![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
on fanfic
So as you might have heard, various pro fantasy authors (Diana Gabaldon, GRR Martin, and Katherine Kerr among them) have been speaking out about how fanfic is disrespectful to actual money-making authors (because you're not a real artist unless you're making a buck with your art), is illegal (because apparently copyright law is what they say it is, as opposed to what's actually on the books), immoral (and akin to rape and/or white slavery, because one's original characters are like one's children, and for someone else to dare write their names feels just like having your kids abducted and sexually abused), gross, and inherently inferior to original fiction.
Obviously I have a few mild opinions on the matter. But it's the last point that I keep getting stuck on. Putting aside![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bookshop's straightforward rebuttal that there is an enormous amount of derivative/transformative literature out there by distinguished professional authors (Bill Shakespeare was such an immoral hack, you know), the fact is, fanfic is not the same as original fiction. A lot - the majority, perhaps - of fanfiction would not work as original fiction.
And it's not because fanfic is inherently bad fiction, or that fanfic writers are talentless wannabe authors who lack the creativity to write their own original characters/worlds. There are a lot of stories that, by their very nature, require that the reader already be familiar with the characters or the world.
Take the entire genre of Alternate Universe fics, which will put a cast of chars in a completely new setting - Kirk & Spock as high school students, Draco Malfoy as a private eye. Some of the pleasure of reading an AU is simply reading a story in which you can clearly picture the characters. But a lot of the enjoyment comes from seeing how these familiar characters fit into these new surroundings, seeing how their skills or traits translate to the different situation. For an AU to make sense, the readers need to know the chars well in their own setting. Therefore the only way you can write an actual original AU is to write a novel to establish the chars in their native universe, and then write AUs based on that (which some authors do - some of my favorite mangaka are very partial to it!). But you can't just write an AU cold. And if you're not a full-time author, if story-writing is your hobby and you don't have the time/energy to write an entire novel, then if you want to write an AU, it has to be based on someone else's characters. Or else a key component of the story will be lost to your readers.
It's not just AUs; there are many kinds of stories that depend on readers being familiar with the characters. Any story with a plot point that hinges on challenging the reader's expectations, needs to be certain that a reader has those expectations. If you're writing a novel, you can set up characters and situations such that readers will start making assumptions. That's a lot harder to do in a short story, and often isn't possible at all when it comes to complex emotional situations. It's show vs tell - "telling" doesn't really inspire feelings in a reader, "showing" is crucial for emotional engagement. But it takes a lot of words to, say, convincingly show a friendship developing. If you want to write a story featuring a change in an already existing friendship (say, the pathos of two friends parting ways), then you need a friendship that the readers are going to care about. Sure, you can write a short story beginning with "X & Y were best friends," and then tell about how they separate - but it's unlikely to move readers much, when they don't know or care about the chars or their friendship. Or, if you have the time and energy, you can write a novel about two people becoming friends, and then write your story. Or you can write a story about two people who you already know your readers will accept as friends.
This is just as true on the reader's side. If I want to read a story about two friends, yes, sometimes I want to read a whole novel on the development of a friendship. But sometimes I'm in the mood for something shorter. Derivative works allow a reader to have their cake and eat it, too.
(And yes, I suspect this is why so much of fanfic is erotic, because a lot of people will get in the mood for something short and satisfying - and women especially tend to enjoy reading about sex more when it has an emotional component. The vast majority of erotic fanfic simply would not be as successful fiction as original stories, because part of the pleasure the reader takes is in seeing the consummation of an already-existing relationship, but at the same time when someone wants to read good porn they don't necessarily want to have to read hundred of pages of non-porn in order to be satisfied. If you want to argue that erotic fiction is fundamentally inferior to other kinds of fiction, that's a whole other argument I can't speak to, but to dismiss erotic fanfic as inferior to original erotic fiction is to dismiss an aspect of sexuality for many.)
A lot of these scenarios hinge on accepting that reading and writing primarily for entertainment is a valid activity. I'd think that most fantasy writers wouldn't argue this case, considering that none of the writers I've seen speaking out are known for writing meaningful, life-changing literature. But even if you believe that the only Good literature is that which is thematically important and significant, then derivative works can be as Good fiction as any other type. There are still some themes which are easier to explore in a derivative work, or even impossible to explore otherwise - a transformative novel like Wide Sargasso Sea critiques Jane Eyre and its themes and cannot function apart from its original; so, too, does some fanfic critique and illuminate problematic themes in its inspiration.
Not all fanfic is so meaningful - but then, neither are all published novels. But professional authors who write transformative works do so for the same reasons fanfic writers do: because there are stories which work better, or only work, as derivatives of other fiction. That certain types of stories can only be told as derivative works - as fanfic - means that you must accept fanfic as a legitimate form of fiction (whether or not you like it personally, or have any interest in writing or reading it), and fanfic writers as legitimate authors - or else you must deny an entire aspect of literary tradition.
Obviously I have a few mild opinions on the matter. But it's the last point that I keep getting stuck on. Putting aside
bookshop's straightforward rebuttal that there is an enormous amount of derivative/transformative literature out there by distinguished professional authors (Bill Shakespeare was such an immoral hack, you know), the fact is, fanfic is not the same as original fiction. A lot - the majority, perhaps - of fanfiction would not work as original fiction.And it's not because fanfic is inherently bad fiction, or that fanfic writers are talentless wannabe authors who lack the creativity to write their own original characters/worlds. There are a lot of stories that, by their very nature, require that the reader already be familiar with the characters or the world.
Take the entire genre of Alternate Universe fics, which will put a cast of chars in a completely new setting - Kirk & Spock as high school students, Draco Malfoy as a private eye. Some of the pleasure of reading an AU is simply reading a story in which you can clearly picture the characters. But a lot of the enjoyment comes from seeing how these familiar characters fit into these new surroundings, seeing how their skills or traits translate to the different situation. For an AU to make sense, the readers need to know the chars well in their own setting. Therefore the only way you can write an actual original AU is to write a novel to establish the chars in their native universe, and then write AUs based on that (which some authors do - some of my favorite mangaka are very partial to it!). But you can't just write an AU cold. And if you're not a full-time author, if story-writing is your hobby and you don't have the time/energy to write an entire novel, then if you want to write an AU, it has to be based on someone else's characters. Or else a key component of the story will be lost to your readers.
It's not just AUs; there are many kinds of stories that depend on readers being familiar with the characters. Any story with a plot point that hinges on challenging the reader's expectations, needs to be certain that a reader has those expectations. If you're writing a novel, you can set up characters and situations such that readers will start making assumptions. That's a lot harder to do in a short story, and often isn't possible at all when it comes to complex emotional situations. It's show vs tell - "telling" doesn't really inspire feelings in a reader, "showing" is crucial for emotional engagement. But it takes a lot of words to, say, convincingly show a friendship developing. If you want to write a story featuring a change in an already existing friendship (say, the pathos of two friends parting ways), then you need a friendship that the readers are going to care about. Sure, you can write a short story beginning with "X & Y were best friends," and then tell about how they separate - but it's unlikely to move readers much, when they don't know or care about the chars or their friendship. Or, if you have the time and energy, you can write a novel about two people becoming friends, and then write your story. Or you can write a story about two people who you already know your readers will accept as friends.
This is just as true on the reader's side. If I want to read a story about two friends, yes, sometimes I want to read a whole novel on the development of a friendship. But sometimes I'm in the mood for something shorter. Derivative works allow a reader to have their cake and eat it, too.
(And yes, I suspect this is why so much of fanfic is erotic, because a lot of people will get in the mood for something short and satisfying - and women especially tend to enjoy reading about sex more when it has an emotional component. The vast majority of erotic fanfic simply would not be as successful fiction as original stories, because part of the pleasure the reader takes is in seeing the consummation of an already-existing relationship, but at the same time when someone wants to read good porn they don't necessarily want to have to read hundred of pages of non-porn in order to be satisfied. If you want to argue that erotic fiction is fundamentally inferior to other kinds of fiction, that's a whole other argument I can't speak to, but to dismiss erotic fanfic as inferior to original erotic fiction is to dismiss an aspect of sexuality for many.)
