ROBUST discussion

[This article first appeared on Kissing the Blarney.]


Sherlock Holmes by Sidney Paget (1860-1908)

The Sherlock Holmes Rights Grab: A grotesque sense of entitlement among writers

The New York Times reports that a US court has ruled that Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain; an appeal is being lodged.

An explosion of faux Sherlock Holmes fiction is expected, like a boil bursting.

I've yet to read a "Sherlock Holmes story" by an imitator that matches the quality of those written by Arthur Conan Doyle. The greater part of the art of literature is inventing and developing characters. It follows that a writer who insists that he has a "right" to use another writer's characters, by definition isn't much chop.

One of the purposes of the law of copyright protection having a natural termination a number of years after the death of the creator is education. There is nothing in the expressed reasons or implied intentions of the creators of copyright about satisfying the greed of writers too slack or untalented to invent their own characters by permitting them to cash in on the name recognition of established fictional icons created by better men.

Copyright © 2014 Andre Jute

Although I agree with you in principle, I am more concerned, much like Holmes would be, with causes and effects. While I agree that there is importance in character creation, there is also a long tradition in literature that values parody. Even though there are sure to be half-rate writers that attempt to cash in on the Holmes character, I doubt that many of these will actually cash in. And even if some do, I won't have a problem with it, because the inevitable effect, and the beauty of parody is that it draws attention back to the original work. Sure, a few lesser men will cash in, but the character or Holmes will live on.

I take your point, Eric. However, termination of copyright isn't a precondition for writing a parody of some writer's character or style or whatever. To write a parody of Holmes would fall under recognized literary responses. Whether it would be a breach of copyright would depend on its length and what original material the parodist added.

If only those who wish to take the Holmes character for themselves were capable of writing parody, or satire, or some other subtle form...

But that isn't what I wrote about, unfortunately.

I think you will discover soon enough that it won't be just a few third rate writers trying to cash in on the Holmes name recognition, it will be a tide. And most of them will be offering inferior straight up copies of the Holmes stories, or bizarre "developments" of the characters. Look out for the gay Holmes and Dr Watson, the vampire Holmes and his zombie Watson, Moriarty as the good guy (been done by someone who knew what he was doing, I seem to recollect, but that won't stop some uninformed "author" from trying it on), and much worse that I can't yet conceive of.

Any good stuff in there, putting aside the morality of it, will be drowned by the tide of crap.

No! Not Doyle! *Bawls like a baby*

Ok, well, maybe not bawling. But sad, yes indeed.

Thanks for the heads up Andre. Koontz will probably try and nab this one too. Just speculating. He did it to Shelley...

It's a sort of sick parlor game to guess what they will do to poor Holmes and Watson, and with them, Conan Doyle's memory.

Hey Andre, long time no see! Yes, I'm with you on this one. It's slowly happening to all great ones...Kurt Vonnegut as well...more to come.

The thing is that all great writers USE, in a subtle and imaginative way, other people's characters...while creating their own. There is value in pure invention. There is no value in commoditizing great writers. But, here we are, as a civilization, trapped in the chopped, fragmented public discourse of social media and making money writing in "other people's world" because we are numb with greed.

Gabriela, welcome back! I still fondly remember our Great Scientific Leprechaun Hunt. I don't know if you ever saw THE GREAT SCIENTIFIC LEPRECHAUN HUNT, part 2. Love your new avatar, with your hair down (or isn't one supposed to compliment a lady on her avatar's appearance -- so hard to keep up with what's politically correct this week).

I was very disappointed when I tried to discuss the morality of the matter (not catching leprechauns, copycatting other writers' characters) on KBoards to discover that the idea of morality baffled everyone: they wanted to concentrate on the process of wresting the rights from two old ladies. (Except for those who, with the hypersensitivity of the indies to offense, tried to make me agree that I said *all* indies are worthless.) What a waste of my time.

But just wait. One day one of that lot will luck into a bestseller, and then suddenly you will hear them say copyright should be permanently the author's property, to leave in perpetuity to whoever he pleases. It's very easy when you have nothing to give away other people's property, but that changes suddenly when you have something of your own to protect. A colleague at one of my colleges ran an experiment. He rented a big old house and gave homeless kids somewhere to stay; they could stay free or those with jobs could choose to pay rent. The one rule was no locks on doors unless you paid rent. I helped out with the study by calling around, fixing up jobs, so I got to share in the results. Not one failed to put a lock on the door as soon as he had a spare set of clothes or some music. I lost a hundred bucks on a bet because I bet that only 95% would put on a lock i.e. that 5% would pay more than lip service to Proudhon's motto "property is theft". It turned out to be 100%. You can never be too cynical!

