What is Fanfiction?
This is partly a follow-up to my MZB vs. Fanfiction post from last week, and partly a response to a much-linked post at http://bookshop.livejournal.com/1044495.html which answers author criticism of fanfiction by saying, “You’ve just summarily dismissed as criminal, immoral, and unimaginative each of the following Pulitzer Prize-winning works…” The post presents a list of works including the Star Trek: Strange New Worlds anthologies, the Tina Fey skits of Sarah Palin, Gaiman’s brilliant Holmes/Cthulhu story “A Study in Emerald,” and many more.
A recent (now deleted) post by a commercial fantasy author described works like Gregory Maguire’s Wicked, among others, as fanfiction. Though when I asked about my princess novels (fairy tale retellings), she stated that they were not fanfiction.
I’m officially confused. To me, this feels like a very broad definition. I’m not going to try to argue that my personal definition of fanfiction is the right one … but it’s difficult — almost pointless — to have a conversation when you can’t agree on what the words mean.
Do we define fanfiction from a legal/licensing standpoint? If so, anything published either with the legal permission of the copyright holder (Star Trek: Strange New Worlds) or based on public domain works (“A Study in Emerald”) would not be fanfiction.
Almost every fanfic author I’ve spoken to has explained that the culture of fanfiction strongly condemns commercialization of fanfic … if that’s so, then isn’t the bookshop LJ post violating that fundamental tenant by listing so many commercially published works?
For a much deeper legal analysis, see http://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2010/05/a528x.html
Or is fanfiction a matter of originality? If so, my understanding of the term becomes so fluid as to make it almost meaningless. What is a truly original work vs. one that takes inspiration from elsewhere? Are my Goblin Quest books fanfiction because they riff off of Dungeons and Dragons tropes? Is 90% of the fantasy genre nothing but Tolkien fanfiction?
I couldn’t find a fanfic definition on the Organization for Transformative Works site, but I did find this statement: “While some transformative works legitimately circulate in the for-profit marketplace — parodies such as The Wind Done Gone (the retelling of Gone with the Wind from the perspective of a slave), critical analyses that quote extensively from an original, ‘unauthorized guides,’ etc.—that really isn’t what fanfic writers and fan creators in general are doing, or looking to do.”
When I think of fanfiction, I think of two things:
- Fiction written using another author’s (usually copyrighted) characters and/or world
- Fiction which is may be shared, but never sold commercially (exceptions being quickly squashed by the fanfic community)
I also agree with scrivnerserror about excluding parody from fanfiction (the Tina Fey skits). I see them as two different kinds of storytelling. (Parody has its own legal definition as well.)
Like I said, I’m not saying my definition is the Right one, nor will I argue that it’s complete. (It wouldn’t include the Scalzi/Wheaton fanfic fundraiser, for example.) But it’s my starting point for understanding fanfiction.
What about you? Do you buy bookshop’s claim that all of these works are fanfiction, or does that stretch too far in an attempt to defend fanfic? Does commercialization really matter? What’s your definition?
Sewicked
June 4, 2010 @ 10:14 am
I’ve never really thought about it. Now that I am, I feel that writing using someone else’s (probably copywrited) characters/world is fanfiction. Things like re-tellings of fairytales don’t qualify because fairytales are ‘community property.’
When comes to being commercial; that’s a grey area. Personally, I’m of the ‘you sold what you wrote? Cool!’ school of thought.
zollmaniac
June 4, 2010 @ 10:34 am
I think fanfiction comes down to writing fiction using another author’s characters and/or world. When it comes to commercialization, I think it comes with the territory of being a writer. Most fanfiction I’ve read is usually online and very little of it would be something I’d consider worth publishing (or even reading). If a fan writes a story in an author’s world and gains permission to get it published, then I don’t see anything wrong with that.
It is the other person’s world and characters. If you want to write it in, you should do so with their blessing. I think the mistake comes when permission is not asked for or not gained.
For me… I have too many ideas for worlds and stories of my own that I want to write. Although, I did enter into a small fanfiction contest for a game I play, so I can’t say I’ve never done it.
Gryvon
June 4, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
I guess the break-down for fanfic depends on originality. If you’re using someone else’s characters or world, then it’s technically fanfic. But in my mind, there’s a few other distinctions before something’s considered fanfic:
– Fanfic is a written work. (So skits, fanvids, music, etc are right out, though may fall into the general category of fan works or transformative works.)
