U.S. Public Domain titles added Jan 1st 2021

[Fbone]

Books published in 1925 are now PD in US. The Great Gatsby, Mrs Dalloway and In Our Time are some of them.

Curated list: https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2021/


https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/recaps/...cid=uxbndlbing

[Uncle Robin]

Thanks for explaining this xkcd

[GA Russell]

Thanks Fbone!

[hildea]

I'm looking forward to this reimagining of Gatsby!

[drofgnal]

Thanks, I was wondering when someone would post what's coming into Public Domain. An interesting story on It's a Wonderful Life on the Duke.EDU link.

[pwalker8]

Interesting link. The great tragedy of the super long copyright is so much has already been lost. There really should be an exclusion to copyright for restoration and preservation. The what if section of what would be PD if we were still under the copyright law prior to 1978 is interesting. I find it very, very sad that the great grand daughter of Fitzgerald was the one commenting on the Great Gatsby finally going into PD.

[SleepyBob]

It actually happened.

Edit: For some reason, I was thinking that these were the first new works to begin entering PD in the US. Apparently, that started two years age, though.

[binaryhermit]

I'm about a third of the way through "The Great Gatsby" (after IIRC having read it in HS almost 20 years ago) and all I can think about is that it's massively overrated

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

I'm about a third of the way through "The Great Gatsby" (after IIRC having read it in HS almost 20 years ago) and all I can think about is that it's massively overrated

I too used have that opinion, but after reading some analysis on it, it shows why many people still talk about TGG.

If we implement a feminist approach, we'd see how Jordan, who is an independent, and in full 1920 regalia, is described in unflattering ways. Every single woman who disrespects patriarchy comes unstuck. I'm not going to spoil it for you, but there are layers to this short book.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Luffy

I too used have that opinion, but after reading some analysis on it, it shows why many people still talk about TGG.

If we implement a feminist approach, we'd see how Jordan, who is an independent, and in full 1920 regalia, is described in unflattering ways. Every single woman who disrespects patriarchy comes unstuck. I'm not going to spoil it for you, but there are layers to this short book.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I suspect the real reason that the Great Gatsby is a "classic" is because the writing style appeals to literary types and since it's been around so long, many, many literary critics have projected their world views on it.

Personally, the book never did anything for me. I really liked the Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck though, so different strokes for different folks.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I suspect the real reason that the Great Gatsby is a "classic" is because the writing style appeals to literary types and since it's been around so long, many, many literary critics have projected their world views on it.

Personally, the book never did anything for me. I really liked the Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck though, so different strokes for different folks.

I'm no dyed in the wool defender of said book, but I was more drawn to its writing than I thought I would be. I reserve my dislike for many big books that are classics.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I suspect the real reason that the Great Gatsby is a "classic" is because the writing style appeals to literary types and since it's been around so long, many, many literary critics have projected their world views on it.

Maybe it’s been around so long because it’s that good?

One mark of a classic is that it’s open to different interpretations over time. Classics live; there’s a universality to them. Jane Eyre is one example of this; the understanding of Bertha Rochester is far different now that it was a century and a half ago.

Personally, the book never did anything for me. I really liked the Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck though, so different strokes for different folks.

That’s quite the non sequitur.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by issybird

Maybe it’s been around so long because it’s that good?

One mark of a classic is that it’s open to different interpretations over time. Classics live; there’s a universality to them. Jane Eyre is one example of this; the understanding of Bertha Rochester is far different now that it was a century and a half ago.



That’s quite the non sequitur.

You do realize that Grapes of Wrath was written in 1939, is considered an American classic and is taught in school don't you? Hardly a non sequitur since I was pointing out that there are other American classics that do appeal to me.

Understanding of a book doesn't change over time, unless new information comes out about it. Projections onto a book change all the time. That hardly is the hallmark of a classic. The fact that it's still being read after almost 100 years makes it a classic, even if I don't particularly care for it. The Sherlock Holmes stories are classics because people still enjoy them after all this time, not because literary critics continue to put out new projections onto Sherlock Holmes and Watson.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

You do realize that Grapes of Wrath was written in 1939, is considered an American classic and is taught in school don't you?

Oh, my, do tell. That Steinbeck! The one who won what Paul Krugman rather gracelessly called “the Swedish thingie.”

Hardly a non sequitur since I was pointing out that there are other American classics that do appeal to me.

Your contrast of Gatsby and Grapes seems akin to someone saying, “I don’t like watermelon but I like hamburgers.” The relationship is tenuous.

Understanding of a book doesn't change over time, unless new information comes out about it. Projections onto a book change all the time. That hardly is the hallmark of a classic. The fact that it's still being read after almost 100 years makes it a classic, even if I don't particularly care for it. The Sherlock Holmes stories are classics because people still enjoy them after all this time, not because literary critics continue to put out new projections onto Sherlock Holmes and Watson.

I specifically said the understanding of Bertha Rochester; you don’t think the advances in knowledge of psychology and mental illness can alter our interpretation of what happens with her character? What Brontë wrote in the 1840s was true and what we know now is another truth. It’s a mark of the greatness of the book. I don’t even know what new information coming out about a book would mean. The book is the text.

I also think we have a difference in our understanding of cause and effect. Books last because they’re good, so far we’re in agreement. But I think part of what makes a book great over time is that it doesn’t date; it keeps pace with our changing understanding of times and people. What you’re calling a “projection”, I call advances in knowledge. I can’t help thinking it’s on par with your not-so-concealed sneer at “literary types.” Why does it matter to you who likes a book and why and how they appreciate it?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by binaryhermit

I'm about a third of the way through "The Great Gatsby" (after IIRC having read it in HS almost 20 years ago) and all I can think about is that it's massively overrated

A work of art not connecting to you isn't necessarily overrated.

I don't enjoy Quentin Tarantino's movies. But I wouldn't say he's overrated. Just doesn't connect to me.