-
Fine Writing, Wise Analysis Oct 18, 2009 (2 of 3 found this helpful)
As the author of thirty-seven books, I have (obviously) a keen interest in the subject of copyright. Hence I read, and savored, this book by Mark Helprin, whom I regret not having encountered before. His writing is dense--i.e., you don't breeze through it quickly, for he has chosen his words (and thoughts) carefully, and trying to skim and skip would be like trying to gulp down a gourmet meal. He digresses often, and well, but he keeps coming back to the main subject, that in our digital age we have lost sight of what constitutes good writing, and thus many people (Helprin's critics, of whom there appear to be thousands)seem to believe it is "selfish" for writers to be well-paid (and, frankly, we aren't). I think his wisest insight is that the "cut and paste" habit that is so much a part of Internet communication has led many people to think that articles and books don't require much effort, that we writers are lazy slackers who can throw a book together in no time at all. Not so--although, heaven knows, many of the books out there do appear to have been thrown together when the authors were half-stoned. It is inspiring to see creativity and eloquence defended by a writer who has both qualities in abundance.
In case you aren't familiar with Helprin's "controversy," it concerns his defense of U.S. copyright, which extends for 70 years after the author's death. That is, if you write and publish a book, you receive royalties during your lifetime and your designated estate receives them for seventy years afterward--which differs from "public domain" books, in which no royalty is paid to anyone, and the publisher reaps all the profits. This is not exactly a radical idea, since every country has similar copyright practices, yet Helprin discovered that Internet bloggers were cursing him for upholding such a "selfish" practice. The bloggers constantly misquoted and misconstrued various authorities from the past (such as Thomas Jefferson), and Helprin carefully clarifies what these authorities said, and meant. He also makes a good case for the traditional view: good writing flows from creative individuals and is not "communal," no matter what Internet junkies may say. He cites the "wikis" as sad examples of how "communal" writing can spread errors on a wide scale.
Alas, I doubt this book will be read by his critics, because the anti-Helprin bloggers (who, it appears, would qualify as bored Internet addicts with very short attention spans), but nonetheless the book is well-thought-out and a delight to read. Even if you have no interest in the copyright issue, his observations of contemporary technology make the book worth reading.
-
Marvelous Nov 5, 2009
An inspired and beautifully written book. The ferocity with which its point is being missed is testament to the book's power--many realize they are being flayed, but they are not quite sure how. But the fact that Helprin easily overpowers his oppressors--who offer little in the way of sensible argument--is secondary to his real purpose, which is to make the unfashionable case for thought and deliberation. Well, and bravely, done.
-
Has a better polemic ever been written? Nov 4, 2009
I'm no doubt setting the bar far too high. And I don't know exactly what to say about this book except that...having just finished it, I feel the need to read it again, this time with pencil in hand.
Did I need to read a couple of hundred pages more or less devoted to copyright law? Not at all; how many do, really. Normally I might have even passed over the original editorial that sparked the controversy with little more than a glance.
But this book is about much more than its ostensible topic; it's a meditation on human freedom and creation and also on our limitations. Along the way, seemingly out-of-the-blue observations of great wit and perception pepper the text. Add to that a great many thrusts of the dagger and, well, I need to go back with a pencil the second time around.
Recommended for readers predisposed toward the tragic view of life.
-
me too Sep 11, 2009 (4 of 7 found this helpful)
When I first read Mark Helprin's op-ed in the New York Times [...], I thought he was serious about wanting to make copyright almost permanent. But then I learned from Lessig's review of Digital Barbarism (http://www.lessig.org/blog/2009/05/20/Halperin-print.pdf) that Helprin had written an entire book to make the same argument. And, incredibly his book showed even less understanding of the nature of copyright than his op-ed. His entire argument boils down to "Intellectual property is property so it should be treated like real estate." So simplistic and so simple-minded.
Then it occurred to me that Halprin's book was actually a brilliant demonstration of how broken the copyright system really is. The fact that the current system rewards Halprin and his publisher, Harper, for writing and publishing such a poorly-researched book is proof that something's VERY wrong. Harper didn't even seem to fact-check the book; obvious errors can be found throughout the book. A well-designed copyright system should increase both the quality and the quantity of content--and the number of people who can access it. Instead, our current system is designed simply to maximize publishers' bottom line.
I commend Mr. Halprin for sparking a vigorous debate over the need for fundamental reform of the copyright system. But don't bother to buy his book; his New York Times op-ed does a better job of making his argument. (The book just demonstrates in more detail how much he doesn't know about copyright.)
-
highly disappointing screed, coming as it does from one of the finest novelists of the last half-century Aug 25, 2009 (4 of 7 found this helpful)
Helprin's book is both a passionate defense of copyright law as well as a mini-autobiography. Helprin is one of the great novelists and essayists of the past half-century, and his book A Soldier of a Great War is one of my all-time favorite novels. In many ways, therefore, Helprin was ideally suited to pen a passionate defense of copyright law.
Alas, while Helprin occasionally rises to great heights in his defense of copyright, he too often sinks to lamentable lows -- by resorting to the same unbecoming rhetorical tactics used by the mob he seeks to condemn. Indeed, his book is filled with gratuitous vitriol and neo-Luddite ramblings about the Internet and Information Age that severely detract from his defense of copyright.
This is a shame, because, in places, Digital Barbarism makes a fine case against those critics who wrongly view copyright as an impediment to the creation and diffusion of content. But his manifesto quickly goes off the rails as his defense of copyright quickly morphs into an indictment of the Internet and all things digital. In this sense, Helprin joins the "Internet pessimists" (some might say Luddite crowd) that includes Neil Postman, (Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology), Lee Siegel (Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob) and Andrew Keen (The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture).
It's regrettable -- and surprising -- that someone of Mark Helprin's literary prowess didn't make a better effort to persuade his readers.