A lot of these scenarios hinge on accepting that reading and writing primarily for entertainment is a valid activity. I'd think that most fantasy writers wouldn't argue this case, considering that none of the writers I've seen speaking out are known for writing meaningful, life-changing literature. But even if you believe that the only Good literature is that which is thematically important and significant, then derivative works can be as Good fiction as any other type. There are still some themes which are easier to explore in a derivative work, or even impossible to explore otherwise - a transformative novel like Wide Sargasso Sea critiques Jane Eyre and its themes and cannot function apart from its original; so, too, does some fanfic critique and illuminate problematic themes in its inspiration.
Not all fanfic is so meaningful - but then, neither are all published novels. But professional authors who write transformative works do so for the same reasons fanfic writers do: because there are stories which work better, or only work, as derivatives of other fiction. That certain types of stories can only be told as derivative works - as fanfic - means that you must accept fanfic as a legitimate form of fiction (whether or not you like it personally, or have any interest in writing or reading it), and fanfic writers as legitimate authors - or else you must deny an entire aspect of literary tradition.
no subject
Heh - that has long been suggested as one reason for pros with anti-fic feelings, and I admit that it has a ring of truth, to me. Certainly I found the best SGA fic to be substantially better written than the show itself. And I was reading Anne Rice fanfic after I'd quit reading the Vampire Chronicles, because the fanfic still gave me what the canon no longer did.
And certainly not-for-profit, freely web-posted fanfic can be and often is (in the case of most tie-in novels I know of!) as good or better than for-pay derivative works. Some of this I think is the power of fannishness - a fan, writing purely for love of a series/characters, may be truer to it than someone who's doing it at least in part to make a buck. It doesn't surprise me that some Holmes fans will extensively research the era, for no other reason than because they want to be true to what they love. I've done the same.
(Conan Doyle wrote Holmes pastiches?? That I did not know! I'd love to see those. OF course in Japanese fandoms it's fairly common for mangaka to write parody dj of their own series, but I don't know of many Western authors who've done so...)
I have heard of the Raffles books...I might have read a crossover with them? Hmm....not sure, but yes, have heard of them. Haven't read them, though, and didn't know about the character inspiration - that's an interesting tidbit..
no subject
On the for-pay derivative works, the absolute best of the ones I've read were written by people who are Holmes fans; I actually had the advantage on learning the era because...well, I grew up on Brett's Holmes, and in a family of historians as the child of somebody with a love of Victorian/Edwardian England. Getting access to good references was easy, though some of the experiences that result from it...you'd think that it'd be not terribly hard to get IC a historical character whose diaries & correspondence are available to the public. Then you find out how horribly off Queen Victoria tends to be... (Okay, okay, the popular image of her doesn't match reality particularly well--she <3ed sex, for one--but still...)
(Yes, he did. There was a collection of them printed, under a title along the lines of "The Other Holmes" and it also included a fanfic that had managed to be mistaken for a lost Holmes story. I lucked out and managed to get it from the local public library; I think it's out of print. I can check, if you'd like.)
The Raffles books are well worth reading; they are all out of copyright, can be obtained for free from Project Gutenberg -- or I can upload the neatened-up-for-online-reading collection I did, if you want. The author was an interesting guy--and ACD's brother-in-law. ACD didn't think anybody would want to read stories about a criminal... If it was the R. Holmes & Co. stories may be remembering, I feel for you. I had an easier time reading City Crimes, which was hilarious in how much of a period piece it was & how much accidental slash there was in it. (It most definitely was accidental: the author's idea of subtle was having it announced by a one-man band, instead of a full parade with marching band, fireworks, and a noise truck.)