This is topic OSC on fan fiction, or why good stories can borrow characters in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=042382

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
In another thread, it was pointed out that OSC says the following when discussing how he feels about fan fiction.

quote:
It is also a poor substitute for the writers' inventing their own characters and situations. It does not help them as writers; it can easily harm me; and those who care about my stories and characters know that what I write is "real" and has authority, and what fans write is not and does not. So it's all pointless.
I think this statement by OSC is quite wrong. The point of fan fiction is not to help oneself as a writer. The point is to express a story about previously existing characters. I think few if any fan fiction writers really intend to become profitable writers off of that, but rather do it because they love a story, world, or set of characters and want to further it. And it is possible to create something very good from someone else's characters, world, and story - just look at the Greek tragedies, or Shakespeare, or Magic Street, all of which take other characters, stories, or worlds and twist them to make them their own.

More importantly, it is not true that what an author writes about characters he invented is "real" and what other authors write about those characters is not "real". It is the reader that has the authority to determine which stories are accepted as "real", not the author. Shakespeare's depiction of Puck is not inherently more or less real than OSC's in Magic Street, despite the fact that Shakespeare created the character and OSC borrowed him from Shakespeare. Rather, it is up to you as the reader to decide whether to accept one or both as real. If you think Shakespeare's work is better, and that OSC's work ruins the characters, then it is within your authority as a reader to decide that Shakespeare's are more real to you. And if you find OSC's more realistic and Shakespeare's unrealistic, you are free to consider Shakespeare's to be false even though it came first. That is where the authority lies in determining what belongs in the canon of "real" stories about a particular character or world - it lies with the reader, not the author.

And for these reason, I don't think fan fiction is pointless. It is the expression of a story that the author feels should be told, just like all other fiction. A lot of fan fiction is very poorly written, but the same can be said for fiction in general. That is reason only to write off the bad stuff, not fan fiction in general. So while copyright rules may prohibit the publishing of any fan fiction related to copyrighted works, the writing itself is still not necessarily pointless (unless you think the only point of writing is to publish).
 
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Shakespeare assuredly did not create Puck; he was a staple of fairy tales - the kind the brothers Grimm didn't collect - long before Shakespeare's time. And incidentally, Kipling's Puck is the best.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I've never understood OSC's strong reaction to fan fiction.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Yeah, I've always found it puzzling as well.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I've directly asked him about it several times (here on the forums), and there seemed to be a simple, obvious rebuttal to every point he's made on the subject.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I agree, Tres, though I disagree that fan fiction doesn't help some writers. One of the writers I edit for took a year off between novels, while she was starting her own business.

When she came back to me with her third novel, it was a LOT better than the first two. She was always great at dialogue and characterization, but some of her descriptions and such were clunky or awkward in the first two.

I noted the change (which was surprising) and said, "Okay, what did you do?" I thought maybe she'd taken a class or joined a workshop or something. Finally, under threat of creatively painful death, she confessed to having written a smallish fan fic novel "just to keep my hand in."

The complete lack of pressure for it to be "the best she could do" freed her from the inner critic long enough to write out some of the requisite crap we all have in us.

I can see that it doesn't help someone with world-building or characterization (if they use both characters and worlds built by someone else - though some fanfic I've seen uses either one or the other).

On the other hand, I really don't see the point in writing fanfiction of a written work. I thought most of it was for tv shows or movies. *shrug*

For most, though, I think it's a hobby more than a vocation. I don't understand the fuss. *shrug*
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Tres, you're wrong. [Smile]

There is a difference between fan fiction as commonly and modernly perceived, and taking mythologies and characters from classics and reworking them.

One very concrete way writing fan fiction hurts writers: time you could have spent making your own worlds you use instead dipping into somone else's.

It's rather like babysitting, IMO. Not harmful, but you really do miss out on the joys of having these little creatures that are all...your...own.

Or mostly your own.

quote:
the writing itself is still not necessarily pointless (unless you think the only point of writing is to publish).
I hear this all the time from people who aren't writers. [Smile]

It [writing?] may not be about the money from being published. It IS about connecting with other people through the dissemination of words and ideas you yourself stuck together. That's why publishing is worthwhile.

Some folks find fulfillment in fan fiction. That's okay, I guess, but if they're good writers, I'm sad that they aren't sharing their own inventions with the world.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
It's rather like babysitting, IMO. Not harmful, but you really do miss out on the joys of having these little creatures that are all...your...own.

Or mostly your own.

What if you don't want to bother with little creature all your own, but you still enjoy babysitting?
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
On the other hand, I really don't see the point in writing fanfiction of a written work. I thought most of it was for tv shows or movies. *shrug*
There is a lot of Harry Potter fanfiction out there.
 
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
Yep, and a lot of it is a lot better than the original. Which, incidentally, is why I read it.

Edit to add: Most of the things we do don't have much of a "point" to them. We do them because they're fun or enjoyable. Fanfiction is like that. There's also a huge community aspect to it that's very enjoyable.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I'm a writer. And I write fan fiction occasionally.

Sometimes because I want a break from my own stuff. Sometimes because I need a break from my own stuff, or because it isn't flowing at the moment and I want to exercise a bit with the pressure off. Sometimes just because I thought of a cool plot to use with beloved characters that wouldn't work in any other situation, and I want to tell others about it.

And all writing is practice. Even if you don't get the world-building in, you get practice in characterization, POV, and dialogue, since your readers will definitely let you know if you don't write their favorite characters correctly.

The reasoning here seems to be that mechanics shouldn't work on cars for fun, or musicians shouldn't come up with tunes to amuse themselves with that they know they can't sell. Or, for that matter, that people who have no interest in writing for a living shouldn't write anything at all because they're wasting their time. Chill, people. Not everything has to have a purpose.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Yeah, but they are movies, too, and aimed at the peak fanfic demographic (I think many young'uns start in with the fanfic when they read/see something they really like, come to the end and want it to go on).

There is a lot of LotR fanfic, too (which was the first sort of organized fanfic/community thing I ever stumbled across, back when I was looking for movie news and the Very Secret Diaries were hot), but there wasn't nearly as much before the movies.

I admit, though, that Harry Potter fanfic probably existed well before the movies, in large quantities (I don't know enough about the various worlds of fanfic to speak authoritatively). I just think that Harry Potter fan fiction isn't typical in that way.

Interestingly, I've heard that Rowling (like Whedon some others) is very encouraging to fanfic writers.

I wonder why that is.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I imagine that it's because it helps them when people immerse themselves in their universes -- it makes them all the more likely to purchase the next commercial installment, if for no other reason then that they continue to particpate in the fanfic community.
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
I don't like fanfic in concept. But not because of the reason most people wouldn't like it.

I don't like it because it's not "canon". I can read it and read it and read it but it doesn't matter because "This didn't really happen in the story."

That being said, one of the coolest things I ever read on the internet was a star trek fanfic about a ship called "The Vigilante" designed to fight the borg. Apparently the guys at paramount liked that fanfic too because a year or two later DS9 came out with The Defiant which was erily similar to the description of the Vigiliante.......

Still though... I avoid reading fanfic (unless it's firefly fanfic written by Chris because he's got the characters down so well.)

Pix
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
blackwolve - I have had many people tell that is the case with some fanfic (better than the original) but have been unwilling to dedicate the time to reading a bunch of stuff to find out. I'd be interested in knowing which stories specifically, you have found that are that good. (Ladyday once told me she was avidly following a HP fic that centered on the redemption of Draco, but I think she said the author abandoned it when she got something original published. I may be mis-remembering, but she praised it so passionately that I had meant to find it.)

Chris- Your coolness knows no bounds. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
In Whedon's case, it's because his driving force is to make worlds that people have to live in, rather than casually enjoy. Also, because he's the biggest fan of them all. I'm just sorry he can't legally read any of them, he's missing some good stuff.
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
Olivet: When Tolkien designed middle earth, he wanted other writers to write in that world (Or so I heard on one of the Extras on the FOTR DVD.) So Middle Earth fan fic is perfectly acceptable.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
I don't like it because it's not "canon". I can read it and read it and read it but it doesn't matter because "This didn't really happen in the story."
I don't consider Star Wars episodes 1-3 cannon either.
 
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
Olivet- I can email you links to some of my favorite fanfics. I should warn you that I read novel length fics almost exclusively, so they're mostly very long.
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Pix, I'm the same way. Fanfic is not "real" to me.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Olivet - dunno if it's the one you're talking about, but Cassandra Claire (of the LOTR Secret Diaries fame) has a series of Draco-centered HP fanfic. Haven't read it yet but I plan to just based on the diaries.

There is a ton of Firefly fiction (flanfiction?) out there, which I am currently adding to, and the single hardest thing is finding a way to wade through it all to find the good stuff. There are a few journals here and there that seek to review them, and a couple of contests that can help, but for the most part it's an exhausting time of reading a few pages and moving on to the next. Where are the fanfiction review sites?
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
mph: Alien 3 and 4 aren't canon to me either =)
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Or Superman 3 and 4. Or about half of the Star Trek movies. Or an increasing number of Laurell K. Hamilton books. Or...
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I imagine that it's because it helps them when people immerse themselves in their universes -- it makes them all the more likely to purchase the next commercial installment, if for no other reason then that they continue to particpate in the fanfic community.

That makes sense to me. But then why do you have other (equally successful) writers who are not so tolerant? I've heard that if you sneeze within a mile of Anne Rice and it sounds like "Lestat" she siccs her attack lawyers on you. (Don't read Anne Rice anymore (little bit ashamed I ever did *shudder* ) and certainly not vampire fanfic, but I did hear that she served a vampire detective anime/manga company with a c&d because they had a vampire character who was haunted by his vampire maker who happened to be blond. It seemed like overkill.)
 
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
On LJ there are a ton of Harry Potter Rec communities. I assume there are a lot for Firefly as well.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Couldn't the people who write the scripts for TV shows that they didn't have a hand in creating be viewed as writing fanfic?
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
If you're paid for it and the scripts are accepted in the show, it's officially canon. Especially since the show's editors would go over them to make sure they fit the tone and goals of the show.

Closer to blurry fanfic would be the Firefly novel written by Steven Brust on spec back when Pocket Books was going to publish original Serenity novels. He wrote the whole thing, and now that it seems the books aren't going to happen (and his might not have anyway, since writers were told to write post-movie) he's said he'll probably post the whole thing online.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Noemon: not if they get paid. [Wink]

Blackwolve- that would be great. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I think the whole idea of "cannon" in fictional universes to be a bit silly.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
I'll agree with both Pix and dkw and go with the "non-canon" approach. I also hate it because most fanfic people are the kind of raging, rabid fans that tend to turn me off of certain TV shows, movies and book series.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
So if I were to write a script for a show it would be fanfic, but if I the producers of the show bought it from me it would cease to be fanfic?


It's funny--in principle I'm of the "canon is, to me, what I recognize as canon" camp, but in practice whatever the author comes up with is canon. I may see Star Wars I-III as crap, but I see them as canonical crap.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
There's the problem with fanfic: the lack of guidance. Too many fanfics are written by untalented writers, and far too many are "Mary Sue" stories where the writer obviously and painfully writes him- or herself in as an incredibly beautiful and talented character that solves all the problems while the cast falls in love with him/her.
I'm also not fond of most slash fiction, where the writer seems determined to get the most unlikely cast members togther and slippery.

But there is also some great stuff out there.

If you write a script on spec you have written a script. It's likely you wouldn't publish it anywhee while waiting to hear from the show, so it would be in limbo until it was bought (canon) or not (fanfic, or waste paper, your call).

Something might be official canon (Star Wars I-III) that I recognize as canon, but refuse to acknowledge as canon, if that makes sense.

Here's a canon question for you: there was a written and accepted Firefly script that was never filmed or broadcast. Would it be canon? It was "Dead or Alive," written by Cheryl Cain. Would you consider that canon? (I would)

[ April 05, 2006, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I think the whole idea of "cannon" in fictional universes to be a bit silly.

Oh, I don't know--there are some contexts in which artillery just makes *sense* in terms of the plot--you couldn't really have an accurate Napoleonic War story, for example, without at least mentioning it.

[Wink]
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I think the whole idea of "cannon" in fictional universes to be a bit silly.

Cannon to the left of them
Cannon to the right!
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
As I said, I think the reader is the only person with the authority to determine what should be considered canon and what shouldn't. Ultimately it is the reader who imagines the story and judges whether it is believable or not, isn't it? Sometimes I think people give too much authority to authors. If you don't think Star Wars Ep. 1-3 are good then I think you don't have to consider them a "real" part of the original story just because George Lucas wants you to. And if you think a piece of fan fiction is better than the original, I think it's okay to consider the fan fiction to be the primary work you care about.
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I think the whole idea of "cannon" in fictional universes to be a bit silly.

True... But at heart I'm still the 7 yr old girl who cries out "That didn't happen!" when mommy misremembers events in a story she's told a dozen times before.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
There's the problem with fanfic: the lack of guidance.
Lucas and Jordan have the same problem, and they're "legitimate".
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I think the whole idea of "cannon" in fictional universes to be a bit silly.

True... But at heart I'm still the 7 yr old girl who cries out "That didn't happen!" when mommy misremembers events in a story she's told a dozen times before.
Sounds like a personal problem to me. [Wink]
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
quote:
the writing itself is still not necessarily pointless (unless you think the only point of writing is to publish).
I hear this all the time from people who aren't writers.
Perhaps that is because you are defining writers as only those who publish, rather than everyone who writes. [Wink]
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Lucas and Jordan have the same problem, and they're "legitimate".

Well, to me, this makes writing fanfic based on their universes even more pointless.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I don't see why.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Ugh. My son just got the first Jedi Apprentice novel from the library.

On, like, the first page they have a Jedi Inntitiate sparring with a red lightsaber. Yeah, he's a 'bad guy' in the story, but I thought only Sith sabers were red.

I don't consider anything written in the Galaxy Far, Far Away to be cannon. AAMOF, I don't consider great portions of prequel dialogue to be cannon, either. My cannon exists only in my head. I call it head cannon.
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
mph: =P
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Well, to me, this makes writing fanfic based on their universes even more pointless.

Why? If I was that annoyed at the apparent ruination of a universe I loved, I might be inspired to do it better. Something like the fan that recut "Phantom Menace" himself without the racist alien languages or Jar-Jar.
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Historical note:

What is usually considered the first modern novel?

Cervante's Don Quixote in 1605.

Cervante returned to the Don Quixote story 9 years later.

Why?

Fan Fic had taken over his beloved characters and was doing all kinds of preposterous things to them. The Second Chronicles of Don Quixote was a battle against this theft of his characters. We've been battling this windmill ever since.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Here's another bit of confusion: which official items are canon?

The events of the Star Wars books, even though they are "official," have often been contradicted by the movies. Same with Star Trek. The people making the movies simply don't feel constrained by anything besides the other movies (or, in Trek's case, the show as well).

Personally I consider Peter David's ST books to be the highest form of fan fiction. Not only is he clearly a fan, he goes out of his way to explain and fix apparent mistakes from the series in understandable, logical ways. He even invented a whole new ST crew! But no movie will ever acknowledge his characters (dammit), so his work, like the many other ST writers, is only sort-of canon.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Don Quixote seems to have weathered the vile fanfic rather well.
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
*scurries off to write "Don Quixote Vs Godzilla"*

"Sancho! I think we need a bigger box!"
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I want to see Don Quixote as the Defence Against The Dark Arts teacher.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
that is because you are defining writers as only those who publish, rather than everyone who writes.
Actually, when I say "writer," I mean someone who consistently writes and consistently submits what he writes for publication, for pay.
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Chris, Star Trek contradicts itself in different episodes. Star Trek and Canon do not go together.

And Mr. Port, while Don Quixote and Sancho have weathered the vile fanfic writers, Senor Cervante's was greatly inconvienced by them. Fortunes were made off of Don Quixote--pirated versions, and fan fic authors. Very little was made by Cervante's himself.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Actually, when I say "writer," I mean someone who consistently writes and consistently submits what he writes for publication, for pay.
In that case, what are you saying beyond "People who don't publish (or try to) don't think that publishing is as important as people who do publish (or try to)."?
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Mark Twain was also severely inconvenienced by pirated copies, and he worked hard to stop them.

But that's not the point here. Fan fiction these days tends to pump up interest in the original. It can't be published so it's difficult to confuse with the "real thing," and it keeps fans interested. Star Trek was kept alive by fan fiction and self-published 'zines that turned into conventions and ultimately into original books, more movies, and new shows. The X-Files was helped in its first few struggling years by a surge of online fan fiction (because the thought of Mulder and Scully together, or Mulder and Krychek, was just too irresistable). And then there's Firefly...
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
I do not read or write fanfaction unless I am given assurances it is very good. I do not mind people writing in worlds, and using characters- when I first started to write I borrowed elements like there was no tomorrow. I was inspired, that's okay.

But I agree whole-heartledly with what C.B. said:

quote:
There's the problem with fanfic: the lack of guidance. Too many fanfics are written by untalented writers, and far too many are Mary Jane stories where the writer obviously and painfully writes him- or herself in as an incredibly beautiful and talented character that solves all the problems while the cast falls in love with him/her.
I'm also not fond of most slash fiction, where the writer seems determined to get the most unlikely cast members togther and slippery.

I think it's fine to investigate already colourful worlds and put yourself in them- It's like daydreaming on paper- I just don't read it (or write it) because it compromises my own view of the imaginary world as presented in the 'canon'. Besides I have my own worlds [Smile] .

I do like a faithful, story-contained fanfiction, although unless someone strongly recommended, I wouldn't read a layman's work. A lot of 'real' published work is fanfiction of a sort- all those re-examinationations of Shakespeare plays, King Arthur stories, Bible stories (OSC so writes bible fanfiction, 'scuse the 'fiction')... it's all fanfiction, just very, very, very well done. Stories are there to be retold.

The only 'fanfiction' I have written included real people (actors), as in the use of the kind of mythology of the actor as percieved by the average teenage girl (my friends) for comic effect. The setting was the Oscars and both my friends and the actors in question were the characters. I have to say that for the audience it was written for, I still find them pretty amusing.

Oh, I've also rewritten Bible stories because it's so much fun.
 
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 
I, personally, don't like fanfic and never have. To me it is the equivilant of stealing. The author worked very hard to put together a complex universe where he/she could tell a story that (hopefully) enthralls the reader. This isn't an easy thing to do. And then someone else doesn't want to go through all of that work and steals that universe so they can write their own story in it.

If there is a story that you want to hear that occured in another persons universe, you should either have their permission to use it, or tell the story orally. I've thought of some great stories that could have happened in between Earth Fall and Earth Born but I'm not going to write them and share them with people because they aren't my stories to tell.

People here have mentioned that OSC doesn't approve of fanfic, but even he says that there are occasions where the rule can be broken. He did write "The Originist" for Foundation's Friends and Asimov fanfic book.

I am of a similar viewpoint. If the author of the original universe asks you, or if his constituatns ask you, and you feel that it is appropriate for the situation, fanfic can be a great thing. But to just use it to tell any story that pops into anybodies head is pointless. Because it isn't their story, and it didn't "happen." If you really want to tell this story and to you it would be best in another writer's universe, too bad. Why not do a little bit more work than just thinking of a story and come up with world to write it in too. It could even be a very similar world, with very similar characters, so long as you are not coopting someone else's world and characters and in essence stealing what they worked very hard on.

In short, if an author gives permission for people to write fanfic, that's great, but I won't read it. If the author does not give permission, then don't do it.

Edit to add: Basing a novel on a religious or historic record is not fanfiction. ie: The Women of Genesis is not biblical fanfiction and The Alvin Maker series is not history book fanfiction.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
The only 'fanfiction' I have written included real people (actors)
I have no idea what this means.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Basing a novel on a religious or historic record is not fanfiction. ie: The Women of Genesis is not biblical fanfiction
Why?

quote:
But to just use it to tell any story that pops into anybodies head is pointless. Because it isn't their story, and it didn't "happen."
Um, we're talking about fiction, right? It's all pretend anyway.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
In short, if an author gives permission for people to write fanfic, that's great, but I won't read it. If the author does not give permission, then don't do it.

Fair enough, although I'd change the "giving permission" to "if the author doesn't tell you not to." YMMV.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
Hey, while we're at it, let's call the Homecoming and Alvin Maker series Mormon fanfic.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
The Women of Genesis is not biblical fanfiction.

Why not? He wrote deeply interpretive stories based on existing worlds and characters who have clearly affected him deeply, stories that fleshed out relationships and events that weren't covered in depth in the original.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Hey, while we're at it, let's call the Homecoming and Alvin Maker series Mormon fanfic.

Nope, he didn't use Mormon characters, instead he based his stories on Mormon stories. Those would be literary allusions.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
I know, I just thought I'd toss that out there.
 
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
 
The only difference between fanfic and literary or biblical allusion is that the latter has a publisher. It's not a measure of quality: 95% of everything is crap, published or not. It's not a measure of originality: show me an entirely original work and I'll show you an author who's never had any contact with any other living creature (goodness knows how anybody learned how to translate her stuff). One's amateur, one's professional. If you think that implies that one is inherently better than the other, that's your hangup, not anybody else's.

Incidentally, I find the "babysitting" argument ironic, in light of the fact that OSC's "Ultimate Iron Man" is being hyped on the front page of this site.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
"Basing a novel on a religious or historic record is not fanfiction."

I agree with this, though I think both types of fictive reinterpretation are equivalent in that they do not spring, fully formed, from a fount of profoundly original creative genius.

That is, the difference between re-imagining Beowulf and re-imagining Star Wars is a legal/financial one.

Edit: Shmuel also makes good points.

[ April 05, 2006, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
 
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
When I was quite young, I read Stuart Little. I was annoyed at the ending, which was somewhat of a cliffhanger. Did Stuart ever find Margalo? My principal (another student and I were reading with her as part of an enrichment program) suggested that I write what happened next.

I didn't. I wanted to know what "really" happened. But I think this is one of the reasons why people write fanfiction. They want to know what happens next, even if they have to make it up themselves. Sometimes people might fill in parts of the story that are missing. This especially makes sense when the world in question is from a television show and the format limits how much of the story can be told. Stargate in particular tends to cut things off a bit abruptly, in my opinion. Why not have a story that ties up some of the loose ends, or imagines the emotional aftermath of a potentially traumatic event that happens to the characters?

And for something like the Firefly universe, fanfiction makes a lot of sense. The series was cut short, and the stories haven't all been told yet. People are hungry for more, and right now the only place they can get what they want is in the stories created by fans.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Let's see:

Official canon: Straight from the mouth of the creator/writer/director. This is how it is. May include works that fans don't accept as true, such as Star Wars I, II and III and Star Trek 1, 3, 5, etc.

Official non-canon: Licensed by the creator, but not considered binding by the creator for his or her own future plots. Examples would include original novels of licensed properties (Star Trek, Star Wars, Buffy, etc), comic book series based on the worlds of licensed properties, etc.

Unofficial canon: Material that was not authorized, but has become accepted into canon by the creators. One classic example is Sulu's first name, which was dubbed "Hikaru" by fan fiction writers and decades later made official in "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country."

Fanon: Material (including fan fiction) that has not been accepted by the creators but has been overwhelmingly accepted by the fan base. Often these are explanations or missing scenes that fix problems or discrepencies left in the original canon. This can also include once-official material but was later discredited, such as the Star Trek Roleplaying Game published by FASA between 1982 and 1989 that was considered canon when it was published but was later contradicted up one side and down the other by the movies and later shows.

Fan-fiction: Material written by fans that is not considered canonical by either the creator or the fans themselves.

Star Wars breaks this down even further into canon, official, unofficial, secondary source, and further source.
 
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
 
My above comment addresses the stories themselves, but I should also say a word about the cultural models underlying the traditional and fanfic communities.

On the one side you've got people invested in the idea that Writers, with a capital W, create original works in isolation. These works are solely their brainchildren, and they ought to retain all possible rights thereof.

On the other, you've got a large network of people collaborating on a shared world larger than any one of them. This network often includes beta readers offering workshopping help before an installment is posted to the larger public, in addition to reader feedback providing critiques. Stories can piggyback off one another. In this model, the question of "ownership" is more or less immaterial; increased creative output is good for all.

Without getting into the question of whether one model is better than the other, this does account for people on either side not understanding where those on the other are coming from. (This is not entirely a matter of party line; Rowling and Whedon, for example, clearly get the latter point of view.)
 
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
If you're a writer, here's why fanfiction is bad.

1) Because later the fanfic kids can say you "stole" their ideas (see an earlier comment about Star Trek in this very thread).

2) A bunch of other reasons mainly having to do with a feeling (and a fact) of ownership over your own characters and your own ideas.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I would argue that those reasons are why fanfiction "can be" bad.

1) How often has this happened, after four decades of fan fiction?
2) What about creators who have publicly said they didn't care?