– Fanfic is published on the internet (or in “the old days”, fanzines) without commercial gain. (We’re playing with other people’s characters/worlds, and it’s wrong to profit off of other people’s work. Works based on content in the public domain, such as Sherlock Holmes and Cthulhu-based stories are not considered fanfic if they are commercially published but are considered fanfic if they’re not commercially published, so it’s a bit of a weird gray-area.)
– Fanfic is produced without the consent of the original creator. Approved works fall into their own ill-defined category or categories, depending on the work. For example, media tie-in novels are like fanfic but not because they’re (usually) contracted by the original creator (or the marketing team/publisher) and have gone through quality control to make sure they fit with the theme/plot/intentions of the original work.
– Fanfic is recognizably based off of some other work, either by using characters from an established work or obvious mechanics/elements from the setting of an established work. For example, if a story contains Harry Potter, it’s fanfic. If a story has original, brand new characters going off to Hogwarts, it’s fanfic. Fairy tale retellings fall into a gray area here since they often use recognizable characters (Cinderella, Snow White, etc) but give the story new perspective. In my mind (and probably others), these are not considered fanfic (though there’s a section for them on Fanfiction.net, so it’s arguable) because the stories themselves are public domain and based on archetypal plot lines from communal myths.
Parody is not fanfic, though some fanfic is parody. The distinction lies in the above criteria.
Stories that use well-known concepts or tropes are not fanfic. It’s been said (in many different ways) that there are only a limited number of ideas, and that every creative work is a rehashing of those ideas put together in (usually) new ways. (As enumerated in the 36 Dramatic Situations, 20 Basic Plots from the Tennessee Screenwriters Association, 7 Basic Plots, etc…)
Since there is no authoritative definition of what fanfic actually is, it’s all subjective and can vary from fan to fan. I’m sure there’s other fanficcers out there who will disagree with my classification, while there’s also some who many agree. It’s one giant mucky gray area, but at least the muck is fun to play in. ^_^
KatG
June 4, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
No, Neil Gaiman’s homage is not fan fiction, though it is fiction and he is a fan. They’re trying to lump a whole bunch of different sorts of works together.
A homage is a copyrighted, for-profit work making use of elements from another work that is in the public domain. That’s what Neil Gaiman’s work would be, what Wicked is, and that’s what your Princess series is, because it’s not only using fairy tales but the works of Hans Christian Anderson.
A parody, like the Wind Done Gone, is a satiric or comic work tackling another work that may be public domain or under copyright. Parodies are exempted, covered under sections of the copyright law. Your Goblin books might fit under that, although technically Dungeons and Dragons does not own the use of dragons, dungeons, goblins, etc. in other creative works.
An authorized usage is when writers are legally authorized to write fiction based on a creative work that is trademarked or copyrighted, using the specific characters and setting. That would be the Star Trek anthologies and tie-in fiction. John Scalzi and Wil Wheaton’s fundraiser event falls under that classification.
Regular fan-fiction is not authorized, is done off of copyrighted work, and for the fan writer’s own personal use, not for profit. Fan-fiction has been a tradition in SFF, and indeed, jump-started several magazines in the early days. They’d start with non-profit mimeographed newsletters passed about by fans, and then it would develop into original stories for profit or free. Marion Zimmer Bradley, who came out of that tradition, was continuing it, sometimes helping fan fiction turn into authorized usage stories. When she however wanted to essentially use a fan writer’s story as a jumping off for a Darkover novel and that writer wanted a collaboration deal, she ran into trouble. It would have been nice if both parties had been able to come to an agreement, but it really didn’t have anything to do with fan fiction. It just meant that authors should probably not be involved in any fan fiction of their work. Once money is involved, it’s not fan fiction anymore. If you are selling fan fiction, authors/publishers or producers who hold the rights have a legal right to come after you and may if the issues are big enough. J.K. Rowling was happy to let a fan website borrow bits of her novels for free for their fan enjoyment, but when they wanted to do a for-profit book deal using the same bits, she took them to court.