Kurt Vonnegut, whom after my teenage years I couldn't bear to read, is such a parody of himself, he's one writer with whom the competent indies will probably do quite well.

But Conan Doyle is very far from as straightforward as he seems to the naive.

Andre, I see your leprechaun obsession lives on...this is very healthy! It's those among us we can not see that give us trouble.

And...oh...the experiment with kids...I am not surprised. I think your prediction about people defending their turf (ie copyright) as soon as the sweet smell of success hits them is quite spot on. Sorry to hear about your bet...but I believe you kind of went against human nature with your bet ...Because...oh how much we love what we own...
PS. Compliments definitely become politically-neutral when one is the recipient :)

I don't go on Kboards anymore, so I can't speak to your particular characterization in that conversation, but Hugh Howley is kind of an immediate counter-example.

I don't know if that means something, but as the patron saint of the new publishing paradigm and one of the single most successful former indies, it's at least interesting to consider.

That is, he is a former indie who went on to great success and now even is fully in bed with the trads and probably rolls around in his royalty money at night, yet still has gone out of his way to encourage fan-fic based on his work. And, as I noted in a thread the other day, was at one point a pretty decent chunk of the better selling sci-fi shorts on Amazon.

Now, there a few possible things going on with this. It could be ideological or maybe some sort of just indirect marketing effort on his part, but he's definitely a high-profile example of someone who was taken from a very modest background to being a millionaire from his work in basically a year and has every reason in the world to defend his turf. Plus, he was promoting fan-fic of his work even before Kindle Worlds (where presumably at least he gets a slice).

Off to Kindle Worlds to see what it is about.

Kindle Worlds, brought up by Jeremy, is a place for Amazon to cash in on *controlled* fanfic. Fanfic writers are invited to contribute only to those "worlds" Amazon has licensed from the owners; there is a substantial list, mostly from television, with more official worlds promised; I didn't see The Simpsons, which I would have thought obvious. The fanfictioneers by publishing on Kindle Worlds give the copyright to their piece of fanfic to Amazon in perpetuity, including the right for Amazon to license or give any new characters, situations, etc in this world that the fanfictioneer creates to the original owners of the world to do with as they please, without recompense to the fanfictioneer. Considering that someone else has done the hard work of creating the characters and milieu these "writers" work with, Amazon pays generous royalties on sales, 35% for substantial works, with presumably that much going to the owners of the world too, which would make up the 70% Amazon pays elsewhere for work. Amazon decides the price of each work, generally 99c to $3.99.

Treatment of any world's characters and situations must be within the guidelines set by the owners of the world. This also tells you Amazon is making a good buck out of this, because the business must be good enough to pay the staff to read each piece and determine whether it conforms.

***

I haven't looked up Hugh Howley, but if, as you suggest, Jeremy, he encouraged fanfic as a marketing tool, he earned his wealth the hard way. It must be a huge amount of work carrying on correspondence with even a few fanfictioneers, and I don't see how else he would control and steer the output so it doesn't contaminate his own well, the mainspring.

Andre,

You don't know who Hugh Howley is? He's the author of the Silo series/WOOL, a ridiculously popular sci-fi dystopian serial series (again, more proof that Mark Coker's insistence that nobody will buy serials is wrong).

He was making money hand over fist before the trads came and initially managed to wrangle a deal with them where he'd only license out his print rights. He basically became a multi-millionaire in a year's time, and his sales continue to be strong.

Ridley Scott even optioned his initial trilogy.

I'm very very surprised you've not heard of him before. He's been featured in many (if not most) mainstream stories on self-publishing, used to decently regular on Kboards, et cetera. It's hard to read any sort of mainstream article on self-publishing these days that doesn't give him at least passing mention.

Of all the self-publishing sorts turned trad (who aren't E.L. James), he's probably one of the most successful, or maybe just really good at promotion, I don't know.

I do know that he spends a huge amount of time supporting self-publishing, praising indie authors, trying to profile indie authors, et cetera, so he's got a bit more resonance in the community even beyond his success.

