By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer Larry Neumeister, Associated Press Writer – Wed Jul 1, 8:34 pm ET
NEW YORK – A Swedish author whose new book was promoted as a sequel to J.D. Salinger‘s “ ” cannot publish it in the United States because it too closely mirrors Salinger’s classic without adequate parody or critique, a judge ruled Wednesday.
How can this be called a “sequel”? J.D. Salinger did not pen it, nor endorse it, and while I’m sure he’s gratified that his book is known the world over, I can’t imagine any author being pleased that their book is being essentially copied for someone else’s gain:
She (U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts) also rejected arguments that the depiction of a character in Colting’s book to represent Caulfield 60 years later was a parody. She said in a footnote that Colting and his publishers made no indication before the lawsuit was filed that the book was meant as a parody or critique of Salinger’s work.
“Quite to the contrary, the original jacket of ’60 Years’ states that it is ‘… a marvelous sequel to one of our most beloved classics,'” the judge said. “It is simply not credible for defendant Colting to assert now that this primary purpose was to critique Salinger and his persona.”
More derivative work, like the P&P&Z. I just think authors should have a say in who gets to profit from their work.