Confounding Comic Copyright

Jamie Maclean

What I believe to be the perfect summary of how Comic publishing/copyright works (image: Superman’s Girlfriend, Lois Lane #81. Pub Feb. 1968)

Copyright has not been kind to comic creators, nor has the publishing that goes along with it. While today it is easy to register a copyright for your comic, back in the industry’s early days it was not the case thanks to a little-known copyright law called “work for hire.” This law states, that if an employee of a comic company (in my source the example is Marvel) creates a comic character then the ownership of that character goes to the company, not the employee. While the law was revised somewhat to allow the true creators to receive credit, for decades it was detrimental to comic authors and creators (Jassin).

This is most evident in the story of Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. Two teenage immigrants living in Cleveland, Ohio had an idea for a Superhero. After shopping around for publishers, the character was eventually published by DC Comics in 1938 in the new book Action Comics #1. The name of the character was Superman (Sigel, Shuster, and Superman).

Now in this case, the creators did sell Superman directly (For $130, in case you’re wondering), but while that is all fine and dandy it meant that the two no longer had any creative input on their creation, as DC owned Superman completely despite Siegel and Shuster having designed the character from the ground up.  Because of this the two weren’t even credited as Superman’s’ creators until the 1978 film, nearly forty years after the original comic was published (Superman, 1978).

But that’s only part of the story and leads into another rather tragic tale of how the legalities of the comic industry have troubled the various writers and creators. In the 1940s Siegel and Shuster did attempt to buy back Superman; their plan was to create a legal suit against the company, but they were allegedly “ratted out” by Bob Kane, am employee and credited solo creator of Batman (Chris-sims). That last sentence is why the story is tragic.

The reason for this is that while Bob Kane was part of Batman’s creation, he was not the sole creator. While there were many artists and writers that helped contribute, the most notable was Kane’s fried Bill Finger who has been (unofficially, until recently) credited with the creation of the iconic Cowl, mask, Batmobile, several support characters, the origin story and in part responsible for the creation of Batman villain the Joker. Despite this, Bill Finger himself was never credited due to Bob Kane’s contracts with DC. (The actual details are hard to find, but what I gleaned from my research was that his contract asserted he was the sole creator (Alter-Ego Vol 2)). This was not just a legal denial either, in an open letter to fan Magazine Batmania in 1965 he openly said that Bill Finger does not deserve credit and that “if Bill co-authored and conceived the idea, either with me or before me, then he would most certainly have a by-line on the strip along with my name, the same as Siegel and Schuster had as creators of Superman. However, it remains obvious that my name appears on the strip alone, proving that I created the idea first and then called Bill in later, after my publisher okayed my original creation.”

Bob Kane would continue these claims up until his death in 1998. Bill Finger himself died in 1974, and never received credit while he was still alive. It wasn’t until 2015 when he was finally given co-credit on a reprint of the original Batman story from Detective comics #28 (Karlin).

Image: Bricken, Rob. “Here’s how awful Batman would be without the existence of Bill Finger.” Io9. Io9.gizmodo.com, 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.

Publishing, copyright and everything that goes along with them has had major several hurdles in the comic industry, and continues today with the various licencing and rights issues regarding the Marvel movies (which is something I can’t even begin to describe). Nevertheless, Copyright and publication issues has been large part of the industry and makes it stand out among other known published genres.

Works cited:

Andy-khouri. “Behold the Check DC Comics Wrote in 1938 for the Exclusive Rights to Superman.” ComicsAlliance, 25 Oct. 2011, comicsalliance.com/superman-check-jerry-siegel-joe-shuster-dc-comics/. Accessed 13th Mar. 2017.

“Alter Ego Vol. 2 No. 3 – Bob Kane Batmania Letter – Comic Book Artist #3 – TwoMorrows Publishing.” Alter Ego Vol. 2 No. 3 – Bob Kane Batmania Letter – Comic Book Artist #3 – TwoMorrows Publishing. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.

Chris-sims. “Ask Chris #164: Bob Kane Is Just The Worst.” ComicsAlliance. N.p., 13 Sept. 2013. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.

Superman. Dir. Richard Donner. Perf. Christopher Reeves. Warner Bros, 1978. DVD.

Karlin, Susan. “Who Really Created Batman? A DC Comics Historian Weighs In On The Controversy.” Co.Create. N.p., 22 July 2014. Web. 14 Mar. 2017.

