 |
| Read a review here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HST/is_3_3/ai_75121833/ |
The book is touted on the front cover as "A provocative literary parody that explodes the mythology perpetrated by a Southern classic." It follows the story of Cynara (called Cindy), the daughter of a white plantation owner and the domestic worker we've known as Mammy. Scarlett is her half-sister, and is called "Other" throughout.
Now, such a text (it explodes a mythology perpetrated by a classic, after all) is bound to have its controversies. In fact, the estate of Margaret Mitchell (author of the "original" Gone with the Wind) sued Randall for copyright infringement. I think that's hilarious, but anyone else want to have a go with a different reaction? What it suggests is that Mitchell's "classic" epic is an untouchable tale, at least in literary venues, and that parodies/altered versions, etc., are laying claim to something unclaimable. Don't screw up Scarlett. Does this have any parallels to visions/versions of Southern nostalgia and memory in general? Or not?
Want to know how the suit finally settled? Okay, I'll tell you. The parties settled with the understanding that Houghton Mifflin would continue to print copies of the book as long as it made clear it was an "unauthorized parody" (hence the fun red stamp directly on the cover). Mitchell's estate also asked the publisher to make a donation to Morehouse College in Atlanta (an all-male historically black college), which Houghton Mifflin did. The book's publication/distribution was halted for a month when the suit was filed. Both parties reserve their rights with future reproductions of the book...
Reviews of the book describe it as fiercely controversial and entirely wonderful. I'm not sure it's either. Nonetheless, it hit a nerve in regards to its play, its parody of something seemingly "classic" about the South. What sorts of things does that fact suggest?
I for one love unauthorized parodies of other well known stories or characters and I find it hilarious that the estate of the originally author of Gone With The Wind were upset when Scarlett wasnt mentioned by name.
ReplyDeleteTwo of my favorite parodies, Wicked which tells the story of Elphaba the wicked witch of the west. It is filled with political and religious dogma and such things and a statement on society in a fictional story. I am unsure as to whether or not the author was talked to about this book being a copyright infringement of this classic story.
I feel that books like the one mentioned in this entry are fine and not really an infringement of copyright. It is almost like the original author is more worried about the vision of their characters being changed by what someone will think when they read someone else's interpretation and take on part of the story. I love the fact that an alternate path and character is looked at while still within the same story like in the book above. I think I would enjoy that book, and I may have to add it to my book list. :)
The estate of Margaret Mitchell is perpetrating a myth that Mitchell had published an original idea. The fact that she was not alive during the American Civil War presupposes that she is basing her stories on narratives she heard from someone else. She did not write the first Love story, she did not write the first war novel, and she did not write her own story.
ReplyDeleteNietzsche wrote, "Possessing opinions is like possessing fish, assuming one has a fish pond. One has to go fishing and needs some luck - then one has one's own fish, one's own opinions."
There has not been an original idea in centuries.
Yes, yes, yes. Mitchell was working with archetypes and images that were pretty firmly in place for a long time by the time she published Gone with the Wind. And the fact that the estate referenced it as some kind of untouchable "original" is certainly not an original of its own...The book/movie have attained cultural Ur-myth status themselves--a master narrative of Southern memory and uniqueness. So we create the things that then we suggest are NOT to be manipulated with (under threat of law suit!).
ReplyDeleteReagan--Wicked is a great example of not only "retelling" but also actively inverting a so-called "classic" tale...
...Of course, let's not forget, retellings and inversions still completely RELY on those familiar narrative arcs in order to do what they're doing...Does that move things in new directions or only reinforce what it's setting out to change...?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure there is some argument here about "intentionality" and such.
ReplyDeleteThe law often uses 'intent' as a distinguishing factor (think murder vs manslaughter vs defense). Although the impact is the same I imagine there is something to be said for the intent of the author.
First of all, this is definitely HILARIOUS! I haven't read the book but I bet it would be an interesting read and an even better movie. Although Gone with the Wind is classic, I don't see how this parody takes away from it. It is only telling a story from another point of view, a point of view that I think a lot of America ignores/shuns. Back then, plantation owners always slept with slaves, mammies, etc. I think the real problem and controversy here, is that a "woman of color" was put at the forefront and Scarlett, on the backburner, the "other".
ReplyDeletebig damn deal, people do paradoies all the freaking time, and people continue to attempt to sue them *gasp* this is not a shocker!! i think it was a good idea to try to shake up an "American Classic" with a little twist. It wasn't like she bashed her story or anything, she just put out there what was really going on the "southern" plantations, white men slept with/raped black women and bastard children were born. so there is some truth here. the south was not and is not just a place for whites, true enough it might be the white man's oasis, my herstory is here too.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that the Mitchell party overreacted. Anyone who picks up the book is able to take it as a seperate novel. If "Gone With The Wind" is held in high regard with a person, that can not be undone by a parody by a different author. It also displays a sense of arrogance, by like you mentioned, deeming the tale "untouchable".
ReplyDeleteNo joke. I think it's far too much to hope for that something as proliferated as "Gone With the Wind" WON'T be subject to scrutiny or parody...
ReplyDeleteAlong those lines, it seems like if something has been admired enough to be placed in the realm of a region's 'mythology canon,' a parody or satire should be considered a compliment! It means the subject is dynamic, recognized, and still very much alive in its own context. Someone has something to say on the subject! Isn't it just the perpetuation of a discourse, like we were talking about in class?
By the by, I'm glad Reagan pointed out Wicked--it's definitely an awesome twist on another classic! :)
And in that same vein, has anyone read the parody _Pride, Prejudice, and Zombies_? I haven't yet, but it sounds like an AWESOME way to retell a classic narrative, as well as enter the ('untouchable?') domain of another classic story.
I agree Emma!
ReplyDelete