|
|
Post by postscript on Dec 11, 2007 13:05:06 GMT
Hi folks.
Well, my copy has arrived at last, two days after seeing her at Croydon when, because it was her show as well as her kind consideration to us all--and possibly because she saw her mum was having fun too?--she spent, was it really nearly an hour with us outside the stage door? I had hoped to ask her to sign the book then.
I wonder if at Bath she will be able to do that as she will doubtless be returning to London and she is a guest to someone else's show. No matter, I will take my book with me just in case. Otherwise it will be April?
So, first impressions. I have already commented either earlier here or elsewhere that I thought the jacket design was excellent. Therein lies the answer to a quesion that seems to confuse everyone and makes the title of this thread wrong--not that I am suggesting it be changed. This, clearly is an AUTObiography with Darren Henley her chief assistant to handle the mechanics. Rather like a secretary or PA that most writers or other artistes employ but on this occasion for a specific project, rather as a project manager, whose contribution is beyond that of requiring a 'simple mention of appreciation' in the Introduction.
Look at the verso title. 'First published...' which is unusual as 'first' publication is usually noted by the fact it doesn't define itself, it simply 'is'. In view of the fact the publishers were 'out of stock', which could actually mean 'the warehouse/distribution centre' was waiting further supplies from the printers, there isn't a statement of a reprint. So by implication this copy is still part of the first printing, especially as Waterstone's first told me 'two or three days' then rang me to say, 'publisher's won't receive stock until 6th December', then telling me three days later, 'the book is in'. Sounds more like a miscommunication within Waterstone's.
More importantly, the copyright is solely 'Hayley Westenra' with only the longer rights paragraph of parental authorship acknowledging Darren Henley's contribution.
I then looked at the colour pictures. I think she has chosen wisely and well. That range of picture selection captivates the period of her life so far exceedingly well. There are many I love but my favourite is the third picture from last, the PBS one. It brings back immediately the DVD ('Hayley Westenra Live from New Zealand') when Hayley came on and you thought for a moent it was Sophie, but it was Hayley, or was it Sophie first and then Hayley--I'll have to check the DVD again but that seeming double-take of the two of them is a very memorable moment for me, reminding me also of 'The London Palladium' production, my first seeing of Hayley live.
My second most favourite picture must then be the last, the whole family Westenra sharing with her but also reminding me I have not yet met with Sophie and Isaac.
A superb opening to something contradictory. This is not a snack to be nibbled in fits and starts, which is Halyey's style? This is a several course dinner to be leisurely sauntered through, savouring every morsel slowly and surely.
Very well done, Hayley.
Peter S.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Dec 11, 2007 14:39:02 GMT
Hello Peter!  Great minds think and read alike! I read 'The World At Her Feet' straight through in four hours, but 'In Her Own Voice' took me about a week. I only read two or three chapters at a time, and re-read several passages to take it all in.  Best Wishes, Richard  |
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Dec 11, 2007 15:52:00 GMT
Hi folks. Therein lies the answer to a quesion that seems to confuse everyone and makes the title of this thread wrong--not that I am suggesting it be changed. This, clearly is an AUTObiography with Darren Henley her chief assistant to handle the mechanics. Rather like a secretary or PA that most writers or other artistes employ but on this occasion for a specific project, rather as a project manager, whose contribution is beyond that of requiring a 'simple mention of appreciation' in the Introduction. Look at the verso title. 'First published...' which is unusual as 'first' publication is usually noted by the fact it doesn't define itself, it simply 'is'. In view of the fact the publishers were 'out of stock', which could actually mean 'the warehouse/distribution centre' was waiting further supplies from the printers, there isn't a statement of a reprint. So by implication this copy is still part of the first printing, especially as Waterstone's first told me 'two or three days' then rang me to say, 'publisher's won't receive stock until 6th December', then telling me three days later, 'the book is in'. Sounds more like a miscommunication within Waterstone's. More importantly, the copyright is solely 'Hayley Westenra' with only the longer rights paragraph of parental authorship acknowledging Darren Henley's contribution. Peter S. Hi Peter, my copy (purchased from Waterstone in its initial release week in the UK) is entitled and the inside copyright details are the same as your copy. So is it a ghostwritten autobiography, as explained in Wikipedia? Cheers, Dave |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Dec 11, 2007 17:13:08 GMT
No Dave (your post 542). As we have discussed (at length I believe) - I don't accept Wikipedia as any sort of authority on anything (see below)
- I explained my criteria for making my statement. It is an AUTObiography simply by 'whose copyright is it?' It's Hayley's! That's an autobiography!
