Fanfiction: weal or woe
I've been peddling Robin Hobb, because I enjoyed her "Farseer" and "Tawny Man" series. I wouldn't say that it deserves a place in the Classics, but it entertained me.
One nice thing is that she is still alive. And I'm always interested to hear the personal "voice" of an author - outside of her work. In general, I also always appreciate and respect it when people articulate strong opinions about anything. I don't always agree with what they say, but it amuses me anyhow.
And today, I am entertained by her diatribe on fan-fiction (as much as I respectfully disagree with the thrust of her arguments),
http://www.robinhobb.com/rant.html ...
... wherein she also cites how fan-fiction violates legal conventions:-
http://www.chillingeffects.org/fanfic/faq.cgi#QID15
(But, they are largely indefensible anyway.)
Here is one fan's general response, which I much agree with:-
http://www.livejournal.com/users/amanuensis1/103104.html
And I have some additional thoughts...
1. One concern Hobb has is that it is a form of literary criticism of her failings.
Well, too bad. Fan-fiction isn't always written by fans - and I've always found that the best criticism comes from people who truly love you. If the only criticism a writer can accept is "favourable" criticism, then she can expect herself to be coddled to death. Yes, it's her story... yes, it's her characters. But there are always better ways to tell a story; take it as feedback and move on. Go ahead, hate the New York Times and all the other critics who don't give favourable reviews.
2. She also argues that it stifles creativity and is qualitatively weaker. I disagree.
Historically, some of the best literature we know have stemmed from classics. For example, there's a whole body of work that has "grown" from Greek classics, and even some of the strongest names in the history of writing and philosophy have dabbled in this genre of fan-fiction from Illiad/Odyssey: e.g "Phedre" (Racine), "Iphegenia in Tauris" (Goethe), "The Flies" (Sarte). Fan-fiction is expedient as a platform for discussing deeper issues and ideas - since the writer can leverage the common background knowledge and not bother with rigourous characterization/ premise setup etc. It's like playing a chess game with the first 15 moves already completed.
I sometimes feel it is more challenging to write creatively within specified rules. I find it more difficult to write a sonnet vs free verse, more difficult to followup on a story with defined characters and/or plot and more difficult to explore deeper/darker issues than work on the basic characterization. And, the underlying competition among these writers for coming up with compelling associated stories... improves the overall quality of work.
Having said that, some fan-fiction writers are indeed cringingly crappy ... but I reckon that without fan-fiction, they would not even have written in the first place. But, I appreciate their efforts and enthusiasm. In recent months, I've even come across writers who have unveiled hidden talents to produce astonishing works. It's truly a genre that incubates amateur and creative work.
She also calls fan-fiction creative "masturbation", I couldn't agree more. It is. But ALL creativity is indulgence. But she says that's bad. Well, some writers just have the fortune to be paid for it, but it doesn't mean that those who aren't have any less creative merit. Part of her implicit concern was porn and gender twisting - but is "porn" always bad? Some of the best works leverage elements of eroticism to dwell on the human dimension/ experience/ tragedy: e.g. Kundera's "Unbearable Lightness of Being".
3. She suggests that is it better to take the story, change the names and do what one wishes with it to make it "original".
Somehow I feel that's even more intellectually dishonest. Taking that much without adding more original material, and claiming credit as one's own without giving credit to the original work, is effect encouraging plagiarism. That, to me, flaunts copyright laws even further. (I don't even want to engage in an IP discussion here, as that would merit an LJ-cut of its own.)
Imitation is the best form of flattery. She should know. Anyone who has read her "Farseer Trilogy" can see how closely the plot and characters had elements of Shakespeare's "King Lear": e.g. King Shrewd/Fool dynamic, Regal=Regan and Goneril. Yes, she changed the names, twisted the plot around a bit and told it from a different perspective. But it is still imitation and variation on the same story theme. ("King Lear" itself was AU fan-fiction, since Shakespeare himself drew from a story of a pre-Christian warrior king in what is now southwest England...)
In summary -- fanfiction is, at worst, a form of creative brain-storming. Writers who fear fanfiction either lack humility or don't feel sufficiently confident of their work and skill. Yes, she has all rights to the canon (which anyway was inspired from other works), but no writer can stop her fans/readers from literary criticism (think of what Shakespeare might feel had he known he would be subject to this much analysis and dissertation), having their own interpretations of the story (Hobb's variation of the "King Lear"-"Fool" dynamic) or considering alternate universes (Kurosawa's "Ran").
Yes, I'm miffed - to say the least.
But as a matter of professional courtesy, I've determined that I shall agree to disagree with her. It was probably difficult for her to have even said something as controversial as this, and I appreciate her courage -- however misperceived she might be. And I'm sure her fan community appreciates that too, as there isn't much fan-fiction around her work. (We are busy people too and we can take our creativity and adulation elsewhere.)
One nice thing is that she is still alive. And I'm always interested to hear the personal "voice" of an author - outside of her work. In general, I also always appreciate and respect it when people articulate strong opinions about anything. I don't always agree with what they say, but it amuses me anyhow.
And today, I am entertained by her diatribe on fan-fiction (as much as I respectfully disagree with the thrust of her arguments),
http://www.robinhobb.com/rant.html ...
... wherein she also cites how fan-fiction violates legal conventions:-
http://www.chillingeffects.org/fanfic/faq.cgi#QID15
(But, they are largely indefensible anyway.)
Here is one fan's general response, which I much agree with:-
http://www.livejournal.com/users/amanuensis1/103104.html
And I have some additional thoughts...
1. One concern Hobb has is that it is a form of literary criticism of her failings.
Well, too bad. Fan-fiction isn't always written by fans - and I've always found that the best criticism comes from people who truly love you. If the only criticism a writer can accept is "favourable" criticism, then she can expect herself to be coddled to death. Yes, it's her story... yes, it's her characters. But there are always better ways to tell a story; take it as feedback and move on. Go ahead, hate the New York Times and all the other critics who don't give favourable reviews.
2. She also argues that it stifles creativity and is qualitatively weaker. I disagree.
Historically, some of the best literature we know have stemmed from classics. For example, there's a whole body of work that has "grown" from Greek classics, and even some of the strongest names in the history of writing and philosophy have dabbled in this genre of fan-fiction from Illiad/Odyssey: e.g "Phedre" (Racine), "Iphegenia in Tauris" (Goethe), "The Flies" (Sarte). Fan-fiction is expedient as a platform for discussing deeper issues and ideas - since the writer can leverage the common background knowledge and not bother with rigourous characterization/ premise setup etc. It's like playing a chess game with the first 15 moves already completed.
I sometimes feel it is more challenging to write creatively within specified rules. I find it more difficult to write a sonnet vs free verse, more difficult to followup on a story with defined characters and/or plot and more difficult to explore deeper/darker issues than work on the basic characterization. And, the underlying competition among these writers for coming up with compelling associated stories... improves the overall quality of work.
Having said that, some fan-fiction writers are indeed cringingly crappy ... but I reckon that without fan-fiction, they would not even have written in the first place. But, I appreciate their efforts and enthusiasm. In recent months, I've even come across writers who have unveiled hidden talents to produce astonishing works. It's truly a genre that incubates amateur and creative work.
She also calls fan-fiction creative "masturbation", I couldn't agree more. It is. But ALL creativity is indulgence. But she says that's bad. Well, some writers just have the fortune to be paid for it, but it doesn't mean that those who aren't have any less creative merit. Part of her implicit concern was porn and gender twisting - but is "porn" always bad? Some of the best works leverage elements of eroticism to dwell on the human dimension/ experience/ tragedy: e.g. Kundera's "Unbearable Lightness of Being".
3. She suggests that is it better to take the story, change the names and do what one wishes with it to make it "original".
Somehow I feel that's even more intellectually dishonest. Taking that much without adding more original material, and claiming credit as one's own without giving credit to the original work, is effect encouraging plagiarism. That, to me, flaunts copyright laws even further. (I don't even want to engage in an IP discussion here, as that would merit an LJ-cut of its own.)
Imitation is the best form of flattery. She should know. Anyone who has read her "Farseer Trilogy" can see how closely the plot and characters had elements of Shakespeare's "King Lear": e.g. King Shrewd/Fool dynamic, Regal=Regan and Goneril. Yes, she changed the names, twisted the plot around a bit and told it from a different perspective. But it is still imitation and variation on the same story theme. ("King Lear" itself was AU fan-fiction, since Shakespeare himself drew from a story of a pre-Christian warrior king in what is now southwest England...)
In summary -- fanfiction is, at worst, a form of creative brain-storming. Writers who fear fanfiction either lack humility or don't feel sufficiently confident of their work and skill. Yes, she has all rights to the canon (which anyway was inspired from other works), but no writer can stop her fans/readers from literary criticism (think of what Shakespeare might feel had he known he would be subject to this much analysis and dissertation), having their own interpretations of the story (Hobb's variation of the "King Lear"-"Fool" dynamic) or considering alternate universes (Kurosawa's "Ran").
Yes, I'm miffed - to say the least.
But as a matter of professional courtesy, I've determined that I shall agree to disagree with her. It was probably difficult for her to have even said something as controversial as this, and I appreciate her courage -- however misperceived she might be. And I'm sure her fan community appreciates that too, as there isn't much fan-fiction around her work. (We are busy people too and we can take our creativity and adulation elsewhere.)