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

[kosarin]

I definitely agree with your definition, but I do think the point that fanfic isn't unoriginal - look at these famous people who write in the same "unoriginal" fashion - is a good one. I have no idea if that's what the writers of that particular argument were going for, it seems that it wasn't.

Though I'm not sure fanfic has to be shared - a number of authors I admire have admitted to writing Lord of the Rings "fanfiction" before the existence of the internet, that was not shared. But like you said, it's a good broad description that probably doesn't cover every little example.

[jimhines]

Ooh - very good point re: sharing vs. writing for one's self. Definition has been tweaked to address this, thank you.

[shekkara]

Bookshop has an overly broad definition of fanfic. I don't think retelling a story with new setting, characters, etc. constitutes fanfic. Going down the slipery slope of their definition, then almost everything is fanfic these days. When I look at published books for one that I think cross close to being "fanfic", I think of books like Elizabeth Aston's _Mr. Darcy's Daughters_, which directly uses the same characters and world as the original and builds *on* to the original storyline. In fact, it's marketed as the sequel to Pride and Prejudice. If this were an unpublished "sequel" to a published work still in copyright, it really would be fanfic.

In other words, my definition is much like yours. And I exclude parody, too.

[jimhines]

It's strange to think that the status/description of a story as fanfiction or not could depend not on the story itself, but on completely external factors (is the original source material in copyright? is this a licensed work or not?) I do think the external factors are as important as the inherent ones, but it makes my brain spin a little bit :-)

[shekkara]

It's odd. On one level, I do view the Dary Daughter novels as fanfic. They are, as dopmusis1999 wrote, "a lovingly created story that honors an author's original (commerical, at any rate) work." Perhaps they are legally publishable fanfic that has had the fortune to be published. :-)

[beccastareyes]

Depends on the context. I've seen two types of arguments against fanfiction* -- the legal argument that writing unauthorized derivative fiction of work in copyright is actionable, and the 'moral' argument(s) that writing derivative fiction is uncreative or stealing or something

[crazywritergirl]

The "personally upsets the author" issue seems ironic to me. Authors want characters who live on in the readers' minds, entrance them, seduce them even, but heaven forbid if that reader then decides to take those characters and tell a story of their own. It's much like wanting the sky but complaining when that same sky rains on you.

I'd rather have my readers totally hooked on my characters and where they might end up writing some stories that make me cringe, so be it. I just won't read them and that way everyone is happy.

#3

[marycatelli]

My personal favorite story of that was when a fanfic prefaced her Harry Potter story with a notice that she had invented a aister for Draco and this character was hers and no one else was to use them.

[sartorias]

I think there is an interlocking chain here. As blitheringpooks points out, the history of literature evolved from writers delving into older works and transforming them into something new. Ariosto is using Arthurian material, specifically Roland, as had writers for four hundred years previous.

There is some terrific fanfiction out there, written by superlative writers who have chosen this method of expression because they have something to say. Three hundred years ago, there would be no problem with that. It was expected. Now we have copyright protection, so these writers create their works knowing that they will not be able to profit from them, if the material they are drawing on is copyright protected. They can still have thousands of readers. They just don't get a print artifact, or money.

I asked a couple of weeks ago for recommendations of well written transformative fiction so that anyone curious about fanfiction could begin with some examples admired by those who read (and write) fanfiction

[blitheringpooks]

Her list gives the appearance of attempting to defend the potential literary merits of fanfic by labeling things fanfic that never were. That's where it gets sticky. (I'm still not certain whether she intended that list to be taken as fanfic rather than transformative works, but either way, there's too much confusion and it dilutes the debate from merit to "wtf?")

[sartorias]

My tentative feeling is that 'transformative' like 'good' is often in the eye of the beholder, which definitely muddies the waters. Some consider Maguire's Oz series transformative, others parody or satire, and a third set think it hack work for cashing in.

It was interesting watching the legal battle over Wind Done Gone to see how fanfiction would be defined in lawyerland; as I recall they plumped for 'satire.'

[blitheringpooks]

I admit I'm not that familiar with the term transformative in this case. Derivative seems to fit, because they are mostly all derivative and do prove the point that good writers can create art/literature based on the works of others, despite Ms Gabaldon's claims. I felt a lot of sympathy for her pov and understood how protective she feels of her work, whether or not I'd feel the same way. It was her attacks on the writers of fanfic that crossed the line.

[blpurdom]

Perhaps we need to start with the fact that some people say "fanfiction" like that's a BAD thing. Humans have been producing fanfiction for a very long time just in the way stories have been retold around fires on a winter's evening, with each successive story-teller embellishing upon the previous version and making it his/her own. (I have a collection of Italian folktales and fairy tales edited by Italo Calvino, and some of the stories are actually "outtakes" from The Odyssey! Some I also recognize from Grimm, Perrault and Hans Christian Anderson

[shoiryu]

Perhaps we need to start with the fact that some people say "fanfiction" like that's a BAD thing. I think that this is essentially the crux of bookshop's argument and the reason for her frustration!

[dweomeroflight]

Exactly! That and the fact that certain authors are airing their views on fan fiction in a way that slams published authors as well as fan fic writers.

[blitheringpooks]

I believe that all derivative works do in fact fall under the category of fanfiction but that there are different types of fanfiction--saleable and unsaleable.

Does that mean you don't think the "written by fans who love the universe" is a valid part of the definition of fanfiction? Because often writers are hired to do just that, and are doing it for the job, not because they were already fans. I agree that all fanfiction falls under the banner of derivative works, but not that all derivative works are fanfiction.

And I like fanfiction.