Talk:Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters

Plot summary
It's a bit long. There's a lot going on in this novel and the original S&S plot summary is much longer, but it still seems bloated to me (much like a dead fish, I suppose). Feel free to chop the head, tail, fins, and guts.Omhseoj (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah I was about to mention that also. Really a plot summary should just give a quick overview of the plot, shouldn't it? We could possibly chop out some of the descriptive words or remove some of the non-essential bits of the plot.

Unless, we might be able to have a fairly detailed synopsis and leave the summary as it is? Then someone could read the plot if the want more detail? Sorry if I don't make much sense! --91.105.127.204 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Austen is falsely credited as co-author of the mashup novel."
NB: this good faith edit has been reverted twiceno explanation givenby anonymous editors. Pls, Anonymous 65.4.164.170 and Anonymous 82.46.173.111, let's go to Discussion now and document our individual ideas on the question; maybe we're misunderstanding each other.

Here is my basic reason for the above edit: -->>the information of the statement "Austen is credited as co-author" (of 'Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters'), --->>is false on its face! Do you understand Austen's life and career differently than the rest of the world?; or do you expect that additional details or argument of proof must be reported here; ie, for: "Austen is... co-author--Not!"? (If either of you will say you believe that "Austen is... co-author", then I will take the trouble to furnish you with additional references for your edification.) Otherwise, please respect the Wikipedia enough to provide your explanation(s) and your argument(s) if you revert good faith edits. Thank you.--Jbeans (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what previous people have thought, but I think there are ambiguities here with "Austen is falsely credited as co-author." First, did Winters use substantial amounts of Austen's words or ideas, and therefore correctly cite Austen as a co-author?  That is an empirical question, open to investigation.  Second, there is a linguistic ambiguity.  Compare "Austen is falsely credited as co-author" with "Austen truly is credited as co-author."  Assuming the answer to my first question is no, I think the sentence should be changed to "Austen is jokingly credited as co-author."  This makes it clear that Austen did not help, but it also removes some of the issues with using 'falsely.' --Minding (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

>>This is Jbeans, 01Jun, in reply to Minding: Thank you for your comments; pls forgive me if I must be methodical; (NB: double-quote phrases, "-", are from your comments): 1) re your "First": Do I understand your question correctly?; >> ie, do you imply that IF you copy—or "use"—"substantial amounts" of another writer's work THEN you are entitiled to "correctly cite" that writer as your "co-author"?? (Yes? No?). Please, before I can respond to your "First"—please reply, explaining the assumptions you imply with that question.

However, I must be fair to warn you, >> much puzzlement comes quickly to mind by the implications of your question, however it's answered—and, of your unique "co-author" process; namely: >>(What parameters of copyright infringement, if any, do you allow for this "substantial" use without giving proper attribution?—other than claiming the other writer as "co-author"?) ((What if?——the "amounts" you "use" are less than "substantial";—>>now, are you prohibited from claiming "co-author" status of the dead author?;—ie, do you imply a threshold fraction of "substantial" use must be achieved to claim "co-author" status of the dead author?)) (What if?——the other author is dead and defenseless of copyright protection—and you don't care about copyright infringement in such a case—>>what parameters of ethics do you mean to apply to your process?—ie, of claiming a dead author as "co-author", in lieu of giving proper, standard attribution to that author?)

2). re your "Second": a). I cannot agree with your assuming an answer to your "first question" as it is posed; see above. b). What's ambiguous about the statement?: Austen is falsely credited as co-author to the mashup novel.? Have you not seen the publisher's claim?—>>please, look at the book cover!  Do you believe it true: saying that Austen is credited as co-author?. (Yes? No?) Do you know the publisher is joking when they print: 'By Jane Austen and Ben H. Winters'? (How do you know that?)  Do you know the publisher is joking when they fail to give proper attribution to a dead author's creative work?—instead they claim the dead author as their own "co-author"? (How do you know?)

