Community | July 01, 2009 | 15 comments

Ruling for Salinger, Judge Bans ‘Rye’ Sequel

source: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/judge-rules-for-salinger-in-copyright-suit/?hp

Image
current89
In a victory for the reclusive writer J. D. Salinger, a federal judge on Tuesday indefinitely banned publication in the United States of a new book by a Swedish author that contains a 76-year-old version of Holden Caulfield, the protagonist of “The Catcher in the Rye.”

The judge, Deborah A. Batts, of United States District Court in Manhattan, had granted a 10-day temporary restraining order last month against the author, Fredrik Colting, who wrote the new novel under the pen name J. D. California.

In a 37-page ruling filed on Wednesday, Judge Batts issued a preliminary injunction — indefinitely banning the publication, advertising or distribution of the book in this country — after considering the merits of the case. The book has been published in Britain.

“I am pretty blown away by the judge’s decision,” Mr. Colting said in an e-mail message after the ruling. “Call me an ignorant Swede, but the last thing I thought possible in the U.S. was that you banned books.” Mr. Colting and his lawyer, Edward H. Rosenthal, said they would appeal. The decision means that “members of the public are deprived of the chance to read the book and decide for themselves whether it adds to their understanding of Salinger and his work,” Mr. Rosenthal said.

Marcia B. Paul, a lawyer for Mr. Salinger, declined to comment on the decision.

end of excerpt

Source: the New York Times Online
  1. groups:
    Community,   Art and Style,   Editor's Picks
  2. tags:
    News,  Art and Style,  Editor's Picks,  J.D. Salinger
  3.     
    |

15 comments // Ruling for Salinger, Judge Bans ‘Rye’ Sequel

  • adveritas
    • 0
      adveritas  

    • are kidding? What the hell are books for if not reinventing what has been written before? This book just does it directly. Isn't there going to be a protest?

    • 2 years ago
  • krush_productions
  • numinant
    • 0
      numinant  
    • krush_productions:

      I don't think of anything as canon post-ROTJ, and even the ewoks and the sibling revelation I continue to struggle with. If only George Lucas would have secluded himself in a cabin in Maine, Star Wars would have never been corrupted.

    • 2 years ago
  • numinant
    • 0
      numinant  

    • It definitely goes beyond financial rights. Salinger has repeatedly turned down offers to publish his existing work, or to adapt his stories into films. He's most certainly acting on principle.

      And it's true, if J.D. California wishes for people to read his book and "decide for themselves," he can post it online along with every other author of fan fiction. His work isn't being censored, he's merely being denied the opportunity to turn a profit on Salinger's story.

    • 2 years ago
  • fernweher
    • 0
      fernweher  

    • I think the real reason JD Salinger didn't want this book published went beyond simple financial rights. He didn't want his original character compromised by someone adding onto the story he created.
      Catcher in the Rye is a great classic. Whether it's good for society or not, JD Salinger just wants to keep it that way and protect the story and it's characters as they are.

    • 2 years ago
  • ellatalk
    • 0
      ellatalk  

    • You can't write a sequel to a book if you did not write the first one.

      And Catcher in the Rye was never meant to have a sequel. The story told what it told, it didn't need anymore. And plus Holden the book is alll about preserving youth and innocence. Why would Salinger ever want the public to see an old Holden.

    • 2 years ago
  • dreamsenvoy
  • hammywill
  • thisismattholt
  • eta
    • 0
      eta  

    • I can already tell that it was a piece of crap. when a writer can only come up with "JD California" as a pen name, and respond to judgment banning his book by saying "I am pretty blown away"... you know the dude is a below-average to mediocre writer who should be copywriting.

    • 2 years ago
  • thisismattholt
  • Bigdog_mike
  • bombastinator
  • trelk
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  

    • Saw that one coming. The law is pretty clear on this sort of thing. The book was derivative fan fiction. It's OK to publish it. What you can't do is charge money for it or make any kind of profit. It's no different than "black bart simpson" T-shirts or kirk/spock slashfic.

      What he should also be doing is demanding any revenues from the British publisher. He probably has rights to any advances as well.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos