I just got this letter, with the header: "Don't read this if you're already feeling depressed." So obviously the writer's intention was to sadden me.
Here's the letter:
"This is what I see, for good or ill.
"No doubt you get fan mail from people who think your books are the greatest, best written, most interesting, etc. Songmaster was the best book I've ever read, but after careful consideration and reading most of your material, I see that your writing only follows one style, and is degenerative to the reader as a person. While providing a great deal of food for thought on the human mind or other topics, this food is of a negative nature, and has a negative effect on the reader.
"Your writing style in itself is good, but it is repetitive. After several books one realizes the style doesn't change, simply the story does. Don't feel alone in this category, as most authors are with you. You're writing would be immensely mproved if you read other authors and genres that you traditionally wouldn't, and then tried not to copy, but to experiment with variations that you normally don't use. Also, whenever writing a novel, bear in mind the effect it will have on the reader, and whether it will be positive or egative. "The pen is mightier than the sword", and very few people realize just how mighty it is. After finishng a manuscript, read it over, and you will find patterns in the language, and manner.
"Whether you accept or reject what I've written, and whether you respond or not, please do think it over."
I think it's so kind of him to seek to relieve me of the burden of unrelenting praise that he thinks I bear - obviously he has never visited Hatrack or Ornery.
And I'm surprised to learn that I write repetitively. I guess Sarah, Ender's Game, Saints, Pastwatch, Lost Boys, Magic Street, and Hart's Hope sound just alike. Who knew?
Oddly enough, nobody thinks it's a flaw that all John Irving books sound like they're written by John Irving, just as all Anne Tyler books sound as if she is their author. But I'm curious - if I don't write in my voice, whose voice should I write in?
Of course there's no merit in his complaint; what always baffled me about letters like this is: What in the world went through his mind before sending this letter? Whom did he think it would help? What did he think I would do (besides becoming depressed)? What does he think the relationship between writer and reader is?
And what in the world does my STYLE have to do with the pen being mightier than the sword?
I actually do listen to rational, fact-based criticism and learn from it. But this letter is a sad demonstration that you really ought not to venture into intellectual combat completely unarmed.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
What a crazy person. After reading your earlier works and your more recent books I can see a huge change in style. What I mean is look at the raw vivid violence in Wyrms and then look at the most recent Bean novels, they are much tamer, your writing has evolved into something different. I dont know which I like more, but they are different, this guy doesnt know what he is talking about.
Posted by Crotalus (Member # 7339) on :
He probably teaches literature at a University. If not then he should. Sounds like he'd be a perfect fit. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Heh.
quote: Also, whenever writing a novel, bear in mind the effect it will have on the reader, and whether it will be positive or egative.
Well, I'll say, for one, that your books have always had an egative effect on me, Uncle O.
Also, I think when you die and get to heaven, they'll have a special room reserved for you with an electric fence specially brain-wave calibrated to keep out whining idiots.
Posted by Illidan (Member # 8399) on :
Did you respond to the letter? If not, maybe you should find out what he meant by it, before you criticize it publicly on the forums.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Was this a physical letter, or an e-mail?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I'm surprised that somebody could know the word ergative but have no idea what it means.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
There are huge differences in the style and even the 'voice' of Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead and they are sequels!!! I have no idea how someone would think that any of your books are "degenerative to the reader as a person". If anything your writing is very inspiring as to what ordinary (or smarter than ordinary in a few cases) people can do.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Illidan: Did you respond to the letter? If not, maybe you should find out what he meant by it, before you criticize it publicly on the forums.
I think the writer's intent was pretty clear, and I would probably react the same way OSC did. If some random stranger had the nerve to criticize me like that, I'd have no qualms about posting the letter online and mocking it.
Posted by OSTY (Member # 1480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Illidan: Did you respond to the letter? If not, maybe you should find out what he meant by it, before you criticize it publicly on the forums.
Yes and no. It would be like me going up to Tom Cruise and saying can't you play anything but a Tom Cruise charater. Me being an untrained actor with no movies under my belt has no place to say something like that. Either you like Mr. Card's style and you read his books or you don't and you don't read them!
Posted by Illidan (Member # 8399) on :
That's true, but I don't think it's a bad thing for an inexperienced person to criticize. At least he was polite about it, and it seems like he enjoyed the books anyway.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Did you respond to the letter? If not, maybe you should find out what he meant by it ...
How many chances should someone have to re-explain themselves before their audience is allowed to react, Illidan? Isn't it appropriate to take someone's correspondence at face value, if they went to all the trouble of writing and sending it to you? What hidden meanings are you expecting someone to find?
Posted by Illidan (Member # 8399) on :
(my statement was in response to OSTY)
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:At least he was polite about it ...
I think that perhaps exposure to the internet has dulled some people's sense for what is "polite". Sure, this reader didn't curse or rant, but he was condescending and insulting, and went out of his way to say something that could only hurt. I don't see how that is polite, or how the world is brightened by this person's actions.
There are a lot of writers whose work I do not enjoy, but none of them have received letters from me saying so. Obviously, someone loves their work, or they wouldn't be making a living as a writer. Why should I step in and break up their feelings of success and praise just because their work didn't appeal to ME? I think they'd be just as happy pretending that I didn't exist, and that's FINE with me.
This reader is not OSC's employer. OSC is under no obligation to please him. Therefore, to go out of his way to make OSC feel like he has failed is pointlessly cruel.
pointlessly cruel != polite
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
As odd as the letter might seem, it's actually an intersting experiment to see how established authors would read impresinating other established writers' styles.
OSC: Ender wasn't very hungry during breakfast.
OSC as William Gibson: Breakfast. Ender didn't eat.
Just a thought
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
There's not much that can be added to this post, good or bad, but I did have to post my favorite response to:
quote: the pen is mightier than the sword
A strong fist holds the pen. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:OSC as William Gibson
I think we went there in Dogwalker. Posted by Mark (Member # 6393) on :
No need to be bothered by this, the guy sounds just plain weird.
Maybe he was shocked at some of your political views and set out to depress you.
I've NEVER read two books by the same author in which I didn't notice the similarity in style.
Just for laughs you should write him back thanking him for the advice, apoligise, and promise to try to do better in the future. It'd be funny to see his reaction. You might want to ask how many books he's gotten published first of course.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I'm surprised that the letter-writer listed Songmaster as his favorite OSC book. I would have expected someone with such a superficial attitude to pick one of the more popular ones, or maybe Pastwatch.
I wonder if the writer will ever know about this?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
*ponders whether he should point out that posting the letter here potentially violates the writer's copyright in the letter, although a colorable argument might be made that fair use would apply*
quote:I see that your writing only follows one style, and is degenerative to the reader as a person.
I can't tell if this guy thinks the writing is "degenerative to the reader" because of the style or for some other reason he just didn't feel the need to discuss.
Either way, I'm betting OSC has received more than a few letters over the years asking why he doesn't write books the way he used to.
Just goes to show , no matter what tune you play, someone will ask you to change the station.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
Oh, great, Omega. Now I have to wonder what it is about Pastwatch or my "more popular ones" that would make them appeal to people with a superficial attitude.
The depression gets worse and worse.
My point, by the way, was that writing such a letter at all was ill-mannered - especially when he openly declared that he expected the letter to depress me.
I HAVE tried replying to people like this with irony, but they only get more condescending and never realize I'm mocking them. The sport quickly wears thin.
It's not his lack of credentials by the way, or his age, or anything else. It's the sheer rudeness of it that bothers me. If he were a ten-year-old but had something intelligent and useful to say, I'd listen; and if he had a Ph.D. and had only empty twaddle like this to offer, I'd be just as bemused.
Like Puppy, I'm confused as to what I should have waited for before posting the letter here. I didn't identify him. No one will know who he is unless he chooses to claim credit himself. So I haven't embarrassed him publicly.
Posted by R. Ann Dryden (Member # 8186) on :
You know, I think writers in general, and certainly myself in particular, are more hungry for approval than we like to admit. I mean, otherwise why try to get published? I want people to like my stuff. Since it is a product of myself, by extension people will like me. At least that is the hope. My other interests are catering/cake decorating, acting, and teaching. All of those things are only as successful as the audience allows. If I gain approval from people, I will succeed. If not, I fail.