More importantly, how will the general readers of English Wikipedia—from the early-age learners, to the readers of English-as-a-second-language, to those readers and Wikipedia editors who are told to expect neutrality and authoritativeness from Wikipedia—how will they know??—>>that Wikipedia is just playing along with a joke?--Jbeans (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I share your puzzlement -- I do not have any clear answers, but I do know there is precedent for crediting dead people as co-authors in translations, in commentaries, and in other such works. If this precedent carries over to parodies that borrow substantial amounts of words or ideas from a dead person, then I do not believe Jane Austen has been 'falsely' credited as co-author.
 * 2) You may not find the statement ambiguous, but it is exactly that general audience, which includes English-as-a-second-language speakers, that may find the statement ambiguous. It is a true statement that "Austen is credited as co-author" (just look at the cover) and some may find your wording to suggest that it is a false statement, or at least suggests that she should not be credited.  Wikipedia would not be "playing along with a joke" if it explicitly tells its readers that something is a joke.  For instance, see the uses of the word 'jokingly' in Wikipedia in culture.  If, as you claim, Austen is falsely credited as co-author, I do know that the publisher jokingly credits Austen as this work is a parody which, according to the Quirk Classics website, is meant primarily to entertain with its clever humor.
 * Minding (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is Jbeans, 21Jun, in reply to Minding: Thank you for discussing the question. Your points are well-articulated; but, still I must respectfully disagree, as below. (Again the "--" are from your last; the itallic emphases are mine.)
 * re 1): We disagree. You say: "..but I do know there is precedent for crediting dead people as co-authors..."
 * >>I say: Please, document it, ie, pls name that precedent!.
 * Bear in mind that a precedent is easy enough to find—if it exists—because it is well-known—for being the precedent of a matter at hand. It is the celebrated case, decision, or bold action that changes the interpretation of law, ethics, fashion, etc., for all similar cases or behavior that follow; and 'plenty' similar events do follow a precedent. For example, 'Lady Chatterly's Lover'—the 1959 court case—is the precedent for overturning the then- law and ethics governing explicit language in literature; and it released a land-rush of publishing: of existing (ie, prior-written) literature, plus thousands—perhaps tens of thousands—of new literature and trash containing explicit language. (There was a 'bountiful plenty' that came after, and because of, the precedent). Another precedent is engineer Louis Réard's invention in 1946 of the 'bikini'. It ignited huge, worldwide, changes, not only in beachware fashion, but also as harbinger of, and perhaps the symbol of, the 'emancipation' of women from the old order of world society. (The 'plentiful changes' came directly after the effect of (adopting) the bikini—the precedent.){Apologies---outta time; cont'd tomorrow}--Jbeans (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)--note 3 revns by Jbeans on 22Jun.
 * Like I said, I share your puzzlement -- but if you're interested, see http://transformativeworks.org/faq-277 or "On Translation and Authorship" by Beatriz Zeller in Translators' Journal, vol. 45, no. 1, 2000, p. 134-139 or Legal issues with fan fiction. --Minding (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Minding, I have read all, or the relevant, material in the links you providedie, transformativeworks.org, (which includes the legal journal report of the Supreme Court decision: Chapman [2 Live Crew] v. Acuff-Rose—ie, re a rap song derivative on Orbinson's original "Pretty Woman"); and Legal issues with fan fiction. Also, I read or perused the following links, which I recommend to anyone concerned with this question; >>author(ship), false attribution, derivative work, parody, public domain, literary technique, Creative Commons, translation.
 * All this search was for the rumored precedent that it's ok claiming dead authors as your own, and is done with approval within the industry. But, no luck! >>nothing related to that concept—especially it's approval—did I find. Plainly, there is no such precedent, and it seems that few publishers are doing such a thing so 'beyond the pale'; and that giving proper credit to a dead author is still the preferred ethics—at least among those who care about ethics.
 * Further, I looked at the question from the opposite direction; ie, are there folks and orgs who are concerned about the ethics of 'false attribution of authorship'? Indeed, there are! The laws (variously) hold to account those who attribute authorship falsely—ie, attribute work to a person who is not in fact the author of the named work—>>unless the author is dead for more than 20 years; sorry, Jane! False attribution is llegal in Australia, see {www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/.../s195ad.html} and {www.ag.gov.au/copyright_issuesandReviews_moralRights}; and in New Zeeland, see {legislation.knowledge-basket.co.nz/gpacts/reprint/.../033se62.html}. (I trust the publisherwas wise to accomodate the various laws of the nations where this book was published or sold.)--Jbeans (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Jbeans, 22Jun, reply to Minding, cont'd:
 * re 2): We disagree. You say,  "...It is a true statement that "Austen is credited as co-author" (just look at the cover).."
 * >>I say, The content (ie, the meaning) of the statement is patently false because:
