quote:

---

After it was pointed out by writer Lee Goldberg and spread around by a growing network of bloggers it became very obvious that Ms. Jareo's intimate circle of friends, family, and acquaintances was about to include the entire LucasArts legal team.

---

 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Oy, dude. A good laugh is a beautiful thing.

I have pimped this one far and wide.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
By the way, there's an excellent discussion about fanfic -- the moral, ethical, legal, and literary aspects -- going on at Making Light.

A quote from Mercedes Lackey from her several excellent posts there:

quote:

---

That said, I am in favor of not-for-profit fanfic. I just have to protect myself by making it policy that I never, ever, ever read any fanfic based on my work. If it gets sent to me, it's returned unseen my me. But I got my start writing the stuff, and I managed to get a lot of lousy writing out of the way by doing so.

Though I am sure that there are some who would say that last statement is debatable. There are days when I would say so myself (grin).

---

quote:

---

There are so many long, descriptive passages of tedious technological minutiae I kept expecting a warranty card for the Death Star to fall out.

---

 

---

Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
 

quote:

---

But even if the lawyer ships come screaming out of Skywalker ranch and fly up her thermal exhaust port, you can still write your stories.

---

Best euphomism ever. I have never heard it called that. (or am I just projecting?)
 

---

Posted by dawnmaria (Member # 4142) on :
 
You are an excellent writer! Very funny article! I actually guffawed!
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
I do love Wednesdays.
 

---

Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
 
This is her.
 

---

Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
Wait a minute... so you actually read her book before writing this article?

I no longer think Chris Bridges has the coolest job in the world, if that's what it takes.

--Enigmatic
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I have, by the way, read some of this book (in pdf form, she has none of my money).

[[[shudder]]]

Wow. While I certainly have my share of horribly written prose, I keep mine buried in my file cabinet or in several different points in the natural mulching process of the local city dump. I wouldn't show it around, and I certainly wouldn't publish it. I haven't decided yet whether that kind of self-confidence is blind or admirable. Maybe both...

When I've told other people about this here at work, the attitude has been very much like a classroom when someone no one likes gets called to the principal's office. "Oooooooooooooooh!" Anticipatory glee in someone else's misfortune. Like schadenfreude, but more predatory.
 

---

Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
 

quote:

---

I haven't decided yet whether that kind of self-confidence is blind or admirable. Maybe both...

---

It kind of make me think about people taking the casting for American Idol (here it's "La nouvelle star" but it's really the same show) but who sing like a sick frog. I always wondered if they actually think they have a chance or if they want their two minutes of celebrity.
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
Hilarious... as alwasy
 

---

Posted by Jimbo the Clown (Member # 9251) on :
 
Pure musing... but I wonder how much that will sell for on Ebay soon?
 

---

Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
 
So, Darth Vader = George Lucas? That explains much.

Great column. I'm definitely sending this one around.
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
Hilarious! Thanks once again, Chris, for brightening my Wednesday morning.

Just out of curiosity, did you find out about that novel here and then decide to write a column about it? Because if you're using Hatrack as a source, maybe we should all be looking for funny things for you to write about. Not that you seem to have any problem finding them on your own...
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Miro:
So, Darth Vader = George Lucas? That explains much.

Great column. I'm definitely sending this one around.

---

Well, artistically, he certainly has gone over to the dark side.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Great column, Chris.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Are you kidding? It's not good enough to be the Dark Side. He's gone over to the mediocre tedium side.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I disagree with you-- but it's STILL a masterfully written column.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
Are you kidding? It's not good enough to be the Dark Side. He's gone over to the mediocre tedium side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Lucas was repalaced by an android in 1995.

---

quote:

---

Bets were taken as to precisely which geological era she'd be sued back to.

---

 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
My favorite part:

quote:

---

But even if the lawyer ships come screaming out of Skywalker ranch and fly up her thermal exhaust port, you can still write your stories. You could even write about a clueless fanfic writer who came up behind Darth Vader and gave him a wedgie, and what happened next.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Taking the names and situations of an existing story and using them to writing new stories. That isn't fanfic? Why not?

---

Shakespeare did his plays to make a living, and to answer his artistic muse.

Was he a "fan" of every story he chose? Or was he picking what he thought the audience, from the groundlings to the upper clases wanted to see?

He was drawing on things they'd be familiar with, not necessarily stuff he was a fan of. Obviously he found inspiration to work with them, but was the inspiration that he loved the source material? Or that he loved what he added to it? I find that an important distinction.