I know that anytime one's personal creations are out in the open they are open to attack and the creator has to be on guard for that. The sad paradox here is that people who create and display their creations are vulnerable and easy to wound almost by definition. If we did not need the approval or support of the people who see our work, why would we put it on display? So it is those of us who most need positive feedback who are also most vulnerable to negative feedback. Sigh.
(I am not necessarily implying that OSC is vulnerable or lacks self-esteem. If that is how this post comes across I apologize. I am just talking about creative people in general; he is the only one who knows if it applies equally to him as much as to me.)
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
If you send an email to someone, you must expect the possibility that it may become public. I think it's the same way with letters. It is to OSC, and he has every right to reproduce it if he wants. If that's not what the law says, then the law is stupid.
As for the letter itself... he bored me about halfway through so I started skimming. *looks at it again* It looks to me like he's a bitter reader... he had one world view, and your books caused him to have to THINK of a totally new viewpoint... and it's really stressed him out. It was obviously a negative experience for him. Thinking outside of the box is a little too much for him, so he writes you a letter urging you to put him back in his familiar space. (Now I'm thinking about that Taco Bell commercial, thinking outside the bun... I would love a soft taco... anyway...)
You shook him up!! Good for you.
And to counter his insanity... your books have had a positive effect on me. They have literally changed me for the better and helped prevent me from making wrong choices.
So Nyah! to him.
-Katarain
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
quote:But I'm curious - if I don't write in my voice, whose voice should I write in?
How about King? The next Ender book could find him handcuffed to the bed in an off-season hotel after bedroom games with Valentine (Oh wait--that's VC Andrews isn't it?) who is suddenly murdered by a clown with a very contagious flu-like virus and is later buried in the pet cemetary in hopes that she will return from the dead and drive them both to the prom in a car that has a (murderous) mind of its own.
After reading a few books by a particular author, if I don't like the style of writing, I just stop reading them. I can't imagine writing to the author to give advice on how to improve!
Posted by Paradox524 (Member # 8414) on :
R. Ann Dryden, that was a terrific statement. Your post was a perfect example of that, and you certainly got MY approval for it.
Posted by dante's paradigm (Member # 8413) on :
The critiscism that this man offers has no other objective, as stated by him, but to cause lamentation. So why then would he bother to offer his opinion. He shouldn't expect his letter to change the way you think or do anything, yet he offers advice. Through his blouviating he has proved nothing more than his own inadequacy to provide such 'advice'.
Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
R. Ann Dryden (may your tribe increase), you're right, of course - we writers do seek, not so much approval, as READERS. We want others to share the memories we've created.
And when we put it out for public view, we are wide open for criticism. If he had written this as a review, I wouldn't have said a thing about it. It's the personalness of it - the fact that he sent it to me directly, as if we had some kind of confidential relationship and he expected me to be deeply disappointed; and the condescending tone of it ... if he had written it in a published review (e.g., a blog) then his review, too, would be open for public criticism. In other words, he would be on the same playing field as me, with people who will like his writing and people who'll hate it.
And presumably with published criticism, you never admit to having the intention of HURTING the author, merely of informing the public.
But when it's a letter, there's no effort to inform the public. Only hurting the author remains as a goal.
The fact is, of course, this is very common in the sci-fi community. I with I had a buck for every eager fan at a sci-fi convention who runs up to me all excited to meet me, and says, "I loved everything of yours! Except Book X, of course," whereupon he or she wants to spend the next half hour explaining to me what was wrong with that one book.
Nowadays I just laugh. But for a long time, I thought: What do they expect me to do? Recall all the copies as defective and issue new pages to replace the bad ones?
But the fact is they don't expect me to do anything. They're just talking, saying whatever comes into their heads. It doesn't occur to them that I would take this PERSONALLY.
But this guy MEANT me to take it personally. That's why HIS letter got posted, and the others I get that are similarly negative don't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you send an email to someone, you must expect the possibility that it may become public. I think it's the same way with letters. It is to OSC, and he has every right to reproduce it if he wants. If that's not what the law says, then the law is stupid.
It may be stupid, but that's never affected the impact the law has.
The following are pretty much inpdisutable: 1.) The person who wrote the letter has a copyright in it, unless they copied all or most of it from another work or were writing this letter as part of their employment. Unless they wrote it as part of their employment for the U.S. government, someone owns the copyright.
2.) The person who owns the copyright has exclusive rights to control reproduction of, display of, creation of derivative works from, performance of, and distribution of the letter.
3.) People who do any of the above without either permission or protection of fair use exceptions are in violation of U.S. copyright law.
What's unclear is whether this person gave implicit permission (unlikely) or if posting for criticism in this manner is acceptable under the fair use doctrine (possible). Fair use is a fluid test based on four factors:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
I could make compelling arguments either way on all 4 factors, I think.
But the real point of my mentioning it was to poke gentle fun at the seeming disconnect between copyright rules as they are enforced on the site, various statements about copyright that OSC has made, and posting this letter.
Edit: That being said, anyone who sends a letter or email that they don't wish to be made public is acting foolishly.
Dagonee
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I think this letter is kind of indicative of a cultural trend, though.
I notice it most in my generation, and thought it was just a young punk thing at first, but we've grown up a bit and we're still doing it. I think maybe it's a product of postmodernism in utero. You see, we really don't acknowledge any sort of authority; not the sort designated by rank and position and not the sort that is earned by expertise and experience. I saw this a lot in my art school cohort; the reaction to a bad critique isn't to examine the faults in your own work, but to attack the credibility of the professor. "He doesn't know anything anyway. I like my pots really thick on the bottom.... he just wants me to do it his way." You know, nevermind that he's been doing this for 35 years and has a doctorate. It's just his personal problems and character flaws that cause him to disagree with your naïve work.
It's kind of troubling to me. It's one thing when it's a legitimate doubt of shaky authority, but it's another when that incredulity spreads to how you perceive your elders. I think it may have a lot to do with the overwhelming mediocrity of the arts in the younger generations.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
You know, I can't honestly think of a book I don't like by OSC. But, I usually love books I read. All of them. EXCEPT the ones I'm forced to read. I didn't enjoy Herman Melville, for instance. I got stuck in a semester long class just on Melville once. That was horrendous. But since it's not the type of book I'd pick up on my own, I don't think it should count.
I finish and I like the books I choose to read. So I guess that means my opinion means nothing--you have to hate something to be a critic, right? I do suppose there have been books I haven't finished because I didn't like them, but often I'm just not in the right mood for them and I'll go back. Or not.
Gee, a post with no point. Blather on, Katarain.
Oh, I just remembered... There are plenty of short stories I don't like... But generally that's because I don't like short stories. I find them unsatisfying. Lazy writers not wanting to FINISH the story! In my creative writing class we had lots of people write stories with no ending, trying to be "artsy." I hate that.
-Me
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
OSC as Hemingway: Ender blew up the buggers. The buggers were gone.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
OSC as Tolkien: It was in quite a queer way that Ender blew up the buggers, but he blew them up just the same.
Posted by Gecko (Member # 8160) on :
OSC as Bret Easton Elis: Fade in and I'm orbiting their planet, smash cut and now they're blown up.
ps. I like this thread
Posted by Eck (Member # 8324) on :
Whenever someone writes something like this you should post their name so we can trash them for you Mr. Card. I have a good ability to flame the weak, which this person obviously is.
I find these letters to be rude and pointless. Rude, because there is no reason to tell a person their faults unless you have been with them for so long you have seen the nature of their faults.
Pointless, because you are one of the most accomplished Science Fiction genre writers (not sure your place in all of writing so I cannot comment) and this person doesn't have any credentials to give you a proper review. This person isn't even trying to give you a review but to make you feel low to help them feel better about themselves. It shows lack of character.
However, if you ever need a boosting just let us know. This is a group of people who come to your site to discuss your works and your thoughts. That has to be fairly pleasing to you.
Posted by Ayren (Member # 7317) on :
quote: But I'm curious - if I don't write in my voice, whose voice should I write in?
Write in the voice of the count from sesame street. That would be funny. "Ender woke up one morning- One, one morning bwahaha-"
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I think the style he's referring to is a complete absence of literary pretense. One of the things I've always loved about OSC's prose is that it's clean, and fairly simple. Not a lot of long and complicated unnecessary passages about what the grass smelled like, or stuff like that.
I have a vague memory of hearing him, or someone, say that this type of writing allows the story to shine through. If the story is powerful, and true, there's no need to have a bunch of pretty, but extraneous, words obfuscating it.
