Redefining (fan)fic
So! There's been this great discussion, born initially from the AO3 Content Committee's call for feedback about allowing original works. I'll not attempt to define sides, though two responding to that initial issue are readily apparent, because there are too many shades in any conflict, and this is true also here, and particularly in this case I see no benefit from it. This post will mainly be me rambling about my struggle with my own definitions of stuff, and the conclusion I reached. If I say something offensive about your fannish practices (like, they not being fannish!), feel free to call me on it, and I'll attempt to rectify. This is not an attempt at policing fannish identity, seriously.
So, first, some interesting links that brought me where I am:
lian is perhaps the person I find most agreeing with in this debate. This is not weird, as our fannish experiences are not dissimilar in the points that matter for this issue. Her post is on that origfic discussion.
The second is a very eye opening poll that I answered thinking I knew everything had the concepts clear in my head, and that now after a while has cracked my head open. A bit.
melannen's On original fic and fanfic.
The third one is a very pointed post by
alias_sqbr: Things that are not a property of all fanworks. This formulated a couple of things for me that finally helped me reach... something resembling the light. At 5 am.
OK, now. My working definition for fanfic was something like: fiction, written by a fan, based on (working from/using/responding to/&c) a fictional work by another person. Also, written or published preferably in a fandom.
Now, I know this doesn't quite work, for many things. I didn't have trouble calling everything else original work (and considering everything else that is clearly a response to a canon but not fulfilling the other points 'quasi fanfic') and yet that name was not, for me, something that precluded the work from being fannish work. I know this naming scheme has many many holes. First of all, something that requires classification of some parts as 'quasi' other parts--not belonging to a category of their own--is clearly shoddy thinking.
But, er, though I find the parts of 'made in fandom', and 'for fans', and 'by fans' very important for me personally (as it's perhaps obvious from previous posts), they're not that materially... influential, to the work itself. That is, if you would be made to read a piece of (fan)fiction, you wouldn't be able to tell without a doubt, barring direct allusions, if it was written in isolation or not. After all, many fanfic tropes are tropes from genre literature, and not all fanfics written inside fandom follow fannish tropes or are recognizably fannish--particularly by fans from other corners of fandom than the writer. (My most readily available example would be Yuletide fic. There is, definitively, stuff that sounds 'media fandom fannish', there. There's also tons of stuff that doesn't.) So, I naturally didn't feel I could make up a new category based on that.
Then, the original content vs the drawn from a source content requisite. I've to confess that I've always privately considered RPF (historical or otherwise) original fiction. That is because my division of where the fiction drew from was: 'fictional stuff', and 'real stuff'. And I can totally understand the constructed persona of performers, &c, but... that's like thinking I will be writing fanfic if I decide to write a story about a teacher or a classmate of mine. They also construct a sort of 'character' they present to the world. I (also) do that. One wouldn't be able to write original fic based on anyone real but oneself!
Or at least, that was my reasoning. But, you see, I'm not sure that the transformativeness (that is so a word!) of something (not talking about its legal meaning here) can be measured by the grade of fictionalization of the source it's transforming. Isn't all fiction transformative of reality? Isn't the grade of fiction of that reality a continuum?
Let's get particular. I think everyone will agree that writing a story about Harry Potter is fanfiction. I think anyone will agree that taking Harry Potter out of his universe and writing him in another context is also fanfiction. And that taking his universe and writing in other character(s) is, also, fanfiction. And I've seen this fic! I mean, I love world based fanfiction.
And you know? I suddenly realized, a little while ago, that people writing original Regency romances in the JA fandom were essentially... taking the universe of JA's novels... and writing original characters in it. But... suddenly, the fact that JA wrote realistic stories in her era make their universe reality, and any fiction, even if written by fans in a fannish context, original fiction.
But--couldn't one be, like, a fan of the era? (Victorian era AU Steampunk!) And no, I don't mean an anthropomorphous era (interest in Medieval/Renaissance!hatesex!PWP notwithstanding). And if one could--is there any reason the current one would be excluded? Why are not current real people excluded, then?
I firmly think that the definitions of fanfiction (and, by extention, of fanworks) are completely conditioned to our own fannish experience. We don't have working definitions to include all of fandom, because we've never needed it. Fandom is not One Big Happy Fandom, as much as some of us would want.
