Welcome back!
In the part 2 of this 3-part series adapted
from my public lecture, we’ll talked about
the role of censorship, its impact on storytelling
in the 19th century, and how that has produced
the sexy vampire.
Ok, let’s check in again.
We recognize the importance of copyright,
the power of the commons, and the tension
of censorship.
Altogether, It gives us a lot of directions
to think about with Creativity.
And we’ve learned why vampires are a great
opportunity to make money.
It’s now time to take that and to look at
why The Hulk will get you sued.
Are we ready for that?
Now, in order to talk about The Incredible
Hulk, we actually have to talk about a certain
person by the name of Edward Hyde.
Who is Edward Hyde?
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Right, so we all know the story of Dr. Jekyll
and Mr. Hyde...or do we?
This novella was published in 1886 by Robert
Louis Stevenson.
The novel dealt with the strange relationship
between one Dr. Henry JEEKill--and that’s
how they pronounced it-- JEEKill and one Mr.
Edward Hyde.
Now, what do we know about the relationship
between these two?
(Spoiler alert!):
That’s right, they are one and the same
person.
Dr. Jekyll creates a formula that he takes
and it turns him into Mr. Hyde, a man without
conscience or restraint.
Hyde sets up life in the shaddier part of
town and eventually commits murder.
People know there is some kind of relationship
between the two--funny enough, the novel,
sex-obsessed but not able to talk about it
because it was 1886, hints that Hyde could
be either Jekyll’s bastard child or his
lover--all in the same sentence.
One character, Mr. Enfield says the following.
“Black mail I suppose; an honest man paying
through the nose for some of the capers of
his youth.”
While we’ve established who Edward Hyde,
I would like to ask the audience here, what
does he look like?
After all, if you have never read the novella,
there has still been over 30 film adaptations
and 14 TV show adaptations, but also his appearance
in dozens more TV shows such as Penny Dreadful,
Once Upon A Time, Tom &amp; Jerry, Looney
Tunes, Scooby-Doo, Duck Tales, and yes, his
very own video game--actually 2 video games--which
is always a sign that you've really made it.
So, what does Hyde look like?
In the earlier images, Hyde is small and diminutive
but in these later ones, he is big and bulky.
How do we explain these differences?
First, it’s useful to look at how Stevenson
describes Edward Hyde.
"Mr. Hyde was pale and dwarfish, he gave an
impression of deformity without any nameable
malformation, he had a displeasing smile..."
"He was small...with the shocking expression
of his face, with his remarkable combination
of great muscular activity and great apparent
debility of constitution....Rather, as there
was something abnormal and misbegotten in
the very essence of the creature that now
faced me—something seizing, surprising and
revolting…”
So those earlier images are all from the first
half of the 20th century or late 19th century.
The later images are all within the last 20
years.
There are a lot of reasons why we see this
difference--the biggest reason though, is
this guy here:
There is a good chance that you know who the
Incredible Hulk is, but let me give you just
a brief description.
He was created in 1963 by Marvel Comics, in
particular, Stan Lee.
Or, as many of you know him, the old dude
that keeps showing in Marvel movies.
Scientist, Bruce Banner is testing a Gamma
Bomb when he discovers there is someone on
the test field.
He saves that person and exposes himself to
Gamma radiation that turns him into the Hulk.
We can already see some similarities.
Dr. Banner and Dr. Jekyll.
Both are gentleman scientists.
Both are exposed to experimental science of
their own making.
Both become monsters as a result.
Now beyond that, the Hulk has other several
inspirations.
Unbeknownst to many, the first was The Thing
from the Fantastic Four, published in 1962
by Lee and Jack Kirby.
The Thing is a self-hating hero and Lee wanted
to replicate that with The Hulk.
But he was also inspired by Boris Karloff’s
version of Frankenstein.
So the Incredible Hulk had a little bit of
everything.
He was adapted from The Thing
He was narratively inspired by Jekyll &amp;
Hyde
He was visually inspired by Karloff’s Frankenstein
So now, let me ask.
How does Bruce Banner transform into The Hulk?
That’s right--rage, emotional, excitability!
Which, if we think about the ideas of Victorian
emotional repression, we can see how well
aligned The Hulk is with Hyde.
BUT, here’s a fun fact and one additional
element to Hulk’s lineage.
