Tweet
Edit: The issue has now been resolved for me where in Moorcock stated the following:
So apparently the language was a bit too ambiguous here. So thank you all for letting me know about this and I appreciate everyone's patients, I also apologize if I was a bit annoying. :End Edit
Edit 2:
So, Moorcock has spoken, there never was a lawsuit. Thank you my friend. :End Edit:
I know that this topic was posted somewhere else in fact but I am somewhat curious here to hear Michael Moorcock sort of give me his definitive word on this because all I have ever heard of this tends to come from second or third hand accounts giving their view on why it's plagiarism or not
For the record here, this is the video that turned me on to this controversy in the first place:
Now at first I didn't pay it much mind because a lot of people and fans of fantasy novel's appear to make claims about how all kinds of fantasy author's plagiarise one another's work and usually this doesn't go anywhere beyond the forums of the fans arguing about it and I wrote it off as just that.
But one day I got curious and decided to see if this was the case with Razorfist. Apparently he wasn't aware of Moorcock until he stumbled upon the forum post. This became apparent to me as I came upon some of his tumblr posts that he was reserved to call The Witcher plagiarism on the grounds that the game developers were not the ones plagiarizing Moorcock's work but Andrzej Sapkowski was the one who is supposed the one doing it here and making money off the game.
After he began reading the books he came to the conclusion that they were and made this video as a result of his final word on the video. After which a bunch of individuals started making lists of differences that result in no plagiarism involved while Razorfist and his camp provide striking similarities that make a stronger case for plagiarism. The stronger case being thematic themes, reverse contextualization of characters, tone of conflict both characters endure and the like. Just as an example of what I am talking about to give you a gist here, here are the lists the naysayers tend to provide:
And here is what Razorfist retorts with:
I don't want to document a flame war here, but seeing as I have neither read Moorcock's or Sapkowski's novels it's hard to say for sure. Now for some background on me, I study ancient history texts, specifically those regarding the forgeries in ancient religions, so I have a good grasp on how ideas get transferred from culture to another, how authors can come up with the same ideas independently of one another and forgeries, counter-forgeries and plagiarism in the ancient world works. So I have a good basis to judge from it and without reading the books themselves, I can't determine indefinitely if it is.
But here is the thing though, Razorfist made an interesting comment regarding Moorcock's conclusion which was the following:
Now, is there any truth to this bottom quote here? And before anyone accuses me of starting a flame thread between Sapkowski's fans and Moorcock's allow me to say that I am not. It really does concern me that this is an issue right now and I want to know because while I find the games to be fun in their own right, I don't want my money to support a media empire that was established as such via plagiarism. So if Moorcock could answer the simple question of if it is plagiarism and if he came to that conclusion based on reading Sapkowski's work, I would greatly appreciate it and if anything quoted above by Razorfist here is true.
Bastards. You try to create something original and a bunch of people rip it off and make millions. I'm glad Tolkien never lived to see what HE spawned. I've contacted my lawyer, but haven't heard back yet. It's a 'passing off' situation rather than a copyright one. Trademarks, too, are involved. Copyright infringement is usually to do with text (or clearly copied drawings in the case of comics). Source: http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showp...04&postcount=4
Edit 2:
There never was a lawsuit. Those narratives waste time...
To me an elf is a kind of pixie. http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showp...6&postcount=22
To me an elf is a kind of pixie. http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showp...6&postcount=22
I know that this topic was posted somewhere else in fact but I am somewhat curious here to hear Michael Moorcock sort of give me his definitive word on this because all I have ever heard of this tends to come from second or third hand accounts giving their view on why it's plagiarism or not
For the record here, this is the video that turned me on to this controversy in the first place:
Now at first I didn't pay it much mind because a lot of people and fans of fantasy novel's appear to make claims about how all kinds of fantasy author's plagiarise one another's work and usually this doesn't go anywhere beyond the forums of the fans arguing about it and I wrote it off as just that.