But the bulk of for-profit infringement operations are not worth tracking down for an author anymore than the e-piracy and file-sharing piracy stuff. And the actual fan fiction really doesn’t do anything to anyone. But the problem is that with the Web, it’s extremely easy to disseminate fan fiction to thousands of people, and to have for-profit operations occur, and this makes a lot of authors defensive. But you can’t control someone else’s interpretation of your work; you can only control your copyright and there, you have to pick your battles. It makes sense that some authors like George Martin don’t enjoy fan fiction done off their work, but you aren’t going to stop the kids from playing war games outside either. You just have to shut the window.
Cy
June 4, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
Hmm… good point about the published/commercial works. I guess because officially published “derivative works” novels like Wicked are fairly few in number so far, this issue hasn’t become too prominent. But I’ll admit back in high school, when I read Wide Sargasso Sea, which is a retelling of Jane Eyre from Bertha’s POV, I did think a bit gleefully to myself that it was a glorified fanfiction.
But since my gut defined it as a “glorified” fanfiction, I get the feeling I didn’t consider it quite the same as the stereotypical fanfics you find on fanfiction.net, for example.
So to answer your question, at the core of it, I think the commonly used term “fanfiction” is the sort of story that fans of a copyrighted work write and share casually (usually on the internet) with other fans, without any attempt to receive/expectation of receiving monetary gain from them.
As for the definition of things like Wicked and Wide Sargasso Sea—I would call them “derivative works” and would define them as professional-level, commercially motivated *published* novels based on original works that are in the public domain or have received a license/permission from the copyright holder of the original work to write their books.
Are “derivative works” still “glorified fanfics” despite the fancy name? In a word, yes. And I don’t think that cheapens them, or makes them less valid and valuable to illuminate our understanding of the world, life, etc (like any work of fiction), as well as the original work it was based on. But for the sake of simplicity, I’d define the two “types” of fanfiction by the terms above.
I guess in the end, I can say all this because I don’t really see a problem with fanfiction in the least, as long as it stays within the non-commercial bounds. When we get into doujinshi and things, I guess it’s a gray area, but that’s not very prominent in the US anyway~
Jim C. Hines
June 4, 2010 @ 2:05 pm
All else aside, it’s quite a nice feeling when someone else wants to pay you for something you wrote 🙂
Jim C. Hines
June 4, 2010 @ 2:11 pm
So, just to be difficult, is it fanfiction both when writing a licensed Star Wars novel and writing an unlicensed story where Chewie joins the Thundercats? Both are using other authors’ characters and worlds.
ithiliana
June 4, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
I love the audacity of Bookshop’s post since she was addressing hugely oversimplified claims made by authors who define fan fiction as “people stealing my work” (by the way, there are links to screen caps of Diana Gabaldon’s post and responses many of which are intelligent, polite, and deal with just this issue around which I can get if anybody wishes them), but I actually would not call all of works she listed fanfiction.
I would call them all some sub-set of derivative works, with in a few cases adaptation thrown in.
Fanfic is a sub-category of derivative works.
Derivative works (in print form) have been around for centuries because copyright is a recent invention, and even before print culture, nobody in an oral culture would attempt to stake out claims to a story in the same way.
As an academic and a fan, I’m quite happy with the same term having multiple meanings, but you’re right, people need to define what meaning they’re using to base their arguments in. However, I have an incredibly hard time getting my own students to do this, and I am not about starting to try to lecture the internets on how to write since that way lies madness.
In my life as a fan, fan fiction is fiction (although there is poetry, drama, and MST3K-ing done by fans) written by a self defined fan. The idea that it applies only to fictions (broadly defined) written by “authors” is limiting (not only are the largest fan fic writing communities dedicated to media texts, there is the ‘real people fiction’ that has been growing in such fandoms as wrestling, bandom, even pundit and political fandoms, not to mention all the weird crossovers (Scalzi and Wheaton set up a fan fic contest but have a fantasy painting for the prompt–is it in fact rpf or fpf or what?).
OTW isn’t going to narrowly define fan fiction because it is such a potentially broad and multiple category, and there are overlaps. There are clear fan fictions which are also parody: the two are not mutually exclusive. THere are fan written fictions that do all sorts of weird things, but I call them fan fiction because they’re written by fans, identified as fan fiction, and are not for money.
Year ago, when FanLib (a for profit concern trying to corral fanfic) put out advertising images of a thin weedy male and a bulked up male (on pink and blue backgrounds) advertising how they could beef up the fan fiction (written by all the men out there?), women fans immediately starting writing Pink Guy/Blue Guy fanfic mocking the advertising images. What is that? (It was lovely.)
