Barbara Roden - Closing Query

External Since: Oct 08, 2003 Posts: 86

I really do not wish to perpetuate the series of discussions reference the M
R James chapbook or the All Hallows review of VITTORINI as by now every
party knows what the other thinks. (Rather like a disparate and
argumentative family...) But I do have one query for Barbara Roden.

I can follow you with regard the copyright argument. The Crake tale is out
of copyright whereas a recent review is unlikley to be. Etcetera. But how do
you address another issue you raised e.g. that of courtesy? Specifically,
how can it be discourteous of me to quote Jim Rockhill - without having
extended him the courtesy of asking his permission - when your husband
splashed the Crake tale onto the internet with the sole intention of
'spiking' my publication? Not only did he not consult me, but he posted it
using text discovered by and procured from me, and he also misquoted me in
his haste to do so (on the 'sheath' issue).

I concede that the Crake story is out of copyright but surely you can see
that his actions betrayed malice and spite? I think most people would agree
on this point. I won't post a link to his initial post but it does visibly
drip with malice.

So, my question is this: Was your husband's posting discourteous?

External Since: Jul 05, 2003 Posts: 269

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 00:01:56 -0000, "Chris Barker"
<hauntedHIDEOUSDEATHTOSPAMMERSriver RemoveThis @waitrose.com> wrote:

>I really do not wish to perpetuate the series of discussions reference the M
>R James chapbook or the All Hallows review of VITTORINI as by now every
>party knows what the other thinks. (Rather like a disparate and
>argumentative family...) But I do have one query for Barbara Roden.
>
>I can follow you with regard the copyright argument. The Crake tale is out
>of copyright whereas a recent review is unlikley to be. Etcetera. But how do
>you address another issue you raised e.g. that of courtesy? Specifically,
>how can it be discourteous of me to quote Jim Rockhill - without having
>extended him the courtesy of asking his permission - when your husband
>splashed the Crake tale onto the internet with the sole intention of
>'spiking' my publication? Not only did he not consult me, but he posted it
>using text discovered by and procured from me, and he also misquoted me in
>his haste to do so (on the 'sheath' issue).
>
>I concede that the Crake story is out of copyright but surely you can see
>that his actions betrayed malice and spite? I think most people would agree
>on this point. I won't post a link to his initial post but it does visibly
>drip with malice.
>
>So, my question is this: Was your husband's posting discourteous?

OK, I'll creep out from behind Barbara's skirts and answer that one
for you. No, it wasn't discourteous, because (1) you don't have ANY
proprietorial rights over the Crake story; and (2) because you were
crowing so much about it, it was reasonable that folk should have an
opportunity to see it for themselves, and judge the validity of your
claims. We could hardly have expected you to post it, could we? It
might have ruined one of your, what?, fifty or sixty-odd sales. I'd
have thought you'd have welcomed the opportunity to have so much
attention drawn to your 'discovery'. So, no malice, no spite, just
making the text available; in much the same way as you did with a
couple of Gilchrist texts following our publication of THE BASILISK.
And, of course, there was no spite or malice in your actions, was
there?

And yes, you're right. I did use your text to originate what was
posted. The only difference was that I took the time to proof it
through and correct your obvious, and expected, errors.

And finally, just to clarify one further point you make above:
<The Crake tale is out
>of copyright whereas a recent review is unlikley to be. Etcetera>

There's no 'unlikely' about it. A recent review is very definitely not
out of copyright. In your country the copyright term is 70 years after
death. Here it's 50; in the States it varies.

Christopher