 * 1) it mis-represents the meanings of the critical words,  'credited'  and  'co-author' —when applied to creating the work "Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters".
 * 2) These two words, in the literary venue, mean: 'credit' =attributes to a person the creation of __'Blank'__ {note> plug-in _'named work'_ for 'Blank'};
 * 3) 'author' =the person who originated __'Blank'__, created its entire content, edited and revised that same content as needed, and approved the completion of the work—as the final draft (of content) of __'Blank'__.
 * 4) ('Co-author' =same as above except, encompasses two or more individuals who agree to share the labors and the credit for creating __'Blank'__, and then they do so.)
 * Now, Minding, I ask: please state any or all the four points above you disagree with; and, I respectfully ask, re each, that you explain why you disagee.--Jbeans (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)--Jbeans (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with 2-4, as I am a native English speaker who understands the definitions of all these words. However, I disagree with 1, and I think there are nuances that a non-native speaker may not fully grasp.  I will try to make these nuances explicit:
 * A) Austen is co-author. (Let us suppose this is false for now.)
 * B) It is false that Austen is co-author. (True)
 * C) The publisher credits Austen as co-author. (True -- see book cover)
 * D) Austen is credited as co-author. (True -- this is a manipulation of C from active to passive voice.  It is not claiming that Austen is co-author, only that she is credited as co-author)
 * I will give you a blatant example of how to use 'crediting' in a similar way: Suppose I won an award and I get to deliver an acceptance speech, thanking those who have helped me.  I can thank Jbeans in my speech, crediting Jbeans for the success that led to that award.  Even though you have not contributed in any way to me getting that award, I can still credit you as a reason for my success. --Minding (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But of the more-than-a-dozen different lexical uses of "credit", the one—and only—appropriate for use here is: the (public) attribution of a creative work to its creator. Attributing credit is the norm of the business, laws and ethics for publishing and for producing performance art (= movies, theatre, tv, opera, etc): ie, to account for and report the creative work actually performed by authors, playwrights, actors, musicians, etc. Here is not the place for subbing the use of 'credit' meaning social and political gush—thanking everyone from the janitor, typist, and one's wife and her mother for (all of them) their 'indispensable' aid to one's success.--Jbeans (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with your definition of credit as the (public) attribution of a creative work to its creator. The key word here is attribution (and note no word about actuality).  A statement using the word 'credit' is a fact about attributed authorship, not a fact about actual authorship.  The fact that Jane Austen is attributed or credited as author of a book does not entail that she actually did author the book.  (For instance, this book.)  Likewise, the fact that Jane Austen actually authored a book does not entail that she is attributed or credited as its author.  (For instance, a manuscript that no one has realized is Austen's.)  Do you understand this distinction? --Minding (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can agree; My understanding, of what you are saying>>   [A speaker or writer giving credit—say for authoring a book—is indeed attributing credit, but is not is not necessarily saying in good faith that authorship actually occurred.] Correct? Yes/NO? >Please reply.--Jbeans (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between the issue of whether Jane Austen should be credited with co-authoring S&S&SM and whether Jane Austen has been credited as co-author of S&S&SM. The former is certainly open to discussion, but the latter is not. Author Ben H. Winters listed Austen as co-author, published Quirk Books listed Austen as co-author, and the mainstream library and bookstores of the world now do the same. For example, WorldCat lists the novel with both authors, as does online retailer Amazon.com and independent retailer Powell's Books (among others). Omhseoj (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would reply—to discuss, not to debate!—but, first I ask you to clarify, re the following: ::1) Is it your concern—or point of difference: >that I haved denied "..Jane Austen has been credited as co-author of S&S&SM."? ::2) Also, do you differ—or take concern—with any of the (numbered) four points I posted re the statement: "Austen is credited as co-author" ? (Pls see above> 'Jbeans, 22Jun, reply to Minding..') >Please reply.--Jbeans (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that your four points can apply to the concept of whether Jane Austen should be considered a co-author. But Wikipedia must report the facts as they are, for better or for worse, and the fact is that Jane Austen is credited as the co-author of the novel by both the author and the publisher.97.118.173.210 (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Jbeans, 0829; replying to Anon210, Minding, Ohmseoj: >>Thank you Anon210 for joining the discussion; we are possibly agreed, both on your particulars and mine. Still, I am interested in hearing from Minding and Ohmseoj, of their opinions re my last points.

>>So, Minding and Ohmseoj: >Agree, Disagree, comment? >>RSVP!--Jbeans (talk) 10:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)