There will be different definitions from the legal community, and academic communities (different ones within the different discourses), and in fandom (again, different ones).
As an academic, I’m not too concerned with arguing genre definitions and categories (but I also write scholarship about more aspects of fandom than the fiction.)
But that’s why I see broader umbrella terms like derivative or transformative works as useful; and also why the context of the writers (of the fics) is important, and it’s absolutely impossible to make a genre determination based solely on the writing conventions of the texts.
But people should define the terms they use in arguments, just saying….
Jim C. Hines
June 4, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
“But people should define the terms they use in arguments, just saying…”
That’s the biggest conclusion I’m coming to as well as I read through all of the discussion and commentary.
zollmaniac
June 4, 2010 @ 3:47 pm
See, now all I care about is seeing Chewie leading the battle charge with the Thundercats. You’re writing that right after Snow Queen is done, right?
I guess in general terms, I’d still consider them both as fanfiction, but the licensed Star Wars novel is more acceptable to me and more likely for me to actually read (as anyone can tell by my book shelf).
The Chewie story – in my mind – is sitting on a website somewhere, possibly a forum of some kind, and written by a kid with terrible grammar. Probably titled like “Chew-cats!” or “Thunderchew!” I’d be intrigued, probably even open the topic and begin reading it. Then I’d be saddened as the story fell flat.
But that’s just me and my experience of having delt with so many internet forums with a fanfiction section.
I’ve never really thought about these sort of things (including Chewie with the Thundercats) until you brought ’em up.
zollmaniac
June 4, 2010 @ 3:54 pm
I’ll also add that until now, the thought of fanfiction wouldn’t have popped in my head when I was buying that Star Wars novel 😉
zollmaniac
June 4, 2010 @ 4:11 pm
My definition is a bit fuzzy. Granted, I’m not really arguing either.
Just demanding Chewie and Thundercat stories now.
Chris
June 4, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
I might be going way too far with this one. But only a few days ago I listened to Modern Scholar’s A Way with Words, by Professor Michael Drout. For those who don’t know, the Modern Scholar is a set of 14 lectures, on cd. I absolutely love them (not to mention my new favorite professor has in fact become Michael Drout, primarily for the lectures by him I have listened to. I know, you’re saying what a weird guy, he has a favorite professor. So too doI say this.) But anyway, in one of the lectures, he points out how the big “goal” of writers is to read through all this literary canon, thereby educating yourself further and taking in all these ideas, themes, text, and whatever else you attribute along the reading of these text. Interesting enough, literary canon, as we know it today, has changed over the years. Yeah, of course, you say. What I found really interesting (and maybe this is just me) is that Plato’s Republic was *not* read pretty much at all during his lifetime. Instead, the educated class read some other book (and I’m sorry that I can’t remember this books name, though I know it began with a T. Not much help, I know). Well anyway, I’m not trying to sidetrack here, but to me, that pretty much says “Hey,we want you go through these books, rip ideas, themes, whatever out of all these books we consider great, and put them into your own, big work.” Your own big work, which, incidentally, contains all these ideas of other canon. Another thing, which I know I’m dragging this even further, but every “major” work connects in some way to another. Shakespeare being the most easily identifiable influence here. So…in others words…every thing is, in a very broad sense, fanfiction. Kinda. I’m really overshooting here, I know, but I just found that idea very interesting.
Jim C. Hines
June 4, 2010 @ 7:17 pm
Hm … I’m a little skeptical, in part because I don’t think there’s any single big goal for writers. There are so many different reasons and motivations to write. Some people do it purely for the money. Others purely for love. Others because they have Something To Say, and so on.
But it’s fun taking this sort of thing to extremes and seeing where you end up. I’m fond of the argument I once heard Neil Gaiman make, that *all* fiction is really fantasy 🙂
Sean
June 4, 2010 @ 7:44 pm
So what if the Fan fiction is like better than the original, like say…….
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies…
Yeah i went there. Fanfiction should be, to me anyway, unauthorized use of specific people/places and possibly things (yeah like seriously Jig’s delorean might make it up to 88 miles per hour) from a novel that is not currently in the public domain.
