Copy Cat: Op-Ed

It all started with Salinger, which I actually thought was pretty cool and still is. All writers secretly want to live forever, it is an underlying motivation for publishing and more mature than carving your initials on some tree that will be bulldozed for development or graffiti, which I’m not good at anyway. Holden Caulfield would have preferred graffiti and knife carvings, but not me, that’s why I read. Anyway, the thoughtful author J.D. Salinger so graciously was (I hate to use the word) “literally” ahead of his time and wrote some books for his future audience. Yes, all books are for the future audiences, but that snarky Mr. Salinger put a clause in his will to publish “5 books new between 2015 and 2020” vetting his popularity points for the future and etching himself eternal. This raises some technical conundrums for the publishing industry such as who gets the contract? Where do the proceeds go? Most interesting to mull over is if any of these stories were to be rejected, or would they be without the author name 'Salinger'? And where does one forward the rejection letter? And also what if any of these stories were copied, or found had been copied (at any future date until 2060), since Salinger inked them first technically?

Beyond 2020 (not hindsight-actually foresight), Salinger also has slated a collection of short stories which were “not to be published before 2060”. If you’re around my age, don’t get mad that you won’t be able to read these (except maybe in extra-large print) they were actually leaked online back in November 2013, thank goodness for piracy and the anonymous abilities of the internet This is not to say they cannot be published via the legal and proper way of  whatever that may be in the year 2060, but for now, sharing is caring and spreading the word is better than spreading rumors or ignorance.

"Imitation is the sincerest (sic) form of flattery"

Or was it-

"Imitation is a kind of artless flattery"

If you’re an American you heard the news of the nearly shelved away Harper Lee and her timeless classic short novel “To Kill a Mockingbird” making news with a ‘newly discovered’ sequel? Harper Lee is not publishing from graveside like Salinger, but she is comfortable (we are reassured) in a senior living facility and has all her wits about her. The controversy about whether she wants it published or not has been a publicity bungee jump, first her agents claimed she is elated by the discovery as she thought it long gone, then someone steps forth refuting her said "happiness" and mysteriously claims elder abuse.  

The funny thing is, this book just now surfaces and as we look at the fine print, we learn she wrote it before “To Kill a Mockingbird”! Did she edit it anew? When was the last time she did? At the bright age of 88 did she think it needing some revising? Considering the first book for a writer is not usually great, hence in ‘Mockingbird’ (her second attempt at the story, with the same characters), she found her sweet spot. Not needing or desiring a rewrite gives me chills,  I think a ghostwriter just passed by…

Image:"Cemetery Cat" By Daderot (Own work) [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons

Then there is the whole issue with copyright infringement and that blurry scandal that involved a song released by Robin Thicke, T.I. and  Pharrell Williams that was overly similar to a song by Marvin Gaye. The court case having been ruled in the favor a deceased legend is no doubt monumental and precedence setting. Both are great songs, how could one be and not the other, and now there is a ban proposed on playing or selling the “stolen” track, why couldn’t it just be a remix version (Marvin Gaye for Millennials version 5.0) and they split the proceeds? Well that just doesn’t make enough common cents I guess. Copyright law is undoubtedly one of the most dynamic fields of late and perhaps the general public still assumes the ten percent rule (10%), altering something by a small amount, that it becomes original is valid still-maybe we really are only using ten percent of our brain. 

By White Cat (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Speaking of music there is a compilation by DJ Z-Trip and DJ P called “Uneasy Listening Vol.1”, that is a collection of remix, mixed music (yes, remixed mixed), as in two songs overlaid with an inter-weaving beat or treble mix which flows into new songs by transition. I am embarrassing myself however and am not knowledgeable about describing music, it's like describing colors to me. I have been listening to this one CD in particular for over a decade and have always played it on road trips and vacations- so my (now) teenage kids have surmised that “Dust in the Wind” has a dub-step aspect and the 'other version' must be the 'acoustic', but they do also know who Annie Lennox is, which is cool beans.  Of course, there is incredible creative genius in this musical masterpiece, but the foundation is other people's music. Oh well, the unofficial disclaimer at the beginning, “Everything you did has already been done” couldn’t be better-sounding music to my ears.