But one day I got curious and decided to see if this was the case with Razorfist. Apparently he wasn't aware of Moorcock until he stumbled upon the forum post. This became apparent to me as I came upon some of his tumblr posts that he was reserved to call The Witcher plagiarism on the grounds that the game developers were not the ones plagiarizing Moorcock's work but Andrzej Sapkowski was the one who is supposed the one doing it here and making money off the game.
After he began reading the books he came to the conclusion that they were and made this video as a result of his final word on the video. After which a bunch of individuals started making lists of differences that result in no plagiarism involved while Razorfist and his camp provide striking similarities that make a stronger case for plagiarism. The stronger case being thematic themes, reverse contextualization of characters, tone of conflict both characters endure and the like. Just as an example of what I am talking about to give you a gist here, here are the lists the naysayers tend to provide:
Elric of Melnibone:
Rightful emperor of Melnibone, and thus most powerful individual in all the Young Kingdoms.
Elven.
Albino.
Weakling who needs to sustain himself with either drugs or stolen souls.
Mightiest mage in all of the young kingdoms.
Worshipper of the chaos gods.
Frequently stupid.
Bound symbiotically to a soul eating sentient sword.
One aspect of the champion eternal, a multiversal hero.
His people have ruled the world for ten millenia.
Rides Dragons and sometimes even weirder craft.
Has few friends or acquaintances, mainly Dyvim and Moonglum.
Geralt of Rivia:
Orphaned child without family or fortune.
Human.
White haired and cat eyed due to witcher mutations.
Superhuman, immune to disease and the ravages of time.
Knows a few witcher tricks, the signs.
Agnostic, with a certain distaste for fate.
Clever, know his craft like the back of his hand.
Bear two mundane sword, one silver and one steel.
Is not sure whether fate exists, certainly does not like to think of himself as a pawn of it.
Witchers are few and rapidly dying out, at their height they were reviled freaks.
Rides a horse that he calls Roach.
Has many friends.
Rightful emperor of Melnibone, and thus most powerful individual in all the Young Kingdoms.
Elven.
Albino.
Weakling who needs to sustain himself with either drugs or stolen souls.
Mightiest mage in all of the young kingdoms.
Worshipper of the chaos gods.
Frequently stupid.
Bound symbiotically to a soul eating sentient sword.
One aspect of the champion eternal, a multiversal hero.
His people have ruled the world for ten millenia.
Rides Dragons and sometimes even weirder craft.
Has few friends or acquaintances, mainly Dyvim and Moonglum.
Geralt of Rivia:
Orphaned child without family or fortune.
Human.
White haired and cat eyed due to witcher mutations.
Superhuman, immune to disease and the ravages of time.
Knows a few witcher tricks, the signs.
Agnostic, with a certain distaste for fate.
Clever, know his craft like the back of his hand.
Bear two mundane sword, one silver and one steel.
Is not sure whether fate exists, certainly does not like to think of himself as a pawn of it.
Witchers are few and rapidly dying out, at their height they were reviled freaks.
Rides a horse that he calls Roach.
Has many friends.
They are, physically, and for all intents and purposes identical. Right down to the glowy, abnormal eyes. Elric's as a result of being an albino. And Geralt's as a result of the hackneyed 'Derp, medieval genetic engineering' premise. They do have the same 'nick'name. Even the way their real names are pronounced. (Geralt... of Rivia. Elric... of Melniboné) is similar. This is true. And, on its own, would be enough for a plagiarism suit to go forward.
Witcher 2 opens up with Geralt struggling with amnesia subsequent to a traumatic event, besieged in a fortress, fighting in service of his king. Sound familiar? At least one Elric book opens up in nearly identical fashion. Hell, the more down-to-earth, 'low fantasy' approach of the vast majority of the Elric series is mirrored in many ways by the narrative approach of The Witcher.
To which, most fanboys fall back into the standard 'nothing is new under the sun' argument which is unmitigated horseshit! Because when Elric was envisioned, in the 1960s, that was NOT THE CASE! Hell, it wasn't even the case when The Witcher was written in 1986! The invention of the 'fantasy antihero in a low-fantasy world, rife with classism, racism, and political maneuvering'... was one of the many innovations of the Elric series.
