Journal articles on the topic 'Authorship controversy'

I published recently (Wesołowska 2018) a revision of the African genus of jumping spider Pochytoides. The genus includes eight species now. However, as there is some controversy concerning the authorship of this generic name, this matter needs elucidation.

This paper examines the role played by Beckett's in the theoretical controversy concerning authorship that arose during the late 1960s. The implications of Foucault's quotation of in his “What Is an Author?” create a canonical position for Beckett in a literature of anti-authorship, whilst the inclusion of Barthes's “The Death of the Author” alongside a recording of in the avant-garde box magazine 5+6 facilitates a parallel reading which serves to underline certain submerged structures in Barthes's article, suggesting that the Barthesian author remains very much alive.

This essay brings to bear Jacques Derrida's thinking of the ‘event’ and the ‘signature’, specifically in his reading of Francis Ponge's poetry, on the work of style in selected sonnets by Shakespeare. It argues that rather than functioning exclusively as a trace of identification and ownership, the event of style depends on the countersignature of the readers to come in ways that disrupt the teleocratic thinking at the heart of attribution studies in the authorship question. Style has a key role in the authorship controversy. It serves as internal evidence that allows critics to make claims about the authorship of Shakespeare's oeuvre. However, style in the sonnets, while signing for the author, also defaces and dispossesses him in ways that are partly rooted in the epideictic tradition from which the sonnets stem and partly intrinsic to the logic or structure of style as an event.

The millennium hymn Te Deum has been known and sung in Poland for over forty years. The author of this dissertation presents the complicated circumstances revolving around the creation of this hymn. The inspiration were incorrect notes about the composer of the hymn, which had been published in song-books. In past years it lead people to believe that Te Deum was composed by the priest Antoni Chlondowski. The author, who based his research on that of Maria Wacholc, opposed the idea that the priest Chlondowski had composed the hymn. This article presents analysis of the composing style and the biography of the priest Chlondowski, which contradict his authorship. Next, in the following part of this article the author presented some facts which helped him to find the authentic composers. According to the author of this dissertation the authentic composers of Te Deum were Józef Furmanik and Franciszek Wesołowski. The aim of this article is to emphasize the necessity of the correction of the mistaken information about the composer in the song-books which will be published in the future.This article has the following structure: Te Deum in the history of the Catholic Church; Polish language version of Te Deum used in the liturgy in the XXth century; Polish millennium Te Deum; The controversy around the authorship of the priest Antoni Chlondowski; The controversy around the authorship of Franciszek Wesołowski; The authentic composers – Józef Furmanik and Franciszek Wesołowski.

The Shampay House of 1919 has been commonly understood to be the very last of Frank Lloyd Wright's cruciform Prairie houses. It was planned to be erected in Beverly Hills, Illinois, but the client withdrew amid legal acrimony at the design stage. In this period, when Wright was frequently in Tokyo working on the Imperial Hotel and other commissions in Japan, Rudolph M. Schindler was left in charge of Wright's offices in the United States. While the Shampay House clearly comes out of Frank Lloyd Wright's studio, so that ownership of the design is not in question, this paper traces the controversy-between the two architects themselves as well as subsequent commentators-concerning the authorship of the project. The evidence presented unambiguously determines who conceived the design, the degree of Wright's involvement in its development, and the original contributions that Schindler brought to it. Previously unknown and unpublished blueprints and extracts from correspondence between Wright and Schindler are used extensively in the discussion.

Inspired by the authorship controversy of Dream of the Red Chamber and the application of machine learning in the study of literary stylometry, we develop a rigorous new method for the mathematical analysis of authorship by testing for a so-called chrono-divide in writing styles. Our method incorporates some of the latest advances in the study of authorship attribution, particularly techniques from support vector machines. By introducing the notion of relative frequency as a feature ranking metric, our method proves to be highly effective and robust. Applying our method to the Cheng–Gao version of Dream of the Red Chamber has led to convincing if not irrefutable evidence that the first 80 chapters and the last 40 chapters of the book were written by two different authors. Furthermore, our analysis has unexpectedly provided strong support to the hypothesis that Chapter 67 was not the work of Cao Xueqin either. We have also tested our method to the other three Great Classical Novels in Chinese. As expected no chrono-divides have been found. This provides further evidence of the robustness of our method.

Abstract Since the publication of Clement’s letter to Theodore, discovered by Morton Smith at Mar Saba, there has been a great deal of controversy surrounding its authenticity. The main aim of the present paper is to weigh the linguistic evidence for and against Clementine authorship of the letter, also checking its alleged excessively Clementine nature in an objective manner, using a profile-based stylometric technique for authorship verification which has proven to be a valuable tool for text of relatively small size. The outcomes of the analysis tend to attribute the disputed letter to Clement but they also show its hyper-Clementine quality. Is this due to a forger, deliberately trying to imitate Clement’s style or is it instead a feature characteristic of the epistolary style of Clement? Regrettably without further samples of Clement’s letters to be used as terms of comparison it seems not possible to safely answer this question.


 
 
 Originally published in 1941, Elio Vittorini’s Conversazione in Sicilia – probably his most important novel – was republished in 1953 with the inclusion of 169 photographs commissioned to Luigi Crocenzi three years earlier. This new publication was followed by a harsh controversy between the writer and the photographer regarding the authorship of the book. This essay recontructs the dispute – a crucial moment in the definition of Italian photographic culture – through the correspondence held in Vittorini’s and Crocenzi’s personal archives and the ensuing comments published in the media.
 
 

In 1773, Phillis Wheatley’s Poems on Various Subjects, Religious and Moral appeared print. Ever since the publication of her book of neoclassic verse, the African-born poet has been a controversial figure in American History. At the center of the controversy is the question of whether or not the mother of the African American literary tradition criticized slavery. While some scholars have denounced Wheatley for not addressing the institution; others argue that her work represented a subtle critique. Ironically, missing in this discourse are the poet’s diacritical marks that underscores not only the power of words to mean, but also subversive readings—both of which are the focus of this essay.

In 1920 the Polish army defeated the Bolsheviks before the gates of Warsaw. The Polish victory preserved the independence of the reborn state, delayed Russian expansion for a generation, and left to historians a number of controversial issues. Certainly the most passionately debated aspect of the war is the authorship of the Polish victory. Gradually western scholarship has come to credit the laurels to Poland's Marshal Jozef Pilsudski, but there are still those who emphasize the role of other Polish soldiers or of the Frenchman, General Maxime Weygand. From the midst of this historiographical controversy, we may discern the dim outlines of a simultaneous, yet obscured episode: the aborted political comeback of Ignacy Jan Paderewski. It is the purpose of this essay to reconstruct the latter against the background of the former.

While it is dangerous to generalize about so vast a field as Homeric scholarship, it is perhaps safe to say that before the 1970s interpretation of the Wanderings of Odysseus was dominated by the larger question of the Odyssey’s moral and theological coherence, particularly as this pertains to the justice of Odysseus’ and his companions’ sufferings. The controversy between Analysts and Unitarians did much to determine how this question was asked and answered, with Analysts viewing moral incoherence as a symptom of multiple authorship and Unitarians striving to demonstrate coherence. First-generation anthropology introduced the idea that incoherence might reflect not (only) different authors, but (also) different stages of cultural development. This development was conceived mainly as an advance from primitive ‘savagery’ to more enlightened ‘humanity’, albeit with a tinge of nostalgia for savagery's more holistic ecological consciousness.

The avtorski pesni v naroden duh (authored songs in folk spirit) are a modern and multifaceted phenomenon, which has accumulated a rich history in Bulgarian musical culture. This research presents the essential characteristics of these songs and a two-part typology (1. authorized/avtorizirani folk songs; 2. newly composed songs ‘in folk spirit’), which is based on both models of authorship (according to Michel Foucault, authorial function is manifested in two basic forms of authorship—plagiarism and appropriation). This study provides an overview of some of the thematic debates that attempt to resolve the inevitable contradictions and tensions surrounding songwriting in folk spirit. The avtorski pesni v naroden duh have attracted the critical attention of Bulgarian musicians and society and have been the subject of lively discussions, criticisms, and controversy in numerous publications from the first decades of the 20th century to the present. This survey offers different perspectives, opinions and arguments focused on one of the main discussion topics related to the creation and functioning of the avtorski pesni v naroden duh: pro and contra the obrabotvane (transformation, polishing, processing, cultivation) of folklore. This problem has been at the heart of intellectual discussions since the 1930s and during the 1950s–1980s. The critical discussion of the question pro and contra the obrabotvane of folklore, with its whole inconsistency, complexity and impossibility to be reduced to unambiguous answers, leads to sharp confrontations between the holders of different opinions.

