- to create new work is fan fiction, and is bad for many many reasons. (Mine! Mine!) But that means if someone does an all-girl version of "Macbeth" it's just as wrong as if someone writes a story based on her characters. If we take themes from "The Odyssey" and use them in modern fiction, or if Humphrey Bogart as Sam Spade shows up in a Woody Allen film, it's stealing.

It's not. It's what art does. Good art lives, breathes and continues on to infiltrate and influence the next generation. An artist who truly believes that someone will feel differently about the original work having read the deritivate "illegal" versions doesn't have much confidence in her work -- and also has little sense of the real purpose it has out there in the world.

Someone needs to tell Robin Hobb that the purpose of art is not to make her money. It is not to solidify her reputation and name through the eons. The purpose of art is to edify us all, to rise up humanity in whatever small ways there may be, to make us think differently. It is an education. To be miserly about it makes the author that much smaller. Sad.

And if there was any question about Hobbs' miserliness -- let's return briefly to that "it's only bad if permission wasn't given." This just proves the point that she's not in it for art. She's in it for control, and a paycheck.

In the end, I think it's unlikely we'll hear from Hobbs the way we hear about Shakespeare, Jane Austen, Woody Allen, The Odyssey. In part because of her talent's size, but more likely because of the smallness of her heart.