The drama performance of "Titanic" gradually spread from Broadway to other cities in the United States, "You_jump, I_jump!" This line seems to have become a standard sentence for people to express loyal love. Pen % fun % Pavilion www.biquge.info

The actor Andrew Pock and the lead actress Linda Moorman, who first appeared in the play, became Broadway stars overnight.

Dutch theatre also made a lot of money, unaffected by the circumstances of the Great Depression. It's a pity that this situation didn't last long, because more and more theaters began to rehearse "Titanic", and various copycat dramas and copycat actors emerged in endlessly.

Eugene O'Neill can't sue anymore, and this kind of copyright lawsuit is very troublesome. Moreover, many theaters do not use his adapted scripts at all, and directly ask people to readapt the novel, which is different in many details.

Not to mention, there are also many theaters that have launched musical versions of "Titanic", where Rose and Jack sing and dance on stage, and this form of performance is actually very popular.

Whether it is a play or a stage play, the unauthorized adaptation of a novel is certainly an infringement, and Mack-Lauer Books, as the copyright owner, has sued more than a dozen theaters in succession. But the results were limited, because American theaters, led by Broadway, have always had a tradition of infringing on the copyright of the original work.

Broadway started by pirating British stage plays!

Lai Pi's lawsuit can only be fought slowly, and the lawyer's fee is a large amount. Moreover, with the existing copyright laws in the United States, there are actually loopholes in the adaptation of novels into plays, and the final result is most likely a compromise between the two sides.

In the face of the "Titanic" in full swing in the United States, the Los Angeles Times couldn't help but sigh: "The American theater industry in the early 1930s has been occupied by the Chinese, one is Mei Lanfang, the other is Zhou Hexuan. ”

At this very moment, a controversy was also erupting at Columbia University.

At the end of March each year, hundreds of judges from all over the United States gather at Columbia University to review works in a variety of genres, including journalism, literature, history, music, and drama. At the beginning of April, three nominees in each category were selected and submitted to the final evaluation committee (Pulitzer Prize Committee).

Columbia University's College of Arts and Sciences, the judges of the Pulitzer Prize Committee's Historical Works section, are already arguing at this moment.

Antoine Jones, a historian from Harvard University, patted the table and said: "Guns, Germs and Steel is not strictly a historical book at all. Even if it is a work of history, it does not belong to a work devoted to American history, and it is not eligible for the Pulitzer Prize in history at all! ”

"I agree that the judges were derelict in their duties by selecting an ineligible work for the final jury," said another historian, "and if the committee insists on voting on Guns, Bacteria and Steel, then I have decided to withdraw from the final jury." ”

College of William & Mary president Taylor Dannett said, "The Pulitzer Prize for History only stipulates that works that study American history are eligible to be shortlisted." Guns, Germs, and Steel, although not a monograph on American history, does offer a discussion of the history of the Americas, and its ideas are of great breakthrough significance for the study of American history. I support the results of the preliminary judging panel! ”

Antoine Jones sarcastically said: "Professor Dannett, you have lived in the Far East for many years, and I know that you have a good impression of the Chinese. But please don't undermine the authority of the Pulitzer Prize for History because of personal emotions, this work is not eligible for the nomination! ”

Taylor Dennett said: "Either way, we have to respect the results of the preliminary jury and let's vote. ”

"Very good, I have decided to withdraw from the final judging committee!" Antoine Jones got up and left the room.

"I'll quit too!"

"I'll quit too!"

Two more historian judges left, and the remaining four judges stared at each other and didn't know what to do.

Taylor Dennett cursed, "Damn racists! ”

Three of the seven final judges left, and the final voting could not be carried out at all, so they had to report the situation to the Pulitzer Organizing Committee.

The Pulitzer organizing committee had a headache and brought in seven judges for negotiation again. One of them relented, while the other two strongly disagreed, arguing that "Guns, Germs and Steel" would not qualify for the Pulitzer Prize.

Both sides seemed to have a reason, and the negotiations eventually turned into a quarrel.

Seeing that the problem could not be solved, the Pulitzer organizing committee had no choice but to announce that this year's Pulitzer Prize in History was invalid.

This decision is not new, and it has been the case before. For example, in previous years, the Pulitzer Prize for Music was resolutely rejected by the final jury, and without coordination, it could only declare the Pulitzer Prize vacant that year.

However, this is the first time that the Pulitzer Prize in history has been invalidated, and Zhou Hexuan is a precedent.

At the end of April, just as the theatrical version of "Titanic" was in high demand, the president of Columbia University announced more than 20 Pulitzer Prize winners this year. The lack of historical works for some reason immediately attracted wide attention from the academic community.

You know, the Pulitzer Prize for journalism was also selected at this time, and the top journalists in the country focused their attention on Columbia University, and they learned the reason for it in minutes.

The Washington Daily reported in detail the day after the Pulitzer Prize winners were announced: "This is the first time that the Pulitzer Prize has been vacant, and it is understood that two members of the final jury were adamantly opposed to the award of 'Guns, Germs and Steel,' which ultimately led to this result." Mr. Dannett, president of the College of William and Mary and a well-known historian, said that it is incomprehensible that "Guns N" has been questioned because it is a great historiographical work, a breakthrough in the study of American history, and it should be the great work that deserves the Pulitzer Prize for History. ”

Woodrow, a history professor at Columbia University and a loyal supporter of Zhou Hexuan, wrote an article denouncing Antoine, saying: "My paper this year, 'A Survey of American Civilizations,' has been widely praised by my peers. But what I want to say is that my paper is nothing more than an extension and elaboration of the 'longitudinal continental theory' in "Guns, Bacteria and Steel". Mr. Zhou Hexuan is a great historian who has pioneered a new direction of American historiography, and he is my academic research mentor. Guns and Guns is of great significance to the study of the history of the Americas, and it is one of the most groundbreaking historical works in the last century. Such a work was questioned as ineligible for the Pulitzer Prize in History. I would like to ask Monsieur Antoine, are you really a historian? Where is your moral bottom line? ”

Antoine was quick to retort in the newspapers, saying that he adamantly refused to admit racial discrimination and only debated the Pulitzer Prize in history.

The American historical community soon set off a big discussion, and most scholars supported Zhou Hexuan, but there were still a handful of people who sprayed Zhou Hexuan, believing that the book "Guns and Guns" was purely grandstanding and did not belong to the real historical work at all.

Not all of these opponents are motivated by racial discrimination, but by the contradiction between the old and new historiographical views, and they do not agree with the new historiographical views proposed by Zhou Hexuan.

Not only in the United States, but also in Europe at this time, the Annals school was surrounded and suppressed by traditional historians, and they fought a pen war every day.

A revolution in historiography is also a revolution, and a revolution will shed blood.

Respected traditional historians will not give up their position easily, and if they cannot be defeated academically, they will use their fame and influence to suppress and attack challengers.

What's more, the old traditional historiography has not yet reached the end of the road, and the new historiography has not created a complete system, and this historiographical revolution cannot be succeeded simply.

Even in China, there are many historical researchers who question Zhou Hexuan, which is a pure academic contradiction.

Many people in China have begun to study Zhou Hexuan's series of historiographical works, and these people have become known as the "Zhou School". Those who were influenced by Liang Qichao and others belonged to the "Confucian School", and many of them were highly respected. There are also new international students who have returned to China in recent years, and they believe in the "Ranke School".

The Confucian school had gradually declined, while the Zhou school and the Ranke school had risen rapidly, and the two schools gradually merged to lay the foundation for modern Chinese historiography.