So when i want to write “Jig part 4, the revenge” and Jim says hell yeah, it is official, when i write “Jig in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama” without it it is fan fiction.
But when i get my delorean up to 88 and go 150 years into the future, then if it is out of copyright it is free game not just fan fiction. yeah there are probably flaws in my theory, but then again if i read it and i like it i dont really give a flying fig newton if it is fan fiction or not, cos that would mean ever zombie movie and book is fan fiction..right..there can be only one
sean
Jim C. Hines
June 4, 2010 @ 7:55 pm
“So what if the Fan fiction is like better than the original…”
Without touching on PP&Z, I don’t think quality is really a factor. There’s good and bad fanfic out there, just like there’s good and bad commercial fic.
And now I want a picture of Jig in a Delorean.
Chris
June 4, 2010 @ 8:06 pm
I’d believe it. I think the best thing that I love today is hearing people say: “Oh, it’s fantasy, it’s not *good* literature.” Or “Oh, it’s fantasy, I don’t wont read fantasy.” Uhm…Shakespeare wrote fantasy… Hamlet has ghosts, Midsummer has fairies, and I won’t even start on the Tempest.
Rashaka
June 5, 2010 @ 2:26 am
“So, just to be difficult, is it fanfiction both when writing a licensed Star Wars novel and writing an unlicensed story where Chewie joins the Thundercats? Both are using other authors’ characters and worlds.”
There are crossover novels in published fiction, usually between spin-offs of the same official “universe”, but not always.
The answer to your question, though, is yes. It being a crossover has nothing to do with it–the presence of a pre-created character makes it fanfiction. Published and legally sanctioned fanfiction, but fanfiction still.
The stipulations of fanfic being published unofficially online and without permission aren’t definitive requirements–they’re common qualities in most, but not all, fanfiction.
The Wicked series is fanfic because it uses specific, named characters in a specific, named universe that was created by a single definitive source.
In my mind, the source is everything.
If you write novels retelling famous fairy tales, then it’s not fanfic. Because fairy tales don’t have one shared source, and the main character of your “reimagining” may not have the same name and source framework as the common fairy tale version (see: Elemental Magic series by Mercedes Lackey.) The Brothers’ Grimm are not even an original source either, since they collected stories that already existed in oral and written tradition.
But the older you go, the messier it gets. Is writing about the heroes of Gilgamesh considered fanfic, despite the author of the work being unknown for ages? I would say yes. Because unlike a fairy tale, which is a shared and ever-changing living tradition, the story of Gilgamesh has a single, definitive source in the way we are introduced to it. Even if the story itself were broadly acknowledged as cultural tradition, there is still a unique source that we’d be taking it from, and that would make it fanfiction, NOT a shared cultural heritage. At least when its written by anyone who read the book….and who doesn’t live in the middle of the Iraqi desert and learned the story from their great-grandparent.
However, I would say that the work Bridget Jones’ Diary *is* fanfic–both the book and the movie. It’s what ficcers call a “Modern Day AU”, a pretty common trope, for Pride & Prejudice. …A work that has a specific and identifiable source.
Parody is harder to identify in my mind, but I think it falls in the same broad family, if not the exact same category, as fanfiction. Certainly, a great amount of fanfiction is pure-as-the-driven-printer-paper parody, with no other goal but satirizing or spoofing the original work.
Stephen Watkins
June 7, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
Frankly, I think you’re right on, here. If you define fanfiction so broadly, it can potentially include anything and everything.
Which, I suspect, is entirely the point of those who seek to define it so broadly. By doing so, some few fanfic authors who are still nervous about what they do (and I mean to cast no aspersion thereon, as to whether it is of merit or not) may gain some level of comfort and validation by including what they do in a field so broad as to include tons of actual, legitimately produced works.
Not to put to fine a point on it, but if it’s authorized or licensed, it’s not fanfiction. By definition, fanfiction must be unlicensed, or else the word itself is meaningless due to the broadness of its defintion. (We already have a word that means every possible written work: “literature”.) If fanfiction is effectively anything written that is based on anything else, then how do we make a distinction? It is a well-known trope among writers that there is “nothing new under the sun” and that virtually all new stories owe something to the stories that came before it, which would then, under this unacceptably broad definition for fanfiction, render all new stories under this category.