“Siegel, Shuster and Superman.” Siegel, Shuster and Superman. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2017.

Writer, Leaf Group. “Comic Copyright Laws.” Legal Beagle, Leaf Group, legalbeagle.com/5373663-comic-copyright-laws.html. Accessed 13th Mar. 2017.

Jassin, Lloyd J. “Work For Hire.” Work For Hire. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2017.

Posted in Publishing | Leave a comment

Three People Who Were Surprisingly Passionate About Typography

Ryan Gayowski

Wherever you find works of art being produced or consumed, you are also bound to find a certain breed of artist or fan who is happiest when discussing some obscure element of their chosen interest. These specialists are easily identified by the passionate and vocal views they hold on matters that seem nitpicky and unimportant to the uninitiated outsider; and, given the passage of time, these views often seem quaint or fantastic in retrospect. Typography — the arrangement of elements on a printed page — though a seemingly mundane element of book design, has also inspired this sort of passion and so here, in no particular order, are three people who got a little carried away defending their favourite fonts.

  1. Edgar Allan Poe

In this age of desktop publishing, it is easy to forget that there was a time when the manuscript that an author submitted to a printer was still a handwritten document in the author’s own hand. It has been noted that “Poe was not inclined to trust printers … [and] whined ceaselessly about the liberties they took and the errors they made” (Jackson 155); and in attempt to address this, he began experimenting with a “mode of textual reproduction rather than of production” (159) known as anastatic printing, essentially a process where the author’s handwritten manuscript could be transferred to a copper plate and used “to produce as many or as few reproductions as the printer desired” (159). Poe saw in anastatic printing an opportunity to “imitate and reproduce handwriting in print” (156). However, not content to simply experiment with typographic conventions, Poe quickly announced that anastatic printing would “revolutionize the world” (159) through three “paradigmatic transformations” (160): An “autographic revolution as authors began to pay attention to legibility in their manuscripts … [a] scribal revolution … [and] an epistemological revolution, since clarity in handwriting engendered clarity in thought” (160). Clearly, no such revolution ever took place and Poe’s enthusiasm for the process seems quaint to us now.

  1. Theodore Low De Vinne

An example of the letterforms advocated by De Vinne. Image: William Morris [Public Domain] via Wikimedia Commons. Web. 27 March 2017.

Theodore Low De Vinne, “widely regarded as America’s leading printer” (Benton, “Typography” 71) in the late nineteenth century, considered the typographic conventions of his day as being “fussy, pale, and feminine” (71) and was among a group of critics who called “for a return to darker, heavier, more robust letterforms … [which would lead to a] long-overdue return to masculine printing” (71). Further, the conventions that De Vinne criticized were not aberrations, but were the most “commonly used … [and] widely admired style of type” (72) in his day. It seems odd to us now to that someone would go so far as to argue that the width of a serif could result in a “miserably weak and ineffective” (72) style that had “thoroughly emasculated” (76) printed books; but this type of overstatement is typical of the specialist’s self-limiting view.

  1. Jan Tschichold

An example of the letterforms advocated by Tschichold. Image: Meggs’ History of Graphic Design. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006. Page 317. Noahread.net. Web. 27 March 2017.

Where De Vinne advocated for heavier letterforms and a return to pre-modernist typography styles, Jan Tschichold embraced modern type design while making equally absurd claims about the significance of different typefaces. For example, Tschichold “argued that only sans serif types are in ‘spiritual accordance with our time,’ (Tschichold’s phrase) that their geometric plainness and universality better achieved the clarity and anationalist neutrality needed for modern typography” (Benton, Beauty 101); while also claiming that doing away with capital letterforms would “result in great savings of spiritual and intellectual energy” (Tschichold’s phrase, Benton, Beauty 101). Only someone with a specialist’s knack for exaggeration could seriously entertain the notion that there is a spiritual element involved in the choice of font.

Works Cited

Benton, Megan L. Beauty and the Book. New Haven: Yale UP, 2000. Print.

Benton, Megan L. “Typography and Gender: Remasculating the Modern Book.” Guthjar and Benton, pp. 71-93.

Guthjar, Paul C., and Megan L. Benton, editors. Illuminating Letters: Typography and Literary Interpretation. Amherst, 2001. Print.

Jackson, Leon. “The Italics are Mine: Edgar Allan Poe and the Semiotics of Print.” Guthjar and Benton, pp. 139-161

Posted in Book design | Leave a comment

A Dying Art: Whatever Happened to Handwriting?