When Jack Kirby and Stan Lee created the Marvel Comics version of Thor, they didn't do it because they were fans of Nordic myth, but because most earlier super-hero comics characters that invoked myths went to Greco-Roman or (more rarely) Egyptian sources. They wanted something that, for super-hero readers of the 60s, would be fairly fresh and new.

*shrug*

One can draw on all sorts of stories for ideas without the result being "fan fiction". Your column gives examples that are alternate takes on existing stories and/or untold tales of characters featured in said stories. Not ideas used as springboards for something different.

Please note: I have nothing against fan fiction. I've written a ton of it in years past. I just don't think every use of a pre-existing fictional idea counts as it.
 

---

Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
 
Another awesome article! Spreading it far n wide!
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
So the work isn't in question, only the motivation. Then what would be the term for what Shakespeare and Lee and Kirby did? I'm guessing fanfic would fall under it.

Certainly every creator is inspired by previous work. But where I drew the line is between "what if I wrote about a God like Thor," and "what if Thor was cursed to be human?" The first is inspiration. The second, to me, is fanfic. Doesn't mean the person questioning has to be a huge fan of Norse mythology, only that the person knew and appreciated enough of it to want to twist those elements into a different story.

Obviously your mileage may vary. I'm just stating my take on it.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Awesome, Chris! I posted a link on my favorite fanfic forum. (They should appreciate the title! )

(FYI, typo on Ms. Jareo's name in the last long paragraph.)
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Chris. I know your just doing this to annoy me.

Thank you.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puffy Treat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
Taking the names and situations of an existing story and using them to writing new stories. That isn't fanfic? Why not?

---

Shakespeare did his plays to make a living, and to answer his artistic muse.

Was he a "fan" of every story he chose? Or was he picking what he thought the audience, from the groundlings to the upper clases wanted to see?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:

---

don't give me that
 

---

Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
 
Great article Chris!
 

---

Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
 

quote:

---

. Shakespeare's stories are not really interesting stuff, they are a dime a dozen as far as witty plotting is concerned, and they have never been what made him great. The surviving value in what Shakespeare did was his ability to turn a phrase, and set a scene, and it didn't matter in those days what scene that was, it was all about hearing a play

---

quote:

---

So far Ms. Lareo has been asked to pull her book, she has, and it may end there. But even if the lawyer ships come screaming out of Skywalker ranch and fly up her thermal exhaust port, . . .

---

Oh dear . . . how to explain the enormous wet spot on the pants . . .


 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Spaceship REALLY too big to fit?
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian J. Hill:

quote:

---

. Shakespeare's stories are not really interesting stuff, they are a dime a dozen as far as witty plotting is concerned, and they have never been what made him great. The surviving value in what Shakespeare did was his ability to turn a phrase, and set a scene, and it didn't matter in those days what scene that was, it was all about hearing a play

---

I have to disagree with you there. Sure, Shakespeare's ability to turn a phrase and set a scene well may have been what set him above the rest in terms of initial success among his audiences, but that doesn't account for the I]enduring[/I] nature of his success over the years. That, IMHO, owes a great deal to the way he structured his plot to keep it moving along. His stories have been translated over and over into new languages and mediums, most of which have thrown away his "witty dialogue" yet have still been great successes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
Spaceship REALLY too big to fit?

---

Or even more embaressing...if it wasn't a tight fit....or a small ship...
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Shakespeare's plays were not based on generic legends or ancient tales, but on well-known stories. From Wikipedia:

Rome and Juliet was "a dramatisation of Arthur Brooke's narrative poem The Tragicall History of Romeus and Juliet (1562). Shakespeare followed Brooke's poem fairly closely but enriched its texture by adding extra detail to both major and minor characters, in particular the Nurse and Mercutio.

"Brooke's poem was not original either, being a translation and adaptation of Giuletta e Romeo, by Matteo Bandello, included in his Novelle of 1554. This was in turn an adaptation of Luigi da Porto's Giulietta e Romeo, included in his Istoria novellamente ritrovata di due Nobili Amanti (c. 1530). This was the version that gave the story much of its modern form, including the names of the lovers, naming the rival families to the Montecchi and the Cappelletti, and shifting the action to Verona.

"The earliest known version of the tale is the 1476 story of Mariotto and Gianozza of Siena by Masuccio Salernitano, in Il Novelino' (Novella XXXIII).

"Bandello's story was the most famous one, being translated into French (and English, by Brooke). It was also adapted by Italian theatrical troupes, some of whom performed in London at the time that Shakespeare was writing his plays. This may have been an alternate or additional inspiration to Shakespeare in his version of Romeo and Juliet."

Fan fiction.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Are you HIGH???

I am not even going to respond to this. Wikipedia, Chris? Really?

This from one who has studied Shakespeare in London, in classes with a published and well known biographer. Your wrong.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Actually that would be "Wikipedia's wrong," which is always possible. And I, not having a well-known biographer handy, could be wrong as well. But then so is every other source I could find -- Folger Shakespeare Library, Shakespeare Online,, about a dozen others before I stopped clicking -- which all state that Shakespeare's primary source for Romeo and Juliet was a poem by Arthur Brooke called The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Iuliet, written in 1562 and republished seven years before the first performance of Romeo and Juliet. He also could have known the popular tale of Romeo and Juliet from a collection by William Painter, entitled The Palace of Pleasure, which was written sometime before 1580.

My point is not to get into arguments over Shakespeare's sources or styles, and it's certainly not to suggest that because he used someone else's universe Shakespeare was an inferior writer. I'm responding to your statement "Just because a vague folk story about two lovers from competing families inspires Romeo and Juliette..."

Whatever it was, Romeo and Juliet was not a "vague folk story." Brooks' poem is about Romeus, a Montague, falling in love with Juliet, a Capulet, in Verone, with the same plot, which was itself based on other sources. This was not a retelling of Snow White.

Now, it can be argued that this was an adaptation, like making a movie from a book, since Shakespeare's play has new (and wonderful) dialogue and adds emphasis to different characters, but then I have to wonder how that's different from fan fiction. As Teresa Hayden Neilsen pointed out, fan fiction is "a modern definition. In a purely literary sense, fanfic doesn’t exist. There is only fiction. Fanfic is a legal category created by the modern system of trademarks and copyrights. Putting that label on a work of fiction says nothing about its quality, its creativity, or the intent of the writer who created it."

[ April 28, 2006, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
 
Picket Fences? Really?
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
I suppose you could actually think of the Christian Bible as fanfic based on the Hebrew Bible.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I suppose, in that spirit, you could consider the Hebrew Bible as interesting only as back story to the Gospels.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Bridges:


Whatever it was, Romeo and Juliet was not a "vague folk story." Brooks' poem is about Romeus, a Montague, falling in love with Juliet, a Capulet, in Verone, with the same plot, which was itself based on other sources. This was not a retelling of Snow White.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
I suppose you could actually think of the Christian Bible as fanfic based on the Hebrew Bible.

---

quote:

---

I suppose you could actually think of the Christian Bible as fanfic based on the Hebrew Bible.

---

quote:

---

I suppose, in that spirit, you could consider the Hebrew Bible as interesting only as back story to the Gospels.

---

Or if you believe in neither, you can think of them both as historically, logically, and morally inconsistent collections of myths, legends, and folklore.


 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Now, now, different argument, there.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
I suppose, in that spirit, you could consider the Hebrew Bible as interesting only as back story to the Gospels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Bridges:

At no point have I compared the quality of my work to Shakespeare's. I'm simply comparing the methods used. I can draw, but that doesn't put me in the same league as Raphael. Rather it means we can both be called artists. He was sublimely good and I poke at paper with a pencil, but calling me an artist does not drag him down or lift me up.

---

quote:

---

that is known as "allegory" I believe.

---

quote:

---

I've defined fanfic very carefully in that other benighted thread. I believe I said it was a peice of writing which attempts to live and operate in a universe created by another author. Not only that, but a fanfic attempts to gain credibility and assumes a relationship with its audience based on the work of the original author.

---

quote:

---

This is wrong on many levels.

---

quote:

---

Are you HIGH???

I am not even going to respond to this. Wikipedia, Chris? Really?

---

quote:

---

Trying to compare yourself to Shakespeare, or justify your work in that light is laughable, as I think you know.

---

...??

Your tone has been very much know-it-all condecention and it's very much getting on my nerves. Three years of study in a subject does not make you a PhD, and a PhD does not make you an expert (much as those in academia would like you to think otherwise). You do not necesarily know more about this than those here, so quit talking like you do. Many folks here have been through college and are well out of college. They do know quite well what they are talking about and while they are not necesarily experts either the assumption is not "they're wrong, you're right". Please don't talk like it is.

Furthermore English especially is a discipline where a great deal of subjectivity is involved, even among experts. Whether or not something is 'fan fiction' is a matter of opinion largely and cannot be decided by anyone. There is no clear 'fact' on the matter. And you don't even have what facts there are right. So please drop the tone, drop the attitude and consider the fact that other people's opinions on the subject may not only be valid, but something you may want to spend some time pondering.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Thanks, Alcon

Orin, even by the definition you just listed here, March qualifies as "fan fiction" and it just won a Pulitzer. I think your objection is to the term more than anything.

Both the term and the questions of copyright are modern inventions. Because we have a mostly literate populace and the internet exists, the field is now open to the masses to publish stories for free. In the past, people gathered around camp fires to tell their new stories about familiar characters.

The process is essentially the same, but the framing is different. Because of the almost universal accessablity of the internet, there is also a huge range of quality.
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
Brilliant, Chris- spreading it around.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olivet:

Orin, even by the definition you just listed here, March qualifies as "fan fiction" and it just won a Pulitzer. I think your objection is to the term more than anything.

---

That is what I said about Shakespeare, I don't think you can call what he did by the same name.

Alcon- When did I say I was an expert? When did I say I care if you think I'm not one? I'm not.

I guess everything I write just HAS to be literal, since you obviously can't live with a little hyperbole in your life. Do I think anyone is high in this thread? No. Do I think anyone is wrong? Yes, you are.

"So please drop the tone, drop the attitude and consider the fact that other people's opinions on the subject may not only be valid, but something you may want to spend some time pondering."

A suggestion designed to leave me with no possible way to respond: "no I'm not being mean!!! "
As If I write without reading what other people have to say and thinking about it. Why would I have had a conversation 8 pages long if I didn't listen at all? Being adament is my prerogative, however you have no right to say I don't listen. I remember every reasonable and intelligent argument CA and Olivet and others make, and there are alot of them to keep track of.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Alcon- When did I say I was an expert?

---

quote:

---

Are you HIGH???

I am not even going to respond to this. Wikipedia, Chris? Really? [Roll Eyes]

This from one who has studied Shakespeare in London, in classes with a published and well known biographer. Your wrong.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Olivet:

Orin, even by the definition you just listed here, March qualifies as "fan fiction" and it just won a Pulitzer. I think your objection is to the term more than anything.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is what I said about Shakespeare, I don't think you can call what he did by the same name.

---

I wasn't talking about Shakespeare either. I was referring to your personal definition of fan fiction, just pointing out that a work of "fan fiction" (by your definition) had just won a rather high-profile award. So I'm really baffled by why you quoted this and related it to Shakespeare. I don't think I follow your point.

Being adamant is your prerogative, but implying that people who disagree are under the influence of mind-altering substances is hardly the way to demonstrate your mastery of civil discourse. Let's just play nice.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Oh, CA said that Shakespeare was "Fanfic" because he used existing stories as templates for his plays. I think that's an unfair comparison; that's what I was talking about.

Its a favorite expression of mine- Thanks for not taking it seriously

Dag, I'm afraid if Alcon want to accuse me of sticking my fingers in my ears and going LALALLA, then he will need to take his fingers out of HIS ears for a moment.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Legally speaking, if the laws of copyright had existed in the late 1500's, Shakespeare would not have written fan fiction.

It would have been plagiarism.

Legally speaking.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
But does that prove that he DID write fanfiction? Or that the intent was to honor the original story? Isn't that what you think fanfic does, honoring and preserving another story?

What if a story about Julius Ceasar worked more as a soure than an inspiration for Shakespeare, much as any story would about JC today would draw from Shakespeare as a source. The origination of the work, the seed of it doesn't have to come from the story with the same name. Same for Romeo and Juliete, what if he had the idea for the play, then read the poem, then decided to adapt the names in order to give it a popular audience. I guess I just don't want to leap upon the facts and say AHAH! this must have been his intention.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Dag, I'm afraid if Alcon want to accuse me of sticking my fingers in my ears and going LALALLA, then he will need to take his fingers out of HIS ears for a moment.

---

quote:

---

I doubt he needs you to defend him for misinterpreting me, nor to I need you to tell me when I am not being clear.

---

quote:

---

Not everything is about you, not every post is directed at you, and in this case I don't really feel like getting into one of your labarynthine arguments about who said what and meant what and to whom.

---

quote:

---

But does that prove that he DID write fanfiction? Or that the intent was to honor the original story? Isn't that what you think fanfic does, honoring and preserving another story?

What if a story about Julius Ceasar worked more as a soure than an inspiration for Shakespeare, much as any story would about JC today would draw from Shakespeare as a source.

---

Would it matter, provided it was a good story? As you've just observed, being derivative -- even lifting characters and plot wholesale, or just retelling the original -- isn't enough to prevent something from becoming great literature.

It's mostly in the execution.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Definetly in the execution, but also in the intent. Isn't great work most often work that doesn't try to be great? If you think something is already great and you want to add to it, is that aspiring to greatness?

Though Shakespeare is by nature a very self-conscious writer, I think there are qualities to his work which make them "pure" or transcendent because he is not really conscious of their import. Its strange, but while he is very much aware of himself, and though its known that he was a social climber and a bit of a petty tyrant, it still feels to me as if he was able to write, as it were, into blank space. He wrote with perfect poise and incredible clarity, which is so natural I can hardly imagine him ever trying to impress people. He would have been one of those people who are so naturally bouyant and perceptive, that he might never have noticed it himself.

Somehow I think this all makes me suspicious of a claim that he really admired or tried to mimick anyone else. I just don't think he could have achieved the clarity of vision and verse that he did if he were constantly checking himself against another's standard. I think he had no standard to work from, and that makes his words fly.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Somehow I think this all makes me suspicious of a claim that he really admired or tried to mimick anyone else.

Which would probably be why that claim has not been made. The story of Romeo and Juliet, from every source I can find, was well known at the time he wrote the play. He added depth, sparkling dialogue, and the magic genius he brought to most everything he wrote, but he added it to an existing and detailed tale. He didn't mimic the style, and I have no idea if he admired Brooks or just thought it would be a popular story to use. Besides the point.

All I was trying to illustrate was that using existing stories, characters, and plots and making changes to make them your own has been done since people have been telling stories. Apparently if the result is really good, it can't be fanfic by your definition. That's why I asked what your definition of fanfic was.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
I'd say if it transcends the original work, then by my definition it isn't fanfic. I've always thought fanfic by its nature aims at a "lower" target (for lack of a better word).
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Fanfic in this time kinda has to aim lower, since publication is out of the question under current copyright laws.

I understand why fanfic, even excellent fanfic, may never attain the status of Art. What I don't understan, in this or the previous thread, is why it rates such scorn. It can't be because they're stealing someone else's ideas, we've established that happens. It's because they're not stealing someone's ideas well enough?
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
If you do it well enough, it isn't stealing.

Good artists borrow, great artists steal. That means not that the great artist takes the work directly from the other artist; he doesn't pull the painting off the wall, but he does take the style or the inspiration in a direction that makes it his own, like "stealing the show."

How can you write anything that's good, if your intent isn't to make it your own... and given that, how can you say that fanfic isn't about doing that. Its that quality for me, that disengenuous quality I percieve in fanfic that rates scorn with me. It just galls me that people do it, I don't like it. I suppose if I came across some fanfic that I felt didn't do that, I would feel differently. I could be convinced not to hate that particular work... but then if I did like the work, it would be because it doesn't have "fanfic" qualities. So I'm saying that for me there is something naturally inferior in anything that is "fanfic."
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
In that regard, I can't see how fanfic is any different than pro-writers doing Star Trek books or Buffy books or whatever books, or writers working in anthologies like Thieves World, where the whole point is to add to a shared universe (although, to be fair, you did say earlier you weren't impressed with those either, if I recall correctly).

So my goal now is not to stop writing fanfic, but to write it so incredibly well that it transcends the original work
 

---

Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
 
*giggles*

I liked your column, Chris!

Orin, darling, aren't you concerned about becoming curmudgeonly?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

How can you write anything that's good, if your intent isn't to make it your own... and given that, how can you say that fanfic isn't about doing that.

---

So you're saying that copyright laws are keeping fanfic down?
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
From what I gather, it works out to:

If it's fanfic, it can't possibly be good.
If it's good, it can't possibly be fanfic.

Which makes it an extremely subjective definition and therefore nearly worthless in arguing the value or justification of fanfic as a concept. But at least we know where we stand now...
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Pretty much


Curmudgeonly? Well, I prefer to do what OSC does so well and call all my curmudgeonly mumblings: Revolutionary tyrades against the oppression of The Man!

The Man in this case being PocketBooks and Chris Bridges.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Woo hoo! I'm the Man! Wait till I tell my wife!

I've never been the Man before. It's tingly.
 

---

Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Get ready to be stuck to.

Is that the right phrasing? I wanna stick it to the Man, so is Chris about to be stuck to? Or stuck it to? Or Stucken to?

Rise up against the MAN!
 

---