(I should also stress that I don't want to force anyone to accept fan fiction, I'm only trying to illustrate why I not only don't have a problem with it but in fact prefer some of it to "official" material.)
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:

More importantly, it is not true that what an author writes about characters he invented is "real" and what other authors write about those characters is not "real". It is the reader that has the authority to determine which stories are accepted as "real", not the author. Shakespeare's depiction of Puck is not inherently more or less real than OSC's in Magic Street, despite the fact that Shakespeare created the character and OSC borrowed him from Shakespeare. Rather, it is up to you as the reader to decide whether to accept one or both as real. If you think Shakespeare's work is better, and that OSC's work ruins the characters, then it is within your authority as a reader to decide that Shakespeare's are more real to you. And if you find OSC's more realistic and Shakespeare's unrealistic, you are free to consider Shakespeare's to be false even though it came first. That is where the authority lies in determining what belongs in the canon of "real" stories about a particular character or world - it lies with the reader, not the author.


This is not a little narcisistic Tres. Please don't take that as an overt criticism, because a part of everybody feels what you wrote, however it is the expression of an extreme narcisism IMSO.

I think your expressing a desire to own and control the characters you love, which is fine, but it is like the parent that thinks loving their children means making their children do what they think is best ALL the time. Its like living vicariously through someone else's accomplishments, someone else's life. In a way you are expressing a desire to supercede OSC or any other author and control the lives of the characters because you think you love them, and know what is best for them, but I think it is more a desire to assert yourself and your ideas in a way that feels more valid.

It isn't though, because it really ISN'T real. It isn't as much an expression of a story or the furthering of a character, but an extension of your self-image onto someone else. These characters exist as a part of a story that comes from another person, and they are unique and defined according to that person's feelings and desires and goals. For you to barge in on that and try to use Michaelangelo's hands to make your own sculptures, it won't be real, it will only seem real. What it will really be is your attempt to control and own the characters you love, and I think that is basically wrong-headed.

Please don't take this as a personal attack, because I have all the same instincts; I write this because it applies to some of the things I want too. We all want control over the elements of our lives, but that control is hard-won, and rarely worth the damage that is so often wrought. The chances are a person or a character is better left to their own course, without our "help."
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
The consequences of 1) would be... what? The fanficer has no legal rights to the characters or universe or what have you, and they know that going into it. I have heard of fanfic writers jump all over other fanfic writers who have taken someone else's story and done a rub-out (where they just change the names and claim a story as their own) but never the original creator.

*shrug* Treason reads like superficially altered Foundation fanfic (with, obviously, a muchhigher level of skill than is commonly believed to exist in fanfic, mind you).

Wasn't there a suit concerning the first Battlestar Galactica being a clone of Star Wars? But even that is back now. I do NOT get what the fuss is about.

I don't think anybody would ever mistake a fanfic character for 'the real thing' and the original writers do not lose revenue.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Shmuel:

On the one side you've got people invested in the idea that Writers, with a capital W, create original works in isolation. These works are solely their brainchildren, and they ought to retain all possible rights thereof.

I don't think there is anyone who believes that. Its a million shades of grey between copyright infringement and vague inspiration. No writer doesn't want to pay homage, or imitate, or expand on what he likes from another's work. This isn't stealing often because the intent is not to OWN the other's work but to acknowledge it and create something that will complement it without asserting supremacy.

classic/romantic and modern music for expample would be a different world entirely if composers believed that each idea was somehow the sole property of the person who says it first. Composers endlessly quote eachother, mirror, borrow, and complement in their own works. This is different from taking Beethoven's ninth and trying to write Beethoven's 10th, this really WOULD be character murder. However there is nothing wrong at all with Mahler writing Mahler's 9th, and having it be in view of Beethoven. Its still Mahler, it doesn't try to be Beethoven, it tries to be Mahler.
 
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
 
When I was in middle school I wrote a bunch of fan fiction stories based on TV shows, movies, and my favorite novels. Let's face it the Lord of the Rings was just begging to have a teenage girl character with a magical talking horse show up and kick some orc butt. [Roll Eyes]

I don't think I would have ever written an original word if it hadn't been for starting off "improving" other people's stories. Eventually I got bored being constrained to other people's ideas and worlds. So I invented my own. I never showed my fan fiction to anyone. It actually never occurred to me that somebody else would want to read it. This was pre-widespread home computers and internet, though. I've never read any fan fiction; honestly, I don't have time to read any "author" fiction as it is.

As long as the fan fiction writer doesn't try to earn money from the work (except by writing one of those licensed series books), I can't see the real harm in it. On the other hand, if I were going to write fan fiction today, I would absolutely do so only for the worlds of writers who have said they don't care (or who are dead and can't say one way or the other--this means you, Tolkien). Since I'm a fan of Mr. Card's work, I couldn't see myself starting up an "Ender" story knowing that he would not approve of the use of his ideas.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
But if Beethoven didn't write it, it isn't Beethoven's anything, even if it copies his work.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Not even if you pronounce it Bee-though-ven.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olivet:
But if Beethoven didn't write it, it isn't Beethoven's anything, even if it copies his work.

I'm just translating meaning of characters in a story to be equivelant with the character of a composer in his music, since the music doesn't always have its own named characters. Basically trying to write beethoven's 10th is like trying to write an ender novel, but signing it yourself.

Its like what Brahms was accused of doing in his first symphony: Beethoven's 10th, by Brahms. (Not exactly accused, but jeered at)

edit: that sounds unclear. Bramhs no.1 in c-minor has no official name other than the op number. But it was later called "beethoven's 10th" in satire.

further edit: it is only -sorta- like that, since brahms was actually afraid of this happenning, and he obviously didn't call it beethovens 10th
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Stasia, I'm with you. I've written fanfic (on a dare) and still do sometimes as warm up exercise, like those 100 words or less challenges. It was Star Wars, which has been a part of my creative life since I was eight years old. I see it as a hobby, or, as I said, a warm-up.

I've never had the desire to meddle with already-written fiction, other than a desire to scratch redundant phrases out of pulp novels. (You could turn any Laurell K. Hammilton novel into a drinking game... muahahah)
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Wasn't there a suit concerning the first Battlestar Galactica being a clone of Star Wars?
Yes. They turned around and sued Star Wars for being a clone of Buck Rogers.

More accurately, the suit clamed that BSG copied/stole something like 40 specific and unique things from Star Wars. The next suit claimed that SW copied/stole a bunch of things from Buck Rogers.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I cannot imagine why anyone would write an Ender novel. O_O

That said, I'm sure nobody would confuse Chris' Bridges' Firefly (Is it gonna be a full novel-sized thing?) story with something Joss Whedon wrote because... it will have Chris' name on it, and disclaimers, etc. And Joss has moved on, anyway.

"that sounds unclear. Bramhs no.1 in c-minor has no official name other than the op number. But it was later called "beethoven's 10th" in satire.
"

If he was mocked for it, this supports the idea that immitating hurts the original creator... how?
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
But fanfiction writers aren't (to my knowledge) trying to pass themselves off as the creators of the work. Many of them even carry disclaimers to that effect. A more equivalent comparison would be if Brahms took one of Beethoven's works, fiddled with it to see what he could do, and then played it for friends as just that.

There's a lot more malicious intent being levied here at fanfiction writers than I think is warranted. It's overwhelmingly written out of love for the work and the creator.

Now if a creator has explicitly asked that people not write fan fiction in his or her world (such as, I believe, Terry Pratchett has) than it would be disrespectful not to comply.

(Is it gonna be a full novel-sized thing?)

Nah, more like an episode length once I'm through, and no one would ever confuse it with a "real" show. In fact, it's an homage to one of the classic Trek fan fictions. Link
 
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
I have completed my list of the best Harry Potter fanfic I've read. I just sent it off to Olivet. If anyone else is interested in it, just let me know.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
*claps*
 
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
Blacwolve, I know I've asked before - and didn't follow up with my email address... but do you think you could send me the same links you sent Olivet? My email's in my profile - jharr AT depauw.edu
And Chris - where did you hear about Steven Brust writing a piece on Firefly? That's so, so... awesome, I'm not sure the world can handle it. [Big Grin]


To add something of use to the thread, I think I'm seeing three main arguments against fanfiction:

Aesthetic: fanfic messes up my view of the canon universe, or it's just badly written

Reply: if you don't find something artistically pleasing, there's no need for you to read it - but there's no reason for you to deny others it.

Moral: fanfic is in some way "stealing" from the original creator, and stealing is wrong. Or the person writing fanfic is somehow damaged (morally, creatively, whatever) by the act of writing the fanfic.

Reply: If the author has granted permission for the universe to be used in fanfiction, then it can't be considered stealing. And to the second - I think it's extremely difficult to support the idea that writing fanfic is damaging to a writer in some way - I can think of examples where it could be quite beneficial, and some have already been mentioned on this thread. And, even should we grant that writing fanfiction damages one in some way, that doesn't imply that anyone has the right to stop someone from writing it - if we could do that, then the vast majority of t.v. shows would be cut too. :-)

Legal: it's against the law to infringe on copywrite, and that's what fanfic does/is.

Reply: most fanfiction writers gain absolutely no
income from their writing. It's difficult to make the case that they injure the original creator in some way... and, of course, some authors have granted permission for their universes to be used in fanfic

Did I miss any? Looking at the different arguments against fanfiction, I can't see any that seem to hold up well, if we assume the orginal creator has given either explict or tacit permission for fanfiction to be written in his universe.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Contribution as a writer: By wasting your time writing stories in other artists' worlds, you are depriving yourself and everybody else of the the original worlds and stories you could be creating.

Reply: So you think that somebody else's time could be better spent in a different activity. What does that matter? Practically everybody spends time doing something that others would consider a waste. Pretty much by definition, hobbies are not productive ways to spend time.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
From Steven Brust.

Pocket Books had a deal to publish two original Serenity novels in 2006 (this was before the movie underperformed and Whedon got busy with other projects). I know that about a dozen writers, including Keith R. A. DeCandido (who did the movie novelization) submitted plots, and Brust went ahead and wrote one.

At the moment the books are dead in the water -- reportedly waiting for Whedon to approve or disapprove the suggested plots, although I don't know that for sure -- and Brust has read the first few chapters of his book at a convention or two now.
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
quote:
Cassandra Claire (of the LOTR Secret Diaries fame) has a series of Draco-centered HP fanfic. Haven't read it yet but I plan to just based on the diaries.
Chris, Cassandra's three stories (really, it's something like an epic) in the Draco Trilogy are *fantastic,* right up there tied at first with my favorite Buffy Fanfiction, called 100 Years of Solitude. Anyhow, if you like the Secret Diaries, or if you just like well-written funny yet dramatic stuff, that's the best!

blacwolve, i'd be tickled for that list of Harry Potter fanfic, if you had a sec to email it my way! Email's in my profile.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I've only read one fanfic piece, called A Dark, Distored Mirror which was an alternate universe Babylon 5 fanfic. It had some really interesting ideas and I thoroughly enjoyed it, in spite of the writing.
 
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Bible based fiction is not called "fanfic"

Its called Heresy.

And trust me, you don't want to get that author upset with you.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
[Laugh]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_raven:
Bible based fiction is not called "fanfic"

Its called Heresy.

And trust me, you don't want to get that author upset with you.

Some might call that "allegory" .... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Hey! Don't mess up a good joke with facts!
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
So I'm guessing I should scrap the David/Solomon slash I was writing...
 
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
 
That would be...just disturbing, PC. Father and son? (Perhaps you meant David/Jonathan.)


Most of this stuff I've never actually written, but I have a strange tendency to see connections between works by utterly different authors (say, Joss Whedon and Isaac Asimov). I suppose in theory one could create new, similar characters and write the story about them, but that actually seems more dishonest--the "real" characters are still there underneath.

More practically, I've been hoping that fanfic will restimulate me as an author. I haven't successfully written anything longer than a hatrack post in several years, and I'm not sure why.
 
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
 
Yeah, David/Solomon would be all kinds of wrong, being father and son and all. David/Saul would be rather more interesting. (David/Jonathan, on the other hand, has been done to death.)
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by blacwolve:
I have completed my list of the best Harry Potter fanfic I've read. I just sent it off to Olivet. If anyone else is interested in it, just let me know.

Me! mememememe!

Please. [Smile]
quote:
Originally posted by Shmuel:
Yeah, David/Solomon would be all kinds of wrong, being father and son and all. David/Saul would be rather more interesting.

Because father-in-law/son-in-law is so much less squicky? O_o
 
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
There's actually quite a bit of incest in most of the fandoms I've read. And quasi incest. Buffy/Giles disturbs me just as much as Sirius/Regulus.
 
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 
I would also be happy to e-mail off a few recommendations for those looking to dip their toes in without trawling through the morass that is fanfic.net -- Harry Potter, Buffy, and X-men stuff, mostly.

I see nothing wrong with writing fanfiction where the original author has indicated acceptance or indifference to the notion. I am disinclined to write fanfic of works whose original author is hostile to fanfiction, because by and large if I like their work I have some respect for them as a person, and I don't like knowingly upsetting people whom I respect, but I have difficulty working out how they have a logical leg on which to stand. (I am particularly baffled by Robin McKinley's position that fanfiction is not real writting, given that somewhere around half of her books are retellings of other people's stories.)
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mabus:
That would be...just disturbing, PC. Father and son? (Perhaps you meant David/Jonathan.)

Because I'm going to pick the least disturbing idea that comes to my head when I crack heretical.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
Robin McKinley doesn't like it? I knew Robin Hobb didn't, but not Robin McKinley. It doesn't really matter, I stay firmly in the Harry Potter fandom, I'm just surprised.

Also, I'd be interest in your Harry Potter fanfics. And also if you know of any Willow/Oz/Tara fics, that would be really awesome.
 
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
 
Yeah, McKinley's one of the writers who's asked to be excluded from fanfiction.net; I remember reading her explanation of why, but I can't find it now.
 
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
 
quote:
Because father-in-law/son-in-law is so much less squicky? O_o
In my mind, yes, but you're right; arguing the point would be kinda silly, and I shouldn't have gone down that road in the first place. Sorry about that! [Smile]
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
These characters exist as a part of a story that comes from another person, and they are unique and defined according to that person's feelings and desires and goals.
I don't think that is correct. The story and characters within it ultimately come from the reader, not the writer. The writer can offer words which are used to guide and shape that story, but without a reader those remain just words - nothing more. It is the reader that takes those words and imagines them as an actual story with actual characters in an actual world. The reader can imagine that story and those characters however he or she wants (for instance, the reader can decide how tall or short to imagine Ender, or what Ender looks like, or what Ender sounds like, etc.) The reader is manipulated by the writer's words, of course, but the reader choose how to interpret those words, and can even choose to ignore them. Thus it is the reader that determines whether or not a given story or character is "real". The author shapes stories, but it is the reader's mind that makes those stories real. Readers are perfectly entitled to take those realities they have imagined and use them to shape new stories of their own.

This is not narcissism. This is just how I see the relationship between story, author, and reader. Authors do not own stories or characters, and don't get to decide what the "real" nature of those stories and characters is. That nature is fixed by the mind of the reader.

Just consider possible examples. If OSC decided to have Ender rape someone just for the heck of it, would you accept that as a realistic depiction of Ender, just because OSC created the character of Ender? No, I suspect you would not. I suspect you would hold it up against the Ender in your mind and decide that your Ender would not rape someone just for the heck of it. Haven't you ever read something an author wrote about his or her character X and thought "X wouldn't do that!"?
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:
Because father-in-law/son-in-law is so much less squicky? O_o
In my mind, yes, but you're right; arguing the point would be kinda silly, and I shouldn't have gone down that road in the first place. Sorry about that! [Smile]
I will buy slightly less. [Wink]

(With some people I would suspect that they simply didn't know Saul was David's FIL, but I knew that could not be the case here.)
 
Posted by Grim (Member # 9165) on :
 
You know Tres, you are brilliant. Every point you have given here is exactly is what I think. The reader deicides what is real, not the author. The author can say, "This is real", I published it, but if the reader decides its not, and ignores it, then it isn't.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
quote:
The only 'fanfiction' I have written included real people (actors)
M_p_h said he didn't know what I meant by this. What I mean is that real people like Elijah Wood were in the stories (in radically unrealistic forms- I made no effort to be true-to-life, only funny).
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:
These characters exist as a part of a story that comes from another person, and they are unique and defined according to that person's feelings and desires and goals.
I don't think that is correct. The story and characters within it ultimately come from the reader, not the writer. The writer can offer words which are used to guide and shape that story, but without a reader those remain just words - nothing more. It is the reader that takes those words and imagines them as an actual story with actual characters in an actual world. The reader can imagine that story and those characters however he or she wants (for instance, the reader can decide how tall or short to imagine Ender, or what Ender looks like, or what Ender sounds like, etc.) The reader is manipulated by the writer's words, of course, but the reader choose how to interpret those words, and can even choose to ignore them. Thus it is the reader that determines whether or not a given story or character is "real". The author shapes stories, but it is the reader's mind that makes those stories real. Readers are perfectly entitled to take those realities they have imagined and use them to shape new stories of their own.

This is not narcissism. This is just how I see the relationship between story, author, and reader. Authors do not own stories or characters, and don't get to decide what the "real" nature of those stories and characters is. That nature is fixed by the mind of the reader.

Im a music student. One day a musicology teacher put a score up on the overhead, it was a page covered in line segments spanning variable lengths and either vertical or horizontal spaces of different widths. He says, this is a musical composition written in 1963, it has been performed by many different people in the last fourty years, but all the performances were different. He asked us: how would we like this peice performed?

We came up with lots of ways: you could time the pitches to last the same length as the lines, correspond to pitch according to placement, timber for width. Or you could put the transparency of the peice over a famous painting and react to the way in which the painting is altered by the musical score... etc, the list of possibilities stretched on for 25 minutes. Eventually someone keyed into the "ism" that the teacher was waiting for, and said: "well really the peice could be performed in any way the performer feels is appropriate, it could be ANYTHING."

The class murmered its agreement. The teacher sat down at the piano and played a Schubert waltz trio. "That's my interpretation of this peice," he said, since the peice reminds me of Schubert for some reason, that will be my interpretation."
No the class said: that was written by Schubert! You said it could be interpreted in ANY way, said the teacher, and we saw his point at once.

Your narcisism is in your belief the character need YOU to imagine them. If this were true then I could publish a book which contained only a list of names, and places, and dates. Since your are responsible for imagining the characters, I can simply be very minimalist, and allow you to do all the work of coming up with the story too!

Ahem, it doesn't work this way thankfully, because in point of fact it takes quite a bit of skill to craft a character who is complex and relatable and write a story about them. This is why some books are popular, and some books are not. The story and the character are written as representations of the image in the writer's head, (in the case of impressionistic writing) or the ideas in a writer's mind (as in expressionistic writing). You didn't come up with that stuff, and any fan fic that you create is simply going to be your attempt to supercede the original author and control the characters you love.

But it isn't even really about those characters if you do this, it is about your need to bank on the emotional depth of the story laid out before you, and make it yours. But it isn't yours, because the history you have with the characters comes from what the author says to you through those characters. Trying to replace the author and usurp the characters is like cutting the strings on a bunch of manequins and trying to put on your own show, only they really don't belong to you, and you don't know how to use them the way your favorite pupiteer does.

In the case of the musical score, even the vaguest guidelines laid out by the true composer set a gigantic amount of limitations on the peice

Bottom line is that whatever experience you glean from reading about these people, the motives you have for wanting to be the one to control their destinies is an entirely selfish one. Since you yourself claim that the reader flat out creates the characters, (as if that were anywhere near fair to what a good writer does), then even your derivative work will be the product of others. But you wouldn't want that, you want to control them for yourself, and I'm saying that's just not something that will work out for the best. Write your own stories, its more honest.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:
The only 'fanfiction' I have written included real people (actors)
M_p_h said he didn't know what I meant by this. What I mean is that real people like Elijah Wood were in the stories (in radically unrealistic forms- I made no effort to be true-to-life, only funny).
You write fanfictions about actors?
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
PC, Shmuel, et al-- you slay me (and Johnathan/David is totally canon [Wink] )<---JOKE!
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Contribution as a writer: By wasting your time writing stories in other artists' worlds, you are depriving yourself and everybody else of the the original worlds and stories you could be creating.

Reply: So you think that somebody else's time could be better spent in a different activity. What does that matter? Practically everybody spends time doing something that others would consider a waste. Pretty much by definition, hobbies are not productive ways to spend time.

Why does it matter? Well, the statement was that writing fan fiction doesn't harm writers. I think it does. I'm not going to make a law or anything against it, though. [Smile]
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
Your narcisism is in your belief the character need YOU to imagine them. If this were true then I could publish a book which contained only a list of names, and places, and dates. Since your are responsible for imagining the characters, I can simply be very minimalist, and allow you to do all the work of coming up with the story too!
You CAN do this, can't you? It might not sell, because most readers expect more from an author, but you could cetainly do it. The Lord of the Rings does something remarkably close - including an index of names and timelines in the back of the book that help the reader to imagine an entire backstory to the whole world. But while Tolkein could create those timelines and characters, it is ultimately the reader that must make them real.


quote:
Bottom line is that whatever experience you glean from reading about these people, the motives you have for wanting to be the one to control their destinies is an entirely selfish one. Since you yourself claim that the reader flat out creates the characters, (as if that were anywhere near fair to what a good writer does), then even your derivative work will be the product of others. But you wouldn't want that, you want to control them for yourself, and I'm saying that's just not something that will work out for the best. Write your own stories, its more honest.
How so? How is what you said not true for all stories? All authors can be described as being out to control their characters. All authors have that motive which you consider selfish. Whether the characters and story are based on something previous or not is irrelevant to one's motives for writing that story.

And if your argument is carried over to music, I think you have pretty much written off most musicians - except those who play only that which they have composed themselves. After all, isn't it selfish to "steal" Mozart's work and play it yourself? Wouldn't it be "more honest" to write your own symphonies, by your same logic? Isn't playing your own interpretation of someone else's music like "cutting the strings on a bunch of manequins and trying to put on your own show, only they really don't belong to you, and you don't know how to use them the way your favorite pupiteer does"?

I don't think this follows. Music is not owned by the author. Stories are not owned by the author. Authors have special rights over their works, but ultimately it is the nature of ideas to generate other ideas in other people. Even so-called "original" stories are almost always based off of other ideas from past stories read by the author. Hence, I don't think you are correct in suggesting that derivative works are inherently any more "selfish" than other works. At best, your reasoning could just suggest that ALL writing is selfish - which I don't think is true. I don't think it is selfish to control characters and stories. I think that is part of creating something you intend to be beautiful and meaningful - giving life to a work of art, whether derivative or not.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Scott R - I think you could also include "posting on internet forums" under "activities that hurt writers", if the main points are taking time away from "REAL writing aka for pay" and allowing sloppy writing habits to go unchecked.

Personally, though, I rarely rate my experiences in importance based upon whether or not I seek payment for them. THAT would make for an interestingly skewed set of morals. *giggle*
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
I think you could also include "posting on internet forums" under "activities that hurt writers", if the main points are taking time away from "REAL writing aka for pay" and allowing sloppy writing habits to go unchecked.
And I actually DO consider posting on internet forums as harmful to writers. [Smile]

Heaven knows OSC's gotten little joy from HIS posts...

Before anyone asks, I'm hypocritical with PBEM and play-by-post RPGs. I definitely think the time I spend in Slash's games would be better utilized working on my novel. I think the best practice for a writer is to write his own stories.

But Slash's games are so enormously enjoyable... which I understand is possibly the reason why fan-fic authors write what they write.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Bingo.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
So, we actually all agree. [Smile]

Cool! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
So, we actually all agree.
Yes... apparently on the harmfulness of internet forums. [Wink]
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
No! Impossible!

Uh...uh...science fiction is a haven for intellectual dishonesty and escapist, misogynistic, fundamentalism!

Meat is best cooked well-done!

Shoes must be worn at all times, indoors, outdoors, in bed!
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
[QUOTE]
I don't think this follows. Music is not owned by the author. Stories are not owned by the author. Authors have special rights over their works, but ultimately it is the nature of ideas to generate other ideas in other people. Even so-called "original" stories are almost always based off of other ideas from past stories read by the author. Hence, I don't think you are correct in suggesting that derivative works are inherently any more "selfish" than other works. At best, your reasoning could just suggest that ALL writing is selfish - which I don't think is true. I don't think it is selfish to control characters and stories. I think that is part of creating something you intend to be beautiful and meaningful - giving life to a work of art, whether derivative or not.

Well it is interesting that in your last paragraph you switch ideologies and start making my argument for me. Here you acknowledge, finally, the WORK that goes into writing a good book, and the reason why some books are good and some books are not good. Amazingly this has little to do with the abilities of the reader, (unless he's too stupid, or too lazy to read anything).

