Internet killed the newspaper star

1 Jul
2009

I don’t have too much to say about Judge Richard Posner or Connie Schultz or their ideas about the newspaper industry. Their arguments (to me, anyway) are strange, as they believe the only practical way to revive newspapers is to do away with online linking to news stories.

I understand where they’re coming from: bloggers and websites find stories they like, quote them, link them, and share their thoughts. I’m doing that right now. Sure, maybe that takes some traffic away from the original source, but that’s the nature of debate. Erik Schonfeld of The Washington Post sums it up nicely:

Posner never squares his position with freedom of speech or fair use rights. He doesn’t even mention them. Yet those are precisely the rights which allow me to paraphrase his argument without his permission so that I can disagree with it. – How To Save The Newspapers, Vol. XII: Outlaw Linking

So, according to some, the only way to save the newspaper industry is to reform copyright law, modify freedom of speech, and tweak fair use.

Personally, I’d rather let the newspaper industry fail.

Salinger wins case against crumby Colting

1 Jul
2009

That was mean. I’m sure Colting is an all right guy.

Anyway, turns out Sixty Years Later won’t be appearing in U.S. bookstores any time soon, as Judge Deborah Batts has ruled in the favor of J.D. Salinger and blocked its publication within the United States.

As for claims that the book was an examination of the classic work and therefore perfectly legit (its subtitle is in fact “An Unauthorized Fictional Examination of the Relationship Between J.D. Salinger and His Most Famous Character“), this is what Batts had to say:

She said in a footnote that Colting and his publishers made no indication before the lawsuit was filed that the book was meant as a parody or critique of Salinger’s work.

“Quite to the contrary, the original jacket of ‘60 Years’ states that it is ‘… a marvelous sequel to one of our most beloved classics,’” the judge noted. – Judge blocks publication of Salinger spinoff book, Associated Press

Well, that settles that.

J.D. Salinger doesn’t like phonies

30 Jun
2009

J.D. Salinger has always been a reclusive writer, similar to Harper Lee or Cormac McCarthy. But as the author of The Catcher In The Rye, it’s hard for the 90-year-old to go unnoticed when he peeks out from the shadows and ends up in the news.

Just recently, Salinger brought up a lawsuit against Swedish writer Fredrik Colting in an attempt to prevent his book, Sixty Years Later: Coming Through the Rye, from being published in the United States. According to Meghan Daum of the Chicago Tribune, “The novel depicts a 76-year-old Holden Caulfield, who meets his author and revisits various locations and characters featured in the original book” (Even at 90, Salinger’s got fight in him).

I’m torn between sympathizing with Salinger and wondering why he’d even bother. Given the nature of Colting’s book, and the undoubtedly massive recognition that Salinger’s Catcher In The Rye has accrued over the years, it’s difficult to imagine what negative impact Sixty Years Later could possibly have on the property. Still, Salinger has a right to at least try to protect that which is his.

When the court rules, I’ll be sure to let you know what they decide.

Twitter is good for something

17 Jun
2009

You’ve no doubt heard of the recent Iranian “election” and the subsequent uprising that followed. Hundreds of thousands of protesters are currently in the streets of Iran fighting for their voices to be heard after Ahmadinejad won what appeared to be a “landslide” victory against Mirhossein Mousavi. Regardless of whether or not the election of Mousavi would change our relations with Iran for the better, the United States and other countries around the world are watching as the fate of a nation is decided.

Unfortunately, Iran has been described as a “black hole” of information, as western journalists are no longer allowed in the country and most forms of communication, specifically on the Internet, have been barred from the public.

Except Twitter.

Yeah, they forgot about Twitter. So did I, actually, but it just keeps popping up in the news. It’s everywhere.

Anyway, most of our information about the Iranian uprising (or I suppose it should be called unrest) is being collected through Twitter. The U.S. State Department even asked that maintenance on the social network be postponed until this mess is over:

…a 27-year-old State Department official, Jared Cohen, e-mailed the social-networking site Twitter with an unusual request: delay scheduled maintenance of its global network, which would have cut off service while Iranians were using Twitter to swap information and inform the outside world about the mushrooming protests around Tehran. – With a Hint to Twitter, Washington Taps Into a Potent New Force in Democracy

Compelling.

I don’t know where all of this is going, or if Twitter will ultimately prove to be a useful tool in the spread and growth of democracy (and, I guess, journalism), but in times like these you take what you can get.

Twist Endings: Life On Mars (U.S. Version)

11 May
2009

Life On Mars

I don’t know what got me thinking about this, but have you ever noticed how a story’s ending can sometimes ruin everything?

Spoilers ahoy, people, so proceed onward at your own risk. If you care, that is.

I’m thinking mostly of the American version of the television series Life On Mars. Yes, I’m one of the few people who actually watched that show. I thought it was entertaining.

Emphasis on was.

Life On Mars was the story of Sam Tyler, a detective in 2008 who got hit by a car and sent back in time to the 1970s. Of course, that’s how the story was described during the show’s opening, but the mystery and intrigue of the series was rooted in finding out why exactly he was in 1973. Time travel? Coma? Death?

Try a neuro-simulation muckup while in suspended sleep on a manned mission to, you guessed it, Mars. To see if there’s life on it. In the year 2035. Sam Tyler’s experiences in 1973 — and even in 2008 — were all just a part of a virtual reality simulation.

Yeah, the writers were a bit literal with their ending. They didn’t leave too much up to interpretation, like in the U.K. version. And if you’re one of the few of the few who watched the U.S. Life On Mars and enjoyed the ending, more power to you. But here’s why I didn’t like it:

Get it? Life On Mars? Get it?!

Get it? Life On Mars? Get it?!

Throughout the entire series (as short lived as it may be), we’re taken on a journey with Sam Tyler from present day to 1973. We meet all the characters he meets, we see all the things he sees. We get to know these people and see relationships form, but in the end we’re told that they don’t matter. And not only do they not matter, they never existed.

It’s the kind of twist that pulls the rug out from under you and the story. Yeah, sure, it’s twisty, but it destroys the integrity of everything that came before it. In fact, it shatters the very premise of the story. Sam Tyler was never a cop, he was never hit by a car in 2008, and he never “mysteriously” ended up in 1973.

It’s the futuristic equivalent of the “it was all a dream” ending, and it rarely ever works. It rarely ever leaves the audience satisfied. I sure as hell wasn’t satisfied.

The Sam Tyler of the future doesn’t care about his experiences in the past, or the people he met, or the relationships he formed, because they were never real. And if the main character of the story doesn’t care, and if none of it ever existed, how are we supposed to care?

We’re not.

So file the American version of Life On Mars as a show with great characters and a cool setting, but with a horribly awful twist ending.

Older Entries
top