Righteous Art Anger

In December 1893, The Strand Magazine published Arthur Conan Doyle's story “The Final Problem,” and the public was apoplectic. Doyle had done the unthinkable: he had killed Sherlock Holmes. Reportedly, some 20,000 readers of the magazine immediately canceled their subscriptions. Londoners, it is said, took to wearing black crepe armbands and marched in protest down Fleet Street. In America, where the story was published in McClure's, “Keep Holmes Alive” clubs were formed. On a North American speaking tour, Doyle reminisced, “I assure you, if I had killed a real man I could not have received more vindictive letters than those which poured in upon me after that event.”1 Although extreme, the reaction of Holmes’s fans cannot easily be dismissed as a case of Victorian excess. Art can play a significant role in our emotional lives, and while anger directed at Professor Moriarty for killing Holmes raises a familiar philosophical problem, anger directed at the story's creator raises another one entirely. Some works hold a special place in our lives. And, like other things, or people, that are special to us, love can quickly give rise to anger. There is a special sort of anger that tends to be directed at creators and their choices that is normally reserved for betrayals and gross violations of one's rights—what might be called righteous anger. Our interest here is in determining what—if anything—might justify this level of anger directed at artists. Importantly, we do not mean to discuss reasonable anger, centrally, but rather justified anger. One's emotion may be said to be reasonable in the bare sense if it does not imply or arise from an internal clash among one's beliefs.2Justification of an emotion, particularly anger, would seem to require something further. In her classic article “Justifying the Emotions,” Gabriele Taylor suggests that, in order for your anger to be justified, the object of your anger, some agent, must exist and your anger must be grounded on some actual wrong perpetrated upon you by this agent. For this latter condition to hold, Taylor contends, it is necessary that you have a well‐founded notion of what is due to you, and that you have reason to believe that the agent in particular who has wronged you is capable of recognizing what is due to you. Where these conditions are fulfilled, your anger is justified.3 Certainly, not all anger is thus justified anger. But given the assumption that some anger is justified anger, our question is whether the sort of righteous anger levied at creators of artworks may be so justified. Not surprisingly, if there is hope for such justification, much will depend on untangling the relationships between artist, art, and audience. In 1977, Star Wars (George Lucas) became the highest grossing film of all time and in 1989 was added to the National Film Registry, an elite selection of films named as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” to American film heritage and chosen for preservation. Star Wars spawned two sequels within seven years, gave birth to an entire cinematic effects industry, and in many ways set a very high bar for all future science fiction projects. In 1995, Lucasfilm advertised the release of the digitally mastered Star Wars Trilogy on VHS and laserdisc, announcing, “This will be your last chance to own the original version of Star Wars.” Two years later, celebrating the original film's twentieth anniversary, the trilogy was re‐released to theaters under the title The Star Wars Trilogy: Special Edition. For this re‐release, the films were digitally restored—an arduous technical process—giving Lucas the opportunity not only to correct a number of technical glitches in the originals, but also, as trailers for the Special Edition promised, to add “a few new surprises.” These “surprises” mostly consisted of CGI enhancements to scenes in the original films—new animated creatures, improved scenery, and the like—to, as Lucas states, “bring the movie closer to my original vision.”4 Perhaps the most contentious change to the trilogy, however, had nothing to do with the available special effects technology of the 1970s. In the original Star Wars, the anti‐hero space pirate Han Solo is cornered in the cantina bar by the bounty hunter, Greedo. Held and questioned at gun point, Solo shoots Greedo dead and calmly strolls out of the bar. In the Special Edition, Greedo shoots first, at point‐blank range, and misses, and Solo's killing shot is made in apparent self‐defense. Although the change received little initial attention by film critics, fans—at least some of them—were livid. “Han shot first” became a rallying cry for fans denouncing the revised editions of the films. The Special Edition trailers called the version “the motion picture event the way it was meant to be experienced.” Many fans, it seems, preferred the trilogy the way it was not meant to be experienced, and were only further enraged by the release, two years later, of the first of the Star Wars prequels.5 Certainly, Star Wars is not the only film to receive revisionist treatments. Ridley Scott's 1982 Blade Runner, for instance, was re‐released as a “Director's Cut” in 1992 with extensive revisions, including an altered ending, and again in 2007 as a further revised “Final Cut.” Indeed, Scott's film exists in no fewer than seven versions, but the revisions to the film have never garnered the level of ire directed at Lucas's work. One difference seems to be that most versions of Blade Runner continue to be made available to fans.6 Conversely, the Special Edition was meant to replace the original theatrical version of Star Wars.7 Copies of the theatrical release are now out of print, and, reportedly, Lucas has even refused to cooperate with the National Film Registry in preserving the original version of Star Wars—the version recognized by the Registry—instead offering them a version of the Special Edition.8 Lucas, who through Lucasfilm owns the copyright on the Star Wars movies, says, “It's my artistic vision. If I want to go back and change it, it's my business, not somebody else's.”9 In the wake of the “Han shot first” fervor, a growing number of fans disagree. One fan contends, “Each and every one of us thirtysomethings that spent our allowance on multiple showings of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi are now the true owners of this work of art.”10 Were this an isolated claim, we might shrug it off as frustrated hyperbole, but it is far from unique. Another fan argues, “What George Lucas fails to realize is that Star Wars does not belong to him. Any movie that is that huge a phenomenon ceases being the vision of one man. Star Wars belongs to everybody.”11 In an interview for the 2010 documentary The People vs. George Lucas, noted film historian Anthony Slide suggests: “I think an argument could be made that once a film is