You mention that creating something beautiful is giving your ideas life. This is the opposite of your original contention, that the reader breaths life into the character, (this is where I interpreted your desire to 'own' the characters). And in this agree very much, this is exactly what writing (an composing) is about.

You misinterpret my music analogy, which had to do with COMPOSING music not playing it. The idea that one might try to assume the style of Mozart for example, by writing under his name and presenting your work as his (this has been tried many times). That is character murder, and no-different than assuming the characters of your favorite author, because while your not stealing his name and writing new books, your rather stealing his "compositional" position and replacing him as the storyteller, with yourself. This is dishonest in practice.

Playing music is like reading a book aloud, your interpretation of a work will be unique, but it depends very heavily on the guidelines the composer lays out, this is why a bad performer can ruin a good work, but a good performer can't make a bad work any better with a perfect performance.

The interesting thing about the thought excercise my teacher gave us was that despite the lack of clarity in the writer's communitication with the performer, it did communicate some things. If one were to play a peice of music that was just a bunch of lines on a page, then one would have to adopt a way of reading the score, and once one has done this, the interpretation must remain consistent throughout the performance. Once you've decided this one line must meanL "play this," then your interpretation of every subsequent line must be in keeping with the process which produced the first part of the performance.

The crazy thought is that this is really much more control, much much more precision than a traditional peice of music which can actually allow for the performer some personal freedom. The traditional style allows for rubatto, vague diminuendos, and firmatas (hold of appopriate length). The performer deems what is important for the nuances of the peice, what "Forte" means in one context is different from another, and the distinction is made by the performer.

In this peice which was just a picture, no freedom was allowed, only one big false freedom. An honest and difficult performance of this peice would have to be rigidly timed, expertly crafter to follow one schema through the entirety of the provided material. You would have to either assume that every inch of every line was meant for a reason, or adopt a complicated schema to explain why you can ignore some things, and not ignore others. Either way the thought process will be tortuous, and the work will present itself as simple, but turn out to be exquisitely demanding and exact.

In the traditional work, the performer is allowed to improvise any element which the composer doesn't say. And in this experimental picture peice, the performer is free to improvise only the form the peice will take, everything else will have been the product of the compositional process, being re-enacted.

That's the strange thing about that idea, it seems simple until you peel away the layers, and realize the composer has set one hell of a challenge for the performer, and no other peice could ever produce the same performance. The genius is not only in the execution, but in the birth of the thought and its comission to paper.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
You misinterpret my music analogy, which had to do with COMPOSING music not playing it. The idea that one might try to assume the style of Mozart for example, by writing under his name and presenting your work as his (this has been tried many times). That is character murder, and no-different than assuming the characters of your favorite author, because while your not stealing his name and writing new books, your rather stealing his "compositional" position and replacing him as the storyteller, with yourself. This is dishonest in practice.

And yet you haven't answered my question. Can musicians cover other musicians' songs? Or is that dishonest?

At no point has anyone suggested that fanfiction writers be permitted to profit from fan fiction or in any way pass themselves off as creators of the work, or that fan fiction should be accepted as canon. We're telling stories using existing worlds for fun. Musicians never improvise for the heck of it, maybe starting with an existing song and seeing where they end up?

In the either/or land of creation, is there an allowance for fun?
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
You mention that creating something beautiful is giving your ideas life. This is the opposite of your original contention, that the reader breaths life into the character, (this is where I interpreted your desire to 'own' the characters).
Those are not opposites. Authors "give life" to a work of art by inventing the idea of it and puting the words on paper to share those ideas. Readers "breath life" (as you put it) by imagining the characters and story generated by those ideas - making it "real" in their minds. The final characters may have been generated by the author's ideas, but they exist in the reader's mind and subject to the reader's interpreations or desires, and thus are not owned by the author. The author may have been the trigger or cause for their existence, and thus may have determined their form to a large degree, but the author doesn't control them or have authority over how readers should or should not interpret them.

quote:
idea that one might try to assume the style of Mozart for example, by writing under his name and presenting your work as his (this has been tried many times). That is character murder, and no-different than assuming the characters of your favorite author, because while your not stealing his name and writing new books, your rather stealing his "compositional" position and replacing him as the storyteller, with yourself.
Nobody has advocated taking an author's works and then writing new works with those character IN THAT AUTHOR'S NAME. That would be blatantly lying. It is entirely different from using an author's characters in your own works that you present as being written by you and derived from that author's works.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:


And yet you haven't answered my question. Can musicians cover other musicians' songs? Or is that dishonest?

Covering a song is no different from playing a composition, you reinterpret the work of another, but no-one in that are you now the composer of a new work. So its fine to cover a song by another band. I didn't answer this because I felt it was obvious.

It is also obvious that writing a fan fic is like writing a song and saying: This is a new song that would go at the end of the Beatles' white album, so its a NEW Beatles song. This is dishonest, since it attempts to own the success of the Beetles.

IT doesn't matter if you intend to profit financially, I am talking about somethng far different.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
It is also obvious that writing a fan fic is like writing a song and saying: This is a new song that would go at the end of the Beatles' white album, so its a NEW Beatles song. This is dishonest, since it attempts to own the success of the Beetles.
It is not obvious.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:

[QUOTE]idea that one might try to assume the style of Mozart for example, by writing under his name and presenting your work as his (this has been tried many times). That is character murder, and no-different than assuming the characters of your favorite author, because while your not stealing his name and writing new books, your rather stealing his "compositional" position and replacing him as the storyteller, with yourself.

Nobody has advocated taking an author's works and then writing new works with those character IN THAT AUTHOR'S NAME. That would be blatantly lying. It is entirely different from using an author's characters in your own works that you present as being written by you and derived from that author's works.
No, you simply ignored my distinction for some reason, reread my paragraph about Mozart, because it specifically says writing and claiming to be Mozart is creatively EQUIVELANT, to writing a new story with another author's characters, EVEN IF you do not claim to BE that author. If you are going to interpret my words, you'll have to read them carefully.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
writing and claiming to be Mozart is creatively EQUIVELANT, to writing a new story with another author's characters
I disagree.

Writing and claiming to be somebody else is equivalent to writing and claiming to be somebody else. Writing and claiming to be yourself is no.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
quote:
You write fanfictions about actors?
In 2002 around Oscar time, I wrote a short story in which me and my friends went to the Oscars. Hijinks ensued. My friends really loved it and it was fun to write (I don't write much comedy) so the next year, I wrote a new one, and so on. There are four in total, each getting more sophisticated than the last- the third is the longest, the fourth I wrote this year in a couple of hours.

So yes, I have written fanfiction about actors. It's not squicky or sexual in the least. It involves pranks and making fun of people, impossible crushes and movie-related jokes.

Since it was just for my friends, I made no effort to be truthful or kind. So I consider it fanfiction, because nothing about it, except the place and the names, is real.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
OK. I understand you now. Thank you.
 
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:

It is also obvious that writing a fan fic is like writing a song and saying: This is a new song that would go at the end of the Beatles' white album, so its a NEW Beatles song. This is dishonest, since it attempts to own the success of the Beetles.


Actually, I see fan fic as more the equivalent of listening to the White Album a bunch then writing a song that incorporates pieces of the White Album such a a melody here and a lyric there. Then the person plays the song for a couple of his or her friends and says "Isn't that a cool song? I wrote that to sound like the Beatles on the White Album."

Nobody is going to think that takes away from the success of the Beatles (how could it?) and, further, I just don't see it as the person trying to create a "new Beatles song", especially if the person says, "I wrote this because I like the Beatles' White album". Sure it would be a problem if the person put it on the internet and tried to sell it as a long-lost Beatles song, but I think in most cases the songwriter just wanted to write a Beatles-esque song and imagine it really belonged on the White Album.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Actually it'd be more like someone writing a sequel to "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" that tells what happened to Desmond and Molly afterwards.

No intention of stealing the Beatles' thunder, no intention of profiting from their fame or talent, no intention of fooling anyone into thinking it was a Beatles song. Just something written by someone who loves the original and wanted to expand on it for fun.

The core of this debate seems to be a disagreement between those who prefer to focus on the intention of the fanfiction writers and those who prefer to focus on the potential ramifications of the results.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
writing and claiming to be Mozart is creatively EQUIVELANT, to writing a new story with another author's characters
I disagree.

Writing and claiming to be somebody else is equivalent to writing and claiming to be somebody else. Writing and claiming to be yourself is no.

It is EQUIVELANT. Not THE SAME THING. That's why I said "Equivelant" and I didn't say, the "Same thing." If you like, amend my statement to read "morally equivelant," but NOT "intellectually and effectively equivelant".

Ok?
 
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
And what everyone else is saying is that they disagree with you.

Ok?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stasia:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:

It is also obvious that writing a fan fic is like writing a song and saying: This is a new song that would go at the end of the Beatles' white album, so its a NEW Beatles song. This is dishonest, since it attempts to own the success of the Beetles.


Actually, I see fan fic as more the equivalent of listening to the White Album a bunch then writing a song that incorporates pieces of the White Album such a a melody here and a lyric there. Then the person plays the song for a couple of his or her friends and says "Isn't that a cool song? I wrote that to sound like the Beatles on the White Album."

Nobody is going to think that takes away from the success of the Beatles (how could it?) and, further, I just don't see it as the person trying to create a "new Beatles song", especially if the person says, "I wrote this because I like the Beatles' White album". Sure it would be a problem if the person put it on the internet and tried to sell it as a long-lost Beatles song, but I think in most cases the songwriter just wanted to write a Beatles-esque song and imagine it really belonged on the White Album.

This is different because this process already exists in music and literature. The borrowing of elements is key, and absolutely necessary to original work. I will even accept the "grey album" (a combination of samplings between J-z's black and the Beatles white albums), as a NEW peice of work because it is evolved by a creative process which does not pretend to anything other than using one peice of art to generate a new impression; in other words it is like covering a whole album. The artist who did this grey album also had permission, this is key too.

I said above that it was equivelant, but not that it was exactly the same thing to try and pass yourself off as the beatles or mozart. I beleive it is effectively trying to do the same dishonest thing, which is own the position of the creator of work you love. Read: not own literally, but in a figurative sense; ie: Own as in CONTROL.

The success of the Beatles as you say is clearly not at issue, however just because a dishonesty is not harmful to the victim does not mean it is not harmful to the dishonest person. I think that this practice of fanfic sets up a mode of thinking by which people like Tres come to believe that they can own and control (again:read my definition of ownership as in ability to control) the characters of other people, and thus they can supercede these original authors as their successors. I simply believe this to be an attempt to live a life one does not deserve, and didn't earn, and will not fulfill well. That's all.
 
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
As a complete side note, because the Grey Album came up, I really like the Double-Black Album. It's JZ's Black album and Metallica's Black album mixed together. Pretty cool.

--Enigmatic
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
And I believe you to be mistaken.

I have written fan fiction. I had no intention at any point of "superceding" the original authors. I don't expect my stories to make the slightest impact on the authors or on the public recognition of their work.

And my control is a pretty shaky thing, considering that at any point other fan fiction authors can and will write stories that contradict mine. And the creators themselves may come out with more works that make mine impossible. And here's the fun part: I want them to! I can't wait for more official, Joss-written Firefly/Serenity shows and movies and books, and I love reading what else other people have come up with. Even if they can't possibly exist in the same world as my stories. I'm not trying to take anything away from them.

Please try to accept the thought that someone might do something out of a sense of fun and shared community, with no plans to profit and no intention to harm.

I wouldn't be nearly as worked up about this if you would kindly stop attributing motivations to me that do not apply.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by blacwolve:
And what everyone else is saying is that they disagree with you.
Ok?

If they could say it by responding to my points rather than pointing a semantical reason why my analogy is flawed, then I could accept a disagreement. However posts like that leaving me feeling that I haven't successfully explained my point.

Now I see that your just interested in saying I'm wrong rather than having a dialogue. Well guess what, you don't get to be the boss of the thread and shut down discussion just because you don't like what the big boys are talking about [Cry]

As for MPH. My post sounded snippy, so I should have added a nice emoticon [Wink] or something to show that it wasn't an exasperated "ok?" but rather a friendly "Ok?" If he felt miffed, that's between him and me and I do apologize for it.
 
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
I think what blacwolve is was saying there is that you HAVE successfully explained your point and other people DO understand it, but it comes down to simply not agreeing with that point. I also don't think MPH's objection was semantics, he just doesn't agree with your assesment.

Inserting the "morally equivelant" as you said, I know that I don't agree with the statement "writing and claiming to be Mozart is creatively morally equivelant, to writing a new story with another author's characters." Is there something wrong with the statement that disproves it? Of course not, it's your opinion. But it is an opinion that I (and I gather MPH and blacwolve) do not personally agree with.

I think there is a moral difference between
A) Claiming to be J.K. Rowling.
B) Writing Harry Potter fanfic under your own name.

That being said, I read very little fanfic, and if I do it's probably of the "OMG this is so ridiculous" variety, like the one I read where Gimli gets Legolas pregnant. (Or was it the other way around?)

--Enigmatic
 
Posted by Princesska (Member # 8954) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olivet:

Interestingly, I've heard that Rowling (like Whedon some others) is very encouraging to fanfic writers.

I wonder why that is.

Possibly because fan-fic is a good form of feedback?

I remember writing some fictional stories in high school, and a couple of my friends wrote fan-fic based on that. It was with my characters and took place in my world, but it was somebody else writing it. Reading the fan-fic, I learned that Character A could have a soft side and that the plot could go in a few directions I hadn't even thought of.

So I got to see how the readers perceived my story in a much deeper way than any critical review could have done.

If I ever become published and famous, you can bet I'll be googling fan-fic of my stuff.

quote:
Originally posted by Enigmatic: That being said, I read very little fanfic, and if I do it's probably of the "OMG this is so ridiculous" variety, like the one I read where Gimli gets Legolas pregnant. (Or was it the other way around?)
Heh. Try http://www.squidge.org/~cabs/cabs.html .
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:

Please try to accept the thought that someone might do something out of a sense of fun and shared community, with no plans to profit and no intention to harm.

I wouldn't be nearly as worked up about this if you would kindly stop attributing motivations to me that do not apply.

I can only work from what I know about myself. I said early on that I thought much of this need I describe is not conscious or malicious, or unnatural or even wrong. I simply feel it is basically dishonest to yourself. Hey, not something I can prove, not something that you should feel matters just because I'm a guy saying it to you; but I wonder if it isn't the slightest bit true, since you care so much.

What I know about my own motivations is this: every time I have wanted to "get involved" by working on someone else's idea or expanding on the characters or ideas that someone else started with, the true motive has been to "fix" what I felt were mistakes in the way the first person did things. I always felt I could do it better, that I could really bring out those traits that were really important, but the thing was, those were the things that were important to ME. What I realized about myself was that I really did want to claim those ideas for myself because I could invent reasons why they were really mine along, I could own them in a way, they could be ME.

The static response to all this is "just having fun, just being creative...." And most of that doesn't hurt anyone, of course! But part of what has actually convinced me that I'm right on with what I say, is that so far I don't think a single person has responded in a way that shows me they even thought about how what I say might be true.

That's how I see the responses coming back: the person first of all wishes to defend himself personally because "I'm not like that." Then because he's not like that, obviously the whole thing is wrong, wrong, wrong, and how dare you. I think most of the responses have been about how people don't like to be percieved negatively, so feel free not to see my evaluation as negative. Since its an observation of general human nature, it is therefore ubiquitous and natural, nothing to be ashamed of. However being aware, even of the possibility that this motive does exist in your heart somewhere (because I am now absolutely convinced that it does exist in mine), does not mean you adopt the impulse and nurture it, nor that it represents you or that you allow it to guide you.

Now if you keep writing fanfic, maybe you will think of how this might be true, and maybe it will inform your instincts for future story ideas.

Edit: and hey! Guess what, its a lot harder to defend an idea I hadn't even thought of before 2 days ago. Being original is pretty fun after all.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enigmatic:

I think there is a moral difference between
A) Claiming to be J.K. Rowling.
B) Writing Harry Potter fanfic under your own name.
--Enigmatic

Which is EXACTLY the reason I used the composer versus writer idea, so that I could compare the overt act :stealing the name of Mozart, with the covert act: stealing the author's place as storyteller in his world. This eliminates the matter of stealing characters, since composers don't often use them at all, just styles and "voices". If you steal mozart's name, your music is actually STILL original! This is why they are of course so different in practice, and why I chose them because I felt they were distinct, and yet morally equall. (After all what is so "BAD" about pretending to be mozart if you write good music?) The moral question is not cut and dried.

I made that distinction for a reason, and since you didn't even notice, I suppose I should be trying harder. Or you should. [Wink]

Edit: OSC himself has said that writing and publishing fanfic is morally equivelant to moving into HIS house and kicking out his family. Now think about what's wrong with THAT comparison.
 
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
Actually, I did notice the composer vs author distinction. I just don't think it's relevant. Again you assume that someone disagreeing you just doesn't understand, which is why I jumped in in the first place.

So here's where I will try harder to illustrate what I was saying, by spelling out the bit that I was implying. Let's take 3 items:

A) Claiming to be J.K. Rowling (while writing a story).
B) Writing Harry Potter fanfic under your own name.
C) Claiming to be Mozart (while composing a song).

As I said, I don't think A and B are morally equivalent. I used those two instead of C and B because I wanted to make the distinction more clear. What I was implying (but apparently should have stated) by making that change is that I DO think A and C are morally equivalent. And thus I used them interchangably for the comparison.

A and C are morally equivalent. Neither of them is morally equivalent to B by a long stretch, in my opinion.

So I'll reiterate what is my main point: It is entirely possible that people have read your points, fully understand your points, have considered the possibility that they may be true, and STILL disagree with them.

However, on your bit about motivations in the prior post (responding to Chris): I'm sure that SOME fanfic authors share those same motivations for control or to "fix" things. Where you are angering people is by seeming to say (perhaps unintentionally) that ALL fanfic authors do. Can you accept that not everyone has the same motivation to write fanfiction?

--Enigmatic
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enigmatic:
Actually, I did notice the composer vs author distinction. I just don't think it's relevant. Again you assume that someone disagreeing you just doesn't understand, which is why I jumped in in the first place.
--Enigmatic

That would have been one thing if you hadn't said that this why MY idea, because my idea was in fact different, and different for a reason. Since you argued against an idea that was not mine, I don't know what to say, I guess your right.
 
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
quote:
Edit: OSC himself has said that writing and publishing fanfic is morally equivelant to moving into HIS house and kicking out his family. Now think about what's wrong with THAT comparison.
As I sidenote, this is why I used Rowling and not OSC in my example. When the author in question has publicly stated that they do not approve of fanfic (especially in such strident terms as OSC has) then it's not very nice to disrespect that author's wishes by writing it anyway. Still not as bad as actually pretending to be OSC, but definitely bad.

--Enigmatic
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enigmatic:

Can you accept that not everyone has the same motivation to write fanfiction?

--Enigmatic

Of course. I simply wished to illustrate the element I felt to be at the heart of things, especially for myself. What my own experience allows me to say about the rest of society is opinion, so I treat my opionions as the most important thing I have. Its easy to come up with facts, proving facts is boring. Arguing opinions is less boring, and people often confuse them with factual arguments. But it isn't the same thing I'll grant you, so we can be clear about that.

BTW I still think I'm right. [Wink]
 
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by Enigmatic:
Actually, I did notice the composer vs author distinction. I just don't think it's relevant. Again you assume that someone disagreeing you just doesn't understand, which is why I jumped in in the first place.
--Enigmatic

That would have been one thing if you hadn't said that this why MY idea, because my idea was in fact different, and different for a reason. Since you argued against an idea that was not mine, I don't know what to say, I guess your right.
And you're right that I should have tried harder to specify why I was changing it. I kinda through that bit in to try to explain why I disagreed, but didn't take much time to develop that bit. Hugs? [Wink]

To move this to a slightly different aspect of the general thing, what do you (or others) think about roleplaying games set in someone else's universe? I've played the old Star Wars RPG, and I know there's a Firefly RPG out now. A good roleplaying session is essentially telling a story set in that world. Is that fanfiction? Are you usurping control from the original creator?

(You know the line "Many Bothans died to get us this information"? In one of our sessions it turns out my party was pretty much responsible for those dead Bothans. Oops.)

--Enigmatic
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enigmatic:

(You know the line "Many Bothans died to get us this information"? In one of our sessions it turns out my party was pretty much responsible for those dead Bothans. Oops.)

--Enigmatic

[ROFL]

The funny thing is that SO many of these pop culture hits are getting rewritten these days to include US in as part of the action. My roomate got Godfather for PS2 last week, and we've been playing it nonstop. You become the right hand man to Don Corlione, and it turns out alot of the unseen stuff was really you all along.

On one hand its a need Idea, and in this case it is all liscenced and legit, so its fine. Of course one might argue that you cheapen the story by retelling a different part of it, and necessarily changing alot of contexts to include new importance on previously benign details. Like Ender's Shadow did to Game. This could be good OR bad, or both.

I wonder if eventually every classic movie or story will have to be rewritten to include a character driven game where you get involved, or maybe all film will morphe into the star Trek Holonovel concept. Then again the matrix reloaded was filmed alongside footage from the video game, and the plots intertwined to provide the game player with extra information in the movie. It turned out to be alot of information, but not a bit of it was at all vital or really enlightening.

I think it might mess with the process of telling a story if you subject every store to every possible perspective in every medium too. So you watch the film, then complete the action game, then get online and do the mmorpg? This is also, of course, a liscence to print money... Hmmmm.
 
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
quote:
It is also obvious that writing a fan fic is like writing a song and saying: This is a new song that would go at the end of the Beatles' white album, so its a NEW Beatles song.
Well, I think they are not equivalent, so either it is NOT obvious, or you are going to have to convince me that for some reason I can't see such obvious things.

I would say that the ONLY thing morally wrong with making that new Beatles album is the fact that you are lying and claiming the Beatles wrote it. And it just so happens that this is one thing that is different between the two sides of your analogy. There is no lying by fan fic authors.

Instead, I would say covering a Beatles song with your own changed version of it is morally equivalent to writing a fan fic.

quote:
What I know about my own motivations is this: every time I have wanted to "get involved" by working on someone else's idea or expanding on the characters or ideas that someone else started with, the true motive has been to "fix" what I felt were mistakes in the way the first person did things. I always felt I could do it better, that I could really bring out those traits that were really important, but the thing was, those were the things that were important to ME. What I realized about myself was that I really did want to claim those ideas for myself because I could invent reasons why they were really mine along, I could own them in a way, they could be ME.
And how is writing an original work any different? All authors write about things that are important to THEM, and have the sort of arrogance to think what is important to THEM will also be important to others. This is true when they use someone else's characters, and this is true when they use their own characters. And even authors of totally original characters and stories think they own their creation. OSC seems to.

I don't think fan fic writers own characters any more than the original authors do. As I argued, it is within readers that characters exist, and readers that ultimately make them real. And just as the original author cannot control how his readers interpret his characters, the fan fic author also cannot control how his readers interpret those characters in his new work.

quote:
Edit: OSC himself has said that writing and publishing fanfic is morally equivelant to moving into HIS house and kicking out his family. Now think about what's wrong with THAT comparison.
What's wrong is that OSC does not own his stories in the way he owns his house. It's more equivalent to intentionally building your own house that looks like OSC's house, but that includes changes to suit your own personal taste.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
I invented a new word:

Benefiction - to give fanfic writing permission (and encouragement) to fans.

"Joss Whendon has given benefiction to his fans."
 
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
I beleive it is effectively trying to do the same dishonest thing, which is own the position of the creator of work you love. Read: not own literally, but in a figurative sense; ie: Own as in CONTROL.

The success of the Beatles as you say is clearly not at issue, however just because a dishonesty is not harmful to the victim does not mean it is not harmful to the dishonest person. I think that this practice of fanfic sets up a mode of thinking by which people like Tres come to believe that they can own and control (again:read my definition of ownership as in ability to control) the characters of other people, and thus they can supercede these original authors as their successors. I simply believe this to be an attempt to live a life one does not deserve, and didn't earn, and will not fulfill well. That's all. [/QB]

I just don't see fan fic writers as "dishonest". Although I agree with you that a sin harms the sinner even though it may not hurt anybody else, I simply cannot agree with you that fan fic writing is a sin, like dishonesty or stealing.

I don't want to seem like I'm singling you out to argue with or anything like that. I know lots of people don't like fan fic for a variety of reasons. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one because I've tried to understand your position, but I just don't see it.
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I think one of the reasons OSC dislikes fanfic, is that he fears that readers will read fanfic and not buy his books.

I've written my share of HP fanfics in my highschool days, but I'm glad I've found better things to do with my life. I can say that my writing did improve, because I learned to think like an author. I was also very dedicated to making sure that the characters I wrote about were true to their cannon originals, so I learned to think about motivations, and follow the books as rigid guidelines for the way the characters would speak and act, even if the story wouldn't have happned my way.