Although how, when, and where More and Rastell met, their initial reactions to each other, the growth and strength of their friendship, what ideas they exchanged, how well their families got on, and other questions remain matters for speculation, this essay explores what can be known with relative certainty about their relationship. Financial arrangements, shared interests and training in law, participation in government, familial ties and children of similar ages, and involvement in religious controversy provide major junctures from which their relationship can be traced. Other crucial connections between these important men include Rastell’s move from Coventry to London, his establishment of a printing house that published some of More’s works, his attraction to the More Circle and its humanist ideas, his intended voyage to the New World (perhaps inspired, in part, by More’s fictional journey in Utopia), his authorship of interludes and other works, and his conversion to Protestantism.

The measurement of scholarly productivity is embroiled in a controversy concerning the differential crediting of coauthors. Some researchers assign equivalent shares to each coauthor; others employ weighting systems based on authorship order. Horan and his colleagues use simple publication totals, arguing that the psychometric properties of labor-intensive alternatives are unknown, and relevant ethical guidelines for including coauthors are neither widely understood nor consistently followed. The PsycLIT and SSCI data bases provided exhaustive publication and citation frequencies for 323 counseling psychology faculty. All PsycLIT scoring permutations yielded essentially identical information; inter-correlations ranged from .96 to unity. Moreover, all PsycLIT methods correlated highly with SSCI within a very narrow band. Since attention to the number and/or ordinal position of coauthors yields no useful information, productivity should be defined parsimoniously in terms of simple publication counts. Implications for research, promotion/tenure, and the mentoring of graduate students are discussed.

We know very little for certain about the staging of plays in the Theatre of Dionysus at Athens in the fifth century B.C. The evidence of archaeological remains and contemporary vase painting is difficult to interpret with confidence, the reliability of ancient post-classical commentators is questionable, and the texts of the surviving plays, our chief source of evidence, often raise more problems than they solve. Among the plays which have occasioned most controversy in modern scholarship is the Prometheus Vinctus. What was the ‘rock’ to which the hero was bound? In what part of the theatre space was it positioned? How and where did the chorus of Oceanids make their entry? How was the ending of the play staged? Questions such as these continue to perplex students of the play who also have to face the vexed question of its date and indeed authorship.

THE NEW WOMAN was both a discursive formation and a figure produced by materialist history as a result of debates over marriage, sexualities, political rights, labor conditions, life styles, and fashion. Unnamed until 1893 (Tusan 169), the “New Woman” became a lively topic in the press only in 1894 (Schaffer, “‘Nothing’” 39–40), at which point the rhetoric aimed at actual women quickly transformed into attacks on or defense of a literary phenomenon – in part, Ann Ardis suggests, because a literary controversy was less threatening than the prospect of actual social change (12). The “‘props’” attributed to the New Woman by Punch, the preeminent periodical to construct the literary stereotype, included five defining activities: “She smoked, rode a bicycle, frequented women's clubs, read voraciously and wore bloomers” (Miles 247). Scholars have long acknowledged that the New Woman did not suddenly appear but had a pre-history dating back to the 1880s (e.g., Ledger 23). A crucial part of that pre-history in life and in print was the founding of the “Literary Ladies,” a women writers' dining club, in 1889. The club not only represented significant innovation in fin-de-siècle authorship but also, more crucially, precipitated in the press the “props” (bloomers excepted) that would typify – and target – the New Woman from 1894 onward.

The cento of Proba has recently enjoyed a remarkable upsurge of scholarly interest. A welcome translation was provided in 1981, and an article of five years later, scrutinizing the evidence for its date and authorship, has aroused much controversy. In two recent contributions vindicating the traditional date new or more precise suggestions have been made about the poem's historical context. In between these, yet another article has argued, without confirming or refuting the revised dating and attribution, that in various ways the work reflects the interest of the aristocratic ladies of the Anician family. And now there is a second article by Danuta Shanzer, repeating many of her early points (not always with greater clarity) and adding some interesting new ones. All this sudden attention is not unmerited, for as Herzog observed long ago the work is not of the comic or trivializing kind that Ausonius envisaged in his comments on the genre and does not degrade Vergil but rather, at least in the often quoted words of its prefatory poem, ‘improves’ him.

The decades between 1850 and 1930 saw traditional understandings of Christianity subjected to rigorous social, intellectual, and theological criticism across the transatlantic world. Unprecedented urban and industrial expansion drew attention to the shortcomings of established models of church organization while traditional Christian beliefs concerning human origins and the authority of Scripture were assailed by new approaches to science and biblical higher criticism. In contradistinction to lower or textual criticism, higher criticism dealt with the development of the biblical text in broad terms. According to James Strahan, professor of Hebrew at Magee College, Derry, from 1915 to 1926, textual criticism aimed “at ascertaining the genuine text and meaning of an author” while higher “or historical, criticism seeks to answer a series of questions affecting the composition, editing and collection of the Sacred Books.” During the nineteenth century, the controversy over the use of higher critical methods focused for the most part upon the Old Testament. In particular, critics dismissed the Mosaic authorship and unity of the Pentateuch, arguing that it was the compilation of a number of early documentary fragments brought together by priests after the Babylonian Exile in the sixth century B.C. This “documentary hypothesis” is most often associated with the German scholar, Julius Wellhausen. Indeed, higher criticism had been fostered in the extensive university system of the various German states, which encouraged original research and the emergence of a professional intellectual elite. It reflected the desire of liberal theologians to adapt the Christian faith to the needs and values of modern culture, particularly natural science and history.

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>A tragédia <em>Reso</em>, cuja autoria é muito discutida, traz uma das versões do mito do rei trácio que dá nome à peça. Encontramos outra versão desse mesmo mito na <em>Ilíada</em> de Homero, no também controverso Canto X, conhecido como Dolonéia. As duas narrativas formam um <em>corpus</em> excelente para quem quer investigar o tema da astúcia na Grécia antiga. Nosso trabalho de mestrado visa a entender de que maneira a astúcia da tragédia <em>Reso</em> se dá, comparando-a com a Dolonéia. Neste artigo, pretendemos fazê-lo através do papel que Odisseu desempenha na trama e da visão que as demais personagens têm dele e de sua conduta na guerra, comparando estas evidências com aquelas relacionadas a Dólon, o outro personagem astucioso da trama, e contrapondo ambos aos seus opostos na tragédia, Reso e Heitor. </span></p><div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><strong>An analysis of Euripides’ Rhesus and Odysseus Cunning Intelligence </strong></p><p><strong>Abstract </strong></p><p><span>The tragedy Rhesus, whose authorship is a matter of controversy, brings one version of the Thracian king's myth after whom the play is named. One finds another version of the same myth in Homer ́s Iliad, at the also controversial Book Tenth, known as Doloneia. Both narratives form an excellent corpus to investigate the theme of cunning intelligence in Ancient Greece. My mastering research explores the ways in which cunning intelligence is presented in the Rhesus tragedy, by comparing it with the Doloneia. In this article, I intend to analyze briefly the role played by Odysseus in the plot and the way other characters view him. </span></p><p><span><strong>Keywords: </strong></span><span>Cunning Intelligence; Rhesus; Dolon; Odysseus </span></p></div></div></div><p><span><br /></span></p></div></div></div>