Both characters are outcasts.
I've noted Witcher fans - like Art Skye for example - repeatedly fall back on the 'Geralt is a normal guy / Elric is an emperor' defense - but that is INCORRECT. It's indicative of the fact that VERY FEW Witcher fanboys have ever read Elric!
Elric is an Emperor... for HALF of one book in the entire series! He's an outcast! He's despised due to his race and class, and later for the curse that his weapon brings. In other words... he's despised due to his abilities.
I hate to break it to you, but that's the IDENTICAL reason why Geralt (and all witchers) are despised.
Both characters rely on the use of herbs to sustain them, in Geralt's case to a lesser degree (often plagiarists will soften one element or another in order to negate any prospective parallels the discerning fan might generate. The Lion King/Kimba the White Lion controversy has numerous cases of this) In Elric's case, he replaces that reliance on drugs... with a parasitic relationship with his sword. Even the basic, personal dynamic is the same.
Witcher 2 opens up with Geralt struggling with amnesia subsequent to a traumatic event, besieged in a fortress, fighting in service of his king. Sound familiar? At least one Elric book opens up in nearly identical fashion. Hell, the more down-to-earth, 'low fantasy' approach of the vast majority of the Elric series is mirrored in many ways by the narrative approach of The Witcher.
To which, most fanboys fall back into the standard 'nothing is new under the sun' argument which is unmitigated horseshit! Because when Elric was envisioned, in the 1960s, that was NOT THE CASE! Hell, it wasn't even the case when The Witcher was written in 1986! The invention of the 'fantasy antihero in a low-fantasy world, rife with classism, racism, and political maneuvering'... was one of the many innovations of the Elric series.
Both characters are outcasts.
I've noted Witcher fans - like Art Skye for example - repeatedly fall back on the 'Geralt is a normal guy / Elric is an emperor' defense - but that is INCORRECT. It's indicative of the fact that VERY FEW Witcher fanboys have ever read Elric!
Elric is an Emperor... for HALF of one book in the entire series! He's an outcast! He's despised due to his race and class, and later for the curse that his weapon brings. In other words... he's despised due to his abilities.
I hate to break it to you, but that's the IDENTICAL reason why Geralt (and all witchers) are despised.
Both characters rely on the use of herbs to sustain them, in Geralt's case to a lesser degree (often plagiarists will soften one element or another in order to negate any prospective parallels the discerning fan might generate. The Lion King/Kimba the White Lion controversy has numerous cases of this) In Elric's case, he replaces that reliance on drugs... with a parasitic relationship with his sword. Even the basic, personal dynamic is the same.
But here is the thing though, Razorfist made an interesting comment regarding Moorcock's conclusion which was the following:
Michael Moorcock did not 'drop' the issue. He actually concluded by stating that Sapkowski was 'passing off' his character as a sort of Elric-lite.
Here's the thing: The Witcher is now a franchise. And it's distributed in the states by Warner Bros., a powerful conglomerate. Putting aside what a legal snafu it would be to extradite a Polish author for plagiarism proceedings (and Poland's likely reticence to do so, given how important a national export the series has become) he also just plain doesn't have the money to fight with WB. It's true Elric is owned by Universal, but it's also a dormant property. Universal isn't likely to take The Witcher to court for lifting elements of a property they have yet to monetize in filmic form.
Hence Moorcock leaving the matter to rest.
Here's the thing: The Witcher is now a franchise. And it's distributed in the states by Warner Bros., a powerful conglomerate. Putting aside what a legal snafu it would be to extradite a Polish author for plagiarism proceedings (and Poland's likely reticence to do so, given how important a national export the series has become) he also just plain doesn't have the money to fight with WB. It's true Elric is owned by Universal, but it's also a dormant property. Universal isn't likely to take The Witcher to court for lifting elements of a property they have yet to monetize in filmic form.
Hence Moorcock leaving the matter to rest.
) but at no time playing The Witcher did I think, 'Ooh, this is really an Elric-lite game' or anything. It's an entirely different milieu and quite different character* afaic.
Comment