Rachel Hope Cleves wrote a pathbreaking book about a lesbian marriage in Early America: now, cartoonist Tillie Walden has written and illustrated a similar book, graced with the same title
I feel for Rachel Hope Cleves. She has been delivered a double blow. Not only does she feel her hard work has been co-opted with minimal credit, her beloved subjects have been taken over by someone else. As an author myself, I understand how connected we become to the characters, real or fictional, that we deeply research and then write about. They become part of our tribe, even of our immediate family. When suddenly the world perceives our sisters as belonging to someone else, virtually excising us from the family, the pain is palpable.
In Cleves' open letter, she cites first the similarity between the two books' titles and covers. Beyond the fact that titles aren't copyrightable, that a book about any two women uses their names as the title is hardly surprising. It's not particularly creative or inventive. The only similarity in the book covers is the use of silhouettes. Again, that a book cover should reference the only known image of Charity and Sylvia is hardly an original choice. Cleves' cover, though, is a stately, refined powder blue with minimalist adornments and a font that nods toward time period. Walden's is a mass of imagery from full-body silhouettes to twining curlicues that reference the lovely braided hair that encircles the women's own portrait. The font is lively and a tad quirky. In short, the cover proclaims the work inside to be popular fiction.
Cover designers, good ones, are masters at letting readers know what category a book falls into. Someone looking for a true history of Charity and Sylvia will reach for Cleves' book. Someone looking for a popular fiction recounting of their lives will reach for Walden's.
In other words, I'm sorry Cleves began with mentions of the cover and title. They're immaterial. The meat of her concerns is the fact that Walden uses research only Cleves has done without citing her. Whether or not Walden briefly cites Cleves' work in the text and, perhaps, includes on her website a more thorough list of works used in crafting her graphic novel, the fact she bypasses Cleves in media interviews is a serious concern. I'm struggling to find an excuse for Walden there.
I feel for Rachel Hope Cleves. She has been delivered a double blow. Not only does she feel her hard work has been co-opted with minimal credit, her beloved subjects have been taken over by someone else. As an author myself, I understand how connected we become to the characters, real or fictional, that we deeply research and then write about. They become part of our tribe, even of our immediate family. When suddenly the world perceives our sisters as belonging to someone else, virtually excising us from the family, the pain is palpable.
In Cleves' open letter, she cites first the similarity between the two books' titles and covers. Beyond the fact that titles aren't copyrightable, that a book about any two women uses their names as the title is hardly surprising. It's not particularly creative or inventive. The only similarity in the book covers is the use of silhouettes. Again, that a book cover should reference the only known image of Charity and Sylvia is hardly an original choice. Cleves' cover, though, is a stately, refined powder blue with minimalist adornments and a font that nods toward time period. Walden's is a mass of imagery from full-body silhouettes to twining curlicues that reference the lovely braided hair that encircles the women's own portrait. The font is lively and a tad quirky. In short, the cover proclaims the work inside to be popular fiction.
Cover designers, good ones, are masters at letting readers know what category a book falls into. Someone looking for a true history of Charity and Sylvia will reach for Cleves' book. Someone looking for a popular fiction recounting of their lives will reach for Walden's.
In other words, I'm sorry Cleves began with mentions of the cover and title. They're immaterial. The meat of her concerns is the fact that Walden uses research only Cleves has done without citing her. Whether or not Walden briefly cites Cleves' work in the text and, perhaps, includes on her website a more thorough list of works used in crafting her graphic novel, the fact she bypasses Cleves in media interviews is a serious concern. I'm struggling to find an excuse for Walden there.