He was also inspired by Werewolves.
In that first 1960s series, Banner initially
transformed into the Hulk at night.
Just like a werewolf.
Therefore, while popular and creative in its
own way, the Incredible Hulk drew upon no
less than 4 different stories:
The Fantastic Four--which was a Marvel property.
Jekyll and Hyde, which was a public domain
work.
The Karloff Frankenstein--which inspired but
was distinct enough, to not infringe on copyright.
And finally, werewolves.
Keeping in mind that Karloff’s Frankenstein
was an adaptation of a story in the public
domain, and you find that The Incredible Hulk
was its own Frankensteinian monster created
from the pieces of the commons with just a
quarter coming from a copyrighted work (which
Marvel owned).
It raises the question: Could the Incredible
Hulk have been created or popular without
drawing upon the public domain?
Keep that thought in the back of your head
because we still have to answer the question
(though I think you’re starting to get a
hint) of how we go from a diminutive Hyde
to a ginormous Hyde.
As I mentioned Jekyll and Hyde has been quite
popular.
But The Incredible Hulk has been more popular.
Hulk has had 5 of his own TV series including
one in 1966 and the live-action series of
the 1980s.
He's appeared in many other TV series beyond
that.
He's had 2 of his own featured films, 3 direct-to-TV
films, and of course, is part of the Avengers
series.
He also has had dozens of comic series, hundreds
of appearances in other comics besides his
own, and had at least a dozen or more books
featuring him.
He’s also had 5 video games named after
him.
However, the truest sign that Hulk outcompetes
Hyde is this.
...you can scour the Interwebs, but I don't
think you'll find a Hyde version of ladies'
lingerie.
Yeah, I'm not going to lie--I have all sorts
of questions!
But all of this is to say that our modern
visual conception of Hyde is very much informed
by the Incredible Hulk--in part, because while
Jekyll and Hyde give us a popular and well-known
story, it ends with Hyde &amp; Jekyll dead.
Ooops!
Spoiler alert!
That means there’s not much direction to
take the story.
People have definitely created alternative
takes on the story--and those are some of
my favorites such as Valerie Martin’s Mary
Reilly and Daniel Levine’s Hyde but in the
end, the story has trouble going beyond that.
Meanwhile, the Hulk, gives us all the flavor
of Jekyll &amp; Hyde, but has been an ongoing
narrative for over 50 years.
So it’s no surprise, given the overlap that
we see Hyde becoming big and more Hulkish.
But, this is where we come to the dilemma
posed by the this lecture’s title.
As we already learned, vampires can make you
famous.
Dracula, as a public domain persona has appeared
in over 50 movies, most of which, he was in
the title.
He's also appeared in hundreds of TV shows,
books, comics, video games…
And yes, underwear as well.
Ya know, it really is a shame that this lecture
came after Valentine’s Day.
But the contrast I wanna draw out here is
that we are free to draw upon the commons
and we do so regularly.
From the commons, we get some really amazing,
moving, intriguing, and complex new works.
Of course, we also get a lot of crap.
But we get to take those ideas and play, adapt,
and infuse them with new meaning.
It’s a great creative endeavor and it’s
something many master creators inevitably
do at some point in their career.
However, while we are free to do this with
stories of the long-past, we cannot with the
recent past.
The Hulk is a great example.
He is over 55 years old.
His creator, Stan Lee, is 95 and still chugging
along.
This means that for pretty much all of us
in this room, the Hulk will never be a public
domain entity.
Think about that.
Even if, Gods forbid, that Stan Lee, died
today.
The Hulk wouldn’t be a public domain entity
until 2088--about 125 years from its creation.
So what?
Why does that matter?
Because, if copyright existed in the past,
as it does in the present.
So many of the works that I’ve mentioned,
would never have had the legacies that they
have experienced.
Hell, even Stan Lee would have had to walk
a very fine line and risk lawsuit with the
Hulk.
But we wouldn't see Dracula until 1982 or
Sherlock Holmes adaptations and experiments
until 2000.
We would have been denied the classic War
of the Worlds radio adaptation in 1938 by
Orson Welles that we still talk about today.
It’s one of my personal favorites!
This is the one where people supposedly were
fleeing from their houses, thinking the Martians
had actually landed.
It was indeed, the original FAKE NEWS!