Introduction. The article reconstructs the process of drafting the law of UPR "On National-Personal Autonomy" as part of the Constitution of UNR in 1918. The history of drafting the text of the bill, its discussion and adoption is considered. Particular attention is paid to the authorship of the law on national and personal autonomy prepared by a special commission of the Vice-Secretariat of Jewish Affairs, composed of M. Zilberfarb, I. Ya. Khurgin and M. Shats-Anin. The aim of the article is to reconstruct the history of the preparation of the law on national-personal autonomy. The author regards it as part of the Constitution of UNR. The author argues that the authorship of the law, and, this part of the Constitution of UNR, belongs to a separate commission consisting of representatives of the vice secretary for Jewish affairs chaired by Moses Zilberfarb. Methods and results. The process of drafting the law, as well as its subsequent discussion and adoption, are discussed in detail. The most painful issues were the scope of the powers of the National Union and their right to collect taxes with a corresponding narrowing of the tax capacity of the state. The draft law was first considered by the Jewish National Council, then on December 19, 1917, by the General Secretariat. The Ukrainian Central Rada began considering the law on December 30, 1917, continued on January 2, 1918, and finally adopted it on January 9, 1918. Despite the fact that some points of the law caused controversy between the factions, and some memoir sources mention the extremely negative perception of the members of the Central Election Commission represented at the session of the law at the level of the idea of national and personal autonomy, while voting on the law as a whole there was “no dissent” or “abstained”. Conclusions. Such an approach allows to deepen the traditional interpretation of the law on national-personal autonomy as a testimony to the liberality of national policy of the Central Rada. The experience of drafting a law on national personal autonomy and its subsequent discussion and adoption demonstrates a successful combination of a deep professional approach and political thinking, an active position in the defense of their own interests - by Jewish politicians, and state thinking, the ability to compromise, uphold national state priorities through the involvement of national minorities as "allies" – by pro-Ukrainian politicians. This combination is evidenced by the existence of a significant influence of the Jewish factor on the development of the legal system of the young Ukrainian republic. Along with the obvious dependence of Ukrainian Jewry on the decisions of the Ukrainian government, there is every reason to argue that there has been a noticeable reverse influence of Jewish politicians on Ukrainian law, and ultimately about the mutual influence of Ukrainian and Jewish factors in Ukrainian lawmaking 1917–1918.

The absence in the Code of Rules for the nomenclature of zoological taxa above the rank superfamily is an impediment to universal and unambiguous communication about the higher taxonomy of animals. Pending the possible fixing of the Code in this respect, it appears justified to develop a set of simple ‘guidelines’ which could be adopted consensually by the taxonomists who wish so. They could include: (1) the convention that the ‘same name’ given to different higher taxa results in the existence (and therefore availability) of different homonymous nomina, having different authors and dates; (2) the convention that a nomen of higher taxon first introduced clearly as a scientific, not vernacular, name but in a non-Latin form, and that was latinised subsequently in the literature, should be credited to the author of the original work; (3) the need to ‘protect’ the best known and most often used higher zoological nomina (sozonyms and sozodiaphonyms), with the dominant meanings and spellings that they have had for decades or centuries in the biological literature, irrespective of being or not the first ones to have been proposed for the taxa at stake or among homonyms; (4) the implementation of the Principles of Homonymy and of Priority among all the other nomina of higher taxa. These proposals are illustrated by examples in amphibian higher nomenclature, concerning the well-known nomina Amphibia and Batrachia, which have been the matter of recent controversies. An unexpected finding is reported here: that a similar debate on this same question developed in the years 1889–1910, mostly in the journal Science, and was closed by a clear and simple solution, which has fallen into complete oblivion since then. This suggests that our databases are incomplete and that we should be more humble in our debates than we often are, as we are still missing important pieces of information on the past literature.

Résumé: Cette étude interroge l’illisibilité dont est fréquemment accusée une certaine poésie française contemporaine (depuis 1968), notamment liée aux influences avant-gardistes héritées de la première moitié du 20e siècle européen (Futurisme, Dada, Surréalisme, Lettrisme) ou à celles du Modernisme dit « américain » (de Cummings à Burroughs). Elle prend pour cas exemplaire l’écriture du polygraphe Christian Prigent, prolongeant les réflexions menées lors du colloque de San Diego de 2008 dont les actes sont parus en 2014 sous le titre : L’Illisibilité en questions (autour de Michel Deguy, Jean-Marie Gleize, Christian Prigent, Nathalie Quintane). Prigent passe pour un poète illisible, ce que l’écrivain conteste, invitant à infléchir ce jugement de la réception lectoriale, peut-être vers un parti-pris de dis-lisibilité. Ce concept, créé à San Diego, permet en effet d’articuler la double et contradictoire réception (auctoriale et lectoriale) des œuvres au cœur de la polémique. Les actes de San Diego et l’essai Une erreur de la nature publié par Prigent en 1996 servent de guide à cette enquête.Mots-clés : dis-lisibilité ; illisibilité ; modernité négative ; Prigent (Christian) ; poésie contemporaine ; réception.Abstract : In this paper, I question the illegibility / unreadability of which a part of the contemporary French poetry (since 1968) is often accused, in particular the one that inherits the influences of the European avant-gardes of the early 20th century (Futurism, Dada, Surrealism, Lettrism) or of the so-called “American Modernism” (from Cummings to Burroughs). I will take, as example, the polygraph Christian Prigent, extending the discussions held at the San Diego’s Conference in 2008, whose proceedings were published in 2014 under the title : L’Illisibilité en questions (autour de Deguy Michel, Jean-Marie Gleize, Christian Prigent, Nathalie Quintane). Prigent is often considered as an illegible / unreadable poet, what the writer denies, inviting his readers to understand rather his dis-legibility / dis-readability. Such concept, created in San Diego, makes it possible to articulate the double and contradictory reception (authorship and readership) of many poetry books in the heart of the controversy. L’Illisibilité en questions and the essay Une erreur de la nature, published by Prigent in 1996, are taken as references in this article.Keywords: dis-legibility; illegibility; negative modernity; Prigent (Christian); contemporary poetry; reception.

Davide Domenici: Disentangling Knots. Real and fictional khipu systems in the Naples documents, Garcilaso de la Vega’s Comentarios, Guaman Poma’s Nueva corónica, and Raimondo De Sangro’s Lettera apologetica
 The present paper offers a new critical approach to the so-called Naples documents, a group of controversial manuscripts that contain unprecedented claims regarding Peruvian colonial history, among them the attribution to the mestizo Jesuit Father Blas Valera of the authorship of El primer nueva corónica i buen gobierno of Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala, one of the treasures of the Royal Library of Denmark. The Naples documents ignited a scholarly controversy, placing scholars who considered them to be bold modern forgeries in opposition to scholars who believed in their authenticity and veracity. The strategy chosen here for attempting to make some progress in assessing the authenticity of single parts of the Naples documents consists of a deliberate focus on one single, major aspect, to the disregard of others. In the present case, the focus is on the various examples of “syllabic khipu” represented in the documents, considered from the vantage point of Raimondo de Sangro’s Lettera apologetica (1750). In this famous book, the Neapolitan intellectual presented an example of a “syllabic khipu” writing system, apparently derived from one of the two main Naples documents. A detailed analysis of the diverse relationships between the Lettera Apologetica and the Naples documents makes it possible to demonstrate that only a small part of the documents can be considered to be earlier than 1750, and hence potentially can be identified with what De Sangro himself mentions as being his main source. However, most parts of the Naples manuscripts are manifestly dependent on the Lettera Apologetica, and are therefore clearly not what they purport to be. On the basis of our analysis, we propose that the authentic pre-1750 part of one of the documents is an interesting source on the colonial perception and transformation of native Andean khipu, but that it is devoid of any “revolutionary” content. The demonstration that the Naples documents with one single exception are clear post-1750 forgeries thus implies that their claims must be rejected, including those regarding El primer nueva corónica i buen gobierno, the distinctive and unique achievement of the Andean Indian Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala.

