Big bang reveal and literature

[chiiyo86]

-The Big Reveal has finally been posted on spn_j2_bigbang, so I can now officially thank roque_clasique for claiming my story, and for doing it so soon and sparing me the agony of having to wait for days before I knew who my artist was! I'm sure it will be an exciting collaboration, and I can't wait to see what she comes up with. I'm going to try to find the motivation to go

Comments

[galathea_snb]

Well, I guess that depends on how you define 'literature'. I mean, per definition every fanfiction is literature in the sense that it is a text. :) But I guess you mean something wider, if fanfiction is 'art' in the same sense as published books are? I think the obvious difference between fanfiction and literature is that fanfiction isn't 'original fiction' as it feeds off of an already existing creative work of someone else. It has a context that is independent from the fictional work itself - i.e. the show/book/movie plot the story is set in - and requires the reader's knowledge of that context to be understood. I think that's why a lot of people wouldn't consider fanfiction literature, however well written.

I have read fanfiction stories though that are original fiction, mainly in RPF, where no real boundaries are set. Unlike for example in SPN fic, where writers are bound to the rules of the SPN universe Kripke & Co created. In any case, I've read fanfiction that was way better than a lot of published books I've read, so I don't

[chiiyo86]

Yes, obviously I mean a definition of literature a little more narrow than a "text" or there wouldn't be any need for discussion!

I agree that that it all comes down to the fact that fanfic "borrows" characters from someone else, and whether you think that it disqualifies fanfic from being literature. What triggered my interrogation was also when I thought about what is considered without any doubts as literature - I thought about French classical theater (authors like Racine, or Corneilles) because this is the kind of stuff I studied in class. Those authors almost never invented original characters, since they borrowed a lot from Greek legends (that were already the subjects of some Greek tragedies). That's just one example, there are hundreds of others.

and requires the reader's knowledge of that context to be understood.

That's an interesting point... It's true that a lot of fanfics assume their readers have a certain knowledge of "canon" which makes them difficult to read by outsiders.

I have read fanfiction stories though

[smilla02]

In a word, yes. I guess it depends what you define as literature, obviously, but I do think that fanfiction can be art.

I don't think that the divide is to be found in original vs derivative, though - and fanfiction at its best is derivative or transformative work - because there's nothing that can claim to be truly original; every work of art is a summation and or draws inspiration from existing works (think about what Campbell says about the myth of the hero's journey, for example).

Also, because it was relevant when the Diana Gabaldon stuff came up, this post may answer your question better than I can. :D

[chiiyo86]

In fact that question came up because I was curious to see what other fanfics writers/readers thought about that and what their definition of what constitutes literature was, and what kind of distinctions they made.

You're right, nothing is ever new. And as I said in my reply to the comment above, a lot of great writers borrowed characters that they didn't created (I was thinking about French classical tragedy that borrowed a lot of characters from Greek legends, but there are other examples).

I told a few days ago to a girl who's in school with me that I wrote fanfic. I had to explain it a bit to her because she had barely heard about it, but I was surprised to see how genuinely interested she was, so that was nice. :)

[adrenalineshots]

That is the question, isn't it? Can the stuff we write be considered a literary piece of work or not?

I agree with was said above. If, in one hand, we are using characters that were created by others, then again, those others are also borrowing their characters from someone else (usually the Greek, Roman, Persian and what have you legends and folklore). So, if the archetypes are already defined for centuries now, what we're really using here is the same characters' names, isn't it?

Because Dean is not only Dean; he's every other common man who was forced by circumstances to rise above, to fight the gods, to go where no one had gone before. So, if we called him Perseus or Ulysses... would that make our writings more original and less fanficishAnd Sam? Isn't he like any other character that we've met before, forced to face his own dark side and struggle to rise above his own flaws? If we called him Anakin Skywalker, or even Hercules, would it sound better

[chiiyo86]

they are original pieces of written word and, though we may never make a buck on them, they still have their literary value.

Yes, I agree. Obviously, there is a world of difference between the worst written fanfiction and the best written, but there's also a world of difference between the worst written published book and the best written published book!

I don't think fanfic is worth nothing because we're borrowing characters (or because we don't make money on it!), but I was curious to see if some people made a difference between fanfic and literature, and why. For now, no one has said anything like that!

[adrenalineshots]

"I don't think fanfic is worth nothing because we're borrowing characters.."

Yeah, I know :O)
Sadly, many do. Still, this will always be a very interesting discussion.

[chiiyo86]

Sadly, many do.

Don't I know it! I have a friend who thinks that way. "But why can't you create your own characters?" is something that I've heard a few times from her. I'm not sure I've managed to convince her that it's not out of laziness or lack of imagination. :(