I think... to me, that only means that working towards that goal--or simply thinking Fandom would benefit from having a common ground in which to exchange ideas--includes changing out definitions to include new dimensions of fannishness we hadn't previously considered.
This entry was originally posted at dreamwidth. That post has
comment(s). You can comment there, or here.
So, first, some interesting links that brought me where I am:
lian is perhaps the person I find most agreeing with in this debate. This is not weird, as our fannish experiences are not dissimilar in the points that matter for this issue. Her post is on that origfic discussion.
The second is a very eye opening poll that I answered thinking I knew everything had the concepts clear in my head, and that now after a while has cracked my head open. A bit.
melannen's On original fic and fanfic.
The third one is a very pointed post by
alias_sqbr: Things that are not a property of all fanworks. This formulated a couple of things for me that finally helped me reach... something resembling the light. At 5 am.
OK, now. My working definition for fanfic was something like: fiction, written by a fan, based on (working from/using/responding to/&c) a fictional work by another person. Also, written or published preferably in a fandom.
Now, I know this doesn't quite work, for many things. I didn't have trouble calling everything else original work (and considering everything else that is clearly a response to a canon but not fulfilling the other points 'quasi fanfic') and yet that name was not, for me, something that precluded the work from being fannish work. I know this naming scheme has many many holes. First of all, something that requires classification of some parts as 'quasi' other parts--not belonging to a category of their own--is clearly shoddy thinking.
But, er, though I find the parts of 'made in fandom', and 'for fans', and 'by fans' very important for me personally (as it's perhaps obvious from previous posts), they're not that materially... influential, to the work itself. That is, if you would be made to read a piece of (fan)fiction, you wouldn't be able to tell without a doubt, barring direct allusions, if it was written in isolation or not. After all, many fanfic tropes are tropes from genre literature, and not all fanfics written inside fandom follow fannish tropes or are recognizably fannish--particularly by fans from other corners of fandom than the writer. (My most readily available example would be Yuletide fic. There is, definitively, stuff that sounds 'media fandom fannish', there. There's also tons of stuff that doesn't.) So, I naturally didn't feel I could make up a new category based on that.
Then, the original content vs the drawn from a source content requisite. I've to confess that I've always privately considered RPF (historical or otherwise) original fiction. That is because my division of where the fiction drew from was: 'fictional stuff', and 'real stuff'. And I can totally understand the constructed persona of performers, &c, but... that's like thinking I will be writing fanfic if I decide to write a story about a teacher or a classmate of mine. They also construct a sort of 'character' they present to the world. I (also) do that. One wouldn't be able to write original fic based on anyone real but oneself!
Or at least, that was my reasoning. But, you see, I'm not sure that the transformativeness (that is so a word!) of something (not talking about its legal meaning here) can be measured by the grade of fictionalization of the source it's transforming. Isn't all fiction transformative of reality? Isn't the grade of fiction of that reality a continuum?
Let's get particular. I think everyone will agree that writing a story about Harry Potter is fanfiction. I think anyone will agree that taking Harry Potter out of his universe and writing him in another context is also fanfiction. And that taking his universe and writing in other character(s) is, also, fanfiction. And I've seen this fic! I mean, I love world based fanfiction.
And you know? I suddenly realized, a little while ago, that people writing original Regency romances in the JA fandom were essentially... taking the universe of JA's novels... and writing original characters in it. But... suddenly, the fact that JA wrote realistic stories in her era make their universe reality, and any fiction, even if written by fans in a fannish context, original fiction.
But--couldn't one be, like, a fan of the era? (Victorian era AU Steampunk!) And no, I don't mean an anthropomorphous era (interest in Medieval/Renaissance!hatesex!PWP notwithstanding). And if one could--is there any reason the current one would be excluded? Why are not current real people excluded, then?
I firmly think that the definitions of fanfiction (and, by extention, of fanworks) are completely conditioned to our own fannish experience. We don't have working definitions to include all of fandom, because we've never needed it. Fandom is not One Big Happy Fandom, as much as some of us would want.
I think... to me, that only means that working towards that goal--or simply thinking Fandom would benefit from having a common ground in which to exchange ideas--includes changing out definitions to include new dimensions of fannishness we hadn't previously considered.
This entry was originally posted at dreamwidth. That post has
comment(s). You can comment there, or here.