The last time I hunted for OSC fanfic on fanfiction.net, I have to say, it sucked. Now this was a couple of years ago, but I really had no reason ever to go back. There were a few poems about Bean and Ender, way too many Mary Sue stories about the girl who went to Battle School, a story picking up where Enchantment left of that would never be interesting because all the loose ends were tied like any good fairy tale, and some awful story about Ender's family (including Ender) on vacation and how they meet Bean from the streets of Rotterdam. Legally that might be infringement, but it's really a bunch of fans who don't want to let the characters go, but can't really find anything compelling for them to do.

Okay, so I got bored, and checked. There's also a bunch of character diaries from Ender's game. People have attempted to vicariously live through the angst that Ender and Bean went through. (what's the betting that the authors of these are all 15?) Someone tried to write a Demosthenes article. Oh, and Alai/Ender slash fics.

I don't see any of these stories being a replacement for the real OSC. Just a bunch of 15 year olds acting out fantasies, none of whom can do it well.

If you want to do fanfic right (or at least marginally okay), you have to know your source material solid. If you were a 15 year old girl trying to write a story about yourself in Battleschool, you would want to make it seem true to the books. You'll need to know how the bunks and the lockers work. Or maybe where the gameroom is, and how students get to the bathroom. That requires a copy of the book, which the writer might not have otherwise purchased. Sadly, no one but the author of the story cares, but hey, OSC sold another book.

Also, if people who get involved with a fanfic community, have the stories on the brain for months at a time. The fanfic community, wanting more canon, and dying to know what really happens to the characters whose stories they've been guessing for a year will be among the first to get the books, and probably not from the library.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
I think one of the reasons OSC dislikes fanfic, is that he fears that readers will read fanfic and not buy his books.

I believe he has specifically said that is not one of the reasons. Think about it, the fanfic don't cost anything, and they aren;t any good, so its a product that has no major impact on the market for real publishable books.

His reasons range from: Its bad for your soul, to it hurts my ability to maintain copyright. Its also insulting, but that's just my opinion.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
A note: you don't lose copyright because others infringe it. There might be some concerns about losing trademarks, but his copyright is safe.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
It is EQUIVELANT. Not THE SAME THING. That's why I said "Equivelant" and I didn't say, the "Same thing." If you like, amend my statement to read "morally equivelant," but NOT "intellectually and effectively equivelant".

Ok?

I understood you the first time. My point was that I completely disagree.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
A note: you don't lose copyright because others infringe it. There might be some concerns about losing trademarks, but his copyright is safe.

Your right, I meant trademark. The characters would be in jeopardy of becoming indefensible as tradmarks.

Although in point of fact, I believe that one does have the responsibility of defending one's copyrights on published materials as well. If OSC or any other author knowingly allowed his work to be copied and distributed by others without agreements, then the copyright could come into question.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
No. If he does it knowingly, he might lose the ability to pursue certain damages against those people he knows about, but he'd still be able to use his copyright to make them stop copying (and pursue damages against other people).
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Yes, some fan fiction is written specifically to "fix" something the writer didn't like in the original. But not all of it is, and I think you're doing the fan fiction community a disservice by implying that the desire to rewrite the original is the root of all fan fiction. Most of what I've read was clearly written with a desire to expand the original.

Some of it is written to fill in missing moments (Simon apologizing to Kaylee for using her life as a bargaining chip, Luke and Leia having "the talk" after finding out they're related, etc). Some of it is written to continue the original, especially when no more of it is being made. Some of it is written as parody. Some of it is written as a fantasy, a version of the original that the writer knows would never happen but would like to see anyway (i.e. slash or alternate universe stories). Some of it is written to combine beloved characters from different fictional universes. Some of it is written just to see what would happen.

And yup, I'm defending my own fan fiction. Why not? I know my motivations better than anyone else's, and since they don't match what you've been saying I've been moved to speak up. Especially since the one I'm working on could not possibly be filmed or produced, so it's difficult to see how it could be considered "fixing" the original.

Let's sum up. I believe that writing fan fiction is a great writing exercise, a fun way to add to the fan community of the subject, a promotional tool for the original, and a way to see stories you would otherwise never get to read. I know that I have read fan fiction that was as good or better than published works. And I know that some authors -- Whedon, Rowling -- think it's great. Whedon and Rowling have both encouraged fans to write fan fiction. Paramount even published Star Trek fan fiction (and still continues to do so, under the "Brave New Worlds" anthologies). Eric Flint encourages fans to contribute to his "1632" world and publishes anthologies of the best. Clearly not all authors feel fan fiction is harmful.

I also realize it can be a way for writers to remake the original the way they want despite the intentions of the creator, or to rewrite the orignal as a badly disguised fantasy. And I know that some authors -- Card, Pratchett, Rice, -- think it's a waste of time, or disrespectful to the authors, or dangerous to their copyrights, or simply a potential annoyance if the author writes a book that happens to include an element previous used in a fan fiction somewhere. Marion Zimmer Bradley, Mercedes Lackey, George R. R. Martin, and others do not tolerate fan fiction of their works, and some television studios (X-Files, Babylon 5) actively pursue fanfic writers. I also realize that the vast majority of fan fiction is crap.

I think there are many levels to this, and many perceptions, and why we write depends on what we get out of it. We should pay attention to the wishes of the creator out of respect, and if we discover that we like writing, we should try to invent our own worlds.

But even if I do I'll probably always write fanfic anyway. Because it's fun.
 
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
It's kind of like going over to someone else's backyard to play. Some people are okay with it, others aren't.

And other people, well, they'll steal your ball and keep it FOREVER.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
And other people, well, they'll steal your ball and keep it FOREVER.
Geez, mack. That was AGES ago. Get over it already.

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Maybe I'm not ready to be a published writer. Of fiction, that is, I guess I'm ready to be a non-fiction published writer as I've already been.

Because I agree with much that was said, as a reader. That characters may be created by their writer, but we as a reader really give them life. I can't for the life of me see harm in fan-fiction, and there's part of me that says it's enormous flattery. It means you've created a world and peopled it with characters that others want to spend time there.

But then there's a visceral reaction to me when I think specifically about characters of my own that I'm working on that screams [Mad] "Nobody else better lay their hands on them." [Mad]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
A note: you don't lose copyright because others infringe it. There might be some concerns about losing trademarks, but his copyright is safe.

I don't think losing the ability to stop others from outright copying is what OSC's attorney is worried about. If there's lots of fanfic around, a movie company could conceivably make a movie as a derivative work of the fanfic, which would cut OSC out. This could happen when they want to make use of the universe without filming an actual story by the author. So this wouldn't affect Harry Potter that much, because those stories are clearly the books. But think of an I, Robot movie based on the three laws but nothing else or a Middle Earth movie with brand new characters.

I don't think that's the real worry, either. I think the real worry is that a movie studio will be less willing to pay for characters and settings which they can't control utterly. If there's lots of fanfic, the movie company would have to tolerate it if the author tolerated it for too long (as you said). If the fanfic is "anti-family" (think Malfoy shipping), the company might not be willing to assume that baggage.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
quote:
If the fanfic is "anti-family" (think Malfoy shipping), the company might not be willing to assume that baggage.
That's what bothers me. When I write novels, I'm very particular about sex and violence. I don't do graphic violence, and sex is something that occurs between married people only and it's also not graphic. That's my choice as a writer. And incidentally, it probably makes me less publishable, but I live with it because I'm not going to change or compromise just to increase my odds of publication.

The idea that after publication, someone might take my characters and have them doing things that I specifically object to - that would be hard.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
So make it known that you don't appreciate fanfic of your material, and why. Perfectly valid reason, as many of the reasons given by authors are.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
I don't think losing the ability to stop others from outright copying is what OSC's attorney is worried about. If there's lots of fanfic around, a movie company could conceivably make a movie as a derivative work of the fanfic, which would cut OSC out. This could happen when they want to make use of the universe without filming an actual story by the author. So this wouldn't affect Harry Potter that much, because those stories are clearly the books. But think of an I, Robot movie based on the three laws but nothing else or a Middle Earth movie with brand new characters.
[/QB]

Well one might make the case that a movie inspired by an author's "universe," is perfectly fine, as it is certainly not unethical to model your ideas on previous works. It would have to be clear what the difference was between stealing and inspiration, and I have a feeling that in practice, OSC would have a difficult time proving that a movie inspired by his future universe was actually "stolen," since the parameters for it are pretty loose and given to alot of interpretation. For instance, you can't possible stop everyone else from having the idea that a society of 300 planets exists linked by an ansible network; even the ansible wasn't OSC's original idea exactly.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
You could bring a case against a movie that used concepts pioneered in your works, or arrangements of concepts. Harlan Ellison won a case against the first Terminator movie that way, even though he had never written a story about Sarah Conner.

As an aside, the only way I can enjoy the movie "I, Robot" is if I think of it as a future where robotics scientists grew up reading Asimov's books and used his Three Laws when they became applicable, as opposed to trying to believe that the people on the screen were the same ones Asimov wrote about.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Yes, some fan fiction is written specifically to "fix" something the writer didn't like in the original. But not all of it is, and I think you're doing the fan fiction community a disservice by implying that the desire to rewrite the original is the root of all fan fiction. Most of what I've read was clearly written with a desire to expand the original.

Some of it is written to fill in missing moments

I am not implying it, I am making that claim, I believe that desire to be the root of fan fiction, whether it is conscious or not. The act of filling in "missing" moments is rewriting the context of the original. The intent is all there in your own words I think, because you call the moments "missing," that tells me something about your probable thought process.

If your looking to me to somehow "prove" what I've said, I can't. The closest thing to proof is that my points have generally been twisted or ignored by everyone who has argued with me. What this proves I am not sure: either no-one understands them since I haven't expressed them clearly, or I have expressed them so clearly that the only rebuttal can be "I don't agree," followed by a rationalization which is altogether beside the point.

This isn't whining or complaining, I wouldn't really care for a second round of "yes it is, no it isn't." For the few of you who actually understood my opinions and genuinely disagree, Hats-off, your more self-confident than I am [Wink]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:

As an aside, the only way I can enjoy the movie "I, Robot" is if I think of it as a future where robotics scientists grew up reading Asimov's books and used his Three Laws when they became applicable, as opposed to trying to believe that the people on the screen were the same ones Asimov wrote about.

[ROFL] I had never thought of it that way. So you write a future movie in which every peice of technology and its name has been borrowed from sci-fi of the 20th century, so your not really stealing, since your concept involved acknowledging the literature's influence up-front.

I think this was the sort-of concept in "Galaxy Quest," only they did this by first doing an ST rip-off, THEN playing like that was the tv show that went into space and was made real by aliens. Ah what tangled webs.
 
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
Guys, the bottom line is this: Fanfiction is permissable if the author permits it. The author *does* own all rights to characters he/she creates. How much you liked it or how much it makes you feel like part of a community -- none of that matters. It is owned by someone else: the author.

The end, the end, the end.

And no amount of justifying the opposite view can make fan fiction *not* be theft.

If the author says no, it's theft. YOU DON'T OWN IT.

If the author says yes, knock your guts out.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I am not implying it, I am making that claim, I believe that desire to be the root of fan fiction, whether it is conscious or not. The act of filling in "missing" moments is rewriting the context of the original.

I listed six reasons for writing it, and yes, that one fits your theory. Personally I think your experiences back up your beliefs and my experiences back up mine, and the reality includes both and many more.

And no amount of justifying the opposite view can make fan fiction *not* be theft.

Unless you write a parody of their characters. Then it's protected [Smile]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Yep. Welcome Back, Potter, a sitcom in which Harry returns to Hogwarts to teach remedial potions to students affectionately known as oozeslangs, would be parody.
 
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
Fan fiction and parody are two completely different beasts.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
There is a lot of parody to be found within the realm of fanfiction, though. Most fan writers write parody at one point or another.

The fanfic I've been dabbling with (as a warm-up exercise off and on for... three years, as I said before) is a fairly oblique parody, mostly of fan fiction tropes. It's been fun. It also isn't in anybody's playground who minds that sort of thing, in case you wondered. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TL:
Fan fiction and parody are two completely different beasts.

That's what consfuses most fanfic writers..They think they write the former, so they don't realize when they are writing the latter.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
Guys, the bottom line is this: Fanfiction is permissable if the author permits it. The author *does* own all rights to characters he/she creates. How much you liked it or how much it makes you feel like part of a community -- none of that matters. It is owned by someone else: the author.
Except that the author DOESN'T own the story or the characters within it. Which means that the bottom line is that fanfiction IS permissable whether the author permits it or not.

What the author does own is a copyright, but he only loses that if you publish your fanfiction during the period of time in which the copyright is valid. Thus the only thing you need an author's approval for is to publish your fanfiction during that time. Just writing fanfiction is by no means theft.

But the story and character - those are ideas, not owned by the author, but existing (and created) within the minds of each individual reader. What a reader does with those, within the limitations that the copyright requires, is up to the reader. If the reader wants to imagine that Ender has blue hair, the reader can do that. If the reader wants to write down that Ender has blue hair, and write a story about how he got blue hair, the reader can do that too.

quote:
I am not implying it, I am making that claim, I believe that desire to be the root of fan fiction, whether it is conscious or not.
What I don't understand is why you think the desire to improve upon a story implies some sort of selfishness or wrongess that the writing of the "original" story did not.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
What I don't understand is why you think the desire to improve upon a story implies some sort of selfishness or wrongess that the writing of the "original" story did not. [/QB]

Are parents selfish for not wanting anyone else to raise their children?
 
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
 
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
What I don't understand is why you think the desire to improve upon a story implies some sort of selfishness or wrongess that the writing of the "original" story did not.

Originally posted by Orincoro:
Are parents selfish for not wanting anyone else to raise their children?

Well, yes, they are, but a more apt analogy would be asking if it is selfish to want to raise your neighbour's interesting and talented children as your own. Or rather, borrow them for a while and do stuff with them that their parents either haven't the time, want or inclination to with their children themselves. Like making the children have hot gay sex with unlikely prospects.

What kind of unnatural parent would object to that?
 
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
quote:
Except that the author DOESN'T own the story or the characters within it. Which means that the bottom line is that fanfiction IS permissable whether the author permits it or not.

What the author does own is a copyright, but he only loses that if you publish your fanfiction during the period of time in which the copyright is valid. Thus the only thing you need an author's approval for is to publish your fanfiction during that time. Just writing fanfiction is by no means theft.

But the story and character - those are ideas, not owned by the author, but existing (and created) within the minds of each individual reader. What a reader does with those, within the limitations that the copyright requires, is up to the reader. If the reader wants to imagine that Ender has blue hair, the reader can do that. If the reader wants to write down that Ender has blue hair, and write a story about how he got blue hair, the reader can do that too.

This is so infuriating. You have no understanding of intellectual ownership *or* Copyright law.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TL:
quote:
Except that the author DOESN'T own the story or the characters within it. Which means that the bottom line is that fanfiction IS permissable whether the author permits it or not.

What the author does own is a copyright, but he only loses that if you publish your fanfiction during the period of time in which the copyright is valid. Thus the only thing you need an author's approval for is to publish your fanfiction during that time. Just writing fanfiction is by no means theft.

But the story and character - those are ideas, not owned by the author, but existing (and created) within the minds of each individual reader. What a reader does with those, within the limitations that the copyright requires, is up to the reader. If the reader wants to imagine that Ender has blue hair, the reader can do that. If the reader wants to write down that Ender has blue hair, and write a story about how he got blue hair, the reader can do that too.

This is so infuriating. You have no understanding of intellectual ownership *or* Copyright law.
That's what I said.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
quote:
What the author does own is a copyright, but he only loses that if you publish your fanfiction during the period of time in which the copyright is valid.
That's pretty much completely incorrect.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
The author does not lose copyright if someone else publishes fanfic. What the author loses is credibility if the author later goes to stop or sue the fanfic because the defense can point out that the author allowed this usage previously, which can hurt the author's chances if there are disputes over other usage of the material. The copyright is still there.

This is one of the main reasons the music industry has been so apparently draconian in their attacks on music downloaders; if they don't go after every bit of piracy they see, it can later be argued that since they didn't they must not have minded too much.

However, to bring up another myth about fanfic, "for profit" does not equal "publishing." Posting something to the web, especially in a fanfic anthology site, is essentially publishing - you're establishing it in a fixed form for public distribution. Saying you're not writing for profit does not automatically mean you're not infringing on copyright, it just means that if you lose a copyright infringement lawsuit you can't be sued for as much money as if you had charged. But many fanfic writers believe that as long as they don't charge for their work the author has no recourse. Untrue.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
What the author does own is a copyright, but he only loses that if you publish your fanfiction during the period of time in which the copyright is valid. Thus the only thing you need an author's approval for is to publish your fanfiction during that time.
Not true. Publication is not necessary for the most common forms of copyright violation. For example, copying is illegal (absent a few fair use exceptions) whether you publish the copies or lock them up in a storeroom somewhere.

More on point, the creation of a derivative work - which is the type of violation fanfic would be - is a copyright violation whether it's never published or not.

Not all fanfic is a derivative work; the test is incredibly fluid and notoriously unpredictable. But if the violation occurs - that is, amounts to creation of a derivative work - then it occurs at creation, not publication.

Of course, absent publication, it's pretty hard to seek damages, both because the author can't know about the violation and because the damages absent publication are negligible. But the essence of the violation is not publication.
 
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
If I don't fix it in a physical form, is it copyright violation? Can I tell a story? Is it copyright violation if I imagine what Ender was up to while he was voyaging around before the events of Speaker for the Dead?
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I can see where the 'derivative work' thing could be a problem. There are a lot of "original works" out there that seem like "rub outs" (same context/characterization but the names have been changed). There are a lot of novels that borrow heavily from Asimov, for example, but the names have been changed.

Which makes it okay, though we all know Trantor=Coruscant=planet covered by buildings in several series. As long as you call it by a different name, you're golden.

Which reminds me... I once read a "fanfic" that claimed to be a sort of noir detective story starring Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi as Sam Spade-type detectives. The characters' names had been changed to something else (Quinlan Jenkins? Benjamin... Kendrick? I don't remember) and they had maybe a little more developed intuition than average, but no magical powers.

My reaction was O_O Whence These Flowers? It was really a well-written immitation of gumshoe genre, with the amusing Spade metphors and all that, and the characters bore only the most superficial resemblance to (the actors who played) the Jedi, but the characters were totally different.

The author no doubt put quite a bit of effort into it, but... I think it was only "fanfic" because the author wanted to share it with his/her friends for free.

Blew my mind. It made me realize that I don't really have a good definition for fan fiction, if that story counts.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
Are parents selfish for not wanting anyone else to raise their children?
If a parent-child analogy can be made to stories, then at least one parent of a story is the reader.

quote:
Not true. Publication is not necessary for the most common forms of copyright violation.
Okay, yes. But practically speaking, the author doesn't lose anything unless the derivative work is made public. Some guy privately writing a book about your characters and locking it in his closet is not really taking anything from you, even if legally he has violated the copyright. Legally speaking I can see why the copyright violation would occur when the derivative work is written, but morally I think no right of the author's is violated when a fanfic is written but not published or made public.

The important point is that the author owns a copyright, not a story. The copyright is a limited set of protections set by the law to allow it to be profitable to create new intellectual works. It doesn't (or shouldn't) change the fact that the story and characters themselves are just ideas existing in the readers heads. And it shouldn't take away a reader's right to do with those ideas what they wish, so long as they don't limit the author's abilities to profit from his book in the way the copyright sets out. For instance, a reader can imagine characters doing whatever he wants them to, no?

quote:
The author does not lose copyright if someone else publishes fanfic.
Yes, sorry - that is not what I meant. What I meant is that the author loses that which he is entitled to by that copyright when someone else publishes a fanfic. For instance, he may lose some of the profit that he is supposed to exclusively deserve under that copyright.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
The author isn't supposed to have exclusively reserved to them all profit related to the creative endeavor under copyright, either. Creators frequently license works in ways that allow others to make a profit off of them.

A large part of what you say is correct, but it is far too concentrated on profit. The purpose of copyright is to provide an incentive for creators to create more works. That incentive does not necessarily take the form of profit. For instance, many people may find they are disincentivized from creating more works if people immediately make derivative works involving pornography, even if no change in profit occurs. Its a question of the utility derived from copyright, not profit. Profit is merely a frequently important part of one's utility function.

And of course, in many places other than the US copyright is not the only authorial right. Even when copyright is dispensed with, authors still enjoy "moral rights" regarding their creations, to prevent them being used in ways they find repulsive.
 
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
quote:
I don't do graphic violence, and sex is something that occurs between married people only and it's also not graphic. That's my choice as a writer. And incidentally, it probably makes me less publishable, but I live with it because I'm not going to change or compromise just to increase my odds of publication.
If it makes you less publishable, from my vantage, it's because it's not true. I expect a great many people have extra-marital sex and a healthy percentage of the most interesting sex is rather graphic. I think it's pornographic or gratuituous if the scenes don't involve the plot, but to depict a world where only married people have sex, and sex isn't lusty, is cornball morality. And cornball morality is the reason why a large percentage of Christian fiction is awful.

I'd rather have you depict relationships as they occur, and maybe add the emotional muddle attends many extra-marital affairs, and diseases that could occasion sex. The result would be the same, that is, the reader choosing to have safe married sex.

You are right. It is your choice as a writer. I'm just not going to tell you it's a noble one.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
Fugu,
Sorry... I was an economics major. As a result, to me profit means any benefit an author gets from his work, whether it be money or anything else. But yes, you are right - it is a question about protecting an author's right to derive utility from his work.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Irami - the impression I got from Belle's comments was not that sex didn't happen between unmarried couples in her world, but that the characters she chose to write about didn't fool around. Adultery happens, she's just not interested in writing about it. Just my take, I could wrong.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olivet:

Which makes it okay, though we all know Trantor=Coruscant=planet covered by buildings in several series. As long as you call it by a different name, you're golden.

I don't like the extent that some people go to assign ownership or primacy to a few ideas. I am against fanfic for many reasons, but this is not one of them. If you can't write about a planet covered in one big city just because somebody else also had that idea, then you shouldn't be able to write about space travel, since others have already written about that. What I mean is, its such a general concept that I would be annoyed if i wanted to use it, that I would have to contend with baseless accusations that I am stealing it from asimov. (I don't even like asimov)

Tres: If you believe you are one of the parents of the characters in my writer-child analogy, then I'm sorry, I am only more sure of how narcisistic your worldview is. Does every child have a million fathers or mothers? No.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
Tres: If you believe you are one of the parents of the characters in my writer-child analogy, then I'm sorry, I am only more sure of how narcisistic your worldview is. Does every child have a million fathers or mothers? No
I think you miss the point where your actual disagreement with Tres lies. He doesn't think every child has a million fathers or mothers. He thinks that the character as it exists in each reader's thoughts is a different child.

So the author has a million kids, but each kid only has two parents.

Still something I'm not sure I agree with; I'm torn on the issue. But it's not necessarily narcistic and it's definitely not dependent on each child having more than two parents.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I could make more obvious parallels where a published author has copied an entire world system from another work, but changed the names and told a different story there. I have chosen not too because the examples might be taken as disrespect (which I do NOT intend).

It's not 'stealing' I agree. But it also isn't far from what some fanfiction stories do. Like the example I gave above, I'm not even sure what makes some stories 'fanfiction' if they don't even use the same names or environments. Also, there are categories for 'parody' on most sites that archive fanfiction.

My point was that the line seems much blurrier to me, now that I've seen more of the better fan-written stuff. MZB even helped publish and encourage some of her better fan writers... It isn't as black-and-white as you seem to suggest. I agree that no one should use the worlds of authors that don't want them to.

But published authors frequently do, with superficial changes -- kind of the same way Star Trek used the same seven paper mache rocks to represent every planet they visited -- but the reader *knows*. The book jackets even tell you, most of the time. "Not since the tales of ____ has there been such an epic tale, yadda yadda."
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I can see that point too. Still in that case how significant is the contribution of each reader to the characters? Since the author is a huge part of every reader's experience, it seems to me that everything depends on the writer. Of course this is why some writers are sucessful for 50 books, and some never sell a copy.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olivet:

But published authors frequently do, with superficial changes -- kind of the same way Star Trek used the same seven paper mache rocks to represent every planet they visited -- but the reader *knows*. The book jackets even tell you, most of the time. "Not since the tales of ____ has there been such an epic tale, yadda yadda."

I would hate to ever be known as the new_____ or the the next_____. That just smacks of trying to fulfill an expectation set up in another author's work, or at least your publisher trying to bank on those expectations. If I had a publisher more interested in me because I sounded like someone, than for the quality of my work, then I would find a new one.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I was not making value judgements. Just saying that it happens. I mean, anybody notice how the re-issued children's book series with covers that looked more Harry Potterish?

Just saying publishers do that, because published authors do it, too.

Oh, and FYI, most authors don't have a lot of say so about their book jackets, unless their names are Rowling or King. Just take a gander at the original cover of Wyrms by OSC. There's a big freakin' bug sporting a woody on that one. O_O (No say in the art or the blurbs at least until they've had a few best sellers. Any new author who demands changes in the blurbs on their first novel... *giggles quietly*)
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
There's a big freakin' bug sporting a woody on that one.
At least that has something to do with the book. Have you seen some of the covers for Treason?
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
I would hate to ever be known as the new_____ or the the next_____.
I'd love it, as long as I got paid like the next ______.
 
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
*snort*
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I have a Castilian translation of Ender's game, which has a kid with a huge head and a sour look on his face with his dukes up. He's squared off with a Giant ant, also with its dukes up. Interesting. The whole thing is done in 2-d monochromes.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
quote:
Irami - the impression I got from Belle's comments was not that sex didn't happen between unmarried couples in her world, but that the characters she chose to write about didn't fool around. Adultery happens, she's just not interested in writing about it. Just my take, I could wrong.
You're not wrong, you're absolutely correct. In fact, in one of my stories extra-marital sex not only occurs between two minor characters, but it is part of the plot. I just make sure the reader knows it happened, without writing the sex scene itself, and I don't portray adultery as a noble thing or something that should be emulated, in fact it has disastrous consequences for those characters.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
I think you miss the point where your actual disagreement with Tres lies. He doesn't think every child has a million fathers or mothers. He thinks that the character as it exists in each reader's thoughts is a different child.
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking!

quote:
Still in that case how significant is the contribution of each reader to the characters?
I think it is huge. Just start asking "What would that character do?" questions, and see how different people give very different answers. We had a thread on this forum a while back about Stilson, and I still remember how different Anne Kate's idea of Stilson was from my own. And based on how he wrote the Shadow series, I am pretty sure OSC conceived of Peter in EG very differently than I did when I was reading it. And one could see from their performances how differently Johnny Depp and Tim Burton conceived of Willy Wonka than how Gene Wilder conceived of him. All these conceptions are based on the same original words, so I think the difference that the reader of the words adds is pretty significant.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
To be fair, when your talking about characters in a movie, your throwing in a whole different discussion, because the movie is a creation in itself. Comparing two movies about the same story isn't at all the same thing as two people reading a book and thinking different things about them. The process of making a movie comes after the moviemaker reads the script, and he creates a derivative work, it isn't necessarily a representation of his personal mental image. There aren't two different books, there is only the one, thus no act of mirroring the work in two different public ways.

What stops OSC for revisualizing Peter for himself? I think this was the coolest thing about the Peter character, because if you read EG, then you would have one image: the very image OSC created. Then you read the other books later and the character gets recontextualized again and again. Now you see who has real control over what makes that character, and it isn't you who thought you knew him from the first book. Was OSC "tricking" you into thinking peter was really evil, or that Bean was a white kid until you find out he's also African? No, OSC doesn't like playing "tricks," he just has control over what he does with his characters, who they become. You talk as if there were little "clues" in the earlier books that if you worked hard enough, you could decipher and predict what the characters will do. But this just shows me that the only place the characters' motivations come from is the will of the author.

The fact that certain people understand characters differently doesn't convince me of much. When I took math tests in highschool, my answers were always different from the ones the teacher was thinking of when he wrote the test. I should have used your argument, and explained to him that I had perceived the situation with the breadmaker, who needs to feed 18 people 3 loaves of bread when he only has 12 pounds of dough so how big will the loaves be if they were all equal in size, differently, and my answers were equally valid. [Wink]

edit: Understand I'm not saying that a math test is the same as a book, but that people will think differently about virtually anything, and the ability to take something in the wrong, or at least a different direction is not special or unnusual.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
And based on how he wrote the Shadow series, I am pretty sure OSC conceived of Peter in EG very differently than I did when I was reading it.
My guess is that OSC conceived of peter in EG very differently than he did 20 years later when he wrote the Shadow series.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
And based on how he wrote the Shadow series, I am pretty sure OSC conceived of Peter in EG very differently than I did when I was reading it.
My guess is that OSC conceived of peter in EG very differently than he did 20 years later when he wrote the Shadow series.
Precisely.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
Now you see who has real control over what makes that character, and it isn't you who thought you knew him from the first book. Was OSC "tricking" you into thinking peter was really evil, or that Bean was a white kid until you find out he's also African? No, OSC doesn't like playing "tricks," he just has control over what he does with his characters, who they become.
No, he doesn't have that control - the reader does.

Take my reaction to the Shadow series as an example. When I was reading the Shadow series, I didn't buy OSC's changes in Peter's character. It distracted me and made the whole book seem less real. The result is that I don't consider the Shadow series to be "canon". I consider Ender's Game to be the real story, and the more recent books to be a spin-off story added on later, not unlike how new Star Wars books might be related to the original Star Wars movies. I like the Shadow series as its own set of stories, but can't put it on the level with Ender's Game. And even now, to me Peter is the Peter in Ender's Game, and not the Peter in the Shadow series.

What this means is that OSC cannot control who characters become, unless the reader accepts the changes that he puts forth. The reader has that control. Author's must convince their reader to buy the changes they write - readers are not required to do so. (In contrast, readers can imagine those characters doing whatever they think they would do, without needing to convince the author of anything.)

A more common example might be Anakin Skywalker in the new vs. old Star Wars movies. Viewers do not have to accept George Lucas' interpretations of Anakin's character in the new trilogy. If they find it too unrealistic in inconsistent with what THEY considered the true character of Darth Vader in the original trilogy, they can and probably will reject the new trilogy as being unrealistic.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
No, he doesn't have that control - the reader does.

Take my reaction to the Shadow series as an example. When I was reading the Shadow series, I didn't buy OSC's changes in Peter's character. It distracted me and made the whole book seem less real. The result is that I don't consider the Shadow series to be "canon". I consider Ender's Game to be the real story, and the more recent books to be a spin-off story added on later, not unlike how new Star Wars books might be related to the original Star Wars movies. I like the Shadow series as its own set of stories, but can't put it on the level with Ender's Game. And even now, to me Peter is the Peter in Ender's Game, and not the Peter in the Shadow series.

What this means is that OSC cannot control who characters become, unless the reader accepts the changes that he puts forth. The reader has that control. Author's must convince their reader to buy the changes they write - readers are not required to do so. (In contrast, readers can imagine those characters doing whatever they think they would do, without needing to convince the author of anything.)
[/QB]

With that kind of thought, I would suggest you simply stop buying books altogether.

Go on magical mystery adventures with the "real" Ender Wiggin, and wish all your problems and cares away. Your the only one who's right, the only one who can say what goes on in your private literary universe. Every single human being on Earth is special and brilliant, and different and unique. In fact, since reality only exists the way you percieve it, you can NEVER be wrong! You can do whatever you feel like doing! After all, if you feel that it is right, then of course it is, since you couldn't be mistaken. Ever. Wow you've opened up my mind to a world of magical possibilities. I think in my version of the story, Ender is really a repressed homosexual, and he later is going to have an affair with alai, who by the way was actually a woman all along, which will confuse Ender, so that he will eventually be forced to become a televangelist. It works for me!

[ROFL]

edit: Oh wait maybe that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever thought of in my life.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
You are mixing up reality and fiction. I said the reader controls the fictional story he is imagining in his head. I didn't say the reader controls the real reality that exists outside his head. Thus, I don't think your inability to go on magical mystery adventures with Ender or wish your problems away is relevant.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
OSC even agrees with what Tres has said, to some extent. He advises writers to not physically describe their main characters in too much detail, because it lets the reader imagine them however they want. In that way, three people can read the same book and have completely different visualizations of the action. The trick is to give the reader enough info to arrive at the emotional place you want them to go by giving them just enough information to get them there. That means that the writer can give you the clues that the character is sad, and the reader completes the picture without realizing it, because each reader may have a slightly different concept of what sad looks or feels like.

At least that's the gist of what I thought he said in one of his lectures. [Big Grin]

I think Orincoro may have more difficulty than most with this concept, because doesn't work that way. You don't depend on the listener to hear the notes you don't explicitly play - either you play them or you don't. The written word is different than that.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
quote:
You don't depend on the listener to hear the notes you don't explicitly play - either you play them or you don't.
Actually, I've done some pieces that relied on expected/imagined notes and/or harmonics. [Smile]
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
You tease!
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olivet:

I think Orincoro may have more difficulty than most with this concept, because doesn't work that way. You don't depend on the listener to hear the notes you don't explicitly play - either you play them or you don't. The written word is different than that.

Au Contraire Olivet. You in fact do depend very much on the notes not played. But rather the important creative act is NOT playing them. But there is a clue in what you said, the writer selects what information to include, and brings the reader along with just enough information to get him where you want to go. If three people can imagine a character in three different ways, then those distinctions hardly matter as much as Tres thinks. However if one detail is left hanging, if one leading tone is left ringing in the air, then every ear will be drawn to the tonic note, even if you don't play it, its presence is conspicuous.

In a musical composition, selectivity is key in the same way that it is in a story. A great musical composition contains the fewest possible notes to adequately describe a motive, or a dramatic arc, or an entire symphony. When I was taking basic counterpoint, my teacher would say that every counterpoint line had to be comprised of a series of notes, which if any of them were removed, would sound incomplete without that one. Even Debussy and Wagner or Berlioz, famous for lavish broad strokes across the color spectrum of sound, the rule is that every note is integral to the texture. The halmark of a poor composition, and there are MANY of them, is that we could better do without any single part of it.

Even when a composition is designed to be austentatiously lavish, obscenely overblown, then the execution of that peice will necessitate every note involved in order to create the desired effect. No note is forgotten, no note is added without purpose, no note comes without the intent to make the peice more complete, and no note is erased if not to better hone the true meaning of the peice. We depend very much on what the composer chose not to say, so that we could hear what was worth commiting to music.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Okay. I admit I don't know a lot about music. [Smile]

But since I'm wrong about music, then I really, really don't get why you disagree with Tres on the whole "reader fills in the blanks with his/her imagination" thing. I was hoping music worked differently, because that would explain a lot.

My point was, and I think Card said as much when I heard him speak about writing, that no two readers will see a character exactly the same way. Which I think is the essence of what Tres was saying. I could be wrong abot that, too.
 
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
Also, it's perfectly possible for an author to write a character out of character. If, for example, in the next Harry Potter books JK Rowling suddenly made Hermione the motorcycle riding, club hopping, brainless slut with no explanation for the change that I've had the misfortune to read in some fanfics, it would be just as out of character for Rowling to do it as it was for the fanfic writer to do it. Because JKR has already given the character of Hermione parameters, and in order for her to write an in character Hermione she has to work within those parameters. An author can't completely abandon those parameters without suddenly becoming a terrifically bad author. And it would be perfectly legitimate in that case for fans to complain that Rowling was writing Hermione out of character.
 
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
quote:
I really, really don't get why you disagree with Tres on the whole "reader fills in the blanks with his/her imagination" thing.
I'm not speaking for Orincoro or Tresopax, here, but I don't think anybody's objecting the concept of readers filling in blanks.

I think what we're objecting to (at least, what I object to) is Tresopax's argument that he owns the work and has the right to do what he wants with it, aside from just reading the book, because as reader, he is in fact co-creator.

That is absolutely a mind-blowing position to take.

'Readers use their imagination while reading' is not.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
I have not argued that the reader "owns" the work. Nor have I argued the reader can do whatever he or she wants with the work.

I have argued that the reader is the authority on the story and characters of the story that they are reading, writing, or imagining, because that story and those characters only exist in the mind of that reader. And I have argued that there is nothing inherently selfish (as Orincoro suggests) about exercising that authority by writing fan fiction, even when the author thinks the story should go another way. Imagination is another way of exercising that same authority, with the only difference being that you don't write down what you are imagining.

[ April 11, 2006, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
I have argued that the reader is the authority on the story and characters of the story that they are reading, writing, or imagining, because that story and those characters only exist in the mind of that reader.
I'm not sure how you maintain this position, considering the fact that the story (characters, plot, scenes, etc) is the invention of the writer, not the reader.

As a writer, I feel naturally antipathetic towards Tres' arguments-- but I recognize my bias. Still, he's flatly wrong, my bias notwithstanding.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
You don't need to invent a story for it to exist in your head.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
I have argued that the reader is the authority on the story and characters of the story that they are reading, writing, or imagining, because that story and those characters only exist in the mind of that reader.
It's this sort of argument that leads people to say that communication between to sapient people is utterly impossible.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
The story doesn't exist in your head independent of all other forces. It wouldn't be there at all (presumably) without the efforts of the author.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
Also, the ironic thing about my position is that even though I am disagreeing with OSC on fan fiction, my view on the relationship between characters, stories, readers, and authors is inspired originally by his words. Here is what he concludes at the end of his introduction to Ender's Game; it may clarify my position better than I could:

quote:
"All these uses are valid; all readings of the book are 'correct.' For all these readers have placed themselves inside this story, not as spectators, but as participants, and so have looked at the world of Ender's Game, not with my eyes only, but also with their own.

This is the essence of the transaction between storyteller and audience. The 'true' story is not the one that exists in my mind; it is certainly not the written words on the bound paper that you hold in your hands. The story in my mind is nothing but a hope; the text of the story is the tool I created in order to try to make that hope a reality. The story itself, the true story, is the one that the audience members create in their minds, guided and shaped by my text, bu tthen transformed, elucidated, expanded, edited, and clarified by their own experience, their own desires, their own hopes and fears.

The story of Ender's Game is not this book, though it has that title emblazoned on it. The story is one that you and I will construct together in your memory. If the story means anything to you at all, then when you remember it afterward, think of it, not as something I created, but rather as something that we made together."

I have taken these words to heart, largely because I think they are correct.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I knew someone was going to do the direct-quote-of-Card to suport Tres' idea, I'm just really glad it wasn't me. [ROFL]

For what it's worth, I agree with Tres and Card on this particular point. As a reader, it's a no-brainer; as a writer, it scares the bejeebus out of me.

*****

Overheard conversation:

"What did you do at recess?"

"I played Star Wars with Sean."

"But when you play Star Wars, you call it 'Super Space Wars' or something, right?"

"No."

"Well, you'd better. If you call it Star Wars you'll get in trouble with George Lucas."

"No I won't."

(This only proves that my husband is a snot and my son is very wise to his ways. It is not intended as a statement regarding the thread topic -- this just seemed like a funny place to share it.)
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:

I have taken these words to heart, largely because I think they are correct. [/QUOTE]

I can quote anyone to any purpose. Going from that quote, to being solely responsible for the characters as creator is foolish, and plainly wrong.
Plus just because OSC said it that way doesn't make it true, and that is the opinion of one author, who's views I have not been trying to defend. I have the luxury of creating my own opinions and ideas, rather than living in the "shadow" (te-he) of anybody else's work.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
I didn't say the reader is solely responsible for creating the characters - that claim would be obviously false. (The characters were originally the author's idea!) Rather, I said the final authority on what is real or not real about those characters is the reader imagining them.

Note that OSC disagrees with that conclusion in the first quote I mentioned in my first post. (He says "what I write is 'real' and has authority, and what fans write is not and does not" and concludes fanfiction is not worth writing.) But I think that is nevertheless contradicted by his claim that "the true story, is the one that the audience members create in their minds", which I do believe is true. If the true story is the one audience members create in their minds, then those audience members are the final authority on what is true or not true about that story.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
the final authority on what is real or not real about those characters is the reader imagining them.

quote:
If the true story is the one audience members create in their minds, then those audience members are the final authority on what is true or not true about that story.
Within reason. For example, it would be ludicrous to imagine that Mack Street did NOT consummate his marriage to Titania in 'Magic Street.'

Additionally, it would be ludicrous to believe that he had sex with her before his marriage.

The author is the authority ( [Smile] ) on the books he creates. No one knows them better, no one invests more in them. When we speak about the reader being an authority on the story, that authority extends to the readers PERSONAL experience with the story. It is an individual interpretation of the story, assisted by the writer.

The boundaries of the reader's authority is the reader's mind.

EDIT:

A large part of my reasoning comes from the fact that every writer knows more about the characters he creates than what is just written down. (For a wonderful and literal interpretation of this phenomenon, see Cornelia Funke's 'Inkheart.')

For an example, I'll use my story 'Blackberry Witch,' which some of you have read. The upshot of the story is that a witch captures a boy who is filled with the power of a god. It's never relayed in the story how the child got his powers; nor is it explained why he starts to get sick after his capture.

I KNOW the backstory of these hows and whys-- and if anyone were to try and write them, I'd be, at the very best, amused. The characters and lives in the story aren't the readers' to fiddle with-- they belong to me.

And I am a jealous God.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
For example, it would be ludicrous to imagine that Mack Street did NOT consummate his marriage to Titania in 'Magic Street.'
But would it be ludicrous for a reader to say that the book, Magic Street, has it wrong - that Mack Street wouldn't really do that, and thus that the book must be an unrealistic portrayal of that character?

quote:
The characters and lives in the story aren't the readers' to fiddle with-- they belong to me.
Why?

I don't think it is enough to reason that you "know" more about your characters, therefore they belong to you. Because what you really know is just the backstory as you think it should be - the one that you had in mind when writing. The reader may also know the backstory as they think it should be, and it may be different from what the writer thinks it should be. In this case, it's the reader that gets to decide for himself, because the boundaries of the reader's authority are his or her mind, and the story for that reader exists within those boundaries. The realy story doesn't exist anywhere except in the minds of different readers (including the author). And the reader can write down his backstory, which is true at least for him and also for any other readers he can convince to decide it is true.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
But would it be ludicrous for a reader to say that the book, Magic Street, has it wrong - that Mack Street wouldn't really do that, and thus that the book must be an unrealistic portrayal of that character?
Yes.
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
Thinking about it in another way, Scott R, if you never explain within your story why your child has godly powers nor why he starts to get sick, what else *can* your readers do but imagine why they came to be? Do you expect them to not think about it at all? Even though for some of your readers, those might be mightily important backstories to them and ones which they wish they had the answer to?

You obviously have a reason to not include them, so there's nothing else for a reader to do but think up their own explanation.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
But would it be ludicrous for a reader to say that the book, Magic Street, has it wrong - that Mack Street wouldn't really do that, and thus that the book must be an unrealistic portrayal of that character?

Yes, such a situation would be ludicrous.

Now, an argument can be made that the writer didn't execute Plot Point X skillfully, and so made that point unbelievable-- but it STILL definitely happened. No amount of reader whining is going to change it. That's why, despite clumsiness, Phantom Menace is still part of the SW universe. You can't get around the fact that the creator stuck it in there, no matter how ugly it is.

quote:
the reader can write down his backstory, which is true at least for him and also for any other readers he can convince to decide it is true.
I don't believe so.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
No amount of reader whining is going to change it. That's why, despite clumsiness, Phantom Menace is still part of the SW universe. You can't get around the fact that the creator stuck it in there, no matter how ugly it is.
I can. I choose to believe that Lucas was replaced by a lobotomized robot in 1994. Everything created since then is fan fiction, just like the stuff that Frank Herbert's son has written.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
if you never explain within your story why your child has godly powers nor why he starts to get sick, what else *can* your readers do but imagine why they came to be? Do you expect them to not think about it at all? Even though for some of your readers, those might be mightily important backstories to them and ones which they wish they had the answer to?
Oh, I don't mind the wondering. It's the act of writing down and disseminating their (false) stories over mine that torks me. It's the idea that their opinion preempts mine that sets me off.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I also don't think that Peter in Ender's Game is the same character as the Peter in the Shadow series. I love both stories, but they are separate stories to me, not part of the same story.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
quote:
But would it be ludicrous for a reader to say that the book, Magic Street, has it wrong - that Mack Street wouldn't really do that, and thus that the book must be an unrealistic portrayal of that character?
Yes, such a situation would be ludicrous.
So do you believe that anything any author writes is automatically realistic? If OSC wrote a short story about how Ender rapes Petra at Battle School, would you still consider that to be an accurate portrayal of Ender's true character? Would you conclude afterward that Ender must have really been a rapist all along, because OSC has the authority to tell you what Ender is and was?

I think you are giving away too much authority to authors. The result is going to be that you allow authors to ruin things you love, by corrupting earlier stories with later works that you cannot accept. The original Star Wars should not be ruined because the reader feels bound to accept later, lesser movies with it. The original Matrix should not be ruined because the reader feels bound to accept the Matrix 2 and 3 as definite parts of the same story. Fans should not need to reject Dune because they can't accept Dune 4 or Dune 5. And you shouldn't stop loving Ender's Game if an Ender's Game movie comes out in which OSC's script includes stuff you don't like. But if you allow authors to absolutely determine what you believe is true about a fictional world, and restrict your own imagination accordingly, then I think the above situations are inevitable.

I think this is a common fan problem - fans get mad at authors for writing things that conflict with how they know the thing they love should be. I think this is part of why Star Wars fans may hate Lucas. What they should realize is that there is no need to be so angry - that they don't need to accept an author's opinion on what happens next, unless they find it to be acceptable. One book cannot ruin an earlier book unless you choose to give the author the authority to do so, because that authority originally rests with you.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
So do you believe that anything any author writes is automatically realistic?
No-- but this is a question not of substance, but of ability.

ANYTHING is plausible, with skill.

quote:
If OSC wrote a short story about how Ender rapes Petra at Battle School, would you still consider that to be an accurate portrayal of Ender's true character? Would you conclude afterward that Ender must have really been a rapist all along, because OSC has the authority to tell you what Ender is and was?
Yep. It's his story. I may not like it, and find myself frustrated that X decision was made; additionally, I would certainly cease to apply the story to myself; but arguing that the events are not the REAL story and I've got the capacity to tell the REAL story is beyond the pale.

[ April 12, 2006, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
Scott- Would you have a problem with fans of your story writing essays about how the boy got his powers? Would it make a difference if those theories were posted online? If there was a lot of discussion about them? When does it start to bother you?
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
arguing that the events are not the REAL story and I've got the capacity to tell the REAL story is beyond the pale.
I just learned that I'm beyond the pale.

Who would have guessed that it's because of my views on fiction?

I expected more, somehow...
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Would you have a problem with fans of your story writing essays about how the boy got his powers? Would it make a difference if those theories were posted online? If there was a lot of discussion about them? When does it start to bother you?
It starts to bother me when someone assumes authority on the story above the writer.

For example, in this excerpt from Blackberry Witch, you will notice some Christian imagery. (Water into wine, Nina asking her mother to spare her, 3 days of death, "Drink me and live forever...") If someone were to assert that the imagery is instead, I dunno, Hindu, and refused my explanation-- I'd be a little ticked. Okay, not ticked, but fairly dismissive.

The scene still works if you don't think/don't know about the Christian elements-- but if you insist on arguing that it's anything else, you're an idiot. The author knows what he's written, why he's written it, and is the final authority on the meaning and interpretation of it.

Blackberry Witch ends with Nina not learning anything from her experiences. If someone were to rewrite that ending so she marries the wizard and they live happily ever after, and then disseminate it as a valid alternative-- yeah, that'd tick me off.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
It starts to bother me when someone assumes authority on the story above the writer.
Like the idiots who periodically claim that Ender's Game is Hitler apologetics.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I only assume authority over the writer when I can do a better job than they did.

For instance, The Matrix is a much better story than The Matrix Trilogy. By editing out the last two movies, I made the story better than they did.

That is why only the first one is real.
 
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
Would you have a problem with fans of your story writing essays about how the boy got his powers? Would it make a difference if those theories were posted online? If there was a lot of discussion about them? When does it start to bother you?
It starts to bother me when someone assumes authority on the story above the writer.
But 99% of the time with fanfiction that's not the goal. Most of the time, the fanfic author is trying to emulate the writer, not supplant them. Most fanfiction writers work very hard to make their stories compliant with canon. In Harry Potter I know authors who have gone back after the new books were released and rewritten their stories to make them compliant with the new canon
as well. There is no sense in which these authors are trying to assume an authority on the story above the author. They just admire the author so much that they want to be as much like them as possible. Not only that, but they want to live in that author's world. Fill in those parts of the world that the author hasn't.

I'm sure they exist, but I've never read a fanfic that seeks to rewrite the end of a book. I've only read fanfics that seek to fill in parts of the story left unsaid, or write what happens next, or write what happened before the story happened. And with none of these things is there a sense that their version is the correct version, no matter what the author says. In most of these the writer just can't stand that it's over. In Harry Potter, which has an incomplete canon, there is the sense that the fanfic writer just can't wait the two or three years for the next installment, and so in the meantime they'll write their own next installment. But they don't contest the fact that what JK Rowling writes is going to be the true book.
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
For example, in this excerpt from Blackberry Witch, you will notice some Christian imagery. (Water into wine, Nina asking her mother to spare her, 3 days of death, "Drink me and live forever...") If someone were to assert that the imagery is instead, I dunno, Hindu, and refused my explanation-- I'd be a little ticked. Okay, not ticked, but fairly dismissive.
I agree that some authors would like to have the ultimate authority on what their works mean - but I don't think that means they do, even if they get ticked or dismissive over not having that authority.

Authors are the authority on what they wrote and why they wrote it, but I don't think they can decide what the story is to the reader reading it, what it means to the reader, or how it should be interpreted by the reader, even if they desire to.

The Hitler comments about Ender's Game are flawed not because they assert Ender's Game can be interpreted in a way that supports Hitler. Ender's Game CAN be read that way! But the comments are flawed because they assert OSC secretly intended it to be interpreted that way. OSC may not be the authority on how his reader should interpret a book of his, but he definitely IS the authority on his own intentions in writing a book. So it doesn't make sense to say "OSC wrote this because he wanted to X" when OSC denies it.

But if someone sees Hinduism where you, the author, does not - I don't see why you can tell them it is not there. Instead, I see why you can tell them you didn't intend to put it there.

quote:
Blackberry Witch ends with Nina not learning anything from her experiences. If someone were to rewrite that ending so she marries the wizard and they live happily ever after, and then disseminate it as a valid alternative-- yeah, that'd tick me off.
Well, I think the issue of trying to replace the original book with an altered version of it is a little different. I think the author does have a right to have his book not misrepresented by alternative versions trying to replace the original. For instance, if I wanted to write my own version of Ender's Game, even after all copyrights expire, I don't think it would be a right to use the exact same title, take all of OSC's same words, keep the same cover, and only alter the parts I disagree with. The problem with that is not that I am disagreeing with OSC on how Ender's Game should go, but rather that I am attempting to misrepresent my story as the author's original story. It's a lie, to some extent. An example might be taking "I, Robot" and making it into a movie that is not really like the book, but making it similar enough so that people think it is the story as originally intended. I have no problem with the movie "I, Robot" borrowing ideas or even characters from the book, but I do have a problem when it tries to claim it IS the original story, when it is not.

Fanfiction normally doesn't do this, I believe. Normally it seeks to add on. Or, if it retells the same story, it does so from scratch as a whole new work, rather than misrepresenting itself as an improved original.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
But 99% of the time with fanfiction that's not the goal.
See, I don't have much of a beef with fanfiction, other than I think it's kind of a timewaster for writers who want to be published.

I read Tres' comments as an assault on the writer's ownership of his own material.
 
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
If OSC wrote a short story about how Ender rapes Petra at Battle School, would you still consider that to be an accurate portrayal of Ender's true character? Would you conclude afterward that Ender must have really been a rapist all along, because OSC has the authority to tell you what Ender is and was?
Yep. It's his story. I may not like it, and find myself frustrated that X decision was made; additionally, I would certainly cease to apply the story to myself; but arguing that the events are not the REAL story and I've got the capacity to tell the REAL story is beyond the pale.
You say you would 'cease to apply the story' to yourself. I understand this to be equivalent to disregarding the second Star Wars trilogy, as people have mentioned earlier in this thread. Am I mistaken?

If I am not mistaken, then I don't think there is quite as large a gulf between what you are arguing and what Tres is arguing. You, as the reader, decide what the story is for you.

The only hitch is your belief that there is a 'REAL story'. In my view, there is no single version of any story that is more real than any other version (in the realms of fiction, at least). That doesn't preclude the concept of canon, for those who wish to follow it. But it does recognize that every reader's experience of a book/story is different, yet no less valid than another reader's or even the author's.

You created Blackberry Witch and by rights you should receive any compensation and credit garnered by the story. But that is as far as your 'ownership' extends. As soon as you place it in the public domain (by that I mean publishing it for others to read, not giving up copyright), then anyone can read it and anyone who does read it 'owns' the ideas and story just as much as you do.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by blacwolve:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
It starts to bother me when someone assumes authority on the story above the writer.

But 99% of the time with fanfiction that's not the goal. Most of the time, the fanfic author is trying to emulate the writer, not supplant them.
I believe that is more true of book-related fandoms (generally a single author) than TV/movie-related fandoms (often many authors, and thus inconsistencies). For example, "episode rewrites" are extremely common in Lois&Clark fanfic, and not uncommon in Star Trek fanfic.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
It starts to bother me when someone assumes authority on the story above the writer.
Like the idiots who periodically claim that Ender's Game is Hitler apologetics.
You know this reminds me of a poetry seminar I took from a published and well known American poet named Joe Wenderoth, of "Letters to Wendy's" fame, among others of his books.

His take on poetry (a different milleus, as near to music as it is to novel writing), was that once a poem is written down, the "meaning," is out of the author's hands. At the time I couldn't help thinking this was an extremely convenient way of thinking about analysing poetry; after all it couldn't be easier to propose your theory, and even if it is stupid, the author can't say your interpretation is "wrong."

Poetry is quite a different animal from the novel, however I thought about his view on the poem in relation to the author's "ownership" of ideas. I don't care particularly if Tres thinks he somehow controls the ideas or characters in a story or creates them, or whatever. But, is it possible, is it even desirable for a book to be like a poem in that it contains varied layers of unintended meaning, which reach the work by allusion, or accident, or forgotten unconscious connection in the writer's process.

Its rather like that scene in "The Shawshank Redemption," were Red (morgan freeman) explains his own name by saying "maybe its because I'm Irish." The original script actually called for an Irish character, but when Freeman got the part, they left the line in, and it got a whole new meaning when he read it as an ironic joke about being "Black Irish."

While I still attribute the work and the creative process to the author, I do recognize the "work" involved in a real reading of a book. A close reading may reveal interesting interpretations which may or may not be relevant. My unconfirmed suspicion is that I am a rather unnusually studious reader, and general look more deeply at most of what I read, thus I can't be sure how often I am intellectualizing a point that another reader would skip over and miss. then again I've seen THAT done too much as well, grad students adopting a book I've never heard of and turning it into the greatest work of literature in the age it was written. Never mind that their explanations of the brilliance of the original work rests on inferences on top of inferences made by other scholars, to such an extent that the student's own thesis ends up longer than the work it is supposed to talk about. Never does the student mention to the utility of many of those ideas for anyone but the fellow scholar (and even then....) [Wink]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Miro:
The only hitch is your belief that there is a 'REAL story'. In my view, there is no single version of any story that is more real than any other version (in the realms of fiction, at least). That doesn't preclude the concept of canon, for those who wish to follow it. But it does recognize that every reader's experience of a book/story is different, yet no less valid than another reader's or even the author's.
[/QB]

The idea of "canon" relates too strongely to my experiences with ignorant literalist "funamendalist" Christians and their Bibles. I knew one guy who showed me where it said in his bible that "homosexuals," would be punished by God. I pointed to the left hand side of the page and pointed out that the actual verse read "effeminate." Why there existed a "common sense" translation in a book which was supposed to be the literal word of God, well I have no idea, nor do I care to know the reasoning behind that little gem.

Point is, "Canon," feel stupid to me because it makes sci-fi readers sound like quasi-religious nut-jobs with no lives of their own. As if a "Canon" story is more real than a non canon story, in so-far as none of what happens in either book is "real." Talking about literary primacy and rights and authorship are seperate of the issue of "canon," I think. Best not to mix the two ideas as if they were the same.
 
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
As if a "Canon" story is more real than a non canon story, in so-far as none of what happens in either book is "real." Talking about literary primacy and rights and authorship are seperate of the issue of "canon," I think. Best not to mix the two ideas as if they were the same.

You sound like you're arguing with me, yet what you're saying agrees with what I said. I'm confused.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Miro:
[/qb]

You sound like you're arguing with me, yet what you're saying agrees with what I said. I'm confused. [/QB][/QUOTE]

EXACTLY. Next time you'll think about that. [Razz]
 
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
 
Um...still confused.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
anyone can read it and anyone who does read it 'owns' the ideas and story just as much as you do.
We disagree, but it's a philosophical difference that I don't think can be resolved. I admit that a lot of my stubborness on this issue stems from a (perhaps) overactive desire to protect my work from encroachers...

Mine, mine, mine.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Which is perfectly fine. As has been stated several times here, if an author expresses a dislike for fanfic of his or her work, no worries.

What I think would be more illunminating, instead of hearing the opinions of readers and fanfic writers who think it's OK, would be for people against fanfic to try to understand why some authors love and encourage it. The opinions of fanfic writers is easily dismissed, we have a vested interest. But why would authors think it's a good idea?

Two that have been mentioned, Joss Whedon and J.K. Rowling, have publicly stated their approval. J.K. Rowling said she was flattered. Joss Whedon all but encourages it.

Both of the linked articles also include examples of authors who disagree (and note the comment by the FanFiction.com website who says she removes fanfic if authors request it). But tell me this: Rowling and Whedon are arguably two of the most beloved creators working today, with millions of fans that only seem to increase in number. And both have a larger number of fanfics written in their universes than almost anybody. Have they been hurt? Has their property been injured? Has anyone expressed the slightest bit of confusion which are the "real" stories and which are the fanfics?

I said the largest number of fanfics than almost anybody. The largest? I'd guess Star Trek. And fanfic helped save Star Trek, by keeping it alive through 'zines and fans mailing them to each other when there weren't any novels, weren't any movies, weren't any spinoff TV shows, weren't even any conventions yet. Paramount encouraged it long before the movies by printing the best in two anthologies, and many of the writers went on to write Star Trek novels. Paramount still encourages it by printing "Brave New World" anthologies. Clearly they've been devastated by fanfic. Star Wars has much the same attitude.

If anything, it appears to me that fanfic, as a way of contributing to the fan community, has helped those creators by spreading the word and keeping interest alive.

You don't have to like it, don't have to allow it, don't have to read it. There are certainly arguments against it, and I have no problem with any author asking fans not to write it or even to take action to remove it from the web. Entirely your call, doesn't bother me a bit. But the arguments I can't accept are:
Fanfic always hurts authors.
Fanfic is just fans disrespecting authors.
Fanfic is a waste of time and serves no purpose because you can't sell it.

All three are provably untrue.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Chris, the only point I'm going to disagree with (slightly) is this:

quote:
Fanfic is a waste of time and serves no purpose because you can't sell it.

Writing fanfic is a waste of time if you want to be a writer in your own right.

It may or may not be a waste of time otherwise (better than watching American Idol, for example).

It definitely does serve a purpose, whether or not it gets sold, read, or whatever. The fanfic AT LEAST is fun to write. Which isn't a terrible thing.
 
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
anyone can read it and anyone who does read it 'owns' the ideas and story just as much as you do.
We disagree, but it's a philosophical difference that I don't think can be resolved. I admit that a lot of my stubborness on this issue stems from a (perhaps) overactive desire to protect my work from encroachers...

Mine, mine, mine.

I'm not a writer, but I agree with you, Scott.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Writing fanfic is a waste of time if you want to be a writer in your own right.


Can be. Doesn't have to be, even if you do plan to be a professional writer. It can also be a writing exercise, or a way to practise dialogue, or just a way to unwind and break yourself out of the mental block your own work has got you stuck into. Mechanics work on their own cars for fun, artists doodle, professional singers warble in the shower.

Now if you have aspersions to being a pro writer and all you write is fan fiction, I'd agree with you. It's this all or nothing argument I have problems with and frankly don't understand.
 
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
But Scott, for some people coming up with worlds or characters of their own isn't the problem. It's the writing that is. I'm like that. I have billions of ideas for stories and the characters that go along with them. I just don't have the faintest clue how to go about writing those stories.

Now, at the moment my desire to be a writer is pretty much dormant. But then, I don't write fanfiction either. However, if I decided I really wanted to be a writer I would probably start off writing fanfiction. Why? Because fanfiction is a lot more tolerant than normal fiction. While writing fanfiction I can figure out how to write dialogue, how to pace my story, how to describe things without the pressure that I would feel with one of my own stories.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
I have billions of ideas for stories and the characters that go along with them. I just don't have the faintest clue how to go about writing those stories.

Now, at the moment my desire to be a writer is pretty much dormant. But then, I don't write fanfiction either. However, if I decided I really wanted to be a writer I would probably start off writing fanfiction. Why? Because fanfiction is a lot more tolerant than normal fiction. While writing fanfiction I can figure out how to write dialogue, how to pace my story, how to describe things without the pressure that I would feel with one of my own stories.

:shrug:

It reads like an excuse to me. You can do all those things in your own stories.

"Tolerance" isn't as neccessary a virtue as people make it out to be, IMO.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I think you have an inaccurately dim view of fanfiction communities. I've only been on the periphery of one fandom, but I know people who have been active in others. They are often very nurturing environments, and good places to make stupid mistakes and work them out, from what I'm told. Some of them may be dominated by squeeing fans who don't know what a verb is, but that isn't what I hear from those willing to talk about it.

For some people, there IS a benefit to writing without too much self-censorship or inner criticism. Fanfic communities can help provide that because, heck, they aren't paying. You do need to know how to edit your work, but for those with trouble turning that inner critic off long enough to finish something, a dabbling in fanfic might work. (I know one writer who very obviously improved her work this way.)

Just because you put your pants on one leg at a time doesn't mean that someone else is wrong for doing both legs at once. [Wink]
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I really feel like being offended in behalf of all those who wear skirts, but a wise man once said that it's almost always a bad idea to get offended on behalf of others. [Wink]
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
Writing fanfic with established characters hones your story development skills. What blacwolve is saying is that she already has all the characters and situations and worlds floating around in her head, but lacks the skill necessary to get them out on paper in a cohesive story. Working with characters who already have their own worlds and personalities allows her (and any fanfic writer) to concentrate on the delivery, on the construction.

One of the best things I ever wrote -- actually, the best -- was a 10th Kingdom fanfiction. I have a devil of a time getting my ideas out on paper, i always fizzle out after about a page or so. But working with developed characters allowed me to work on creating viable plots, realistic-sounding dialogue, and believable character motivations, without having to worry about creating the characters from scratch.

In addition, I could work with something that I loved, a story that interested me because the characters were already there and established.

You look at fanfic from a standpoint of "waste of time" Well, so is freewriting, if you're not freewriting about specific characters you hope to create. And i've never known a writer to condemn freewriting -- it helps get the creative juices flowing, helps wake the brain up and make it think of new connections, new ways of getting the ideas down on paper. Fanfiction, if a "serious" writer is doing it, can be just that. Most fanfiction, though, is really just what it says -- fiction written by fans -- lovers of the original source material.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:

Fanfic always hurts authors.
Fanfic is just fans disrespecting authors.
Fanfic is a waste of time and serves no purpose because you can't sell it.

All three are provably untrue.

Thankfully I haven't relied on any of these problems in arguing against fanfic. Although here is one for you that I haven't used: Publishing fanfic is often illegal.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Driving at 55 mph is often illegal as well.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olivet:

Just because you put your pants on one leg at a time doesn't mean that someone else is wrong for doing both legs at once. [Wink]

[Big Grin]

I suspect however that anyone who requires training pants anytime past the age of 4 may not have been meant to be an author at all.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Driving at 55 mph is often illegal as well.

point well taken, just reminding people of their willingness to dismiss the law if it doesn't work in their favor- I do it all the time. [Smile]
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by Olivet:

Just because you put your pants on one leg at a time doesn't mean that someone else is wrong for doing both legs at once. [Wink]

[Big Grin]

I suspect however that anyone who requires training pants anytime past the age of 4 may not have been meant to be an author at all.

Tell that to Christy Brown.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Thankfully I haven't relied on any of these problems in arguing against fanfic. Although here is one for you that I haven't used: Publishing fanfic is often illegal.

Nope, you've argued from the point of view of someone who doesn't think it's right based on, more or less, a gut feeling, and while I'll still argue it I have no problem with that.

It's illegal if it's published and sold. If it's posted online, or mailed amongst yourselves without profit... gray area. The speeding example is a bad one, most fan fiction is illegal the same way that letting a friend copy your music CD is illegal. Technically, yes. Harmful? Not especially. Helpful as promotion? Arguable.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I think the speed limit example is a good one.

Fanfiction can be illegal. I can also be legal, if the copyright holder has said that it's OK.

But I agree that even when it's illegal, it's illegal like letting your friend burn a CD is illegal.

[ April 13, 2006, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
I think you have an inaccurately dim view of fanfiction communities. I've only been on the periphery of one fandom, but I know people who have been active in others. They are often very nurturing environments, and good places to make stupid mistakes and work them out, from what I'm told.
[Smile] I don't disagree with you, except about the inaccurate part. I don't think most critical writer's groups are useful for critiques past one year, either. As support groups, sure, as whining posts, or pedestals, great. But as useful tools to help a writer improve their craft?

Not usually.

quote:
You look at fanfic from a standpoint of "waste of time" Well, so is freewriting, if you're not freewriting about specific characters you hope to create. And i've never known a writer to condemn freewriting -- it helps get the creative juices flowing, helps wake the brain up and make it think of new connections, new ways of getting the ideas down on paper. Fanfiction, if a "serious" writer is doing it, can be just that.
Best argument yet-- because you gave an example that is analogous. The thing about free writing, though, is that you're still using your own ideas, with the goal in mind of getting an original story out of all the gobbledy-gook.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Unless you have been a part of such a community or are quite close to atleast three people who have been, then "inacurate" is a given. I also admit that the picture I have seen is innacurate, in that it does not include all groups in existence (maybe only a couple). If the only baseball players you have ever seen were, at the time you saw them, in the act of raping wallabies, you might (somewhat justifiably) have a very dim view of baseball players, but it would be inacurate.

[ April 13, 2006, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Now there's a mental image I'll be trying to get rid of for the next week, thank you...
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Well, I'm convinced. I shall henceforth give up posting to Hatrack. There's absolutely no point in me posting debate on someone else's topic when I should be coming up with my own ideas for my weekly columns. Every post I make here is a waste, stealing valuable time that should be spent only in commercial ventures.

Of course, I manage to get my columns done anyway, and I get some good ideas writing here, and it helps me practice getting my thoughts in order, and (wait for it) it's fun. But the time-wasting argument doesn't seem to allow for fun. If I have a spare minute to write, I must spend it writing columns and nothing else.

Apparently.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Well, I'm convinced. I shall henceforth give up posting to Hatrack. There's absolutely no point in me posting debate on someone else's topic when I should be coming up with my own ideas for my weekly columns. Every post I make here is a waste, stealing valuable time that should be spent only in commercial ventures.
Apparently.

Writing responses using your ideas in a public debate is nowhere near the conversation we've been having. The analogy is flawed. In this debate I invite you to critique me, and you invite me to respond to your arguments, no-where in that do you steal ideas, and nowhere in that are your ideas stolen by others.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
You keep saying "stealing ideas" but I think you mean "stealing characters" because you've already said that authors stealing ideas from each other doesn't count.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Your right, different issue. I do think that borrowing elements is ok and in fact essential. I just wanted to point out that Hatrack is nothing like what Chris B said, though I see I should have remembered he wasn't talking about stealing, just being "original."

Edit: what you said Olivet, reminds me of the way alot of people think about "ideas." For instance, I wrote a song recently on "The Raven" by Poe, and somebody on campus heard us rehearsing it and said I should write my own song instead of "stealing" Poe's idea. Well, the assignment was to set a poem, and there is a very old tradition of setting poems to music, but this person had the idea that every song in history must have been an original text. Truthfully very few songs have been set to original texts, either because singers and composers borrow poems, or they write lyrics for others to set to music.
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
quote:
The thing about free writing, though, is that you're still using your own ideas, with the goal in mind of getting an original story out of all the gobbledy-gook.
Actually, i've been asked in classes to brainstorm on poems that we were studying, or on movies we watched. In those cases, the exercise was not about our own original ideas being expanded on -- it was about someone *else's* idea being expanded on. Their characters, their setting, their theme/tone/imagery, etc.

I remember specifically reading a poem in college -- i don't remember it precisely, or the author -- but the class exercise was to freewrite on the author's imagery and then use that freewriting and two distinct images from the author's poem to write our own piece. So we were to take established elements of the poem and use them in our own way. I saw that as a useful exercise, and i view fanfiction the same way.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Leonide- What you did isn't analogous at all to fanfic. If you were drawing inspiration from a poem or a painting or even another story, that doesn't make it stealing, it makes it inspiration. If you take a line from a poem and use that as the basis of a story or a painting that is totally fine.

Fanfic is another animal entirely and can't fairly be compared to that free-write activity. It just isn't at all the same thing.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I'm sorry, Orincoro, I need to start addressing my responses. My last one was to Scott R.

I have no response to you, not one that will make any difference. We clearly do not agree on the matter and there's little point in rehashing ad infinitum. I respect your position, do not see how it applies to me or a significant enough percentage of fanfic to be valid to me, and there it ends.
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
It's funny...everytime I've ever taken a line from a poem or a story and written a story about it, i haven't felt like it's my own story. in THOSE cases, i do feel like I'm stealing for some reason. I feel like i didn't come up with the idea myself, that it was prompted.

With characters and settings, though, I guess it doesn't process the same way. They're there, and clearer in my mind then they ever were in the story I read...I'm doing my own thing with them -- they're just the easiest medium for me to springboard off of.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
"I respect your position, do not see how it applies to me or a significant enough percentage of fanfic to be valid to me..."

I think this may be it, in a nutshell. I held opinions similar to Orincoro's until I read some stuff on my own and found it to be different than what I had thought. I think Chris, Leonide and I (among others) have seen things that have informed our opinions. It's still subjective, mind you, but if our experience contradicts yours, then, well, there isn't anywhere left to go.

(No wallabies were harmed in the writing of this post.)
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
What about dingos?

[Angst]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leonide:
It's funny...everytime I've ever taken a line from a poem or a story and written a story about it, i haven't felt like it's my own story. in THOSE cases, i do feel like I'm stealing for some reason. I feel like i didn't come up with the idea myself, that it was prompted.

All ideas are prompted. Right?? I mean how many times do you hear the story of a famous song or a book and its like: "well my baby sister was saying something about this lady named Madonna, and I thought it sounded interesting, so I wrote a song." (not an actual story).

Chris Bridges- I'm afraid I cannot feel very charitable to the person who carries out an ad hominim attack, after saying he has nothing to say. You clearly do have something to say, you just don't want me to respond to you. Well here is my response, and it should be as useful to you as yours was to me. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
 
Orincoro:

Thank you for continuing to be the voice of reason in this thread. I want to come in and join you, but really, I don't have the heart for it. I've lost the stomach. I care about this particular stuff too much. From the sidelines, though, you have my full support.

Go team. Support and respect those crazy, crazy author's rights.

Wow, what a bizarre concept!
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Orincoro, it's not that I have nothing to say. It's that I have nothing new to say. I've said it. Read back through this thread, I've made my arguments, time and again, summed them up once or twice, and I've started to repeat myself. That's when I stop. Clearly I'm not going to convince you, so I see little point in hammering it home again.

We've got at least three discussions going on here. 1) Why people write fanfic, 2) If fanfic is always right or wrong, and 3) If writing fanfic can ever be anythying besides a waste of time.

My point of contention with you has been mostly #1. I believe your position on why some people write fanfic is a valid one and applies towards some writers, I just don't believe it applies to me or to most of the fanfic writers I've read. I think you have decided for yourself what reasons fanfic writers have for what they do and you are dismissing as unimportant any other reasons given, and as my motivations don't match the ones you seem to have assigned to me I don't think we can ever agree. I'm willing to accept that your anecdotal evidence is true for some people but not all; you don't seem willing to accept that my anecdotal evidence is true for anybody.

My recent arguments have been with Scott R. about #3, where he has also assigned an opinion valid and useful for some people as being definitive and necessary for all people, which I find annoying in the extreme no matter what the topic.

I think #2 depends on the author, the motivations of the fanfic writer, and the situation; other people here plainly disagree, which is fine. I do note, however, that none of the people arguing against fanfic in this thread have responded to my lengthy post about authors who welcome and encourage fanfic. Is fanfic still wrong when the authors approve of it? Is it still harmful when the universes most commonly played in by fanfic writers become more popular year after year, in part because of the fanfic community?

[ April 14, 2006, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
My recent arguments have been with Scott R. about #3, where he has also assigned an opinion valid and useful for some people as being definitive and necessary for all people, which I find annoying in the extreme no matter what the topic.
[Frown]

Chris, I have enormous respect for you as an writer-- you do things with your columns that amaze me.

I HAVE been a part of a fanfic community-- Hatrack 1830's. For a long, long time, I was Joshua, the Beekeeper. And I wrote some pretty fair material therein. But about year 4, I realized that I was wasting time there-- everything that I'd written could have been done on my own terms, in my own worlds rather than in OSC's. I would have been much nearer to my goal of being a Real Writer if I'd used even HALF the time that I spent on Hatrack 1830's in writing my own stuff.

So that's the background and practical details of my insistence. That experience has been buttressed by the opinions of other speculative fiction writers (OSC, Bruce Taylor, Tim Powell, KD Wentworth), not necessarily about fanfic, but about the necessity for writers to concentrate on writing their own worlds, their own characters, etc.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
And I agreed with you. My position has never been that you're wrong, just that you're wrong to apply that to all fanfic, all writers. It is necessary to concentrate on your own world, and by year 4 you may well have been wasting your time.

What about year one? When you were getting used to writing on a regular basis, practicing with dialogue, learning how to pace and plot?

My point is and has been that fan fiction can be a helpful writing exercise -- or a much-needed break -- for a hopeful pro writer as long as that writer doesn't limit him or herself to nothing but fan fiction. I disagree that fan fiction is by default a waste of time. Anything that gets a writer writing is good. It's focusing on nothing but fan fiction that is harmful to a would-be pro writer, and if you could accept that I'd be a happy man. [Smile]

My opinions on the matter include both yours and Orincoros in certain situations; yours don't seem to accept mine under any circumstances. There's my beef.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Don't base your happiness on my agreement, then...

[Smile]
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leonide:
What about dingos?

[Angst]

What I do with my dingos in the privacy of my own home is nobody's business. [Razz]

Chris, YOu have expressed those three points well enough. For what it's worth, I agree with you.

For those with that gut reaction who have responded here *shrug* there is nothing more to be said, really. "Fanfiction is wrong and evil, even when the author encorages it. Even when the author herself presents some of it for publishing!" (Marion Zimmer Bradley did that, btw.) "It's wrong even when it's not against the law!" (In Japan it is legal for mangaka to take characters from anybody, write and/or illustrate a story using those characters, publish those stories and sell them for profit. They have found, oddly enough, that it tends to increase the popularity of the original works and is encouraged.)

I don't think that ALL fanfiction is this great thing, or that ALL authors should be somehow forced to tolerate it. I don't think anyone is questioning author's rights, just arguing that if the author is cool with it, then what is the problem?

If you think Rowling or Whedon (or Bradley) are wrong and evil to allow fanfiction, because it is always wrong, then maybe you should take that up with them. [Dont Know]
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
My opinions on the matter include both yours and Orincoros in certain situations; yours don't seem to accept mine under any circumstances. There's my beef.
Why should my opinion be obliged to be as accomadating as yours?

I mean, when has 'You aren't as tolerant as ME, that's why you're wrong!' ever functioned as a valid point on this board?
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
What it is is that you cannot acknowledge the possibility that something different from your assumptions might exist. Chris has SEEN baseball player that do not, in fact, rape wallabies.

It's not a question of "tolerance", it's a question of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Because for the life of me I can't understand how any flat statement can be applied to all human endeavors. It is, to me, patently indefensible. If even one person succeeds despite your statement, your statement is invalidated. Mine covers everybody, we'd just need to argue about the percentages.

Fan fiction is always a waste of time for a would-be pro writer.
Kids shouldn't be allowed to play, they should be doing schoolwork at all times.
You want to be a singer? Stop warbling in the shower, you're not being paid for it. And never, ever sing someone else's song unless you do it note for note the way they did, you should be writing your own songs.
Aspiring movie makers should never watch movies for fun, it's a waste of time.
Pro football player? Stop playing touch football with your friends, it's a waste of time. Get out on the field.

OSC has himself played in the fields of others -- Asimov, Marvel Comics -- and it hasn't seemed to harm him any. Had he spent all of his time doing that the world would be a sadder place. But the occasional dip into another universe? By your posts you have eliminated the option of moderation, and that's a harsh world to live in.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
EDIT:

I'm starting to get snarky. That's a good sign that I'm starting to care too much.

So I'm going to back off a bit.

[ April 14, 2006, 09:06 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
If even one person succeeds despite your statement, your statement is invalidated. Mine covers everybody, we'd just need to argue about the percentages.

The word 'succeeds' is what catches me, here, Chris.

I think that you can still be a successful writer and write fanfiction. I think you can still play videogames, watch TV, have a happy family life, AND be a successful, published writer.

I don't think that writing fanfiction automatically dooms you to failure.

I think there can be fanfiction that has value.

Recognizing these things, I still maintain that writing time is better spent writing original stuff. As I've tried to maintain, I don't live and die by this assertion. I'm not worried about convincing you that I'm right and that you should give up writing Firefly episodes/stories.

Go ahead, write away. Be happy, enjoy it. I imagine that I get the same thrill from playing in Slash's RPGs, which I also recognize as not the best use of my writing time.

In the list of sins that writers can engage in, writing fanfic is down at the bottom of my list. It's on there, sure-- but its a venal sin, usually, not a mortal one.
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
I think i might finally be starting to see where Scott's coming from -- maybe. [Smile]

Truthfully, anything *can* be a waste of time, if you let it be. Fanfiction, even if getting the creative juices flowing, *can* be a waste of time if you are doing it to proscrastinate on your own work. Of course if you are doing something else, you're not doing your own work.

We've got a bunch of different types of fanfic writers here (3 main ones that I can think of) that we're all talking about and intermingling as if they were the same type:

1) Fanfic writers who write because they love the source material and had a new idea about where to take the characters/world, wrote it purely for their own and others enjoyment, and are not pursuing careers as writers.

2) Fanfic writers who did all of the above, except ARE pursuing writing careers, so the fic is being written at the same time or in place of their own work.

3) Fanfic writers who are writers, and wrote their story not only because of a love of the source material and a fresh idea, but as an exercise for themself to get the creative juices flowing/work on dialogue/work on plotting, etc.


Orincoro seems to being scolding all those camps, Scott R mainly the second and a bit of the third camp. Is that pretty accurate?
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
And that's all I asked. Had your original comments been along the lines of "more often than not, writing fan fiction is a waste of time," I'd have saved myself several thousand words. [Smile]
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
As Chris has pointed out, though, the major difference between some of Card's own projects and fanfiction is one of legality and pay, not one of process ("playing in the fields of others").

So, writing an interesting and well-written story in someone else's playground is only a venal sin when you when you aren't paid for it?

I can agree with that on a legal basis, absolutely, but not a creative one.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I didn't think I was scolding anyone, Leonide, but for the sake of agreement, sure, that works.
 
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
quote:
Joss Whedon all but encourages it.
Just want to clarify one point Chris. Whedon doesn't all but encourge it...


He commands it:
quote:
Interviewer: What should fans do now that they’ll have an extra hour free in their schedule. What should they do with that hour?

Joss: Write fan fic.

http://actionadventure.about.com/cs/weeklystories/a/aa041903.htm
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Scott R, I also agree with the "more often than not" argument. It was the way you seemed to be arguing that nothing else was possible that bothered me. Those kinds of arguments annoy me because they seem to represent a failure of imagination. I mean, even an extremely moral man like Card could imagine a situation where a character raping a twelve-year-old was the "thing that had to be done" and get most of his readers to buy it. Not likely, but it's hard to prove anything is impossible if it can be imagined.

That was what bothered me. Allowing for the possibilty was all I asked, because otherwise the argument appeared irrational to me.

So, I figure we are in agreemnt. [Smile]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Because for the life of me I can't understand how any flat statement can be applied to all human endeavors. It is, to me, patently indefensible.

Irony meter redlining..... SHE"S BREAKING UP!!!! [ROFL]


As to the rest of that post: Chris Bridges

"
Fan fiction is always a waste of time for a would-be pro writer.
Kids shouldn't be allowed to play, they should be doing schoolwork at all times.
You want to be a singer? Stop warbling in the shower, you're not being paid for it. And never, ever sing someone else's song unless you do it note for note the way they did, you should be writing your own songs.
Aspiring movie makers should never watch movies for fun, it's a waste of time.
Pro football player? Stop playing touch football with your friends, it's a waste of time. Get out on the field."

You just went from a ridiculously unself-conscious belief statement on one hand, to a sarcastic rehashing of a bunch of obviously wrong points, none of which anyone here has proposed or defended. I specifically wrote that singing other people's songs is desirable and good, even for fun; and since I am a musician, I get to do this ALOT, and its the only way I can get a song of my own to be performed (If I write for a soprano, I can't sing it myself...).

As if saying fanfic is selfish is the same as saying children must live in a Dickensian Nightmare. Pulease...
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
Sorry for the poor word choice, Scott. I'd originally written "condemning" in place of "scolding." --so scolding was by far the milder alternative.

anyhow, *you* might not be scolding *or* condemning, but Orincoro is, and quite snarkily I might add. "Pulease," Orincoro: you might not agree with our take on this, but calm down and don't be so nasty in your dismissals.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Olivet:


So, writing an interesting and well-written story in someone else's playground is only a venal sin when you when you aren't paid for it?
I can agree with that on a legal basis, absolutely, but not a creative one.

Potentially you could work WITH the original author to devise a story based in his universe, but with your creative ideas and your direction to the plotting. In this case you'd have to decide if this was a creative work or a derivative work, and if the original author was still responsible for its "creation."

On the other hand there is nothing legally wrong with What's-his-name licencing the rights to the Jason Borne character and writing "The Born Legacy" (An awful book, it reads like a walk through an ugly hedge-maze, though read on tape by Scott Brick). The only wrong there is that the book isn't worth the trip I took to the library to get it. I thought about asking for my late fees back.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
And that's all I asked. Had your original comments been along the lines of "more often than not, writing fan fiction is a waste of time," I'd have saved myself several thousand words. [Smile]

Yes and if We'd all agreed with you, this whole thing could have been averted.... of COURSE!!!
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
It doesn't seem like you're having a discussion anymore, Orincoro. If you *really* think Chris meant what he said in anyway REMOTELY resembling what you just offered, you really, really don't know him or the kind of poster he is, at all.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I am jabbing fun at his wording, that's all. I understand he was only talking about the fact that other than the wording they actually agree. [Wink]


"Pulease" If your afraid of an honest appraisal of your ideas, then I'm afraid I'm not a good person to argue with. If your ideas are obviously bad ones, then it will be too easy for me to say something like this. However, I ought to restrain myself sometimes. In this instance however, I stand fully by that reply. Pulease.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
quote:
As if saying fanfic is selfish is the same as saying children must live in a Dickensian Nightmare. Pulease...
I didn't. I said that declaring fan fiction as always a waste of time is similar to saying that any endeavor without immediate commercial benefit is a waste of time, because that post was in response to Scott R.'s arguments and not yours. Please see my comments on the three different arguments we have going here. This post was in regards to #3.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
But back to the fan fiction is selfish" argument: I ask again: Is fan fiction still wrong when the author condones, approves, and encourages it?
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
Asking you to be polite, Orincoro, is not the same as saying I'm "afraid of an honest appraisal" of my ideas.

If I took the character Eleanor Rigby and wrote a song that took place after her death, from the view point of a long lost family member who found out the sad, lonely way in which Eleanor died and how the news changed his/her world view...would that be fanfiction? Would that be wrong to do? What if the Beatles said "Awesome. Write it. Sing it."?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
But back to the fan fiction is selfish" argument: I ask again: Is fan fiction still wrong when the author condones, approves, and encourages it?

This, I feel being the most important part of my mindset on this. If the author approves, then see your list of reasons why fanfic is a bad idea, but those were not my claims nor do I find them to be particularly important in the long run. As a fellow human being I couldn't care less what you choose to waste your time doing, its only the attitude towards property, ownership, creativity and primacy that I find relevant.

Leonide- The scenario is too hypothetical to give you an opinion. It COULD be stealing if it were done a certain way, and it could be a very original composition inspired by the Beatles, thats a grey shade I can't color in for you. Whether the Beatles tell you its ok to do it or not (the half of them who live) is immaterial to my point. The thing I keep getting kicked up at me, and which I keep swatting away because its irrelevent, is whether the author is "ok with it." This changes nothing about what a fanfic does and means to the person who writes it, (instances of collaboration aside).
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
It sounded like you were arguing that fanfiction is never ok. So of course we're going to bring up "What if the author's ok with it?" I had no idea you were arguing the "what a fanfic does and means to the person who writes it" angle.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Well that's what I've been saying all along. Right from my first few posts.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
But that's precisely the part that really can't be argued any further. You've said that at it's core all fan fiction is selfish, partly based on your own experiences. I disagree, partly based on my own experiences. Where, exactly, can we go from here?
 
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Vegas.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
There are better odds at the roulette table than at coming to an agreement, that's for sure...
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
21!
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
As a side question, how is fanfiction based on OSC's story inherently selfish, while a fan-symphony based on OSC's story is not selfish and "would only enhance the value of" the original? [Wink]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
That's simple, and if you know my thoughts as I've expressed them, you'll see that writing a derivative work in a different genre is quite apart from fanfic. How would you get orpheo, how would get Berlioz's Romeo and Juliet- without this kind of literary borrowing in music. How would you get 10,00 0 classic german lieder (songs) without the poetry that they are set to.

No, this is not fan fic at all. This is the nature of programmatic music. I think you knew that and were just teasing. [Wink]
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
You are a fan of Ender's Game. You like classical music. So you want to express your fan-ness through classical music. Is that not what you are doing? But if someone is a fan of EG, but likes writing instead of classical music, you then think it is selfish of them to express their fan-ness through writing fanfics?

The motivation is the same.

Your examples of derivative music serve to show how valid the above motive is. Similarly, examples like Shakespeare's works (almost all of which are taken from previous stories), Euripides' famous Greek tragedies (which took characters and plots from previously existing tales), OSC's Magic Street (which takes characters directly from Shakespeare), or any of the countless other highly derivative works of published literature illustrate how the same motive is valid in literature. To borrow your own question, how would we have ever gotten these works if it was wrong to write in worlds that you did not originally think up? How does the argument you just applied to music not also work for derivative fiction?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
You are a fan of Ender's Game. You like classical music. So you want to express your fan-ness through classical music. Is that not what you are doing? But if someone is a fan of EG, but likes writing instead of classical music, you then think it is selfish of them to express their fan-ness through writing fanfics?

The motivation is the same.

How does the argument you just applied to music not also work for derivative fiction?

I see where your driving so I'll tell you why I think there's a big difference.

I don't want to express my fanness first of all. If this were to be a fan-symphony, then I hope for all the world that I would have the dignity and grace to not write it. It would be an original work, inspired by EG. You have to first imagine that the symphony would be thematically inspired by EG, not textually translated. It wouldn't try to expand on the original work, but simply react to it, so that if it were done successfully it would live outside of the original.

The idea about the dramatic symphony that I am trying to convey is that a symphony exists in its own world, where the rules are very much unique to the tastes of the composer. It reacts to a program, but it DOESN'T live inside of that program.

A fanfic novel uses the same form as the work which inspires it, but unlike a symphony which borrows from or comments on another symphony, a fanfic tries to be a part of the world from another novel. I think of it this way: If I were to write a sci-fi novel, then I would be using the same FORM as EG, but I would be constructing my own reality. If I were to write a symphony I would be using the same FORM as Beethoven's 9th, or Brahms 1st, or maybe Mahlers 5th (the size/style of symphonies change too), but I would be writing my own symphony, with my own personal rules. I rather think doing a fanfic would be like bellying up to a bar that's already full and trying to get a place. You'd be forever jostling and bumping and pushing elbows just to make room for your SELF to stand.

Every symphony is unique, and all the best ones are as different from each other as their composers were, living in different times and countries, speaking different languages. All exist in a broad form, but all are really very different.

By writing a fanfic novel I believe you attempt to mimick the form, the style and the voice of the original all at once. This is not only a dishonest betrayal of the author's "turf," but it also hinders the creative process, bolstering the weaknesses of your work with the accomplishments of another by simple virtue of being about the same people or place.

Though I appreciate the seeming paradox between being ok with a symphony and not ok with a novel, I hope that at least gives you an idea of why I think its a different ball game. By introducing a subject or an image or a character into a NEW setting, even a new MEDIUM, the work is no longer a "fanfic," it no longer lives under the umbrella of another work.

That's why Shakespeare's plays are now considered to all be "original works," because in fact the Bard so transformed and so transported the folk stories he used into a new form, that they depended more on his will and his words, and were better and bigger than they ever had been before. I actually think a fanfic writer could do this, but I don't think it has EVER been accomplished before. In that scenario the will of the fanfic writer, and his ideas would be SO powerful, that in fact the story would be transported out of OSC's realm anyway, and would live on the strength of its own foundations. So yes, in a way, there is hope.

The symphony has this effect built in, it is ALREADY worlds apart from a novel, so the material and the ideas and the foundation of the work will not be planted in the creative universe of OSC. A successful symphony depends not at all on the listener's familiarity with the inspiration for it. This is the reason the works of Debussy are so widely popular, because they transcend the paintings and landscapes that inspire them, and they are a perfect blend of romanticism and impressionism, with the strength of the romantic idea, and the vision and (topical) clarity of the impressionist movement.

If I wrote a symphony, suffice it to say, you wouldn't listen to it and know really, that it had so much to do with EG. You could get a special kick out of the references that stand out to the true fan, but it would not live through those moments, it would not be designed to evoke the book for the sake of living through it. In fact I had a similar argument in my class discussion board about my non-textual analysis of Berlioz's RJ symphony. A few people insisted on saying that so and so must be the voice of the maid... etc. I explained that while this played a part in the inspiration process for Berlioz, that reference did not in itself become musically important.

Even Berlioz demured from a full on textuall translation of RJ. Though some scholars have asserted that he wrote music for every word of the text, alas this is quite impossible to prove, and even harder to believe. The themes I describe function in much the same way, they act as place markers for the music, but the music would in the end transcend those labels and serve the purpose of the music.

Edit: I seem to be having a difficult time formulating my view on this into an intelligable form. I would ask you to consider this: a work of inspiration necessarily borrows from the original, without attempting to be a part of or an extension of the original. If you wrote a book or play with the same basic story as EG, but your own ideas and your own WILL shone strongly through it as the most important part of it, that would be fine with me.

That's the main problem as I see it, fanfic, by its very name, attempts to NOT be good literature. To actively try and be part of a world you don't have a stake in, created by another who's ideas you don't share or necessarily understand, is cheating to me. Its buying a ticket to the game and expecting to be called on to play. Does that make ANY more sense than everything else i've said? Well, its difficult to express and difficult to keep in my own head often times. [Wink]

[ April 16, 2006, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
No, I thought you expressded it quite well. I agree there is a difference in something written as fanfic and something written as "inspired by," and I don't see a problem differentiating the two.

I just don't hold the same views of fanfic as you do. You seem fixated on the dishonesty of writing in someone else's universe, but that happens every time someone writes for a TV show, or participates in a theme anthology, or writes a book for a licensed property. Same thing, only in those instances the work is approved and paid for by the creator. Fanfic is unpaid, but in some cases approved. How do you feel about the hundreds of Star Trek books, Star Wars books, Buffy books, John Gardner's James Bond books, etc? How about OSC's Foundation short story, or his Iron Man comic? If you feel they are equally dishonest, fair enough, at least that's consistent. I'm just curious.

Fanfic is buying a ticket to the game and then going home and playing it yourself with friends.
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
I've read plenty of Harry Potter fanfiction that doesn't retain the style, voice, or form of the original author. To do that, I'm afraid, they would have to sadly underdevelop some really interesting-sounding characters, use the same plot devices repeatedly in story after story, and have Harry be a consistenly boneheaded nitwit when it comes to just about any important decision he is forced to or chooses to make.

Plenty of Harry Potter fanfiction surpasses the original, in my estimation, because I think that while Rowling has created a fantastic IDEA for a world and characters, she doesn't always seem to know how to use it. That's really neither here nor there in terms of this conversation, but you can write fanfiction that doesn't try to mimic everything that the author originally did.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
As a majorly obsessive trekker in my early teen years, I did have a few years in which I read those Star Trek books for fun. One thing I do remember is that the best ones had the characters from the show as side elements, while they developed new characters of their own. I don't know why now, those writers didn't want to simply do away with the ST formulas and write their own universe, but I suppose the ideas really weren't developed enough for that yet. A few of the books I thought were really VERY good. "Star Trek: Federation" is one I remember as being very original, in that it delt with ST history, alot of exposition, and passage of time. It developed new characters who were interesting.

I suppose the dishonesty I would be most worried about would be an fanfic that tried to live inside of the original work. I am imagining something that would basically violate all good taste and common sense just to weave together loose strands of plot into neat packages with sugar coating. This kind of fan-fantasy actually started to happen with Star Trek in the series' when later producers and writers just kept going back and rewriting the old stories, but placing their new characters in as part of the plot. How many episodes had the crew of some new show going to participate in the events from some old show, by going back in time or something? Too many, IMO, and the convenience and plot contrivances put me off.

My assertion is that if you don't violate any rules of good taste or common sense, and if you develop your own interesting characters and plots, then what exactly is the EG universe DOING for you? Its one of those things: if you need training wheels then you shouldn't be riding too far from home. But if you ARE riding your bike to school, then pop those training wheels off and ride for real.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Fair enough. That's a much less absolute position than you've held previously here, and one I'ved got no problem accepting (if not entirely adopting).
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
Some previously created characters can be so much FUN to play around with. And to read about in new things -- I absolutely adore the character Remus Lupin NOW, after reading tons of fanfiction with his character in it....though I didn't really think about him much while reading Prisoner of Azkaban. The things he's done in books since the 3rd mean a lot more to me now that I have a clearer picture of what the character could be like.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Fair enough. That's a much less absolute position than you've held previously here, and one I'ved got no problem accepting (if not entirely adopting).

Well I still feel the same way about 98 percent of fanfic. If you want to talk about the 2 percent that has the potential of being something good, then my last comment covers that, and I STILL think it isn't worth writing most of the time. A limitation on the limited exceptions to a very broad personal belief, seems like a consiliatory gesture, but I still feel the same way [Wink]
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leonide:
Some previously created characters can be so much FUN to play around with.

Well sometimes I think it would be fun to put roofies in people's drinks and have my way with them. Then my moral framework tells me that this desire has nothing to do with fun, and everything to do with my inward sexual aggression expressing itself through my desire to dominate. I would NEVER do this, but like most people I have at least imagined doing it, and thought about what that might be like. I can admit I've thought about it because i know it isn't in me to do. Disgusting, but true. [Dont Know]
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
That's probably the most insulting comparison you could possibly have made.
Are you trying to be nasty, or do you really not understand the difference?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Its the clearest comparison I can make. I can see why you think its insulting, but it isn't intended to be. I do understand the very obvious difference, which I ask you to ignore for the sake of understanding why I would draw on such a harsh analogy.

Obviously rape and fanfic aren't morally equivelant, at all. But there are parallels in the intent which I wished to highlight. Sorry if you feel I'm a bit over the top- I am [Wink]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
"A bit over the top"? You're so far over the line, the line is a dot to you.

A story is not a person. It does not have rights of its own. Not to existence, not to inviolability.

If an author is ok with people writing fanfic using their characters/world, how DARE you compare that to rape?

I get that you have a strong opinion on fanfic. And I respect that. However, I do not respect the way you keep expressing that opinion.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
"A bit over the top"? You're so far over the line, the line is a dot to you.

If an author is ok with people writing fanfic using their characters/world, how DARE you compare that to rape?

Its called persuasive writing, its called imagery, its called argument. I dare to use that comparison because it is a powerful one, and an unusual one to employ. And guess what? It makes you think about why I would say such a thing... either that or it makes you scream frantically about how dare I express my opinions. That doesn't make me a rapist; there is no subject that is so sacred that no one is allowed to evoke it. Sorry. But that's life. [Frown]

By the way, the "line is a dot to you," never makes any sense to me. Its funny I guess, but when you think about it for a minute, it doesn't work.

If you have this line in space that stretches on forever in two directions, and you cross over it and start moving along, then the line will recede from you, but it will always be a line, because no matter how far over you are, the line is still infinitely long. Maybe your thinking of a really short line, but you would call that a "line segment" not a LINE. A line stretches on forever in two directions, this is the meaning of the word in basic geometry, as far as I can recall from the 10th grade. [Confused] So I guess the line is still a line to me, no matter where I am.

Edit: For more on the use of the word "rape" in a symbolic or literary context, we did do a thread on that recently called "Militant feminism?" I think Rivka participated in that one too right?
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Its called persuasive writing, its called imagery, its called argument.
Definitely not persuasive.

quote:
I dare to use that comparison because it is a powerful one, and an unusual one to employ.
Nah, there's a class of internet users that make such lopsided comparisons all the time. You're not unique or special in comparing writing fanfiction to rape. Lots of folks engage in this kind of hyperbole, and for the same reasons you give: "Hey, made you think about it, didn't I..."

All you've accomplished with this is that NOW we're going to talk about how stupid your comparison is, and whether or not you're a troll.

It is a deeply stupid comparison. "I want to feel powerful by dominating your body," does not in anyway arrive/correlate/mingle/parallel "OMG! I <3 HP! I totally wrote this fanfic all about how Luna and Neville fall in love and fight Snape!"

And your behavior on this thread has not been community building.

Wouldn't it just be easier to say, "GAH! You're right, it's a completely inappropriate comparison. I'm sorry, I should have used something else," instead of trying to defend it?
 
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
quote:
Nah, there's a class of internet users that make such lopsided comparisons all the time.
Yes, we call them "Jatraqueros". [Wink]
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
[Big Grin]

Not the term I was thinking.
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
quote:
"I want to feel powerful by dominating your body," does not in anyway arrive/correlate/mingle/parallel "OMG! I <3 HP! I totally wrote this fanfic all about how Luna and Neville fall in love and fight Snape!"
[ROFL]
 
Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
 
quote:
By the way, the "line is a dot to you," never makes any sense to me. Its funny I guess, but when you think about it for a minute, it doesn't work.

If you have this line in space that stretches on forever in two directions, and you cross over it and start moving along, then the line will recede from you, but it will always be a line, because no matter how far over you are, the line is still infinitely long. Maybe your thinking of a really short line, but you would call that a "line segment" not a LINE. A line stretches on forever in two directions, this is the meaning of the word in basic geometry, as far as I can recall from the 10th grade. [Confused] So I guess the line is still a line to me, no matter where I am.

The reason is because you are limiting yourself to 1, possibly 2 dimensions. If we assume up/down is y and left/right is x, and z is into/out of the moniter, then I can draw an an infinite line on the z axis and you will see it as a dot.

.

Does that make sense?

Jesse

[ April 17, 2006, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Eisenoxyde ]
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
no
 
Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
 
A point is 1 dimensional and a line is 2 dimensional. If you look at the point in either 2 or 3 dimensions, it will always appear as a point. Now if you look at a line in 2 dimensions, you can only see it as a line. In 3 dimensions, you can see the line as either a line if you are looking at it from the side or as a point if you look at it head on.

Any clearer?

Jesse
 
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
But if you look at it head on it will poke you in the eye. Ouch!
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:


All you've accomplished with this is that NOW we're going to talk about how stupid your comparison is, and whether or not you're a troll.

Or maybe.. GASP, I actually mean it. Of course if somebody uses hyperbole, he's only doing it to upset people, not to actually communicate something. [Roll Eyes] If you don't want to talk about it, we don't have to, but you don't get to interpret my intentions.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Giving you the widest possible room for doubt, I'm guessing your point is that someone's creations are as personal to them as their own bodily integrity and that writing fanfic is similar to violating that integrity without permission.

If that's true, I get your point. Got it several pages back, in fact. Still don't agree with it.

I don't know why now, those writers didn't want to simply do away with the ST formulas and write their own universe, but I suppose the ideas really weren't developed enough for that yet.

Because - and this is something you seem to be unable to grasp - sometimes fanfic isn't because the writers aren't good enough to write their own works, or because their ideas aren't developed enough, or because they want to do the creators one better, but because they love that universe and want to play in it.

But instead of acknowledging that you don't understand that desire -- a perfectly natural thing, I personally haven't the faintest idea why people like the Bronte sisters -- you deny its existence instead, despite opinions of actual fanfic writers to the contrary. This leaves, as you can imagine, little to discuss.

On the plus side, this has motivated me to write more fanfic [Smile] Ought to be a column in this, too...
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
By the by, Chris your most recent chapter of your Firefly FANFICTION [Angst] ( [Wink] ) was excellent. Is there really only going to be one more chapter? Cause that's not cool [No No]
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
On the plus side, this has motivated me to write more fanfic [Smile]

Hooray! (And I say that as someone who has no interest in the universe you write fic in. I just approve of good fanfic being written. [Big Grin] )
 
Posted by Dazgul (Member # 1070) on :
 
What I find interesting is that in some ways, almost all writing in certain fields amounts to a fan-fiction of sorts. Comic book writing for example. Over 200 writers for example have written spiderman stories, and when a new writer takes on the mantle of one of the many spidey titles he generates new tales with old characters much in the same way fanfic writers do. The only differences are 1) they are paid 2)they are more skilled (theoretically but not always) 3)the stories written are considered 'canon'.

Likewise episodes of TV series by writers doing a single ep. Is this not the same kind of storytelling. If you wrote an ep of Star Trek The Next Gen or something, the world was not yours, the characters were not yours but you could use these characters to create a new story.
 
Posted by Dazgul (Member # 1070) on :
 
Oops, I just read through more of the previous posts and realised Chris made the same point I just did. Sorry for the redundancy.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:

But instead of acknowledging that you don't understand that desire -- a perfectly natural thing, I personally haven't the faintest idea why people like the Bronte sisters -- you deny its existence instead, despite opinions of actual fanfic writers to the contrary. This leaves, as you can imagine, little to discuss.

Why DO people like the Brontes? I never understood that. Their books have got to be the most tiresome and tedious dronings on about ordinary life that I've ever been forced to read. We got a cheese on friday, but then no cheese till tuesday, then we had a slice of bread, then a cheese then cheese AND bread, then the Anglican minister told us no more cheese, then we ate some bread, and wept for a while, then my friend died, and then I wrote a letter, and then I ate some cheese.... ugh.
 
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
 
Some nut is selling her Star Wars fanfic for $20 on Amazon.com and Barnes&Noble:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933456027/103-5255345-6930200

I expect George Lucas to own her house by Tuesday.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
She's already removed her author's site and replaced with a statement saying it will be off Amazon by the 24th. I think it's already off B&N and other online booksellers.

More on this and the ensuing outrage (mostly by other fan writers) here:

http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/004162.html
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I expected scorn from other fanfic writers -- and it's well deserved -- but it bothers me that the controversy may encourage people to buy any of the silly things before Amazon pulls it. I hope Amazon was smart enough to cancel any and all orders made.
Otherwise, that blogger covered pretty much every sarcastic point I would have made about this "professional editor."
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
As an author, I see it this way:

My characters are my creations, so I get to tell other people what they do and don't do. In effect, I already "know" every story that they've ever had, or will ever have.

If another author writes fanfic about my characters, they're telling a lie. My characters didn't do what your story tells. You may wish that they did, but they didn't. Or if they did, they didn't do it the way you're telling it, because they do things the way I tell it.

So I can completely understand authors who don't want to support fanfic, because they're protecting their characters and their worlds from false rumors and lies.

A lie, no matter how well meaning, is still a lie.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Fair enough. I won't write fanfic in your universe(s). Or Belle's. No worries.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I don't think CB should be writing in my universe either, for that matter. Get out of my universe... Now!!! [Wink]

*Cocks revolver* I said: "get out..."
 
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Why DO people like the Brontes? I never understood that. Their books have got to be the most tiresome and tedious dronings on about ordinary life that I've ever been forced to read. We got a cheese on friday, but then no cheese till tuesday, then we had a slice of bread, then a cheese then cheese AND bread, then the Anglican minister told us no more cheese, then we ate some bread, and wept for a while, then my friend died, and then I wrote a letter, and then I ate some cheese.... ugh.

You know, I loved Jane Eyre. And that bit you did was the funniest riff on that book I've seen. All you forgot was the porridge and the burnt porridge.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
How could I have forgotten the burnt porridge, or the terrifying superiority of Miss Ingram, who is oh so proper, and terribly good looking, and better than Jane at breathing, because she inhales with the just the correct posture, bringing the air into her lungs in the most even way imaginable...oh how I wish and pray to God and to the secret crazy person on the second floor, that this story of my life wasn't so BORING.... Oh well, I think I'll write a letter, and maybe have a cheese.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
(Backing out of Orincoro's universe slowly...)
 
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
This is from that other forum:

quote:
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that whether or not you're trying to make a profit is secondary in copyright issues. Whenever you make something available for public consumption, it potentially dilutes the ability of the copyright holder to make money from their ideas whether or not you are trying to make money on it.
My memories of what OSC said about why he would sue the pants off anyone who tried to publish EG stories were along the lines that they are stealing his daily bread.

An author or artist creates characters and makes them appealing and people fall in love with them and they are paying the author/artist for that service (to partake of something delightful). Snoopy, Garfield, Calvin and Hobbes. It really irks me that the most common Calvin and Hobbes image I see is a hacked version of Calvin doing something that the real author never would have published. I wish some lawyer would sue everyone who had one of those stickers on their car.
 
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
Along the same lines. Photographers can not sell images of Harley Davidson motorcycles without HD's permission. Buildings are even trademarked. Once someone decides to make a buck, all of a sudden you enter the world of idea theft.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I, personally, would do grievous bodily harm to the person who first started selling bogus Calvin car stickers, as that was one of the major reasons behind Bill Waterson's decision to quit doing the strip. He was notorious for his dislike of any and all legitimate merchandising of his products, much less this crap.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Cb, I don't think it had as much to do with the fact of those stickers, as the attitude they were a symptom of. He quit the strip, IMO because he felt that it wasn't being recieved well, and he didn't know if he could continue to provide the same quality product given the powers that controlled his work. He was notorious for his long fights with papers all over the country to get them to print his comics in just such a way, so that they would appear as he intended them, unfettered by editing. this was why his format for sundays changed to a single large matte with cells inside a larger canvas, so there was no chance to edit them at the individual newspapers. He lost a lot of subscribers who wouldn't or couldn't meet his demands for his work to appear in the proper colors, at the original size, unnedited, and I think his commitment to standards wore him down alot.

Human: isn't that ridiculous? BTW how is it possible to stop someone from selling say, and artistic rendering of a Harley? Isn't it a work of art? I think we still do have that pesky 1st ammendment to protect that sort of thing.
 
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
how is it possible to stop someone from selling say, and artistic rendering of a Harley?

Threat of lawsuit. I've actually been told getting a legal contract on anything is just a formality unless you have big guns behind you who can sue a contract breaker.

quote:
Isn't it a work of art? I think we still do have that pesky 1st ammendment to protect that sort of thing.
If you are selling it, then it isn't just a work of art or protected speech. I'm not really sure about art works, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were verboten.

See a large list of verboten images.
 
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
 
More info on Harleys, which is kind of an extreme case:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/articles/content/1998101101.html

http://www.wptn.com/back00/tmrk_012_sep00.html

I actually am curious about the art thing, especially because of this:

http://www.store.yahoo.com/hdrt/

Of course, this is all trademark. I have no idea how trademark and copyright relate.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by human_2.0:
Threat of lawsuit. I've actually been told getting a legal contract on anything is just a formality unless you have big guns behind you who can sue a contract breaker.

Ah, the Disney school of legal interpretations: it doesn't matter whether we're technically right or not, we can just scare the crap out of everybody, buy the verdict, and get out way because we're the big guy on the playground. Yech [Frown]


Edit: that one on the gugenheim is ridiculous "unauthorized use of the name guggenheim is unlawful? I don't think so."
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:
Originally posted by human_2.0:
Threat of lawsuit. I've actually been told getting a legal contract on anything is just a formality unless you have big guns behind you who can sue a contract breaker.

Ah, the Disney school of legal interpretations: it doesn't matter whether we're technically right or not, we can just scare the crap out of everybody, buy the verdict, and get out way because we're the big guy on the playground. Yech [Frown]


Edit: that one on the gugenheim is ridiculous "unauthorized use of the name guggenheim is unlawful? I don't think so."

Uhoh, Peeps are trademarked, better shut down the other thread. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Um...

To those who say, "ZOMG! write your own characters!" I offer the following:

http://www.geraldinebrooks.com/march.shtml

It just won the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for fiction.

O_O
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Darn it, Olivet, you're scooping my column this week [Smile]
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Chris, I am tremendously pleased. [Smile] Can't wait to read it. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
0_0

What a fantastic idea for a book.

*covets*
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
*retches*

ahem... oh wow. Excuse me.. sorry..


*goes off to a far corner to sulk in peace.*

[Wink]
 
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
That pulitzer winner reminded me of notable stage productions of Woyzech, Hedda Gabler, Shakespeare -- none are safe. There's always the push to do something different every time someone decides to put it on stage. Post Modernity being what it is, each new incarnation can find itself becoming more and more removed from the original author's intentions and styles. The fortunate thing is many times that the original author is quite dead, and his opinions don't matter in the least.

I once saw an amateur production of "The Miracle Worker" where the director spliced together that script, along with "Monday after the Miracle" and excerpts from Helen Keller's writings. The director said that she wanted to make The Miracle Worker more about Annie Sullivan than Hellen Keller (otherwise the play should be called "The Miracle Workie") so she took it upon herself to change it. And because Theatre is such an evolving and transient art, she was allowed to do so. But why can she be allowed to do that, when presumably William Gibson was perfectly happy with the story and characters he wrote?

I'm dramaturging an original play next year, and the playwright has expressed that she is terrified of a director taking themes and concepts from her script that simply aren't there, and those themes and concepts coming out in the production against her wishes. It's a valid concern, because there can be such a push to do something innovative.

Of course, Theatre is much, much different from prose in that so many people must be involved in the process, instead of simply an author and a reader. An author has complete control over what is being presented to the reader, regardless of how the reader interprets what the author presents.

I finally broke down and read Chris's firefly fanfic. I thought it was great. I generally steer clear from HP fannon, but I have a friend who actively writes things like Snape's trial or Book III from the perspective of Remus Lupin and slides them by me for critique and perspective, since I know the books and can lend a listening ear.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I dislike the idea of 'March.' The same way I dislike the ideas for sequels to 'Gone With the Wind,' and 'Les Miserables.'

:resumes narrowmindedness:
 
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
 
Little Women is my favorite book. I can't wait to read March.
 
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
quote:
I dislike the idea of 'March.' The same way I dislike the ideas for sequels to 'Gone With the Wind,' and 'Les Miserables.'
Or to 'Jane Eyre' *shudders in remembrance*....a bad sequel is one of the most painful things a reader ever has to endure.

'March,' is, however, a parellel novel, much like Ender's Shadow is to Ender's Game. [Smile]

edit: except, of course, written by a different author and not the same who wrote the original, as I'm sure someone will be quick to point out [Razz]
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Intergalactic Medicine Show: Wizard's Oil on Fanfic.

It's an interesting article, that reinforces my position on the subject: vigilant protection of the literary creation by stamping out fanfic.

[Smile]
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
That pulitzer winner reminded me of notable stage productions of Woyzech, Hedda Gabler, Shakespeare -- none are safe. There's always the push to do something different every time someone decides to put it on stage. Post Modernity being what it is, each new incarnation can find itself becoming more and more removed from the original author's intentions and styles. The fortunate thing is many times that the original author is quite dead, and his opinions don't matter in the least.

I once saw an amateur production of "The Miracle Worker" where the director spliced together that script, along with "Monday after the Miracle" and excerpts from Helen Keller's writings. The director said that she wanted to make The Miracle Worker more about Annie Sullivan than Hellen Keller (otherwise the play should be called "The Miracle Workie") so she took it upon herself to change it. And because Theatre is such an evolving and transient art, she was allowed to do so. But why can she be allowed to do that, when presumably William Gibson was perfectly happy with the story and characters he wrote?

I'm dramaturging an original play next year, and the playwright has expressed that she is terrified of a director taking themes and concepts from her script that simply aren't there, and those themes and concepts coming out in the production against her wishes. It's a valid concern, because there can be such a push to do something innovative.

Of course, Theatre is much, much different from prose in that so many people must be involved in the process, instead of simply an author and a reader. An author has complete control over what is being presented to the reader, regardless of how the reader interprets what the author presents.

I finally broke down and read Chris's firefly fanfic. I thought it was great. I generally steer clear from HP fannon, but I have a friend who actively writes things like Snape's trial or Book III from the perspective of Remus Lupin and slides them by me for critique and perspective, since I know the books and can lend a listening ear.

OSC wrote an interesting ArtWatch article on a Utah group that got shut down for taking out the "****s" from Neil Simon's rumors. Rumors

Apparently, Neil Simon doesn't like his plays "changed".
In my high school, we cut scenes and edited awkward lines for a variety of reasons. Heck sometimes the actors just couldn't remember the exact line, and screwed up. Do you pull the plug for that.

If you perform the Complete Works of William Shakespeare, abriged, you have to change the the play. Some of the actors play themselves, so they use their real names and an obviously real biography. In a high school setting, the play gets edited so more than three actors are inolved.

When you put on any play, usually you have to pay royalities to the publisher (and the author) of the play. As far as I'm concerened, if the check is cashed, then the director and the cast can do anything they want to the play. If the playwright doesn't want the play changed, then he or she should not have the rights rented out at all. In fact, if the writer is that squemish, they should have a movie made. Then there's one interpretation (that's if Hollywood lets you do it your way - HA!) and it can be distributed among the masses. Heck the writer might as well make the work prose and hang on to the movie rights. Then people can't touch it.

Oh, wait, fanfic.
 
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I think the way the world works sort of forces print writers to stomp on the fanfic. I get that.

But that issue and the scads of fanfic for movies and tV shows (which often actually help these properties bottom line) are two different animals. As is the all-fanfic-is-crap-because-I-say-so argument.

If I'm ever published, and if those works ever generate fanfic, I'm sure I will feel a warm flush of pride and affection just before I unleash my attack lawyers. [Big Grin]

So, my take on the issue is centrist -- it's a fun hobby for those who do it in fandoms that allow it (and probably benefit from it), but I also completely sympathize with an author's need to protect their intellectual property. (And I'm also really puzzled that some people apparently desire to write, say, Ender fan stories, or fanfic in any print-only universe. I think the fanfic thing will become more of an issue for OSC when (if? [Cry] ) the Ender's Game movie gets made, but I'm sure he'll be ready for it.)
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
This should be interesting... just found out that the SciFi group in Tampa holds a fan fiction convention every year.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
It's an interesting article, that reinforces my position on the subject: vigilant protection of the literary creation by stamping out fanfic.


It is an interesting article, and it reinforces my own position: idiot fans who don't respect the wishes of the authors deserve what they get. I eagerly await the second installment of this article, which will look at the viewpoint of the fans.

Something I'm curious about; one of the complaints of the writers against fanfic is that it takes control of the characters away and that readers may become confused that the fanfic is part of the "real" story. Has this happened?

Have any authors been approached by befuddled fans, or received letters asking why the latest book contradicts the story on this website? It may be a valid fear, but is it happening?

This is a different issue than the fan suing for royalties, that was a singular incident of an idiot fan that ruined things for the respectful ones.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
Have any authors been approached by befuddled fans, or received letters asking why the latest book contradicts the story on this website? It may be a valid fear, but is it happening?
I don't know that it is; but I haven't spent a long time protecting anyone's property but my own.

If University professors can perpetuate false conclusions about a work of fiction on their students, it's NOT that big a step to say that educated fans can do the same thing for a popular work. ESPECIALLY if the author is not prolific.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
But have they?

Yes, they could. They could also read essays or critiques of books that delve into the interpreted motivations, histories, and futures of the characters and become confused when those don't match the author's intentions. And in such essays there also exists the same hazard of someone independently coming up with a future plot point the author was going to use anyway, or of competing interpretations of the work becoming widespread. But no one is calling for an end to critiques.
It's the fictional interpretations that are bugging some authors because it would be easier to confuse one story with another than it would to confuse a critique with a story.

Which is why I asked: has this happened?
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:

Which is why I asked: has this happened?

There was an example right in the article wasn't there? In that case the author brought it partially on herself, but the potential for that fan to strike was already there. Its like OSC has said himself, with the reams of fanfic being produced about his work, the chances are that some fan will correctly predict the outcome of a future book. If that happens, it will jeopardize his work, even though he will of done nothing wrong.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I'm not asking if someone has accused an author of stealing an idea -- that's happened without fanfic and will continue to happen if fanfic is "stamped out" -- that was what I was referring to when I mentioned idiot fans who screw things up for everyone else.

My question is have any authors encountered fans who were confused by fan fiction? Has fan fiction had an effect on how fans read or buy the original works?

I'm trying to gauge whether one of the listed threats really exists.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
In that case I have no idea. My instinct is to say probably, but not in a huge way.

The thing I would be worried about as an author is that the potential exists for these screw ups. I can't imagine alot of positive incentives for an author to actually host fanfic on his own website. It might increase fan interest, but it would come with too big a risk IMO. Risk of confusion, risk of tainting the series or of having some fan double-cross you. There is also fan burn-out to consider, although probably this isn't a big problem because the fanfic writers are hardcore fans anyway, so they'll keep buying even when the franchise goes south, (how do you think Enterprise survived the first season? [Wink] )

You have to assume that if something is prevelant enough it is going to have SOME effect. Maybe positive, maybe not, probably both. I as an author would want to control that aspect of my work, and endorsing or allowing fanfic can threaten that control.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I think for the writers that allow it, whether by encouraging it or by carefully not caring, it's a matter of "they can't write my world better than me, it's not a risk to let them play with my toys." Not all writers are that confident; the ones that are tend to have a strong voice in their work or have a very tightly plotted world, or both.

But then, I don't really know why those writers don't care while others do. I'm just glad.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Confidence is a maybe IMO. Any author who is attracting fanfickers and wanna-bes is already successful, and whether confident or not, certainly with reason to feel secure.

That being said, as an author I would be something like an amatuer chef in my kitchen. I invite friends over, and they come into my kitchen and start opening the oven and changing the gauges on the stove. Pretty soon they're trying to salt my special sauces and give me advice on desert. I don't want it, I don't need it, and for me the help is a hindrance.

If an author is like that, it would seem that confidence tells him he can and should be the one telling the story, and fear of another screwing it up keeps him from allowing others "into the kitchen." How competent would a chef be who allowed the patrons into the kitchen? He might be confident, but it would be confidence born in stupidity [Wink]
 
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
 
quote:
Something I'm curious about; one of the complaints of the writers against fanfic is that it takes control of the characters away and that readers may become confused that the fanfic is part of the "real" story. Has this happened?

Have any authors been approached by befuddled fans, or received letters asking why the latest book contradicts the story on this website? It may be a valid fear, but is it happening?

I'm not at all involved in either reading or writing fanfic, but I do have fun with Harry Potter fandom. One of the posts on my favorite HP forum implied that the poster was getting confused between the fanfic storylines and the real story. However, she never implied that she thought that J. K. Rowling had actually written said fanfic, or had anything to do with it. Which seemed to be what Robin Hobb was afraid of in the article. Surely people can tell internet fanfic from the real thing?

[ May 16, 2006, 06:31 AM: Message edited by: Amilia ]
 
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
Intergalactic Medicine Show: Wizard's Oil on Fanfic.

It's an interesting article, that reinforces my position on the subject: vigilant protection of the literary creation by stamping out fanfic.

Thanks for that link. Very enlightening. I feel for MZB. That has to be horrible. Writing a novel is hard work. I can't imagine how horrible it would feel to have to trash all that work because a fan tried to claim rights to your story. [Wall Bash]

I would also be very worried about getting a bad rep. If I read an author's work and the writing isn't good, there's a very good chance I won't buy any of her books. I would hate to read what I thought was a chapter excerpt and base a judgment of the author's work on what was actually just fanfic.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Any author who is attracting fanfickers and wanna-bes is already successful, and whether confident or not, certainly with reason to feel secure.

Writers are, as a class, one of the most insecure groups of people around (except for actors) But I get what you're saying.

You're trying to convince me of why authors wouldn't allow fanfic and I'm trying to convince you why some authors do, and we're both right. The fact remains that there are authors who have no problem with fanfic.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
The fact remains that there are authors who have no problem with fanfic.
:shakes fist:

Blood traitors!
 
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
 
I think fanfic increases sales. Not to new converts, really, but to fans who might forget about new releases several months (or years!) apart. Sharing in that kind of community makes almost certain that you will seek new material about your favorite characters as soon as it comes out.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
I think fanfic increases sales.
I wouldn't be suprised, but I'd like to see some market data pointing to this fact.
 
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
There are a few ways one could approach it, but part of the difficulty is that everything has fanfic.

Also, determining cause and effect is problematic.

Perhaps best would be to seek out a case study where of two series with similar sales one suddenly had an increase in fandom activity, and see if sales were higher for that series after that.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
quote:
everything has fanfic.
I agree, fugu-- I think this would be a difficult thing to track.

BTW-- I'm listening to a radio drama from NPR containing Star Wars Episodes 4-6; and if the movies had been this good...geez. Sure the acting's not all that, and the lines are pretty corny, but MAN is it an improvement over what was shown in the theaters!

Leia Organa pretending to be interested in an Imperial officer, just to wheedle information from him!

The pacifism of Alderan explained!

Bail Organa as more than a name!

Luke showing competence before meeting Yoda!

Some really good stuff here. Mark Hamil voices Luke; from the material here, I think that Lucas made him too old in the movies. A sixteen or seventeen year old would have fit the role better.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
When was it made, Scott? Is it a recent thing?
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I don't think so-- Hamil sounds really young.

Amazon says it was made in 1981.
 
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
::frowns::

I wonder if that date is wrong--Return of the Jedi didn't come out until...what, '83?

Sounds interesting though--I'll have to see if I can get it through my library.
 
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Jake--

The first radio show was made in '81, I think.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2