Again, this doesn’t really cast aspersions on the activities of fanfic writers, themselves. As has been pointed out upthread, quality prose and fanfiction are not mutually exclusive terms. Mileage on these sorts of things will vary, certainly.
My point is just that the semantics become needlessly complex, and then you get these perverse internet arguments, when you allow your definitions to become broad and vague.
Athena Andreadis
June 7, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
On fanfiction as a literary and social phenomenon that in some ways hearkens back to collective oral storytelling:
“Dream Other Dreams, and Better”
Susan Kersten
June 7, 2010 @ 4:20 pm
I would like to know what exactly is fanfic and what are its permeters?
Jim C. Hines
June 7, 2010 @ 4:23 pm
Well, me too. But as you can see, it’s complicated.
I’d suggest reading the comments here and over on the mirrored post on LJ. http://jimhines.livejournal.com/509725.html
Gryvon
June 7, 2010 @ 4:23 pm
In the most general sense, fiction written by fans. Usually this implies stories based off of TV shows, movies, anime/manga, etc…
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanfiction for a very basic definition, and FanFiction.Net for examples. (Though quality ranges widely from abysmal to stellar.)
Alexa Dacre
June 8, 2010 @ 10:21 am
I’m a medievalist and an academic, so everything I’ve written ‘professionally’ and gotten published…has never earned me a single cent. So I come from the ‘writing because you have something to say’ rather than ‘writing for profit’ perspective, where the sincerest hope I have is that someone reads my papers and essays and articles and uses them in their own work (with attribution, one hopes).
Also, from my field, ‘originality’ in literature is really a rather modern notion. In the Middle Ages, an author just ‘making stuff up’ was seen as a sign of a poor education–hence Malory continually referring to ‘the frenysshe bok’ when he makes something up in the Morte Darthur to lend it authority. And how many tellings of Troilus and Criseyde’s story? And how many King Arthurs? Add to that we’re now, what are we up to? Post-post-modernism? Pastiche? ORIGINALITY IS DEAD. That’s the cultural gestalt. Look at Lady Gaga’s “Telephone” video.
Now, obviously, I came here because I write fanfiction–the very type you’re deriding here. To me it’s the same as a child’s game: when I was 8 and had my Star Wars figures, you bet I made up stories (that were probably abysmal) about Leia, and Boba Fett and Han Solo, and all the rest. I considered that the Star Wars franchise gave me a wonderful gift in a world so vast and magical and huge that I could fit in my little play imagination stories. My imagination would not have grown and developed without imaginative play in someone else’s–someone more mature, more creative–universe.
I’ve sent, as a lark, copies of my pitiful scrawls to the actual canon authors (since I actually know them in life) and asked them what they thought. Both of them were (surprisingly) immensely flattered that anyone would want to take their characters and write about them. (And then gave me prompts for more!) Now, maybe this is because I’m in a corporate-controlled fandom and not a single author fandom; maybe that makes the difference.
To me, the good outweighs the bad. Sure there’s some awful fanfiction out there–I groan at it too. But what’s that famous Sturgeon quote about 90% of everything is crap? Yeah. I’ve read fanfiction that has made me laugh and cry and look at the world in a whole new way. I’ve seen people who have hated reading and writing begin to write, and then from there evolve and grow as writers, branch out and read more, get more ideas, think new thoughts, make new friends. That, to me, outweighs any of the bad!fic.
And I can’t, as seems to be done here, strip fanfiction as separate from other fanworks. How is fanfiction more…culpable or wrong than fanart? If I write a story about your characters falling in love, how is that more evil than if I drew a picture of them kissing? Fanartists are much more grey-area to me–since many of them charge for commissions. I’ve never seen a fanfic writer (beyond a few fanfic for charities, which I don’t participate in because it seems ethically grey) charge for a story.
Yeah, we’re the second string hack writers. Yeah, we write goofy stuff. Make fun of us for writing crap, if you want. But trying to paint that we’re doing something wrong or unnatural or illegal when every fan-creative activity is based on a sincere love of the source material…? Let us play in the sand box. We’re not pooping in it or stealing your sand.
Jim C. Hines
June 8, 2010 @ 10:28 am
Hi Alexa,
Please take a deep breath, step back, and then reread my post. If you can find anywhere that I’m deriding fanfiction, please let me know. You seem to be responding to an argument I’m not having.
