(Untitled)

[pnh]

I'll give Keith DeCandido credit for one thing: he understands that writing doesn't become "professional" just because a professional does it. I assume that he also understands the implication: "pro" and "fan" are terms for things that we do, not things that we are

Comments

[mallory_blog]

IMO - every writer that writes about fairies is writing fan fiction or vampires or werewolves, ghosts, angels, devils, demons, gods, goddesses, zombies, ghouls, orcs, gnomes, goblins, etc....

Much of film is like modern mythology - people see it before they can read and often they never read it and seeing it is very close to it being real in some weird way - did we ever REALLY put men on the moon?

Where theft is coming from can probably be traced to what that person was exposed to at specific ages in their life. It is like a language that is adopted or borrowed to explain something - it is translated into modern scope through shared mainstream cultural experiences - in our case cheesy television and movies.

[kradical]

There's a big difference between a general trope that's in the aether and the use of specific trademarked characters and situations. There's a huge difference between using a vampire in your story because you watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and actually using the characters of Angel and Spike.

[mallory_blog]

Let's look at the 'Devil' and all the multitude of ways that beelzebub or lucifer or satan has shown up in fiction. That's fan fiction. But, because the originator of the first satan isn't around the scream about it - everyone and their brother jump in there to glom on.

Angel and Spike (if they are really lucky) may enter the cultural discussion by name - probably they will enter like Lestat did by a characteristic attached to an even older creation.

Where SHOULD we put the point of awareness? Is the originator of the first angel or satan any less valid because they were around before our much trotted out legal provisions?

Tolkien was a THIEF!!! Did he rifle by actual name? Possibly. I would need to go see. He certainly knew he was stealing ideas and cultural discussion - he was leveraging all the formerly attracted power of the already built character into his storytelling. It is still the same, still a theft.

[greatsword]

I'm not debating your primary topic, but this caught my eye:

I'll happily grant that some good books have been written in the tie-in mines (John M. Ford's Trek novels spring to mind), but the historical absence of such books from lists of Nebula finalists hardly comes as a surprise.

Would it surprise you to hear that this reads a bit like a 'literary' fiction editor discussing genre fiction? I'll grant that the quality of media tie-ins is spotty, but I think that could be said of any category of books. My experience with working on licensed properties (in games) is that it can be much harder than working on original IP. I have a lot of respect for people who do it well.

That being said, I didn't read media tie-in books until one of Vonda McIntyre's Star Trek novels literally fell on my head while I was browsing in a bookstore. Since then I've followed good authors into the tie-in books. I'd add Vonda McIntyre and Barbara Hambly to the list of good authors to pick up, and anyone who hasn't read John M Ford's How Much for Just

[pnh]

Oops! No, I didn't remotely mean to imply that tie-in books can't be any good. I was referring to the fact that many Nebula voters are deeply prejudiced against them.

In other words, I was saying, this is a known problem, and not particularly the fault of the people who made "World Enough and Time," so yoking the two together is hardly fair.

[scifantasy]

yoking the two together is hardly fair.

Keith did admit in the comments that the problem with the tie-ins is Nebula voters' prejudices, not anything to do with "World Enough..." When last I saw, he and one or two others were floating the idea of a bunch of tie-in writers forming a voting bloc to at least get some tie-ins on the preliminary ballot--ten votes is all you need, as I understand it?

[tychoish]

Melissa Scott has done a couple of Trek books that I keep meaning to check out, and of course Janet Kagan's classic _Uhura's Song_ bears mention.

Am I also correct in the general assumption that that creative process is structured different . The people who pen the books don't always have full control over the outline, the time scales are different, people don't take six months to a year to write a tie in novel? right? I'm not saying this means that the novels are fated to be *worse*, but the operate on a different plane. And creative process by committee, is, well, often tragic. It's also easier to write something nebula grade when you have year(s) to write it, I would think.

[beamjockey]

A name like "Zicree" kinda stands out when it goes by in the credits. (Plus, I have his Twilight Zone book.) A glance at IMDB confirms that both Zicree and Reaves are long-established writers of TV science fiction.

[scifantasy]

Sure, but as Keith was saying (and this is the one point Patrick seems to agree with him on), just because something was written by a professional doesn't make it a professional work.

[sethb]

Getting paid for it (or, rather, doing it for pay) makes it professional work.

[kevin_standlee]

Well, maybe. I've been paid for one piece of faan fiction (not fan fiction, which is, as you know, something different) -- my story in Again, Alternate Worldcons. Mike Resnick paid me 1.25 cents/word (most of which I spent buying extra copies of the book to give to my family), so as far as SFWA goes, it doesn't count as a professional sale. Am I bothered by this? No, not at all. I have no aspirations to SFWA membership. WSFS has more than enough drama for my life than for me to need any more of it, thank you.

[kradical]

Thank you for your first paragraph, since far too many people who've entered the discussion on my LJ have conveniently ignored it. (My favorite is what gschnitzer said: "when Kobe Bryant goes down to the local rec center to play some pick-up games with some buddies, it doesn't automatically become a professional NBA game simply because Kobe Bryant is a professional basketball player--no matter how well he plays that day--or no matter how many professional players he has tagging along with him to play.")

Regarding my first silly thing, I never said, "that SFWA ought not to have done this when no works of professionally-written media tie-in fiction have ever made the final ballot." Not once. What I did say, and which I maintain, is that it's silly that this makes the final ballot when tie-ins have never been able to sniff the prelim ballot. But then, the only way that will change is through the same type of grass-rootsing (I just made that word up) that got "WEaT" on the ballot in the first place. But I never said "ought" -- I was bemoaning the

[pnh]

I'm entirely in favor of "protection of copyright," and of the kind of civil society in which one can count on fair play for individuals and enterprises alike. I think most of SFWA would sign off on such a sentiment. It doesn't follow that, absent evidence of anyone claiming to be wronged by "World Enough and Time," SFWA is obliged to police the business arrangements of the film's creators. Evidently enough SFWAns liked the script well enough to put it on the final ballot. Absent a bloody shirt, and particularly considering the revelation that the letter of the rules was met, it would seem Capobianco did the right thing.

I certainly agree that it would be best if the "professional" caveat were to be struck from the rules. It doesn't serve any obviously useful purpose.

[kradical]

Good points, both.

[affinity8]

The Nebula recognizes creative achievement regardless of who owns the copyright. I don't see how a script's creative achievement depends on who owns the copyright any more than a tie-in novel's creative achievement depends on who owns the copyright.

Perhaps the rules could be amended so that the only person who can be nominated is the author who owns the copyright. But that's not the case now.

Also, it's not as if the copyright owner in this case has complained, has he/she/it?

[terri_osborne]

What I find interesting, and more than a bit hypocritical, is the notion that SFWA would allow fan works to be up for awards, but they won't allow fan writers to be members because those same works aren't qualifying sales. It's that part that I just don't get.

But, that's the decision that's been made, and while I disagree with it, I'll abide by it.

[pnh]

Please believe me when I say I literally do not understand how anyone in this could be construed as being "hypocritical." In what way do the facts you cite add up to anybody professing one thing and practicing another