Ashleigh Holmes

Image: “Fountain Pen,” pixabay.com, public domain.

While writing a previous essay on the history and potential future of scripts, I raised the issue of no longer having standardized scripts and facing a world where digital technology makes handwriting less of a priority. The future of scripts is by extension the future of handwritten material.  I believe that scripts have a future as long as there are pens, paper, and those willing to use these materials; but it is disconcerting to hear about school curricula erasing handwriting from the lesson plan. A growing issue faced in schools today is the issue of whether to teach students proper printing and cursive, or whether to teach students digital literacy. In primary school, the very first thing I was taught was how to write in print, as were most students of my generation and older ones as well. Today more and more schools are refusing to teach cursive, and some are even refusing to teach printed writing; some schools teach completely in digital forms (Funnell). Students seem use a keyboard more than they use a pencil.

All that handwriting requires is a pen/pencil and a surface to write on. A pen and a piece of paper does not require a hard drive, batteries, or a satellite to power it. You can drop pens and pencils in water, or on the ground without them breaking like a tablet would. Pens and paper are inexpensive to acquire or to make. For thousands of years, we have used handwriting because it empowers the user’s mind to create. When we handwrite, we engage our fine motor skills and use specific tactile movements which allows the brain to retain what is being written down. You probably don’t realize how engaging writing is; you need to mentally think of a word that describes what you are thinking, and then move your hand in a formulated sequence to form the individual letters (body recognition). Handwriting requires the syncing of one’s mind, eyes, and hand; it is a dynamic learning experience and therefore key in childhood development. Writing with pen and paper helps develop children’s understanding of how to form letters, therefore developing their fine motor skills and mental recognition processes, which facilitates the learning of how to read (Funnell). Handwriting is also a very personal experience. It records more than just words, but also our personalities and emotions. The individualized strokes are the building blocks of our unique signatures or written fingerprints.

Image: British Library, Royal MS 12 C. xix, “Medieval Bestiary.” Public domain.

What happened to taking pride in the way our writing looks?  The only forms of scripts we have today are in calligraphic art (such as in tattoos, or professional penmanship), but these rare talents in the 21st century. Using standardized scripts and taking care in how one’s writing looks has reverted to being practiced by a very select group of people. Calligraphy and penmanship specialists are like the scribes of the medieval period; they are specially trained in beautiful writing.

Books, text messages, emails, posters, newspapers all use fonts as they are the products of print and digital technology. Fonts are favoured because of their consistency and convenience.  There are those who believe that handwriting will succumb to the popularity of digital interfaces and disappear from use altogether. However, what happens when technology fails? I think people sometimes fail to consider this question because digital technology seems invincible.

I am not going so far as to say that we need to choose handwriting or typing, but instead I think we need to stop putting these two amazing technologies against each other. Typing is a fundamental skill that needs to be learned these days, but it should not be taught at the expense of eliminating handwriting. We have become so dependant on digital forms of literacy that we are beginning to forget the literacy that has empowered us for thousands of years. I don’t see handwriting and scripts ever truly disappearing. However, I feel uneasy about its future. I can’t help but think that by cutting handwriting from our learning systems, we deprive ourselves of a technology, and an art, that is reliable, valuable, and beautiful.

Works Cited

Funnell, Anthony. “Is the Writing on the Wall for Handwriting?ABC Radio National, Sep. 9, 2015. Web.

Posted in Writing | Leave a comment

The Price of On-Screen Reading Interfaces Versus Print Interfaces: Open Access Publishing

Chantal Normand

Throughout my first paper, I discussed how during the last thirty years technological reading interfaces and devices such as computers, tablets, E-books, and desktop publishing have begun to slowly replace printed books, handwritten documents, magazines, and other print interfaces. I argued that there are many pros to on-screen reading including quick access to information, reduced production and distribution costs, and storage efficiency and portability. However, screen interfaces have also been shown to slow reading processes, lower reading comprehension, and remove the “physicality” in reading a tangible book (Ferris 1). Additionally, many people fear that technological reading interfaces will eventually lead to the “death of the printed book” (Sasson 1).