Thanks,
Jim
Alexa Dacre
June 8, 2010 @ 10:35 am
I was referring to several of your commenters who clearly have a very very dim view of, say, fanfiction.net. They are definitely deriding fanfiction by questioning its quality.
Thank you for your substantive reply.
Stephen Watkins
June 8, 2010 @ 10:38 am
I don’t think he was making fun of anybody in this post. I think the whole point of this post is to pose the question of “what is fanfiction?” Does it include published stuff like Pride & Prejudice & Zombies? Does it include licensed Star Wars novels? Or is fanfiction something defined more narrowly. None of the definitions posited make any claims as to the relative quality of fanfiction. (Your Sturgeon quote reference is indeed valid. I write original fiction. 90% of what I’ve written is crap. I’m hoping to improve that ratio over time.)
As you say, “originality is dead”, and so much professional-level work is based on so much other pre-existing work. There are some in the fanfiction community who, apparently, want to broaden the defintion of fanfiction to include virtually any work that derives from or is based in part on some other pre-existing work. But that’s a slippery definition (IMO, anyway). And this post seems to be getting at that question… is that slippery definition useful? Or do we personally define fanfiction more narrowly (as in, for example, “unlicensed and non-professional works using characters and settings from a copyrighted work of fiction” – a definition that says nothing to the quality merits of such a work).
So, you defend that some fanfiction is high quality – even if most is not – and I don’t think anyone would really argue that point. And you you defend the creative value of getting to play in someone else’s creative backyard – another factor I think no one would argue. But the question posed here is something a little different.
Jim C. Hines
June 8, 2010 @ 10:48 am
Thanks, Alexa. What comments are you reading that suggest derision?
Fanfic vs. fan art is an interesting one. I’ve tried to follow my publisher’s policy on fanfiction, but I know they’re fine with fan art, so long as it’s not being sold. (And I love seeing people’s drawings of my characters.)
I’m not aware of anyone here saying fanart or fanfic are evil. On the other hand, some of the fears (What if fanfic author X claims I stole his/her idea for my next book?) don’t really apply to the artwork.
I’m not saying that’s a valid fear. (See my earlier write-up of MZB vs. fanfiction.) But it’s a common one, and might contribute to the different attitudes.
yourlibrarian
June 8, 2010 @ 7:10 pm
A point which hasn’t been raised here yet, is the issue of audience and community for the work, rather than the content or the nature of the original text. There was an interesting discussion of that here:
http://blog.commarts.wisc.edu/2010/04/21/derivative-by-any-other-name-or-a-cultural-approach-to-fan-fiction-genre-theory/
mokie
June 10, 2010 @ 10:44 pm
My problem with defining all derivative works as glorified fanfiction is that it assumes the author is a fan, and in doing so it reduces or outright ignores the derivative work’s actual content and context.
Was the author of “Wide Sargasso Sea” a fan of Jane and Rochester’s rocky romance who felt the need to continue the story? No. She was a Dominican author of mixed race who saw some of herself in Bronte’s slighted outcast, and she used Bronte’s characters and settings as a jumping off point to explore issues of racism and colonialism in the period of the setting. Yes, she rewrote the story from another character’s perspective, but not to squee over a favorite character or explore a different romantic pairing, but as a serious intellectual exercise.
That, for me, is the difference between fanfiction and derivative works–not commercial intent, but intellectual intent. Fanfiction writers see a toy they love and want to play with; authors of derivative works see a tool to explore a different perspective.
Rashaka
June 11, 2010 @ 12:13 am
re: mokie
“Fanfiction writers see a toy they love and want to play with; authors of derivative works see a tool to explore a different perspective.”
I think this assertion makes three mistakes:
1. It does a great disservice to anyone who has used “fan” fiction to explore a different perspective, because you assume that you personally know every fanfic writer’s motivation, that the motivation is a shallow one, and that youc can dismiss the whole basket as neither intellectually challenging nor valuable as a tool cultural criticism.
2. You are ignoring several “genres” of fan fiction which focus on any of the following: minor characters, the broad society or setting without any known characters, past or future of that society, or original characters being written into the world itself to interact with it culturally or intellectually.