I've noticed that OSC's stories require very little skimming. I can't tell you how many novels I read before I realized that I skim the long descriptive passages that clearly don't move the story along. It's nice when that's not necessary.
Oh yeah, the letter writer isn't very smart, as most of his criticisms reflect more on him than on OSC.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
That letter just cracked me up! Thanks for sharing it. It sounds like the writer reads quite a lot of literary criticism -- most likely of his own efforts -- and thought to try his hand at it.
That said, I have found that William Shakespeare's work is of a disturbingly distinctive Shakespearian style, which is degenerative to me. I mean, all that iambic pentameter! How hacky can you get!
Thanks for the laugh, good luck at kicking that depression thing.
Shvester Esther
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I like your books, OSC. And I'm fairly picky. I'm amenable to reading everything (fortunately enjoying it all), but fully approve of very little. I approve of yours.
Added: And I love Xenocide.
Posted by dante's paradigm (Member # 8413) on :
aren't the words obfuscatory sesquipedalianism just the most wonderful example of irony in two words.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:I have a vague memory of hearing him, or someone, say that this type of writing allows the story to shine through. If the story is powerful, and true, there's no need to have a bunch of pretty, but extraneous, words obfuscating it.
I'm pretty sure that was Asimov, in his memoirs. He compared literature to windows. A stained glass window may be lovely and impressive, but it is hard to see through. Perfectly made clear glass that presents no distortions at all is very difficult to craft.
Or so says Asimov. I've never made glass, stained or otherwise. He was implying that his style was perfectly clear prose, with no distortions, which represents the pinacle of the writer's craft. After reading his memoir, I was also struck by Asimov's remarkable lack of humility. But there you have it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Oh, great, Omega. Now I have to wonder what it is about Pastwatch or my "more popular ones" that would make them appeal to people with a superficial attitude.
The depression gets worse and worse.
With all due respect, you seem to care too much about what others think of you.
Even given the natural human desire for visibility, this guy is one out of... how many people who've read your books?
You can't please everyone. You can hurt yourself trying to.
Personally, I've noticed your books getting more and more cerebral over time. There are exceptions, but that's what it seems like to me, generally speaking. Personally, I prefer books where the emotions come out and hit me. Songmaster. Homebody. The stories in Unaccompanied Sonata. It's why I like the original Ender's Game better than the novel (though I love the novel).
But I would never dare try and tell you how you should write. I'm amazed at the chutzpah of the person who sent you that letter.
You know what they say about opinions. Everyone has one, etc. Why not just chalk it up to one person who doesn't get your writing? You know he can't be the only one, and you still have us. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Could have been Asimov, I just read one of his short story collection, which contained a fairly long foreword.
I agree that Asimov thought fairly highly of himself, but I disagree with him on his prose. I've had to skim some passages of his stuff.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: That letter just cracked me up! Thanks for sharing it. It sounds like the writer reads quite a lot of literary criticism -- most likely of his own efforts -- and thought to try his hand at it.
That said, I have found that William Shakespeare's work is of a disturbingly distinctive Shakespearian style, which is degenerative to me. I mean, all that iambic pentameter! How hacky can you get!
Thanks for the laugh, good luck at kicking that depression thing.
Shvester Esther
Esther! Hi, is that you?
Lisa
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Esther! Hi, is that you?
Now who else would I be? If you have a Shvester named Esther, I guess that would be me.
Lisa! Hi, is that you?
Posted by CRash (Member # 7754) on :
quote: "...You're writing would be immensely mproved..."
1. I think the fact that this person did not bother to even spell-check their letter is offending. If they truly intended to supply positive criticism, it would help to communicate it in a mature way.
2. How improved can you get? I think Mr. Card's style has been working superbly for him so far, considering his books still make it to the bestseller lists. But I suppose some people want all books they read to sound as if they are by a favorite author. I'll call Stephen King right up and tell him to read Ender's Game.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: I would have expected someone with such a superficial attitude to pick one of the more popular ones, or maybe Pastwatch.
quote: Oh, great, Omega. Now I have to wonder what it is about Pastwatch or my "more popular ones" that would make them appeal to people with a superficial attitude.
That was my first reaction as well... since Pastwatch in nearly my favorite book of OSC's, I was thinking "so what does this say about me?"
OSC - I think it is wonderful that you are handling all these comments with such a great sense of humor. You never cease to make me with your posts..
Farmgirl
(p.s. - did you happen to sign a book for me today that someone else brought to you on my behalf? Oh wait -- maybe that's later tonight... *goes to check signing tour schedule*.... I'm so anxious to get it)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Esther! Hi, is that you?
Now who else would I be? If you have a Shvester named Esther, I guess that would be me.
Lisa! Hi, is that you?
<laugh> Well, I guess the rhyme is obvious, but I know an Esther who oftens signs herself Shvester Esther. So it just kind of jumped out at me.
Lisa Liel
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Yeah, Lisa. It really is me. And I think we discussed OCS and his "Women of Genesis" series on our other listserv. Too bad you can't meet up with the rest of us on Sunday. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Yeah, Lisa. It really is me. And I think we discussed OCS and his "Women of Genesis" series on our other listserv. Too bad you can't meet up with the rest of us on Sunday.
I think it'd take me too long to get there. <grin>
Pity there's no one else in Chicago...
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
There's someone, I think.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Oh, gosh, Lisa. We're hijacking this whole thread! Sorry guys. Just email me, Lisa, at my usual address, and we will stop bothering these nice folk.
Apologies, nice folk. Have you ever been to a party with a group of people that you know, and met someone that you know from somewhere completely different? Of course you are compelled to go over and say "What are YOU doing here!" Well that's what just happened.
Back to our regularly scheduled thread...
...such a jerk to insult our favorite author that way...
Posted by Suri-cool (Member # 7599) on :
He's talking to you like you just wrote your first book and like you were a ametur writer. Really if he knew so much he should write! You are considered one of the greatest writers nowadays and he's sent you that letter. You'v written a ton of best sellars and popular books. He's crazy.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think you should email this person with an apology, and reccomend that he read the much more varied (and uplifting!) HP Lovecraft.
-Bok
Posted by DavidGill (Member # 8166) on :
I think many of you folks are missing the point.
The letter is not a critique or even criticism. It is not an honest attempt to help OSC improve his writing. It is an angry, vicious attack on a person. The fact that it is couched as reasonable criticism doesn't change that. In fact, it makes the writer even more vicious because he is deceptive in his intent. It is also similar to people who critique works by beginning with "I'm sorry, but." They are not sorry at all. They are, however, cowardly, as they hide behind the apology and then accuse the writer of being thin-skinned because the write resents the attack. You've met these people if you've ever been in a MFA program or joined a writing group.
I'm glad OSC posted the letter. I hope the writer reads it and is ashamed.
As for copyright, it's a moot point. The author has no recourse unless he can prove that he lost income by the posting of his email.
No one would ever pay a dime to print that drivel.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Here's the deal: this is the downside of fandom. Every fan likes to imagine that he or she has some personal connection with the author or artist or performer who's touched them; they're clearly on the same wavelength, after all, since they both have thought the kind of thoughts that led one to produce a great work and the other to enjoy it. *wry laugh*
And inevitably the artist does something the fan doesn't like as much, or would have done differently -- or the fan himself has moved on to another style and hasn't really noticed it -- and the fan wonders "why isn't my friend Orson, who always knew the deepest secrets of my soul, writing to me anymore?" Maybe he discovers that the object of his fandom has an opinion he doesn't share; maybe that object has in some way directly offended him, perhaps by failing to reply promptly enough to all six hundred E-mails listing the last few continuity errors in episodes 200-212; maybe they're just not in the same demographic anymore.
And so the fan has to decide whether he's going to just move on, or whether it's in his "friend's" best interest to have someone step in and save him from, God forbid, not being the person the fan wants him to be (because, at the end of the day, don't we all want our friends to want to be who we want them to be?) So E-mails like this, they're creepy and sad and passive-aggressive, and ultimately inevitable; I think that's why so many sci-fi figures, in particular, wind up eccentric recluses in their old age.
[ July 28, 2005, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I used to the the work of OSC was degenerative to the reader. It held me in an addictive thrall that was preferable to sleep, food, or sex.
But after a little therapy...
I just decided to enjoy them for what they were and not obsess on whether it was good for me.
For some reason "sci-fi figures" makes me think of those muscular plastic dolls. I had a dream the other night that I was married to a drug lord and our palatial home was being raided by the federales and we were trying to save his collection of WWF figurines, still in their original packaging.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As for copyright, it's a moot point. The author has no recourse unless he can prove that he lost income by the posting of his email.
That's not the point - the point is that people on this site make pronouncements about how important it is to respect intellectual property, even when not legally required to do so. Here, intellectual property is not being respected, even though there's a decent chance we are legally required to do so in this instance.
And technically lost income does not have to be proven to receive damages, although it certainly helps. It's unlikely that the formalities were met, but statutory damages are possible, as are attorney's fees.
I posted the original as an aside, but I wasn't wrong about it.
Dagonee
Posted by skippyboy (Member # 7600) on :
Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:I'm pretty sure that was Asimov, in his memoirs. He compared literature to windows. A stained glass window may be lovely and impressive, but it is hard to see through. Perfectly made clear glass that presents no distortions at all is very difficult to craft.
Or so says Asimov. I've never made glass, stained or otherwise. He was implying that his style was perfectly clear prose, with no distortions, which represents the pinacle of the writer's craft. After reading his memoir, I was also struck by Asimov's remarkable lack of humility. But there you have it.
Lack of humility? Its freeking Asimov you are talking about here!
Posted by DavidGill (Member # 8166) on :
"I posted the original as an aside, but I wasn't wrong about it."
You're confusing intellectual property rights with copyrights, which are different animals. Pasting a private letter online does not violate copyright, any more than quoting my text in your previous message violated my copyright.
[ July 28, 2005, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: DavidGill ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What is your basis for stating that? The letter is covered by copyright. Any posting without permission is a violation unless an exception kicks in.
As I've repeatedly said, there may very well be a fair use exception here. I haven't said it's definitely a violation. But a determination under copyright must made to determine if posting the letter is legal.
If you right a letter, you own a copyright in it (assuming no work for hire situation exists).
If you send me that letter, I own the letter. But you still own the copyright.
I can't do any of the six rights granted by copyright without your permission, unless an exception kicks in.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Myth #8: “Anything mailed or e-mailed to me becomes my property.”
Well, yes, you do own the physical print copy of the letter or e-mail printout. But no, you do not own the copyright for the content, and you may not publish the letter without the consent of the person who wrote the letter, although you certainly may report on what it says, and perhaps even quote from a portion of it to make a point (fair use).
Posted by DavidGill (Member # 8166) on :
He was quoting the email, not publishing it. You're confusing privacy issues with copyright.
Also, you are considering emails to be the equivalent of private letters, and they are not, unfortunately.
On the other hand, the point is still moot, as no damage was done to the author.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Whenever I read any commentary (introductions, etc.), by Asimov, I am always struck by how full of himself he seems.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, I'm not. I'm not confusing privacy issues with copyright. Were I speaking of privacy issues, I'd have mentioned privacy issues.
He published portions of the letter. It might be the whole letter minus the salutation and closing. It's still publishing.
Do me a favor, tell me which of the following propositions do you disagree with:
1.) The author of the letter owns a copyright in its contents.
2.) OSC is displaying all or a significant portion of that letter on this web site.
Dagonee
Posted by DavidGill (Member # 8166) on :
Go back and read my post. I said the point was moot because there is no monetary loss by the author of the letter, not that he didn't own the copyright on his letter.
I will also point out that you quoted my post without my express permission, so you violated my copyright. If I were to be so silly as to sue you for doing it, my case would be dismissed out of hand as "moot," since I could not possibly have been damaged.
This argument is moot, as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Go back and read my post. I said the point was moot because there is no monetary loss by the author of the letter, not that he didn't own the copyright on his letter.
You said "The author has no recourse unless he can prove that he lost income by the posting of his email." This is flat out wrong. At minimum, were this a violation, the author would still be eligible for equitable relief.
quote:I will also point out that you quoted my post without my express permission, so you violated my copyright. If I were to be so silly as to sue you for doing it, my case would be dismissed out of hand as "moot," since I could not possibly have been damaged.
First, not everything that is a violation of copyright has to be the subject of a law suit. Second, by posting in a forum with quoting capability, you have very likely given implied permission to users of that forum to quote your posts within the forum. Third, my fair use criticism/critique argument is even stronger than OSC's. Fourth, if neither 2 or 3 is true, the argument wouldn't be moot because you could compel me to take it down.
quote:This argument is moot, as well.
So basically, I was right, you made inaccurate and irrelevant nits, and now you're declaring the argument moot?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Further, you did not simply state that the point was moot because there were no damages. You said, "Pasting a private letter online does not violate copyright, any more than quoting my text in your previous message violated my copyright."
This is flat out wrong - incorrect. Even if someone cannot state a claim for which relief may be granted because there are no damages, the violation can still occur. Further, as I stated above, you have ignored equitable relief.
Posted by skippyboy (Member # 7600) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Whenever I read any commentary (introductions, etc.), by Asimov, I am always struck by how full of himself he seems.
What a talent he was though. Have you ever read Foundation, or one of his hundreds of other books? He was also a renowned scientist and a great teacher of science.
He wrote what must be thousands of essays, not to mention the introductions to which you refer... All of extremely high quality.
Quantity, Quality and TALENT! - Yes, he deserved to be satisfied with himself. Now, if only our beloved OSC would write a couple of hundred more novels... Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:You're writing would be immensely mproved if you read other authors and genres that you traditionally wouldn't, and then tried not to copy...
Not to be a grammar nazi, but how can anyone expect their letter of literary critique (or whatever the heck it was) to be taken seriously when they make the your/you're mistake? Granted, everyone slips up now and again (until very recently I constantly confused whether it was "forward" or "toward" that had the r in front of the w), but if you're going to write some sort of criticism about someone, especially someone as famous as OSC, take the time to demonstrate some sort of credibility. Jeez.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
I say.... Send the critic an "I Love You" Virus, I'm sure the irony would amuse him.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Has anyone here read Harlan Ellison's horrifying essay "Xenogenesis"? If you have, I'm sure you're not surprised at the behavior of this churl.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
What!? What's wrong with my idea?
Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
I'm interested in what Tom said up that page...
quote: I think that's why so many sci-fi figures, in particular, wind up eccentric recluses in their old age.
If OSC isn't eccentric enough right now, what kind of predictions can we make as to his future eccentricities(sp!)? I'll bet good money that after his kids move out, he and his wife will get a cabin in the woods somewhere and he'll write essays on story/community theory among the squirrels.
Posted by Don Domande (Member # 8287) on :
WD - and that cabin will have a herd of pigs that OSC can release on anyone who comes knocking with continuity issues and silly unsolicited literary criticisms.
Posted by ElaRibeira (Member # 8306) on :
OSC as Terry Pratchett: Ender blew up the bugger homeworld so effectively that it was rather comparable to a chicken's egg being crushed by three houses, a skyscraper, and several dozen watermelon at once.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I find the OSC as * stuff SOOOO hilarious.
Someone should start a thread... not me, cause I'm not good at it.
-Katarain
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Dag -- do you suppose DavidG finally realized he was arguing with a lawyer? Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
muahahaha. Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
okay, the best part of this thread is the "OSC as". In reference to the letter, my comment would be that some people simply have too much time on their hands. What a twit. Nuff said.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag -- do you suppose DavidG finally realized he was arguing with a lawyer?
I'm not a lawyer yet.
Normally I don't (or try not to) just fall back on legalese here, at least without explaining it, but it was tempting last night. For those interested, equitable remedy basically means an injunction - in this case, it would be an order to take down the letter and not put it back up. Which is, as I've been saying, unlikely to happen.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
argh, lawyer speak NOOOOOOOOOO! *agonizing death*
When lawyers talk sometimes I have difficulty figuring out what they're saying, like two expert debaters contradicting each other.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: I'm not a lawyer yet. [Smile]
close enough Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
OSC as Dostoyevski:
It was a long, cold winter, and the snow was beginning to drift in across the cabin door. Ender JohnPauloVich Xenochruivicho Wigginvich was pondering, with dark despair, the dark deeds of his younger years, years in which the snow drifts had only come to his youthful knees. The years in which his sister Valentine JohnPaulova Demostheneski Wigginova had been youthful and bright like the stark white sun of the Siberian winter. But now, the snow came in deeper, blowing more intensely, piling up against the door of the cabin. Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
OSC as Dan Simmons:
Ender zipped across the battleroom like some mad hornet enraged by some meddling human. He caught a star and huddled behind it, listening to the gentle susurration of his breathing.