<p>Diodoro de Sicília, historiador que viveu no século I antes da época comum, escreveu uma obra intitulada <em>Biblioteca Histórica</em> constituída de quarenta volumes dos quais restaram integrais apenas dos livros I ao V (fragmentos dos livros VI ao X), e dos livros XI ao XX (fragmentos dos livros XXI ao XL). O autor escreveu em sua monumental obra a história universal desde os primórdios (incluindo história egípcia, história dos povos bárbaros, história grega e romana) até a sua própria época (última data citada por Diodoro diz respeito à colonização de Tauromênion, empreendida no reinado de Otávio [XVI, VII, 1]). Entretanto, Diodoro nunca foi considerado, nem em sua própria época, nem em épocas posteriores, um historiador original: sua obra foi considerada uma cópia incessante de outros autores. O centro da controvérsia nos tempos modernos (a partir do século XIX) foi a <em>Quellenforschung</em> (pesquisa das fontes) que intentou buscar no texto diodoriano autores perdidos (que ele cita explicitamente em sua <em>Biblioteca</em>) da época helenística, como se o mesmo apenas os tivesse copiado. Essa pesquisa teve por objetivo resgatar a originalidade da <em>Biblioteca Histórica</em>, buscando conferir a seu autor a <em>autoria</em> de seus escritos. Longe de ser um mero copista, Diodoro é um historiador-educador, que busca instruir seus leitores dando um caráter de <em>utilidade</em> no aprendizado de uma vida <em>correta</em> e <em>justa</em>.</p><div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="section"><div class="section"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><strong>Abstract</strong></p></div></div></div></div><div class="section"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><span>Diodorus Siculus, a historian that lived in the first century before the Common Era, wrote a work entitled </span><span>Library of History </span><span>constituted of forty volumes from which remained intact only the books I through V (fragments of the books VI through X), and from the books XI through XX (fragments of the books XXI through XL). The author wrote in this monumental work of universal history since the primordial times (including Egyptian history, barbaric peoples history, Greek and Roman history) through his own (last date mentioned by Diodorus concerns the Tauromenion colonization that took place during the reign of Octavian [XVI, VII, 1]). However, Diodorus has never been considered, not even on his own time, nor in the eras after that, an original historian: His writings were considered an inexorable copy of others authors. The focus of this controversy in modern times (starting in the XIX century) was the </span>Quelleforschung (sources research) that intended to search on the diodorian texts for lost authors (that he explicitly quotes in his Library) from the Hellenistic era as if they were solely copied. This research aimed to reclaim the originality of the Library of History seeking to confer to its author the authorship of his writings. Far from being a mere copyist, Diodorus is a historian-educator that seeks to instruct his readers giving a utility character in the learning of a correct and just life.</p><div class="page" title="Page 2"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p><strong>Keywords: </strong><span>Hellenistic period; Historiography; Diodorus of Sicily </span></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

Liszt's reliance on copyists throughout his career and in every stage of the compositional process aroused controversly only after his death, when published letters impugned his authorship by suggesting others had orchestrated his symphonic works. Thereafter, compelling testimony from three members of the Weimar Hofkapelle during the 1850's——concertmaster Joseph Joachim, prinicipal cellist Bernard Cossmann, and the scribe Joachim Raff——has informed the secondary literature's highly partisan criticism. Suspected scribal influence is constructed as weakness in Liszt's character and music, dismissed as inconsequential, or reluctantly acknowledged as a factor in Liszt's transformation from pianist to symphonist. I propose a more balanced view based on previously univestigated manuscript sources for incidental music to Herder's Der entfesselte Prometheus, produced in 1850. Raff's full scores for an overture and eight choruses, prepared from Liszt's typically detailed short-score, offer unrivaled opportunities to assess scribal influence. An original typology sorts contributions into four categories: minor tasks any competent musician could perform; transcribing unmarked passages in score order; extra doublings; and genuinely autonomus work, including the occasional invention of primary motives. Some of Raff's independent choices reflect astute awareness of Herder's text; others merely betray fascination with orchestral technique. Liszt's revisions eliminated or varied the overwhelming majority of scribal accretions, although Raff deserves credit for several salient features of the choruses. In the overture, however, rejection of Raff's contributions is virtually complete. The revisions also disclose that Liszt adopted more transparent textures, articulated phrases through gradual increases in orchestral density, and exploited instrumental ranges more idiomatically.

The long-standing archaeological research of the Serbian Vinca culture sites of Belovode and Plocnik has been strengthened with the joint collaborative work with the UCL Institute of Archaeology in the past 6 years. This collaboration yielded scientific demonstration of the world?s earliest copper smelting amongst the excavated materials, c. 7000 years old. In the six years since the first publication of this finding in 2010, a number of detailed analytical studies followed, together with another breakthrough discovery of the world?s earliest tin bronze artefact. This artefact was excavated in a secure context within a Vinca culture settlement feature at the site of Plocnik, which was radiocarbon dated to c. 4650 BC. On the basis of the early metallurgical results from Belovode, the UK Government funded a large international collaborative project from 2012-2015. This included Serbian, British and German teams all of whom brought substantial experience and cutting-edge technology to the study of the evolution of the earliest known metal-making in its 5th millennium BC Balkan cultural context. This project?s forthcoming publications, including a major monograph published by UCL Press, which will be free to download, promise to shed new light on the life of the first metal-making communities in Eurasia, and also outline integrated methodological approaches that will serve as a model for similar projects worldwide. The open, balanced and respectful research atmosphere within our core project team is currently being challenged by an unsubstantiated controversy. This controversy arises from accusations against the project team members by Dusko Sljivar, a once an extremely supportive and prominent member of our team. Each of these accusations by Dusko Sljivar is completely contradictory to his own previous documented work, and have therefore easily been refuted. The work by Dusko Sljivar in question encompasses: two decades of excavations at the sites of Belovode and Plocnik; including single-authored and joint publications prior to 2012, including those with Miljana Radivojevic and Julka Kuzmanovic-Cvetkovic; and official field documentation, either signed off solely by him, or together with his co-excavator at the site of Plocnik, Julka Kuzmanovic-Cvetkovic. The first accusation, published in 2014, saw Dusko Sljivar deny, together with another colleague, the veracity of his original field journal notes on the context of the previously mentioned tin bronze foil, for which he received an immediate and successful rebuttal. In the second accusation, published in Starinar LXV/ 2015, Dusko Sljivar continued with the same practice of denying his own official field journals and publications which he (co-) authored with a series of false accusations relating to the manipulation of the original data from the excavations of the sites of Belovode and Plocnik by Radivojevic and Kuzmanovic-Cvetkovic. In the third accusation, Sljivar argues that his copyright was infringed, and that field journals were used without permission. This is despite the fact that these accusations are legally and formally unsupported, and that he shared his data and materials during the course of a long collaboration and co-authorship on a number of articles with both Radivojevic and Kuzmanovic- Cvetkovic over the course of the last two decades. In other words, in order to validate his accusations and to seek to damage our untainted academic standings, Dusko Sljivar has denied all his professional and academic achievements, research articles, field diaries and formal documents that he ever (co-) wrote and/or signed on the topic. He even goes as far as to exclude a landmark joint publication in an international peer-reviewed scientific journal (Radivojevic et al. 2010) from his citation list in order to support his claim that a formal agreement on the joint publishing of Belovode metallurgy results has never been fulfilled. Sljivar also omitted the published rebuttal (Radivojevic et al. 2014) to unsubstantiated claims on alleged manipulation of contextual data of the tin bronze foil from the Vinca culture site of Plocnik put forward in a joint article by him and another colleague (Sljivar and Boric 2014). In order to end this malicious debate, we present our rebuttal from 2014 and further elaborate upon it by showing the original quotes from the Plocnik field diary on the day that the tin bronze foil in question was found, and from the concluding remarks of the diary in question. We again clearly demonstrate that there has never been any doubt regarding the secure context of the tin bronze foil within the Vinca culture material, that the Vinca horizon is the only cultural occupation at the site of Plocnik and that no intrusion has ever been observed in the context of this find, not on the day of the discovery, not in the conclusions or the excavation field diary, and not in the first publication of the said find by Dusko Sljivar. We have presented a detailed account of this particular case in order to show Sljivar?s contradictory and inconsistent account of the official fieldwork documentation that he co-authored. It would appear that either Sljivar made a false field diary entry regarding the context of the tin bronze foil on the day of its discovery in 2008, or he presented incorrect information in the later joint commentary. The former hypothesis that Sljivar made a false entry in the field diary in 2008 in order to potentially mislead later scholarship does not seem plausible, especially as the object of dispute was not identified as tin-bronze on the day of discovery, but merely as another copper object from Plocnik and therefore not nearly as important to early metallurgical scholarship. To underline further the absurdity of the situation in which we found ourselves with Sljivar, we should also mention Sljivar?s initial agreement to co-author the paper we published in Starinar XLIV/2014, from which he withdrew without offering any constructive comments, only to publicly publish his views as well as professional and personal insults directed towards us in Starinar XLV/2015. The situation where Sljivar had the opportunity to act in his best professional interest was while our article was still in preparation and he chose not to do it; this leads us to assume that professional interests were not his priority on this matter. Finally, Sljivar?s deceitful and erroneous claims were executed in a spiteful language that is unfit for a scholarly journal, and damages both his reputation and the decision of this journal to publish them. We further elaborate on these developments in the broader context of Serbian archaeology, quoting the legislation on the intellectual copyright of excavation directors over the archaeological materials that they have excavated. The current law on Cultural Monuments recognizes the exclusive rights of excavation directors to publish their research for the period of 12 months after the excavations ended. After this period, other interested parties in the field can access the materials and any related field documentation. This demonstrates, alongside previously mentioned scientific arguments, that we have worked with the Belovode and Plocnik materials in accordance with the valid legal regulations. We conclude that there is no formal support for the exclusive interpretation of lives of communities in the sites of Belovode and Plocnik c. 7000 years ago, and emphasise the value of our original scientific contribution as illuminating a particular economic activity of the inhabitants of these two prehistoric villages. Finally, we call for the reinforcement of existing procedures in Serbia so that our profession can prevent any future misconduct such as that exemplified in the attempt by Dusko Sljivar.

