A Philosopher's Blog

Good Grief: Peanuts & Aesthetic Identity

Posted in Aesthetics, Philosophy by Michael LaBossiere on October 29, 2012
A Charlie Brown Christmas was the first Peanut...

A Charlie Brown Christmas was the first Peanuts television special. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In a recent essay cartoonist Scott R. Kurtz objected to the creation of new Peanuts content. This essay led me to consider the matter of aesthetic identity and the creation of this essay.

In the specific case of Peanuts, Charles Schulz was rather clear that he was the only one who could draw Peanuts. While there has been, as of this writing, no attempt to create new Peanuts strips, Boom Studios released a Peanuts comic book with new content that was not created by Schulz. There is also a rumor that the folks behind the movie Ice Age will be making a Peanuts movie written by Charles Schulz’s son and grandson.

Obviously, the continuation of characters and settings beyond the death of the original creator is nothing new.  Nor is the transfer of creative control of characters and settings anything new. Characters such as Superman and Batman live on after their creators have died. Star Trek continued after the death of Gene Rodenberry with the Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise and a new Star Trek movie. Frank Herbert’s Dune universe has spawned numerous books written after his death, including prequels. The same is true of Asimov’s Foundation series.

In general, the legal matters regarding the continuation of characters and settings when they are no longer in control of the original creator can be easily settled. After all, it seems rather well established that such intellectual properties are just that, properties. As such they can be inherited, bought and sold like any other property. So, if a company owns the legal rights to Peanuts, then they can do with Peanuts as they wish within the specifics of their rights. Naturally, there can be nasty legal battles and disputes when it comes to specific properties, but this is not anything special to such intellectual properties.

Since I am not a lawyer but a philosopher, I will not focus on the legal questions. I will, instead, focus on the philosophical matters.

One point of concern is the matter of ethics. To be specific, there is the moral question of whether or not the creations should be continued after the death of the creator. This can, of course, be tied to the legal concerns in many ways. If, for example, the creator agreed to this continuation in a contract or other agreement, then it would seem that the continuation would be morally acceptable. If the creator made it clear that s/he did not want the work continued, then even if someone (say a relative who inherited the property) had the legal right to continue the work, then doing so would seem morally dubious. This would also apply to cases in which characters and settings had entered the public domain. While people would have the legal right to use the characters and settings, there is still the moral question of whether or not they should do so—especially when their efforts degrade the characters and settings. For example, the John Carter movie is based on Burroughs’ works which are now public domain. However, the treatment of these excellent works was so awful that it seems that Disney acted in an immoral way by degrading the characters and settings with an inferior work. While the moral concerns are both interesting and important, I am also concerned with the matter of aesthetic identity.

Philosophers have disputed the matter of identity for quite some time and have focused on specific types of identity, such as personal identity. Fortunately, aesthetic identity can bypass many of the usual metaphysical problems regarding identity since the fictional characters and settings do not have the ontological status of actual people and settings (unless, of course, one believes that fictional worlds are also actual worlds). However, there are still concerns about identity in the context of aesthetics.

In the case of characters, the concern is similar to that of personal identity: when a character is continued by someone other than the original creator, is the character still the same character? To use a specific example, if someone else draws and writes Charlie Brown, is that character still Charlie Brown in terms of his aesthetic identity? Or is it just a character that looks similar and says similar things—a mere imitator? In some cases, it would seem that the continuity of aesthetic identity is possible. After all, it seems reasonable to claim that many comic book characters retain sufficient identity to still be the same characters even though they are drawn and scripted by different people (and played by different actors in movies).  Interestingly, it can be argued that in some cases even the creator of a character fails to preserve the aesthetic identity of a character. What is needed, of course, is a full account of aesthetic identity of characters—a project that goes beyond this short essay.

In the case of settings, the aesthetic identity would also be a matter of concern. For example there is the question of whether or not the Dune universe in the newer prequels is similar enough to Herbert’s Dune universe in terms of its aesthetic qualities. While the identity of a setting would include the obvious factors such as getting the locations, inhabitants, history and such right, there is also the matter of capturing the “look and feel” of the setting. So, while a book might get all the facts about the Foundation universe right, it might fail to capture the aesthetic qualities that make the Foundation universe the Foundation universe. As with the aesthetic identity of characters, the specific conditions of the aesthetic identity of settings would also need to be developed.

