Talk:Gilbert Adair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
 
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Unauthorized sequels[edit]

Shreevatsa's edit summary: let's see a reference calling both these works "unauthorized sequels". Sounds as if he's done something illegal :p

It simply means he didn't have authorization from the authors' heirs. (By contrast, Geraldine McCaughrean wrote a Peter Pan sequel which was authorized.) It isn't an accusation, just a factual description of what Adair was doing. Whether he needed authorization or not is a separate question, but since you bring it up, the Peter Pan book may have been illegal. The copyright was still active in the UK (and elsewhere) at the time, but he never got sued, so it's not our place to say. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I was also going to say something about only Peter Pan being under copyright. There's certainly no such thing as an "authorized" sequel of Through the Looking Glass — the author has been dead for more than a century, and the book is under public domain (and was, at the time Adair wrote his book), so it doesn't even make sense to talk of an "authorized sequel". So my impression is that there's no need to call attention to a sequel being "unauthorized"; it's implicit by default. Adding it there sounds odd. (I'm not even sure both books have been described as a sequel in most reviews etc.; we should use whatever phrase exists.) Shreevatsa (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think "unauthorized" is implicit at all. The phrases "unauthorized sequel" and "authorized sequel" both exist in general use, indicating that people often feel a need to distinguish them. There are sequels that have been authorized by the heirs of the original author, who have certain moral rights to the work which are independent of whether the work is under copyright in any given country. Furthermore, in some countries the term of copyright is up to 100 years after the death of the author, so the Alice works were still under copyright in those places when Adair wrote Needle's Eye. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)