Andre, before Kindle Worlds, he wasn't trying to control and steer the output*. That's my point. He openly said, "You can write fan fic off my work and sell it." If someone wrote to him, he said, "Yes." He didn't say, "Run it by me."

He didn't micromanage it. He just gave carte blanche permission for people to write monetized fan fic.

I actually don't think it's marketing as much as ideological because he's written several recent passionate op eds of fan fic, but I can't say 100%. It could be a lot of things.

I'm just saying, he's a very high-profile example of a guy whose work made him a multi-millionaire, yet seems very unconcerned about throwing the lock on the door, and, on some level, it is interesting because he's so financially successful that he's the one you expect this'd be a big turnabout.

I will note though, that I think he's a bit unusual. It is interesting though, and I think there could be more ideology about storytelling, characters, et cetera going here than one might think.

Of course, none of this means that some people just want the 'easy' path to writing money either.

*In contrast to say J.A. Konrath, who is all about licensing his characters but with very tight control on even style considerations, which is more the model I'd expect a successful sort to adopt.

Thanks for that Jeremy. I don't spend my time reading about writing and publishing books, I spend my time writing and publishing books. When I need to know something, someone tells me, as you just did about Hugh Howey.

I think you put your finger on it, that Howey may approve of fanfic for ideological reasons. Of course, he may just be a smart guy who decided you can't fight the tides, so instead he harnessed them to producing electricity.

Before someone can write fanfic, he first has to buy and read the fiction...

Thanks for that Jeremy. I don't spend my time reading about writing and publishing books, I spend my time writing and publishing books.

=====

A far better use of time for any writer, for sure.

I've set Howey's first book aside to dip into tonight on my exercise machine.

Wow, Howey does claustrophobia well.

It's my understanding that originally he was serializing stories on his website, and then the e-self-pub revolution came along and he polished them up a bit and released them that way.

Of course, he also seems, based on repeated public statements (several at kboards), to realize he'll never quite reach the same level of success he did with WOOL, but seems comfortable with that (and well, he's made more than enough money to write in comfort for a long time, which would be, I think, the goal of many writers).

J.A. wrote: "he's made more than enough money to write in comfort for a long time, which would be, I think, the goal of many writers)."

That may be the goal, but for some time now, I've believed that most writers either need a noble patron or a mate/spouse who can carry them both financially. Given how difficult it has always been for writers to support themselves by writing, the increasing lack of monetary reward should make that goal highly unrealistic. In the long run, that may be a good thing. Anyone jumping into publishing these days with the idea of striking it rich will soon be forced to abandon the pursuit. Of course, all the hucksters and hawkers who've sprung up to sell services and products to the gold-diggers hope that doesn't happen any time soon. (Are you aware that the people who grew the wealthiest from the great American gold rush in the late 1840's did so from selling pickaxes, pans, and other supplies to the men who flocked to California?)

In my case, I was unable to write until I felt financially stable enough to do so. So while earning money for my efforts is certainly part of my plan (I'd like to contribute to the financial health of my family), it's only a secondary goal.

It's true that a hungry edge can cause some of us to take ourselves seriously and work hard, but a growling belly can also distract some and make us wonder what's the bother with writing stories.

I suppose the issue is that I didn't use "a" instead of "the" before goal.

Let me note though, you seem to be suggesting that the choice is either "subsidized writing" or "writing and generally failing because of a lack of financial security."

I don't know your particular situation, but let me note, in my case, I work full time and have the entire time I've been writing. The choice has never been "job" or "writing"; it's always been both.

I am the primary support for my family, including two special needs children. I also write. Not as much as I'd like cause of the former, but it's not an either-or situation. It's not a matter of me not writing until I'm financially secure.

It's very simple. I like writing. I've been writing a while, before KDP and friends and without the thought I'd ever particularly be able to support myself at writing.

That said, I'd like to have success. More success=less time at the day job (which I can pretty much replace dollar for dollar because I'm a freelancer) and more writing.

For me, the choice isn't "aim for the stars or fall into the abysss and give up", it's "aim for the stars and maybe land on top of that nice-looking hill with a nice view of the bay."

LeAnn wrote: "Are you aware that the people who grew the wealthiest from the great American gold rush in the late 1840's did so from selling pickaxes, pans, and other supplies to the men who flocked to California?"

First case study in any good graduate school of business studies.

The interesting thing in some numbers that were published a couple of years ago, and then disappeared without explanation when the implications became clear, was that fewer than twenty writers made $100,000 out of ebooks over a period of more than three years. The standout (I seem to recall his name was Logan), who made over a million dollars, made it from a book explaining how he sold a million ebooks...