I concluded that the text medium of screen is ultimately an advantage to society regardless of having both pros and cons, and that the death of the book would most likely never occur. This is because throughout history it has been shown that people fear what is unknown or new. Plato stated in Phaedrus that writing in general was very bad, being non-interactive, weakening the mind, obstructing learning, and being incomplete and dangerous when in the wrong hands. Similarly, all of these claims have been said about screen reading interfaces and will probably continue to be said about future reading interfaces. I argued that the death of the book would most likely never occur because paper reading interfaces have proven to be adaptable and evolvable over time, shown with the progression from scrolls and rolls to the modern-day codex.

One of my main arguments in this paper was that online publication and access to online information is virtually free, yet I discovered that this statement can be disproved with a variety of factors. Just because one does not always need to pay upfront to enter a website does not mean that online information is inherently free. Everyone pays for internet access in one way or another. It may be paid for on campus through tuition, or at home through your Wi-Fi bill, but internet access is not always free. Conversely, there can be Wi-Fi available to be accessed at many establishments, but it is unlikely someone will always venture to the nearest Starbucks to write a research paper or to look up one word on an online dictionary. Additionally, these Wi-Fi services are only free to those who access it, not to the establishments that offer it.

Furthermore, there is also the cost of producing electricity in order to run the internet on electronic devices. Information cannot be accessed or published online without electricity, and electricity costs money. Coal mines, hydroelectric damns, solar panels, windmills, and other electricity generating technologies require a colossal amount of money for production costs, operating costs, financing charges, and capital costs. For an example, a transmission expansion project focusing on windmills in Texas was estimated to cost seven billion dollars with all expenses included. This cost was then paid for by electricity consumers in the state of Texas (Yonk 1). Printed books can also require electricity to be printed and distributed, unless they are handwritten and distributed by hand, but handwriting and hand distributing books is extremely uncommon. There are also costs for manufacturing electronic devices used to access online information. Computers, E-books, cellphones, and tablets are certainly not free. Printed books, magazines, and other documents are not free of charge either, yet the cost of electronics is much higher.

All texts, regardless of format, have a cost for labour. There is always someone who will write, revise, and design text no matter the medium on which they appear, and this is yet another reason why not all information accessed online is free. “Open Access” publishing is a model created that aims to remove the costs of accessing scholarly journal articles on the internet. In 2004, Peter Suber defined open access publishing as “digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions” (Rodriguez 604). The author or institution pays the publishing costs in advance (in some instances authors must pay up to $1580, and then the journal article is available to users on the internet “free of charge” (Manista 1045). This concept is extremely controversial because many people argue the model will lead to lower quality research articles, plagiarism, copyright issues, and other legal issues (Salem 491).

“Open Access Publishing”. Image: Darren Chase, Stony Brooke University. Web. 27 February 2017.

In conclusion, screen reading interfaces may contain an array of pros and cons, but the assumption that online information and publishing are always free is false. Internet access, electricity use and production, manufacturing of electronic devices, and the labor of writing and editing all come at a cost. Open access publishing is a solution created to solve this problem, which aimed to remove a portion of these costs from consumers and instead have the authors pay to become published. However, this model also contains many pros and cons, being very controversial in the publishing domain. Open access publishing may widen the audiences of articles, yet it can also lead to lower quality in articles and to legal issues. The future of open access publishing relies on authors themselves, because they make their own decision to publish their articles in open access, or to publish their article in an academic journal.

Works Cited

Ferris, Jabr. “The Reading Brain in the Digital Age: The Science of Paper Versus Screens”.  Scientific American (2013): 1-8. Web 27 Feb. 2017.

Manista, Frank C. “Open Don’t Mean Free: A Reflection on the Potential Advantages and  Disadvantages of Open Acess Publishing”. Journal of Librarianship and Scholarly Communication 1.2 (2012). DOI: 10.7710/2162-3309.1049

Rodriguez, Julia E. “Awareness and Attitudes about Open Access Publishing: A Glance at Generational Differences”. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 40.6 (2014): 604-610. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2014.07.013

Salem, Deeb. “Conflict of Interest in Open-Acess Publishing”. The New England Journal of Medicine 369.5 (2013): 491. DOI:10.1056/NEJMc1307577

Sasson, Remez. “The Benefits and Advantages of eBooks”. Success Consciousness (2001). Web 26 Feb. 2017.

Yonk, Ryan M. “Unseen Costs of Electricity Generation”. Pipeline & Gas Journal 243.4 (2016): 53-54.

Posted in Publishing, Writing supports | Leave a comment

Books Are Overrated – Movies Deserve More Credit

Karter Craig

It is no secret that avid readers often believe that the books are always better than their movie adaptations. With our society becoming highly digitized, movies are becoming the better option. While I am still torn between which are better, I believe that society’s technological shift will allow the heated debate to begin to blow over. Book lovers will likely always exist, but the developments of visual effects in Hollywood and author-screenwriter co-operation will allow readers to be more content, and movie lovers to enjoy film adaptations of novels without criticism. The Harry Potter series is a strong example of successful film adaptation, with 7 of 8 in the top 50 highest-grossing films of all time. The series provides a strong foundation for the advancement in film adaptations and because of this, it will be the focus (but not entirety) of my discussion.

Authors often put an extensive amount of effort into creating a setting for their plots to take place, and the readers spend a large amount of time indulging in the details to create an image in their heads. When a team of filmmakers create the setting, it becomes established in a matter of seconds and is observed by viewers rather than imagined. Older technologies in the film industry such as older film making equipment or special effects software allowed for many minor details of novels to be missed or overlooked which often caused readers to be disappointed (Agar). With higher quality cameras, more detailed editing and effects software, details can be more easily incorporated (Agar). Settings also become more visually complex and appealing than most readers would have the ability to create within their minds. When I saw the film version of Hogwarts in the Harry Potter series compared to the Hogwarts I had read about, the magnificence of the images far exceeded any images I was able to create in my mind. It was thrilling to see. While some readers claim that the creation of images removes freedom of imagination, it also allows for the inclusion of many smaller details that would often otherwise be overlooked. The technological progression is most easily noted when older movies are re-mastered and compared.

Image: Candace Shane, “Opinion: In Defense of Disney Restorations for DVD/Blu-Ray Releases,” The Daily Crate

The remastered version of Cinderella demonstrates the evolution of image colour, sharpness, brightness, and contrast. Many viewers would agree that the remastered version is more pleasant to look at and easier to identify smaller details such as Cinderella’s accessories, her bright lipstick, or the colour of her dress. This is only one small snapshot of the difference between image quality from 1960 to 2005 (which is even now 12-year old technology).

Another major impact on whether a film adaptation is successful is if the author of the original work is involved in production or not. The presence of the author allows filmmakers to be more conscious of any inconsistencies between the novel and the screenplay, script, setting, or characters. A good example of author involvement is J.K. Rowling, who was heavily involved in the creation of the film version of the Harry Potter series. Only the first four books had been released as the first film was being produced, so only Rowling knew what was to come, meaning that her knowledge was essential not just to the filmmakers, but even the actors (Robinson). Actor Alan Rickman was unsure of how to approach his character of Severus Snape and Rowling told him the secrets of Snape’s future to aid in Rickman’s portrayal of him (Robinson). Rowling also had input about which actors were cast for the movies, though the decision was not completely up to her. Her early sketches of the characters she had envisioned demonstrate that the actors who were cast fit her mental image quite accurately. The author’s involvement minimizes inconsistencies between the book and films and guides which plot omissions are acceptable due to time restrictions in film.

Image: Tweet from Harry Potter World, 22 Jun. 2013, cited in Megan McCluskey, “J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter Sketches Are the Most Magical Thing You’ll See Today,” Time, 23 Aug. 2016.

Today’s technologies and collaboration of industries have popularized film adaptations of works of literature. While creating film adaptations has always been a popular way of producing film, it is often criticized for being disappointing when compared to the original versions. Advancements in visual effects, higher quality equipment, and increased spending on blockbuster films allows for more accurate representations of the original work of literature. While there will always be criticisms, the future of movie and book lovers is becoming brighter and the two groups may be able to co-exist without too much debate soon.

Works Cited

Agar, Chris. “8 Movies That Revolutionized Hollywood’s Visual Effects.” 21 October 2013. Screen Rant. 23 January 2017. <http://screenrant.com/movies-technology-visual-effects-groundbreaking-hollywood/>.

McCluskey, Megan. “J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter Sketches Are the Most Magical Thing You’ll See Today.” Time, 23 Aug. 2016. <http://time.com/4463272/jk-rowling-harry-potter-sketches/>.

Robinson, Joanna. “J.K. Rowling Shares Which Harry Potter Secret She Told Alan Rickman First.” 18 January 2016. Vanity Fair. 2 February 2017. <http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/01/jk-rowling-alan-rickman-harry-potter-always>.

Shane, Candace. “Opinion: In Defense of Disney Restorations for DVD/Blu-Ray Releases.” 24 February 2014. The Daily Crate. <http://www.thedailycrate.com/opinion-in-defense-of-disney-restorations-dvdblu-ray-releases/>.