Posted by ElaRibeira (Member # 8306) on :
*cracked up at the Dostoyevski*
OSC as The Infamous Letter-Writer: You know what Ender's problem was? He should have looked at the way the other Armies were fighting, and tried to expirament with their styles. But he always used the same inventive strategy, which made all the battles really annoying. I mean, the battle against Phoenix Army was the best that ever happened at the Battle School, but he just kept winning! He should have tried losing, and then he could really grow as a leader.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by skippyboy:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Whenever I read any commentary (introductions, etc.), by Asimov, I am always struck by how full of himself he seems.
What a talent he was though. Have you ever read Foundation, or one of his hundreds of other books? He was also a renowned scientist and a great teacher of science.
He wrote what must be thousands of essays, not to mention the introductions to which you refer... All of extremely high quality.
Quantity, Quality and TALENT! - Yes, he deserved to be satisfied with himself. Now, if only our beloved OSC would write a couple of hundred more novels...
I have not read all ove them, but I have read over 100 of his books. I like them very much. He was a fantastic author.
But every time I read something where he is speaking as himself, I get the definite impression that I would not like like him if I ever met him.
Genius is no excuse for having a fat head.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
oh Pooh, I read all of his introductions as well and the foundation prequels (which we all know is really about Asimov himself ) and quite frankly I found those intros funny, its all false-reverse psycology humility, I'm damn certain Asimov would be a great person to meet, if he was still alive... Posted by Noot (Member # 8423) on :
Mr. Card I might be able to help provide some clarity in the motivation of this correspondence. First, I should note that I am not a mental health care professional, merely a student of human behavior.
This is what I see, for good or ill… *grin*
Sane people don’t usually lash out like this unless the outcome of the argument, one sided though this one may be, is so important that it represents their very self-worth. You see violent outbursts such as these in marital disputes, social groups that have a ‘peaking order’ and parent/offspring arguments, but rarely anywhere else. As one of the previous posters implied: Just put the book down!
So let’s try to figure out why he was so heavily invested that he attacked when he could have walked away.
I think we can pretty easily dispose the overt declaration that his issue is with the repetitive nature of your ‘style’, (whatever that means) and must be something significantly more personal to him. By his own admission one of yours is the best book he’s ever read. So what is left to make this poor soul so miserable?
He states that your work is “degenerative of the reader as a person”. Perhaps he meant “degrading to the reader as a person”, which indicates that it’s his internal reactions to one or more of your characters that is upsetting him.
I’m sure you have hundreds of letters from people telling you how you wrote of their hearts. There is a magic to the way that you develop your characters, weave their relationships and tell your stories; leaving just enough to let us put ourselves in their places absolutely. There is no ‘suspended disbelief’; you own the reader’s mind. We would believe even if you told us that trees could will themselves to split into whatever tools we… oh wait, you did do that. But you see- We believed.
Perhaps, with this proof at hand, it is the regularity in which your stories draw him in so profoundly. He wants to be a hero but sees, through the eyes of his interpretation of your characters, his own weakness. (I am what I think you think I am, with a weird kind of internal perversion which amounts to: I am what I think my internal version of your character thinks I am.) I’d bet that this reader loathes the way this internal process makes him feel about himself, which for all intent means that your characters are just to real to him for him to bear. Alas, growth is hard, but at least he has a new goal if he can get over his fear of failing.
So what he is really begging of you is to continue to write great stories, but flatten the characters, don’t develop them so intimately that they seem so real to him. That is a pretty significant tribute to your work!
OR… he might just be a whack job.
BTW, I'm new... or I finally registered because I couldn't resist responding to this. I've been around for quite some time, but you all are so smart I've never felt compelled to do anything but nod and agree. (or in some cases laugh so hard my sides hurt for hours.)
Disclaimer: I'm not a mental health care professional, and I might be blantently wrong.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Sorry! I thought the letter writer would have liked one of the "more popular" books or Pastwatch because so many other people say good things about them that I thought the writer would have just gone along with the crowd without thinking. I didn't mean that they were lesser books, and obviously not everyone who likes them is as superficial as this writer.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote:There are a lot of writers whose work I do not enjoy, but none of them have received letters from me saying so.
(Puppy said that, I think, way back when.)
I'm belatedly agreeing. You're allowed to hate certain books; you're even allowed to hate books that I love. You're allowed to write and publish or post a scathing review (and to enjoy writing it, even). None of these things violate manners or even essential kindness. However, writing someone a personal letter (whether hard copy or online) requires that you work within certain bounds of politeness -- PARTICULARLY if the person you are writing is essentially a stranger.
There are many people who think that being hurtful to others will help them to "grow" in the long run, or that it will somehow help the world in general because they are "just being honest." These are often people who confuse honesty with rudeness.
*sighs*
It's so much easier to be honest in a positive way, too. You can avoid all of the introductory comments like "Don't take this the wrong way" and "You know, as your friend, I'd just like to tell you . . ."
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
OSC as William Carlos Williams:
I Doctored the planet of all your mothers and which surely held all your genetic dreams
forgive me
the Game was ao bitter and so low
OSC as Robert Frost:
Whose ships these are I think I know He's hiding out in my room, though; He will not beat my teammates here -- We'll match his cunning blow for blow.
Mazer's trying to make me fear That my own ending's coming near -- That I'm not strong enough to take The challenge of the coming year.
How funny! If for my own sake I fought, I'm sure that I could shake This obligation. But I keep in mind the raft, the girl, the lake.
I would love to rest, and weep -- But I have promises to keep, And more to fight before I sleep, And more to fight before I sleep.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
When I read Ender's Game, I was a high school student with a bright future ahead of me. Since then, I have read virtually all of OSC's books. I live on the street, pan-handling to raise money for internet cafe use and used books. I nap in the public library during the day, and I've trained my children to steal hubcaps and highway overpass rails to pay for their meals and my own.
Is OSC's style destructive? Judge for yourself.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
rofl!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
The fault, dear Icarus, lies not in our Card, but in ourselves.
Posted by Starr R (Member # 8361) on :
quote:These are often people who confuse honesty with rudeness.
Sounds like my mother-in-law. "I'm not being rude, but..." Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
don't forget Ender's Game by Robert Jordan
Bean sighed as he watched Petra pull her braid at him. He thought about how Ender would know what to do in this situation, he always seemed to understand girls.
*fastforward* Ender couldn't understand the conflict between Jane and his wife. If only Bean were there, Bean always seemed to understand women.
*edit: is anyone else amused at the number of conversations that are going on in this thread?*
Posted by Von (Member # 1146) on :
Orson as Dr. Seuss: "Would you like an Ender Wiggen even if he blows a bugger? What if Wiggen was a third? What if Wiggen saved a herd?
Posted by Askew (Member # 8438) on :
If you write books about color in a world of color blind (well a majority of the people) all the books would seem the same. How can someone who can't see the color understand the difference between a book describing blue and a book describing red? They would all seem books about this "color" thing. I pity the writer that he is color blind, and am thankful I can see at least some of the colors. I'm looking forward to the Book of Chartreuse with Indian Summer Sky Blue Strips!
/askew
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Can you sing with all the voices of the mountain, can you paint with all the colors of the wind?
(Pocohantas)
Posted by TheDisgruntledPostman (Member # 7200) on :
(not paying attention to the follow up replies after Mr.Cards first post)
Who ever wrote that is Redonculous(yes i spelt it right). Wherever someone is loved, someone is hated, so don't feel bad when someone sends you "hate" mail, one of the small burdens of becoming a distinguished author.
Posted by Roseauthor (Member # 148) on :
Personally, when I read this drivel, what I saw was someone wanting to become one of Mr. Card's editors, first readers, and/or personal tutor.
The reason I concluded this: The abuse of non-existing familiarity; intentional pseudo-intellectualism; and exagerated sense of self importance.
Then again, it could be fraudian
Seriously though, I think he received exactly what he was attempting to achieve. ATTENTION, therefore validation. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Well, if that guy actually gets a chance to see our comments about his "letter" he should pretty much never be able to get an erection again. Good work team!