This essay engages fans of the PlayStation 4 video game Bloodborne (FromSoftware, 2015), focusing on the ways in which fans of the game craft its abstract lore into new threads of narrative via online texts and videos, and a related controversy pertaining to the originality and authorship of those media texts that fans share as records of their lore hunts.

With the publication in 1762 of Fingal, the ancient epic poem James Macpherson claimed to have reconstructed from Erse sources, scholarly warfare broke out. The hitherto unassailable Irish bard Oisín was unexpectedly confronted with a rival Scottish claimant to the authorship of the Fionn Mac Cumhaill saga: Ossian. A consensus quickly emerged among outraged Irish antiquarians that Macpherson was a very clever fraudster who had ‘usurped the Fenian cycles of Gaelic Ireland’ for commercial gain. The controversy refused to die down, and half a century later there was still no final verdict on the alleged hoax. This article provides fresh perspectives on this controversy.

The Dark Tower is a fragment of a science fiction novel, attributed to C.S. Lewis and published posthumously. Shortly after its publication controversy arose, questioning the work’s provenance and authenticity. This controversy still continues. We apply and extend procedures developed by Thisted and Efron (1987) to investigate whether word usage in The Dark Tower is similar to that in Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra, two worksof the same genre and period known to be by Lewis. We further examine the validity and limitations of these procedures in the case at hand. Our results show vocabulary usage in The Dark Tower differs from that predicted by the baseline Lewis works.

Largely forgotten today, from approximately the late 1910s through the 1930s, at least a dozen young girls brought out numerous books in the US. But there was one girl who was particularly talented and successful: Nathalia Crane, who published her first collection of poetry when she was just eleven years old in 1924. This article analyzes both her work and her reception from her first success through the subsequent controversy over her authorship instigated by a local Brooklyn newspaper. In the process, the article demonstrates the complicated connections between perceptions of girlhood and women's sexuality as they relate to political agency in the early twentieth-century United States.

<p>Keywords</p><p>facilitated communication, hate speech, freedom of expression, human rights, civil rights, oppression</p><p>Abstract</p><p>The focus of this paper is the political aspects of the controversy over the use of FC as a communication tool and the ways in which anti-FC rhetoric oppresses FC users. In the face of studies that have validated the authorship of FC users, and given the growing number of former FC users who now type independently, continued anti-FC expression functions as hate speech when it calls into question, without substantiation, the intellectual competence of FC users, thereby undermining their opportunity to exercise their right to freedom of expression.</p>

A group of Brazilian writers—Ruy Mauro Marini, Theotônio dos Santos, and Vânia Bambirra—met in Brasilia in the 1960s and 1970s and produced, predominantly in exile, theories about the reality of Latin America and the periphery. In the 1980s, with the amnesty, the group returned to Brazil and confronted a hostile atmosphere in the academy. Analysis of these writers’ trajectories based on the academic self-reports they produced in the 1990s for admission or reentry into Brazilian universities addresses their views of the 1964 coup, exile, and the return to Brazil after the amnesty, the identity assigned to the group, and the controversy over the authorship of dependency theory. Um grupo de autores brasileiros—Rui Mauro Marini, Theotônio dos Santos e Vânia Bambirra—reuniu-se em Brasília e nos anos 1960 e 1970 e produziu, predominantemente no exílio, teorias acerca da realidade latino-americana e periférica. Nos anos 1980, com a anistia, o grupo retornou ao Brasil e foi hostilizado na academia. Um analisis da trajetória dos autores a partir de seus memoriais acadêmicos elaborados nos anos 1990 para ingresso ou reingresso nas universidades brasileiras abordam as visões a respeito do golpe de 1964, o exílio e o retorno depois da anistia, as denominações atribuídas ao grupo, e as polêmicas em torno da paternidade da teoria da dependência.