in the National Film Registry, it belongs to everyone. It belongs to all Americans because it's so important culturally to the United States.”12 It certainly does not take long to find an angry Star Wars fan. Few filmmakers are as loved and reviled in equal measure as Lucas. But Lucas and Doyle are not the only creators whose works draw this particular level of anger from their fans. Fans of novels are often angered by choices made in adapting those novels to film; fans of films are often angered by choices made in creating sequels; and fans of television and novel series are often angered by choices made in the treatment of characters and other story elements. Henry Jenkins suggests that the tradition of fan‐created stories (“fan fiction”), especially with regard to Star Trek, and especially by women, often results from anger over how writers are handling the source material: “[M]any fan writers characterize themselves as ‘repairing the damage’ caused by the program's inconsistent and often demeaning treatment of its female characters.”13 Jenkins contends: The fans are reluctant poachers who steal only those things that they truly love, who seize television property only to protect it against abuse by those who created it and who have claimed ownership over it. In embracing popular texts, the fans claim those works as their own, remaking them in their own image.14 Denise D. Bielby, Lee Harrington, and William T. Bielby suggest that fans of soap operas similarly express claims of ownership of those works, often in terms of their anger over how show creators handle the narratives: “[S]oap fans see themselves as co‐owners, as ‘affect investors,’ and they use the increased space in the magazines devoted to fan response to make their claims.”15 Certainly, if fans of these works had any legitimate claim to ownership over them, then misuse of those works could justify the anger of their audiences. What are we to make, then, of such claims? It seems clear that they cannot be as George Lucas, through owns the copyright on owns the copyright to all things Star Trek, and fans are not these or of ownership by fans, if would have to be and claims to property to be made on of or on of fans make ownership claims on The most of ownership is on a argument that one ownership in an by one's with from the of upon which we all one has to and property in one's own one to the of one's On one this is a the property and so it from the of this that two have not in the of The first the that one can such property is and as in for to the of is not The the that one must not take more from the than one can because to do so is Where is property do not is in terms of but some have to the property Certainly, while there is some reason to think that the and other to Star Wars, for have some claim to ownership of the film on the of this will not be true of the even who had nothing to do with the film's it cannot be claimed that Lucas in creating Star Wars, the of that might use in creating their own works, so it will not do to suggest that he has the One might however, that fan at least Lucas on the The that, for a who more than can or does not ownership in what would be it might be that, in the original version of the film in of the Special Edition, Lucas the property he is not it might be by not it, Lucas is it, and so ownership to that such a claim the The that is with is through and the is to of so much property that some will be being The original version of Star Wars is not being through even if can justify ownership of there seems to be nothing in it to justify the ownership claims of an anger on such ownership claims suggest that one ownership in an where that a of one's or The in this regard is On the an that which to this being only and to give or in other to claim that as its in other is the to and by on the the will of the it, by a on it, or by an the will that a of the an an claim upon the and the property is for as long as the will in that On this it might be that fans in with a work like Star their have the it is a of of of the Film are these to who I now that are Star I George Lucas's is on these little of my Certainly, the that work can in many ways to you is not an the that many are in their works, a notion of ownership is not does not that something can your property in this way if it is on the of another can only to own what you own if you first that can do so by your will from the it you can do says, if you to continue to the as an of your Certainly, Lucas has not given the And, as as Lucas has said, with my on it, that I it, to be the way I want If Lucas's to films seem to be made so that the work to be an of It does not seem that, on any of a fan can claim ownership over the work of which he is a fan. however, is to many fans who are angry with Lucas or other it seems more that of ownership are not truly at the of fan anger, so us a sort of George “the American by the of the popular novel series of and The first novel in the series was in with the and in and The series a but fans had to another years for the release of the and they But even more time while for the fans became One suggests to the that your and made you an to the spent they time you it to the to off that claims of to be in some of the In such the to draw is with in a is not and the is with of the of as in a have no ownership claim over that only over their in fans have no clear ownership claim over a work in of the and emotion they have spent on that of does not to its their to a the does they do and the does they do The could be said of a fan who in in a or whether or does not imply but does the creator of that it to those who have in the work to the they are or at the very least to them in made the does not imply but does ownership imply is a to on any of property that a has over In the of many the to copyright as to a between the property claims of copyright owners and the of particularly as to And, while some have so far as to as a to the copyright by few if any would that have any of ownership over an interest in works, and it might be said, can be those are upon by copyright The clash between the of owners and the of is not to of In with a a number of that even where an has a and claim over some a work of art, or of ownership is to public interest in and to the In suggests that public interest in such an Although your ownership of a may be and it does not that you can do you like with it at it, it to does not imply if have a legitimate interest in what you can what you can do with your and so where those are it would seem there may be a for anger. In and the the that, in some only a of the have a sense of them In this the of and are to The of in this In such a we would that who and who with people, special because they have a by of the suggests that of may have a special to their being or and so may hold reasonable claims against those