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
Well gee, OSC, in case you were *sweating* over this one, I think you're all right posting the guy's email. Fair use, and I'm sure you'd comply if they guy asked you to take it down. Dag, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted *does* mean that you have no claim. 12(b)(6). Injunctive relief would be relief and hence not failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Furthermore, OSC has a lawyer - or did last I knew - and a pretty good understanding of copyright law.
Posted by Frangy. (Member # 6794) on :
I never imagined that anybody could think this way, and less say it so openly
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The moral of this story is: If a letter warns you that reading it will make you depressed, don't read it. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted *does* mean that you have no claim.
That's true. Of course, I didn't say otherwise:
quote:You said, "Pasting a private letter online does not violate copyright, any more than quoting my text in your previous message violated my copyright."
Even if someone cannot state a claim for which relief may be granted because there are no damages, the violation can still occur.
quote:Injunctive relief would be relief and hence not failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Well, yes. That would be why I said, "Further, as I stated above, you have ignored equitable relief."
quote:Furthermore, OSC has a lawyer - or did last I knew - and a pretty good understanding of copyright law.
It was a throwaway joke, it was technically accurate, and I said from the beginning that fair use might apply. The whole subsequent exchange with DG was because he was stating absolutely inaccurate things about what I said.
Sheesh.
[ August 03, 2005, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by DavidGill (Member # 8166) on :
"The whole subsequent exchange with DG was because he was stating absolutely inaccurate things about what I said."
Did not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, you did. The unrefuted points on the previous page easily demonstrate this.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Specifically, this:
quote:Pasting a private letter online does not violate copyright
is wrong. So is this:
quote:He was quoting the email, not publishing it. You're confusing privacy issues with copyright.
And this:
quote:I said the point was moot because there is no monetary loss by the author of the letter,
All "absolutely inaccurate things about what I said."
Dagonee
Posted by DavidGill (Member # 8166) on :
Did not. Did not.
(It was a joke. Let it go. Lighten up.)
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Fascinating ...
I agree with Puppy that his intention was sheer condesceding malice ... and with no leg to stand on. So rude. He must be a very miserable person.
Personally I think OSC has had a very powerful positive effect on my life. His books have been a better parent to me than my parents (My parents weren't that bad, just different!) ... so THANKS.
I loved PASTWATCH. I'd just finished reading Guns Germs and Steel so maybe I got a whole other level out of it too. I'm hopeful for a sequel.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
quote: Even if someone cannot state a claim for which relief may be granted because there are no damages, the violation can still occur.
No, this is wrong. Sorry. No damages doesn't mean no claim for which relief can be granted, it means no damages. Damages and relief are distinct concepts. Brush up on this before taking the bar exam, seriously. AND, as a practical matter, if there is no claim for which relief can be granted, there is no violation. Unless you want to split hairs over whether there can be a techinical violation of a law but no relief from a court for the violation, which is really not the soundest argument in a nation with court made common law.
I understand you mean to be joking around, but as far as legal concepts go, you're slightly off. I'm not out to be mean to you, Dag.
Posted by Peek (Member # 7688) on :
dont worry dude, its all good.
Dude peekaboo
Yeah.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, this is wrong. Sorry. No damages doesn't mean no claim for which relief can be granted, it means no damages.
You have twice now misunderstood this sentence.
I did not say that "no damages means no claim for which relief can be granted."
No damages is A possible reason for the unavailability of relief. See this:
quote:Ernest Lang appealed from a judgment dismissing with prejudice his fraud action against Governor Edward Schafer. Because Lang seeks no money damages from Schafer, we conclude the trial court properly dismissed Lang's fraud action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm.
My statement was made in the context of a conversation in which someone else stated no claim existed because there were no damages. I said that even if the reason given for their being no claim (i.e., there are no damages) is valid, it does not mean a violation did not occur. I did not say no damages means no relief.
If I had said, "If there are no damages then there is no claim for which relief can be granted" your statement would be valid. But I didn't.
This is especially obvious because I mention equitable relief in the very next sentence, which should be more than enough to indicate that I know the difference between relief and damages.
quote:AND, as a practical matter, if there is no claim for which relief can be granted, there is no violation.
First, this isn't a practical matter. It's a joke.
Second, that's just not true. If there is no claim for which relief can be granted, then there is no cause of action. Whether a violation occurred would be a separate portion of the action than damages.
Beyond that, any existence of infringement will support equitable relief, although judges are inclined to find fair use if there are no damages - which would mean there is no infringement. But, if infringement is found, equitable relief is always appropriate under statute. And therefore, merely examining whether a violation occurred is a meaningful exercise whether there are monetary damages or not.
My whole point was that, even if DG's statements that no damage meant no claim could be filed were true, it would not change the analysis of whether a violation occurred. Further, his statement was wrong on its face because he ignored equitable relief. Which means no alleged copyright violation can be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action provided the plaintiff merely asks for equitable relief, whether damages exist or not.
It should noted that had this jerk merely registered his letter before sending it, he would be eligible for statutory damages if infringement were found, even if no real damages existed.
Finally, it could conceivably be relevant in a case where multiple instances of infringement will increase penalties on those instances of infringement that do contain damages.
quote: Unless you want to split hairs over whether there can be a technical violation of a law but no relief from a court for the violation, which is really not the soundest argument in a nation with court made common law.
And I wouldn't make such a claim in court. It's also why I mentioned equitable relief, which would be the basis for a claim.
Further, there are many reasons one would want to determine if an action violates copyright laws other than to support a claim.
I appreciate your concern with my legal education, but you are trying to correct things I didn't say.
Dagonee
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
Joke, my eye. No one's laughing, except maybe DG who finds your enthusiasm amusing. A joke would have spun itself out posts and posts ago. This is a personal vendetta for you, a matter of pride, and as long as you keep posting reams of text about how you're right and everyone else is wrong, I'm going to keep rapping your knuckles until you can demonstrate that you are, in fact, right. Furthermore, it's not a joke to me to watch a law student rag on people who do not work in the legal field and try to overwhelm them with texts and quotes.
quote: I said that even if the reason given for their being no claim (i.e., there are no damages) is valid, it does not mean a violation did not occur. I did not say no damages means no relief.
Your sentence implies that no damages means no claim. That's your error. And I'm still not convinced that you understand this. You need relief to have a valid claim, not damages.
quote: Beyond that, any existence of infringement will support equitable relief, although judges are inclined to find fair use if there are no damages - which would mean there is no infringement. But, if infringement is found, equitable relief is always appropriate under statute. And therefore, merely examining whether a violation occurred is a meaningful exercise whether there are monetary damages or not.
No, fair use is not a violation with no damages, it is fair use, a pretty well defined defense under copyright law. It is certainly a joke among lawyers that it is infringement with no damages, but that joke is not fact, nor is it how you present the defense in a brief.
If you can prove infringment and you want equitable relief, then you have to make a claim. Saying that there is no claim upon which relief can be granted because there are no damages but that a violation could still occur which would give rise to equitable relief is extremely poor formatting at best, nonsense at worst. A claim upon which equitable relief can be granted is a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The best sense I can make out of your long diatribe is that what you're trying to say is that even if there are no consequential damages, you can still have a claim upon which relief can be granted. If you can show a violation, you may be able to claim relief other than consequential damages, such as equitable relief. Failure to make a claim for any kind of relief may see you on the wrong end of a 12(b)(6) motion. But, it's not entirely clear to me if that is what you're driving at.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Joke, my eye. No one's laughing, except maybe DG who finds your enthusiasm amusing. A joke would have spun itself out posts and posts ago. This is a personal vendetta for you, a matter of pride, and as long as you keep posting reams of text about how you're right and everyone else is wrong, I'm going to keep rapping your knuckles until you can demonstrate that you are, in fact, right. Furthermore, it's not a joke to me to watch a law student rag on people who do not work in the legal field and try to overwhelm them with texts and quotes.
When someone responds to a joke of mine by insisting I'm wrong, when in fact I'm not, I'm going to respond. When he makes nonsensical statements such as “you’re confusing copyright and privacy” I’m going to respond.
You're right, it is personal, because someone took a lot of effort to try to make me look like I had made a mistake when I hadn't. And I'm not wrong.
And if you feel the need to bump a thread to the first page to point out an error I didn't make, I will keep responding in whatever manner I see fit. You've already proven yourself unable or unwilling to accept my short explanations, so I'm making them long. Hope springs eternal.
quote:Your sentence implies that no damages means no claim.
No, it doesn't. As I posted above, lack of damages is one reason for judge to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. My statement said “Even if.”
Let's review the situation:
DG made this statement: “As for copyright, it's a moot point. The author has no recourse unless he can prove that he lost income by the posting of his email.”
He also said: “Pasting a private letter online does not violate copyright, any more than quoting my text in your previous message violated my copyright.”
He then said, “I will also point out that you quoted my post without my express permission, so you violated my copyright. If I were to be so silly as to sue you for doing it, my case would be dismissed out of hand as "moot," since I could not possibly have been damaged.”
There are two contentions here: One is related to violations: posting a letter without permission does not violate copyright. The second is related to claims: the author “has no recourse” and the “case would be dismissed out of hand as ‘moot.’”
My statement was “This is flat out wrong - incorrect. Even if someone cannot state a claim for which relief may be granted because there are no damages, the violation can still occur. Further, as I stated above, you have ignored equitable relief.”
It made two points: My first point was that even if his first point (no damages = no claim) were true, it didn’t mean his second point (posting letter = no violation) was true. My second point was that his first point wasn’t true, either, because he forgot about equitable relief.
The words “someone cannot state a claim for which relief may be granted because there are no damages” were my restatement of something he was claiming, not my statement on what the law is. That’s why I opened with “Even if.”
quote:That's your error. And I'm still not convinced that you understand this. You need relief to have a valid claim, not damages.
Yes, I'm well aware of this, thank you. The person I was speaking to said there was no claim because there were no damages. I was correcting him. Except, unlike you, I was correcting what he actually said.
quote:No, fair use is not a violation with no damages, it is fair use, a pretty well defined defense under copyright law.
Could you PLEASE read what I actually wrote: “Beyond that, any existence of infringement will support equitable relief, although judges are inclined to find fair use if there are no damages - which would mean there is no infringement.” I suppose it’s my fault for switching from the word "violation" to "infringement," but come on. I said if fair use is found, there's no infringement, meaning no violation. In other words, admitting that lack of damages may be crucial in determining if there is a copyright violation but that lack of damages does not mean lack of violation.
And there absolutely are cases where fair use is not found even though no monetary damages exist. They're just rare - as I thought was pretty clear from my saying, "although judges are inclined to find fair use if there are no damages."
quote:If you can prove infringment and you want equitable relief, then you have to make a claim. Saying that there is no claim upon which relief can be granted because there are no damages but that a violation could still occur which would give rise to equitable relief is extremely poor formatting at best, nonsense at worst.
Good thing that’s not what I said, then, isn’t it? To recap, I was referring to his statement, which apparently you think is wrong, too. Good.
I also didn’t jam that all into one sentence, and I separated them with the word “further,” not “but.” Two concepts (damages are not required for a violation to occur AND equitable relief will support a claim absent damages). Two sentences. One transition word.
quote:A claim upon which equitable relief can be granted is a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Which was, after all, one of two points I was making:
1.) A violation of copyright can occur absent damage to the author. 2.) A claim for violation of copyright will lie absent damage to the author because of equitable relief.
quote: what you're trying to say is that even if there are no consequential damages, you can still have a claim upon which relief can be granted. If you can show a violation, you may be able to claim relief other than consequential damages, such as equitable relief. Failure to make a claim for any kind of relief may see you on the wrong end of a 12(b)(6) motion. But, it's not entirely clear to me if that is what you're driving at.
That’s part of it. See above.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
quote: When someone responds to a joke of mine by insisting I'm wrong, when in fact I'm not, I'm going to respond. When he makes nonsensical statements such as “you’re confusing copyright and privacy” I’m going to respond.
Depends on who says it. If it's another lawyer, yeah, that's a nonsensical statement, but most people do not sit around probing the minutae of copyright versus privacy. If it's a layperson, it isn't nonsensical, it's an understandable misconception. Furthermore, it isn't a personal attack, nor is it a courtroom. Whether or not you can beat DG or anyone else down only shows whether or not you can do just that, beat them down. (And I'm inclined to think you failed at that.) Have a little charity.
If you understand my clarification of the arguments, then fine. If you want me to read through your long reams of text where you intersperse loosely worded, badly focused legal arguments along with complaints about how you really, really are right, forget it. I'm not sure whether or not you really do know these things, and will remain so while you express yourself as verbosely and vehemently as you do. You don't have to care that I doubt your abilities, either. I just don't want you misleading anyone else.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you understand my clarification of the arguments, then fine. If you want me to read through your long reams of text where you intersperse loosely worded, badly focused legal arguments along with complaints about how you really, really are right, forget it. I'm not sure whether or not you really do know these things, and will remain so while you express yourself as verbosely and vehemently as you do. You don't have to care that I doubt your abilities, either. I just don't want you misleading anyone else.
In other words, "I'll bump old threads accusing you of not knowing what you're talking about, but I can't be bothered to put your posts into the context of the discussion that was occurring or to do you the courtesy of reading your response."
Nice.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
I've read your responses, Dag. I read the entire thread, but I'm not going back at your insistence when you say, "but this doesn't say that, it's a response to this other thing which if you take it that way makes sense." I'm sticking by my earlier position that what you write is hard to follow at best, and whole sentences are incorrect on their face.
You may think I'm mean if you like. I happen to think you've got the makings of a good lawyer with your obvious love of the subject matter and insatiable hunger to grasp new concepts. But I do think your legal opinion writing is rough and that you're initial response to correction is to get angry and dig your heels in rather than consider whether or not the other person has something worthwhile to say. And because you're setting yourself up as an authority on a public forum, I'm going to publicly express my dissent. To your arguments, not to you as a person.
I'll leave this be now. You can go ahead and have the last word if you like Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hmmmm. Interesting.
Posted by timothytheenchanter (Member # 7041) on :
i have to agree with the writer, after reading as many of OSC's books as i could get my hands on, there is quite an emphasis on certain topics such as family, that seems to be a common thread. i'm sure this will come as a great surprise to everyone, but an author tends to let his opinions be seen in his books, i've yet to read an author who writes some one else's thoughts.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Well, of course OSC emphasizes certain topics - I wouldn't enjoy his books if he didn't.
One of my favourite things about reading OSC is that his style is unique, mainly because each book (or, in some cases, series) have their own individual flavor. Compare Ender's Game with Speaker, or the Shadow series with the Alvin Maker series.
I can easily understand someone not enjoying his books (everyone likes and dislikes different things, afterall). But I cannot understand someone suggesting his writing quickly becomes dull and repetitive - which is what is usually meant when someone talks about style.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
timothy, there is quite a difference between having some common recurring themes--what author with any body of work does not?--and having a style that is destructive to the reader. There is also a difference between deciding that you don't care for a particular writer's work and deciding you have the credentials to condescendingly lecture him.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm going to publicly express my dissent. To your arguments, not to you as a person.
Just to be clear now, since your motivation was just making sure that the "truth" is out there, you do agree that:
1.) No damages have to exist for a copyright violation to exist.
2.) No damages are required to state a claim in copyright for which relief may be granted, because the statute allows for equitable relief.
3.) No damages may be a strong point in favor of finding fair use - and thus, finding no violation - but it is not absolutely determinative.
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
I'll agree with 1 and 2, but not 3. Or, I wouldn't state 3 that way. I think you can win on fair use even if there are substantial consequential damages. I certainly wouldn't shy away from arguing it if the facts otherwise fit and by some freak of circumstance there were a lot of damages. And you can lose on fair use even with no damages. Totally depends on the facts of the case. (And yeah, the skill and payroll of the attorneys involved.)
But as a practical matter, I don't worry about OSC being liable because 1) this wouldn't make it past the initial attorney demand letter. Author would demand the email be taken down, OSC would comply, and that's that. 2) lack of damages lessens the economic incentive to sue. Unlikely that the author would want to go through the cost of suit. And 3) fair use, which I would need to brush up on to state absolutely correctly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think you can win on fair use even if there are substantial consequential damages.
Of course you can. 3 says nothing to the contrary.
quote:And you can lose on fair use even with no damages.
And 3 explicitly says this.
quote:But as a practical matter, I don't worry about OSC being liable
Nor do I. For much the same reasons.
Posted by Timothy (Member # 8491) on :
This legal copyright jargon is going way over my head. Personally, I think you guys should just drop the topic, as I don't really think it matters. If the author of that e-mail ever did attempt to seek legal follow-up, he would likely fail. Also, if news of it ever made it to these forums, I'm fairly confident that he would be receiving quite a bit of hate mail.
