What is Fanfiction?

[jimhines]

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…”

Comments

[jimhines]

Bookshop's post starts out:

"You think fanfic is a personal affront to the many hours you've spent carefully crafting your characters. You think fanfic is "immoral and illegal." You think fanfic is just plagiarism. You think fanfic is illegal. You think fanfic is cheating. You think fanfic is for people who are too stupid/lazy/unimaginative to write stories of their own. You think there are exceptions for people who write published derivative works as part of a brand or franchise, because they're clearly only doing it because they have to. You're personally traumatized by the idea that someone else could look at your characters and decide that you did it wrong and they need to fix it/add original characters to your universe/send your characters to the moon/Japan/their hometown. You think all fanfic is basically porn. You're revolted by the very idea that fanfic writers think what they do is legitimate.

We get it.

Congratulations! You've just summarily dismissed as criminal, immoral, and unimaginative each of the following Pulitzer Prize-winning works..."

To me, that's a pretty clear statement that they consider those following works to be fanfiction.

[blitheringpooks]

In that case, it's a nonsense list. It is an example of derivative works that have literary merit, but not fanfic, in my opinion.

ETA: I'm still not totally sure about that. I see why it appears to be a list of fanfic, but you can also interpret it as, "These authors do what fanfic authors do," can't you?

Or am I reaching?

[jimhines]

Hm ... it's not a flat-out declarative statement that "the following works are fanfiction," but to me, the implication feels pretty darn strong.

[blitheringpooks]

As a defence of fanfic, whether or not she intended the list to be taken as fanfic, I think it fails. Instead of defending fanfic, it is more likely to spark skepticism.

[longstrider]

For me that list is all about this sentence. "You think fanfic is for people who are too stupid/lazy/unimaginative to write stories of their own." Though several of the other ideas as objections later in the quoted section cause similar cognitive dissonances, but for me they are a variation on the same theme (fanfic = porn; others writing your characters is offensive)

If fanfic is wrong because of a reason close to that, then you are dismissing all of the authors of these literally acclaimed works as stupid/lazy/unimaginative.

Aja is making the assumption (rightly or wrongly) that derivative work is functionally equivalent to fanfic. Once your reasoning for why fanfic is bad/wrong strays outside of the legal/money arguments (violation of copyright/trademark; reducing profits; dilution of brand; etc.) I have trouble coming up with a definition of fanfic that isn't functionally equivalent to derivative work in terms of violating those objections.

[tsubaki_ny]

I think you've nailed it. That does seem to be the gist of a lot of arguments.

[b_writes]

This is how I read it, too.

[bewarethespork]

Sorry to just randomly jump into a thread, but having read bookshop's post, I also got the impression that she was making a point about the merit of derivative works, not aiming to provide a list of fanfic. I think it's more "I object to the idea that derivative works have no merit" than "So you don't like fanfic? Well, the jokes on you, because if you like any of these, then you're a hypocrite!" or anything like that.

Personally, I agree. Some of my favourite stories are derivative in some fashion. I eagerly devoured anything by Sophie Masson as a teenager because she took old stories and reworked them into something new and exciting. I loved Eoin Colfer because he took a whole lot of names I'd heard before - elves, fairies, pixies, gnomes - and turned them into something different. A huge part of David Eddings' appeal was always the way he used fantasy tropes as building blocks. Terry Pratchett has retold everything from Phantom of the Opera to Macbeth, and he's one of my favourite authors.

I know that I'm basically preaching to the already converted here, but I think that bookshop was just trying to make the (very valid) point that any author who slams fanfiction just because it's derivative fails to realise just how much room there is for new, exciting ideas and fantastic, innovative storytelling in the realm of derivative works.

[dweomeroflight]

What a surprise to find you here ;)

And Jim Hines your blog is really interesting! It's not often you find an author who likes to discuss things in a rational manner.

In response to the Bookshop post I agree with the above comment, but I'd also like to add that I don't think that post is aimed at all authors, but rather those authors who object to fan fiction based on the perception of unoriginality

I was involved in the discussion of which you quote Jim, and the problem with that particular post was that in having a definition of fan fiction that claimed a derivative work like Wicked was lazy writing and unimaginative, the author in question was criticising a range of deriviative published authors who are well respected in literary circles eg Neil Gaiman and Philip Pullman.

Another huge problem that I have with a definition that labels all fan ficer's as unimaginative and lazy, is that it assumes that a fan fic writer cannot write both fan fic and original fiction (such as in the case of the authors I mentioned above and in fact myself).

I also really didn't understand how said author explained that your works were not fan fiction, despite the fact that this person had already claimed Wicked as such.

Anyway, basically all I am saying is that I think bookshop is having a go at those authors who have such a broad definition of fan fiction that they are in fact criticising their own circle of professional published writers.

Does that make sense?

[marycatelli]

You're personally traumatized by the idea that someone else could look at your characters and decide that you did it wrong and they need to fix it/add original characters to your universe/send your characters to the moon/Japan/their hometown.

And yet people will claim "fanfic" is a compliment. As if "you did it wrong!" is a compliment.

[dweomeroflight]

fan fiction isn't always a compliment it's true. Sometimes a fan fiction writer disagrees with a theme or way that an author positions someone in the text and their engagement with the text is such that they feel the need to rewrite it.

For example, I personally think that the Twilight series is sexist and I have big problems with the message that the author promotes. I write an essay explaining why I don't like it on my blog, but others who feel the same way might simply rewrite a section/chapter/plot etc as a fan fiction to rectify their discontent. In that case it's not about compliments, but rather about how a person engages and responds to a text.

But, that is not to say that all fan fiction should be written off as an insult to the original author because sometimes it really is about complimenting an author for some great characters, storylines etc in fan fic form.