- I will accept I may hold on to old-fashioned standards and definitions!
- I did also explain my view of Henley's contribution and add to that the manner in which Hayley writes the Introduction.
Wikipedia and Ask.com as authorities.I recently was asked by the Town Council to get Ask.com to correct a statement they had obtained from heaven's knows where about my home town. They had absolutely no knowledge of me at all. They responded by saying, in effect. 'Clearly you are the sort of knowledgeable guy we need to contribute to what we offer. Our information comes in good faith from Wikipedia which you should join so you can make a substantial contribution to our efforts. We will then pick up your contribution next time we look at Wikipedia which is done regularly every six months or so! That is NOT in any manner either an authority or reputable source! Use Google. It is possible that it was Ask.com that allowed a wobbly be attached to it for that was the research I was doing when I was hit with a Trojan and the implication was that it was attached to an Ask.com subsidiary page! Beware! Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by roger on Dec 11, 2007 17:48:21 GMT
It is an AUTObiography simply by 'whose copyright is it?' It's Hayley's! That's an autobiography! Hi Peter, This is starting to intrigue me rather more than it may have done had it not been for your definition. That said, I would like to pick up on one point, namely the copyright which states: Copyright © Hayley Westenra 2007 ...immediately beneath which appears this: "The right of Hayley Westenra and Darren Henley to be identified as the Authors of this Work has been asserted by them in association with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988." So, is she the sole copyright owner, or is it both of them? Personally, I have always considered it to be an AUTObiography regardless of any copyright statement! Roger |
|
|
|
Post by dazza on Dec 11, 2007 18:39:36 GMT
Hi Everybody,
I had found it strange why it is considered a biography.
I have read plenty of biographies and plenty of autobiographies in the past, it is often easy to tell the difference and in my eyes Hayley's book is very much an autobiography.
Dazza
|
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Dec 11, 2007 19:04:02 GMT
It is an AUTObiography simply by 'whose copyright is it?' It's Hayley's! That's an autobiography! Hi Peter, This is starting to intrigue me rather more than it may have done had it not been for your definition. That said, I would like to pick up on one point, namely the copyright which states: Copyright © Hayley Westenra 2007 ...immediately beneath which appears this: "The right of Hayley Westenra and Darren Henley to be identified as the Authors of this Work has been asserted by them in association with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988." So, is she the sole copyright owner, or is it both of them? Personally, I have always considered it to be an AUTObiography regardless of any copyright statement! Roger The key, in my very 'umble opinion is the statement of copyright. That is exclusively Hayley. What then follows is a new (ten years or so, may be longer because it has been talked about for some time and is largely influenced by the EU) is 'parentage'. As it states 'the right to be identified as...' acknowledges a substantial contribution by Henley. This need not be actual authorship but the manipulation of her copy to present as a book. Remember her saying that she found talking her book through on the telephone more demanding on her voice than singing. In older times (I can hold my own with the modern world when relevant  ) Henley's contribution would have been that of secretary--many authors did and still do dictate--but also publisher/publisher's agent. He did far more than either category but may well have creatively made a contribution by re-adjusting her paragraphs, advising on chapter splits, sequence etc. In other words crossing the threshold between, publisher, arranger and editor. Editing can require substantial re-writing or précising which art would previously have not been specifically acknowledged. It is like nowadays seeing the details such as 'Mr Dolley's 2nd tea-maker on the third Paris unit, section2' on film credits!  Arguably before this his contribution would not have been noticed or commented on. Nowadays his contribution is sufficient for him to be acknowledged as a creative contributor of the work. That is, 'the right of paternity'. In other words where the work is reproduced for what ever reason the control would appear to be Hayley's but she must also advise to whom so ever she is giving the licence to reproduce, that person must be made aware of Henley's right to be identified with the work for what ever purpose that licence has been issued and to be displayed alongside the licence.. In other words two separate rights are being claimed. Control of the whole--as in the copyright holder--as to how and in what manner it is published and what later editions, change of publisher, translations, paperback version is one right (Hayley's) and 'the right to be identified as parent or co-parent of the original, which is both of them. Perhaps Andrew would like to contribute? My A User's GUIDE to Copyright runs to 641 pages preceded by another 57 introductory pages, several pages alone dealing with 'rights to paternity'. Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephany on Dec 11, 2007 19:04:56 GMT