Perhaps I am suggesting that choice, J.A., the one between "subsidized writing" (which includes subsidizing yourself as you are) and "writing and generally failing because of lack of financial security." Maybe I'm writing from my own cynicism and dashed hopes because all I've wanted for myself is a writing career that paid reasonably well. One that I could have had if I'd been the technical/professional writer I was educated to be (and gave up to spend time raising children and writing fiction). But from where I sit, I think that's very unlikely. I don't believe I'd ever earn enough money to justify calling what I do a career or to replace even a portion of my husband's salary.

I know several people who've long claimed to want to write seriously, but who have never been as dedicated as you are. I think you are the exception that proves the rule. The fact that you support yourself as a freelancer -- something I was never comfortable contemplating -- shows that you've already got the grit that it takes to keep writing.

If anyone can find a way to earn a living writing, it will be you, J.A.

Andre Jute wrote: "First case study in any good graduate school of business studies."

I didn't know that, Andre. The analogy occurred to me recently after being barraged with a lot of offers to buy advertising, etc., to promote my novels. Maybe I've learned enough in the past few years to be awarded an honorary MBA?

Ironically, I only ended up going full freelancer because I was lied to about compensation at my previous job. I probably would have stayed had they given me the modest raise I'd been promised, but, I (and my family) would be in a far worse position.

I make more money now, in a more interesting job, and I get to work from home. It took a lot of various preparation over several years to set up all the factors that lead to this, but I'm glad I did it. It was terrifying at the time, and definitely not for everyone, but it's worked out for me.

I didn't want to at first, but my wife encouraged it. The thing is, her parents owned a small restaurant when she was growing up, so she was already used to the sort of potential feast or famine self-directed business stuff, whereas I'd always tried to seek the "safe" path.

J.A. wrote: "Ironically, I only ended up going full freelancer because I was lied to about compensation at my previous job. I probably would have stayed had they given me the modest raise I'd been promised, but..."

Ah, sometimes I think that's the best way to confront our fears -- to be forced to do so. And having your wife's support and experience is priceless.

I grew up experiencing feast-and-famine moments, too. Unlike your wife, these left me terrified about not having a safety net. They were less to do with the nature of owning and running a business and just plain bad life-management skills on my parents' parts. As a young adult whose father died before her 21st birthday, I realized I was on my own. Pursuing novel writing or even freelancing were just way too far outside my comfort zone until I had the support of my husband.

I think you're very fortunate to have gone through a tough situation and come out better for it. Testing your mettle and finding out you've got what it takes to succeed boosts confidence and enriches writing as nothing else can.

J.A. wrote: "For me, the choice isn't "aim for the stars or fall into the abysss and give up", it's "aim for the stars and maybe land on top of that nice-looking hill with a nice view of the bay."

I think that is smart. I've been a professional writer since I was 13 and have never missed a meal, but it should be said that what I consider "writing" is a good deal wider than merely fiction. Besides a few dozen novels, I've written much journalism, textbooks, other non-fiction, screenplays, stage plays, radio plays, advertising, and so on. In between I've ghosted some "autobiographies" and books of "deep political though" (people who believe that are likely, often keen, to pay over the top!) and even a cookbook.

Very good point, Andre. I've not been as clear as I meant to be in distinguishing between successfully earning a living writing fiction and earning a living writing more broadly. Clearly there are those who have very successful careers as professional writers.

***

John Gardner in his On Becoming a Novelist advises the would-be novelist to get a job that won't interfere with her ability to write fiction but will provide her with a steady, reliable income. For example, even though he himself taught creative writing in college, he thought teaching English would be bad for a novelist. If I recall correctly, he suggested getting a job as a letter carrier.

John Braine was a librarian and later literary editor of a distinguished newspaper. John Wain, David Lodge, and so many others, taught, often English. Douglas Adams worked in television. The list goes on and on.

Andre, per your earlier comment about the discussion of morality on Kindleboards, that topic, above all others, seems to cause writers to scream like little girls and run for the hills. For the most part, people (writers included) don't want to deal with the issue of morality because, if you do, you are forced to become responsible in many uncomfortable and grown-up ways.

Grown-up. Ha. That's an oxymoron these days.

