Posted by PeterH on July 23, 2006 at 12:28:18 from 81.153.238.178 user Peter_H.
In Reply to: Re: Sequels posted by Peter Roche on July 23, 2006 at 07:29:35:
Whether AR actually stated his opposition to sequels is one thing, and maybe Christina will clear this up. However in any case, as I have already pointed out, the Lit Execs can act to prevent publication of sequels under their general powers under the Copyright Act 1988.
(Here I must issue a sincere apology for quoting a tedious Act of Parliament on a Forum which ought to be dedicated to celebrating AR, and his stories about children, natives, ‘quasi-adults’ (whatever they are), water, sunlight, sails, tents, campfires, scouts, adders, crucibles, great aunts we can all fill in the rest)
Under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s 80 the author of a literary work has the right not to have his work subjected to derogatory treatment. ‘Treatment’ of a work includes any addition to the work, and the treatment of a work is derogatory if it amounts to distortion or mutilation of the work or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author.
‘Prejudicial to the reputation of the author’ – this means that your sequel has got to be a darned good one – worthy of the great man himself. I have yet to see one. Like Pam, I am perfectly happy with the 12 books which AR left us. Except, of course, I wish he had written a few more, but don't we all!