Laurie R. King Virtual Book Club discussion

After reading through the link about the state of copyright of Sherlock Holmes that Lenore posted over on the announcements thread (thanks for the link, Lenore!), this paragraph caught me:

"A court has ruled on this issue before. In 1989's Silverman v. CBS, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New York City said characters are complete on their first appearance—which would support Klinger's position. But the estate made the novel argument that this should apply only to "flat" entertainment characters, not "round" literary characters like Holmes and Watson. And if people are permitted to use only elements from the earlier, public-domain stories, the estate argued, this would effectively create many different versions of the characters, undermining the idea of a character as a single work of authorship."

The argument has me rather befuddled...a state that I find often calls for discussion. So! What is a "flat" entertainment character? What is a "round" literary character? And why would being limited to using only early characters from the canon undermine the original authorship of said character, where waiting until all works were out of copyright would not?

I think the ACD estate was maybe grasping at straws with their argument, since nothing in the argument seems to make any logical sense to me. But maybe I'm missing something.

They are grasping at straws.

The more I read that paragraph, the more it sounds like the "round" argument is about serial characters. That a character in a series develops over the course of a series and thus the character we met in book one is not necessarily the same character we know in book twenty. Which I suppose I can see. The Russell who defies Mycroft in The God of the Hive is not precisely the same Russell we met and got to know in The Beekeeper's Apprentice.

Verses like Victor Frankenstein or Dracula, for example, who just had the one book.

I think Erin's definition is probably the one meant by the Estate. When I have some time (when will that be?) I'm going to try to find the briefs online and see what that argument means. If I succeed, I'll post something.

It sounds like a specious argument to me. A "round" character normally means a character that is very human, with flaws and varying emotions—hence one that feels "real" on the page. Holmes, Watson, and Russell all fit that criterion, but so do the protagonists of any competent novel or film. Possible exceptions include adventure stories and many mysteries, where the focus is on something other than character development. Hollywood blockbusters often have "flat" characters, and nobody cares.

A "flat" character is one that has little complexity and does not change. Lord Peter Wimsey in his early incarnation was pretty flat, for example; Harriet Vane eventually rounded him out.

The irony here is that Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes was much flatter than Laurie's; it's her introduction of Russell and her approach to the character in general that makes him "round."

The briefs in the case are available on the web. (Isn’t everything?) Go to http://free-sherlock.com/
The summary judgment brief for the Estate is posted at September 2013. The Estate says that “flat” characters “genuinely are created in the first work in a series, and succeeding works merely put the same character into new scenarios without the character continuing to be formed and developed.” (Summary Judgment Opposition at 2.) “Flat characters do not continue to change in each new story; they merely find themselves in different scenarios bringing about changes in dialogue, not character.” (Id. at 9.) The Estate characterizes Amos ‘n’ Andy as “flat” characters. It characterizes Tarzan and James Bond, among others, as characters who develop in subsequent works.

It seems to me that if the courts were to adopt this principle, it would interject judges into the business of literary criticism. Literate readers may differ as to whether a character has remained stagnant throughout his or her “life” or whether new aspects of the character are revealed in subsequent stories.

Lenore wrote: "It seems to me that if the courts were to adopt this principle, it would interject judges into the business of literary criticism. Literate readers may differ as to whether a character has remained stagnant throughout his or her “life” or whether new aspects of the character are revealed in subsequent stories. "

That's definitely a sticking point, Lenore. The argument is way too subjective for legal proceedings.
How would they defend their "round" character? Bring in subject matter experts? Except that no two literary critics ever have the same thing to say about a book/series/character. And extra irony: the guy suing them in this case IS one of the experts =P

Plus, (I know I'm going to get some verbal opposition on this one) Holmes is a pretty flat character through most the original canon. His focus is so predominately on solving the cases; he rather fits that description of "bringing about changes in dialogue, not character." You could convince me of Watson being pretty rounded, but Holmes? Eh.

Erin wrote: "Plus, (I know I'm going to get some verbal opposition on this one) Holmes is a pretty flat character through most the original canon. His focus is so predominately on solving the cases; he rather ..."

Hey, I'm going to disagree with you! Just off the top of my head, the Holmes in Hound of the Baskervilles, with his manipulation of Watson and hiding out in the moor, is a much more developed character than the Holmes of A Study in Scarlet.

Which, of course, proves our point (on which we do agree): that reasonable literate readers might disagree on whether a character is developed throughout the series!

Hi all, getting in a bit late to this discussion, but I find it hard to believe that the estate is trying to assert that "round" means "well-rounded," which would indeed get judges into the business of literary criticism. Therefore, I suspect that they haven't a clue what they mean by "round" and are grasping at straws. The excerpt from the brief is interesting, but I agree with Lenore - reasonable people may differ on the definition of "round" or "well-rounded." A character may be believable, "live" on the page, without being particularly well-rounded (Hercule Poirot). On the other hand, some writers, in an effort to "well round" a character, give him/her so many tics and Issues that those in themselves almost define the character. That does make him/her well rounded? Sometimes yes, sometimes no...

What an odd argument, and so subjective. This line cracks me up because Conan Doyle never considered his Sherlock Holmes stories as literature compared to his other works:

But the estate made the novel argument that this should apply only to "flat" entertainment characters, not "round" literary characters like Holmes and Watson.

Sabrina wrote: "What an odd argument, and so subjective. This line cracks me up because Conan Doyle never considered his Sherlock Holmes stories as literature compared to his other works:

But the estate made the..." Sabrina, that is a good point, Doyle must be rolling in his grave at the idea that Holmes and Watson are his "literary" legacy!

That reminds me of this quote I always see on the internet (I'm assuming Doyle really said it?):

“If in 100 years I am only known as the man who invented Sherlock Holmes then I will have considered my life a failure.” - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Sabrina wrote: "That reminds me of this quote I always see on the internet (I'm assuming Doyle really said it?):

“If in 100 years I am only known as the man who invented Sherlock Holmes then I will have considere..."

Poor man - let's hope that somewhere in Heaven, he got over it!

News Flash (sort of)! (Is it news if it's more than two weeks old?) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has upheld the district court's declaratory judgment in favor of Les Klinger. He (and anyone else) may use any elements of Canon that are not exclusively contained in the 10 stories still under copyright. The very readable opinion is posted at http://free-sherlock.com/

I should add the information that the Doyle estate has expressed its intention to file a petition for review in the Supreme Court. So it's not over yet.

For those nerds like me who cannot get enough of the Les Klinger/Conan Doyle Estate fight, read the description of the latest episode on Huffington Post: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltz... .
And you can read more of the original documents and commentary at http://free-sherlock.com/

HURRAY! for Les Klinger and all the other writers. I still chuckle at the Sayers "estate" (a corporation with no blood ties to Dorothy Sayers or her one son) when they slapped LRK for using in A letter from Mary a "Peter" (no last name) character modeled on Peter Whimsey. The funny part to me is that LRK's character was so charming that it won a whole new generation of readers for Sayers' fine books.