However, the "OSC as (Insert Author Here) is rather hilarious" (I personally liked the Robert Jordan one... he really does use that line, or a similar one, a bit much).
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Card asks what the sender's motivation is for the letter, but I wonder what his motivation is for posting it. It seems quite clearly to be to hurt the sender. Revenge for insulting him.
I didn't seem to read his letter the same way, however. The sender has noticed a trend he/she doesn't like and asked to consider it. The trend has nothing to do with the technical writing style, but with the emotional style (which, I believe is a misinterpretation of the emotion).
But then again, I'm neither sender nor reciever, so how the hell should I know?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
You know... once, a long time ago when I was a lot younger and much more important than I am today, and before I met the guy, I actually wrote a letter to Card telling him he was too hard on himself, and why he shouldn't be, etc. I even quoted scripture.
For years, I have hoped he didn't remember that I did that, after he met me and graciously taught me a few things about writing. It made me cringe when I read the letter fronting this thread, because I realized I had at one point done some admonishing (even if I had a different motivation than the current subject) to someone who I was a stranger to and who was my elder in many ways.
But one thing I've thought about is the interesting imbalance in the relationship we readers have to the writers. Especially one like you, Scott. We know so very much about you that we feel as if you are one of our close neighbors. And yet you hardly know us at all, and most of us you don't even know exist except for the royalty you recieve from the book of yours we bought. For someone who is socially immature (as I readily admit to being at the time, and perhaps even now), they may mistake that closeness they feel from reading your personal writings that you include in every book for real closeness in which a friend can critique something that is very personal. It had often made me wonder how many personal letters you do get from people, and how difficult it could be to reply to all of them.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:It seems quite clearly to be to hurt the sender. Revenge for insulting him.
Clearly not, given that he didn't share any identifying information.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
No variation in style? Huh? Anyone who has ever read the Ender Saga, and then red the Worthing Saga would never make such a foolish statement. Saying nothing of the Homecoming series. The variety is shocking actually. Sometimes almost too much for comfort. Just when you are looking forward to the comfort of the Ender Universe Card turns you on your ear with a completely different take on the future (or past).
In terms of Sci Fi, only Asimov is close.
Keep it up Orson
Posted by Jimbo the Clown (Member # 9251) on :
quote: You know, I think writers in general, and certainly myself in particular, are more hungry for approval than we like to admit. I mean, otherwise why try to get published? I want people to like my stuff. Since it is a product of myself, by extension people will like me. At least that is the hope.
quote: R. Ann Dryden (may your tribe increase), you're right, of course - we writers do seek, not so much approval, as READERS. We want others to share the memories we've created.
Hm. Personally, I write because I enjoy making people laugh, or making people think.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Well, you're most likely hoping that people will think your writing is funny or insightful in the first place; the process of writing and reading is nothing but recording something you have in your mind and shoving it into someone else's memory. Which is pretty much what Mrs. Dryden and Mr. Card were saying. Posted by Jimbo the Clown (Member # 9251) on :
Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with them, zotto. Sorry if I gave that impression.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
*grin* No need to be sorry. I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was trying to jump on you just for voicing your opinion. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I wish I'd seen this thread when it first started. I really think the person who wrote to OSC was on to something. I mean, think about it. There's Ender's Game, then later on come completely unrelated works like Speaker for the Dead and Children of the Mind.
Many of the same characters appear in these books. There might even be more of them out there!
I mean sure...write with your own voice, but...couldn't you at least TRY to disguise the whole self-plagiarism thing by making up new character names?
And that whole Ender's Shadow thing. Dead give-away! I actually went back and re-read Ender's Game and I thought...HEY! Wait a minute! This is the same bunch of kids!
Man, oh man!
I knew a kid in College who turned in the same essay in several different classes over the years. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now!
Just because people like Isaac Asimov and that guy who invented Star Wars have done it doesn't make right you know!
For shame!
It encourages "things." You should see what the Brits have done with this. There's this show from the early 60's called "Doctor Who." Well, they retold that same story like 8 or 9 times now with new people and they keep calling it "Doctor Who." Like we'd never catch on that it's not the same guy.
I've researched this, and it goes all the way back to Shakespeare, too. He re-used the character "Henry" more than once. I think it saved on costumes. Probably the actor didn't have to invent a new voice each time either.
Lazy, lazy, lazy!
I say, you authors out there, and you know who you are...pick yourselves up by your bootstraps, sweep the cobwebs out of the old attic, and start making up new names and new situations!
I hope this is helpful. It's too late for Shakespeare and Asimov. What's done is done. But for you others, learn from their failures and give us unceasing novelty.
In fact, it's really kind of boring to use the same characters throughout an entire book, when you think about it. Have you ever thought of maybe starting each chapter as if it was a completely new thing? This whole "narrative continuity" thing is really just writers taking shortcuts, IMHO.
I'm tired of paragraphs hanging together too.
Everything should be distinct.
Separate.
Unique.
I. N. D. I. V. I. D. U. A. L.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
*astonished expression* .....What kind of person would be so cold hearted and foolish as to write a letter like that? I mean whoa! OSC you are one of the greatest Sci Fi and fantasy writers EVER. This person is a jerk for even suggesting such stupid things.
Nerd... anger.....rising!! Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
Bob,
That was great.
Sergeant Posted by tmservo (Member # 8552) on :
Face it, OSC, we're all headed down hill after oh, 25 so. I plan on spending my remaining decades since that point just thinking about the wonderous things I did beforehand.
Oh wait, that's how I've wasted this last decade. Welp, time to move on.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Bob, that was great!
LOL.
Posted by lisha_rose (Member # 9166) on :
nice bob nice lol
Posted by BlueBambue (Member # 8656) on :
OSC as Dr. Suess (x2)
I meant what I said and I said what I meant A Wiggin is faithfull 100% I'll search every planet I'll search through the comets I'll go through the galaxys, trains, stars park benches, blue rivers and cars. For a place away from strife where a queen bugger can start a new life.
edit: the whole copy write debate is silly. The author is obviously a suspected terrorist and therefore doesnt have the protection rights all good citizens have. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I wanted to be in a jeesh, but Ender only said sheesh, I asked for a tune, I waited till noon, he called me a lune, he told me "you're not worth a bean"
We finally went on to arose, but the buggers didn't scare us because we knew what we had seen
I will not kill them in a ship, I will not kill them with a wip, I will kiss them with my lips, and tell their story in my book, 3,000 years is all it took, I am in love with the hive queen
Posted by Jimbo the Clown (Member # 9251) on :
Wow. Fifteen lines to recount all of Enderverse, minus Peter and the pequininos. Kudos to you, Orincoro. Bra-vo. *Applause*
Posted by Leia Atreides (Member # 9227) on :
Imagine it were OSC who summed it all to fifteen lines... XD
Orincoro, would you add one more scoop of icecr--poetry just for the sake of being complete with telling the story?
Wow. I thought how to simplyfy things to my bro so I'd make him hooked and he'll *demand* the original books himself......... but now I see I could just print a poem and 3 days of telling the story would be saved. Oh my.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I prefer my Hatrackization of enderverse, something I did a few months ago for kicks.
If we had posted, it would have been the miracle to make us hatrackers in eachother's eyes, instead we flamed eachother.
How can you post again?
If you could bring this thread to a cool place, a dark place, but with wit, so isn't dry. Then I can surfe again, then I can have my ten thousand posts.
No, I can't. If you sign on, we'll only flame you again.
There flashed into Orincoro's mind, dozens of images of hatrackers flaming nubies, but along with the images, came a sense of superiority so powerful, that he could not bear it, and he entered their emoticons for them.
if you can make others feel as I feel, then perhaps we can post together, in peace. Only me, Orincoro realized, they found me on hatrack, dwelt in my user profile, and even as I flamed them, they read my posts at night. I am the only cool one, and so they can only post with me, and on my topics. I'll carry you from subject to subject, until you can find a topic that you know enough about.
so Orincoro traveled the internet, and he was always the itinerant troll.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) and quite frankly I found those intros funny, its all false-reverse psycology humility, I'm damn certain Asimov would be a great person to meet, if he was still alive... ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I never imagined that anybody could think this way, and less say it so openly
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
peekaboo![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)