 It reminds me of  the epitome of the notorious copycat, T.S. Eliot and how berated he was for picking up, regurgitating and recycling ‘other people’s words’-without which there would not be  “The Wasteland” or T.S. Eliot for that matter. Sure, some people may approve (or disprove) in hindsight, but we each interpret what we hear and learn differently, and even what we retain and forget (resulting in the continuance of childbirth). As the famous saying goes “No two people ever read the same book” applies to poetry, music and any “thing” you ultimately perceive-(back to Philosophy, this one is perhaps a more advanced course however), there is little doubt that T.S. Eliot had his own take on things, his shoes are tight. Regardless of how you feel about Eliot (or really Pound), Marvin Gaye, Harper Lee, Dan Brown, Lady Gaga, Van Gogh, Dante and even Leonardo daVinci who quite obviously plagiarized the natural world- plainly painted does this mean that in art (and thought) there may not be any originality left?

"Originality is nothing but judicious imitation. The most original writers borrowed from one another." Voltaire

"What is originality? Undetected plagiarism." Dean Inge

What about all the 'new' words we've coined and all the 'old' words that have ceased their day, so to say? Is there a Dewey decimal filing cabinet of old words go to retire? What about all the rejected art (of any kind) that was labeled as 'before its time', do we have a tickler system for this? What about re-visiting the slush pile, or accusing Steven King (and so many more horror novelists) for being too "inspired" by Hawthorne-which is completely my own individual interpretation intended as a compliment. Is the evolution of language simply a relocation and forgotten attribution? Personally I like "famished" better than "hangry", but when I reach the point of the latter, famished is simply too weak of a word and ravenous a little too flighty or sounds haughty (not to be confused with being a hottie).  

Morally or legally does all this really just allude to self-defense or an insanity plea-where does inspiration end and stealing begin? Does this gushing lament all boil down to Philosophy 101, is murder ever justifiable (i.e. self-defense, etc.)? Aren’t we all an assortment or bouquet of our imagination and culmination of our inspirations?

"There is nothing in philosophy which could not be said in everyday language." Henri Bergson 

Image By Clavecin (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Being a huge fan of quotes is there a limit I can use before I have no words of my own? Sometimes I come across a quote that captures something so perfectly there is not (or shouldn’t be) any other way to put it more aptly, like the argument with myself above. Cutting to the chase, that may seem silly, but really there are only 26 letters in English no matter how you slice it, dice it, make it and/or re-mix. Like chewing (food for thought) doesn't it all just end up in the same place regardless if we keep our food separated? Doesn't our mind, like our body, processes this similarly receiving nourishment from the good and expelling the 'waste'.  

To extrapolate that concept a dash further, I will insert a quote (didn't see that coming, did ya?) by Tom Stoppard “Words are sacred. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.”

Is there also not a corresponding finite number of musical notes or chords?

Photo By Zarateman (Own work) [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons.

“When words leave off, music begins.” Heinrich Heine

Back to Eliot who as critical as he is inspires me to be better, who noted “People are only influenced in the direction they want to go, and influence consists largely in making them conscious of their wishes to proceed in that direction.” It seems so, likely Socrates would nod silently in understanding. But by that same Socratic application if we ask Eliot if one’s wishes are the “that” and we need only be made aware of them, where do wishes come from? Is it inspiration? How much of what is new, revolutionary, and deemed works of genius is actually sheer determination? According to Einstein, we need just 1 percent genius, the rest of our successes good or bad are determined by our tenacity. Is it inspiration that fuels tenacity? Are we inspired by what we are influenced by? Or is it the other way around? 

As to the well-known expression at the beginning of this sail on my ship of piracy, the latter of the two seems most appropriate or illusive anyway, and since it is changed ten-percent from the first, it must be wholly legit, which is all based on the order of presentation or birth of the idea. If you ask Kierkegaard however, he will say it was in you the whole time and its a matter of "Either/Or", but maybe it's just a miracle that any great art that is considered original makes it through all the red-tape, which for Indie artists is more appropriately like breaking through the duct tape dimension...now since I am nearly out of words, a quote, advice, or adage to live by, "Must run with scissors!"-me

"The new always happens against the overwhelming odds of statistical laws and their probability, which for all probable and practical everyday purposes, amounts to certainty; the new therefore always appears in the guise of a miracle." Hannah Arendt