Andre Jute wrote: "John Braine was a librarian and later literary editor of a distinguished newspaper. John Wain, David Lodge, and so many other, taught, often English. Douglas Adams worked in television. The list go..."

I think the idea, Andre, is that if you're teaching high school English, you'll spend so much time steeped in poor or immature writing that it will naturally have an effect on your own muse and skills.

Working as a librarian or literary editor, in television, or even teaching upper-level college students wouldn't have the same deleterious effect on a novelist's creativity.

Christopher wrote: "Andre, per your earlier comment about the discussion of morality on Kindleboards, that topic, above all others, seems to cause writers to scream like little girls and run for the hills. For the mos..."

I was flayed once in a writing group (not Kboards) for suggesting that one of my goals in my YA writing was to help, in a small way, instill ethics and morality in young people. I didn't say that "YA writing should only be about moral lessons" or anything, just that it should be a consideration. Everyone else in the conversation seemed to feel that everything should just be about "representing the real world."

I didn't see how that goal was incompatible with the idea of trying to generally have an overall moral or ethical worldview presented, but everyone just kept complaining about the mere idea that morality should inform writing, let alone young people's writing. It'd crush The Art(tm), you see. The only morality to consider is The Art(tm)!

I think a lot of the issue was people just didn't seem to get that saying, for instance, that I want my YA writing to generally be positive from a moral perspective doesn't translate into perfect characters or rigid character development or Manichean explorations of moral themes or what have you.

Christopher wrote: "Andre, per your earlier comment about the discussion of morality on Kindleboards, that topic, above all others, seems to cause writers to scream like little girls and run for the hills. For the most part, people (writers included) don't want to deal with the issue of morality because, if you do, you are forced to become responsible in many uncomfortable and grown-up ways.

Grown-up. Ha. That's an oxymoron these days"

People who see writing merely as a way of making a buck will never write anything worthwhile.

Historically, a novelist has been an ethical entity in advance of society's sensibilities; Dickens is a prime example That's just a fancy way of saying a novelist is a moral entity. People who claim they are "authors" without responsibility aren't in my profession.

The problem in writing fiction is that without morally whatever you produce will be worthless. That accounts for the tide of pornography, of course. Did you note an earlier thread on KB when I could just stand there, laughing uncontrollably, while pornographers told me they are "saving literature"?

As an aside. I was quite heartened when I heard they wanted to mislabel their pornography "erotica", because that desire arises from an understanding that what they're doing is wrong, or at least despicable.

On the other hand, as Paul Johnston was first to point out about forty years ago, the enemies of society always undermine the language first, and usually by attempting to mislabel their crimes.

Just for clarity: I don't take your hardline attitude to genuine erotica, if it has literary merit. I even helped a friend get his erotic book beautifully illustrated and printed for a private edition. But it isn't difficult at all to distinguish pornography from erotica, and the difference, beyond literary quality, is intent (another way of saying morality), money-grubbing v. sharing a beautiful experience (ditto).

"Grown-up"...

Quite.

LeAnn wrote: "Working as a librarian or literary editor, in television, or even teaching upper-level college students wouldn't have the same deleterious effect on a novelist's creativity."

I take no chances with contaminating my precious talent. I avoid teaching literature and especially creative writing, except through my books. When I teach, I stick to my other professions of psychology or economics or business. (Teaching, by the way, is an excellent tool for working out what should and shouldn't be included in a textbook.) Even in journalism, I avoid reviewing books, concentrating instead on classical music, sports (rugby, polo), and automobiles.

Andre Jute wrote: "I take no chances with contaminating my precious talent. I avoid teaching literature and especially creative writing, except through my books. "

I'm not sure I would have worded my feelings the same way, Andre, but I essentially agree with you. I've often felt very protective of my time and influences, partly from a fear of contaminating my thoughts but also because I don't want to get mired down in activities and people who will keep me from being involved with others that are more worthwhile.

I've discovered that people now ask me to help them with their own writing. It's not that I don't want to help -- I'm aware how awfully lonely and hard it can be to write a novel for the first time -- but I always fear getting sucked into a morass.

J.A. wrote: "[E]veryone just kept complaining about the mere idea that morality should inform writing, let alone young people's writing. It'd crush The Art(tm), you see. The only morality to consider is The Art(tm)!"