As a scholarly discourse, transmedia storytelling relies heavily on conservative constructions of authorship that laud corporate architects and patriarchs such as George Lucas and J.J. Abrams as exemplars of “the creator.” This piece argues that transmedia theory works to construct patriarchal ideals of individual authorship to the detriment of alternative conceptions of transmediality, storyworlds, and authorship. The genesis for this piece was our struggle to find a transmedia storyworld that we were both familiar with, that also qualifies as “legitimate” transmedia in the eyes of our prospective scholarly readers. After trying to wrangle our various interests, fandoms, and areas of expertise into harmony, we realized we were exerting more effort in this process of validating stories as transmedia than actually examining how stories spread across various platforms, how they make meanings, and what kinds of pleasures they offer audiences. Authorship is a definitive criterion of transmedia storytelling theory; it is also an academic red herring. We were initially interested in investigating the possible overdeterminations between the healthcare industry and Breaking Bad (2008-2013). The series revolves around a high school chemistry teacher who launches a successful meth empire as a way to pay for his cancer treatments that a dysfunctional US healthcare industry refuses to fund. We wondered if the success of the series and the timely debates on healthcare raised in its reception prompted any PR response from or discussion among US health insurers. However, our concern was that this dynamic among medical and media industries would not qualify as transmedia because these exchanges were not authored by Vince Gilligan or any of the credited creators of Breaking Bad. Yet, why shouldn’t such interfaces between the “real world” and media fiction count as part of the transmedia story that is Breaking Bad? Most stories are, in some shape or form, transmedia stories at this stage, and transmedia theory acknowledges there is a long history to this kind of practice (Freeman). Let’s dispense with restrictive definitions of transmediality and turn attention to how storytelling behaves in a digital era, that is, the processes of creating, disseminating and amending stories across many different media, the meanings and forms such media and communications produce, and the pleasures they offer audiences.Can we think about how health insurance companies responded to Breaking Bad in terms of transmedia storytelling? Defining Transmedia Storytelling via AuthorshipThe scholarly concern with defining transmedia storytelling via a strong focus on authorship has traced slight distinctions between seriality, franchising, adaptation and transmedia storytelling (Jenkins, “Transmedia Storytelling;” Johnson, “Media Franchising”). However, the theoretical discourse on authorship itself and these discussions of the tensions between forms are underwritten by a gendered bias. Indeed, the very concept of transmediality may be a gendered backlash against the rising prominence of seriality as a historically feminised mode of storytelling, associated with television and serial novels.Even with the move towards traditionally lowbrow, feminized forms of trans-serial narrative, the majority of academic and popular criticism of transmedia storytelling reproduces and reinstates narratives of male-centred, individual authorship that are historically descended from theorizations of the auteur. Auteur theory, which is still considered a legitimate analytical framework today, emerged in postwar theorizations of Hollywood film by French critics, most prominently in the journal Cahiers du Cinema, and at the nascence of film theory as a field (Cook). Auteur theory surfaced as a way to conceptualise aesthetic variation and value within the Fordist model of the Hollywood studio system (Cook). Directors were identified as the ultimate author or “creative source” if a film sufficiently fitted a paradigm of consistent “vision” across their oeuvre, and they were thus seen as artists challenging the commercialism of the studio system (Cook). In this way, classical auteur theory draws a dichotomy between art and authorship on one side and commerce and corporations on the other, strongly valorising the former for its existence within an industrial context dominated by the latter. In recent decades, auteurist notions have spread from film scholarship to pervade popular discourses of media authorship. Even though transmedia production inherently disrupts notions of authorship by diffusing the act of creation over many different media platforms and texts, much of the scholarship disproportionately chooses to vex over authorship in a manner reminiscent of classical auteur theory.In scholarly terms, a chief distinction between serial storytelling and transmedia storytelling lies in how authorship is constructed in relation to the text: serial storytelling has long been understood as relying on distributed authorship (Hilmes), but transmedia storytelling reveres the individual mastermind, or the master architect who plans and disseminates the storyworld across platforms. Henry Jenkins’ definition of transmedia storytelling is multifaceted and includes, “the systematic dispersal of multiple textual elements across many channels, which reflects the synergies of media conglomeration, based on complex story-worlds, and coordinated authorial design of integrated elements” (Jenkins, “Transmedia Storytelling”). Jenkins is perhaps the most pivotal figure in developing transmedia studies in the humanities to date and a key reference point for most scholars working in this subfield.A key limitation of Jenkins’ definition of transmedia storytelling is its emphasis on authorship, which persists in wider scholarship on transmedia storytelling. Jenkins focuses on the nature of authorship as a key characteristic of transmedia productions that distinguishes them from other kinds of intertextual and serial stories:Because transmedia storytelling requires a high degree of coordination across the different media sectors, it has so far worked best either in independent projects where the same artist shapes the story across all of the media involved or in projects where strong collaboration (or co-creation) is encouraged across the different divisions of the same company. (Jenkins, “Transmedia Storytelling”)Since the texts under discussion are commonly large in their scale, budget, and the number of people employed, it is reductive to credit particular individuals for this work and implicitly dismiss the authorial contributions of many others. Elaborating on the foundation set by Jenkins, Matthew Freeman uses Foucauldian concepts to describe two “author-functions” focused on the role of an author in defining the transmedia text itself and in marketing it (Freeman 36-38). Scott, Evans, Hills, and Hadas similarly view authorial branding as a symbolic industrial strategy significant to transmedia storytelling. Interestingly, M.J. Clarke identifies the ways transmedia television texts invite audiences to imagine a central mastermind, but also thwart and defer this impulse. Ultimately, Freeman argues that identifiable and consistent authorship is a defining characteristic of transmedia storytelling (Freeman 37), and Suzanne Scott argues that transmedia storytelling has “intensified the author’s function” from previous eras (47).Industry definitions of transmediality similarly position authorship as central to transmedia storytelling, and Jenkins’ definition has also been widely mobilised in industry discussions (Jenkins, “Transmedia” 202). This is unsurprising, because defining authorial roles has significant monetary value in terms of remuneration and copyright. In speaking to the Producers Guild of America, Jeff Gomez enumerated eight defining characteristics of transmedia production, the very first of which is, “Content is originated by one or a very few visionaries” (PGA Blog). Gomez’s talk was part of an industry-driven bid to have “Transmedia Producer” recognised by the trade associations as a legitimate and significant role; Gomez was successful and is now recognised as a transmedia producer. Nevertheless, his talk of “visionaries” not only situates authorship as central to transmedia production, but constructs authorship in very conservative, almost hagiographical terms. Indeed, Leora Hadas analyses the function of Joss Whedon’s authorship of Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D (2013-) as a branding mechanism and argues that authors are becoming increasingly visible brands associated with transmedia stories.Such a discourse of authorship constructs individual figures as artists and masterminds, in an idealised manner that has been strongly critiqued in the wake of poststructuralism. It even recalls tired scholarly endeavours of divining authorial intention. Unsurprisingly, the figures valorised for their transmedia authorship are predominantly men; the scholarly emphasis on authorship thus reinforces the biases of media industries. Further, it idolises these figures at the expense of unacknowledged and under-celebrated female writers, directors and producers, as well as those creative workers labouring “below the line” in areas like production design, art direction, and special effects. Far from critiquing the biases of industry, academic discourse legitimises and lauds them.We hope that scholarship on transmedia storytelling might instead work to open up discourses of creation, production, authorship, and collaboration. For a story to qualify as transmedia is it even necessary to have an identifiable author? Transmedia texts and storyworlds can be genuinely collaborative or authorless creations, in which the harmony of various creators’ intentions may be unnecessary or even undesirable. Further, industry and academics alike often overlook examples of transmedia storytelling that might be considered “lowbrow.” For example, transmedia definitions should include Antonella the Uncensored Reviewer, a relatively small-scale, forty-something, plus size, YouTube channel producer whose persona is dispersed across multiple formats including beauty product reviews, letter writing, as well as interactive sex advice live casts. What happens when we blur the categories of author, celebrity, brand, and narrative in scholarship? We argue that these roles are substantially blurred in media industries in which authors like J.J. Abrams share the limelight with their stars as well as their corporate affiliations, and all “brands” are sutured to the storyworld text. These various actors all shape and are shaped by the narrative worlds they produce in an author-storyworld nexus, in which authorship includes all people working to produce the storyworld as well as the corporation funding it. Authorship never exists inside the limits of a single, male mind. Rather it is a field of relations among various players and stakeholders. While there is value in delineating between these roles for purposes of analysis and scholarly discussion, we should acknowledge that in the media industry, the roles of various stakeholders are increasingly porous.The current academic discourse of transmedia storytelling reconstructs old social biases and hierarchies in contexts where they might be most vulnerable to breakdown. Scott argues that,despite their potential to demystify and democratize authorship between producers and consumers, transmedia stories tend to reinforce boundaries between ‘official’ and ‘unauthorized’ forms of narrative expansion through the construction of a single author/textual authority figure. (44)Significantly, we suggest that it is the theorisation of transmedia storytelling that reinforces (or in fact constructs anew) an idealised author figure.The gendered dimension of the scholarly distinction between serialised (or trans-serial) and transmedial storytelling builds on a long history in the arts and the academy alike. In fact, an important precursor of transmedia narratives is the serialized novel of the Victorian era. The literature of Charlotte Brontë, George Eliot and Harriet Beecher Stowe was published in serial form and among the most widely read of the Victorian era in Western culture (Easley; Flint 21; Hilmes). Yet, these novels are rarely given proportional credit in what is popularly taught as the Western literary canon. The serial storytelling endemic to television as a medium has similarly been historically dismissed and marginalized as lowbrow and feminine (at least until the recent emergence of notions of the industrial role of the “showrunner” and the critical concept of “quality television”). Joanne Morreale outlines how trans-serial television examples, like The Dick Van Dyke Show, which spread their storyworlds across a number of different television programs, offer important precursors to today’s transmedia franchises (Morreale). In television’s nascent years, the anthology plays of the 1940s and 50s, which were discrete, unconnected hour-length stories, were heralded as cutting-edge, artistic and highbrow while serial narrative forms like the soap opera were denigrated (Boddy 80-92). Crucially, these anthology plays were largely created by and aimed at males, whereas soap operas were often created by and targeted to female audiences. The gendered terms in which various genres and modes of storytelling are discussed have implications for the value assigned to them in criticism, scholarship and culture more broadly (Hilmes; Kuhn; Johnson, “Devaluing”). Transmedia theory, as a scholarly discourse, betrays similarly gendered leanings as early television criticism, in valorising forms of transmedia narration that favour a single, male-bodied, and all-powerful author or corporation, such as George Lucas, Jim Henson or Marvel Comics.George Lucas is often depicted in scholarly and popular discourses as a headstrong transmedia auteur, as in the South Park episode ‘The China Problem’ (2008)A Circle of Men: Fans, Creators, Stories and TheoristsInterestingly, scholarly discourse on transmedia even betrays these gendered biases when exploring the engagement and activity of audiences in relation to transmedia texts. Despite the definitional emphasis on authorship, fan cultures have been a substantial topic of investigation in scholarly studies of transmedia storytelling, with many scholars elevating fans to the status of author, exploring the apparent blurring of these boundaries, and recasting the terms of these relationships (Scott; Dena; Pearson; Stein). Most notably, substantial scholarly attention has traced how transmedia texts cultivate a masculinized, “nerdy” fan culture that identifies with the male-bodied, all-powerful author or corporation (Brooker, Star Wars, Using; Jenkins, Convergence). Whether idealising the role of the creators or audiences, transmedia theory reinforces gendered hierarchies. Star Wars (1977-) is a pivotal corporate transmedia franchise that significantly shaped the convergent trajectory of media industries in the 20th century. As such it is also an anchor point for transmedia scholarship, much of which lauds and legitimates the creative work of fans. However, in focusing so heavily on the macho power struggle between George Lucas and Star Wars fans for authorial control over the storyworld, scholarship unwittingly reinstates Lucas’s status as sole creator rather than treating Star Wars’ authorship as inherently diffuse and porous.Recent fan activity surrounding animated adult science-fiction sitcom Rick and Morty (2013-) further demonstrates the macho culture of transmedia fandom in practice and its fascination with male authors. The animated series follows the intergalactic misadventures of a scientific genius and his grandson. Inspired by a seemingly inconsequential joke on the show, some of its fans began to fetishize a particular, limited-edition fast food sauce. When McDonalds, the actual owner of that sauce, cashed in by promoting the return of its Szechuan Sauce, a macho culture within the show’s fandom reached its zenith in the forms of hostile behaviour at McDonalds restaurants and online (Alexander and Kuchera). Rick and Morty fandom also built a misogynist reputation for its angry responses to the show’s efforts to hire a writer’s room that gave equal representation to women. Rick and Morty trolls doggedly harassed a few of the show’s female writers through 2017 and went so far as to post their private information online (Barsanti). Such gender politics of fan cultures have been the subject of much scholarly attention (Johnson, “Fan-tagonism”), not least in the many conversations hosted on Jenkins’ blog. Gendered performances and readings of fan activity are instrumental in defining and legitimating some texts as transmedia and some creators as masterminds, not only within fandoms but also in the scholarly discourse.When McDonalds promoted the return of their Szechuan Sauce, in response to its mention in the story world of animated sci-fi sitcom Rick and Morty, they contributed to transmedia storytelling.Both Rick and Morty and Star Wars are examples of how masculinist fan cultures, stubborn allegiances to male authorship, and definitions of transmedia converge both in academia and popular culture. While Rick and Morty is, in reality, partly female-authored, much of its media image is still anchored to its two male “creators,” Justin Roiland and Dan Harmon. Particularly in the context of #MeToo feminism, one wonders how much female authorship has been elided from existing storyworlds and, furthermore, what alternative examples of transmedia narration are exempt from current definitions of transmediality.The individual creator is a social construction of scholarship and popular discourse. This imaginary creator bears little relation to the conditions of creation and production of transmedia storyworlds, which are almost always team written and collectively authored. Further, the focus on writing itself elides the significant contributions of many creators such as those in production design (Bevan). Beyond that, what creative credit do focus groups deserve in shaping transmedia stories and their multi-layered, multi-platformed reaches? Is authorship, or even credit, really the concept we, as scholars, want to invest in when studying these forms of narration and mediation?At more symbolic levels, the seemingly exhaustless popular and scholarly appetite for male-bodied authorship persists within storyworlds themselves. The transmedia examples popularly and academically heralded as “seminal” centre on patrimony, patrilineage, and inheritance (i.e. Star Wars [1977-] and The Lord of the Rings [1937-]). Of course, Harry Potter (2001-2009) is an outlier as the celebrification of J.K. Rowling provides a strong example of credited female authorship. However, this example plays out many of the same issues, albeit the franchise is attached to a woman, in that it precludes many of the other creative minds who have helped shape Harry Potter’s world. How many more billions of dollars need we invest in men writing about the mysteries of how other men spread their genetic material across fictional universes? Moreover, transmedia studies remains dominated by academic men geeking out about how fan men geek out about how male creators write about mostly male characters in stories about … men. There are other stories waiting to be told and studied through the practices and theories of transmedia. These stories might be gender-inclusive and collective in ways that challenge traditional notions of authorship, control, rights, origin, and property.Obsession with male authorship, control, rights, origin, paternity and property is recognisible in scholarship on transmedia storytelling, and also symbolically in many of the most heralded examples of transmedia storytelling, such as the Star Wars saga.Prompting Broader DiscussionThis piece urges the development of broader understandings of transmedia storytelling. A range of media scholarship has already begun this work. Jonathan Gray’s book on paratexts offers an important pathway for such scholarship by legitimating ancillary texts, like posters and trailers, that uniquely straddle promotional and feature content platforms (Gray). A wave of scholars productively explores transmedia storytelling with a focus on storyworlds (Scolari; Harvey), often through the lens of narratology (Ryan; Ryan and Thon). Scolari, Bertetti, and Freeman have drawn together a media archaeological approach and a focus on transmedia characters in an innovative way. We hope to see greater proliferation of focuses and perspectives for the study of transmedia storytelling, including investigations that connect fictional and non-fictional worlds and stories, and a more inclusive variety of life experiences.Conversely, new scholarship on media authorship provides fresh directions, models, methods, and concepts for examining the complexity and messiness of this topic. A growing body of scholarship on the functions of media branding is also productive for reconceptualising notions of authorship in transmedia storytelling (Bourdaa; Dehry Kurtz and Bourdaa). Most notably, A Companion to Media Authorship edited by Gray and Derek Johnson productively interrogates relationships between creative processes, collaborative practices, production cultures, industrial structures, legal frameworks, and theoretical approaches around media authorship. Its case studies begin the work of reimagining of the role of authorship in transmedia, and pave the way for further developments (Burnett; Gordon; Hilmes; Stein). In particular, Matt Hills’s case study of how “counter-authorship” was negotiated on Torchwood (2006-2011) opens up new ways of thinking about multiple authorship and the variety of experiences, contributions, credits, and relationships this encompasses. Johnson’s Media Franchising addresses authorship in a complex way through a focus on social interactions, without making it a defining feature of the form; it would be significant to see a similar scholarly treatment of transmedia. At the very least, scholarly attention might turn its focus away from the very patriarchal activity of discussing definitions among a coterie and, instead, study the process of spreadability of male-centred transmedia storyworlds (Jenkins, Ford, and Green). Given that transmedia is not historically unique to the digital age, scholars might instead study how spreadability changes with the emergence of digitality and convergence, rather than pontificating on definitions of adaptation versus transmedia and cinema versus media.We urge transmedia scholars to distance their work from the malignant gender politics endemic to the media industries and particularly global Hollywood. The confluence of gendered agendas in both academia and media industries works to reinforce patriarchal hierarchies. The humanities should offer independent analysis and critique of how media industries and products function, and should highlight opportunities for conceiving of, creating, and treating such media practices and texts in new ways. As such, it is problematic that discourses on transmedia commonly neglect the distinction between what defines transmediality and what constitutes good examples of transmedia. This blurs the boundaries between description and prescription, taxonomy and hierarchy, analysis and evaluation, and definition and taste. Such discourses blinker us to what we might consider to be transmedia, but also to what examples of “good” transmedia storytelling might look like.Transmedia theory focuses disproportionately on authorship. This restricts a comprehensive understanding of transmedia storytelling, limits the lenses we bring to it, obstructs the ways we evaluate transmedia stories, and impedes how we imagine the possibilities for both media and storytelling. Stories have always been transmedial. What changes with the inception of transmedia theory is that men can claim credit for the stories and for all the work that many people do across various sectors and industries. It is questionable whether authorship is important to transmedia, in which creation is most often collective, loosely planned (at best) and diffused across many people, skill sets, and sectors. While Jenkins’s work has been pivotal in the development of transmedia theory, this is a ripe moment for the diversification of theoretical paradigms for understanding stories in the digital era.ReferencesAlexander, Julia, and Ben Kuchera. “How a Rick and Morty Joke Led to a McDonald’s Szechuan Sauce Controversy.” Polygon 4 Apr. 2017. <https://www.polygon.com/2017/10/12/16464374/rick-and-morty-mcdonalds-szechuan-sauce>.Aristotle. Aristotle's Poetics. New York: Hill and Wang, 1961. Barsanti, Sami. “Dan Harmon Is Pissed at Rick and Morty Fans Harassing Female Writers.” The AV Club 21 Sep. 2017. <https://www.avclub.com/dan-harmon-is-pissed-at-rick-and-morty-fans-for-harassi-1818628816>.Bevan, Alex. “Nostalgia for Pre-Digital Media in Mad Men.” Television & New Media 14.6 (2013): 546-559.Boddy, William. Fifties Television: The Industry and Its Critics. Chicago: U of Illinois P, 1993.Bourdaa, Mélanie. “This Is Not Marketing. This Is HBO: Branding HBO with Transmedia Storytelling.” Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network, 7.1 (2014). <http://www.ojs.meccsa.org.uk/index.php/netknow/article/view/328>.Brooker, Will. Star Wars. London: BFI Classics, 2009. ———. Using the Force: Creativity, Community and Star Wars Fans. New York: Bloomsbury, 2003.Burnett, Colin. “Hidden Hands at Work: Authorship, the Intentional Flux and the Dynamics of Collaboration.” In A Companion to Media Authorship, eds. Jonathan Gray and Derek Johnson, 112-133. Oxford: Wiley, 2013.Clark, M.J. Transmedia Television: New Trends in Network Serial Production. New York: Bloomsbury, 2012.Cook, Pam. “Authorship and Cinema.” In The Cinema Book, 2nd ed., ed. Pam Cook, 235-314. London: BFI, 1999.Dena, Christy. Transmedia Practice: Theorising the Practice of Expressing a Fictional World across Distinct Media and Environments. PhD Thesis, University of Sydney. 2009.Dehry Kurtz, B.W.L., and Mélanie Bourdaa (eds). The Rise of Transtexts: Challenges and Opportunities. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2016.Evans, Elizabeth. Transmedia Television: Audiences, New Media and Daily Life. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2011.Easley, Alexis. First Person Anonymous. New York: Routledge, 2016.Flint, Kate. “The Victorian Novel and Its Readers.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Victorian Novel, ed. Deirdre David, 13-35. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2012. Freeman, Matthew. Historicising Transmedia Storytelling: Early Twentieth Century Storyworlds. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2016.Gordon, Ian. “Comics, Creators and Copyright: On the Ownership of Serial Narratives by Multiple Authors.” In A Companion to Media Authorship, eds. Jonathan Gray and Derek Johnson, 221-236. Oxford: Wiley, 2013.Gray, Jonathan. Show Sold Separately: Promos, Spoilers and Other Media Texts. New York: New York UP, 2010.Gray, Jonathan, and Derek Johnson (eds.). A Companion to Media Authorship. Chichester: Wiley, 2013.Hadas, Leora. “Authorship and Authenticity in the Transmedia Brand: The Case of Marvel’s Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.” Networking Knowledge: Journal of the MeCCSA Postgraduate Network, 7.1 (2014). <http://www.ojs.meccsa.org.uk/index.php/netknow/article/view/332>.Harvey, Colin. Fantastic Transmedia: Narrative, Play and Memory across Fantasy Storyworlds. London: Palgrave, 2015.Hills, Matt. “From Chris Chibnall to Fox: Torchwood’s Marginalised Authors and Counter-Discourses of TV Authorship.” In A Companion to Media Authorship, eds. Jonathan Gray and Derek Johnson, 200-220. Oxford: Wiley, 2013.Hilmes, Michelle. “Never Ending Story: Authorship, Seriality and the Radio Writers Guild.” In A Companion to Media Authorship, eds. Jonathan Gray and Derek Johnson, 181-199. Oxford: Wiley, 2013.Jenkins, Henry. “Transmedia 202: Further Reflections.” Confessions of an Aca-Fan. 31 July 2011. <http://henryjenkins.org/blog/2011/08/defining_transmedia_further_re.html>.———. “Transmedia Storytelling 101.” Confessions of an Aca-Fan. 21 Mar. 2007. <http://henryjenkins.org/blog/2007/03/transmedia_storytelling_101.html>.———. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006.———, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green. Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. New York: New York UP, 2013.Johnson, Derek. Media Franchising: Creative License and Collaboration in the Culture Industries. New York: New York UP, 2013.———. “Fan-tagonism: Factions, Institutions, and Constitutive Hegemonies of Fandom.” In Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, eds. Jonathan Gray, Cornell Sandvoss, and C. Lee Harrington, 285-300. New York: New York UP, 2007.———. “Devaluing and Revaluing Seriality: The Gendered Discourses of Media Franchising.” Media, Culture & Society, 33.7 (2011): 1077-1093. Kuhn, Annette. “Women’s Genres: Melodrama, Soap Opera and Theory.” In Feminist Television Criticism: A Reader, eds. Charlotte Brunsdon and Lynn Spigel, 225-234. 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open UP, 2008.Morreale, Joanne. The Dick Van Dyke Show. Detroit, MI: Wayne State UP, 2015.Pearson, Roberta. “Fandom in the Digital Era.” Popular Communication, 8.1 (2010): 84-95. DOI: 10.1080/15405700903502346.Producers Guild of America, The. “Defining Characteristics of Trans-Media Production.” PGA NMC Blog. 2 Oct. 2007. <http://pganmc.blogspot.com.au/2007/10/pga-member-jeff-gomez-left-assembled.html>.Rodham Clinton, Hillary. What Happened. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2017.Ryan, Marie-Laure. “Transmedial Storytelling and Transficitonality.” Poetics Today, 34.3 (2013): 361-388. DOI: 10.1215/03335372-2325250. ———, and Jan-Noȅl Thon (eds.). Storyworlds across Media: Toward a Media-Conscious Narratology. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 2014.Scolari, Carlos A. “Transmedia Storytelling: Implicit Consumers, Narrative Worlds, and Branding in Contemporary Media Production.” International Journal of Communication, 3 (2009): 586-606.———, Paolo Bertetti, and Matthew Freeman. Transmedia Archaeology: Storytelling in the Borderlines of Science Fiction. London: Palgrave, 2014.Scott, Suzanne. “Who’s Steering the Mothership?: The Role of the Fanboy Auteur in Transmedia Storytelling.” In The Participatory Cultures Handbook, edited by Aaron Delwiche and Jennifer Jacobs Henderson, 43-52. London: Routledge, 2013.Stein, Louisa Ellen. “#Bowdown to Your New God: Misha Collins and Decentered Authorship in the Digital Age.” In A Companion to Media Authorship, ed. Jonathan Gray and Derek Johnson, 403-425. Oxford: Wiley, 2013.