So for me, this is where copyright works as
a de facto form of censorship, when it prohibits
works from entering the public domain and
won’t enter the domain until I’m decades
dead.
Even when those works, such as the Incredible
Hulk, were largely created from the public
domain from which it refuses to be a part
of.
And no, I’m not making this argument, because
I really wanna tell my own stories using The
Incredible Hulk, I promise.
I just found the Hulk to be a perfect specimen
to explain this phenomenon.
But ultimately, if I were to try to tell a
story today featuring the Hulk, Disney would
likely sue me.
So there, you have your answer.
But again, frustrated as I am with this de
facto censorship of copyright works, what
I have seen is an amazing splurge of creativity
with works in the commons.
Some of my favorite stories utilize the commons
quite effectively.
For instance, I’m a fan of The Walking Dead--more
the comic book series than the show and there
you have the zombie, a modernized-monster
of folklore.
I also loved the series, Fables, a comic book
series that took so many characters from Pinocchio
to the Oz characters to Snow White and the
Big Bad Wolf and put them in modern day New
York.
And I absolutely loved Penny Dreadful for
blending all those stories together…
And I’m currently enjoying The Frankenstein
Chronicles which just dropped on Netflix.
In fact, I would say that one of the most
creative and fascinating things to emerge
out of this de facto censorship, is the genre,
known as Steampunk.
For those unfamiliar with steampunk, it is
a genre that blends elements of science fiction
with the Victorian novel or the Western novel.
Stories typically take place in the 19th or
20th century with the predominating technology
being steam or pre-electric technology that
can do many of the things we can do today.
Many but certainly not all, often include
or feature characters and figures from the
era as well--characters, at least, that are
in the public domain.
It’s curious blend of past and future; a
setting and an atmosphere that can be used
to tell other genres and retell previous stories.
If you remember a few years ago, Robert Downey
Jr. did 2 Sherlock Holmes films in this fashion
but there are others out there too like:
Wizard of Oz
Dracula
Frankenstein
William Shakespeare
Each of them seeks to retell those classic
stories with a little bit more hindsight,
a little bit more use of steam technology,
and a whole lot of “what if”--which is
the start of so many a story.
My argument would be that part of the reason
steampunk exists is because of this desire
to engage and use our past to explain our
present.
But with so much of our immediate past (nearly
100 years) locked behind copyright, it is
easier to draw upon and experiment with stories
of old than new.
Vampires are free; but the Hulk will cost
you.
Conversing with our past
So here we, at the intersection of copyright,
censorship, creativity, and the commons.
We have explored where copyright comes from.
We have looked at how valuable the commons
are.
We have examined how censorship can work directly
and indirectly.
And most important of all, we have seen how
creativity is woven throughout all of this.
If I have any parting conclusions, it would
be this:
If you wish to be a creator, think about how
much previous work impacts your creativity.
None of us create entirely new things, we
are constantly building upon that which we
have been exposed to and explored.
And when creating, recognize that impact,
and limit the locking away of your work for
others to play with.
Copyright is granted upon creation, but you
as the creator can adjust your copyright as
you see fit and maybe not have it locked away
for 125 years.
You could use Creative Commons in order to
make your work available initially or after
a certain point.
For those of us that consume creative works--find
and support creators who make their work more
readily available.
That is, look for creators using licensing
like Creative Commons.
Those creators include:
Places to find Public Domain &amp; Creative
Commons Works
Here are some examples of places you can find
content that’s free to enjoy or use because
it uses Creative Commons licensing or is in
the public domain.
And finally, let me just say--Jonathan Gottschall
calls humans “the storytelling animal.”
We, more than any other species, create, tell,
curate, and morph stories constantly through
our lives, throughout families, through our
histories, throughout all the time that humans
have spent on earth.
We love stories and I think it is essential
that we be mindful and smart about how much
we lock away stories.
Yes, it can yield some fascinating and creative
opportunities; but on the whole, I think humankind
is served better when we can draw upon our
collective tales and build our modern collection
of new and twice- or thrice told tales.
Thank you!
All right, that’s the full lecture.
What do you think?
How has this changed or influenced your thoughts
on copyright, commons, censorship, and creativity?
I would love to hear your thoughts on this
so post them in the comments below or hit
me up on Twitter-- @leaton01
See you soon!
Keep popping; keep thinking!