This is disingenuous if not downright dangerous. There is always a morality informing storytelling, even when there isn't an explicit one being promoted. I'm truly bothered by a lot of contemporary fiction precisely because of the worldview that underlies it. I once told a friend that I'd come to believe that literary fiction had to end ambiguously and leave the reader with the impression that life was small, hopeless, and doomed to disappointment. His response? "Yeah, my wife and I call it the three Ds of fiction: Depression, Divorce, and Death." How is that not a moral worldview?

There's no such thing as "representing the real world." What does that even mean? That people in the real world don't have moral quandaries? That real-world actions don't have consequences that we can determine as being negative or positive? That the writer is some sort of camera that records reality without influencing how the reader perceives it? How then are writers who seek to "represent reality" creating "Art"? How is representing reality consistent with telling a story? And why couldn't they be easily replaced with a software agent programmed to record and transcribe the meaningless mundane lives of ordinary people? After all, meaning and story aren't reality but exactly the gifts that writers bring to shaping our human experience.

I don't think these people are legitimate. They're poseurs.

LeAnn wrote: "... to record and transcribe the meaningless mundane lives of ordinary people?"

It has been done, and on a relatively large scale too. Back after the war there was a politically inspired movement to record the lives of "working people", who were axiomatically assumed to have greater reality and even value than middle-class people. This kitchen sink literature didn't last long, and didn't spread beyond the UK as far as I know, but I heard from some Czechs who reproduced my books in samizdat that there were plenty of grim examples published by Soviet presses, which is about where it belongs.

Flayed is a good word for the experience, JA. I've undergone that a few times as well.

Novelists have been ethical entities...yeah, that's more than right. In addition to that, the novel itself is an ethical entity, according to LeAnn's comment that there is always a morality informing storytelling, regardless of being implicit or explicit. Exactly! I wish writers would just man up (or woman up), admit that, and then proceed from there. I would have much more respect for the pornographers and eroticists and the slash-and-kill writers if they were honest in that regard.

Referring to what LeAnn said about Gardner:

As an English teacher who writes, I can say that it has made me a better writer qualitatively, but not quantitatively, as I am drained at the end of the work day.

Gardner was a superb novelist. I recommend not just Grendel, his best known, but also the lesser-known The Wreckage of Agathon. His book about fiction, however, is kind of wrong-headed in certain places. That gives it a certain charm, however.

I haven't read it. What do you think is wrong-headed about it?

Though most "how to write" books I've read beyond the barest nuts and bolts level, seem to suffer from a bit of paradigm-lock, as it were, making them come off as "wrong-headed" or whatever at least in some portion.

This isn't to say I believe there's no "best practices" or whatever, just that past the journeyman level, it often falls into a debate about preference more than anything else.

I can't recall the specifics, just my general impression that he gave bad advice at a number of points, although the bad advice was magnificently written. I recall shaking my head at some points. I was younger last time I read it, but I doubt I would change my mind if I looked again.

I'm no stranger to bad writing advice. I was taught for a semester by Jerome Stern, whose bumbling manual Making Shapely Fiction is still in print almost twenty years after his death. He told me my writing was boring but that didn't mean it couldn't get better some other time maybe. Dude never wrote/published any fiction but he was on NPR a lot.

Re the argument about Art vs. morality... Artists, including writers, were considered tradesmen for hire in the West until the Early Modern period at least, and if you look at painting, probably not till Impressionism. Writing-as-Art is a kind of a bourgeois entitled attitude, a noble self-sacrifice exemplified by the starving artist in the garret (an image that has never appealed to me, notwithstanding Modigliani or whoever). Art in the literary sense consists of some mixture of indulging your feelings about what to write; writing things that aren't so simple and that require others to analyze them in order to make them useful; and writing work of Importance. I don't find any of these to be persuasive views. I write to entertain myself, I hope (as many have advised) that what pleases me should then please readers, and the rest is nice if it happens. Novels don't possess moral authority, because we their authors cannot; but our works can raise moral issues and opine about them; yet if they (novels) do so without being worth reading in other ways, then their merit is drastically reduced. I haven't forgotten how Twain at the start of Huckleberry Finn said jokingly that no moral was to be found. So serious he might have been about this as to torpedo Huck's moral growth at the end. I assigned my honors class to explore that issue in their papers in November.

Matt wrote: "I'm no stranger to bad writing advice."

As an undergrad, I was told by a famous writer to "take up something useful like accounting". Spectacular judgement that fellow had!

http://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancing...

This cartoon features a comment about Holmes that you might like, Andre.

So true!

http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/ar...