My Amazon Author Page

Enhanced by Zemanta
About these ads

11 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. WTP said, on October 30, 2012 at 7:35 am

    Here’s a philosophical kind of question, though more than a bit off-topic…

    If a terrorist organization from a backward part of the world destroys a consolate of the most powerful nation on earth, kills its ambassador, and carries his dead body through the streets, who really cares?

    • biomass2 said, on October 30, 2012 at 12:13 pm

      Perhaps this aid you in your “off-topic” wanderings, WTP.

      The answer to that question is obvious. “Who really cares?”
      The Democrats don’t .They’re sitting back, covering up, lying—those unpatriotic, non-flag-waving, un-American, socialist, terrorist children of the state.

      “Who really cares?” Obviously, no one but Romney and the Republicans, true Americans, children of the American soil, one and all!! They think they can make political hay out of this. And they think the electorate is dumb enough to jump at each shiny object as it rises above the horizon. As an ex policeman and now intelligence officer, magus71 can probably give us some insight into the process of responding to an incident, gathering information, and using that information to reach a conclusion. He will probably grudgingly admit that the process, to be successful, takes time. Is it true that the ambassador was raped?

      Can we wait for the findings? Probably not. We can’t wait for a quick solution to economic problems that were long in the making and extremely serious, so I don’t expect much better with this situation.

  2. T. J. Babson said, on October 30, 2012 at 8:26 am

    Curiously, Gen. Carter Ham, head of U.S. Africa Command, has been relieved of his post after only a year and a half on the job. According to James S. Robbins in the Washington Times, Ham got the same emails regarding the terrorist attack by the al-Qaida linked Ansar al-Sharia and immediately began organizing a rescue attempt.

    Gen. Ham is said to have told the Pentagon he had a rapid response team ready and was told to stand down. Ham then reportedly said screw it, he was going to send help and was promptly told he was being relieved of his command.

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/102912-631261-benghazi-stand-down-order-goes-unexplained.htm?src=IBDDAF&p=2

    • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 30, 2012 at 11:19 am

      Why bring this up in this post? I know there is a talking point that must apparently always be pushed in every context, but it would be nice to have comments relevant to the actual post.

      But, to respond anyway:

      Interesting-but the source you link to is an editorial that is mostly speculation without any actual supporting evidence.

      Now, if the general did actually say “screw it” and threatened to disobey an order, then his being relieved would make sense. I’m sure Doug can explain how the chain of command works.

      • T. J. Babson said, on October 30, 2012 at 11:25 am

        True, the full story isn’t known–yet. The truth will out, however.

      • T. J. Babson said, on October 30, 2012 at 11:28 am

        Orders can also be illegal and are supposed to be disobeyed. Magus can weigh in on this, too.

        • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 30, 2012 at 11:29 am

          And how was this stand down order illegal? More importantly, how does it connect to aesthetic identity? Did the general insist on also creating his own version of Peanuts and refuse to stand down from his pencils?

          • T. J. Babson said, on October 30, 2012 at 11:41 am

            Sorry–OK to delete my comments.

            • Michael LaBossiere said, on October 30, 2012 at 11:54 am

              Actually, they are probably the only comments the post will get. I’ll leave them up to keep the post from getting scared and lonely on Halloween. :)

    • WTP said, on October 30, 2012 at 11:57 am

      Yeah, TJ, why’d you bring that up here. Who controls Charlie Brown is a story that’s been in all the papers and TV, unlike this silly Benghazi thing no one cares about…well except for those right-wingers who must bring it up in every context. Where have you ever seen leftys do such a thing? Here’s a hint about spotting right-winger “talking points”. A “talking point” is something that concerns certain kinds of people, and you can spot what kinds of people they are by their “talking points”.

      Besides, your question would be far more appropriate on the…hmmm…surely there’s a recent thread in here somewhere…

      • biomass2 said, on October 30, 2012 at 12:14 pm

        Why don’t you cover the subject on your blog?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,084 other followers

%d bloggers like this: