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!
edit: Oh wait maybe that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever thought of in my life.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. I admit I don't know a lot about music.
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.)
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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 ( ) 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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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....) Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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...
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
