Buffy ,'The Killer In Me'
There's more to life than watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer! No. Really, there is! Honestly! Here's a place for Buffistas to come and discuss what it is they're reading, their favorite authors and poets. "Geez. Crack a book sometime."
So Molly Gloss has a new novel out, it's called Falling From Horses and it's about stunt riders in old Hollywood.
Molly Gloss is desperately underappreciated and if you need a book that reassures you that there is beauty in the world, and people can be good and worthy, and a difficult life can be full of meaning, then you should read some Molly Gloss. Especially The Hearts of Horses or The Dazzle of Day. She's so good.
Are there Robin Hobb fans here? Cooking the Books interview, yonder: [link]
Elementary, my dear Watson: U.S. court rejects Sherlock Holmes dispute
(Reuters) - The case of the disputed Sherlock Holmes copyright is hereby closed after the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left intact a ruling that said 50 works featuring the famed fictional detective are in the public domain.
The high court's justices, which like the eccentric detective get to decide which cases to tackle, declined to hear an appeal filed by the estate of author Arthur Conan Doyle, who died in 1930.
The proper response to this is "duh," but I haven't been able to find out what the estate of Doyle's argument was for saying it still deserves royalties for Doyle's works. (Actually they claimed writers using the characters owed them a "license fee.") Anyone know? Or was this just an attempt to get $ while hoping no one would take them to court?
Is this "license fee" crap for stuff in the public domain common?
Considering the amount of money Sherlock Holmes generates, I don't blame the Doyle family for wanting some of it. I never though about who owned the character, but if he's public domain that explains all the recent shows.
Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc., has managed to keep its hot, sticky hands on Tarzan and John Carter since 1923, in part by trademarking the characters. You can trademark a character that is sufficiently distinctive.
I'm surprised the Doyle estate didn't do that.
You can trademark a character that is sufficiently distinctive.
Ah. That explains it. So Sherlock Holmes isn't distinctive enough, I guess.
So Sherlock Holmes isn't distinctive enough, I guess.
Well, not anymore. How many brilliant, eccentric, aggravating detectives with stolid, loyal sidekicks are out there? Oh, wait, all the ones that derived from Holmes and Watson. Maybe the Doyle estate just didn't think of it.
I know that Burroughs was one of the first authors to incorporate, and ERB Inc.'s aggressive pursuit of any unauthorized use of Tarzan was unprecedented.
I doubt that Arthur Conan Doyle was particularly invested in having Sherlock Holmes be his legacy.
Yeah, Doyle was sick of him--at least for a while. I don't remember if he brought Holmes back from the dead just to stop from being pestered or if the money got to him.