who so even if may not a which suggests will depend upon or not such an is even reasonable first upon whether have a special interest that be or not they are of a will have a claim against where such has an interest in not being the that the of angry fans we have are not their or by to their the they are angry the being made by the very creators of their this does not mean that there is no to such anger. Certainly, as an to a might as easily that in works as an Our question is whether our angry fans can be said to have an interest of special could claim, first, to being aesthetically by a work. Certainly, some works are so as to response from In the under much an that had for years in If you in was to It after a the between you and where you to The work had under the but the to public to the work. What to be so to the that was to was its of its of the most and response to the the with an for the and of the who were to in to with the work in the of their Although was by the the of the public in this case were to the to the work In however, of the Star Wars Special Edition, of the many Star television and and of soap operas are not to be aesthetically as It only of particularly devoted fans who are such And, as is not reasonable work of is to be and an particular and of a work will not or justify her anger at its most artworks can easily be if such an anger is to be justified, it would seem must some special to the must a special interest of special If this is not a of property what interest might justify her One is that fans have a special interest in a work because that work has their in such a way that their upon it. might their with the case of by In some and a after it was the was an later, its the to an the but those were the the a a seems nothing more than an The from the public at including who the took the case to the the was in to the is from further its property because a was done in and the case of the here is not made on of it is that the had so important to to be a and that have in a way to depend and so their must be it might be said, were the or to to of those the anger of would be justified. If the fans of Star Wars, Star Trek, and other works could claim that their have altered in a this might their anger over how owners those then might such a claim in the of we have the work or does not anger fans because it is an to their but because it at something they take as to their it might be is what the special that the fan to the work that the does The of of the version of Star Wars, those who on Star film for a of of a to see it like your being the is not that Lucas is of their but rather that, in the Lucas is The Lucas my has like “Han shot a rallying cry of those with Lucas's revisions, and The is not to the Star Wars one the first of Lucas's and the of the at the Film was to Lucas, you an as it at a or sense of it might be the difference between the and the angered fan is that the fan the work as in some important way a of her sense of or we have that this cannot a claim of ownership so long as the creator or another ownership over the work. it may be that the fan can claim an interest on these and one that would what the may do with that work. Where the those such an interest might be justified in her anger. The fan has in a on the work for her sense of and so in the the Although we might thus that the by fans can be our question is whether the anger from such an is justified. the with this is that, in the of we have the creator is not to for the of the work to the sense of Were a creator for sense of being to the then there might be reason to suggest that he would some for what to those fans as a But at least in the of we have the creators cannot be so Not in a in her to works, the fan has not had the work upon but rather has upon the work. in the of on an so one's an of one's own Any to the sense of that thus results from the is not the of the but of the fan while a anger at might thus be justified, her anger at the creator will Indeed, to that the fan anger would be justified on the of such would be to imply that what an do with work the own for that work. where the work the of the it would seem to suggest that fans be to how that is It is for this reason that that ownership of be to public claims for and suggests that creators be to their own works if they them or do not to be with or is what or to the as suggests that do not in and in response to a they artworks in of and the this may In a over the of the fans cannot the of the and so where fans are angered because creators have done to their such anger will be Although we might an of in which anger at a creator is work is for does not to be any such for the anger of fans fans. fans as such do not seem to hold the sort of with a work that would justify anger at the choices in or that work. is not to however, that such anger might not be a Although not the sort of we have so far it seems there is some to suggest that the righteous anger of fans may be justified not on the of what that anger, but rather on the of what that anger notion of is not the sort by is grounded on a done to rather at emotion on some that it to on the question of whether artistic are it seems to that is a if something to art, it seems not to suggest that that something is to that a it would if fan anger to art, such anger would be on this on our we might this out in terms of the results of that anger, the actual or the but this is the of this In this it might be that such anger a role to other of artistic it to and future artistic Certainly, this seems to be the role by the angry fans of soap that in to the work. It is on this that Bielby, Harrington, and Bielby suggest fans a sense of ownership over their soap of fan may to themselves an artistic by a television If fan anger is justified in this it might further be that an has a or to the to to such anger, or at least to give it due In the case of Sherlock the righteous anger that from “The Final seem to Holmes back from the Doyle the in The of the in in The Although the story the story in “The Final by Doyle Holmes back for in “The of the with the that Holmes had own given that Holmes stories are it seems reasonable to that the anger of fans may be justified on these Doyle the so that he could to more so we are to whether the Holmes stories a artistic than the fans Doyle not The may be In the case of George Lucas, fan anger seems to have had the would I make any more Wars at you all the time and what a you than Lucas has he is them in of more The question whether these would be than another series of Star Wars films. whether this of the righteous anger of fans is would require further and more than is available But on the in the it seems that fan anger on the of what that anger is not to work. And, as on what that anger seems the only reasonable

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.