It is often easy to tell the difference and in my eyes Hayley's book is very much an autobiography. Hi Dazza, I certainly agree with you. Hayley also seems to think the same way when she says during interviews: 'I'm writing a book at the moment', 'I wrote a book', etc. Definitely an autobiography IMO. Stephany |
|
|
|
Post by roger on Dec 11, 2007 19:22:41 GMT
Hi Peter, Thank you for your explanation which was most informative. I once read a book about copyright, or more specifically, the Copyright of Songs, the complexity of which I found quite mindblowing. This had a profound effect on me... I gave up writing songs!  Roger |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Dec 12, 2007 10:06:37 GMT
Oh what fools are we.  Because we are not book browsers randomly looking at books it seems none of us turned to the back page of the jacket which tells the less-informed about the book. We are all so well-informed about Hayley we never, it would appear, ever looked there. I did today. Paragraph 2 starts 'In her honest and uplifting AUTObiography...' On top of which did we not also read her Introduction? Perhaps because she writes so naturally and it flows so wonderfully we read without reading--we were with Hayley rather than her writing. See second line of that Introduction. It reminds me of forty years ago being in an out of the way township in the middle of Nevada. The young waitress was so fascinated with my English accent I had to tell her six times what I wanted for lunch. She was so fascinated with the voice she heard only the voice, not what it was saying! Mods, I think we need to change the title of this thread! Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by roger on Dec 12, 2007 10:12:56 GMT
Mods, I think we need to change the title of this thread! With pleasure, Sir! Oh what fools are we. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it! Roger |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Dec 12, 2007 10:16:55 GMT
Mods, I think we need to change the title of this thread! With pleasure, Sir! Oh what fools are we. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it! Roger Since when I've added a paragraph which you might find entertaining. Peter S. |
|
|
|
Post by roger on Dec 12, 2007 10:24:53 GMT
Hi Peter, You are quite right, of course but in fairness, this thread was started way back in July. We only knew the basic details at that time and nobody thought to modify the thread title since. There is a reason for that. We all read the book, became even more Hayleywowed, and couldn't think of anything! Roger |
|
|
|
Post by postscript on Dec 12, 2007 10:43:29 GMT
Hi Peter, You are quite right, of course but in fairness, this thread was started way back in July. We only knew the basic details at that time and nobody thought to modify the thread title since. There is a reason for that. We all read the book, became even more Hayleywowed, and couldn't think of anything! Roger That is a very fair comment and of course changing it may throw people reading it at the beginning for the very first time. As you imply, the reason for the debate will be apparent. On the other hand, we have known the title for a considerable time and that alone surely determines? As you say in your post and I in a different way in my preceding modified post, we knew without knowing, it was all there in front of us. This makes one realise that Hayley must be very difficult to work with! Not for the usual reasons of star megolamania but simply because she is so nice. Your attention is absorbed ON her without actually paying attention TO her. I have often thought of this when the odd post comes through and I think, 'Hang on a moment, surely there's some publicity where her views on this have been quoted and this post is fundamentally wrong or ignoring the obvious?' I don't say anything at the time because I am not one of those with the encycopedic knowledge of some members here and one doesn't want to be negative but I do think we sometimes fail to see what is in front of our noses. For instance, on the jacket flap the penultimate paragraph sums up Hayley well. We are sometimes inclined to drape Hayley in the cloak of our subjective perception of her and what we would like her to be rather than seeing her as she is. My simplest explanation of this would be to quote from that Libby Purves inerview that '...there are some who will put me on a pedestal..'. Peter S. |
|
Dave
Administrator
HWI Admin
Posts: 7,700
|
Post by Dave on Dec 12, 2007 18:33:39 GMT
No Dave (your post 542). As we have discussed (at length I believe) - I don't accept Wikipedia as any sort of authority on anything (see below)
Hi Peter, I know about the limitations of Wikipedia but sometimes, it can be useful (except when it is wrong!). For the record, I've thought of the book as a 'ghostwritten' autobiography ever since we first received the details from the publishers. I didn't alter the thread title because I was not certain that it is an autobiography (until now) and I thought that sooner or later, someone would raise the matter and we could sort it out then. What did puzzle me slightly (and still does) is whether or not the book is 'ghostwritten'. I gave the Wiki link because it attempts to describe that subject, including (I think) the case of Hayley's book: I was not (and am not) challenging the helpful technical explanation you have given; you are the expert and certainly not me or Wikipedia. I just wanted to know if I had understood correctly your explanation and because you avoided the use of the word ghostwriter, if that was Darren Henley's role: the ghostwriter (in one form or another) of Hayley's autobiography. Cheers, Dave |
|