Posted in Remediation | Leave a comment

Altered Symbolism in Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games

Image: (c) Sydney Gobeil, 2017.

Sydney Gobeil

When Suzanne Collins wrote The Hunger Games, she created a story focused on the extreme measures that a political system will go to eradicate any idea of rebellion, and maintain control of its citizens. As the novel continues, it becomes a story about how all it takes is one person to ignite a rebellion. In the novel’s case,  that one person is Katniss Everdeen (Fisher 27). Her actions in the games inspire the districts to fight against the oppressiveness of the Capitol. In the novel, the mockingjay pin Katniss wears becomes a symbol of rebellion. However, as a result of remediation, the pin takes on a different sort of meaning in the film adaption.

In the book, the mockingjay is a political weapon. The novel describes the origins of the mockingjay, stating that it was a combination of the mockingbird and the jabberjay. The jabberjay was a genetically altered bird created by the Capitol, which was used to record conversations of rebels during the first rebellion of the districts. When the rebels caught on and began spreading false information through the birds, the Capitol shut down the program, and the birds mated with mockingbirds (Collins 42-43). This resulted in the creation of mockingjays, which Katniss describes as being “something of a slap in the face to the Capitol” (Collins 42). They represent the true lack of power that the Capitol possesses. This contrasts the power that they claim to hold over the districts, which they demonstrate by forcing the district’s children to fight to the death each year.

As Katniss receives the pin from Madge, the mayor’s daughter, the mockingjay becomes   even more of a political symbol in the novel. As the pin is given to Katniss by a political figure, the mockingjay begins to symbolize the district’s disapproval of the Capitol’s oppressive political system.  Madge asks Katniss to “[p]romise [she’ll] wear it in the arena” (Collins 38). She is well aware that the Capitol will be watching each of the tributes, and will see the mockingjay as a sign that the district is not complacent in their acceptance of the Hunger Games and the political choices of the Capitol.

The political statement and rebellious connotations of the mockingjay pin are lost as a result of the remediation of The Hunger Games. Instead, it becomes a reminder for Katniss to keep fighting so that she can return home. This is largely due to the removal of Madge from the movie, which is a result of the need to condense the storyline. As movies are generally around two hours long, they are not capable of containing the entirety of a novel in exact detail. In order to fit within the time constraints placed upon films, parts of the story that were in the novel must be removed. In The Hunger Games, Madge appears very infrequently. As she is not in the book much, her storyline is easy to remove. The director can focus on including more scenes of Katniss and other main characters, which is more of a draw for moviegoers. In the film, Katniss buys the pin, and gives it to her sister, Prim. She promises that “as long as [she] has it, nothing bad will happen to [her]” (Ross, The Hunger Games). This turns out to be untrue, as Prim is reaped, but Katniss volunteers in her place. Prim gives the pin back to Katniss before she leaves, telling her it’s “to protect you” (Ross, The Hunger Games). To further condense the film, the origin of the mockingjay is completely left out, which contributes to the change in symbolism. The pin now becomes a reminder for Katniss that she needs to have faith in herself to win the games, so that she can return home to her sister.

As a result of remediation, the mockingjay pin worn by Katniss in The Hunger Games has different meanings in both the novel and film. This is a result of the need to condense the storyline and remove characters. In the novel, the pin represents the discontent of the districts with the Capitol’s actions. It also becomes a symbol of defiance in the face of an oppressive political system (Fisher 28). However, in the film, the pin symbolizes Katniss’ desire to return home to her sister, who is the person she cares for most. In both versions of the text, the mockingjay is a symbol of hope, but each medium portrays it as different sort of hope. The novel illustrates the mockingjay as a symbol of hope for rebellion, whereas the film displays the pin as a symbol of hope for Katniss to make it through the games alive.

Works Cited

Collins, Suzanne L. The Hunger Games. New York, Scholastic Inc., 2008.

Fisher, Mark. “Precarious Dystopias: The Hunger Games, In Time , and Never Let Me       Go.” Film Quarterly, vol. 65, no. 4, June 2012, pp. 27–33.

Gobeil, Sydney. “The Hunger Games Cover”. 2017. JPEG file.

Ross, Gary. The Hunger Games. Dir. Gary Ross. Alliance Films, 2012. DVD.

Posted in Remediation | Leave a comment