3. You’re giving hefty intellectual and creative credit to published derivative works where that credit is not universally earned.
cy
June 11, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
I agree with Rashaka– Mokie, you probably haven’t seen too much of fanfiction if you haven’t seen anything beyond the fangirlish/fanboyish drabbles, etc, that are just there to pair up favorite couples, etc (though admittedly, that is a very large segment of fanfic). There are fics that may well be critical of the stances in the original work and jumped into the world to “right a wrong” that the ficker perceived. And Rashaka is 100% right about how often fanfic is about minor characters, or some aspect of the original story that was not deeply explored, or sometimes only just touched upon, which piqued the ficker’s interest. Otherwise, why write a derivative work/fanfic at all? Just write your own original story w/ your own original characters, right?
Also, about your assertion that published derivative works’ authors are not fans of the original work… I’m pretty sure being a fan of Star Wars is a requisite for all all the authors of officially sanctioned Star Wars novels. =\
Jim C. Hines
June 11, 2010 @ 1:52 pm
Just as a data point, I’m aware of one fairly well known author who talks about writing a media tie-in novel for a TV show … having never watched a single episode of said show. So while I suspect most authors of tie-ins are probably fans, it’s not an across-the-board requirement.
Gryvon
June 11, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
The same can be said for fanfic authors as well. I know a number of authors (and I’m guilty of this as well) who haven’t watched a single episode of the show they’re writing fanfiction for. Usually in those cases, the writer is more a fan of the fandom than of the original source and is familiar enough with the fandom that they can write based off of the fannon (as opposed to cannon) version of events… But even without having watched a source, it’s easy enough to get a good grasp of the source through fan sites and Wikipedia.
Stephen Watkins
June 11, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
A fan of the fandom? That’s very meta.
Mind = blown.
Gryvon
June 11, 2010 @ 2:26 pm
There’s meta fanfic… Somewhere there exists a Fandom/Livejournal fanfic, though I seem to be having trouble finding the link.
cy
June 11, 2010 @ 5:28 pm
Hmm, good point. Then maybe we shouldn’t define the “fan” in “fanfic” as strictly folks who enjoyed the original series, but as folks who are NOT the original author. So maybe as a loose synonym for “amateur” or “apocryphal” so that other readers won’t become confused about whether the fic is a part of the original author’s sanctioned works/world or not.
cy
June 11, 2010 @ 5:31 pm
I actually know exactly what you mean, Gryvon–I was this kind of “fan of the fannon” for Gundam Wing back before it was available in the US. I didn’t go so far as to write fic for it just yet, but I was as embroiled in character liking/disliking, etc, long before I actually saw the series… So it *is* possible (at least, when you’re in junior high and in the first throes of obsession after discovering “anime.” Lol). Strange but true…
Rashaka
June 11, 2010 @ 9:25 pm
re: tie-novels without watching the show
Jim, that falls on my shoulders like a wad of bird poop that I saw coming. I can think of a few tie-in novels where the writing was decent but the characterization was atrocious, and one particular X Files novel where the writer got a major, defining element of a character’s back story completely wrong. I like to *think* they are at least viewers, but I’m not surprised at all to find out this isn’t the case every time.
I don’t read tv or movie tie-in novels very often; I don’t think I’ve read a single one in half a dozen years. I never seem to find them very exciting… I always feel that they’re less daring or explorative (is that a word? should be.) than fanfic, and that corporate constraints make them by necessity less interesting than the show itself. As if the author has a noose around his neck, and if he tries to write beyond the scope of the assignment, the chair he stands on will vanish. So the plot is paint-by-numbers for the series concept, and the characters are tightly constrained to the most conservative reading of their on-screen personalities. There is no growth or development, just stagnant regurgitation of what we’ve already seen.
I know there are many tie-in novels that are better than the above description, but that hasn’t been my lot to find as of yet. (I hear the Doctor Who novels are great.)
Jim C. Hines
June 11, 2010 @ 10:11 pm
Quality varies pretty widely, of course. And it’s been a while since I’ve read tie-ins. Haven’t read Doctor Who, but if you’re into Trek, I’d highly recommend Janet Kagan, Peter David, and a few others.
Speaking for myself only, I’d be very reluctant to write a tie-in for anything where I wasn’t familiar with the show.
Gryvon
June 12, 2010 @ 12:53 am
The Torchwood tie-ins are phenominal, and I’ve heard good things about the Dr. Who novels. Trek’s had a number of good authors, as Jim mentioned.