The provisions at issue in the draft Restatement of Copyright Law on which ALI membership will vote at ALI’s upcoming annual meeting are central to copyright doctrine and have been the subject of numerous court decisions over the past several decades of technological and industry change: originality, fixation, categories of copyrightable subject matter, the idea-expression distinction, and authorship and ownership. This abundance of legal activity on copyright law demonstrates the value to the profession of this project retelling copyright. In contrast to the dramatic criticism of this Restatement project alleging political capture or illegitimate law reform, the draft’s provisions are routine and straightforward. They will surprise no one and are almost boring in their adherence to and synthesis of the copyright statute and judicial interpretations of it. Far from being radical or ill-advised, the Restatement of Copyright Law is a reasonable and welcome addition to the work of the ALI.
 Part I of this Article situates the current Restatement of Copyright Law in the historical context of other ALI projects, drawing parallels in their purposes, processes, and political tensions. Part II describes the controversy over a “retelling” of copyright law as misguided insofar as it fails to account for the practice of interpretation as part of the practice of law that is constrained by professional standards. Part III describes the analysis and exposition of the provisions of the draft portions of the Restatement of Copyright Law presented to the ALI membership for discussion and vote this year as unremarkable but also beneficial, achieving the ALI’s goals of clarification and simplification of the sprawling federal case law interpreting and applying the 1976 Copyright Act.