Talk:Lost Girls
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Moved from page:
- I have only seen issues 1 & 2 of this 3-part series, and am not sure if it was ever completed. If anyone knows whether it was, please post a note or update this info.
As far as I know the company producing it pulled the plug because of financial problems and Moore & Gebbie finished it but never found an outlet for it. If anyone finds out anything to the contrary please also let me know! user:sjc
A hardback edition is available from Waterstones... I'm not sure but it seems to be a collected set of the 3 volumes? Can't likn to it sorry, something odd about the site Bottlegreen roses 01:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- There's some updated info from Top Shelf which I have added to the article. I also fixed it up - it was VERY badly written in many respects.
- One change I made was removing the quote "The series is an attempt to reinvent pornography as something exquisite, thoughtful and human," not because it doesn't belong but because in one of the previous article's many shortcomings, there was no indication of who said this! Was it Moore? Gebbie? One of the publishers? Some fan? If someone knows, they should feel free to add it back in.
- I dn't know where this was placed initially in order to add it back in, but those words are on this page, accredited to Chris Staros: http://www.alanmoorefansite.com/news.html Curiousbadger 14:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] The Oz/Wonderland Chronicles?
A first time editor drops in the mention on the page and I am wodnering at the relevance. It reads as though it is an extension of the story but it is a separate storyline and I'm unsure if it is needed here (there is a big list of things on the pages for the characters). If it is worth including on the page then how about sticking it in a trivia section and making clear it has nothing to do with Lost Girls or Alan Moore (its by Ben Avery and Casey Heying)? (Emperor 14:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
- I don't see how it is relevant for Lost Girls... I'd say it should be removed. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 15:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I did not intend to have it appear as an "extension" of 'Lost Girls'...merely a note to say that the three stars of 'Lost Girls' reunite [or is it that Fate does the reuniting?] on what they themselves might decide to be a permanent basis. It shouldn't be removed...that's drastic. Just...seen as the proper intention of it's inclusion, and not how you've accidentally interpreted it. And my name is Stripey, by the way.
[edit] Copyright status
The exact wording:
301. The provisions of Schedule 6 have effect for conferring on trustees for the benefit of the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London, a right to a royalty in respect of the public performance, commercial publication, broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service of the play 'Peter Pan' by Sir James Matthew Barrie, or of any adaptation of that work, notwithstanding that copyright in the work expired on 31 December 1987. ([1])
I got rid of the dead link to a BBC article. Barring other information, I think it's best to have Moore's take on the copyright status along with the most literal reading possible. Whether or not "adaption" covers this sort of thing is the $64000 question, but for the time being, it's probably best not to throw around absolute statements (unless someone who knows more about copyright law than me can definitively say whether or not this is allowable). Stilgar135 03:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would like whoever found the statement from Moore that "the hospital only holds the rights to performances of the work, not to the individual characters" be better documented, as neither of the links in that part cite this. I don't doubt it, as Moore is one of the greatest copyright and fair use experts of whom I'm aware, but verifications IS necessary. Icarus 23 17:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Is this wording sufficient?
-
- "But both the book and the play are still in copyright in the UK. There could be an argument that this could infringe on our copyright." [1]
-
- There's also this [2] but the wording isn't much clearer, particularly regarding dates. Curiousbadger 22:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- It looks good from here. I can't agree with Moore's contention that the UK copyright transfer only covers the play -- 'Peter and Wendy', published in 1911, appereed AFTER the play, first presented in 1904, and a derivative work of the then-unpublished script. Selling the 'Lost Girls' book in the U.K. would therefore violate its copyright.
- However, there's nothing to stop individuals in the U.K from ordering it fronm the U.S. for their own personal collections (but that's kind of outside Wikipedia's scope...).
- IIRC, an act of Parliament provided an eternal copyright on teh work in the U.K. because of the charitable nature of Barrie's bequest. I'll try and cite references if anyone wants, later. Icarus 23 07:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, Citation #2 up there leads to an article that appears, to me, to be riddled with inaccurate information RE: US Copyright Law. Icarus 23 07:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How many have the "Lost Girls" Book ?
Of you do places info into the article !--Brown Shoes22 18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Add to the Synopsis
What is to be add and what to leave out ?--Brown Shoes22 02:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tom Lehrer connection?
Has any reliable source made the connection between Lost Girls and the Tom Lehrer song "Smut", which contains the lyrics
- "When correctly viewed,
- Everything is lewd.
- I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
- And the Wizard of Oz — there's a dirty old man!"
The coincidence seems notable to me, but has any reviewer mentioned it, or asked Moore about it in an interview? (Translation: I'd like to put it in the article, but realize it's original research unless someone else has noted the connection.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed POV
I removed these two paragraphs from the Style and references to the "original" girls section due to POV and them verging on being a review, but there's possibly something salvageable from them so I'll posting them here.
Charles Dodgson (though it is only extremely strongly suggested and never stated) even appears in "Looking-Glass House". However, the Charles Dodgson we all now was genuinely in love with Alice, but never got involved with her romantically, let alone sexually. Sadly and shockingly, the "suggested Charles Dodgson" who appears in Lost Girls is depicted as a child raper !
Astonishingly, the Cheshire Cat is never mentionned in Lost Girls ! (Only one picture of it can be found - with no line of text and no dialogue that hints to it throughout the three books). This is hard to understand, considering most characters are depicted and/or mentionned - even "minor" ones (such as the dormoouse and the dutchesse's son or even Toto - while Tinkerbell, though never called that way, is clearly suggested to be Annabelle).
Peteashton 11:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Makes sense - the abundance of exclamation marks is a clear sign it has overstepped the mark. The "Style and references to the "original" girls" section seems OK now although it could be bordering on original research if not too careful. Would it be wise to move controversy to below this section? (Emperor 16:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC))