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! Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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!"?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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!
I will buy slightly less.
(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.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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".
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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
As for MPH. My post sounded snippy, so I should have added a nice emoticon 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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?)
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?)
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.)
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
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A note: you don't lose copyright because others infringe it. There might be some concerns about losing trademarks, but his copyright is safe.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
